Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T19:11:45.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Performance of Dynamically Simulated Reference Patterns for Cross-Correlation Electron Backscatter Diffraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2016

Brian E. Jackson
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Jordan J. Christensen
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Saransh Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
Marc De Graef
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
David T. Fullwood*
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Eric R. Homer
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Robert H. Wagoner
Affiliation:
Department of Material Science and Engineering, Ohio State University, 2041 College Rd, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
*
*Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

High-resolution (or “cross-correlation”) electron backscatter diffraction analysis (HR-EBSD) utilizes cross-correlation techniques to determine relative orientation and distortion of an experimental electron backscatter diffraction pattern with respect to a reference pattern. The integrity of absolute strain and tetragonality measurements of a standard Si/SiGe material have previously been analyzed using reference patterns produced by kinematical simulation. Although the results were promising, the noise levels were significantly higher for kinematically produced patterns, compared with real patterns taken from the Si region of the sample. This paper applies HR-EBSD techniques to analyze lattice distortion in an Si/SiGe sample, using recently developed dynamically simulated patterns. The results are compared with those from experimental and kinematically simulated patterns. Dynamical patterns provide significantly more precision than kinematical patterns. Dynamical patterns also provide better estimates of tetragonality at low levels of distortion relative to the reference pattern; kinematical patterns can perform better at large values of relative tetragonality due to the ability to rapidly generate patterns relating to a distorted lattice. A library of dynamically generated patterns with different lattice parameters might be used to achieve a similar advantage. The convergence of the cross-correlation approach is also assessed for the different reference pattern types.

Type
Technique and Instrumentation Development
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkorta, J. (2013). Limits of simulation based high resolution EBSD. Ultramicroscopy 131, 3338.Google Scholar
Basinger, J., Fullwood, D., Kacher, J. & Adams, B. (2011). Pattern center determination in EBSD microscopy. Microsc Microanal 17, 330340.Google Scholar
Biggin, S. & Dingley, D. (1977). A general method for locating the X-ray source point for Kossel diffraction. J Appl Crystallogr 10, 376385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigham Young University (2015). OpenXY. Available at https://github.com/byu-microstructureofmaterials/openxy (retrieved May 17, 2015).Google Scholar
Britton, T., Maurice, C., Fortunier, R., Driver, J., Day, A., Meaden, G., Dingley, D., Mingard, K. & Wilkinson, A. (2010). Factors affecting the accuracy of high resolution electron backscatter diffraction when using simulated patterns. Ultramicroscopy 110, 14431453.Google Scholar
Britton, T. & Wilkinson, A.J. (2012). High resolution electron backscatter diffraction measurements of elastic strain variations in the presence of larger lattice rotations. Ultramicroscopy 114, 8295.Google Scholar
Callahan, P. & De Graef, M. (2013). Dynamical EBSD patterns part I: Pattern simulations. Microsc Microanal 19, 12551265.Google Scholar
Deal, A., Hooghan, T. & Eades, A. (2008). Energy-filtered electron backscatter diffraction. Ultramicroscopy 108, 116125.Google Scholar
De Graef, M. (2015). Emsoft 3.0. Available at http://www.github.com/marcdegraef/emsoft (retrieved December 12, 2015).Google Scholar
Fullwood, D., Vaudin, M., Danies, C., Ruggles, T. & Wright, S. (2015). Validation of kinematically simulated pattern HR-EBSD for measuring absolute strains and lattice tetragonality. Mater Charact 107, 270277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, C.J., Adams, B.L., Basinger, J. & Fullwood, D.T. (2010). EBSD-based continuum dislocation microscopy. Int J Plasticity 26, 12341247.Google Scholar
The HDF Group (2014). http://www.hdfgroup.org/ (retrieved December 12, 2015).Google Scholar
Humphreys, C. (1979). The scattering of fast electrons by crystals. Rep Prog Phys 42, 18251887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joy, D. (1995). Monte Carlo Modeling for Electron Microscopy and Microanalysis. USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kacher, J., Basinger, J., Adams, B.L. & Fullwood, D.T. (2010). Reply to comment by Maurice et al. in response to “Bragg’s law diffraction simulations for electron backscatter diffraction analysis”. Ultramicroscopy 110, 760762.Google Scholar
Kacher, J., Landon, C., Adams, B.L. & Fullwood, D. (2009). Bragg’s law diffraction simulations for electron backscatter diffraction analysis. Ultramicroscopy 109, 11481156.Google Scholar
Landon, C., Adams, B. & Kacher, J. (2008). High resolution methods of characterizing mesoscale dislocation structures. J Eng Mater Technol 130, 021004021008.Google Scholar
Maurice, C., Dzieciol, K. & Fortunier, R. (2011). A method for accurate localisation of EBSD pattern centres. Ultramicroscopy 111, 140148.Google Scholar
Maurice, C., Fortunier, R., Driver, J., Day, A., Mingard, K. & Meaden, G. (2010). Comments on the paper “Bragg’s law diffraction simulations for electron backscatter diffraction analysis” by Josh Kacher, Colin Landon, Brent L. Adams and David Fullwood. Ultramicroscopy 110, 758759.Google Scholar
Mingard, K.P., Day, A.P. & Quested, P.N. (2014). Recent developments in two fundamental aspects of electron backscatter diffraction. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 55, 012011.Google Scholar
Rice, K., Keller, R. & Stykovich, M. (2014). Specimen-thickness effects on transmission Kikuchi patterns in the scanning electron microscope. Microscopy 254, 129136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roşca, D. & De Graef, M. (2013). Area-preserving projections from hexagonal and triangular domains to the sphere and applications to electron back-scatter diffraction pattern simulations. Model Simulation Mater Sci Eng 21, 055021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roşca, D., Morawiec, A. & De Graef, M. (2014). A new method of constructing a grid in the space of 3D rotations and its applications to texture analysis. Model Simulation Mater Sci Eng 22, 075013.Google Scholar
Ruggles, T. & Fullwood, D. (2013). Estimation of bulk dislocation density based on known distortion gradients recovered from EBSD. Ultramicroscopy 133, 815.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A.J., Kumar, M., Adams, B.L. & Field, D.P. (2009). Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Material Science. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Troost, K., Sluis, P. & Gravesteijn, D. (1993). Microscale elastic-strain determination by backscatter Kikuchi diffraction in the scanning electron microscope. Appl Phys Lett 62, 11101112.Google Scholar
Vaudin, M., Osborn, W., Friedman, L., Gorham, J., Vartanian, V. & Cook, R. (2015). Designing a standard for strain mapping: HR-EBSD analysis of SiGe thin film structures on Si. Ultramicroscopy 148, 94104.Google Scholar
Villert, S., Maurice, C., Wyon, C. & Fortunier, R. (2009). Accuracy assessment of elastic strain measurement by EBSD. J Microsc 233, 290301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, A.J., Meaden, G. & Dingley, D.J. (2006). High-resolution elastic strain measurement from electron backscatter diffraction patterns: New levels of sensitivity. Ultramicroscopy 106, 301313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, A.J. & Randman, D. (2010). Determination of elastic strain fields and geometrically necessary dislocation distributions near nanoindents using electron backscatter diffraction. Philos Mag 90, 11591177.Google Scholar
Winkelmann, A. (2010). Principles of depth-resolved Kikuchi pattern simulation for electron backscatter diffraction. J Microsc 239, 3245.Google Scholar
Winkelmann, A., Nolze, G., Vos, M., Salvat-Pujol, F. & Werner, W. (2016). Physics-based simulation models for EBSD: Advances and Challenges, IOP Conference Series: Material Science and Engineering, vol. 109.Google Scholar
Winkelmann, A., Trager-Cowan, C., Sweeney, F., Day, A.P. & Parbook, P. (2007). Many-beam dynamical simulation of electron backscatter diffraction patterns. Ultramicroscopy 107, 414421.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1993). A review of automated orientation imaging microscopy (OIM). J Comput Assist Microsc 5, 207.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Nowell, M. (2008). High-speed EBSD. Adv Mater Processes 166, 2931.Google Scholar
Wright, S., Nowell, M. & Basinger, J. (2011). Precision of EBSD based orientation measurements. Microsc Microanal 17, 406407.Google Scholar