A comparison between the Warren-Averbach method and alternate methods for X-ray diffraction microstructure analysis of polycrystalline specimens

  • Marinkovic B
  • Avillez R
  • Saavedra A
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
136Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The fundamental parameters approach is used to simulate the instrument contribution to the X-Ray diffraction profile. This procedure eliminates the need to experimentally prepare a reference sample of the studied crystalline material when using the Warren-Averbach method to investigate microstrutural parameters. The Warren-Averbach method is also compared to the Balzar and Enzo methods, two other popular methods of size-strain analysis. The analysis was carried out using bohmite powder having two different nominal average crystallite sizes, 80 Å and 200 Å. A 50%-50% mixture of these materials was used as a third sample. The proposed simulation procedure provides good results and is much faster to implement than the usual procedure that includes the preparation of a reference. For larger crystallite sizes, the results calculated from the Warren-Averbach method for the volume-weighted average crystallite size differs significantly from the ones obtained from the Balzar and Enzo methods. The limitations of the Balzar and Enzo methods are also discussed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Marinkovic, B., Avillez, R. R. de, Saavedra, A., & Assunção, F. C. R. (2001). A comparison between the Warren-Averbach method and alternate methods for X-ray diffraction microstructure analysis of polycrystalline specimens. Materials Research, 4(2), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-14392001000200005

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free