Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T01:29:05.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Toward a reference material for line profile analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2014

Andrea Troian
Affiliation:
Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Luca Rebuffi
Affiliation:
Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy Elettra-Sincrotrone Trieste S.C.p.A., Trieste, Italy
Matteo Leoni
Affiliation:
Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
Paolo Scardi*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
*
a) Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: Paolo.Scardi@unitn.it

Abstract

A powder obtained by ball milling a commercial FeMo alloy has been identified and investigated as possible reference material for powder diffraction line profile analysis. Ball milling yields micrometer-scale agglomerate particles made of rounded nanocrystalline domains with extensive lattice defects, so as to produce both size and strain contributions to the line profiles. The capability of a modern whole-powder pattern modeling to accurately quantify those aspects and the stability of the powder over a decade are shown and discussed.

Information

Type
Technical Articles
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 2014 
Figure 0

Figure 1. (Color online) SEM micrographs of the FeMo alloy powder ball milled for 128 h (courtesy of R. Ciancio, CNR-Tasc, Trieste). Agglomerate particles are shown in Figures 1(a) and 1(b), whereas a high magnification picture 1(c) highlights the nanoscale features visible on the agglomerate surface. See text for details.

Figure 1

Figure 2. (Color online) Comparison of XRD patterns of the powder of this study, a FeMo alloy ball milled for 128 h, collected by the same instrument at a distance of 10 years (respectively 2004 and present day 2014).

Figure 2

Figure 3. (Color online) Graphical result of WPPM for the powder data of Figure 2, referred to measurements collected on 2004 (a) and 2014 (b). It is also shown the WPPM of an SR-XRD pattern collected on 2004 (c). IPF data (d): FWHM and Lorentzian profile fraction for the laboratory XRD data in (a) and (b) (dash), and SR XRD in (c) (line).

Figure 3

Table I. WPPM results and statistics for data collected on 2004, 2014, combined fit of both datasets (2004 & 2014), and SR XRD data (2004 SR): unit-cell parameter (a0), average dislocation density (ρ), effective outer cut-off radius (Re), fraction of edge/screw dislocations (fE), Wilkens parameter Re · √ρ, mean domain size (diameter, 〈D〉) and standard deviation (s.d.), specimen displacement; Weighted sum of squares (WSS), Goodness of Fit (GoF); number of refined parameters (Nfit); and total number of data points (Nobs). Estimated standard deviation (e.s.d.) are given in parentheses, referred to the last significant digit.