Direct Observation of PFIB-Induced Clustering in Precipitation-Strengthened Al Alloys by Atom Probe Tomography
Source abstract
Abstract
The effect of sample preparation on a pre-aged Al–Mg–Si–Cu alloy has been evaluated using atom probe tomography. Three methods of preparation were investigated: electropolishing (control), Ga+ focused ion beam (FIB) milling, and Xe+ plasma FIB (PFIB) milling. Ga+-based FIB preparation was shown to introduce significant amount of Ga contamination throughout the reconstructed sample (≈1.3 at%), while no Xe contamination was detected in the PFIB-prepared sample. Nevertheless, a significantly higher cluster density was observed in the Xe+ PFIB-prepared sample (≈25.0 × 1023 m−3) as compared to the traditionally produced electropolished sample (≈3.2 × 1023 m−3) and the Ga+ FIB sample (≈5.6 × 1023 m−3). Hence, the absence of the ion milling species does not necessarily mean an absence of specimen preparation defects. Specifically, the FIB and PFIB-prepared samples had more Si-rich clusters as compared to electropolished samples, which is indicative of vacancy stabilization via solute clustering.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Materials Characterization Techniques · Microstructure and mechanical properties · Aluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.12.01510.1016/j.ultramic.2010.12.015 ↗
2. 10.1017/S143192760707084510.1017/S1431927607070845 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.04.03710.1016/j.actamat.2017.04.037 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.msea.2018.02.07410.1016/j.msea.2018.02.074 ↗
5. 10.1179/1743284715Y.000000008810.1179/1743284715Y.0000000088 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.msea.2020.14071910.1016/j.msea.2020.140719 ↗
7. 10.1017/S143192762002443510.1017/S1431927620024435 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.matchar.2021.11119410.1016/j.matchar.2021.111194 ↗
9. 10.1371/journal.pone.023117910.1371/journal.pone.0231179 ↗
10. 10.1017/S143192761101213X10.1017/S143192761101213X ↗
11. 10.1016/0001-6160(70)90055-610.1016/0001-6160(70)90055-6 ↗
12. 10.1017/S143192761300630210.1017/S1431927613006302 ↗
13. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2010.03401.x10.1111/j.1365-2818.2010.03401.x ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ultramic.2019.04.00510.1016/j.ultramic.2019.04.005 ↗
15. 10.1017/S143192760606545710.1017/S1431927606065457 ↗
16. 10.1007/1-4020-8006-910.1007/1-4020-8006-9 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.nimb.2010.02.09110.1016/j.nimb.2010.02.091 ↗
18. 10.1016/S0304-3991(99)00055-810.1016/S0304-3991(99)00055-8 ↗
19. 10.1002/adem.20160066810.1002/adem.201600668 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.actamat.2017.03.07410.1016/j.actamat.2017.03.074 ↗
21. Larson, DJ , Prosa, TJ , Ulfig, RM , Geiser, BP , Kelly, TF & Humphreys, CJ (2013). Local Electrode Atom Probe Tomography a User's Guide. New York,Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-8721-0 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.01110.1016/j.ultramic.2015.05.011 ↗
23. 10.1080/14786435.2012.73894110.1080/14786435.2012.738941 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.actamat.2007.01.00610.1016/j.actamat.2007.01.006 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.actamat.2007.06.03910.1016/j.actamat.2007.06.039 ↗
26. 10.1038/s41467-019-12762-w10.1038/s41467-019-12762-w ↗
27. 10.1016/j.mser.2010.05.00110.1016/j.mser.2010.05.001 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.mtla.2020.10071710.1016/j.mtla.2020.100717 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.msea.2015.02.03510.1016/j.msea.2015.02.035 ↗