The Application of the Ziebold Correction Procedure for Probe Data to Three Ternary Copper-Base Alloys

  • Richard M. Ingersoll
  • Jack E. Taylor
  • Donald H. Derouin
Conference paper


For the quantitative analysis of a 65 Cu-30 Ni-5 Fe alloy, a 96 Cu-3 Si-1 Mn alloy, and a 78 Cu-20 Zn-2 Al alloy, the Ziebold empirical method of correcting electron-microbeam-probe data was used. Four binary standards, of single-phase Cu-Ni, Ni-Fe, Cu-Mn, and Cu-Zn alloys, were cast and the a correction factor found for each element in each binary by Ziebold’s relationship (1 − K)/K = α (1 − C)/C, where K = I/I 0 found in the probe and C is the weight fraction found by wet chemistry. The ARL EMX probe was used at 30 kV with a 25-μ beam diameter to negate inhomogeneities. Experience with these binaries indicated that in the presence of secondary fluorescence, the experimental α values agreed poorly with theoretically calculated α values; however, where secondary fluorescence was negligible, agreement between the experimental and theoretical α values was good. The α values for Cu-Si, Cu-Al, Al-Zn, and Mn-Si alloys, were therefore calculated from the theoretical equations. The α values for Cu-Fe alloys were also calculated from theoretical considerations because single-phase binaries over the composition range of interest could not be made for this system. All these α values were used in Ziebold’s ternary equations to correct probe data (again using a 25-μ beam) from specimens of Cu-Ni-Fe, Cu-Si-Mn, and Cu-Zn-Al. These results were compared to wet-chemistry analyses for the same specimens with quite good correlation between the two sets of data. Calibration curves for the binary systems Cu-Ni, Cu-Fe, Ni-Fe, Cu-Mn, Cu-Si, Mn-Si, Cu-Al, Cu-Zn, and Al-Zn were made and are reproduced.


Probe Data Alloy Standard Pure Manganese Secondary Fluorescence Binary Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    T. O. Ziebold, “Analysis of Multicomponent Alloys and an Empirical Correlation of Calibration Data,” presented at the 126th Meeting of the Electrochemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1964.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. O. Ziebold and R. E. Ogilvie, “Quantitative Electron Microanalysis,” presented at the MIT Microprobe School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. H. Moll, private communication.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. O. Ziebold, “Quantitative Electron Microanalysis,” presented at the MIT Summer Course, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Castaing, “Electron Probe Microanalysis,” Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, Vol. 5, L. Martin (ed.), Academic Press Inc., New York (1960), p. 317.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. B. Wittry, Technical Report, USCEC Report 84–204, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (1962).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. S. Birks, Electron Probe Microanalysis, Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York, p. 125.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. M. Poole and P. M. Thomas, “Quantitative Electron-Probe Mircoanalysis,” J. Inst. Metals 90: 228 (1962).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. O. Ziebold and R. E. Ogilvie, “Quantitative Analysis with the Electron Microanalyzer,” Anal. Chem. 35: 622 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. S. Bray and L. Lozano, “Controlling Weld Segregation to Avoid Cracking in a Cu-Si-Mn Alloy,” Welding J., (September, 1965 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard M. Ingersoll
    • 1
  • Jack E. Taylor
    • 1
  • Donald H. Derouin
    • 1
  1. 1.Anaconda American Brass CompanyWaterburyUSA

Personalised recommendations