{"title":"CALCULATION OF TEXTURE VOLUME FRACTIONS BY INTEGRATION AND GAUSSIAN FITTING","authors":"M. Cortie","doi":"10.1155/TSM.29.155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of texture volume fractions has proved useful in the assessment of the \norientation distributions of polycrystalline samples. Unfortunately, there is more than \none method of calculating volume fractions, and the different techniques may give rather \ndifferent answers. The three most commonly used methods appear to be calculation \nfrom the coefficients of the harmonic function, integration over a selected portion of an \norientation distribution function (ODF), or decomposition of an ODF into component \nGaussian ideal textures by a least squares fitting. The integration and Gaussian fitting \nmethods are examined further here. In particular, the nature of the errors or differences \narising from the method of integration or fitting chosen, the differing interpretations of \nthe shape and ‘spread’ of the ideal texture, and the effect of neglecting texture components \nlying outside of the H0 subspace are considered. Integration of a volume enclosed \nby one or more cylinders defined in Eulerian space seems the most robust technique. It is \nusually, but not always, acceptable to neglect the effect of texture components lying \noutside of H0. However, it is vital that the ‘spread’ of the ideal texture component be \nprecisely defined, and the texture volume fraction is very sensitive to the magnitude of \nthe spread as well as to the geometric shape assumed for it.","PeriodicalId":129427,"journal":{"name":"Textures and Microstructures","volume":"189 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Textures and Microstructures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/TSM.29.155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16
Abstract
The concept of texture volume fractions has proved useful in the assessment of the
orientation distributions of polycrystalline samples. Unfortunately, there is more than
one method of calculating volume fractions, and the different techniques may give rather
different answers. The three most commonly used methods appear to be calculation
from the coefficients of the harmonic function, integration over a selected portion of an
orientation distribution function (ODF), or decomposition of an ODF into component
Gaussian ideal textures by a least squares fitting. The integration and Gaussian fitting
methods are examined further here. In particular, the nature of the errors or differences
arising from the method of integration or fitting chosen, the differing interpretations of
the shape and ‘spread’ of the ideal texture, and the effect of neglecting texture components
lying outside of the H0 subspace are considered. Integration of a volume enclosed
by one or more cylinders defined in Eulerian space seems the most robust technique. It is
usually, but not always, acceptable to neglect the effect of texture components lying
outside of H0. However, it is vital that the ‘spread’ of the ideal texture component be
precisely defined, and the texture volume fraction is very sensitive to the magnitude of
the spread as well as to the geometric shape assumed for it.