Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T22:30:31.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of Deconvolution Techniques in X-ray Profile Broadening Analysis and the Application of the Maximum Entropy Method to Alumina Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Walter Kalceff ,
Nicholas Armstrong  and
James P. Cline
Walter Kalceff
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Physics, University of Technology, Sydney PO. Box 123, BroadwayNSW 2007, Australia
Nicholas Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Physics, University of Technology, Sydney PO. Box 123, BroadwayNSW 2007, Australia
James P. Cline
Affiliation:
Ceramics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 USA
Get access

Abstract

This paper reviews several procedures for the removal of instrumental contributions from measured x-ray diffraction profiles, including: direct convolution, unconstrained and constrained deconvolution, an iterative technique, and a maximum entropy method (MEM) which we have adapted to x-ray diffraction profile analysis. Decorevolutions using the maximum entropy approach were found to be the most robust with simulated profiles which included Poisson-distributed noise and uncertainties in the instrument profile function (IPF). The MEM procedure is illustrated by application to the analysis for domain size and microstrain carried out on the four calcined α-alumina candidate materials for Standard Reference Material (SRM) 676 (a quantitative analysis standard for I/Ic determinations), along with the certified material. Williamson-Hall plots of these data were problematic with respect to interpretation of the microstrain, indicating that the line profile standard, SRM 660 (LaB6), exhibits a small amount of strain broadening, particularly at high 2θ angle. The domain sizes for all but one of the test materials were much smaller than the crystallite (particle) size; indicating the presence of low angle grain boundaries.

Type
V. Residual Stress, Crystallite Size and rms Strain Determination by Diffraction Methods
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 38: Forty-third Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis , 1994 , pp. 387 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1994

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

Cheary, R.W. and Cline, J.P. (1994), Advances in X-Ray Analysis, 38 Google Scholar
Cheary, R.W. and Coelho, A. (1992) J. Appl Cryst., 25, 109–121.Google Scholar
Cline, J.P. and Cheary, R.W. (1995), In Preparation.Google Scholar
Ergun, S., (1968), J Appl. Cryst., 1 , 19.Google Scholar
Howard, S.A. and Snyder, R.L. (1989) J. Appl. Cryst. 22, 238–243.Google Scholar
Kalceff, W, Cline, J.P. and Von Dreele, R.B. (1994), Advances in X-Ray Analysis, 37, 343–349.Google Scholar
Langford, J.I. (1987), Prog. Qyst. Growth and Ckaract., 14, 185–211.Google Scholar
Langford, J.I. (1992), Proceedings of the international conference Accuracy in Powder Diffraction II, NIST, Gaithersburg MD, 110–126.Google Scholar
Louer, D., Weigel, D. and Louboutin, R. (1969), Acta Cryst., A25, 335–338.Google Scholar
Phillips, D.L. (1962), J. Assoc. Comp. Mack, 9 84–97.Google Scholar
Reed, W.P. (1992), Certificate, SRM 676 ‘Alumina Internal Standard for Quantitative Analysis by X-ray Powder Diffraction,” NISX Gaithersburg, Md., 20899.Google Scholar
Rasberry, S.D. (1989), Certificate of Analysis, SRM 660 “Instrument Line Position and Profile Shape Standard for X-ray Powder Diffraction,: NIST, Gaithersburg, Md,, 20899.Google Scholar
Skilling, J. and Bryan, R.K. (1984), Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc, 211, 111–124.Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E. (1948), Bell System Tech. I, 27, 379 and 623.Google Scholar
Shaw, W.T. and Tigg, J. (1994), Applied M'athematica, Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Stokes, A.R. (1948), Proc. Phys. Soc. (London), A61, 382.Google Scholar
Twomey, S. (1963), J. Assoc. Comp. Mack., 10, 97–101.Google Scholar
Twomey, S. (1977), Introduction to the Mathematics of Inversion in Remote Sensing and Indirect Measurements, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Warren, B.E. and Averbach, B.L. (1950), J. Appl. Phys., 21, 595.Google Scholar