While
simple close-packed arrangements convey a sense of optimization,
they can, in fact, host competition between different types of interactions.
The TiAl3 structure type, for example, represents one of
a series of ordered TE3 variants (T = transition metal,
E = main group element) of the face-centered cubic structure, alongside
the AuCu3 and ZrAl3 types. These structures
differ in their T-T connectivity corresponding to the 18–n rule: electronic pseudogaps occur at electron concentrations
of 18–n/T atom, where n is
the number of electron pairs each T atom shares with other T atoms
in T-T isolobal bonds. Facile stacking variations interrelate these
structures, presumably setting the stage for an electronically precise
series. However, the prototype of the TiAl3 type itself
violates the 18–n rule, with its count of
13 electrons/Ti atom calling for n = 5 rather than
the 4 isolobal T-T bonds/T atom available in this type. Here, we investigate
the factors underlying this deviation from the 18–n rule and their relation to the new TiAl3-type compound
ZrAl3–x
Sn
x
(x ∼ 0.4). First, the relative stabilities
of the TiAl3 and ZrAl3 types are compared for
TAl3 compounds (T = Zr and Ti). While for T = Zr, the structure
adhering to the 18–n rule is highly preferred,
for T = Ti, the energy difference essentially vanishes. This trend
is connected through DFT-Chemical Pressure (CP) analysis to a tension
that emerges in TiAl3 between the optimization of the T-T
isolobal bonds and the space requirements of Al-Al contacts elsewhere.
This picture elucidates the transition of ZrAl3 from its
own type to the TiAl3-type upon partial Sn substitution
in ZrAl2.6Sn0.4: the incorporation of Sn brings
the electron count closer to that predicted for the TiAl3 type, while electronegativity and CP direct the larger Sn atoms
to the site that resists isolobal bond formation in TiAl3.