Communications - On the Applications of Surface Trace Analyses in Metallurgical Problems

SLIP, twinning, stacking faults, and precipitates on well-defined planes in a crystal produce traces that are visible on either a polished or an etched surface. The purpose of this note is to establish the usefulness and limitations of the information obtained from such traces when determining the orientation of single crystals or grains in a polycrystal. Attention will be confined specifically to traces produced by octahedral planes in cubic crystals, though most of the remarks can be taken as more generally valid. The problem of determining the crystal orientation is completely solved in principle' and in particular for the special case under consideration.1'2 Tables are available3 in which the orientations can simply be looked up when given the two or three angles between the traces. Thus a quick and simple method is available for obtaining the orientation of a crystal from surface traces. In this note two examples will be given from recently published papers and will show the use of the method with the aid of the Tables, as well as some of the precautions that should be taken in the procedure. As part of an analysis of X-ray Kossel lines, Peters and Ogilvie 4 determined from them the crystallographic orientation of the specimen. They chose a Cu-5.10 wt pct Si alloy that had been partly transformed from the a (fee) phase to the k (hcp) phase. The latter formed as very straight platelets along the octahedral planes of the a phase, and a photograph (Fig. 7 of Ref. 4) was reproduced in the paper4 of the region for which the orientation had been determined from the Kossel lines. Apart from a very small area (about 0.15 mm diam) near the top center of the photograph, the region shown was clearly all of one orientation. Traces in four different directions were readily identified. Starting with the smallest angle and proceeding counterclockwise, the angles between the traces were measured to be 27° 43', 55° 16', 64 3 43 1, and32"26'. These add up to 1802 08 1, indicating a cumulative error of 8'. The correct values should, of course, be taken from the original glass plates, or at least from prints on distortion-free paper, so the precision of the quoted values is actually greater than their accuracy. The solutions can be looked up in the Tables3 in four ways, depending on how the angles are paired, tion for the minutes of arc is required and the solution obtained will be identical for all the four pairs if the values of the angles are not in error. In a practical situation, such as this one, there are several sources of error, so that the four solutions obtained will all be slightly different. An arithmetic average of the four solutions is mathematically incorrect, but may, in special cases, give an answer close to the correct one. A rigorous procedure for refining the orientation has been described by Mackenzie;5 he gives a least-squares method that can be applied, if necessary, to this type of problem. The orientation thus determined can be compared with the one from the Kosel lines and discrepancies larger than the experimental error assigned to nonor thogonality of the X-ray or electron beam to the specimen. Here the example will only be used to illustrate the general procedure for making a very rapid rough check. From measurements on the stereographic projection, Fig. 9 of the paper,4 we can determine that the surface normal is approximately (0.434, 0.704, 0.562). From the Tables3 we find, using 28°, 55" as a good approximation to the first pair (27°43', 55°16'), that the surface normal is (0.453, 0.678, 0.579).* These two values are within 2 deg of each