The Application of the Ziebold Correction Procedure for Probe Data to Three Ternary Copper-Base Alloys
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.
KeywordsProbe Data Alloy Standard Pure Manganese Secondary Fluorescence Binary Standard
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.T. O. Ziebold and R. E. Ogilvie, “Quantitative Electron Microanalysis,” presented at the MIT Microprobe School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963.Google Scholar
- 3.S. H. Moll, private communication.Google Scholar
- 4.T. O. Ziebold, “Quantitative Electron Microanalysis,” presented at the MIT Summer Course, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963.Google Scholar
- 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.D. B. Wittry, Technical Report, USCEC Report 84–204, University of Southern California, Los Angeles (1962).Google Scholar
- 7.L. S. Birks, Electron Probe Microanalysis, Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York, p. 125.Google Scholar
- 8.D. M. Poole and P. M. Thomas, “Quantitative Electron-Probe Mircoanalysis,” J. Inst. Metals 90: 228 (1962).Google Scholar
- 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