JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ARCH-METALS Archives


ARCH-METALS Archives

ARCH-METALS Archives


ARCH-METALS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARCH-METALS Home

ARCH-METALS Home

ARCH-METALS  May 2010

ARCH-METALS May 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: requesting information on iron analysis

From:

DILLMANN Philippe <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Arch-Metals Group <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 28 May 2010 12:14:09 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Hi all,



I would like to add some commentaries to the (excellent) email of Chris.

To my opinion the most important point is: "what is the scientific question when you want to determine the carbon (or the P) content (or whatever). Actually, because the ancient iron based  artifact are highly heterogeneous(particularly the one obtained by the bloomer process), the expression of a very local carbon content, has no sense. Moreover express an something as an average representative content is also very difficult. An archaeological ferrous artifact obtained by the bloomery process can only be understood by looking the most complete transverse section as possible.

To make a long story short, a single carbon content data is past useless. We must take into account:

- the heterogeneity of the sample

- the presence of P, Ni, As 

- the grain size, hammering deformation, presence of inclusion etc



If the question is "was the alloy of good quality", or "was is resistant to traction, shock etc", "was it expensive", "was it rare", the answer is not the same and the analytical method is not the same.



An example: we made several tensile test on iron bars reinforcing the Vincennes Dungeon (XIVth c.), mainly constituted of ferrite but with various P and slag inclusion contents and, on the same bar (10 samples) we observed about 10 different behaviors !, from very brittle to very ductile...



I also totally agree with the remark on EDS (despite I like this technique because of its flexibility). False measurements are very easy to do, especially with porous samples. This point will be even more crucial in the future because of the appearance of new systems that allow by combining SDD detector and image analyses, to analyze automatically about 100- 1000 points in a very short time (I remember the very nice examples showed by Chris in Plas Tan Bwlch during the "Pater Crew" congress). 







Philippe Dillmann

responsable du Laboratoire Archéomatériaux et Prévision de l'Altération

IRAMAT LMC CNRS UMR5060 et SI2SM LAPA CEA/CNRS UMR3299

00 33 1 69 08 14 69



Adresse postale:

LAPA/SIS2M

Bat 637

CEA Saclay

91191 Gif sur Yvette Cedex





-----Message d'origine-----

De : Arch-Metals Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la part de Chris Salter

Envoyé : jeudi 27 mai 2010 16:42

À : [log in to unmask]

Objet : Re: requesting information on iron analysis



Dear Amalia,



     The reason why your SEM-EDS analysis will give a high value is that 

it analyzing the signal from the carbon laid down on the surface by the 

electron beam cracking the vacuum gas. It is possible to perform carbon 

analysis in a EPMA - a specialized SEM using wavelength dispersive 

spectrometers and running a better vacuum and anti-contamination systems 

than in a standard SEM but even then it is difficult. I have done it but 

normal would send samples off to LECO if destructive analysis was 

possible. However, if you are considering conservation this method 

looses a lot of information that you can obtain using metallography and 

specially when combined with EPMA or LA-ICMS.

     The metallography will give a fairly good estimate of the carbon 

content - a standard undergraduate metallurgy practical as outline by 

other than have replied and it is quick. When combined with hardness or 

micro-hardness testing it will also give an indication of the mechanical 

history of the metal from data such as grain shape and size (but 

phosphorus will have a big effect on this so has to be considered). The 

levels of phosphorus will be barely detectable in a normal SEM can be 

significant, both on expression of the iron-carbon microstructures and 

the hardness of  the metal. Phosphorus will alter the corrosion 

properties of the metal especially where there are large changes in 

chemistry with respect to the adjacent metal. This effect on corrosion 

can be seen in the lower part of the images in the below URLwhere 

corrosion has gone in along a zone of high phosphorus material.



http://users.ox.ac.uk/~salter2/Lowbury/Sword_Section.html



I would beware of using EDX analyses from SEMs in general, the technique 

has a great tendency to be misused. The results should only be treated 

as semi-quantitative unless you have gone through the full 

standardization procedure, which is rarely the case from my experience, 

and run a secondary standard to check that there are no problems with 

the analysis. The analysis has to be run under exactly the same 

conditions as the standards. These conditions include obvious things 

such as accelerating voltage and processing time, but also using the 

correct working distance and the correct beam, sample, detector 

geometry. A few degrees tilt on the sample will throw the results off 

several percent. That is before thinking about problems caused by the 

nature of the electron-beam sample interaction and and the X-ray sample 

interaction. Therefore, unless all these variables are controlled or 

fulfil the assumptions made in the correction programs the result will 

be wrong. In this case, the program assumes that the carbon is even 

distributed through the interaction volume, whereas the contamination is 

only a thin film on the surface. However, the program corrects for the 

substantial absorption of  the C X-rays coming from depth hence the very 

high carbon content.



Chris



On 27/05/2010 10:27, Amalia Siatou wrote:

> dear all,

>

> I'm a metals conservator from Greece doing a master in materials science. Part of my thesis is the study of archaeological iron and bronze. I came across some difficutlies in measuring the carbon content of archaeological iron (roman nails). Using SEM-EDS the percentage measured was particularly high (almost 10%) which doesn't follow the dating of the objects. Furthermore, I was anable to find adequate equipment to perform chemical analysis.

> Do you know of a different method of estimating the carbon percentage in iron?

>

> thank you in advance

>

> sincerely

> Amalia Siatou

>    





-- 

Chris Salter

Senior Analyst,

BegbrokeNano,

Department of Materials,

Begbroke Science Park,

Sandy Lane, Kidlington,

OX5 1PF

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager