1-20 of 1131 Search Results for

SEM

Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account

Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Close Modal
Sort by
Image
Published: 01 December 1992
Fig. 2 SEM micrographs of surface defects on sample SEM 1. (a) Intersection of pores with surface and dendritic structure.(b)Higher-magnification view of dendrites. More
Image
Published: 01 December 1992
Fig. 3 SEM micrographs of surface defects on sample SEM 1. (a) Over view of defect that intersects surface A. The dendritic structure is typical of shrinkage porosity. Note tear Edges and beach marks that appear to emanate from this defect. (b) Higher-magnification view of the fracture surface More
Image
Published: 01 December 1992
Fig. 4 SEM micrographs of sample SEM 2. (a) Overview of the surface defects in group 2. The vertical lines are grinding marks. (b) Higher-magnification view of the dendritic structure af the pore indicated by the arrow in (a).The dendrites are slightly masked by a corrosion product. More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 6 SEM Micrograph of Opened Crack in 1989 EB Welded Stage More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 7 SEM Micrograph Representative of Particles on Mercury Diffusion Pump Stage More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 17 SEM Micrographs of Pits from Inside 1988 EB More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 18 SEM Micrographs of Pits Inside 1988 MP More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 6 Photograph of specimen cut from NRC-1. The locations of SEM samples 5–10 are marked. More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 6 SEM micrograph (right) and EDXA spectra (left) of a longitudinal section of nitride lead cable (the specimen was etched and re-polished). More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 6 SEM fractograph showing typical fatigue features through the weld metal More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 9 SEM fractograph of typical fatigue fracture that propagated through the pipe wall. Notice distinct fine-scale fatigue striations. More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 7 SEM fracture face of CERT #11 tested in air—Intergranular (approximately 70%) type fracture More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 6 Crack details from acetate replica (SEM, 5% nital etch). More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 9 Conventional metallography of crack details (SEM, 2% nital etch). More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 11 Corrosion deposits within crack removed by acetate replica (SEM, 5% nital etch). More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 9 Optical (a) and SEM (b) Micrographs of Fracture Surface Topography. Small Arrows Indicate Initiation Site ( Figure 5 ) and Double Arrows Indicate Fatigue Striations. Large Arrows Indicate Fusion Boundary (a) and Large Fusion Zone Grains (b). More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 2 SEM photograph showing circumferential cracks along the inside diameter of one of the failed tubes. More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 3 SEM fractographs (a,b) showing chloride particles on a tube fracture face. More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 4 SEM fractograph showing the intergranular fracture mode of the tubes. More
Image
Published: 01 June 2019
Fig. 5 SEM micrographs showing the fracture surfaces: (a) F1 surface, near fracture origin, i.e., nugget, (b) F1 surface, away from the origin. Note the intergranular cracks. More