Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:42:17.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigation of Copper Segregation to the Σ5(310)/[001] Symmetric Tilt Grain Boundary in Aluminum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Jürgen M. Plitzko ,
Geoffrey H. Campbell ,
Wayne E. King  and
Stephen M. Foiles
Jürgen M. Plitzko
Affiliation:
Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550
Geoffrey H. Campbell
Affiliation:
Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550
Wayne E. King
Affiliation:
Chemistry and Materials Science Directorate, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550
Stephen M. Foiles
Affiliation:
Science-Based Materials Modeling Department, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 869, Livermore, CA 94551
Get access

Abstract

The Σ5 (31O)/[001] symmetric tilt grain boundary (STGB) in the face centered cubic (FCC) metal aluminum with 1at% copper has been studied. The model grain boundary has been fabricated by ultra-high vacuum diffusion bonding of alloy single crystals. The segregation of the copper has been encouraged by annealing the sample after bonding at 200 °C. TEM samples of this FCCmaterial were prepared with a new low voltage ion mill under very low angles.

The atomic structure of the Σ5(310)/[001] STGB for this system was modeled with electronic structure calculations. These theoretical calculations of the interface structure indicate that the Cu atoms segregate to distinct sites at the interface. High resolution electron microscopy (HRTEM) and analytical electron microscopy including electron energy spectroscopic imaging and X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry have been used to explore the segregation to the grain boundary. The HRTEM images and the analytical measurements were performed using different kinds of microscopes, including a Philips CM300 FEG equipped with an imaging energy filter. The amount of the segregated species at the interface was quantified in a preliminary way. To determine the atomic positions of the segregated atoms at the interface, HRTEM coupled with image simulation and a first attempt of a holographic reconstruction from a through-focal series have been used.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 589 , 1999 , 301
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Lejcek, P., Hofmann, S., Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences, 20 [1] 1–85 (1995)Google Scholar
2.Sutton, A. P., Balluffi, R.W., Interfaces in Crystalline Materials, ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995).Google Scholar
3.King, W. E., Campbell, G. H., Coombs, A. W., Johnson, G. W., Kelly, B. E., Reitz, T. C., Stoner, S. L., Wien, W. L. and Wilson, D. M. in Joining and Adhesion of Advanced Inorganic Materials, edited by Carim, A. H., Schwartz, D. S. and Silberglitt, R. S. (Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 314, Pittsburgh, PA 1993) pp. 61–67.Google Scholar
4.Wien, W. L., Campbell, G. H. and King, W. E. in Microstructural Science, edited by Stevens, D. W., Clark, E. A., Zipperian, D. C. and Albrecht, E. D. (Microstructural Science 23, Materials Park, OH 1996) pp. 213–218;presented at 28th International Metallography Society Convention.Google Scholar
5.Strecker, A., Mayer, J., Baretzky, B., U., , Eigenthaler, Gemming, T., Schweinfest, R., Ruehle, M. in Journal of Electron Micoscopy, 48 [3] 235–244 (1999)Google Scholar
6.Vanderbilt, D. in Physical Review B 41, 7892 (1990).Google Scholar
7.Bollmann, W. in Crystal Defects and Crystalline Interfaces, ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970).Google Scholar
8.Jeanguillaume, C., Trebbia, P., Colliex, C. in Ultramicroscopy, 3 237–242 (1978)Google Scholar
9.Hunt, J.A., private communication.Google Scholar
10.Plitzko, J.M., Mayer, J. in Ultramicroscopy, 78 207–219 (1999)Google Scholar
11.Thust, A., Coene, W.M.J., Beeck, M. Op de, Dyck, D. Van in Ultramicroscopy, 64 211–230 (1996)Google Scholar
12.Coene, W.M.J., Thust, A., Beeck, M. Op de, Dyck, D. Van in Ultramicroscopy, 64 109–135 (1996)Google Scholar
13.Stadelmann, P. A. in Ultramicroscopy, 21 131–146 (1987)Google Scholar