Texture

My Fossil Background

Dr. René de Kloe, Applications Specialist, EDAX

Call me old-fashioned, but when I want to relax I always try to go outdoors, away from computers and electronic gadgets. So when I go on vacation with my family we look for quiet places where we can go hiking and if possible we visit places with interesting rocks that contain fossils. Last summer I spent my summer vacation with my family in the Hunsrück in Germany. The hills close to where we stayed consisted of shales. These are strongly laminated rocks that have been formed by heating and compaction of finegrained sediments, mostly clay, that have been deposited under water in a marine environment. These rocks are perfect for the occurrence of fossils. When an organism dies and falls on such a bed of clay and is covered by a successive stack of mud layers, it can be beautifully preserved. The small grains and airtight seal of the mud can give a very good preservation such that the shape of the plant or animal can be found millions of years later as a highly detailed fossil. Perhaps the most famous occurrence of such fossil-bearing shale is the Burgess shale in British Columbia, Canada which is renowned for the preservation of soft tissue of long-extinct creatures. The Hunsrück region in Germany may not be that spectacular, but it is a lot closer to home for me and here also beautiful fossils have been found.

Figure 1. Crinoid or sea lily fossil found in the  waste heap of the Marienstollen in Weiden, Germany.

Figure 2. Detail of sulphide crystals.

Figure 3. Example of a complete crinoid fossil (not from the Hunsrück area). Source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fossile-seelilie.jpg

So, when we would go hiking during our stay we just had to pack a hammer in our backpack to see if we would be lucky enough to find something spectacular of our own. What we found were fragments of a sea lily or crinoid embedded in the rock (Figures 1,3) and as is typical for fossils from the area, much of the fossilised remains had been replaced by shiny sulphide crystals (Figure 2). Locally it is said that the sulphides are pyrite. FeS2. So of course, once back home I could not resist putting a small fragment of our find in the SEM to confirm the mineral using EDS and EBSD. The cross section that had broken off the fossil showed smooth fracture surfaces which looked promising for analysis (Figure 4). EDS was easy and quickly showed that the sulphide grains were not iron sulphide, but instead copper bearing chalcopyrite. Getting EBSD results was a bit trickier because although EBSD bands were often visible, shadows cast by the irregular surface confuse the band detection (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Cross section of shale with smooth sulphide grains along the fracture surface.

Figure 5. EBSD patterns collected from the fracture surface. Indexing was done after manual band selection. Surface irregularities are emphasized by the projected shadows.

Now the trick is getting these patterns indexed and here I do like computers doing the work for me. Of course, you can manually indicate the bands and get the orientations of individual patterns, but that will not be very helpful for a map. The problem with a fracture surface is that the substrate has a variable tilt with respect to the EBSD detector. Parts of the sample might be blocking the path to the EBSD detector which complicates the EBSD background processing.

The EDAX EBSD software has many functions to help you out of such tight spots when analyzing challenging samples. For example, in addition to the standard background subtraction that is applied to routine EBSD mapping there is a library of background processing routines available. These routines can be helpful if your specimen is not a “typical” flat, well-polished EBSD sample. This library allows you to create your own recipe of image processing routines to optimize the band detection on patterns with deviating intensity gradients or incomplete patterns due to shadowing.

The standard background polishing uses an averaged EBSD pattern of more than ~25 grains such that the individual bands are blended out. This produces a fixed intensity gradient that we use to remove the background from all the patterns in the analysis area. When the actual intensity gradient shifts due to surface irregularities it is not enough to just use such a fixed average background. In that case you will need to add a dynamic background calculation method to smooth out the resulting intensity variations.

This is illustrated in the EBSD mapping of the fossil in Figure 6. The first EBSD mapping of the fossil using standard background subtraction only showed those parts of the grains that happened to be close to the optimal orientation for normal EBSD. When the surface was pointing in another direction, the pattern intensity had shifted too much for successful indexing. Reindexing the map with optimised background processing tripled the indexable area on the fracture surface.

Figure 6. Analysis of the fracture surface in the fossil. -1- PRIAS center image showing the smooth sulphide grains, -2- Superimposed EDS maps of O(green), Al(blue), S(magenta), and Fe(orange) -3- EBSD IPF on IQ maps with standard background processing, -4- original IPF map, -5- EBSD IPF on IQ maps with optimized background processing, -6- IPF map with optimized background.

In addition to the pattern enhancements also the band detection itself can be tuned to look at specific areas of the patterns. Surface shadowing mainly obscures the bottom part of the pattern, so when you shift the focus of the band detection to the upper half of the pattern you can maximize the number of detected bands and minimize the disturbing effects of the edges of the shadowed area. It is unavoidable to pick up a false band or two when you have a shadow, but when there are still 7-9 correct bands detected as well, indexing is not a problem.

Figure 7. Band detection on shadowed EBSD pattern. Band detection in the Hough transform is focused at the upper half of the pattern to allow detection of sufficient number of bands for correct indexing.

In the images below are a few suggestions of background processing recipes that can be useful for a variety of applications.

Of course, you can also create your own recipe of image processing options such that perhaps you will be able to extract some previously unrecognized details from your materials.

Aimless Wanderin’ in 3D (Part 3)

Dr. Stuart Wright, Senior Scientist, EDAX

In my research on the origins of the term texture to describe preferred lattice orientation I spent some time looking at one of the classic texts on the subject: Bunge’s “red bible” as we called it in our research group in grad school – Texture Analysis in Materials Science Mathematical Methods (1969). As I was reading I found an interesting passage as it relates to where we are with EBSD today:

“In a polycrystalline material crystallites of different shape, size and orientation are generally present. It can thus also occur that regions of different orientation are not separated from one another by unequivocally defined grain boundaries, but that, on the contrary, the orientation changes continuously from one point to another. If one desires to completely describe the crystal orientation of a polycrystalline material, one must specify the relevant orientation g for each point with coordinates x, y, z within the sample:

g=g(x,y,z)           (3.1)

If one writes g in EULER’s angles, this mean explicitly

φ_1=φ_1 (x,y,z);  Φ=Φ(x,y,z);  φ_2=φ_2 (x,y,z);           (3.2)

One thus requires three functions, each of these variables, which are also discontinuous at grain boundaries. Such a representation of the crystal orientation is very complicated. Where therefore observe that it has as yet been experimentally determined in only a very few cases (see, for example, references 139-141, 200-203), and that its mathematical treatment is so difficult that it is not practically applicable.”

I don’t quote these lines to detract in any way from the legacy of Professor Bunge in the field of texture analysis. I did not know Professor Bunge well but in all my interactions with him he was always very patient with my questions and generous with his time. Professor Bunge readily embraced new technology as it advanced texture analysis forward including automated EBSD. I quote this passage to show that the ideas behind what we might today call 3D texture analysis were germinated very early on. The work on Orientation Coherence by Brent Adams I quoted in Part 2 of this series was one of the first to mathematically build on these ideas. Now with serial sectioning via the FIB or other means coupled with EBSD as well as high-energy x-ray diffraction it is possible to realize the experimental side of these ideas in a, perhaps not routine but certainly, tractable manner.

A schematic of the evolution from pole figure-based ODF analysis to EBSD-based orientation maps to 3D texture data.

Others have anticipated these advancements as well. In chapter 2 of Rudy Wenk’s 1985 book entitled Preferred Orientation in Deformed Metal and Rocks: An introduction to Modern Texture Analysis it states:

“Pole figures and fabric diagrams provide information only about the orientation of crystals. It may be desirable to know the relation between the spatial distribution of grains and grain shape with respect to crystallographic orientation. Orientation relations between neighboring grains further defined the fabric and help to elucidate its significance.”

But let us return to the theme of aimless wanderin’s in texture terminology. The title for Chapter 4 of Bunge’s book is “Expansion of Orientation Distribution Functions in Series of Generalized Spherical Harmonics”. This chapter describes a solution the determination of the three-dimensional ODF (orientation distribution function) from two-dimensional pole figures. The chapter has a sub-title “Three-Dimensional Textures”. The three dimensions in this chapter of Bunge’s book are in orientation space (the three Euler Angles). What we call today a 3D texture is actually a 6D description with three dimensions in orientation space and three spatial dimensions (e.g. x, y and z). And those working with High-Energy x-rays have also characterized spatially resolved orientation distributions for in-situ experiments thus adding a seventh dimension of time, temperature, strain, …

It is nice to know in the nearly 50 years since Bunge’s book was published that what can sometimes appear to be aimless wanderin’s with mixed up terminology has actually lead us to higher dimensions of understanding. But, before we take too much credit for these advances in the “metallurgical arts”, as it says on the Google Scholar home page we “stand on the shoulders of giants” who envisioned and laid the groundwork for these advances.

Aimless Wanderin’ at the Meso-Scale (Part 2)

Dr. Stuart Wright, Senior Scientist, EDAX

If my memory is functioning correctly, I believe Val Randle coined the term “meso-texture” to describe the texture associated with the misorientations at grain boundaries.

I confess that, whenever I hear the term, I chuckle. This is because of a humorous memory tied to the first paper I was involved with. I was an undergraduate at Brigham Young University (BYU) at the time. The lead author, Brent Adams, later became my PhD advisor. The ideas presented in this work became the motivation behind my PhD work to automate EBSD.

B. L. Adams, P. R. Morris, T. T. Wang, K. S. Willden and S. I. Wright (1987). “Description of orientation coherence in polycrystalline materials.” Acta Metallurgica 35: 2935-2946.

The paper describes some impressive work on the mathematical side by Brent and Peter and painstaking work by Tong-Tsung Wang who did hundreds of manual orientation measurements from individual grains in several planar sections of aluminum tubing using selected area diffraction. My role was digitize the microstructures in such a way that the two-point orientation correlations could be computed. The following is an example of one section plane from this work.

Digitized microstructure of one half of one section of a total of 10 sections used in the calculation of the orientation coherence function for aluminum tubing. Each grain number represents a individual grain orientation measurement.

The experimental work was a major undertaking. Thus, Brent Adams was so interested to hear David Dingley’s talk on EBSD at ICOTOM 8 in Santa Fe in 1987 shortly after this paper was published. Brent envisioned a fully automated system to link crystallographic orientation with microstructure via EBSD.

One of the interesting findings of this work was the discovery of a Meso-Structure:

“The strong implication of Table 2 is that there exists a new scale of microstructure in the material (and presumably in other polycrystalline materials) which has not previously been characterized, or even observed except in a qualitative manner. It seems appropriate to identify this new scale of microstructure as mesostructured since it clearly pertains to clusters or aggregates of grains or crystallites”

Greek statue who seems to be suppressing a chuckle.
Source: www.britannica.com/art/Archaic-smile

After this paper was published Brent received a letter from Sir Charles Frank. Sir Charles expressed his interest and appreciation for the ideas presented in the work. However, he objected to the term Meso-Structure. One of his objections was that “Meso” has its roots in Greek, but “Structure” is Latin. He didn’t like that we were mixing words of different etymological origins. I have to think this criticism was given “tongue in cheek” as the term microstructure with which Sir Charles was well familiar also mixes Greek and Latin. Thus, whenever I hear the term mesotexture used to describe grain boundary or misorientation texture I have to chuckle given it’s mix of the Greek “meso” and Latin “texture”.

I’m not sure what the best term is to describe the preferred misorientation of grain boundaries. The community uses the terms misorientation, disorientation, orientation difference and others sometimes as synonyms and at other times with differences in meaning. As all aimless wanderin’s tend to leave crisscrossing tracks, I note that my first exposure to the use of Rodrigues Vectors, which lend themselves well to describing misorientation, was by Sir Charles Frank at ICOTOM 8 in Santa Fe.

I hope my aimless wanderin’s through odd terminology and anecdotal history doesn’t leave you too disoriented 😊

(Next in this series are some ruminations on the term “3D texture”).

Aimless Wanderin’? – Part One

Dr. Stuart Wright, Senior Scientist, EDAX

On a recent transatlantic flight I passed the time watching one of my favorite movies: Oh Brother! There are a lot of great quotable lines in this movie. One that seems appropriate for this blog entry is from the lead character: Ulysses Everett McGill

“Say, uh, any a you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin’?”

Source: Rudy Wenk

While, in theory, I am “trained in the metallurgic arts”, my travels sometimes feel like “aimless wanderin’” and sometimes my mind follows suit – especially on long flights. In this series of entries for the EDAX Blog, I would like to take you on some “wanderin’s” through some of the terminology, history and personalities surrounding EBSD. Let’s begin with “texture”.

My global wanderings aren’t always aimless and I often learn some interesting things. At some recent conferences, I saw several interesting textures measured using neutron diffraction; for example, works by Heinz-Günther Brokmeier, Sven Vogel, Raul Bolmaro and others. Generally, these textures were measured over large volumes, such as from a section of a pipe, or an entire automobile component. It struck me that the use of the word “texture” has evolved to mean different things to different people.

My source of most early historical texture knowledge is Rudy Wenk. Rudy informs me that he believes the first use of the word was in an 1833 textbook by a Belgian geologist – d’Halloy to describe a directional microstructure. This seems a little ironic now as geologists tend to use the term “fabric” to describe what a metallurgist would refer to as “texture” but the evolution of these terms has also seen some wanderin’ as described in section 6 in Chapter 1 of Rudy’s 1985 book, Preferred Orientation in Deformed Metal and Rocks: An introduction to Modern Texture Analysis. I had the great fortune of learning from Rudy during a short-course on texture held at BYU when I was an undergrad as well as during his visits to Los Alamos National Lab when I was a Post-Doc. I am excited for a symposium in his honor at this year’s edition of ICOTOM in St George, Utah.

I was first introduced to the term texture in 1985 by Peter Morris, who was a visiting researcher at BYU working with Professor Brent Adams. At the time, I was employed by a Professor in the Physics Department, Dorian Hatch, to track down papers in the library (long before libraries went digital and on-line search and retrieval tools were available). I was a junior Mechanical Engineering student but had become a bit disenchanted with my coursework. I expressed to Dorian my frustration and that I was considering switching my major (Dorian was one of my leaders in our local church congregation when I was a teenager and was very helpful in offering good advice to a young university student). He recommended I go and visit with a new Professor in Mechanical Engineering named Brent Adams. When I knocked on Brent’s office door he was busy and recommended I speak with Peter. I still remember being completely lost as Peter tried to talk to me about which kind of mathematical functions would be appropriate to describe the r-dependence of the Two-Point Orientation Coherence function. Luckily, Brent popped in before I left Peter’s office completely befuddled; he brought things down a little closer to my level (if you can imagine Brent doing such a thing) and introduced me to texture. Brent was looking for someone with programming skills which I happened to have and so I joined his research team. (I got to know Peter better as part of Brent’s team particularly on a long drive from Provo, Utah to Santa Fe, New Mexico for ICOTOM 8. At one point in the drive I thought I would try out my German on Peter but was very surprised to learn that he didn’t speak German – remarkable, because if you dig out a copy of Bunge’s Texture Analysis in Materials Science you will note it was translated from German to English by Peter).

My personal introduction to texture was through the ODF or Orientation Distribution Function (another odd description as in the formal statistical sense it is actually a density function as opposed to a distribution function) per Bunge (“Zur Darstellung allgemeiner Texturen”, Zeitschrift der Metallkunde, 56, 872-874 (1965)):

“Die Orientierungsvertailung oder Textur eines polykristallinen Materials wird charakterisiert durch den Volumenateil derjenigen Kristalle, deren Orientierung zwischeng g and g + dg liegt.”

My best attempt at a translation is “the orientation distribution or texture of polycrystalline materials is characterized through the volume fraction of the constituent crystals, with orientations lying between g and dg.”

Bunge further explains in Chapter 4 of Rudy’s book entitled Preferred Orientation in Deformed Metal and Rocks: An Introduction to Modern Texture Analysis (1985):

“The texture is thus, per definition, the orientation distribution of all crystals present in the sample irrespective of their arrangement in the sample. Since the texture is defined as a statistical quantity, the sample must at least be big enough, compared to the grain size, to allow a statistically significant description. This, in turn, depends on the degree of relevance required. If we have a sample much bigger that what is required by statistical relevance, then it may be divided into volume elements V big enough to allow the statistical description of the texture. The texture can then be measured in each of these volumes elements separately. If the textures of all volume elements of the big sample are statistically identical, then the big sample is said to have a homogeneous texture. If we speak about he the texture of a material without further specification, the homogeneity is assumed. In may important cases, however, the textures of the volume elements are not the same. Such textures are called inhomogeneous, and the definition of the term “texture” become more complex (e.g., Bung, 1982c).”

In the world of EBSD, we measure textures on surfaces. We hope this is representative of the volume but oft times we know it is not. For instance, consider the following (111) pole figure measured from the surface of an aluminum sheet. It has some of the characteristics we expect for a rolled fcc material but does not exhibit the symmetry we would expect for the texture through the volume of the sheet.

(111) pole figures from two samples of rolled aluminum. Left: recent EBSD measurements on the surface of a sample. Right: X-Ray measurements from the cross-section (this pen plot is from my M.S. Thesis which formed the basis of the paper S. I. Wright and B. L. Adams (1990) An Evaluation of the Single Orientation Method for Texture Determination in Materials of Moderate Texture Strength”, Textures and Microstructures 12, 65-76.

Could the lack of symmetry be due to a lack of statistics – i.e. the volume element investigated is too small? I don’t believe so as the average grain size for this material is approximately 25 microns (always a bit tricky to estimate in deformed materials with elongated grains and with a well-defined subgrain structure) and the step size was 4µm. The scan area was 2.1 x 1.6 mm (~250,000 orientation measurements) and thus, approximately 6900 grains were sampled. In addition, the pole figure is fairly symmetric horizontally. Rather, I assume the lack of vertical symmetry in the pole figure comes from a texture gradient from the surface to the center of the sheet. So rather than calling this a texture in the classic volumetric sense it would be more correct to add “surface” as a qualifier – i.e. a surface texture.

One concern I have, is the use of the term micro-texture. I understand the point, it is the texture measured at the “micro-scale” – in the language of the quote from Bunge, a volume element at the micro-scale. But, if the area contains just a few grains, is it really a “texture”? That isn’t to say we can’t learn a lot from such measurements but, in my mind, the term texture has a statistical component to it in terms of the number of grain orientations sampled. For example, consider the following texture measurements from the same sample. Each measurement contains approximately 250,000 EBSD measurements of orientation but the step sizes are 4µm, 400nm, 40nm and 4nm. Clearly, as the sampled area becomes smaller and smaller, the measured texture becomes less and less representative of the sample as a whole. Actually, it is remarkable that the fcc rolling texture is recognizable in all but the 4nm step size. At the smallest step size, the “texture” contains just 3 grains and thus the oscillations around the major peaks arising from the spherical harmonics used to calculate the texture are relatively prominent.

(111) pole figures and orientation maps from the surface of rolled aluminum sheet from EBSD measurements at step sizes of 4µm, 400nm, 40nm and 4nm each with just over 250,000 orientation measurements.

My concern is not enough to protest the use of the word micro-texture as I think most who use the term understand the implications, but as a community we need to be aware of sampling and statistical reliability as we draw conclusions from our EBSD measurements so that our scientific wanderin’s don’t become aimless but, to quote another classic movie, “stay on target”.

(Stay tuned for some thoughts on the term “meso-texture” 😊)