A graph-theoretic approach for characterization of precipitates from atom probe tomography data

Abstract Atom Probe Tomography (APT) represents a revolutionary characterization tool that allows direct-space three-dimensional, atomic-scale resolution imaging along with the chemical identities of each detected atom. Quantitative analysis of APT data to perform characterization of precipitates in alloys gives clear insights into the structure–property relationships and helps in achieving the larger goal of materials-by-design. Most techniques currently used to extract precipitate topology and interface information from APT data are efficient; however, they are based on homogenization of the rich point cloud data which is inherently lossy. Furthermore, these methods require a specified, usually heuristic, concentration-level to draw iso-contours in order to extract characteristics of the precipitate topology. These twin issues of homogenization and heuristics are compelling rationale for the development of a robust, scalable, heuristic-free, graph-based framework, which we call Gra ph methods for P recipitate Top ology Characterization (GraPTop). This framework is motivated by the equivalence between a 3D point cloud data of atoms and an undirected, weighted, labeled graph. By considering the 3D point cloud data as an undirected, weighted, labeled graph, we leverage powerful graph-based algorithms to identify the local topology of precipitates without the necessity of any heuristics. Since GraPTop is based on nearly linear-complexity graph-algorithms, it is scalable to extremely large datasets. Furthermore, the performance of this framework is insensitive to the complexity of the geometry or the number of the precipitates in the point cloud data. We showcase this framework by analyzing several regions of interest in a point cloud Al–Mg–Sc (Aluminium–Magnesium–Scandium) specimen APT data and extract several interesting measures describing the precipitate topology like area, volume, and nonconvexity.

[1]  David N. Seidman,et al.  Subnanometer scale study of segregation at grain boundaries in an Fe(Si) alloy , 1998 .

[2]  David P. Dobkin,et al.  The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls , 1996, TOMS.

[3]  Alfred Cerezo,et al.  Three-dimensional atom probe analysis of green- and blue-emitting InxGa1−xN∕GaN multiple quantum well structures , 2008 .

[4]  Michael K Miller Characterization of the Early Stages of Phase Separation by Atom probe Tomography , 1999 .

[5]  P. Hertz,et al.  Über den gegenseitigen durchschnittlichen Abstand von Punkten, die mit bekannter mittlerer Dichte im Raume angeordnet sind , 1909 .

[6]  David N. Seidman,et al.  Application software for data analysis for three-dimensional atom probe microscopy , 2002 .

[7]  W. Lefebvre,et al.  Determination of matrix composition based on solute‐solute nearest‐neighbor distances in atom probe tomography , 2011, Microscopy research and technique.

[8]  David N. Seidman,et al.  Atomic-scale studies of silver segregation at MgO/Cu heterophase interfaces , 1996 .

[9]  Phillip B. Messersmith,et al.  Bioinspired antifouling polymers , 2005 .

[10]  Kai Uwe Totsche,et al.  Advanced spectroscopic, microscopic, and tomographic characterization techniques to study biogeochemical interfaces in soil , 2011, Journal of Soils and Sediments.

[11]  F Vurpillot,et al.  A new step towards the lattice reconstruction in 3DAP. , 2003, Ultramicroscopy.

[12]  Anna V. Ceguerra,et al.  A three-dimensional Markov field approach for the analysis of atomic clustering in atom probe data , 2010 .

[13]  B. Krakauer,et al.  Absolute atomic-scale measurements of the Gibbsian interfacial excess of solute at internal interfaces. , 1993, Physical review. B, Condensed matter.

[14]  A. Cerezo,et al.  A procedure for quantification of precipitate microstructures from three-dimensional atom probe data. , 2003, Ultramicroscopy.

[15]  David N. Seidman,et al.  Atomic scale studies of solute-atom segregation at grain boundaries: Experiments and simulations☆ , 1994 .

[16]  T. Philippe,et al.  Application of Delaunay tessellation for the characterization of solute-rich clusters in atom probe tomography. , 2011, Ultramicroscopy.

[17]  David A. Muller,et al.  Atomic-scale structure and chemistry of ceramic/metal interfaces-II. Solute segregation at MgO/Cu (Ag) and CdO/Ag (Au) interfaces , 1999 .

[18]  S. Chandrasekhar Stochastic problems in Physics and Astronomy , 1943 .

[19]  Michael K Miller,et al.  Atom Probe Tomography: Analysis at the Atomic Level , 2012 .

[20]  Seidman,et al.  Atomic scale studies of segregation at ceramic/metal heterophase interfaces. , 1995, Physical review letters.

[21]  K. Wilford,et al.  A sensitivity analysis of the maximum separation method for the characterisation of solute clusters. , 2011, Ultramicroscopy.

[22]  Olga Wodo,et al.  A graph-based formulation for computational characterization of bulk heterojunction morphology , 2012 .

[23]  Michael P Moody,et al.  New Techniques for the Analysis of Fine-Scaled Clustering Phenomena within Atom Probe Tomography (APT) Data , 2007, Microscopy and Microanalysis.

[24]  Emmanuelle A. Marquis,et al.  Applications of atom-probe tomography to the characterisation of solute behaviours , 2010 .

[25]  F Vurpillot,et al.  Structural analyses in three‐dimensional atom probe: a Fourier transform approach , 2001, Journal of microscopy.

[26]  Simon P. Ringer,et al.  Techniques for the Analysis of Clusters and Aggregations within Atom Probe Tomography , 2006, Microscopy and Microanalysis.

[27]  Mark de Berg,et al.  Computational geometry: algorithms and applications , 1997 .

[28]  Jason Schneir,et al.  Spatial Distribution Maps for Atom Probe Tomography , 2007, Microscopy and Microanalysis.

[29]  F Vurpillot,et al.  Application of Fourier transform and autocorrelation to cluster identification in the three‐dimensional atom probe , 2004, Journal of microscopy.

[30]  Anurag Tyagi,et al.  Atom probe analysis of interfacial abruptness and clustering within a single InxGa1−xN quantum well device on semipolar (101¯1¯) GaN substrate , 2011 .