Loading…

Visualization of three different phases in a multiphase steel by scanning electron microscopy at 1 eV landing energy

•Three phases in a multiphase steel were visualized at 1 eV by SEM.•These contrasts disappeared at 2 eV or higher.•Similar contrasts and phenomena were also observed in the results of LEEM.•The LEEM results suggest the origin of contrast as potential difference on surface. In this study, we investig...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ultramicroscopy 2019-09, Vol.204, p.1-5
Main Authors: Aoyama, Tomohiro, Mikmeková, Šárka, Hibino, Hiroki, Okuda, Kaneharu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:•Three phases in a multiphase steel were visualized at 1 eV by SEM.•These contrasts disappeared at 2 eV or higher.•Similar contrasts and phenomena were also observed in the results of LEEM.•The LEEM results suggest the origin of contrast as potential difference on surface. In this study, we investigated an observation technique by super low energy scanning electron microscopy (SLESEM) at below 5 eV and its contrast mechanism for analyzing complex microstructures of a multiphase steel consisting of ferrite, martensite and austenite. With SLESEM at 1 eV, the three phases were observed as different brightness levels, ferrite as the darkest contrast, martensite as the second brightest and austenite as the brightest. These contrasts disappeared at 2 eV or higher. Similar contrasts and phenomena were also observed in the results of low energy electron microscopy (LEEM). According to the energy dependences of the LEEM intensities of the three phases, the threshold energies of the transition from electron reflection to surface impact were determined to be 0.00 eV, 0.15 eV and 0.39 eV for ferrite, martensite and austenite, respectively. These differences in thresholds indicate that the potentials on the surfaces of each phase are different, which is considered to result in the different brightness of each phase. This potential differences are probably due to the contact potentials generated when phases with different work functions contact each other. Although the sample is covered by a thin native oxide film (several nm thickness), the potentials can affect the incident electrons through the oxide film. [Display omitted]
ISSN:0304-3991
1879-2723
DOI:10.1016/j.ultramic.2019.04.014