EBSD

Endless Summer

Matt Nowell, EBSD Product Manager, EDAX

My family and I love the beach. We love to swim in the water, ride the waves, and play in the sand. Each summer we typically spend time at Sunset Beach, North Carolina. After years of seeing the cool stuff in the SEM, materials science and microscopy are always topics of discussion. This year, after enjoying the musical Hamilton, my wife was inspired to start working on a periodic table of elements rap song. My 13-year-old learned more about metalworking watching the History Channel show, Forged in Fire, where participants are challenged to make different weapons from assorted metallic sources. My favorite part was watching them evaluate different parts of a bicycle for heat-treatable steel to recycle. One of my favorite moments though was unpacking my beach shoes on the first day.

Generally, when we visit a beach, we try to bring home a shell or a piece of driftwood. However, when I was putting on my shoes for the first time, I noticed some sand was still present. My last beach trip had been to the Cayman Islands. I immediately noticed that this sand looked much different than the sand at Sunset Beach. I decided to save a little bit of each for some microscopy and microanalysis when I got back home.

When I looked at them both more closely, I saw that the sand from Sunset Beach (SB) on the left was much darker with black flecks, while the sand from Grand Cayman (GC) was much lighter. Thinking about the possible composition of the sand got me thinking about the bladesmithing competition held at the TMS annual meetings. One year, the team from UC Berkeley created a sword using magnetite found at local beaches using magnets. I thought it would be interesting to examine both of these sands with my SEM, EDS, and EBSD tools.

Sand grains from Sunset Beach
Sand grains from Sunset Beach.
Sand grains from Grand Cayman
Sand grains from Grand Cayman.

 

Initially I placed a bit of sand on an aluminum stub for SEM and EDS analysis. To reduce charging effects, I used the Low Vacuum capability of our FEI Teneo FEG-SEM, running at 0.1 mbar pressure. Images were collected using the Annual BackScatter (ABS) detector for atomic number contrast imaging. The sand grains from Sunset Beach were generally a little smaller than the Grand Cayman sand, as expected from visual inspection. Both sands exhibited cracking and weathering, which isn’t surprising in hindsight either. Many grains show flat surfaces, with internal structure visible with ABS imaging contrast.

I followed the imaging work with compositional analysis using EDS. The Sunset Beach sand was primarily composed of silicon and oxygen grains, which I suspect is quartz. The single brighter grain in Figure 3 was composed of an iron-titanium oxide. The Grand Cayman sand was primarily a calcium carbonate (Ca-C-O) material. The more needle shaped grains were primarily sodium and chlorine, which I assume is then salt that has solidified during the evaporation of the water. All this leads me to believe I really didn’t do a good job of cleaning my shoes after Grand Cayman.

While quartz being present in sand wasn’t surprising to me, the observation of calcium carbonate did remind me of some geological homework I did on the island. The water in Grand Cayman was very clear, which made it great for snorkeling. We swam around and saw a coral reef, a sunken ship, lots of fish, and stingrays. To understand why the water was so clear, I read that it was the lack of topsoil, and the erosion and runoff of topsail to the water that was responsible for the clarity. Looking again at this reference, it mentions that the top layer of the island is primarily composed of carbonates. The erosion of this material would explain the primary composition of the beach sand in my shoes.

Of course, the next step now is analyzing these sands with EBSD to determine the crystal structure of the materials. I’ve started the process. I’ve mounted some of the sand in epoxy, and hand polished to get some flat surfaces for analysis. I’m able to get EBSD patterns, but getting a good background is going to be tricky. I think the next step will be to watch my colleague Shawn Wallace’s webinar on Optimizing Backgrounds on MultiPhase samples to be presented on September 27th. You can also register for this here.

In the meantime, I’ll keep the sand samples on my desk to remind me of summer as the colder Utah winters will be approaching. It will be a good reason to stay inside and write the next chapter of this analysis for another blog post.

When the Dust of M&M Settles, It’s Time to Take Stock….

Shawn Wallace, Applications Engineer, EDAX 

Shawn presents our 2nd Lunch & Learn session at M&M 2018.

For an applications engineer, M&M is our biggest and most stressful event. Back to back demos while making sure everything is perfect to truly show off the best you can offer, with presentations and poster thrown in for good measure. There is no real time to reflect during the show, so as the dust settles, I always like to reflect on the year past and the one coming (in our world it seems as though the year really begins and ends in August).

Over the past year, the EDAX EBSD world has seen major changes with the release of the Velocity™ detector. It was well received by our customers, which puts a smile on my face. Over the next year, you guys will have the system to play with and will really learn the power of it, showing that our hard work and time spent has really paid off. There is so much more in the works on the EBSD side that I wish I could tell you about. Stay tuned for that ride. It should be fun and exciting.

Velocity™ EBSD Camera

As for the EDS world, the release of the Elite T was a great group effort with many small changes behind the scenes making big differences to the product, with more to come.
That said, APEX™ still seems to steal the spotlight (sorry Matt!). With features being added quickly to each internal build, we see our customers’ needs being fulfilled one line of code at a time and in time, you will see them too.

EDAX webinar series.

While hardware and software are key, I think that it is just as important to reflect on all the interactions we have at the show with all our customers, partners and friends. It helps me understand what we did right (and wrong) on our journey in the last year. Between workshops, onsite training sessions, and shows, I see customers both at their work sites, seeing what they are working with, and out at a neutral site learning from their colleagues about what’s new in tech or new ways to answer interesting questions. This helps us all to understand your needs and wants, and where we as a community are going and growing.

With that in mind, I am turning this blog back over to you. Where do you see microanalytical technology going in the next year? What application areas do you see expanding? What is the best way for us to disseminate information to you, our users? (webinars, videos, blogs, workshops?) We invite you to Leave a Reply via the link below.

Vacationing Between a Rock and a Hard Place?

Shawn Wallace, Applications Engineer, EDAX.

One of the perks of both my degree (Geology) and my current job is that I have travelled extensively. In all those travels, I had been to 47 of the 48 contiguous US States, with Maine being the missing one. This year, I decided to be selfish and dragged the family to Maine on vacation, so I that could tick off the final one.

Being a member of the Wallace family means vacation is a time for strenuous hikes and beating on rocks to unlock their inner goodies, to add to our ever growing rock and mineral collection. This vacation was no different. Maine is home to some of the best studied and known Pegmatites, and they quickly became our goal. Pegmatites are neat for a several reasons, the main two being that they tend to form giant crystals (a 19 foot long Beryl found in Maine) and weird minerals in general tend to form in them.

I was able to track down some publicly accessible sites, found a lovely home base to rent for the week, and we set off for a week long rockhounding adventure. Ok not all week. We took a couple days off to go swimming, as it got up over 90F (>32C).

Figure 1. Dendrites cover this massive feldspar sample on nearly all faces.

Our first stops yielded the usual kind of rocks I was expecting, but another site did not. There we found dendrites everywhere. The rock itself is a massive feldspar (Fig. 1). You can see that most of the dendrites nucleate at the edge of a fracture surface and then do their fractal thing on the surface itself. Wanting to better understand the sample, I started searching for previous EBSD work on geological dendrites. While a lot exists in the metals world, very little exists in the geological world. To me, this means I have work to do. Let’s see what I can do to get some useful data on this sample!

P.S. I have Alaska and Hawaii to go. Who needs an onsite training in those states? 😉

Crown Caps = Fresh Beer?

Dr. Felix Reinauer, Applications Specialist Europe, EDAX

A few days ago, I visited the Schlossgrabenfest in Darmstadt, the biggest downtown music festival in Hessen and even one of the biggest in Germany. Over one hundred bands and 12 DJs played all kinds of different music like Pop, Rock, Independent or House on six stages. This year the weather was perfect on all four days and a lot of people, celebrated a party together with well known, famous and unknown artists. A really remarkable fact is the free entrance. The only official fee is the annual plastic cup, which must be purchased once and is then used for any beverage you can buy in the festival area.

During the festival my friend and I listened to the music and enjoyed the good food and drinks sold at different booths in the festival grounds. In this laid-back atmosphere we started discussing the taste of the different kinds of beer available at the festival and throughout Germany. Beer from one brewery always tastes the same but you can really tell the difference if you try beer from different breweries. In Germany, there are about 1500 breweries offering more than 5000 different types of beer. This means it would take 13.5 years if you intended to taste a different beer every single day. Generally, breweries and markets must guarantee that the taste of a beer is consistent and that it stays fresh for a certain time.

In the Middle Ages a lot of people brewed their own beer and got sick due to bad ingredients. In 1516 the history of German beer started with the “Reinheitsgebot”, a regulation about the purity of beer. It says that only three ingredients, malt, water, and hops, may be used to make beer. This regulation must still be applied in German breweries. At first this sounds very unspectacular and boring, but over the years the process was refined to a great extent. Depending on the grade of barley roasting, the quantity of hops and the brewing temperature, a great variety of tastes can be achieved. In the early times the beer had to be drunk immediately or cooled in cold cellars with ice. To take beer with you some special container was invented to keep it drinkable for a few hours. Today beer is usually sold in recyclable glass bottles with a very tight cap keeping it fresh for months without cooling. This cap protects the beer from oxidation or getting sour.

Coming back to our visit to the Schlossgrabenfest; in the course of our discussions about the taste of different kind of beer we wondered how the breweries guarantee that the taste of the beer will not be influenced by storage and transport. The main problem is to seal the bottles gas-tight. We were wondered about the material the caps on the bottles are made of and whether they are as different as the breweries and maybe even special to a certain brewery.

I bought five bottles of beers from breweries located in the north, south, west, and east of Germany and one close to the EDAX office in Darmstadt. After opening the bottles, a cross section of the caps was investigated by EDS and EBSD. To do so, the caps were cut in the middle, embedded in a conductive resin and polished (thanks to René). The area of interest was the round area coming from the flat surface. The EDS maps were collected so that the outer side of the cap was always on the left side and the inner one on the right side of the image. The EBSD scans were made from the inner Fe metal sheet.

Let´s get back to our discussion about the differences between the caps from different breweries. The EDS spectra show that all of them are made from Fe with traces of Mn < 0.5 wt% and Cr, Ni at the detection limit. The first obvious difference is the number of pores. The cap from the east only contains a few, the cap from north the most and the cap from the middle big ones, which are also located on the surface of the metal sheet. The EBSD maps were collected from the centers of the caps and were indexed as ferrite. The grains of the cap from the middle are a little bit smaller and with a larger size distribution (10 to 100 microns) than the others, which are all about 100 microns. A remarkable misorientation is visible in some of the grains in the cap from the north.

Now let´s have a look at the differences on the inside and outside of the caps. EDS element maps show carbon and oxygen containing layers on both sides of all the caps, probably for polymer coatings. Underneath, the cap from the east is coated with thin layers of Cr with different thicknesses on each side. On the inside a silicone-based sealing compound and on the outside a varnish containing Ti can also be detected. The cap from the south has protective coatings of Sn on both sides and a silicon sealing layer can also be found on the inside. The composition of the cap from the west is similar to the cap from the east but with the Cr layer only on the outside. The large pores in the cap from the middle are an interesting difference. Within the Fe metal sheet, these pores are empty, but on both sides, they are filled with silicon-oxide. It seems that this silicon oxide filling is related to the production process, because the pores are covered with the Sn containing protective layers. The cap from the north only contains a Cr layer on the inside. The varnish contains Ti and S.

In summary, we didn’t expect the caps would have these significant differences. Obviously, the differences on the outside are probably due to the different varnishes used for the individual labels from each of the breweries. However, we didn’t think that the composition and microstructure of the caps themselves would differ significantly from each other. This study is far from being complete and cannot be used as a basis for reliable conclusions. However, we had a lot of fun before and during this investigation and are now sure that the glass bottles can be sealed to keep beer fresh and guarantee a great variety of tastes.

Building an EBSD Sample

Matt Nowell, EBSD Product Manager, EDAX

Father’s Day is this weekend, and I like to think my kids enjoy having a material scientist for a father. They have a go-to resource for math questions, science projects are full of fun and significant digits, and when they visit the office they get to look at bugs and Velcro with the SEM. I’m always up to take them to museums to see crystals and airplanes and other interesting things as we travel around. That’s one way we have tried to make learning interactive and engaging. Another activity we have recently tried is 3D printing. This has allowed us to find or create 3D digital models of things and then print them out at home. Here are some fun examples of our creations.
At home we are printing with plastics, but in the Material Science world there is a lot of interest and development in printing with metals as well. This 3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is rapidly developing as a new manufacturing approach for both prototyping and production in a range of industries including aerospace and medical implants. Instead of melting plastics with a heated nozzle, metal powders are melted together with lasers or electron beams to create these 3D shapes that cannot be easily fabricated by traditional approaches.

In these applications, it is important to have reliable and consistent properties and performance. To achieve this, the microstructure of the metals must be both characterized and understood. EBSD is an excellent tool for this requirement.

The microstructures that develop during 3D printing are very interesting. Here is an example from a Ni-based superalloy created using Selective Laser Melting (SLM). This image shows a combined Image Quality and Orientation (IQ + IPF) Map, with the orientations displayed relative to the sample normal direction. Rather than equiaxed grains with easily identifiable twin boundaries, as are common with many nickel superalloys, this image shows grains that are growing vertically in the structure. This helps indicate the direction of heat flow during the manufacturing process. Understanding the local conditions during melting and solidification helps determine the final grain structure.
In some materials, this heating and cooling will cause not only melting, but also phase transformations that also affect the microstructure. Ti-6Al-4V (or Ti64) is one of the most common Titanium alloys used in both aerospace and biomedical applications, and there has been a lot of work done developing additive manufacturing methods for this alloy. Here is an IQ + IPF map from a Ti64 alloy built for a medical implant device.
At high temperatures, this alloy transforms into a Body-Centered Cubic (or BCC) structure called the Beta phase. As the metal cools, it transforms into a Hexagonal Closed Pack (HCP) structure, called the Alpha phase. This HCP microstructure develops as packets of similarly oriented laths as seen above. However, not all the Beta phase transforms. Here is an IQ + Phase EBSD map, where the Alpha phase is red and the Beta phase is blue. Small grains of the Beta phase are retained from the higher temperature structure.
If we show the orientations of the Beta grains only, we see how the packets relate to the original Beta grains that were present at high temperatures.
The rate of cooling will also influence the final microstructure. In this example, pieces of Ti64 were heated and held above the Beta transition temperature. One sample was then cooled in air, and another was quenched in water. The resulting microstructures are shown below. The first is the air-cooled sample.
The second is the water-cooled sample.

Clearly there is a significant difference in the resulting structure based on the cooling rate alone. As I imagine the complex shapes built with additive manufacturing, understanding both the local heating and cooling conditions will be important for optimization of both the structure and the properties.

A Little Background on Backgrounds

Dr. Stuart Wright, Senior Scientist EBSD, EDAX

If you have attended an EDAX EBSD training course, you have seen the following slide in the Pattern Indexing lecture. This slide attempts to explain how to collect a background pattern before performing an OIM scan. The slide recommends that the background come from an area containing at least 25 grains.

Those of you who have performed re-indexing of a scan with saved patterns in OIM Analysis 8.1 may have noticed that there is a background pattern for the scan data (as well as one of the partitions). This can be useful if re-indexing a scan where the raw patterns were saved as opposed to background corrected patterns. This background pattern is formed by averaging 500 patterns randomly selected from the saved patterns. 500 is a lot more than the minimum of 25 recommended in the slide from the training lecture.

Recently, I was thinking about these two numbers – is 25 really enough, is 500 overkill? With some of the new tools (Callahan, P.G. and De Graef, M., 2013. Dynamical electron backscatter diffraction patterns. Part I: Pattern simulations. Microscopy and Microanalysis, 19(5), pp.1255-1265.) available for simulating EBSD patterns I realized this might be provide a controlled way to perhaps refine the number of orientations that need to be sampled for a good background. To this end, I created a set of simulated patterns for nickel randomly sampled from orientation space. The set contained 6,656 patterns. If you average all these patterns together you get the pattern at left in the following row of three patterns. The average patterns for 500 and 25 random patterns are also shown. The average pattern for 25 random orientations is not as smooth as I would have assumed but the one with 500 looks quite good.

I decided to take it a bit further and using the average pattern for all 6,656 patterns as a reference I compared the difference (simple intensity differences) between average patterns from n orientations vs. the reference. This gave me the following curve:
From this curve, my intuitive estimate that 25 grains is enough for a good background appears be a bit optimistic., but 500 looks good. There are a few caveats to this, the examples I am showing here are at 480 x 480 pixels which is much more than would be used for typical EBSD scans. In addition, the simulated patterns I used are sharper and have better signal-to-noise ratios than we are able to achieve in experimental patterns at typical exposure times. These effects are likely to lead to more smoothing.

I recently saw Shawn Bradley who is one of the tallest players to have played in the NBA, he is 7’6” (229cm) tall. I recognized him because he was surrounded by a crowd of kids – you can imagine that he really stood out! This reminded me that these results assume a uniform grain size. If you have 499 tiny grains encircling one giant grain, then the background from these 500 grains will not work as a background as it would be dominated by the Shawn Bradley grain!

Seeing is Believing?

Dr. René de Kloe, Applications Specialist, EDAX

A few weeks ago, I participated in a joint SEM – in-situ analysis workshop in Fuveau, France with Tescan electron microscopes and Newtec (supplier of the heating-tensile stage). One of the activities during this workshop was to perform a live in-situ tensile experiment with simultaneous EBSD data collection to illustrate the capabilities of all the systems involved. In-situ measurements are a great way to track material changes during the course of an experiment, but of course in order to be able to show what happens during such an example deformation experiment you need a suitable sample. For the workshop we decided to use a “simple” 304L austenitic stainless-steel material (figure 1) that would nicely show the effects of the stretching.

Figure 1. Laser cut 304L stainless steel tensile test specimen provided by Newtec.

I received several samples a few weeks before the meeting in order to verify the surface quality for the EBSD measurements. And that is where the trouble started …

I was hoping to get a recrystallized microstructure with large grains and clear twin lamellae such that any deformation structures that would develop would be clearly visible. What I got was a sample that appeared heavily deformed even after careful polishing (figure 2).

Figure 2. BSE image after initial mechanical polishing.

This was worrying as the existing deformation structures could obscure the results from the in-situ stretching. Also, I was not entirely sure that this structure was really showing the true microstructure of the austenitic sample as it showed a clear vertical alignment that extended over grain boundaries.
And this is where I contacted long-time EDAX EBSD user Katja Angenendt at the MPIE in Düsseldorf for advice. Katja works in the Department of Microstructure Physics and Alloy Design and has extensive experience in preparing many different metals and alloys for EBSD analysis. From the images that I sent, Katja agreed that the visible structure was most likely introduced by the grinding and polishing that I did and she made some suggestions to remove this damaged layer. Armed with that knowledge and new hope I started fresh and polished the samples once more. And I had some success! Now there were grains visible without internal deformation and some nice clean twin lamellae (figure 3). But not everywhere. I still had lots of areas with a deformed structure and whatever I tried I could not get rid of those.

Figure 3. BSE image after optimized mechanical polishing.

Back to Katja. When I discussed my remaining polishing problems she helpfully proposed to give it a try herself using a combination of mechanical polishing and chemical etching. But even after several polishing attempts starting from scratch and deliberately introducing scratches to verify that enough material was removed we could not completely get rid of the deformed areas. Now we slowly started to accept that this deformation was perhaps a true part of the microstructure. But how could that be if this is supposed to be a recrystallised austenitic 304L stainless steel?

Table 1. 304/304L stainless steel composition.

Let’s take a look at the composition. In table 1 a typical composition of 304 stainless steel is given. The spectrum below (figure 4) shows the composition of my samples.

Figure 4. EDS spectrum with quantification results collected with an Octane Elite Plus detector.

All elements are in the expected range except for Ni which is a bit low and that could bring the composition right at the edge of the austenite stability field. So perhaps the deformed areas are not austenite, but ferrite or martensite? This is quickly verified with an EBSD map and indeed the phase map below confirms the presence of a bcc phase (figure 5).

Figure 5. EBSD map results of the sample before the tensile test, IQ, IPF, and phase maps.

Having this composition right at the edge of the austenite stability field actually added some interesting additional information to the tensile tests during the workshop. Because if the internal deformation in the austenite grains got high enough, we might just trigger a phase transformation to ferrite (or martensite) with ongoing deformation.

Figure 6. Phase maps (upper row) and Grain Reference Orientation Deviation (GROD) maps (lower row) for a sequence of maps collected during the tensile test.

And that is exactly what we have observed (figure 6). At the start of the experiments the ferrite fraction in the analysis field is 7.8% and with increasing deformation the ferrite fraction goes up to 11.9% at 14% strain.

So, after a tough start the 304L stainless steel samples made the measurements collected during the workshop even more interesting by adding a phase transformation to the deformation. If you are regularly working with these alloys this is probably not unexpected behavior. But if you are working with many different materials you have to be aware that different types of specimen treatment, either during preparation or during experimentation, may have a large influence on your characterization results. Always be careful that you do not only see what you believe, but ensure that you can believe what you see.

Finally I want to thank the people of Tescan and Newtec for their assistance in the data collection during the workshop in Fuveau and especially a big thank you to Katja Angenendt at the Max Planck Institute for Iron Research in Düsseldorf for helpful discussions and help in preparing the sample.