text:
Κύρια ASM Handbook, Volume 9: Metallography And Microstructures (ASM Handbook)
ASM Handbook, Volume 9: Metallography And Microstructures (ASM Handbook)ASM
You may be interested in
where is the download link
24 April 2015 (14:44)
You can write a book review and share your experiences. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you've read. Whether you've loved the book or not, if you give your honest and detailed thoughts then people will find new books that are right for them.
ASM INTERNATIONAL The Materials Information Company ® Publication Information and Contributors Metallography and Microstructures was published in 1985 as Volume 9 of the 9th Edition Metals Handbook. With the fifth printing (1992), the series title was changed to ASM Handbook. The Volume was prepared under the direction of the ASM Handbook Committee. Fig. 1 As-Drawn hafnium crystal bar. Changes in grain orientation produce different colors when viewed under polarized light. Some twinning is also evident. Specimen was attack polished and heat tinted at ~425 °C (800 °F). 180×. Courtesy of Paul E. Danielson, Teledyne Wah Chang Albany. Additional color micrographs can be found in the article "Color Metallography." in this Volume. Authors and Reviewers • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LAMET UFRGS Hubert I. Aaronson Carnegie-Mellon University John K. Abraham LTV-Republic Steel Research Center N.R. Adsit Rohr Industries, Inc. Samuel M. Allen Massachusetts Institute of Technology P. Ambalal Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory R.J. Barnhurst Noranda, Inc. (Canada) Edmund F. Baroch Consultant Charles S. Barrett University of Denver Charles E. Bates Southern Research Institute R. Batich Brush Wellman Inc. Alan M. Bayer Teledyne VASCO Arlan O. Benscoter Bethlehem Steel Corporation Michael L. Bess Eastern Alloys, Inc. Michael B. Bever Massachusetts Institute of Technology C.R. Bird Stainless Foundry & Engineering, Inc. George A. Blann Buehler Ltd. Arne Boe Struers, Inc. William J. Boettinger National Bureau of Standards T.F. Bower Chase Brass & Copper Company Rodney R. Boyer Boeing Commercial Airplane Company • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • B.L. Bramfitt Bethlehem Steel Corporation Richard Bratt Colt Industries John F. Breedis Olin Corporation Robert J. Brennan E.F. Houghton & Company Harold Brody University of Pittsburgh Ronald A. Bulwith Alpha Metals, Inc. Michael E. Burnett The Timken Company J.G. Byrne University of Utah R.L. Caton Carpenter Technology Corporation Robert Chaney Wellman Furnaces, Inc. Henry J. Chapin Abex Corporation James C. Chesnutt Rockwell International G.Y. Chin AT&T Bell Laboratories Kenneth J. Clark Wellman Dynamics Corporation Linda Clements San Jose State University Hans Conrad North Carolina State University Richard Corle Rockwell International L.R. Cornwell Texas A&M University Carl E. Cross Colorado School of Mines Robert S. Crouse Oak Ridge National Laboratory N.J. Culp Carpenter Technology Corporation Donald S. Dabkowski United States Steel Corporation Craig B. Dallam Colorado School of Mines Brian K. Damkroger Colorado School of Mines Frank Danek Cleveland Refractory Metals Paul E. Danielson Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Robert T. DeHoff University of Florida John A. DeVore General Electric Company Thomas Diebold Colorado School of Mines Lee Dillinger Leco Corporation Carl DiMartini ASARCO, Inc. David Dozer Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc. T.E. Dwyer National Steel Corporation James Early National Bureau of Standards Kenneth H. Eckelmeyer Sandia National Laboratories D.V. Edmonds University of Oxford (England) G. Elssner Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung (West Germany) J.D. Embury McMaster University (Canada) H.E. Exner Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung (West Germany) D. Eylon Metcut-Materials Research Group E.W. Filer Cabot Corporation M.C. Flemings Massachusetts Institute of Technology D.Y. Foster Carpenter Technology Corporation Fred A. Foyle Rhenium Alloys, Inc. Aaron Freeman Kennametal, Inc. Paul B. Gallagher Columbia Tool Steel Company Michael Gigliotti, Jr. General Electric Company Claus G. Goetzel Stanford University R.C. Gower Carpenter Technology Corporation Douglas A. Granger Aluminum Company of America Robert J. Gray Unitron Inc. R. Gronsky University of California at Berkeley Gary W. Grube Abex Corporation Amitava Guha Brush Wellman Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Richard B. Gundlach Amax Research & Development Center Martin N. Haller Kennametal, Inc. William B. Hampshire Tin Research Institute, Inc. John Harkness Brush Wellman Inc. E. Harper Systems Research Laboratories Walter T. Haswell Colt Industries R.M. Hemphill Carpenter Technology Corporation John A. Hendrickson Wyman-Gordon Company Helen Henson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Tommy Henson Oak Ridge National Laboratory Dennis W. Hetzner The Timken Company James Hoag Abex Corporation William F. Hosford University of Michigan Helmut Hoven Institut für Reaktorwerkstoffe (West Germany) Norman S. Hoyer Westinghouse Electric Corporation Hsun Hu University of Pittsburgh James Lee Hubbard Georgia Institute of Technology Paul L. Huber Seco/Warwick Corporation Glenn S. Huppi Colorado School of Mines K.A. Jackson AT&T Bell Laboratories Mitchell A. Jacobs Taussig Associates, Inc. Hughston M. James Carpenter Technology Corporation N.C. Jessen Martin Marietta Energy Systems Wilbur Johns Rockwell International Mark J. Johnson Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation E.A. Jonas Consulting Metallurgical Engineer John J. Jonas McGill University (Canada) Jerald E. Jones Colorado School of Mines Frederick W. Kern U.S Steel Corporation Jon A. Kish Rhenium Alloys, Inc. Michael Kim Rhenium Alloys, Inc. Roger W. Koch Ladish Company Karl Koizlik Institut für Reaktorwerkstoffe (West Germany) T. Kosa Carpenter Technology Corporation J.A. Kowalik Lehigh University R. Wayne Kraft Lehigh University George Krauss Colorado School of Mines John B. Lambert Fansteel John A. Larson Ingersoll-Rand Company David E. Laughlin Carnegie-Mellon University James L. Laverick The Timken Company Harvie H. Lee Inland Steel Company Peter W. Lee The Timken Company Franklin D. Lemkey United Technologies Research Center/Dartmouth College William C. Leslie University of Michigan Jochen Linke Institut für Reaktorwerkstoffe (West Germany) Stephen Liu Pennsylvania State University Ken Lloyd D.A.B. Industries, Inc. Richard F. Lynch Zinc Institute, Inc. William L. Mankins Huntington Alloys International M.J. Marcinkowski University of Maryland A.R. Marder Bethlehem Steel Corporation James M. Marder Brush Wellman Inc. T.B. Massalski Carnegie-Mellon University • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • M.S. Masteller Carpenter Technology Corporation John E. Masters American Cyanamid Company Daniel J. Maykuth Tin Research Institute, Inc. James L. McCall Battelle Columbus Laboratories George McClary H. Cross Company E.J. Minarcik Lead Industries Association, Inc. T.E. Mitchell Case Western Reserve University L. Mondolfo Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute L. Mongeon Noranda, Inc. (Canada) Jeremy P. Morse Huntington Alloys International William M. Mueller Colorado School of Mines Michael S. Nagorka Colorado School of Mines James A. Nelson Buehler Ltd. Hubertus Nickel Institut für Reaktorwerkstoffe (West Germany) B. Oliver University of Tennessee Oliver E. Olsen Lead Industries Association, Inc. T. Palomaki Honeywell Inc. W.B. Pearson University of Waterloo (Canada) Leander F. Pease III Powder-Tech Associates, Inc. John H. Perepezko University of Wisconsin at Madison A. Jeffrey Perkins Naval Postgraduate School Robert N. Peterson Enduro Stainless, Inc. G. Petzow Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung (West Germany) Mark Podob Abar Ipsen Industries Larry E. Pope Sandia National Laboratories C.E. Price Oklahoma State University S.M. Purdy National Steel Corporation Dennis T. Quinto Kennametal, Inc. M.R. Randlett Chase Brass & Copper Company W.P. Rehrer Carpenter Technology Corporation R. Ricksecker Chase Brass & Copper Company N. Ridley University of Manchester (England) H.C. Rogers Drexel University Kempton Roll Metal Powder Industries Federation Alton D. Romig, Jr. Sandia National Laboratories Charles R. Roper, Jr. Lukens Steel Company H.W. Rosenberg Alta Group M. Rühle Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung (West Germany) Moy Ryvola Alcan International, Ltd. (Canada) N. Saenz Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories Anant V. Samudra LTV Steel Company L.E. Samuels Samuels Consulting (Australia) Ernest A. Schoefer Technical Consultant J. Schruers Westinghouse Electric Corporation D.D. Schwemmer Rockwell International Brian Scott International Tin Research Institute (England) J. Self Colorado School of Mines Jerome F. Smith Lead Industries Association, Inc. William A. Soffa University of Pittsburgh Peter D. Southwick Inland Steel Company R.E. Spear Aluminum Company of America G.R. Speich Illinois Institute of Technology D.L. Sponseller Amax Research & Development Center E.E. Stansbury University of Tennessee • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J.H. Steele, Jr. Armco, Inc. Richard H. Stevens Aluminum Company of America Patricia Stumpff Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories Dilip K. Subramanyam Abex Corporation C.J. Thwaites International Tin Research Institute (England) Milton W. Toaz Imperial Clevite, Inc. H.E. Townsend Bethlehem Steel Corporation Frank J. Toye, Jr. Leco Corporation Rohit Trivedi Iowa State University George B. Tyler Reynolds Metals Company Ervin E. Underwood Georgia Institute of Technology Roy A. Vandermeer Naval Research Laboratory George F. Vander Voort Carpenter Technology Corporation John D. Verhoven Iowa State University Rajat Verma Abar Ipsen Industries Steven E. Wall Bendix Corporation Francis J. Warmuth Special Metals Corporation M.E. Warwick International Tin Research Institute (England) D.M. Wayman University of Illinois Elisabeth Weidmann Struers, Inc. William E. White Petro-Canada Resources (Canada) C.R. Whitney Carpenter Technology Corporation David B. Williams Lehigh University W.A. Yahraus Imperial Clevite, Inc. J.N. Zgonc National Steel Corporation Other Contributors The following individuals supplied micrographs for this Volume, as did many authors, reviewers, and other anonymous contributors. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R.L. Anderson Westinghouse Research Laboratories G.L. Armstrong U.S. Reduction Company R.J. Asaro Brown University F. Assmus Vacuumschmelze Siemens (West Germany) F.A. Badia International Nickel Company, Inc. R.W. Balluffi Cornell University P. Bania Timet J. Bartholomew Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. P.I. Basalyk Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. B. Bay Danish Academy of Mechanical Engineering (Denmark) C. Brady National Bureau of Standards L.L. Bright American Steel Foundries R.D. Buchheit Battelle Columbus Laboratories M.G. Burke University of Pittsburgh B.C. Buzek NASA Lewis Research Center J.W. Cahn Massachusetts Institute of Technology R. Carbonara Battelle Columbus Laboratories D.A. Chatfield National Steel Corporation J.B. Clark University of Missouri--Rolla R.S. Cline U.S. Steel Corporation T. Cobb Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. J. Cornie Massachusetts Institute of Technology M.H. Cornell NLO Inc. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J.E. Costa Carnegie-Mellon University S.L. Couling Battelle Columbus Laboratories A. Datta University of Pittsburgh L.W. Davis NETCO L. Delaey Katholieke Universiteit (Belgium) K. Detert Vacuumschmelze Siemens (West Germany) J. Dibee Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. J.E. Gatehouse Bethlehem Steel Corporation J.J. Gilman Allied Chemical Corporation R.C. Glenn U.S. Steel Corporation S.R. Goodman U.S. Steel Corporation F.E. Goodwin International Lead Zinc Research Organization N. Grant Massachusetts Institute of Technology G. Grosse Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. N. Hansen Riso National Laboratory (Denmark) W.C. Harrigan DWA Composite Specialties M. Hatherly University of New South Wales (Australia) M. Henry General Electric Research & Development D. Hull University of Liverpool (England) J. Humphries University of Oxford (England) M.S. Hunter Alcoa Research Laboratories F.I. Hurwitz NASA Lewis Research Center G. Ibe Vacuumschmelze Siemens (West Germany) S. Jin AT&T Bell Laboratories A.R. Jones Riso National Laboratory (Denmark) Anwar-ul Karim Engineering University (Bangladesh) R.S. Karz University of Illinois T.J. Kelly International Nickel Company, Inc. J.R. Kilpatrick Bethlehem Steel Corporation M. Kitada Hitachi Ltd. (Japan) J.W. Koger Martin Marietta M.M. Lappin Sandia National Laboratories P.K. Lattari Texas Instruments, Inc. M. Lee San Jose State University P.R. Lee NASA Ames Research Center I. Lefever Katholieke Universiteit (Belgium) D.S. Lieberman University of Illinois J.D. Livingston General Electric Research & Development A.C. Lon Phillips Petroleum Company T. Long Boeing Commercial Airplane Company D.M. Maher AT&T Bell Laboratories A.S. Malin University of New South Wales (Australia) J.J. Manganello Chrysler Corporation M.E. McAllaster Sandia National Laboratories H. McQueen Sir George Williams University (Canada) D. Metzler University of Pittsburgh J.T. Michalak U.S. Steel Corporation M.K. Miller Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.N. Mincer Battelle Columbus Laboratories L.R. Morris Alcan Kingston Laboratories (Canada) R. Moss Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation A.W. Mullendore Sandia Corporation G. Müller Struers GmbH (West Germany) A. Needleman Brown University • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • J.R. Patel AT&T Bell Laboratories N.E. Paton North American Rockwell Corporation H.W. Paxton U.S. Steel Corporation J.F. Peck Massachusetts Institute of Technology L. Penn Midwest Research Institute R.L. Perry Bethlehem Steel Corporation W.G. Pfann AT&T Bell Laboratories V.A. Phillips General Electric Company K.M. Prewo United Technologies Research Center S.V. Ramani NASA Ames Research Center B.B. Rath U.S. Steel Corporation T. Redden General Electric Company W. Reinsch Timet W.H. Rowley, Jr. The Stackpole Corporation M.A. Scherling University of Illinois C. Scholl Wyman-Gordon Company M. Scott Bethlehem Steel Corporation G. Shaw Midwest Research Institute D. Shechtman Technion, Israel Institute of Technology M.J. Shemanski AT&T Bell Laboratories H.M. Shih NASA Ames Research Center J.W. Shilling Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation V.L. Shultes Boeing Vertol Company J.R. Sims Square D Company D.P. Skinner Princeton Gamma-Tech, Inc. E. Snell Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory R.L. Snyder Bendix Aircraft Brake and Strut Division C.N. Su The Aerospace Corporation D.A. Thomas Massachusetts Institute of Technology G. Thomas University of California--Berkeley D. Tyler Olin Corporation Metals Research Laboratories J.L. Uvira Steel Company of Canada, Ltd. J.M. Van Orden Lockheed Corporation G.B. Wadsworth Boeing Vertol Company E. Walden Lockheed Corporation H. Warlimont Max-Planck-Institut für Metallforschung (West Germany) B. Weinberger Struers, Inc. J. Williams North American Rockwell Corporation J.C. Williams Carnegie-Mellon University D.J. Willis Broken Hill Proprietary Company, Ltd. (Australia) P. Wingert GTE Products Corporation W.N. Wise NLO Inc. G.J. Wiskow Falk Corporation D.A. Witmer University of Denver W.A. Wong McGill University (Canada) J.H. Wood General Electric Company S.A. Wright Bethlehem Steel Corporation P. Yaffe Chase Brass & Copper Company, Inc. K.P. Young ITT Engineered Metal Processes A. Zeltser University of Pittsburgh J.E. Zimmer Acurex Corporation, Aerotherm Division Foreword Metallography and Microstructures is a comprehensive and convenient reference source--and an outstanding example of the special commitment of the American Society for Metals to the field of metallography and recognition of its continued growth and sophistication. In the early 1970s, ASM published Volumes 7 and 8 of the 8th Edition of Metals Handbook. The Atlas of Microstructures of Industrial Alloys was essentially a picture book, designed to provide a meaningful sampling of normal and abnormal structures and to illustrate the effects of major processing variables and service conditions. Metallography, Structures and Phase Diagrams covered metallographic laboratory practices, metallographic structures, and phase diagrams of binary and ternary alloys. When the time came to plan the revision of these Volumes for the 9th Edition, it was decided to combine them into one book (excluding the phase diagrams, which will be published by ASM next year as a two-volume set entitled Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams; volumes on ternary and higher order phase diagrams are also planned). In this latest addition to the prestigious Metals Handbook series, the reader will find detailed treatments of every aspect of metallography, from advances in standard specimen preparation methods to the latest computerized color imaging techniques. Coverage has been significantly expanded to encompass more materials and representative microstructures, including information on metallographic techniques associated with metal-matrix and resin-matrix fiber composites. There are brand-new articles written by internationally recognized authorities on etching, on optical, scanning electron, and transmission electron microscopy, and on color metallography. We would like to express our appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the Handbook staff, the ASM Handbook Committee, and the hundreds of authors, reviewers, and other contributors listed in the next several pages. Many of the more than 3,000 micrographs in this Volumes were contributed over the years by friends of ASM and carry no specific attribution in their captions. To these anonymous metallographers we extend special thanks. John W. Pridgeon President Edward L. Langer Managing Director Preface Metallography is one of the metallurgist's most valuable tools. Since the pioneering work of Henry Clifton Sorby in petrography and metallography in the 1860s a multitude of techniques has been developed (particularly during the past 40 years) and applied to the study and characterization of metals and other engineering materials, such as ceramics and polymers. In addition to the conventional optical microscope, the materials scientist can utilize electron microscopes and deploy characterization techniques such x-ray diffraction, electron microprobe analysis, and field ion microscopy. This Volume examines the development and applicability of optical and electron microscopy as related to the study of metals. A subsequent Volume in this Handbook series (Materials Characterization) will detail alternate methods for crystallographic analysis, as well as methods for examining atomic/molecular structure and determining chemical composition. Metallography is as much an art as a science. The artistry lies in the techniques used to prepare a specimen--sectioning, mounting, grinding, polishing, and etching--and to photograph a specimen. When properly carried out, these techniques result in a micrograph that is both a true representation of the microstructure of a material and a beautifully executed photograph. Five articles in the first Section of this Volume, "Metallographic Techniques," review the methods used to prepare metallographic specimens for optical microscopy. Attention is given to problems that may be encountered and methods for their control and elimination. These are followed by articles explaining the principles and applicability of optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron microscopy, and quantitative metallography. The final article in this Section, "Color Metallography," is perhaps the most vivid example of the art and beauty of metallography, as evidence by the eight-page atlas of color micrographs that showcases the work of a number of metallographer/artists. Detailed specimen preparation procedures for various materials are given in the 34 articles in the Section "Metallographic Techniques and Microstructures: Specific Metals and Alloys." Recommended specimen preparation guidelines, information on the characteristics and constituents of various alloy systems, and a series of representative micrographs are presented in each article. Also included in this Section is an in-depth discussion of the metallography of metal-matrix and resin-matrix fiber composite materials. The science of metallography lies in the interpretation of structures, which is thoroughly reviewed in the final Section, "Structures." Following an introductory overview of the subject, 18 articles deal with the principles underlying metallographic structures. Among the microstructural features of metals discussed are: • • • • • Solidification structures, including those of pure metals, solid solutions, eutectic alloys, steels, aluminum alloy ingots, and copper alloy ingots Transformation structures, including structures resulting from precipitation from solid solution, spinodal structures, massive transformation structures, eutectoid structures, bainitic structures, martensitic structures, peritectic structures, and ordered structures Deformation and annealing structures, including structures resulting from plastic deformation, from plastic deformation at elevated temperature, and from recovery, recrystallization, and grain growth Textured structures Crystal structures By virtue of its comprehensive coverage of metallographic techniques and the representation and interpretation of microstructures, metallurgical engineers and technicians should find this Volume a valuable reference work. Undergraduate and graduate students involved in physical metallurgy and/or microscopy coursework should also find it useful. ASM is grateful to the many authors and reviewers who gave freely of their time and knowledge and to the dozens of engineers and metallographers who contributed the thousands of micrographs published in this Volume. Special thanks are due to Robert J. Gray, George F. Vander Voort, and Paul E. Danielson for their extraordinary efforts and assistance throughout this project. Publication if this Volume would not have been possible without the valuable contributions of all these individuals. The Editors General Information Officers and Trustees of the American Society for Metals (1984-1985) Officers • • • • John W. Pridgeon President and Trustee Consultant Raymond F. Decker Vice President and Trustee Michigan Technological University M. Brian Ives Immediate Past President and Trustee McMaster University Frank J. Waldeck Treasurer Lindberg Corporation Trustees • • • • • • • • • Herbert S. Kalish Adamas Carbide Corporation William P. Koster Metcut Research Associates, Inc. Robert E. Luetje Armco, Inc. Richard K. Pitler Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation Wayne A. Reinsch Timet C. Sheldon Roberts Consultant Materials and Processes Gerald M. Slaughter Oak Ridge National Laboratory William G. Wood Technology Materials Klaus M. Zwilsky National Materials Advisory Board National Academy of Sciences • • Edward L. Langer Allan Ray Putnam Managing Director Senior Managing Director Members of the ASM Handbook Committee (1984-1985) • • • • • • • • • • • • • Thomas D. Cooper (Chairman 1984- ; Member 1981-) Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories Roger J. Austin (1984-) Materials Engineering Consultant Deane I. Biehler (1984-) Caterpillar Tractor Company Rodney R. Boyer (1982-) Boeing Commercial Airplane Company Wilson G. Dobson (1982-) Binary Engineering Associates Jess F. Helsel (1982-) Helsel Metallurgical, Inc. John D. Hubbard (1984-) HinderTec, Inc. Dennis D. Huffman (1983-) The Timken Company Conrad Mitchell (1983-) United States Steel Corporation David LeRoy Olson (1982-) Colorado School of Mines Ronald J. Ries (1983-) The Timken Company Derek E. Tyler (1983-) Olin Corporation Leonard A. Weston (1982-) Lehigh Testing Laboratories, Inc. Previous Chairmen of the ASM Handbook Committee Previous Chairmen of the ASM Handbook Committee • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R.S. Archer (1940-1942) (Member, 1937-1942) L.B. Case (1931-1933) (Member, 1927-1933) E.O. Dixon (1952-1954) (Member, 1947-1955) R.L. Dowdell (1938-1939) (Member, 1935-1939) J.P. Gill (1937) (Member, 1934-1937) J.D. Graham (1966-1968) (Member, 1961-1970) J.F. Harper (1923-1926) (Member, 1923-1926) C.H. Herty, Jr. (1934-1936) (Member, 1930-1936) J.B. Johnson (1948-1951) (Member, 1944-1951) L.J. Korb (1983) (Member, 1978-1983) R.W.E. Leiter (1962-1963) (Member, 1955-1958, 1960-1964) G.V. Luerssen (1943-1947) (Member, 1942-1947) Gunvant N. Maniar (1979-1980) (Member, 1974-1980) James L. McCall (1982) (Member, 1977-1982) W.J. Merten (1927-1930) (Member, 1923-1933) N.E. Promisel (1955-1961) (Member, 1954-1963) G.J. Shubat (1973-1975) (Member, 1966-1975) W.A. Stadtler (1969-1972) (Member, 1962-1972) Raymond Ward (1976-1978) (Member, 1972-1978) Martin G.H. Wells (1981) (Member, 1976-1981) D.J. Wright (1964-1965) (Member, 1959-1967) Staff ASM International staff who contributed to the development of the Volume included Kathleen Mills, Manager of Editorial Operations; Joseph R. Davis, Senior Technical Editor; James D. Destefani, Technical Editor; Deborah A. Dieterich, Production Editor; George M. Crankovic, Assistant Editor; Heather J. Frissell, Assistant Editor; and Diane M. Jenkins, Word Processing Specialist. Editorial Assistance was provided by Robert T. Kiepura and Bonnie R. Sanders. The Volume was prepared under the direction of William H. Cubberly, Director of Publications, and Robert L. Stedfeld, Assistant Director of Publications. Conversion to Electronic Files ASM Handbook, Volume 9, Metallography and Microstructures was converted to electronic files in 1998. The conversion was based on the Eighth Printing (1998). No substantive changes were made to the content of the Volume, but some minor corrections and clarifications were made as needed. ASM International staff who contributed to the conversion of the Volume included Sally Fahrenholz-Mann, Bonnie Sanders, Marlene Seuffert, Gayle Kalman, Scott Henry, and Robert Braddock. The electronic version was prepared under the direction of William W. Scott, Jr., Technical Director, and Michael J. DeHaemer, Managing Director. Copyright Information (for Print Volume) Copyright © 1985 by ASM INTERNATIONAL® All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright owner. This book is a collective effort involving hundreds of technical specialists. It brings together a wealth of information from worldwide sources to help scientists, engineers, and technicians solve current and long-range problems. Great care is taken in the production of this Reprint, but it should be made clear that NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ARE GIVEN IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PUBLICATION. Although this information is believed to be accurate by ASM, ASM cannot guarantee that favorable results will be obtained from the use of this publication alone. This publication is intended for use by persons having technical skill, at their sole discretion and risk. Since the conditions of product or material use are outside of ASM's control, ASM assumes no liability or obligation in connection with any use of this information. No claim of any kind, whether as to products or information in this publication, and whether or not based on negligence, shall be greater in amount than the purchase price of this product or publication in respect of which damages are claimed. THE REMEDY HEREBY PROVIDED SHALL BE THE EXCLUSIVE AND SOLE REMEDY OF BUYER, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHETHER OR NOT CAUSED BY OR RESULTING FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF SUCH PARTY. As with any material evaluation of the material under end-use conditions prior to specification is essential. Therefore, specific testing under actual conditions is recommended. Nothing contained in this book shall be construed as a grant of any right of manufacture, sale, use, or reproduction, in connection with any method, process, apparatus, product, composition, or system, whether or not covered by letters patent, copyright, or trademark, and nothing contained in this book shall be construed as a defense against any alleged infringement of letters patent, copyright or trademark, or as a defense against liability for such infringement. Comments, criticisms, and suggestions are invited, and should be forwarded to ASM International. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data (for Print Volume) Metals handbook. Includes bibliographies and indexes.Contents: v. 1. Properties and selection--v. 2.Properties and selection--nonferrous alloys and puremetals--[etc.]--v. 9. Metallography and microstructures. 1. Metals--Handbooks, manuals, etc. 1. American Society for metals. Handbook Committee. TA459.M43 1978 669 78-14934 ISBN 0-87170-007-7 (v. 1) SAN 204-7586 Printed in the United States of America Sectioning Introduction SECTIONING, the removal of a conveniently sized, representative specimen from a larger sample, is one of five major operations in the preparation of metallographic specimens. The other operations are mounting (optional), grinding, polishing, and etching. In many ways, sectioning is the most important step in preparing specimens for physical or microscopic analysis. Incorrect preparation techniques may alter the true microstructure and lead to erroneous conclusions. Because the microstructure should not be altered, conditions that may cause microstructural changes ideally should be avoided. However, hot and cold working accompany most sectioning methods. The damage to the specimen during sectioning depends on the material being sectioned, the nature of the cutting device used, the cutting speed and feed rate, and the amount and type of coolant used. On some specimens, surface damage is inconsequential and can be removed during subsequent grinding and polishing. The depth of damage varies with material and sectioning method (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Depth of deformation in different metals due to cutting method. (Ref 1) Sectioning methods discussed in this article include fracturing, shearing, sawing (using hacksaws, band saws, and wire saws), abrasive cutting, and electric discharge machining. Additional information can be found in Ref 1, 2, 3, 4. Sectioning methods discussed in this article include fracturing, shearing, sawing (using hacksaws, band saws, and wire saws), abrasive cutting, and electric discharge machining. Additional information can be found in Ref 1, 2, 3, 4. Fracturing Fracture surfaces can be obtained by breaking specimens with blows of a hammer or by steadily applying pressure. Controlled fractures can be produced by impact or tension testing, and the location of the fracture can be controlled by nicking or notching the material. Less brittle materials can be cooled in liquid nitrogen before breaking to obtain a flatter surface. Fracturing has also been used on other brittle materials, such as carbides and ceramics. Fracturing is not recommended, because it seldom follows desired directions, unless the sample is prenotched. Also, the fracture surface is the one usually prepared, and lengthy coarse grinding may be required to obtain a flat surface. Moreover, damage from fracturing can mask inherent features, obscuring the outside surface from microscopic examination. Shearing (Ref 1) Low-carbon sheet steel and other thin, reasonably soft materials can be cut to size by shearing, a fast, simple, effective sectioning technique. Although little heat is generated, shearing produces substantial deformation and is not recommended for materials sensitive to mechanical twin formation. The area affected by shearing must be removed by grinding. Sawing Sawing, perhaps the oldest sectioning method, can be performed using a hand-held hacksaw, a band saw, or an oscillating power hacksaw. Hand-held hacksaws or band saws, either vertical or horizontal, generally do not generate enough frictional heat to alter the microstructure; however, frictional heat can temper the blades enough to eliminate their cutting ability. Power hacksaws are not appropriate in the metallographic laboratory. This type of sectioning equipment can irreparably damage a material, particularly if it is prone to deformation. A power hacksaw should be used only to cut a larger piece down so that a smaller piece can be subsequently sectioned by some other means. Saw-cut surfaces are rough, and coarse grinding is required to obtain a flat surface prior to fine grinding. Although coolants should be used in any type of sectioning, band saw cutting can be performed without a coolant; the speed is slow enough that frictional heat is not detrimental to the material. In the case of power hacksaws, with their thicker and coarser blades, a coolant must be used, because the depth of deformation introduced by this severe method of sectioning can be quite deep. Abrasive Cutting (Ref 2) Abrasive cutting is the most widely used method of sectioning materials for microscopic examination and other material investigations. Conventional abrasive cutting using consumable wheels is the most popular method for routine metallographic sectioning, because it is fast, accurate, and economical. The quality of the cut surface obtained is often superior to that obtained by other means, and fewer subsequent steps may be required. Metal-matrix diamond blades handle such specialized applications as ceramics, rocks, very hard metallics, and printed circuit boards. Methods of abrasive cutting offer various cutting characteristics useful for most material sectioning situations. Figure 2 illustrates a typical abrasive cutting machine. Consumable-Abrasive Cutting Abrasive cutting is the sectioning of material using a relatively thin rotating disk composed of abrasive particles supported by a suitable medium. The thousands of particles contacting the material in rapid succession and at very high speeds section the material. Consumable-wheel abrasive cutting is often performed using a coolant, ensuring an almost plane surface without serious mechanical or thermal damage. In selecting a wheel for a particular application, the abrasive, bonding material, bond hardness, and density must be considered. Coolant, wheel speed, applied pressure, and wheel edge wear affect the quality of the cut. Table 1 lists problems and solutions of abrasive cutoff sectioning. Fig. 2 Typical abrasive cutter. (Buehler Ltd.) Table 1 Solutions for problems encountered in abrasive cutoff sectioning Problem Possible cause Solution Overheated specimen Increase coolant rate; lessen cutting pressure; choose softer wheel. Rapid wheel wear Wheel bond breaking down too rapidly Choose harder wheel; lessen cutting pressure. Frequent wheel breakage Uneven coolant distribution, loose specimen fixturing Distribute coolant uniformly; fix specimen rigidly. Resistance to cutting Slow wheel breakdown Choose softer wheel; reduce coolant flow; use oscillating stroke. Cutter stalls Cutter too light for the work Use heavier cutter; limit sample size. Burning discoloration) (bluish Source: Ref 2 Wheel Selection. Abrasive wheels afford more control over the conditions used than do other types of specimen sectioning. Many factors determine the suitability of a particular wheel when cutting a given material: • • • • • The nature of the abrasive The size of the abrasive grains The nature of the bond The hardness of the bond The porosity of the wheel Silicon carbide is preferred for cutting non-ferrous metals and nonmetals. Alumina (Al2O3) is recommended for ferrous metals. Coarse-grain wheels generally cut heavier sections faster and cooler, but fine-grain wheels produce smoother cuts with less burring. Fine-grain wheels are therefore recommended for cutting delicate materials, such as thin-wall tubing. Cutoff wheels with grit sizes from 60 to 120 are recommended for sectioning metallographic specimens. The surface finish does not require coarse grinding, and the grinding sequence usually can begin with a 180-grit silicon carbide. Resin-bonded wheels, which have very high cutting rates, are generally used for dry cutting and find application in plant production cutting. Wet cutting wheels require a rubber or rubber-resin bond and are used in metallographic laboratories. The rate of wheel deterioration depends on the type of bond used. Resin- and resinoid-bonded wheels generally break down more rapidly than rubber-bonded wheels. The rubber bond retains abrasive particles more tenaciously, resulting in slower wheel wear and more cuts per wheel. In addition, the rubber forms a solid bond; that is, there are no pores. However, resin used as a bond sets up in a polymerization process and there are extremely small pores throughout the wheel that may or may not be near abrasive grains. Therefore, resin-bonded wheels wear away faster, but always present a fresh cutting surface, because each abrasive grain is ejected before it becomes dull. The abrasive used is more important than the bond. Selection of bond is usually based on objections to the odor of burning rubber as the wheel degrades. Two terms used in selecting abrasive cutoff wheels are "hard" and "soft." These terms do not refer to the hardness of the abrasive grains but to how the wheel breaks down. Silicon carbide (approximately 9.4 on the Mohs scale) and Al2O3 (approximately 9.0) differ only slightly in hardness. A hard wheel (one made with hard bonding material) is usually best for cutting soft stock, but a soft wheel is preferred for cutting hard materials. A good general-purpose cutoff wheel is a medium-hard silicon carbide abrasive wheel. In rubber-resin wheels, the amount of bonding material and the percentage of free space determine the hardness or wheel grade. A more porous, less dense (softer) wheel breaks down faster because the abrasive particles are held more loosely. Softer wheel's are used because fresh, sharp abrasive grains are more frequently exposed. Less porous, more dense wheels are harder, break down slower, and are better for softer materials. Coolants. Water alone should not be used as a coolant for wet sectioning. A coolant should contain a water-soluble oil with a rust-inhibitor additive, which protects the moving parts of the cutoff machine, minimizes the possibility of burning, and produces better cuts. Some foaming of the coolant is desirable. The preferred cooling condition is submerged sectioning, in which the entire piece is under water. Submerged sectioning is recommended for heat-sensitive materials that undergo microstructural changes at low temperatures. For example, asquenched alloy steels with an untempered martensitic microstructure can readily transform to tempered martensite with the frictional heat developed. The quality of a submerged cut is excellent, and the specimens produced will not require extensive grinding. Section size, material, and hardness dictate whether submerged cutting can be employed. Submerged cutting will tend to make a wheel bond act harder. Wheel speed must be carefully considered in the design of a cutter and the selection of wheels for a given cutter. In the interest of safety, maximum operating speeds printed on the specific blade or wheel should never be exceeded. Also, increased wheel speed may introduce frictional heat, which damages the microstructure. Wheel edge wear may be used to determine whether the correct wheel has been selected. Abrasive wheels that show little or no wear are not performing satisfactorily. Controlled wheel loss indicates that the wheel bond is breaking down, exposing fresh abrasive grains for faster, more effective, and cooler cutting. Wheels that do not deteriorate fast enough may become glazed with specimen material, resulting in poor cutting and excessive specimen heating. Exerting additional pressure will most likely cause over-heating. The acceptable rate of wheel loss is: LR = M W where LR is wheel life ratio, M is area of material cut, and W is area of abrasive wheel consumed. In plant production cutting, resin-bonded wheels are commonly used without a coolant. Rate of cutting is the main concern, because this step probably precedes any heat treating. In this application, an M/W ratio of 1.5:1 is acceptable. In other words, 1.5 times more material should be cut as wheel area consumed. Shelf Life. Rubber-bonded wheels have a definite shelf life, which ranges from 12 to 18 months, depending on storage and climatic conditions. The rubber has a tendency to harden and become brittle. Storing abrasive wheels in an extremely warm area hastens the degradation of the rubber, further reducing shelf life. Abrasive wheels should be removed from their shipping containers and laid flat on a rigid surface in a relatively dry environment; they should never be hung on a wall or stored on edge, because warpage can occur. Resin-bonded wheels should be stored in the same manner as rubberbonded wheels; a dry atmosphere is particularly important. Storage in a high-humidity area can lead to early disintegration of the resin bond, because resin can absorb moisture, which eventually weakens the bond. Surface Damage. Abrasive-wheel sectioning can produce damage to a depth of 1 mm (0.04 in.). However, control of cutting speed, wheel pressure, and coolant application minimizes damage. Nonconsumable Abrasive Cutting The exceptional hardness and resistance to fracturing of diamond make it an ideal choice as an abrasive for cutting. Because of its high cost, however, diamond must be used in nonconsumable wheels. Diamond bort (imperfectly crystallized diamond material unsuitable for gems) that has been crushed, graded, chemically cleaned, and properly sized is attached to a metal wheel using resin, vitreous, or metal bonding in a rimlock or a continuous-rim configuration. Metal-bonded rimlock wheels consist of metal disks with hundreds of small notches uniformly cut into the periphery. Each notch contains many diamond particles, which are held in place with a metal bond. The sides of the wheel rim are serrated and are considerably thicker than the core itself, a construction that does not lend itself to delicate cutting. When cutting more ductile materials, the blades will require more frequent dressing. Rimlock blades are recommended for the bulk cutting of rocks and ceramics where considerable material loss may be tolerated. Kerosene or mineral spirits are used as the coolant/lubricant, and a constant cutting pressure or feed must be maintained to avoid damaging the rim. Continuous-rim resin-bonded wheels consist of diamond particles attached by resin bonding to the rim of a metal core. These blades are suitable for cutting very hard metallics, such as tungsten carbide, and nonmetals, such as highalumina ceramics, dense-fired refractories, and metal-ceramic composites. Water-base coolants are used. Wafering Blades. For precision cutting of metallographic specimens or thin-foil specimens for transmission electron microscopy, very thin, small-diameter wafering blades are used. These blades are usually constructed of diamond, metal powders, and fillers that are pressed, sintered, and bonded to a metal core. Wafering blades are available in high and low diamond concentrations. Lower concentrations are better for harder materials, particularly the nonmetals; higher concentrations are preferred for softer materials. Wafering blades may be used with diamond saws. Unlike some other methods of sectioning, the diamond saw uses relatively low speeds (300 rpm maximum) and a thin, continuous-rim diamond-impregnated blade to accomplish true cutting of nearly all solid materials. Applications include cutting of hard and soft materials, brittle and ductile metals, composites, cermets, laminates, miniature devices, and honeycombs. The as-cut surface is generally free of damage and distortion and is ready for microscopic examination with minimum polishing or other preparation. Figure 3 illustrates a typical low-speed diamond saw. Fig. 3 Typical low-speed diamond saw. (Leco Corp.) Wire Saws (Ref 3) The need to produce damage-free, single-crystal semiconductor surfaces for the electronics industry has generated interest in using the wire saw in the metallographic laboratory. Applications include: • • • • • • • • Removing samples from the bulk material Cutting electronic assemblies for failure analysis Cutting thin-wall tubing Cutting fiber-reinforced and laminated composite materials Cutting honeycomb structural materials (Fig. 4, 5) Cutting polymers (Fig. 6) Cutting metallic glasses (Fig. 7) Preparing thin specimens for transmission electron microscopy, electron probe micro-analysis, ion probe analysis, and x-ray diffraction analysis Fig. 4 Three pieces of honeycomb cut with a diamond wire saw. Note the absence of burrs and breakout. From left: titanium; section from helicopter rotor blade consisting of plastic, paper honeycomb, epoxy, stainless steel screws, and Kevlar; extruded ceramic honeycomb used in automotive catalytic converters. (Laser Technology, Inc.) Fig. 5 Kevlar honeycomb cut with a wire saw. (Laser Technology, Inc.) Fig. 6 Woven Kevlar cut with a wire saw. This material is used in bulletproof vests. When woven into thick pieces, it is used in tanks and is comparable to armor steel plate of equal thickness. (Laser Technology, Inc.) Fig. 7 Amorphous iron (Metglas) cut with a wire saw. Each laminate is 0.1 mm (0.004 in.) thick. (Laser Technology, Inc.) In principle, a fine wire is continuously drawn over the sample at a controlled force. Cutting is accomplished using an abrasive slurry applied to the wire, a chemical solution (generally acidic) dripped onto the wire, or electrolytic action. Although cutting rates are much lower than those of abrasive cutoff wheels, hacksaws, or band saws, the deformation produced is negligible, and subsequent grinding and polishing is often not necessary. Wire saws are available in a variety of designs. Some move the specimen into the wire, some move the wire into the specimen, some run horizontal, and some run vertical. A saw in which the wire runs vertical is advantageous if a specimen is to be removed from bulk material. In this case, the material is attached to an x-y table and is moved into the saw. Various methods have been devised for drawing the wire across the specimen. The endless-wire saw consists of a loop of wire fastened together at its ends and driven in one direction (Fig. 8). The oscillating wire saw passes a wire back and forth across the sample, usually with a short stroke. A variation of this technique employs a 30-m (100-ft) length of wire that is fed from a capstan across the workpiece and back onto the capstan. The direction of the capstan is reversed at the end of each stroke. The capstan is further shuttled back and forth to maintain the alignment of the wire regarding the pulleys. Abrasives. Any crystalline material can be used as an abrasive in wire sawing if the abrasive is harder than the specimen to be cut. Although natural abrasives, such as emery and garnet, have been used extensively, the best overall abrasive currently available is synthetic diamond. There are two methods for applying abrasives to the wire. Loose abrasive can be mixed with a liquid vehicle as a slurry to be applied at the kerf behind the wire, or the abrasive can be bonded to a stainless steel wire core. Fig. 8 Wire saw with an endless loop. (South Bay Technology, Inc.) In the first method, part of the abrasive remains with the specimen and erodes the wire. Furthermore, much of the abrasive is wasted, which precludes using diamond in a slurry. In the second method, all the abrasive moves with the wire to cut the specimen. Therefore, only a fixed quantity of abrasive is employed; diamond then becomes economically feasible. Figure 9 illustrates typical diamond-impregnated wires. Lubricants. Water is used in wire sawing with diamond- impregnated wire. This is not used to lubricate the cut, nor is it used to prevent heat buildup. The amount of heat generated is negligible, and lubrication of the wire is unnecessary. Water is used to wash out the debris that would accumulate above the wire and prevent the easy exit of the wire when the cut is complete. Force. As force is increased between the wire and the specimen, the bow in the wire increases, even though the wire is under maximum tension. Little is gained in cutting time by increasing the force. When the force is increased excessively, the bow becomes so great that the wire has a tendency to wander, which increases the kerf. When wandering occurs, more material is being cut away, and cutting time increases. This also shortens wire life. Therefore, high force with the resulting wider kerf is a poor alternative to lighter force with a straighter wire and a more accurate cut. Lighter force also yields a better finish. If the cut is to be flat at the bottom, the saw should be allowed to dwell for a short time with no force. Wire size mm in. 0.08 0.003 0.13 0.005 Diamond size, μm Kerf size mm in. 8 0.08 0.00325 20 0.14 0.0055 0.2 0.008 45 0.23 0.009 0.25 0.010 60 0.29 0.0115 0.3 0.012 60 0.34 0.0135 The force between the wire and the specimen ranges from 10 to 500 gf. As an example, for a specimen that is in limited supply, fragile, high priced, and/or delicate, a 0.08mm (0.003-in.) diam wire impregnated with 8-μm diamonds would be selected. The force between the wire and the crystal would range from 10 to 35 gf. The tension on the wire would be 500 to 750 gf, and the wire would travel 20 to 30 m/min (60 to 100 ft/min). When a firm, hard, tough specimen is to be cut and when surface damage poses little or no problem, the fastest and most economical method of cutting usually is best. For example, a 0.4-mm (0.015-in.) diam wire impregnated with 60-μm diamonds would be chosen. The tension on the wire would be approximately 6000 to 8000 gf. The machine would operate at 60 m/min (200 ft/min). The force between the wire and the specimen would range from 200 to 500 gf. Electric Discharge Machining (Ref 4) Electric discharge machining (EDM), or spark machining, is a process that uses sparks in a controlled manner to remove material from a conducting workpiece in a dielectric fluid (usually kerosene or transformer oil). A spark gap is Fig. 9 Diamond-impregnated wires generated between the tool and the sample, and the material is removed from the sample in the form of microscopic craters. The material produced by the disintegration of the tool and workpiece as well as by the decomposition of the dielectric is called "swarf." Sparking is done while the sample and tool are immersed in the dielectric. The dielectric must be kept clean to achieve the full accuracy capability of the instrument, and this is routinely accomplished by using a pump and filter attachment. Depending on the polarity of discharge, type of generator, and particularly the relative hardness of the sample and tool, material can be removed effectively and accurately. No contact is required between the tool and workpiece. The initial preparation of metallographic specimens for optical and transmission electron microscopy can be performed on EDM machines. Resulting samples have a surface finish of 0.13 μm (5 μin.), exhibit excellent edge definition, and can be less than 0.13-mm (0.005-in.) thick. A typical EDM setup is shown in Fig. 10. Depth of Damage. Electric discharge machining will damage the specimen to several millimeters or more in depth if precautions are not taken. Two criteria for assessing depth of damage are, first, depth of detectable damage, which is the depth at which the structure is altered as measured by the most sensitive process available, and, second, the depth of significant damage, which is the depth to which damage can be tolerated for the application intended. Four zones can be defined in the spark-affected surface layer. The most strongly affected layer is the melted zone, which can extend from fractions of a micron to hundreds of microns, depending on the instrumentation used. In electric discharge machining, sparks melt a shallow crater of metal in the melted zone. Most of this is ejected at the end of the spark. Some residual liquid material remains and freezes epitaxially onto the solid below, leaving the melted layer in tension and the layer beneath in compression. Deep melted layers can cause cracking. The second layer is the chemically affected zone, in which the chemical composition has changed perhaps because of reaction with the dielectric and the tool and diffusion of impurities. This zone is generally very small due to the time involved. The third layer is the microstrained zone, which is subjected to large compressive forces during the heating cycle and later during the shrinkage of the rapidly frozen molten layer. This zone can be detected by optical Fig. 10 Typical setup for electric discharge machining microscopy and is characterized by the presence of twins, slip, phase changes, and, sometimes, microcracks. The fourth layer is the submicrostrained zone. Damage in this layer can be detected only by counting dislocations. Slip, twinning, or cracking does not occur. Mounting of Specimens Introduction MOUNTING is often necessary in the preparation of specimens for metallographic study. Although bulk samples may not require mounting, small or oddly shaped specimens should be mounted to facilitate handling during preparation and examination. Sharp edges and corners are eliminated, increasing safety for the metallographer and avoiding damage to the papers and cloths used in preparation. Some automatic preparation devices require mounted specimens of a specific size and shape. Proper mounting of specimens also aids edge retention when such features as surface coatings are to be examined. In addition, uniformly sized and shaped specimens are convenient to prepare, view, and store. Standard mounts usually measure 25 mm (1 in.), 32 mm (1.25 in.), or 38 mm (1.5 in.) in diameter; mount thickness is often approximately one half the mount diameter. Thickness is important in proper metallographic preparation, because thin mounts are difficult to handle, and very thick mounts are difficult to hold flat during grinding and polishing. Mount size and shape are sometimes influenced by the size and shape of the specimen to be mounted as well as by the type of metallographic examination to be performed. For example, square or rectangular mounts are often used in x-ray diffraction examination, which requires a relatively large surface. Mounting of wire, tubing, sheet, and powder specimens requires special techniques that will be discussed below. Cleaning Prior to mounting, it is often necessary to clean specimens. Cleaning may also be indicated before plating for edge retention. With certain samples, such as those in which surface oxide layers are to be examined, cleaning must be limited to very simple treatments, or the detail to be examined may be lost. A distinction can be made between physically and chemically clean surfaces. Physical cleanliness implies freedom from solid dirt, grease, or other debris; chemical cleanliness, freedom from any contaminant. In metallographic work, physical cleanliness is usually adequate and nearly always necessary. Vapor degreasing is frequently used to remove oil and grease left on metal surfaces from machining operations, but ultrasonic cleaning is usually the most effective method for routine use. Specimens that require cleaning may be placed directly in the tank of the ultrasonic cleaner, but the cleaning solution must be changed frequently. This can be avoided by placing approximately 1 in. of water in the tank, then placing inside the tank a beaker containing the cleaning solution and the specimen. Cleaning times are usually 2 to 5 min, but very soft specimens can be damaged by the cavitation; therefore, ultrasonic cleaning should be limited to 30 s or less for these materials (Ref 1). Selection of Mounting Materials The first concern in selecting a mounting material and technique must be the protection and preservation of the specimen. Fragile or delicate specimens are subject to physical damage. The heat and pressure required for some mounting materials can alter microstructures. Shrinkage stresses can be high enough to pull a protective plating from the specimen, thus limiting edge retention. Moreover, the mount must have sufficient hardness, although hardness is not always an indication of abrasion characteristics. Grinding and polishing characteristics should ideally be similar to those of the specimen. The mount must also resist physical distortion caused by the heat generated during grinding and polishing as well as withstand exposure to lubricants, solvents, and etchants. The mounting material should be able to penetrate small pores, crevices, and other surface irregularities in the specimen. For some types of metallographic examination, such as scanning electron microscopy, and for electrolytic polishing, an electrically conductive mount is desirable. The mounting medium should be simple and fast to use and convenient to store. It should not be prone to formation of defects in the cured mount, such as cracks or voids. Transparent mounts are often advantageous. The mount material should present no health hazards, and it should be readily available at a reasonable cost. Because one mounting material or technique cannot fulfill every requirement, a variety of materials and methods are available. Proper selection will yield a mount that meets the most critical requirements. Mechanical Mounting Devices Mechanical clamping devices facilitate mounting and can be very effective, particularly in preparing transverse or longitudinal sheet surfaces. Clamps for this type of work are usually fabricated from approximately 6-mm (0.25-in.) thick plate stock, which can be cut into blocks of various sizes. A common size is approximately 12 mm by 38 mm (0.5 in. by 1.5 in.). Holes are drilled into each end of the clamp halves, and one half is threaded to receive a bolt of suitable length. Mating holes in the other half are drilled just large enough to clear the bolt threads. Specimens are then cut or sheared to a length that will fit between the bolts and sandwiched between the clamp halves. The clamp is placed in a vise, and the clamp bolts are tightened. The pressure used to hold the specimens within a mechanical clamp can be important. Insufficient pressure can result in seepage and abrasive entrapment. Too much pressure could damage the specimens. Spacers, often used with this type of mechanical mount, especially if specimen surfaces are rough, are thin sheets of such materials as copper, lead, or plastic. Specimens can also be coated with a layer of epoxy or lacquer before being placed in the clamp. For maximum edge retention, a spacer should have abrasion and polishing rates similar to those of the specimen. Material for the spacer and the clamp should be selected to avoid galvanic effects that would inhibit etching of the specimen. If the etchant more readily attacks the clamp or spacer, the specimen will not etch properly. Another common mechanical mount is a cylinder or other convenient shape in which the specimen is held by a set screw. Again, abrasion and polishing rates should approximate those of the specimen, and the mount should be inert to any solvents and etchants used or have the same reactivity as the specimen. Figure 1 illustrates three mechanical mounting devices. Fig. 1 Typical examples of clamps used for mechanical mounting. (Ref 2) Plastic Mounting Materials The various plastics used for metallographic mounting can be classified in several different ways, according to the technique used and the properties of the material. Plastics may be divided into one group that requires the application of heat and pressure and another group that is castable at room temperature. The former group is usually obtained as powders; the latter group, which requires blending of two components, may be obtained as two liquids or as a liquid and a solid. Plastics that require heat and pressure for curing are known as compression-mounting materials. These can be further divided into thermosetting resins and thermoplastic resins. Thermosetting resins require heat and pressure during molding, but can be ejected from the mold at the molding temperature. The two most widely used thermosetting resins are Bakelite and diallyl phthalate. Melamine, although rather brittle when used alone, and the recently developed compression-mounting epoxies have also been used. Bakelite, popular because of its low cost and convenience, is available as red, green, or black powders or as "premolds," which are already formed to standard mount sizes. Premolds can be used if the specimen is a uniform shape and if the initial application of pressure will not damage the specimen. Bakelite normally contains wood flour fillers but is also available as 100% resin (Bakelite amber). Depending on mold diameter, curing times for Bakelite vary from 5 to 9 min at 29 MPa (4200 psi) and 150 °C (300 °F). Curing times for premolds range from 3 to 7 min at the same pressure and temperature. Bakelite, however, exhibits relatively low hardness, limited abrasion resistance, significant linear shrinkage upon cooling, and limited edge protection. Typical properties of Bakelite and diallyl phthalate are given in Table 1. Table 1 Typical properties of thermosetting molding resins Resin Heat distortion temperature Molding conditions Temperature Pressure °C °F MPa psi Bakelite (woodfilled) 135170 275340 1729 25004200 Diallyl phthalate (asbestosfilled) 140160 285320 1721 25003000 Time, min Coefficient of thermal expansion in./in. °C(a) Abrasion rate, μm/min(b) Polishing rate, μm/min(c) Transparency Chemical resistance 100 2.9 Opaque Attacked by strong acids and alkalies 190 0.8 Opaque Attacked by strong acids and alkalies °C °F 5-12 140 285 3.0-4.5 10-5 6-12 150 300 3.5 × 10-5 × Source: Ref 1 (a) Determined by method ASTM D 648. (b) Specimen 100 mm2 (0.15 in.2) in area abraded on slightly worn 600-grit silicon carbide under load of 100 g at rubbing speed of 105 mm/min (4 × 103 in./min). (c) 25-mm (1-in.) diam mount on a wheel rotating at 250 rpm covered with synthetic suede cloth and charged with 4 to 8 μm diamond paste. Diallyl phthalate is available as a powder with mineral or glass filler. In glass-filled form, it will provide harder mounts and better edge retention than Bakelite. Although mineral-filled diallyl phthalate does not have specific edge retention properties, it and glass-filled diallyl phthalate exhibit good resistance to chemical attack, which is useful when using powerful etchants or etching at elevated temperatures. Depending on mold diameter, curing times for diallyl phthalate vary from 7 to 12 min at approximately 22 MPa (3200 psi) and 150 °C (300 °F). Copper-or aluminum-filled diallyl phthalate can be used as a conductive mount for electrolytic polishing or scanning electron microscopy. Compression-mounting epoxies provide low shrinkage and produce excellent edge retention. Molding time, pressure, and temperature are similar to those used for diallyl phthalate, but molding defects are less common. A mold release agent is generally required to prevent the mount from adhering to the ram. Thermoplastic resins also require heat and pressure during molding, but must be cooled to ambient temperature under pressure. These materials can be used with delicate specimens, because the required molding pressure can be applied after the resin is molten. Transparent methyl methacrylate (Lucite or Transoptic), polystyrene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and polyvinyl formal are some of the thermoplastic resins. Properties are listed in Table 2. Table 2 Typical properties of thermoplastic molding resins Resin Molding conditions Transparency Heating Cooling Temperature Pressure °C °F MPa psi Methyl methacrylate 140165 285330 1729 25004200 Polystyrene 140165 285330 17 Polyvinyl formal 220 430 Polyvinyl chloride 120160 250320 Source: Ref 1 Heat distortion temperature(a) Time (min) Temperature Pressure °C °F MPa psi 6 7585 165185 max max 6-7 2500 5 85 185212 max ... 27 4000 ... ... ... ... 0.7 100 nil 60 140 27 Coefficient of thermal expansion, in./in. °C Abrasion rate, μm/min(b) Polishing rate, μm/min(c) Chemical resistance Time (min) °C °F Water, white to clear 65 150 5-9 × 10-5 ... 7.5 Not resistant to strong acids and some solvents, especially ethanol 6 ... 65 150 ... ... ... ... ... ... Light brown, clear 75 165 6-8 × 18-5 20 1.1 Not resistant to strong acids 4000 ... Opaque 60 140 5-18 × 10-5 45 1.3 Resistant to most acids and alkalies (a) Determined by method ASTM D 648. (b) Specimen 100 mm2 (0.15 in.) in area abraded on a slightly worn 600-grit silicon carbide paper under load of 100 g at rubbing speed of 105 mm/min. (c) 25-mm (1-in.) diam mount on a wheel rotating at 250 rpm covered with a synthetic suede cloth and charged with 4-8 μm diamond paste. Because they must be cooled under pressure, thermoplastic resins are more difficult to use than thermosetting materials. Methyl methacrylate and polyvinyl formal have become prevalent because of their transparency, which can be a useful property when grinding and polishing must be controlled to locate a particular defect or area of interest. Other properties of thermoplastic resins are similar to those of thermosetting materials. Linear shrinkage upon cooling is high. Abrasion and polishing rates are generally lower than those of thermosetting materials, and fairly low heat distortion temperatures can result in softening of the mount if frictional heat generated during grinding and polishing is not controlled. Of the thermoplastics, PVC and polyvinyl formal display the best polishing characteristics (Ref 2). The chemical resistance of thermoplastics is good, although most are attacked by strong acids. Some are at least partially soluble in organic solvents, but all show good resistance to dilute acids and to alcohol except methyl methacrylate, which is partially soluble in alcohol To use thermoplastic powders, an initial pressure of 0.7 MPa (100 psi) must be applied while heating to approximately 150 °C (300 °F). Once that temperature is reached, pressure is increased to 29 MPa (4200 psi). The mount must be held at this pressure until it has cooled to approximately 40 °C (105 °F). This operation may require 40 min, but coolers (see below) can reduce this time significantly. Use of thermosetting or thermoplastic materials requires a heated press. These devices range from very basic to highly automated and share a general configuration. A high-capacity heater is placed around the mold for rapid heating. Radiator coolers, copper chill blocks, or water-cooled jackets are used for cooling after the heater is removed or turned off. Some presses incorporate heating and cooling devices in the same enclosure around the mold. Common problems in using compression-mounting materials are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Typical problems of compression-mounting materials Problem Cause Solution Too large a section in the given mold area; sharp cornered specimens Increase mold size; reduce specimen size. Excessive shrinkage of plastic away from sample Decrease molding temperature; cool mold slightly prior to ejection. Absorbed moisture; entrapped gasses during molding Preheat powder or premold; momentarily release pressure during fluid state. Too short a cure period; insufficient pressure Lengthen cure period; apply sufficient pressure during transition from fluid state to solid state. Thermosetting resins Insufficient molding pressure; insufficient time at cure temperature; increased surface area of powdered materials Use proper molding pressure; increase cure time. With powders, quickly seal mold closure and apply pressure to eliminate localized curing. Powdered media did not reach maximum temperature; insufficient time at maximum temperature Increase holding time at maximum temperature. Inherent stresses relieved upon or after ejection Allow cooling to a lower temperature prior to ejection; temper mounts in boiling water. Thermoplastic resins Castable resins, or cold-mounting materials, offer certain advantages over compression-mounting materials and possess properties that add flexibility to the mounting capabilities of metallographic laboratories. These plastics are usually classified as acrylics, polyesters, or epoxies. Various mold shapes can be used, but standard, cylindrical mount sizes are the most common. Castable materials usually consist of the resin and the hardener. Because hardening is based on the chemical reaction of the components, resin and hardener must be carefully measured and thoroughly mixed, or the mount may not harden. Table 4 lists common mold defects of castable materials. Table 4 Typical problems of castable mounting materials Problem Cause Solution Too violent agitation while blending resin and hardener Blend mixture gently to avoid air entrapment. Insufficient air cure prior to oven cure; oven cure temperature too high; resin-to-hardener ratio incorrect Increase air cure time; decrease oven temperature; correct resin-to-hardener ratio. Resin-to-hardener ratio incorrect; resin has oxidized Correct resin-to-hardener ratio keep containers tightly sealed. Acrylics Polyesters cure Resin-to-hardener ratio incorrect; incomplete blending of resin-hardener mixture Correct resin-to-hardener completely. ratio; blend mixture Resin-to-hardener ratio incorrect; incomplete blending of resin-hardener mixture Correct resin-to-hardener completely. ratio; blend mixture Insufficient air cure prior to oven cure; oven cure temperature too high; resin-to-hardener ratio incorrect Increase air cure time; decrease oven temperatures correct resin-to-hardener ratio. Too violent agitation while blending resin and hardener mixture Blend mixture gently to avoid air entrapment. Resin-to-hardener ratio incorrect oxidized hardener Correct resin-to-hardener ratio keep containers tightly sealed. Resin-to-hardener ratio incorrect; incorrect blending of resinhardener mixture Correct resin-to-hardener completely. Epoxies ratio blend cure mixture Acrylic materials require curing times of only approximately 30 min. They are simple to use and relatively foolproof. However, acrylics do not provide good edge retention. In addition, although referred to as cold-mounting materials, acrylics generate considerable heat during curing, which can be minimized by using mold materials with good heat conduction. Figure 2 shows how molding method can influence the magnitude of the exotherm of an acrylic material. Temperature versus time curves for Bakelite and for a castable epoxy are included. Polyesters generally require slightly longer curing times than acrylics and are not very sensitive to slight variations in the mixture. They exhibit less shrinkage than acrylics and show good chemical resistance to typical metallographic reagents. Epoxies have the lowest shrinkage of the castable resins. They adhere well to most other materials and are chemically resistant, except in concentrated acids. The epoxies are sensitive to variations in the resin-hardener mixture; however, premeasured packets are available. Curing times vary according to the specific formula used. Epoxies generate significant stresses during curing, which may damage delicate specimens. Various materials can be used as molds for castable plastics, including glass, disposable Bakelite or aluminum rings, aluminum foil, and silicone rubber cups. If the mold is to be reclaimed, a mold release agent, such as silicone oil or vacuum grease, should be used. Release agents are not necessary if flexible silicone rubber molds are employed; however, rubber molds tend to deteriorate when exposed to the epoxy hardener. One simple procedure begins by covering a flat plate with aluminum foil. Rubber cement is applied to one end of a disposable Bakelite ring form of the desired mount diameter, and this end is pressed against the foil. The specimen is placed inside the ring form with the side to be polished against the foil, and the mixed mounting material is poured around the specimen after the rubber cement hardens. After curing, the mount, permanently enclosed by the ring, can be easily removed from the foil. Because all castable resins produce vapors, mounting under a ventilation hood is preferred. Skin damage can also result from frequent contact with some materials, but these hazards are minimal if reasonable care is taken. Special Techniques Some specimens require special methods, such as mechanical mounting of thin-sheet specimens. Vacuum-impregnation mounting, mounting of small-diameter wire and tube specimens, mounting for edge retention, and electrically conductive mounting will be discussed. Vacuum impregnation techniques take full advantage of the good adherence and fluidity of castable epoxies and are frequently used with powdered specimens, in corrosion or failure analysis, and in mounting porous or fragile specimens. Vacuum impregnation removes air from pores, cracks, and crevices, allowing the epoxy to enter. This ensures complete bonding. Best results are obtained by adding the epoxy to the mold under vacuum, but the resin can be added under atmospheric pressure and the entire mold placed into the vacuum chamber until all air bubbles are removed. This generally takes approximately 10 min. When air is admitted to the vacuum chamber, the epoxy flows into any openings created by the vacuum. Cycling from air to vacuum to air several times aids in impregnation. Alternatively, the epoxy can be subjected to vacuum before it is added to the mold. The filled mold is then placed in the vacuum chamber. In one procedure for mounting metal powders using vacuum impregnation, a small amount of powder is placed in the center of the mold. Epoxy is poured around the powder, taking care not to disturb the specimen or cause it to segregate. The mold is then evacuated for approximately 10 min, repressurized, and allowed to cure at room temperature. Metal powders can also be blended with a small amount of epoxy to form a thick, pasty mixture. This mixture is poured into the mold, epoxy is added, and the mold is evacuated. For more information on mounting of metal powders, see the article "Powder Metallurgy Materials" in this Volume. Mounting of wire and tube can be a challenge, and several methods have been used. Holes or slots just large enough to hold the specimen can be machined into a preformed blank of cured or uncured resin into which the specimen is then inserted. For thermoplastic resins, simply repeating the molding cycle will hold the specimen in place. Thermosetting resins require more resin before the molding cycle is repeated. Another technique involves mounting the specimen horizontally in any plastic mounting material. This mount is then cut to reveal the cross section of the specimen, and the sectioned mount is remounted with the specimen in the desired position. One simple technique for mounting wire includes coiling the specimen into a spring, which is placed longitudinally in the mold. Polishing reveals transverse and longitudinal sections of the specimen. Wire specimens can also be fused inside pyrex glass capillary tubing. The tubing is heated until it collapses around the wire. If the specimen cannot be heated, it can be placed inside a capillary tube and vacuum impregnated with epoxy to produce a tight bond. Edge retention, often necessary in metallographic examinations, depends on the mounting material, the preparation technique used, and the use of fillers or plating. Mold filler materials include ground glass, cast iron grit, metal flakes, and pelletized alumina (Al2O3). Black or white pelletized Al2O3, available in three hardness grades and several sizes, is the most widely used. Use of black pelletized Al2O3 with a black mounting resin can reduce reflected light from the specimen surface and improve contrast between the specimen and the mount. Pelletized Al2O3 also effectively distributes the curing stresses in castable epoxies and protects delicate specimens from damage. Because of the very high hardness of Al2O3, grinding and polishing are slowed, and additional abrasive is often required. One of the most effective methods of edge preservation is plating, which can be carried out electrolytically or with electroless solutions. Nickel, copper, iron, chromium, and zinc are often used to electroplate specimens. The primary problem in electroplating is obtaining a clean specimen. Many of the cleaning methods used for industrial plating are too harsh for metallographic work, and plating can pull away from the surface of a contaminated sample. Internal stresses in the plating also influence adhesion. Electroless plating, therefore, is preferred for metallography. The specimen is dipped into the heated plating solution, and deposition proceeds at about the same rate as in electroplating. Penetration of rough or porous surfaces is usually better than electroplating, and internal stresses are low. Moreover, any type of metal or alloy can be plated using this method, regardless of electrical conductivity. In addition to enhancing edge retention, metallic coatings enhance contrast between the sample and the mounting material. Conductive mounts are useful for electrolytic polishing of specimens or for scanning electron microscopy. Plastic mounting materials are electrical insulators, but several methods are available that allow electricity to flow to the specimen. The most common is use of a metal filler material in the mount itself. Iron, aluminum, carbon, and copper have been used for this purpose; copper diallyl phthalate is a widely known conductive mounting material. Good conductivity can be achieved with approximately 10 vol% metal mixed with mounting plastic; however, coating the individual plastic particles with a conductor yields more reliable results. For example, PVC can be milled with carbon black to produce a conductive mounting material. Mount Marking and Storage After mounting, specimens are usually identified using hand scribers or vibrating-point engravers. Markings made with these tools can then be inked over to increase their visibility. If a transparent mounting material is used, a small metal tag or piece of paper bearing the identification can be included in the mount. An indelible ink must be used, but identification is then permanently visible and protected with the specimen. Specimens are usually stored in a dessicator to minimize surface oxidation during preparation and examination. Surfaces can also be coated with clear lacquer for preservation. The microstructure can be viewed through the lacquer, or the coating can be removed with acetone. Mechanical Grinding, Abrasion, and Polishing L.E. Samuels,Consultant Introduction INVESTIGATIONS OF THE STRUCTURES of metals are generally carried out on sections that have been cut from a bulk specimen. Frequently, only a single section surface is prepared, and the structural features exposed on this surface may be investigated using various techniques. All these techniques involve the reflection of some form of radiation from the section surface; an image of the surface is formed from the reflected radiation that allows variations in crystal structure or composition over the surface to be discerned. Visible light is commonly used for this purpose. The surface is examined by the human eye with or without magnification. Optical macrography and microscopy are examples. It is usually necessary first to treat the section surface by some chemical or physical process that alters the way light is reflected by the various structural constituents that have been exposed. Alternatively, a section surface may be investigated by probing with a beam of electrons in a high vacuum. Structures are revealed that in effect depend on how electrons are reflected off the surface; this may be determined by variations in topography or composition. Scanning electron microscopes and electron probe microanalyzers are examples of investigative techniques operating on these principles. It is possible also to use x-rays to determine variations in composition, as in x-ray fluorescent analysis, or to determine structural features that depend on crystal lattice spacing and orientation, as in x-ray microscopy and x-ray methods of determining internal stresses. Another group of techniques requires preparation of section surfaces on two parallel planes in close proximity. The radiation used is transmitted through the thin slice so formed. Transmission electron microscopy and diffraction are important examples of techniques that require this type of specimen. Three operations are generally involved in determining the structures of metals: (1) the preparation of a section surface, (2) the development of features on the surface that are related to the structure and can be detected by the examinational technique used, and (3) the examination itself. The overall effectiveness of the examination often is determined by the operation carried out least effectively, which too frequently is the preparation of the section surface. A preparation procedure must produce a surface that accurately represents the structure as it existed in the metal before sectioning. All structural features that should be detected by the particular examination technique being used must be detectable, and false structures must not be introduced. This is a more demanding requirement. Successful specimen preparation requires information based on systematic and objective experiments. Therefore, this article will illustrate how objective experiments and comparisons can be used to develop procedures that not only give better results, but also are simpler and less laborious. Principles useful as guidelines in the development of practical preparation procedures will be emphasized, rather than the details of those procedures. The other investigative techniques mentioned earlier are doubtless crucial in many research investigations and have pushed the frontiers of metallography far beyond what would have been possible by optical metallography alone. Nevertheless, most metallography in industry and in general investigations is still carried out by optical microscopy, so this article will also consider the preparation of surfaces for examination by optical microscopy. Because it is possible to deal here with only a limited number of concepts involved in preparing fully representative surfaces, the concepts selected illustrate the types of problems that arise and how their solutions may be approached systematically. Acknowledgement Some of the information and micrographs presented in this article originally appeared in Ref 1. Reference should be made to that publication for full details of the mechanical abrasion processes, the mechanisms by which they operate, their effects on the surfaces being produced, and the most efficient methods of carrying them out. Surface Preparation Any classification of the numerous processes used to cut a section, then to prepare the cut surface suitably for metallographic examination, inevitably is arbitrary and arguable. One convenient system, however, is to classify the processes as machining, grinding and abrasion, or polishing. Machining involves the use of tools having cutting edges of controlled shape, as in conventional machine shop practice. Examples are sawing, lathe turning, milling, and filing. These processes normally are used only for the preliminary stages of preparation and do not require particular attention here. Grinding and abrasion employ an array of fixed abrasive particles whose projecting points act as the cutting tools. In some of these processes, the particles are in effect cemented together into a block whose exposed surface is the working surface. This surface is "dressed" by fracturing the exposed abrasive particles to form an array of sharp points. Examples are abrasive cutoff wheels, grinding wheels, abrasive laps, and abrasive stones. In other processes, a layer of abrasive particles is cemented onto a cloth or paper backing, creating coated abrasive products such as papers, cloths, or belts. In still other processes, the abrasive particles are forced into a flat surface of a comparatively soft material where they are held as an array similar to that in a coated abrasive product. A range of surface speeds may be employed in any of these processes; it is convenient, therefore, to distinguish between grinding and abrasion. The term "grinding" denotes processes that employ high surface speeds with the possibility that significant heating of the surface layers of the specimen may occur. The term "abrasion" refers to processes that use low surface speeds and copious liquid coolant; significant heating of the specimen surface cannot occur. Polishing uses abrasive particles that are not firmly fixed but suspended in a liquid among the fibers of a cloth. The objective is to produce a bright mirrorlike, or specularly reflecting, surface, commonly referred to as a polished surface. Typical metallographic preparation procedures employ a sequence of machining or grinding stages of increasing fineness, then a sequence of abrasion processes of increasing fineness, followed by a sequence of polishing processes of increasing fineness until the desired surface finish has been achieved. Increasing fineness refers to the use of finer grades of abrasive to produce finer grooves or scratches in the surface. Therefore, metallographic preparation processes employ abrasive particles to remove material and to improve surface finish, two objectives that are not always compatible. It is not possible to discuss in detail how the processes operate (see Ref 1 for a more detailed treatment). Briefly, in grinding and abrasion, the abrasive points that contact the surface may be regarded as V-point cutting tools. The rake angles of these tools vary widely. Only a small proportion of the points have a configuration suitable for removing metal by cutting a chip, as in normal machining. The others plough a groove in the surface, displacing material laterally. Both processes produce scratches and impose severe plastic deformations on the outer layers of the surface. Most mechanical polishing procedures are similar to those for abrasion, except that only small forces are applied to individual abrasive particles by the fibers of the cloth that supports them. They therefore produce comparatively shallow, narrow scratches. Some very fine polishing procedures, however, remove material by less drastic mechanical processes that remove very small flakes of material. Some others occur largely by chemical dissolution processes. Barring these exceptions, the processes involved in grinding, abrasion, and polishing differ in degree rather than in kind. This is why any classification of preparation processes necessarily is arbitrary. Sections to be prepared are usually no larger than about 5 cm2 (0.78 in.2), although larger areas can be prepared if necessary. The specimen is mounted to facilitate handling; it is often molded into a plastic cylinder. Various plastics are available for this purpose, each with advantages and disadvantages in particular applications. A simple phenolic resin is often used when the sole requirement is to facilitate handling. At the simplest level the section surface, after preliminary machining, is rubbed by hand against the working surface of an abrasive paper supported on a flat backing surface. The working surface of the paper is flooded with a liquid. Waterproof abrasive papers, usually those coated with silicon carbide abrasive, are convenient because their working surfaces can be flushed continuously with water to remove the abrasion debris as it forms. The section surface is treated in this way, using successively finer grades of abrasive paper, usually to the finest available. The surface is then polished by rotating it by hand against a cloth that has been charged with a fine abrasive and an appropriate liquid, and then has been stretched across a flat backing surface. Several stages of polishing employing increasingly finer abrasives usually are necessary. Diamond, alumina (Al2O3), and magnesium oxide (MgO) are the abrasives most commonly used for polishing; colloidal silica is sometimes used. Mechanized processes are less time consuming and laborious than manual operations. The first step in mechanization is to drive the abrasive paper or polishing cloth. The paper or cloth is attached to the surface of a wheel that is rotated at a comparatively low speed in a horizontal plane. The specimen is held against the working surface of a wheel and rotated slowly in a direction opposite that of the wheel. The next step involves handling the specimen. This is more difficult because the specimen must be held and rotated so that the section surface is maintained precisely in a horizontal plane against the working surface of the abrasive or polishing wheel. The full surface must maintain contact with the working surface. The specimen should be rotated counter to the direction of wheel rotation. Several commercially available devices can perform this procedure. Most of them handle a batch of specimens that must be processed through the full preparation cycle on the machine. Some of these machines are highly automated, providing control of rotation speeds, pressure applied to the specimen, and polishing time. Mechanization is particularly useful when a large number of specimens must be handled. In addition, once optimum preparation parameters are established, they can be reproduced exactly without having to rely on the operator. Moreover, flatter surfaces are produced. Nevertheless, only the mechanics of the preparation procedure are affected, not the mechanisms or principles involved. The various steps proposed for an automated preparation sequence should be judged on this basis. Surface Preparation Any classification of the numerous processes used to cut a section, then to prepare the cut surface suitably for metallographic examination, inevitably is arbitrary and arguable. One convenient system, however, is to classify the processes as machining, grinding and abrasion, or polishing. Machining involves the use of tools having cutting edges of controlled shape, as in conventional machine shop practice. Examples are sawing, lathe turning, milling, and filing. These processes normally are used only for the preliminary stages of preparation and do not require particular attention here. Grinding and abrasion employ an array of fixed abrasive particles whose projecting points act as the cutting tools. In some of these processes, the particles are in effect cemented together into a block whose exposed surface is the working surface. This surface is "dressed" by fracturing the exposed abrasive particles to form an array of sharp points. Examples are abrasive cutoff wheels, grinding wheels, abrasive laps, and abrasive stones. In other processes, a layer of abrasive particles is cemented onto a cloth or paper backing, creating coated abrasive products such as papers, cloths, or belts. In still other processes, the abrasive particles are forced into a flat surface of a comparatively soft material where they are held as an array similar to that in a coated abrasive product. A range of surface speeds may be employed in any of these processes; it is convenient, therefore, to distinguish between grinding and abrasion. The term "grinding" denotes processes that employ high surface speeds with the possibility that significant heating of the surface layers of the specimen may occur. The term "abrasion" refers to processes that use low surface speeds and copious liquid coolant; significant heating of the specimen surface cannot occur. Polishing uses abrasive particles that are not firmly fixed but suspended in a liquid among the fibers of a cloth. The objective is to produce a bright mirrorlike, or specularly reflecting, surface, commonly referred to as a polished surface. Typical metallographic preparation procedures employ a sequence of machining or grinding stages of increasing fineness, then a sequence of abrasion processes of increasing fineness, followed by a sequence of polishing processes of increasing fineness until the desired surface finish has been achieved. Increasing fineness refers to the use of finer grades of abrasive to produce finer grooves or scratches in the surface. Therefore, metallographic preparation processes employ abrasive particles to remove material and to improve surface finish, two objectives that are not always compatible. It is not possible to discuss in detail how the processes operate (see Ref 1 for a more detailed treatment). Briefly, in grinding and abrasion, the abrasive points that contact the surface may be regarded as V-point cutting tools. The rake angles of these tools vary widely. Only a small proportion of the points have a configuration suitable for removing metal by cutting a chip, as in normal machining. The others plough a groove in the surface, displacing material laterally. Both processes produce scratches and impose severe plastic deformations on the outer layers of the surface. Most mechanical polishing procedures are similar to those for abrasion, except that only small forces are applied to individual abrasive particles by the fibers of the cloth that supports them. They therefore produce comparatively shallow, narrow scratches. Some very fine polishing procedures, however, remove material by less drastic mechanical processes that remove very small flakes of material. Some others occur largely by chemical dissolution processes. Barring these exceptions, the processes involved in grinding, abrasion, and polishing differ in degree rather than in kind. This is why any classification of preparation processes necessarily is arbitrary. Sections to be prepared are usually no larger than about 5 cm2 (0.78 in.2), although larger areas can be prepared if necessary. The specimen is mounted to facilitate handling; it is often molded into a plastic cylinder. Various plastics are available for this purpose, each with advantages and disadvantages in particular applications. A simple phenolic resin is often used when the sole requirement is to facilitate handling. At the simplest level the section surface, after preliminary machining, is rubbed by hand against the working surface of an abrasive paper supported on a flat backing surface. The working surface of the paper is flooded with a liquid. Waterproof abrasive papers, usually those coated with silicon carbide abrasive, are convenient because their working surfaces can be flushed continuously with water to remove the abrasion debris as it forms. The section surface is treated in this way, using successively finer grades of abrasive paper, usually to the finest available. The surface is then polished by rotating it by hand against a cloth that has been charged with a fine abrasive and an appropriate liquid, and then has been stretched across a flat backing surface. Several stages of polishing employing increasingly finer abrasives usually are necessary. Diamond, alumina (Al2O3), and magnesium oxide (MgO) are the abrasives most commonly used for polishing; colloidal silica is sometimes used. Mechanized processes are less time consuming and laborious than manual operations. The first step in mechanization is to drive the abrasive paper or polishing cloth. The paper or cloth is attached to the surface of a wheel that is rotated at a comparatively low speed in a horizontal plane. The specimen is held against the working surface of a wheel and rotated slowly in a direction opposite that of the wheel. The next step involves handling the specimen. This is more difficult because the specimen must be held and rotated so that the section surface is maintained precisely in a horizontal plane against the working surface of the abrasive or polishing wheel. The full surface must maintain contact with the working surface. The specimen should be rotated counter to the direction of wheel rotation. Several commercially available devices can perform this procedure. Most of them handle a batch of specimens that must be processed through the full preparation cycle on the machine. Some of these machines are highly automated, providing control of rotation speeds, pressure applied to the specimen, and polishing time. Mechanization is particularly useful when a large number of specimens must be handled. In addition, once optimum preparation parameters are established, they can be reproduced exactly without having to rely on the operator. Moreover, flatter surfaces are produced. Nevertheless, only the mechanics of the preparation procedure are affected, not the mechanisms or principles involved. The various steps proposed for an automated preparation sequence should be judged on this basis. Abrasion Damage and Abrasion Artifacts The obvious result of abrasion is a system of comparatively fine, uniform scratches on the surface of the specimen. Abrasion also produces a plastically deformed surface layer (disturbed metal) of considerable depth. The microstructure of this layer may be recognizably different from the true structure of the specimen. The general pattern of a surface layer that has been plastically deformed is shown in Fig. 1*, which depicts abraded 70-30 brass, an alloy in which the effects of prior plastic deformation can be easily revealed by a range of etchants. Also illustrated in Fig. 1 is a shallow, dark-etching, unresolved band contouring the surface scratches that is known as the outer fragmented layer; here the strains have been very large and the crystal structure has been altered as a result. Beneath this extends a layer in which the strains have been comparatively small and in which they tend to concentrate in rays extending beneath individual surface scratches. This is shown by the bands of etch markings, which develop at the sites of slip bands, and by the more diffuse rays, which indicate the presence of kink bands. These effects extend for many times the depth of the surface scratches. Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Annealed 70-30 brass. Fig. 1: taper section (horizontal magnification 600×, vertical magnification 4920×) of surface layers that were abraded on 220-grit silicon carbide paper. Fig. 2 and 3: results of abrading on 220-grit silicon carbide paper and then polishing until about 5 μm (Fig. 2) and 15 μm (Fig. 3) of metal are removed. The banded markings in Fig. 2 are false structures (abrasion artifacts). Figure 3 shows the true structure. Aqueous ferric chloride. 250× The importance of the surface damage in Fig. 1 is illustrated in Fig. 2 and 3. A sample of annealed 70-30 brass was abraded on 220-grit silicon carbide paper, then polished to remove a surface layer about 5 μm thick. Although all traces of the abrasion scratches were removed and what appeared to be a satisfactory surface was produced, the bands of deformation etch markings shown in Fig. 2 appeared when the surface was etched. When layers of greater thickness were removed during polishing, these bands were gradually reduced in number and intensity; they eventually were eliminated, as can be seen in Fig. 3, which shows the true structure. The bands of deformation etch markings in Fig. 2 are false structures introduced by the preparation process, or artifact structures. They clearly are related to the rays of deformation produced during abrasion, as shown in Fig. 1. Because the artifacts are the result of deformation introduced into the surface during abrasion, they may be called abrasion artifacts. Detectable microstructural changes in the abrasion-damaged layer are potential sources of abrasion artifacts in the final surface. Metals vary markedly in their susceptibility to the formation of abrasion artifacts. Highly alloyed copper alloys such as 70-30 brass, for example, are among the most sensitive. Etchants also vary in their ability to delineate abrasion damage. Because a major objective of metallographic preparation is to ensure that unrepresentative structures are not present in the surface to be examined, the metallographer must recognize abrasion artifacts, understand how these artifacts originate, and eliminate them when they are found. Each successive abrasion stage should remove the artifact-containing layer produced by the preceding abrasion stage. This takes longer than the time required simply to remove existing scratches, and places a premium on obtaining maximum possible material removal rates. The effectiveness of an abrasion stage must be judged on how quickly it removes the preexisting deformed layer. Also considered are the depths of the damaged layer and the scratches that abrasion produces. Similarly, the first objective of rough polishing must be effective removal of abrasion damage. This necessitates obtaining maximum material removal rates. The polishing processes with fast cutting rates usually produce comparatively coarse finishes. They must be followed by polishing processes that produce finer finishes. Only after the abrasion damage has been removed effectively by a rough-polishing process should attention be given to producing a final polish. The depth of the artifact-containing layer generally decreases as specimen hardness increases. It also decreases with increasing fineness of the abrasion stage until the working surface of the abrasion device clogs with metallic abrasion debris. Deep artifact-contai