Conclusion
Based on the above considerations, the scanning electron microscope has unique capabilities for the study of fracture surfaces and should extensively replace the replication fractography currently used with the TEM. The most attractive advantages of the SEM are (a) direct examination, (b) no sample preparation, (c) accommodation of large size samples, (d) satisfactory resolution, (e) range of magnification from 20X to 100,000X, (f) very large depth of focus, and (g) capability to examine a specimen in a number of orientations. Despite the absence of diffraction in the SEM (which appears to be the only disadvantage of this process, at present), it is obvious that, for fractography purposes, scanning electron microscopy has an equally important or a greater role to play than TEM fractography in the coming years.
An excellent review of the SEM is provided in the book, Scanning Electron Microscopy—Applications to Materials and Device Science by P. R. Thornton, recently published by Barnes & Nobles, New York, and Chapman and Hall, London, 1968. See also Scanning Electron Microscopy—1968, Proceedings of a Symposium on Scanning Electron Microscope—The Instrument and Its Applications, IIT Research Inst., Chicago, April 1968.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
C. F. Tipper, D. I. Dagg, and O. C. Wells, “Surface Fracture Markings on Alpha Iron Crystals,” J. Iron Steel Inst., Vol. 193, 1959, p. 133.
J. T. McGrath, J. G. Buchanan, R. C. A. Thurston, “A Study of Fatigue and Impact Fractures with the Scanning Electron Microscope,” J. Inst. Metals, Vol. 91, 1962, p. 34.
F. R. Larson and F. L. Carr, “Tensile Fracture Surface Configuration of a Heat Treated Steel as Affected by Temperature,” Trans. AMS, Vol. 55, 1962, p. 599.
F. L. Carr and F. R. Larson, “Fracture Surface Configurations of AISI 4340 Steel as Affected by Temperature and Geometry,” Tech. Rept. WAL/TR, Vol. 320.10, Watertown Arsenal, Watertown, Mass., Jan. 1963.
A. Phillips, V. Kerlins, and B. Y. Whitson, “Electron Fractography Handbook,” Tech. Rept. ML-TDR-64-416 (AD 612912), Air Force Materials Lab., Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Jan. 31, 1965.
W. R. Warke and A. R. Elsea, “Electron Microscopic Fractography,” DMIC Memorandum 161, Defense Metals Information Center, Columbus, Ohio, Dec. 21, 1962.
R. M. N. Polloux, “The Analysis of Fracture Surfaces by Electron Microscopy,” Rept. No. D1-82-0169-R1, Boeing Scientific Research Laboratory, Seattle, Washington, Dec. 1963.
T. E. Everhart, “Contrast Formation in the Scanning Electron Microscope,” Memorandum ERL-M161, Eng. Res. Lab., University of California, Berkeley, California, Aug. 26, 1966.
C. W. Oattey, W. C. Nixon, and R. F. W. Rease, “Scanning Electron Microscopy,” Adv. in Electronics and Electron Phys., Vol. 21, 1965, p. 181.
C. W. B. Grigson, “Improved Scanning Electron Diffraction System,” Rev. Sci. Instr., Vol. 36, 1965, p. 1587.
A. W. Crewe, “Scanning Electron Microscopes: Is High Resolution Possible?” Science, Vol. 154, 1966, p. 729.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Johari, O. Comparison of Transmission Electron Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy of Fracture Surfaces. JOM 20, 26–32 (1968). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03378720
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03378720