Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:29:19.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Atom Probe Reconstruction With a Locally Varying Emitter Shape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2018

Daniel Beinke  and
Guido Schmitz
Daniel Beinke*
Affiliation:
Institute of Materials Science, University of Stuttgart, Heisenbergstr. 3, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Guido Schmitz
Affiliation:
Institute of Materials Science, University of Stuttgart, Heisenbergstr. 3, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel Beinke, E-mail: Daniel.Beinke@mp.imw.uni-stuttgart.de
Get access

Abstract

An improved reconstruction method for atom probe tomography is presented. In this approach, the curvature of the field emitter is variable, in contrast to the conventional reconstruction technique. The information about the tip shape at different stages of the reconstruction is directly extracted from the local density of events on the detector. To this end, the detector and the tip surface are split into different segments. According to the density distribution of events observed on the detector, the size of the corresponding segment on the tip surface is calculated, yielding an emitter profile which is not necessarily spherical. The new approach is demonstrated for emitter structures with radial symmetry that contain a spherical precipitate with a substantially lower or higher evaporation field compared to the surrounding matrix. A comparison to the conventional point projection approach is made.

Keywords

atom probe tomographyvolume reconstructionvarying emitter shapedensity distributionlocal magnificationpoint projection
Type
Reconstruction
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 25 , Special Issue 2: Atom Probe Tomography and Microscopy APT&M 2018 , April 2019 , pp. 280 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2018 

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

Bas, P, Bostel, A, Deconihout, B and Blavette, D (1995) A general protocol for the reconstruction of 3D atom probe data. Appl Surf Sci 87/88, 298–304.Google Scholar
Beinke, D, Oberdorfer, C and Schmitz, G (2016) Towards an accurate volume reconstruction in atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 165, 34–41.Google Scholar
Deconihout, B, Vurpillot, F, Gault, B, Da Costa, G, Bouet, M, Bostel, A, Blavette, D, Hideur, A, Martel, G and Brunel, M (2007) Toward a laser assisted wide-angle tomographic atom-probe. Surf Interface Anal 39, 278–282.Google Scholar
De Geuser, F and Gault, B (2017) Reflections on the projection of ions in atom probe tomography. Microsc Microanal 23, 238–246.Google Scholar
De Geuser, F, Lefebvre, W, Danoix, F, Vurpillot, F, Forbord, B and Blavette, D (2007) An improved reconstruction procedure for the correction of local magnification effects in three-dimensional atom-probe. Surf Interface Anal 39, 268–272.Google Scholar
Felfer, P and Cairney, J (2016) A computational geometry framework for the optimisation of atom probe reconstructions. Ultramicroscopy 169, 62–68.Google Scholar
Gault, B, Haley, D, de Geuser, F, Moody, MP, Marquis, EA, Larson, DJ and Geiser, BP (2011a) Advances in the reconstruction of atom probe tomography data. Ultramicroscopy 111, 448–457.Google Scholar
Gault, B, Loi, ST, Araullo-Peters, VJ, Stephenson, LT, Moody, MP, Shrestha, SL, Marceau, RKW, Yao, L, Cairney, JM and Ringer, SP (2011b) Dynamic reconstruction for atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 111, 1619–1624.Google Scholar
Geiser, BP, Larson, DJ, Oltman, E, Gerstl, S, Reinhard, D and Kelly, TF (2009) Wide-field-of-view atom probe reconstruction. Microsc Microanal 15(Suppl S2), 292–293.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Gault, B, Geiser, BP, De Geuser, F and Vurpillot, F (2013) Atom probe tomography spatial reconstruction: Status and directions. Solid State Mater Sci 17, 236–247.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Geiser, BP, Prosa, TJ and Kelly, TF (2012) On the use of simulated field-evaporated specimen apex shapes in atom probe tomography data reconstruction. Microsc Microanal 18, 953–963.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Prosa, TJ, Ulfig, RM, Geiser, BP and Kelly, TF (2013) Local Electrode Atom Probe Tomography, A User’s Guide. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Loberg, B and Norden, H (1969) Observations of the field-evaporation end form of tungsten. Arkiv for Fysik 39, 383–395.Google Scholar
Marquis, EA, Geiser, BP, Prosa, TJ and Larson, DJ (2010) Evolution of tip shape during field evaporation of complex multilayer structures. J Microsc 241, 225–233.Google Scholar
Miller, M and Forbes, R (2014) Atom-Probe Tomography: The Local Electrode Atom Probe. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Miller, MK and Hetherington, MG (1991) Local magnification effects in the atom probe. Surf Sci 246, 442–449.Google Scholar
Oberdorfer, C, Eich, SM and Schmitz, G (2013) A full-scale simulation approach for atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 128, 55–67.Google Scholar
Oberdorfer, C and Schmitz, G (2011) On the field evaporation behaviour of dielectric materials in three-dimensional atom probe: A numeric simulation. Microsc Microanal 17, 15–25.Google Scholar
Oberdorfer, C and Schmitz, G (2014) TAPSim. Available at http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/imw/mp/forschung/atom_probe_RD_center/software.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rolland, N, Larson, DJ, Geiser, BP, Duguay, S, Vurpillot, F and Blavette, D (2014) An analytical model accounting for tip shape evolution during atom probe analysis of heterogeneous materials. Ultramicroscopy 159, 195–201.Google Scholar
Rolland, N, Vurpillot, F, Duguay, S and Blavette, D (2015) Dynamic evolution and fracture of multilayer field emitters in atom probe tomography: A new interpretation. Eur Phys J Appl Phys 72, 21001.10.1051/epjap/2015150233Google Scholar
Rolland, N, Vurpillot, F, Duguay, S, Mazumder, B, Speck, JS and Blavette, D (2017) New atom probe tomography reconstruction algorithm for multilayered samples: Beyond the hemispherical constraint. Microsc Microanal 23, 247–254.Google Scholar
Shariq, A, Mutas, S, Wedderhoff, K, Klein, C, Hortenbach, H, Teichert, S, Kücher, P and Gerstl, SSA (2009) Investigations of field-evaporated end forms in voltage- and laser-pulsed atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 109, 472–479.Google Scholar
Stender, P, Oberdorfer, C, Artmeier, M, Pelka, P, Spaleck, F and Schmitz, G (2007) New tomographic atom probe at University of Muenster, Germany. Ultramicroscopy 107, 726–733.Google Scholar
Suram, SK and Rajan, K (2013) Calibration of reconstruction parameters in atom probe tomography using a single crystallographic orientation. Ultramicroscopy 132, 136–142.Google Scholar
Vella, A (2013) On the interaction of an ultra-fast laser with a nanometric tip by laser assisted atom probe tomography: A review. Ultramicroscopy 132, 5–18.Google Scholar
Vurpillot, F, Bostel, A and Blavette, D (2000) Trajectory overlaps and local magnification in three- dimensional atom probe. Appl Phys Lett 76, 3127–3129.Google Scholar
Vurpillot, F, Cerezo, A, Blavette, D and Larson, DJ (2004) Modeling image distorsions in 3DAP. Microsc Microanal 10, 384–390.Google Scholar
Vurpillot, F, Gault, B, Geiser, BP and Larson, DJ (2013) Reconstructing atom probe data: A review. Ultramicroscopy 132, 19–30.Google Scholar