TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of compositional and morphological atom-probe tomography analyses for a multicomponent Fe-Cu steel
AU - Kolli, R. Prakash
AU - Seidman, David N.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2008 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2007/8
Y1 - 2007/8
N2 - A multicomponent Fe-Cu based steel is studied using atom-probe tomography. The precipitates are identified using two different methodologies and subsequent morphological and compositional results are compared. The precipitates are first identified using a maximum separation distance algorithm, the envelope method, and then by a concentration threshold method, an isoconcentration surface. We discuss in detail the proper selection of the parameters needed to delineate precipitates utilizing both methods. The results of the two methods exhibit a difference of 44 identified, precipitates, which can be attributed to differences in the basis of both methods and the sensitivity of our results to user-prescribed parameters. The morphology of the precipitates, characterized by four different precipitate radii and precipitate size distribution functions (PSDs), are compared and evaluated. A variation of less than ∼8% is found between the different radii. Two types of concentration profiles are compared, giving qualitatively similar results. Both profiles show Cu-rich precipitates containing Fe with elevated concentrations of Ni, Al, and Mn near the heterophase interfaces. There are, however, quantitative disagreements due to differences in the basic foundations of the two analysis methods.
AB - A multicomponent Fe-Cu based steel is studied using atom-probe tomography. The precipitates are identified using two different methodologies and subsequent morphological and compositional results are compared. The precipitates are first identified using a maximum separation distance algorithm, the envelope method, and then by a concentration threshold method, an isoconcentration surface. We discuss in detail the proper selection of the parameters needed to delineate precipitates utilizing both methods. The results of the two methods exhibit a difference of 44 identified, precipitates, which can be attributed to differences in the basis of both methods and the sensitivity of our results to user-prescribed parameters. The morphology of the precipitates, characterized by four different precipitate radii and precipitate size distribution functions (PSDs), are compared and evaluated. A variation of less than ∼8% is found between the different radii. Two types of concentration profiles are compared, giving qualitatively similar results. Both profiles show Cu-rich precipitates containing Fe with elevated concentrations of Ni, Al, and Mn near the heterophase interfaces. There are, however, quantitative disagreements due to differences in the basic foundations of the two analysis methods.
KW - Atom-probe tomography
KW - Concentration profiles
KW - Envelope method
KW - Fu-Cu steel
KW - High-strength low-carbon (HSLC) steel
KW - Maximum separation distance
KW - Precipitate morphology
KW - Proxigram
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547174174&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547174174&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S1431927607070675
DO - 10.1017/S1431927607070675
M3 - Article
C2 - 17637076
AN - SCOPUS:34547174174
VL - 13
SP - 272
EP - 284
JO - Microscopy and Microanalysis
JF - Microscopy and Microanalysis
SN - 1431-9276
IS - 4
ER -