Conferences and trade shows

How to Increase Your Materials Characterization Knowledge with EDAX

Sue Arnell, Marketing Communications Manager, EDAX

The EDAX Applications and Product Management teams have been very busy offering free ‘continuing education’ workshops in September and October – with a great global response from our partners and customers.

At the end of September, Applications Specialist Shawn Wallace and Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD) Product Manager Matt Nowell joined 6 additional speakers at a ‘Short Lecture Workshop for EBSD’, sponsored by EDAX at the Center for Electron Microscopy and Analysis (CEMAS) at The Ohio State University. The participants attended sessions ranging from ‘EBSD Introduction and Optimization of Collection Parameters for Advanced Application’ to ‘The Dictionary Approach to EBSD: Advances in Highly-Deformed and Fine-Grained Materials’.

Feedback on this workshop included the following comments, “This was a great learning opportunity after working with my lab’s EDAX systems for a couple of months”; “I like the diversity in the public and the talks.  I was very pleased with the overall structure and outcome”; and “Great! Very helpful.”

Matt Nowell presents at the ‘Short Lecture Workshop for EBSD’ at CEMAS, OSU.

In mid-October, EBSD Applications Specialist, Dr. Rene de Kloe traveled to India for a series of workshops on EBSD at the Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore), the International Advanced Research Center (Hyderabad), and the Indian Institute of Technology (Mumbai). Topics discussed at the sessions included:

• Effects of measurement and processing parameters on EBSD
• The application of EBSD to routine material characterization
• Defining resolution in EBSD analysis
• Three Dimensional EBSD analysis – temporal and spatial
• Advanced data averaging tools for improved EDS and EBSD mapping – NPAR™
• Microstructural Imaging using an Electron Backscatter Diffraction Detector – PRIAS™
• Transmission EBSD from low to high resolution

Dr. René de Kloe presents at one of three recent workshops in India.

According to our National Sales Manager in India, Arjun Dalvi, “We conducted this seminar at different sites and I would like to share that the response from all our attendees was very good. They were all eager to get the training from Dr. René and to take part in very interactive Q and A sessions, in which many analysis issues were solved.”

Global Applications Manager Tara Nylese was at the Robert A. Pritzker Science Center in Chicago, IL last week to give a presentation on “Materials Characterization with Microscopy and Microanalysis” for the Illinois Institute of Technology. “In this lecture, we started with a basic introduction to electron microscopy, and then dived deeper into the fundamentals of X-ray microanalysis. We explored both the basics of X-ray excitation, and how to evaluate peaks in an X-ray spectrum. From there, we looked at applied examples such as composition variation in alloys, chemical mapping of components of pharmaceutical tablets, and some fascinating underlying elemental surprises in biological materials.”

Finally, today we have 50 participants at the Geological Museum in Cambridge, MA for a training workshop given by Dr. Jens Rafaelsen and sponsored by Harvard University on “Taking TEAM™ EDS Software to the Next Level” * Presentation topics include:

• Basic operation of the TEAM™ EDS Analysis package
• How to get the most out of TEAM™ EDS Analysis
• Advanced training
• Tips and Tricks using TEAM™ EDS Analysis

Dr. Jens Rafaelsen presents at the Harvard workshop.

Here at EDAX, we are keen to provide our customers, potential customers, and partners with opportunities to improve their knowledge and polish their skills using the techniques, which are central to the EDAX product portfolio.  Our EDS, EBSD, WDS and XRF experts are keen to help with regular training sessions, webinars, and workshops. If you would like to be included, please check for upcoming webinarsworkshops, and training sessions at

*A video of these workshop sessions will be available from EDAX in the coming weeks.

EDAX China User Meeting in Guiyang 贵阳用户会流水帐

Dr. Sophie Yan, Applications Engineer China, EDAX

EDAX China User Meeting, Guiyang.

EDAX China User Meeting, Guiyang.

EDAX held a China user meeting in Guiyang, Guizhou province in July 2017. We had a wonderful time with over 100 customers and colleagues. The User Meeting was very interesting; the weather is cool in summer; and the activities after the meeting were great fun.. I have several pictures to show the different moments…
Generally, Guiyang is not very popular with Chinese people. In Shanghai, there are luxuries in Huaihai Road and crowds in Nanjing Road; in Beijing, you find the solemn Tiananmen Square and desolate The Great Wall, but in Guiyang, I just had an impression of a poverty-stricken mountain area. Then I met a friend from Guiyang, she also talked about poverty and the mountain area, but she was much more enthusiastic about the region. She said it was warm in winter and cool in summer; she said the mountain and water were so nice. She was a stylish girl, living an exquisite life; but she always wished she could go back to hometown earlier. From then on, Guiyang became a kind of mystery in my mind.
After so many years, when I arrived in Guiyang, the feeling of mystery and novelty disappeared. The airport looks great and the billboard is modern and impressive. It was no different from other places, except that it’s 10 degrees cooler than Shanghai. I shared this image in ‘wechat’ moments, then got a lot of ’likes’.

During the conference our VP Mark Grey came and delivered a corporate introduction. Nan Lin from Singapore and local applications showed new product information: EDS, EBSD, XRF, etc.
开会中……VP Mark过来作公司简介,新加坡的林楠以及国内的应用分别作产品介绍……EDS,EBSD,XRF,嗯,分工明确。

Invited speakers shared their research work in the afternoon. Each one generated lively discussion. The EDAX user meeting is not only an opportunity to show EDAX products, it is also a platform for users’ to communicate with each other and discuss current challenges in microanalysis.

Speakers at the China User Meeting 2017

Speakers at the China User Meeting 2017

Imagine the scenery outside. The weather forecast showed 29 degree(Celsius), but it was cool actually. Green trees and a humid atmosphere made the sultry summer go away.

The hotel located beside Guanshanhu Park, which was gorgeous.
No one was in this corner of the park. Red flowers were quietly in bloom.

We went to Huangguoshu waterfall! The white waterfall poured down. I felt the vapor and steam: it was amazing.
Just behind the hill, the water from the waterfall formed a lake, gentle and quiet.

We also experienced the different culture of the local ethnic minority. Terraced fields, bamboo buildings,songs and dance from local people. Attractive.

Finally, we are looking forward to the next user meeting in China!

Celebrating the 50th Birthday of Microanalysis

Sia Afshari, Global Marketing Manager, EDAX

The Microscopy & Microanalysis (M&M) Conference is celebrating 50 years of microanalysis at this year’s meeting in St. Louis next week. There is an entire session (A18.3) dedicated to the 50-year anniversary and the historical background of microanalysis from several different perspectives.

My colleague, Dr. Patrick Camus will be presenting the history of EDAX in his presentation, “More than 50 Years of Influence on Microanalysis” at this session and this is a must see for everyone who is at all interested in the historical development and advances in microanalysis!

Looking back at some of the images in the field of microscopy and seeing how far we have come from static spectrum collection to the standardless quantification of complex materials makes me wonder (in a good way!), about the future and especially about the technical possibilities in microanalysis.

Figure 1. Nuclear Diodes EDAX System Interfaced to Cambridge Stereoscan Scanning Electron Microscope – circa 1968

Pat will be describing the evolution of the company from Nuclear Diodes (1962) through EDAX International (1972) and purchase by Philips (1974) to acquisition by Ametek in 2001. Many accomplished microanalysts have been part of the EDAX team along the journey and have contributed enormously to the technical development of microanalysis. The advancements which have been made to date and those which will continue in the future would have not been possible without the dedication and hard work of all these pioneers in this field.

Figure 2. EDAX Element Silicon Drift Detector on a Scanning Electron Microscope – 2017.

At EDAX, which happens to be older than 50 years, I have been honored to meet some of the pioneers of microanalysis. I extend my gratitude to all those whose work has made it possible for us to enjoy the level of sophistication achieved today and we hope to continue their innovative tradition!

Please click here for more information on EDAX at M&M 2017.

To Attend, or Not to Attend Trade Shows? That is the Question!

Roger Kerstin – US Sales Manager, EDAX

From the point of view of a regional Sales Manager, for a long time, trade shows were the ultimate way to bring in new customers and reach many of your existing customers all at the same time. However, previously gigantic shows like Pittcon now continue to get smaller and smaller every year. When I attended my first Pittcon in 2000, it was so big that only a few venues in the country could host it. Now it seems that it could be placed anywhere and there is no longer a size issue. With more focus on the internet the trade shows almost seem like they are not needed any longer.


As you see I said almost. I do feel that participation in tradeshows is and will continue to be important for a long time both for vendors/exhibitors and customers/participants. As exhibitors, they allow us to meet with current customers, see new and exciting trends and/or products, and talk to potential new customers. All of this in one place. Yes, it can be expensive to attend these shows all the time, especially the larger ones but let’s just think about the cost in more detail. Let’s think about it from the perspective of the exhibitor. If we get 50 leads from a larger show that maybe costs $25,000. Wow, that’s $500 per lead. If I were to go out and try to visit 50 potential customers it would take weeks and there would be a lot of travel and a lot more expense. I would say that overall we would probably spend more to visit these 50 potential customers across the region and it would take 4-5 times as long. So not only are we spending more money, we are taking valuable time in doing so.

Sometimes I hear that the exhibitors are saying the show is too long, or that it was a waste of money. I can even say that I have said that in the past as well, but if we look at the bigger picture, it really isn’t that bad. At a trade show we not only have attendees that are there to look, learn, and possibly purchase products or services. They are also coming to see us or other companies like ours and we can be passive and not get a lot out of it or we can be nice, friendly, and accessible. If we are the latter, then we potentially can start up a new relationship with a new customer. At some shows we also have a team there that usually wouldn’t be with us on the door-to-door visits. At a show, we may have product support, sales, service and if needed can address all avenues with one meeting. Potential customers have a chance to see new technology advancements at close hand and can even request an individual demo at a given event. To do this elsewhere would be costlier and more time consuming for both us and for our customers.

EDAX with TESCAN at Pittcon 2017 EDAX at M&M 2016

Some of these large shows probably do need to be shortened as it seems at some of them, the last day is a time where the vendors meet vendors and not a lot of customers are coming around, but even on that note it could be beneficial as this is where we make connections with others doing similar things and there could potentially be partnerships or mutually beneficial outcomes. In short, I will continue to support the value of our events and tradeshow attendance – we look forward to seeing you at ‘M&M 2017’!

My Turn

Dr. Stuart Wright, Senior Scientist, EDAX

One of the first scientific conferences I had the good fortune of attending was the Eighth International Conference on Textures of Materials (ICOTOM 8) held in 1987 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I was an undergraduate student at the time and had recently joined Professor Brent Adams’ research group at Brigham Young University (BYU) in Provo, Utah. It was quite an introduction to texture analysis. Most of the talks went right over my head but the conference would affect the direction my educational and professional life would take.

Logos of the ICOTOMs I've attended

Logos of the ICOTOMs I’ve attended

Professor Adams’ research at the time was focused on orientation correlation functions. While his formulation of the equations used to describe these correlations was coming along nicely, the experimental side was quite challenging. One of my tasks for the research group was to explore using etch pits to measure orientations on a grain-by-grain basis. It was a daunting proposition for an inexperienced student. At the ICOTOM in Santa Fe, Brent happened to catch a talk by a Professor from the University of Bristol named David Dingley. David introduced the ICOTOM community to Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD) in the SEM. Brent immediately saw this as a potential experimental solution to his vision for a statistical description of the spatial arrangement of grain orientations in polycrystalline microstructures.

At ICOTOMs through the years

At ICOTOMs through the years

After returning to BYU, Brent quickly went about preparing to get David to BYU to install the first EBSD system in North America. Instead of etch pits, my Master’s degree became comparing textures measured by EBSD and those measured with traditional X-Ray Pole Figures. I had the opportunity to make some of the first EBSD measurements with David’s system. From those early beginnings, Brent’s group moved to Yale University where we successfully built an automated EBSD system laying the groundwork for the commercial EBSD systems we use today.

I’ve had the good fortune to attend every ICOTOM since that one in Santa Fe over 30 years ago now. The ICOTOM community has helped germinate and incubate EBSD and continues to be a strong supporter of the technique. This is evident in the immediate rise in the number of texture studies undertaken using EBSD immediately after EBSD was introduced to the ICOTOM community.

The growth in EBSD in terms of the percentage of EBSD related papers at the ICOTOMs

The growth in EBSD in terms of the percentage of EBSD related papers at the ICOTOMs

Things have a way of coming full circle and now I am part of a group of three (with David Fullwood of BYU and my colleague Matt Nowell of EDAX) whose turn it is to host the next ICOTOM in St George Utah in November 2017. The ICOTOM meetings are held every three years and generally rotate between Europe, the Americas and Asia. At ICOTOM 18 we will be celebrating 25 years since our first papers were published using OIM.
It is a humbling opportunity to pay back the texture community, in just a small measure, for the impact my friends and colleagues within this community have had both on EBSD and on me personally. It is exciting to consider what new technologies and scientific advances will be germinated by the interaction of scientists and engineers in the ICOTOM environment. All EBSD users would benefit from attending ICOTOM and I invite you all to join us next year in Utah’s southwest red rock country for ICOTOM 18! (

Some of the spectacular scenery in southwest Utah (Zion National Park)

Some of the spectacular scenery in southwest Utah (Zion National Park)

How To Get the Maximum Benefit from Visiting the Show Floor at a Microanalysis Conference.

Dr. Patrick Camus, Director of Research and Innovation, EDAX

Control 2016

This is the time of year when many analysts are scrambling to finalize details for the Microscopy & Microanalysis Conference – to be held this year in Columbus, OH. We too are striving to present our products in the best light for attendees to evaluate.

As conference attendees, you may well be coming with the task of evaluating and comparing software and equipment from a variety of vendors. Many will also be booking demonstrations, provided by the very capable application specialists of the representative companies. Their job, as well as mine, is to sell you the best product available, which obviously is from EDAX (wink, wink).

But what is your task for the week, and how should you prepare? I have a few universal topics that you might like to consider before you even hit the show floor.

Your primary task is to get enough information to make an educated decision about the best system at the fairest price to benefit the customers of your lab. That system may be the BEST IN THE WORLD system or it may have the absolute lowest price, but knowing the criteria before seeing the competing systems will help in balancing the cost and the benefits and select the best system for your lab.

Below I will present some criteria for system selection. I will use x-ray microanalysis systems as examples because that is the equipment that EDAX sells, but the approach is universal for all equipment purchases.

  • Understand and appreciate all the system specifications because they are the best indicators of the system quality and performance, but emphasize those that that you currently employ or realistically could implement. For instance, if you have a low-level SEM, do you or will you operate at the maximum beam current of the system? How often do you really operate under the conditions necessary to obtain resolutions specifications? Make sure you understand how the system operates AWAY from the conditions used for specifications. These deviations may be more indicative of how your users operate and how the system will be useful for them.
  • Appreciate aesthetics, but look beneath the system “skin” to actual technical performance substance. Do your current operators work that way or can they be retrained to work that way? Is the technology truly new or just re-skinned? The workflow may demo well, but do your operators work in that manner?
  • Ask about your projected local service engineers. Ask for an interview with them before the sale. Over the lifetime of the system, you will probably work with them more than anyone else at the company.
  • During a demo, perform tests under your typical or expected operating conditions to get a feeling for real-world performance in your lab. But also ask for suggested optimized conditions for better performance for future analyses. How much training is included or can be upgraded? Would training at your site or at the vendor site be more effective for those involved?

These are just a few of the topics that you should consider. This is a lot of preparation work to do before you even hit the show floor, but the answers to these topics will make your system selection that much more satisfying in the long run. And job satisfaction for you and your users goes a long way!

Cleaning Up After EBSD 2016

Matt Nowell, EBSD Product Manager, EDAX

I recently had the opportunity to attend the EBSD 2016 meeting, the 5th topical conference of the Microanalysis Society (MAS) in a series on EBSD, held this year at the University of Alabama. This is a conference I am particularly fond of, as I have been able to attend and participate in all 5 of these meetings that have been held since 2008. This conference has grown significantly since then, from around 100 participants in 2008 to around 180 this year. This year there were both basic and advanced tutorials, with lab time for both topics. There have also been more opportunities to show live equipment, with demonstrations available all week for the first time. This is of course great news for EDAX, but I did feel a little badly that Shawn Wallace, our EBSD Applications guru in the US, had to stay in the lab while I was able to listen to the talks all week. For anyone interested or concerned, we did manage to make sure he had something to eat and some exposure to daylight periodically.

This conference also strongly encourages student participation, and offers scholarships (I want to say around 70) that allow students to travel and attend this meeting. It’s something I try to mention to academic users all the time. I’m at a stage in my career now that I am seeing that people, who were students when I trained them years ago, are now professors and professionals throughout the world. I’ve been fortunate to make and maintain friendships with many of them, and look forward to seeing what this year’s students will do with their EBSD knowledge.

There were numerous interesting topics and applications including transmission-EBSD, investigating cracking, both hydrogen and fatigue induced, HR-EBSD, nuclear materials (the sample prep requirements from a safety perspective were amazing), dictionary-based pattern indexing, quartz bridges in rock fractures, and EBSD on dinosaur fossils. There were also posters on correlation with Nanoindentation, atom probe specimen preparation, analysis of asbestos, ion milling specimen preparation, and tin whisker grain analysis. The breadth of work was great to see.

One topic in particular was the concept of cleaning up EBSD data. EBSD data clean up must be used carefully. Generally, I use a Grain CI Standardization routine, and then create a CI >0.1 partition to evaluate the data quality. This approach does not change any of my measured orientations, and gives me a baseline to evaluate what I should do next. My colleague Rene uses this image, which I find appropriate at this stage:

Figure 1: Cleanup ahead.

Figure 1: Cleanup ahead.

The danger here, of course, is that further cleanup will change the orientations away from the initial measurement. This has to be done with care and consideration. I mention all this because at the EBSD 2016 meeting, I presented a poster on NPAR and people were asking about the difference is between NPAR and standard cleanup. I thought this blog would be a good place to address the question.

With NPAR, we average each EBSD pattern with all of the neighboring patterns to improve the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the averaged pattern prior to indexing. Pattern averaging to improve SNR is not new to EBSD, we used this with analog SIT cameras years ago, but moved away from it as a requirement as digital CCD sensors improved pattern quality. However, if you are pushing the speed and performance of the system, or working with samples with low signal contrast, pattern averaging is useful. The advantage of the spatial averaging with NPAR is that one does not have the time penalty associated with collecting multiple frames in a single location. A schematic of this averaging approach is shown here:

Figure 2: NPAR.

Figure 2: NPAR.

As an experiment, I used our Inconel 600 standard (nominally recrystallized), and found a triple junction. I then collected multiple patterns from each grain with a fast camera setting with corresponding lower SNR EBSD pattern. Representative patterns are shown below.

Figure 3: Grain Patterns.

Figure 3: Grain Patterns.

Now if one averages patterns from the same grain with little deformation, we expect SNR to increase and indexing performance to improve. Here is an example from 7 patterns averaged from grain 1.

Figure 4: Frame Averaged Example.

Figure 4: Frame Averaged Example.

That is easy though. Let’s take a more difficult case, where with our hexagonal measurement grid averaging kernel, we have 4 patterns from one grain and 3 patterns from another. The colors correspond to the orientation maps of the triplet junction shown below.

Figure 5: Multiple Grains

Figure 5: Multiple Grains.

In this case, the orientation solution from this mixed averaged pattern was only 0.1° from the pattern from the 1st grain, with this solution receiving 35 votes out of a possible 84. What this indicated to me was that 7 of the 9 detected bands matched this 1st grain pattern. It’s really impressive what the triplet indexing approach accomplishes with this type of pattern overlap.

Finally, let’s try an averaging kernel where we have 3 patterns from one grain, 2 patterns from a second grain, and 2 patterns from a third grain, as shown here:

Figure 6: Multiple Grains.

Figure 6: Multiple Grains.

Here the orientation solution misoriented 0.4° from the pattern from the 1st grain, with this solution receiving 20 votes out of the possible 84. This indicates that 6 of the 9 detected bands matched this 1st grain pattern. These example do show that we can deconvolute the correct orientation measurement from the strongest pattern within a mixed pattern, which can help improve the effective EBSD spatial resolution when necessary.

Now, to compare NPAR to traditional cleanup, I then set my camera gain to the maximum value, and collected an OIM map from this triple junction, with an acquisition speed near 500 points per second at 1nA beam current. I then applied NPAR to this data. Finally, I reduced the gain and collected a dataset at 25 points per second at the same beam current as a reference. The orientation maps are shown below with corresponding Indexing Success Rates (ISR) as defined by the CI > 0.1 fraction after CI Standardization. This is a good example of how clean up can be used to improve the initial noisy data, as NPAR provides a new alternative with better results.

Figure 7: Orientation Maps.

Figure 7: Orientation Maps.

We can clearly see that the NPAR data correlated well with the slower reference data with the NPAR data collected ≈ 17 times faster than the traditional settings.

Now let’s see how clean up (or noise reduction, although I personally don’t like this term as often we are not dealing with noise-related artifacts) compared to the NPAR results. To start, I used the grain dilation routine in OIM Analysis, which first determines a grain (I used the default 5° tolerance angle and 2 pixel minimum defaults), and then expands that grain out by one step per pass. The results from a single pass, a double pass, and dilation to completion (when all the grains are fully grown together) are shown below. If we compare this approach with the NPAR and As-Collected references, we see that dilation cleanup has brought the 3 primary grains into contact, but a lot of “phantom” artifact grains with low confidence index are still present (and therefore colored black).

Figure 8: Grain Dilation.

Figure 8: Grain Dilation.

The other clean up routine I will commonly use is the Neighbor Orientation Cleanup routine, which in principle is similar to the NPAR neighbor relation approach. Here, instead of averaging patterns spatially, from each measurement point we compare the orientation measurements of all the neighboring points, and if 4 of the 6 neighbors have the same orientation, we change the orientation of the measurement point to this new neighbor orientation. Results from this approach are shown here.

Figure 9: Neighbor Orientation Correlation.

Figure 9: Neighbor Orientation Correlation.

Now of course the starting data is very noise, and was intentionally collected at higher speeds with lower beam currents to highlight the application of NPAR. With initial data like this, traditional clean up routines will have limitations in representing the actual microstructure, and this is why we urge caution when using these procedures. However, clean up can be used more effectively with better starting data. To demonstrate this, a single pass dilation and single pass of neighbor orientation correlation was performed on the NPAR processed data. These results are shown below, along with the reference orientation map. In this case, the low confidence points near the grain boundary have been filled with the correct orientation, and more of the grain boundary interface has been filled in, which would allow better grain misorientation measurements.

Figure 10: NPAR Cleanup.

Figure 10: NPAR Cleanup.

When I evaluate these images, I think the NPAR approach gives me the best representation relative to the reference data, and I know that the orientation is measured from diffraction patterns collected at or adjacent to each measurement point. I think this highlights an important concept when evaluating EBSD indexing, namely that one should understand how pattern indexing works in order to understand when it fails. Most importantly, I think (and this was also emphasized at the EBSD 2016 meeting) that it is good practice to always report what approach was used in measuring and presenting EBSD data to better interpret and understand the measurements relative to the real microstructure.