Substructure Measurements by Statistical Fluctuations in X-Ray Diffraction Intensity

  • E. F. Sturcken
  • W. E. Gettys
  • E. M. Bohn


The substructures of a beta-quenched and a recrystallized form of high-purity uranium were measured by a method based on statistical fluctuations in X-ray diffraction intensity. For these measurements, Warren’s1 statistical equation for determining grain size was modified to make the equation applicable to materials with high absorption coefficients or moderate-to-large grain size (> 20 microns) or both, since many metals fall into this category, and to allow for defocusing of the X-ray beam which occurs as a natural consequence of the experiment.

The beta-quenched uranium was found to have numerous subgrains with a range of misorientation angles that was smaller and larger than the limits of the X-ray measurements (Ω = 10−4 to 10−2 steradians). The presence of the large subgrains was corroborated by optical microscopy. The presence of very small subgrains was corroborated by transmission electron microscopy which showed 0.1- to 1-micron subgrains relatively free of dislocations bounded by dense dislocation networks, and by micro Laue diffraction patterns (30-micron beam diameter) which showed partial rings similar to a powder pattern.

The recrystallized uranium had no misorientation within the grains greater than 5.5 × 10−3 steradians. In contrast to the beta-quenched case, no subgrains were found either by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) or micro Laue diffraction patterns. The TEM micrographs showed a uniform distribution of dislocation networks. Since no other substructural elements were observed, the dislocations are believed to be the cause of the misorientation within the grains for solid angles of less than 5 × 10−3 steradians.

These preliminary experiments show that the statistical method may be used in conjunction with transmission electron microscopy and micro Laue diffraction for the study of substructure. The statistical method gives quantitative data on “bulk” specimens that can be given a meaningful interpretation with the aid of the other techniques.


Solid Angle Statistical Fluctuation Substructural Element Beam Area Laue Pattern 
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.
    B. E. Warren, “X-Ray Measurements of Grain Size,” J. Appl. Phys. 31: 2237–2239, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. S. Barrett, Structure of Metals, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1952, Chapter V.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Taylor, X-Ray Metallography, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1961, Chapter 14.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. B. Hirsch and J. N. Kellar, “ A Study of Cold-Worked Aluminum by an X-Ray Micro-Beam Technique. I. Measurement of Particle Volume and Misorientations,” Acta Cryst. 5: 162, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. B. Hirsch, “A Study of Cold-Worked Aluminum by an X-Ray Micro-Beam Technique. II. Measurement of Shapes of Spots,” Acta Cryst. 5: 168, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. B. Hirsch, “The Reflection and Transmission of X-Rays in Perfect Absorbing Crystals,” Acta Cryst. 5: 176, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. B. Hirsch, “Mosaic Structures,” in: B. Chalmers and R. King (eds.), Progress in Metal Physics, Vol. 6, Pergamon Press Ltd., London and New York, 1956, pp. 236–339.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. S. Barrett, “Determining Recrystallization by a Diffractometer Technique,” in: J. B. Newkirk and J. H. Wernick (eds.), Direct Observations of Imperfections in Crystals, Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York, 1962, p. 395.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. S. Barrett, “X-Ray Diffraction Studies at Low Temperatures,” in: W. M. Mueller, G. R. Mallett, and M. J. Fay (eds.), Advances in X-Ray Analysis, Vol. 5. Plenum Press, New York, 1961, p. 33.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. F. Sturcken and J. W. Croach, “Predicting Physical Properties in Oriented Metals,” Trans. AIME 227: 934–940, 1963.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. F. Sturcken and W. E. Gettys, Determination of Grain Size in Uranium from Statistical Fluctuations in X-Ray Diffraction Intensity, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., DP-904, July 1964.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. L. Angerman, “Transmission Electron Microscopy of Uranium,” J. Nucl. Mater. 9: 109–110, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Crank and R. N. Thudium, Effects of Etching on Preferred Orientation Measurements, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, HW-74429, August 1962.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Margenau and G. M. Murphy, The Mathematics of Physics and Chemistry, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., New York, 1943, pp. 422–425.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Seeman, Ann. Physik 59: 455, 1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Bohlin, Ann. Physik 61: 421, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. E. Ogilvie, Stress Measurement with the X-Ray Spectrometer, M.S. Thesis, Department of Metallurgy, MIT, 1952.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Schwartz, J. Appl. Phys. 26: 1507, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1966

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. F. Sturcken
    • 1
  • W. E. Gettys
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. M. Bohn
    • 1
  1. 1.E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.AikenUSA
  2. 2.Clemson CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations