Dear Larry:

Thanks for shearing for oppinion. Your explanation sounds great.

Best reagrds,

Angel


> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Dear all:
>>
>> Let me make you the following question.
>>
>> Suppose a polycrystalline coating deposited onto a substrate in such a
>> way
>> that the coating is subjected to in-plane compressive residual stresses
>> after the deposition process. The coating has a cubic fcc crystal
>> structure before the deposition process, and also appears to be cubic
>> fcc
>> with increased out-of-plane lattice parameter after the deposition. I
>> understand the increased out-of-plane lattice parameter because the
>> stresses are compressive in nature and the XRD experiment collects
>> information on the diffracting planes that are parallel to the sample
>> surface. However, I have the following question:
>>
>> Since the residual stresses are compressive in nature, the fcc crystal
>> structure will become distorted after the deposition process, and
>> strictly
>> will be no longer cubic. The change in the shape of the unit cell is
>> most
>> likely a function of the orientation of the unit cell with respect to
>> the
>> direction of the residual stresses. Thus, the cube can change to
>> tetrahedron, rhombohedral, etc. If the stresses are large enough in
>> magnitude (bout 1000 MPa), why the XRD pattern still shows a cubic
>> crystal
>> structure (there are no additional peaks, peak splitting, etc).
>
> Because the diffracting planes are all parallel to the sample surface, you
> are only measuring d
> spacings perpendicular to the surface. As a result, every such plane sees
> the same stress and you
> get a cubic pattern with no splitting. If you could measure the
> diffraction pattern in transmission
> you would see the other component of the stress (assuming that your stress
> distribution is an
> ellipsoid of revolution). If the normal to the planes of diffraction were
> in the plane of the
> coating, the pattern would again be cubic with a different lattice
> parameter. Only if the normal
> were neither parallel nor perpendicular to the plane of the coating would
> you see splitting.
>
> Larry
>



Reply via email to