Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T06:02:26.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transmission Electron Microscopy Specimen Preparation of Ceramic Coatings on Ceramic Fibers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

M. K. Cinibulk ,
J. R. Welch  and
R. S. Hay
R. S. Hay
Affiliation:
Wright Laboratory Materials Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-7817
Get access

Abstract

A method of preparing transmission electron microscopy (TEM) specimens of coated ceramic fibers has been developed that produces large areas containing many electron transparent fibers, due to the minimal preferential milling of the epoxy matrix. Multiple individual fibers or tows are impregnated with a high-temperature epoxy and contained to assure a high fiber-to-epoxy volume ratio. The samples are then sectioned and mechanically thinned either parallel or normal to the fiber axes using a wedge polisher on diamond lapping films to achieve a thickness of less than 5 μm. The thinned sample is then ion-milled to electron transparency in less than 30 min, giving representative specimens of the coating, fiber, and coating-fiber interface. This technique is also well suited to preparing extremely flat specimens for both light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy analysis of thin coatings.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 480: Symposium Z – Specimen Preparation for Transmission Electron Microscopy…IV , 1997 , 3
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Howitt, D.G., J. Electron Microsc. Tech., 1 405 (1984).Google Scholar
2. Mah, T., Hecht, N.L., McCullum, D.E., Hoenigman, J.R., Kim, H.M., Katz, A.P., and Lipsitt, H.A., J. Mater. Sci., 19 1191 (1984).Google Scholar
3. Bradley, S.A., Dietz, N.L., and Karakek, K.R., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 115 115 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Maniette, Y., J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 9 48 (1990).Google Scholar
5. Berger, M.H. and Bunsell, A.R., J. Mater. Sci. Lett., 12 825 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Cinibulk, M.K., Welch, J.R., and Hay, R.S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 79 2481 (1996).Google Scholar
7. Hay, R.S., Petry, M.D., Keller, K.A., Cinibulk, M.K., and Welch, J.R., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 365 377 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Cinibulk, M.K. and Hay, R.S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 79 1233 (1996).Google Scholar
9. Cinibulk, M.K., J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 80 453 (1997).Google Scholar
10. Boakye, E., Petry, M.D., and Hay, R.S., Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc., 17 53 (1996).Google Scholar
11. Boakye, E., Hay, R.S., and Petry, M.D., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., in press.Google Scholar
12. Klepeis, S.J., Benedict, J.P., and Anderson, R.M., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 115 179 (1988).Google Scholar
13. Benedict, J.P., Klepeis, S.J., Vandygrift, W.G., and Anderson, R., Electron Microsc. Soc. Am. Bull., 19 74 (1989).Google Scholar
14. Benedict, J., Anderson, R., and Klepeis, S.J., Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 254 121 (1992).Google Scholar