view article
Figure 4
SAED patterns simulated using JEMS (Stadelmann, 2012BB24) for (a) a γ-Al2O3 nanocrystallite with idealized crystal structure, (b) with conservative APBs [(00l)\ {{1}\over{4}}\!\langle 110\rangle], (c) with non-conservative APBs [(00l)\ {{1}\over{4}}\!\langle 10{\overline 1}\rangle], (d) with rotational boundaries [(00l)] that resemble non-conservative APBs, (e) with non-conservative APBs [(hh0)\ {{1}\over{4}}\!\langle {\overline 1}0{\overline 1}\rangle] and (f) with conservative APBs [(hhh)\ {{1}\over{4}}\!\langle 10{\overline 1}\rangle] and [(hh{\overline h})\ {{1}\over{4}}\!\langle 1{\overline 1}0\rangle]. These SAED patterns correspond to the defect types shown in Fig. 3[link]. (g) The experimental SAED pattern once more for comparison. (h) The intensity profiles of the reflections 113 and 220 calculated using DIFFaX (Treacy et al., 1991BB25) for non-conservative APBs [(004)\ {{1}\over{4}}\!\langle 10{\overline 1}\rangle] with a probability of 10%.

IUCrJ
Volume 6| Part 1| January 2019| Pages 116-127
ISSN: 2052-2525
https://doi.org/10.1107/S2052252518015786