Microsc. Microanal.

17, 316–329, 2011

doi:10.1017/S1431927611000055 Microscopy AND

Microanalysis
© MICROSCOPY SOCIETY OF AMERICA 2011

A Review of Strain Analysis Using Electron

Backscatter Diffraction
Stuart I. Wright,1, * Matthew M. Nowell,1 and David P. Field 2
1
EDAX-TSL, 392 East 12300 South, Draper, UT 84020, USA
2
Washington State University, 239C Dana Hall, Pullman, WA 99164, USA

Abstract: Since the automation of the electron backscatter diffraction ~EBSD! technique, EBSD systems have
become commonplace in microscopy facilities within materials science and geology research laboratories
around the world. The acceptance of the technique is primarily due to the capability of EBSD to aid the research
scientist in understanding the crystallographic aspects of microstructure. There has been considerable interest
in using EBSD to quantify strain at the submicron scale. To apply EBSD to the characterization of strain, it is
important to understand what is practically possible and the underlying assumptions and limitations. This
work reviews the current state of technology in terms of strain analysis using EBSD. First, the effects of both
elastic and plastic strain on individual EBSD patterns will be considered. Second, the use of EBSD maps for
characterizing plastic strain will be explored. Both the potential of the technique and its limitations will be
discussed along with the sensitivity of various calculation and mapping parameters.
Key words: elastic strain, residual strain, electron backscatter diffraction ~EBSD!, orientation imaging micros-
copy ~OIM!

I NTR ODUCTION W HAT C AN B E O BSERVED IN I NDIVIDUAL

With the automation of the electron backscatter diffraction EBSD P ATTER NS ?
~EBSD! technique, EBSD systems have become common- The presence of strain in the crystal lattice produces observ-
place in microscopy facilities within materials science and able effects in EBSD patterns. The types of effects produced
geology research laboratories all around the world. The are different for elastic and plastic strains.
capabilities of EBSD to aid the scientist in understanding
the crystallographic aspects of microstructures have been Elastic Strain
well used in a wide variety of materials and applications.
Elastic strains distort the crystal lattice. If this strain is
However, another potential use of EBSD is in quantifying
uniaxial and along one of the principal directions of the
strain. Unfortunately, there is a considerable amount of
unit cell, then the strain produces a change in one of the cell
confusion as to what is practically possible to extract from
parameters as shown schematically in Figure 1 ~for more
EBSD in terms of strain analysis given the current state of
accurate pattern simulation, see Winkelmann, 2008!. This
EBSD technology. In EBSD studies of strain, it is important
distortion manifests itself in the patterns as a shift in some
to distinguish between elastic and plastic strain. Elastic
of the zone axes along with changes in the width of some of
strain and residual strain manifest themselves differently in
the diffraction bands. In the case of uniform dilation, the
EBSD results. This article reviews the current state of tech-
changes will only occur in the bandwidths.
nology in terms of strain analysis. First, the effects of strain
Figure 1 shows an exaggerated degree of strain; the
on the patterns themselves are reviewed, followed by indica-
elastic strains achieved in real materials are much smaller
tions of strains that can be observed in orientation maps,
and produce changes of just a pixel or two in a typical EBSD
and lastly statistical studies of strain. An effort has been
system with cameras with 1K ⫻ 1K resolution. It should be
made to include a wide selection of bibliographic refer-
noted that retracting the camera improves the pixel resolu-
ences. However, the references are not meant to be compre-
hensive but rather give a snapshot of current strain analyses
performed using EBSD.
It is important to recall that strain is not simply a scalar
value. While we can derive various scalar parameters to
describe strain ~i.e., dislocation density for describing plas-
tic strain!, strain is a second rank tensor ~Nye, 1957!. It
varies with direction in the material.

Figure 1. A crystal lattice “strained” 11% uniaxially in the hori-

Received September 7, 2010; accepted January 4, 2011 zonal direction and a schematic overlay of the patterns with ~gray!
*Corresponding author. E-mail: stuart.wright@ametek.com and without strain ~black!.
 Strain and EBSD 317

Figure 2. An unstrained and a “bent” crystal and the resulting diffraction patterns.

tion so that the change may be as large as several pixels.

However, retracting the camera also reduces the signal inten-
sity that can make it difficult to get high quality patterns. If
the crystal is “bent,” as shown schematically in Figure 2,
then in addition to the zone axis shifts previously men-
tioned there would be a slight degradation in pattern qual-
ity as the planes within the diffraction volume are no longer
exactly parallel. As Keller et al. ~2004! have pointed out, this
leads to slight deviations in Bragg angle along the length of
the planes leading to blurring of the edges of the diffraction
bands.
As with uniaxial extension or compression or dilation
Figure 3. EBSD pattern from ~a! a well-prepared surface and from
effects, the effects from lattice bending are quite small
~b! a poorly prepared surface of zirconium.
resulting in shifts of only a pixel or two in the zone axis
positions and only slight degradation of pattern quality.
Thus, very careful image analysis of high-resolution images
is needed to make meaningful measurements of elastic
strain.

Plastic Strain
It is well known that plastic strain degrades the quality of
diffraction patterns as shown in Figure 3. This is one of the
reasons careful preparation of sample surfaces is critical to
successful EBSD work ~Katrakova & Mucklich, 2001!. The
pattern from the poorly prepared surface shown in Figure 3
is due to plastic strain introduced during polishing.
With plastic strain, the distortions in the crystal lattice
are relieved by the formation of dislocations. This can result
in two different effects on the diffraction patterns. Consider
Figure 4. Schematic of dislocations and subgrain boundary.
the diagram of dislocations in a material shown in Figure 4.
There are regions in the material with significant disloca-
tion density with a net Burgers vector of zero. These are
sometimes called “statistically stored” dislocations ~SSDs!.
There are also areas with net nonzero Burgers vectors across
which there is a change in crystallographic orientation or
lattice curvature. These dislocations are often termed “geo-
metrically necessary” dislocations ~GNDs!. Arrays of GNDs
can form subgrain boundaries.
If the diffraction volume is contained within a region
of high dislocation density but with a net Burgers vector of
zero ~i.e., contained entirely within a subgrain!, then the
resulting pattern is degraded due to local perturbations of
the diffracting lattice planes leading to incoherent scatter-
ing. This is shown schematically in Figure 5 for a single Figure 5. Diagram showing the disturbance in the crystal lattice
dislocation—the higher the dislocation density, the greater due to two opposing edge dislocations leading to a degraded EBSD
the degradation in pattern quality. pattern.
318 Stuart I. Wright et al.
Figure 6. Schematic showing the effect of a subgrain boundary on
the EBSD pattern.
If the diffraction volume contains GNDs, then the
pattern quality is degraded as the pattern is essentially a
superposition of the patterns from each individual subgrain
within the diffraction volume as shown schematically in
Figure 6. As the rotations associated with subgrain bound-
aries are small, the material within the diffraction volume
will no longer meet a specific Bragg condition but rather a
range of near Bragg conditions in three dimensions. This
results in a diffraction pattern with degraded contrast. The
degree of degradation is dependent on the amount of
deformation within the interaction volume.
Differentiating the contribution of SSDs versus that
from GNDs in a single pattern is practically impossible.
Since the size of the diffraction volume is a function of
beam size, the degradation effect will differ in lower resolu-
tion microscopes with tungsten filaments as opposed to the
higher resolution microscopes with field emission sources.
In fact, depending on the amount of deformation and
material ~i.e., materials that form well organized dislocation
structures!, the contrast degradation in the patterns may be
minimal.
Quantitative Analysis
Various approaches have been proposed ~Troost et al., 1993;
Wilkinson, 1997; Tao, 2003; Bertness et al., 2004! for mak-
ing quantitative measurements of both elastic and plastic
strain but have not seen widespread adoption yet within the
EBSD community. Generally, these approaches employ cali-
bration curves based on measured shifts of pixels in pat-
terns in strained materials relative to measurements made
in reference patterns from unstrained material of the same
crystallographic orientation. From these shifts it is possible
to calculate the elastic strains as well as high-resolution
rotations that are indicative of plastic strain. Recent work by
Wilkinson et al. ~2006a! using cross-correlation functions
for comparing the patterns from the strained and un-
strained material have shown that most components of the
strain tensor can be obtained using this methodology. They
were able to obtain resolutions of strain measurements to 2
parts in 10,000 using this method. Care must be taken to
avoid shifts arising from deflection of the beam between the
strained and unstrained material.
If the cross-correlation methods are employed, a pat-
tern can be analyzed to extract both the elastic and plastic
strain simultaneously. Cross correlations from at least four
different regions in a strained pattern are compared against
the same regions in an unstrained reference pattern to
measure a displacement gradient tensor of components
]u i /]x j , where u ⫽ ~u 1 , u 2 , u3 ! is the displacement at posi-
tion x ⫽ ~ x 1 , x 2 , x3 ! in the sample. The elastic strain ~eij ! is
the symmetric part of the displacement gradient tensor:
eij ⫽ 冉
1 ]u i
2 ]x j
⫹
]u j
]x i
冊
and the antisymmetric part are the rotations ~wij ! associ-
ated with the plastic strain:
wij ⫽ 冉
1 ]u i
2 ]x j
⫺
]u j
]x i
冊 .
Because a hydrostatic dilation does not generate a shift
in the strained pattern, the individual diagonal terms of the
displacement gradient tensor ~]u i /x i ! cannot be deter-
mined. e11-e33 and e22-e33 can be determined but not all
three terms independently. However, if we assume the stress
g33 normal to the free surface is zero and use the single
crystal stiffness constants for the material being analyzed,
then the three terms can be isolated. Using this methodol-
ogy both the elastic strain tensor and the GND tensor can
be determined.
Recent work has shown that resolutions similar to
those achieved by Wilkinson et al. can be achieved using an
iterative process based on a simulated strain-free reference
pattern to extend the capabilities of this type of approach
~Kacher et al., 2009!. The limits of this kind of analysis have
been explored by Villert et al. ~2009!. It should be noted that
the measurement of the rotations due to plastic strain
requires a reference pattern for the calculation. However, it
need not be a strain-free pattern, rather a pattern from a
neighboring point of known position in the strained crystal.
W HAT C AN B E O BSERVED IN
O RIENTATION I MAGING
M ICR OSCOPY M APS ?
Automated EBSD is ideal for characterizing the spatial
distribution of crystallographic orientation within polycrys-
talline microstructures. This technique is often termed ori-
entation imaging microscopy ~OIM! ~Adams et al., 1993!.
Orientations maps constructed from OIM data provide a
visualization of the crystallographic orientations of the con-
stituent grains.
Elastic Strain
To maximize speed during automated scans, the captured
image size of the diffraction patterns can be quite small ~i.e.,
100 ⫻ 100 pixels!. Thus, the shifts in the zone axes and/or
bandwidths are difficult if not impossible to observe in

Figure 7. Line scans of the elastic strain tensor component ~e11 !
in austenite surrounding a lenticular martensite grain ~max ⫽
0.009!. ~Data courtesy of G. Miyamoto.!
typical OIM scans. Even when utilizing large patterns dur-
ing a scan, the shifts are difficult to measure. In principle,
the image quality ~IQ! of the diffraction patterns can be
used to map out the elastic strain ~Keller et al., 2004!.
However, these results are only qualitative, simply giving a
relative indication of elastic strain. Any plastic strain in the
material will dominate the IQ map masking any degrada-
tion in the diffraction patterns due to elastic strain: quanti-
tative results obtained using the cross-correlation methods
introduced by Wilkinson et al. ~2006a! suggest that maps of
components of the elastic strain tensor are possible. An
example is shown in Figure 7 for line scans made across an
austenite region surrounding a lenticular martensite grain
in work by Miyamoto et al. ~2009!.
Plastic Strain
There are essentially two approaches to analyzing plastic
strain: the first based on the degradation of the diffraction
patterns in strained materials ~Krieger Lassen et al., 1994!
and the second based on local misorientation ~Field, 1995!.
As discussed previously, the degradation is a function of the
scanning electron microscopy ~SEM! spot size. Thus, the
pattern quality approach may be better suited to low-
resolution microscopes ~i.e., tungsten filament SEMs! where
the diffraction volumes will be larger and the local misori-
entation approach to high-resolution microscopes ~i.e., field
emission gun SEMs!.
Image Quality Approach
At each measurement point in an OIM scan, a parameter
quantifying the quality of the corresponding diffraction
pattern is recorded. Maps can be generated based on this IQ
parameter as shown in Figure 8. In such maps, strained
areas appear darker than unstrained regions of the micro-
structure. As already expressed, the image quality is affected
by residual strain in the diffracting volume. Thus, an indica-
tion of the distribution of strain in the material can be
observed in an IQ map ~Wardle et al., 1994!. For a very large
scan area on a bulk sample, if the average IQ value is
assumed to correspond to the overall strain measured me-
chanically, then the strain can be quantified by assuming a
Strain and EBSD 319
Figure 8. IQ map of a lenticular martensite grain and the surround-
ing austenite. The intensity hisogram has been modified from that
shown in Figure 7 so as to accentuate the strained regions around
the martensite grain. ~Data courtesy of G. Miyamoto.!
Figure 9. IQ map showing the many factors influencing the IQ
value. In this sample of a reaction zone between copper and
aluminum, IQ contrast resulting from scratches during sample
preparation, different phases, pores, cracks, and grain boundaries
can all be observed.
linear relationship between the IQ value and the local
strain.
Unfortunately, IQ is not solely dependent on strain;
other factors affect image quality as well. Such factors
include grain boundaries, surface topology, second phases,
beam conditions, sample preparation, and camera settings,
some of which can be observed in Figure 9. When the beam
is located on a grain boundary the diffraction volume will
include crystal lattices in two different orientations result-
ing in a combined pattern with contributions from both
lattices. This leads to a lower IQ leading to an incorrect
characterization of every boundary in the material being a
site for high strain concentration. Surface topology will also
affect IQ as the surface will deviate from the ideal tilt
condition for EBSD. ~This can actually be helpful in some
strain studies, as slip traces can be observed in OIM maps.!
If the beam is unstable during an OIM scan, there may be a
loss of intensity during the scan resulting in reduced IQ
values as the scan proceeds. The relative grain-to-grain
values will be useful, but the absolute values cannot be
correlated to strain in this case. Video conditions may also
affect the IQ. Imagine a case where the gain is controlled
automatically during a scan. In this case the strain effects
320 Stuart I. Wright et al.
Figure 10. IQ map showing low IQ values at grain boundaries
and a grain averaged IQ map ~94.7% indexing success rate and
16.0% cleanup!.
could not be tracked using the IQ parameter as the camera
system would attempt to compensate for low IQ values by
changing the video conditions. These factors make it diffi-
cult to correlate absolute values of IQ with strain. Some
work has been done to mitigate the camera configuration
effects by using a control sample for normalization, but the
results have not been promising ~R.A. Witt & M.J. Merwyn,
2008, personal communication!.
Some of these effects can be mitigated through various
means. For example, the grain boundary effects can be
reduced by averaging IQs within the individual grains as
shown in Figure 10. The variation in strain within a grain
would be lost, but the ability to make grain-to-grain com-
parisons of strain would be improved and boundaries would
not be assumed to be sites of strain concentration. The
indexing success rate stated in the caption for Figure 10 is
defined as the percentage of points with confidence index
values ~Field, 1997! greater than 0.1 after standardizing the
confidence index to the point in each grain with the highest
confidence index ~Nowell & Wright, 2005!. The percentage
of points “cleaned up” are those points modified using a
grain dilation post-processing routine ~Wright, 2006! di-
vided by the total number of points in the scan. For the
dilation routine, a grain tolerance angle of 58 and a mini-
mum grain size of 3 pixels were used. The grain was also
required to extend across at least two rows in the scan.
These same definitions are used in the captions throughout
the article for each figure where maps are shown.
A subtle factor affecting image quality is the orienta-
tion of the crystal lattice itself. Some planes in the crystal
lattice produce bands of higher intensity than others. If the
lattice is in an orientation such that the pattern contains
many of these high-intensity reflections, then the pattern
will have a higher IQ value than a pattern from an orienta-
tion with less high-intensity reflectors. Thus, there will be
some grain-to-grain variation in IQ simply from this orien-
tation effect ~Wright & Nowell, 2006!.
Other measures of IQ ~Tao & Eades, 2005! have been
proposed to reduce such effects, but these provide only
minimal improvement ~Wright & Nowell, 2006!. It should
be emphasized that such effects are generally much smaller
than those due to strain.
As was mentioned previously, the size of the diffraction
volume will affect the results. Thus, the SEM used for
making the measurements may have an impact on the
resulting maps. For a lower resolution microscope with a
larger diameter beam, we expect a larger diffraction volume.
Thus, we would expect the IQ effect to be more marked as
the larger diffraction volume will be more likely to contain
lattice imperfections. For example, in a deformed material
with a well organized subgrain structure, the larger diffrac-
tion volumes obtained in a low-resolution microscope are
likely to contain multiple subgrains leading to diffuse pat-
terns, whereas in a high-resolution microscope, it may be
possible to sample each subgrain separately leading to good
quality patterns despite the presence of deformation in the
material. An example is shown for partially recrystallized
steel in Figure 11. The impact of the larger diffraction
volume associated with the tungsten filament SEM relative
to the field emission gun SEM is clearly more pronounced
in the case of the image quality map than in the orientation
map. The data in these maps have been processed using the
same dilation “clean-up” routine ~Wright, 2006!. It is inter-
esting to note than 1.2% of the data points were modified in
the tungsten case and only 0.1% were modified in the field
emission case.
Local Misorientation Approach
As dislocations form in the material, the residual strain is
manifest as local variations in lattice orientation. This is
evident in maps on grain boundary maps of strained mate-
rials. OIM measurements allow a user to define which kind
of boundaries should be drawn in maps created in OIM
data. For example, Figure 12 shows low angle grain bound-
aries ~2–158! in red and high angle ~.158! boundaries in
blue. Regions with high concentrations of low angle bound-
aries are indicative of areas of concentrated GND density.
Some authors ~Wheeler et al., 2003! have used the
boundary density ~boundary line length over area! to char-
acterize deformation. Figure 13 shows the change in bound-
ary density in successive scans of a heavily deformed copper
sample held at temperature ~1558C! ~Wright et al., 2005! to
study the recrystallization process in situ. The copper was
deformed by equal-angle channel extrusion. The scan times
were approximately 1.6 min each.
As with the IQ, local misorientations provide an indica-
tion of the strain distribution in the material. Several useful
methods for characterizing local misorientations have been
proposed. The first two methods are “grain” based. This
means that every measurement contained within a grain is
assigned the same local misorientation value, but the values
differ from grain to grain. The second three are based on
individual measurement points. In this case, each point in
the scan has its own individual value of local misorienta-
tion. The last one is a hybrid of the two approaches. Each
point in the scan has its own individual value of local
misorientation, but the calculation of this value is based on
the grain to which each individual scan point belongs. Most
of the maps shown in the following figures were obtained
 Strain and EBSD 321

Figure 13. Boundary density for successive scans in an in situ

heating experiment of heavily deformed copper.

from a partially recrystallized steel sample at two different

magnifications.

1. The grain orientation spread ~GOS! is the average devia-

Figure 11. IQ and inverse pole figure ~IPF! maps from a partially
recrystallized steel sample using a thermionic field emission gun
SEM: ~a,b! 99.9% indexing success rate and 0.1% cleanup, and
using a tungsten filament SEM, ~c,d! 98.7% indexing success rate
and 1.2% cleanup.
2. A similar measure is the grain average misorientation
3. The kernel orientation spread ~KOS! is similar to GOS but
4. The kernel average neighbor misorientation ~KANM! is
Figure 12. Grain boundaries in 85% recrystallized low carbon
steel: red, 2–158; blue, .158 ~96.6% indexing success rate and 0%
cleanup!.
tion in orientation between each point in a grain and the
average orientation of the grain. This approach leads to
assigning the same value to every scan point contained
within the grain. The average orientation of the grain is
calculated using the methodology outlined by Kunze
et al. ~1993!. The GOS can also be calculated by determin-
ing the average misorientation between each point in the
grain with every other point in the grain ~Wright, 1999!.
An example GOS map is shown in Figure 14.
~GAM!, which is the average misorientation between
each neighboring pair of measurement points within the
grain ~Wright, 1999!. This approach is more sensitive to
the step size of the measurement grid than the GOS
approach. In general, as the step size decreases, the mis-
orientation between neighboring points on the scan grid
will decrease as well. An example GAM map is shown in
Figure 14.
done within a kernel. A kernel is a set of points of
prescribed size surrounding the scan point of interest.
The size of the kernel is generally prescribed to the nth
nearest-neighbor. Examples of 3rd nearest-neighbor ker-
nels are shown in Figure 15. The term window is also
used to describe the set of points but is generally re-
served for calculations on a square grid. The calculations
performed on this kernel are performed with the kernel
centered at each point in the scan and value obtained by
the calculations assigned to the center point. If more
than one grain is contained within the kernel, then
multiple average orientations are calculated for the ker-
nel. The value calculated for the kernel is assigned to the
scan point at the center of the kernel.
similar to GAM but calculated within a kernel instead of
a grain. That is, misorientations between all neighboring
points within the kernel are averaged. If the kernel con-
tains a grain boundary, then some of the misorientations
322 Stuart I. Wright et al.
Figure 14. OIM maps from a partially recrystallized steel sample. ~a! Color code orientation map, ~b! GAM map, and
~c! GOS map. Grains are outlined with black boundaries and were constructed assuming a 58 tolerance angle ~99.5%
indexing success rate and 0.7% cleanup!.
Figure 15. 3rd nearest-neighbor kernels for a hexagonal and a
square grid.
would be quite large. Thus, to focus on local small
rotations, the grain boundary effect is excluded by only
including misorientations less than a specified tolerance
value from the averaging calculation ~Lehockey et al.,
2000!.
5. The kernel average center misorientation ~KACM! is the
average misorientation between a point on the measure-
ment grid and its neighbors. For a hexagonal measure-
ment grid, this is the average misorientation between the
orientation of a given measurement point and the orien-
tations of the six equidistant neighbors. As with KANM,
the grain boundary effect is removed by only including
points misoriented relative to the point at the center of
the kernel within some prescribed value included in the
averaging calculation. If the kernel is larger than the first
nearest-neighbors, then KACM can be calculated in two
different ways: ~a! the misorientation from each point in
the kernel with respect to the center point of the kernel is
calculated and averaged or ~b! only the points at the
perimeter of the kernel are used in the calculation. If
only the nearest-neighbors are used, then the variants are
identical. Because this method focuses on the center
point of the kernel, the boundary edges are well pre-
served as can be observed in Figure 16.
6. The reference orientation deviation ~ROD! map ~Wright,
1993; Brewer et al., 2002; Kysar & Briant, 2002; Li et al.,
2002! shows the deviation in orientation of a measure-
ment point from the average orientation of the grain to
which the point belongs. Various approaches have been
considered for specifying the reference orientation. Two
approaches that have been reported are the use of the
average orientation for a grain as the reference orienta-
tion ~Wright, 1993! and the point in the grain with the
lowest kernel average misorientation ~Brewer et al., 2002!.
More complex characterizations of the orientation devi-
ation have been mapped using Rodrigues vectors ~Field
et al., 2005!.
Local Misorientation Parametric Sensitivities
With each of the approaches for characterizing local misori-
entation described above, various associated parameters will
affect the results. For example, as the scan step size in-
creases, the misorientations between neighboring points on
the scan grid tend to increase as well. These parameteric
sensitivities and the various map types that they affect are
described below.
Grain Tolerance Angle (GOS, GAM, ROD)
Grains in OIM are constructed in a very specific way.
The grain grouping algorithm simply enforces that any two
neighboring points on the scan grid, which differ in orien-
tation less than a specified tolerance angle, belong to the
same grain group or simply “grain.” Thus, in a deformed
grain the point-to-point misorientation will all be less than
the tolerance angle, but the misorientation between a data
point at one end of a grain with respect to a point at the
other end may exceed the grain tolerance angle by a consid-
erable amount. Thus, the choice of tolerance angle has a
significant effect on any grain-based calculations of local
misorientation. Figure 17 shows maps from a partially re-
crystallized steel sample. At large tolerance angles, recrystal-
lized grains are grouped together with adjacent deformed
grains, whereas at small tolerance angles they are separated.
Also at the fine step sizes used in this example ~750 nm!,
some of the deformed grains are broken down into individ-
 Strain and EBSD 323

Figure 16. ~a! KOS, ~b! KANM, and ~c! KACM maps from a partially recrystallized steel sample—6th nearest-neighbor
kernels ~99.9% indexing success rate and 0.1% cleanup!.

Figure 17. IPF maps for a partially recrystallized steel sample: ~a! full scan field, ~b! close up of highlighted area where
grains are formed using a 7.58 grain tolerance angle ~grains delineated by black lines!, and ~c! with a 2.58 grain tolerance
angle ~99.5% indexing success rate and 0.7% cleanup!.

Figure 18. GOS, min grain size ⫽ 5 pixels, 2.58, 58, and 108 grain tolerance angles overlaid with “grain” boundaries
~99.5% indexing success rate and 0.7% cleanup!.

ual subgrains. This is evident in the figure where the black
lines delineate grains. Even with a small 28 grain tolerance
angle, there appears to be a recrystallized grain attached to
the deformed grain. This demonstrates why it is difficult to
use grain-based local misorientation approaches to estimate
volume fractions of deformed versus recrystallized material
in partially recrystallized samples.
The choice of tolerance angle can affect both the GAM
and GOS results. The effect on the GOS results is shown in
Figure 18. As the tolerance angle gets larger, the subgrains
are encompassed within the larger deformed grains, and the
spread of orientation in these larger grains increases.
Grain Size Effects (GOS, GAM, ROD)
In the grain grouping algorithm, a grain must contain a
minimum number of scan points to be identified as a grain.
This minimum size may also affect the results. As the
minimum grain size is increased, small grains ~or subgrains!
may be excluded from the calculations. Figure 19 shows the
impact of the choice of the minimum grain size on the GOS
results focused on the deformed grains ~grains with orienta-
tion spreads less than 28 were excluded from the analysis!.
As the minimum grain size is increased, we exclude small
subgrains contained within the larger deformed grains.
Within a subgrain, the local variation in orientation may be
324 Stuart I. Wright et al.
Figure 19. GOS distribution for scans over the same area at differ-
ent minimum grain sizes.
Figure 20. GOS and GAM distributions for the partially recrystal-
lized steel at step sizes of 200, 400, 800, and 1600 nm. The grain
tolerance angle is 58, and and the minimum grain size is 2 points.
quite small, and thus as the minimum grain size is increased
the curves shift toward a higher fraction of grains with large
orientation spreads.
Scan Step Size (All)
Local misorientation measurements are very sensitive
to the step size at which an OIM scan is collected. This can
be observed for the GOS and GAM results for the same
partially recrystallized steel sample used previously. Fig-
ure 20 shows the average GOS and GAM values for the
deformed grains for the map shown in Figure 17 with the 58
grain tolerance angle as a function of step size. The GAM
results increase until a step size of about 3 mm and then tend
to level out. This suggests that the subgrain size in this mate-
rial is about 3 mm. The GOS results are more difficult to
interpret. In this case, the average orientation spread in each
grain decreases with decreasing step size. This may simply be
due to the decreasing statistics for the spread calculation in
each grain as the number of points in each grain decreases
with decreasing step size. A wide range of grain sizes is seen
in this scan area, and an attempt was made to see if these
results varied by grain size. This was simply done by calculat-
ing area averages in addition to the number averages shown
in Figure 20. It is evident that the trends are consistent with
the trends observed for the number averages.
The step size sensitivity is even greater in the kernel-
based calculations. This is particularly evident in Figure 21
showing 2nd nearest-neighbor kernel average misorienta-
Figure 21. KACM maps, 58 exclusion angle, 2nd nearest-neighbors
at step sizes of 200, 400, 800, and 1600 nm ~99.9% indexing success
rate and 0.1% cleanup!.
tion ~KAM! maps for the same partially recrystallized steel
sample, albeit scanned at higher magnification. The exis-
tence of subgrains is evident in the smallest scan step
size, whereas the subgrain structure is lost at the larger step
sizes.
Some of these effects can be mitigated by other param-
eters in the software such as the minimum grain size or
kernel size depending on the approach being used. For
example, Figure 22 shows KAM maps for three different
step size scans, but the size of the KAM is adjusted so that
the kernel is physically the same size in each map. It should
be noted that the results are very similar ~yet not identical!
for each step size and appropriate choice of kernel size
indicating that the two parameters are indeed coupled.
The orientation spread approaches ~GOS and KOS!
should be less sensitive to step size than the approaches that
focus on misorientations between adjacent points on the
measurements grid ~GAM, KANM, and KACM!. However,
the results in Figure 23 do not seem to bear this out. In the
scan data used in this example, the KACM distributions are
less sensitive to step size than the KOS distributions. How-
ever, as expected the KANM distributions are very sensitive
to step size in a predictable way. As the step size increases,
the KANM values increase as well.
Kernel Size (KOS, KANM, KACM)
The kernel size effect essentially mimics the step size
effect as shown in Figure 24. As the kernel size increases, the
small substructure details are smeared out. The smearing
observed is similar to that observed when applying smooth-
ing operations in image processing.
 Strain and EBSD 325

Figure 22. KACM maps at step sizes of 400, 800, and 1600 nm with 8th, 4th, and 2nd nearest-neighbor kernels ~99.9%
indexing success rate and 0.1% cleanup!.

Figure 23. ~a! KOS, ~b! KACM, and ~c! KANM distributions for the partially recrystallized steel data shown in Figure 17
~1,000⫻ data!. The distributions are for step sizes of 400, 800, and 1600 nm with 8th, 4th, and 2nd nearest-neighbor
kernels, respectively.

points varying more than a specified angle are excluded

from the analysis. If a larger exclusion angle is used, then
the calculations actually focus on grain boundaries as op-
posed to the local orientation perturbations as shown in
Figure 25.

All Points Versus Perimeter Points (KACM)

Figure 24. All points KACM, 58 exclusion angle, 1st and 10th
nearest-neighbors ~99.9% indexing success rate and 0.1% cleanup!.
Kernel Exclusion Angle (KOS, KANM, KACM)
To distinguish grain boundary effects from local orien-
tation variations due to strain, misorientations between
In the case of the KACM calculations, the option to
look at the orientation of each point in the kernel with
respect to the orientation of the point at the center of the
kernel can be used. Alternatively, only those points at the
perimeter of the kernel may be used. If only the perimeter
points are used, the average misorientation calculated for a
kernel tends to be larger because the average distance be-
tween the points used in the calculation from the center
point are farther away, thus essentially mimicking the step
size effect discussed previously. This effect is evident in
Figure 26.
326 Stuart I. Wright et al.

Figure 25. All points KACM, 2nd nearest-neighbors, 5, 15, and 1808 exclusion angles ~99.9% indexing success rate and
0.1% cleanup!.

Figure 26. ~a! All points and ~b! permiter points only KACM, Figure 27. ~a! Reference orientation deviation maps using the av-
10th nearest-neighbors, 58 exclusion angles ~99.9% indexing suc- erage orientation for each grain as the reference and ~b! the orien-
cess rate and 0.1% cleanup!. tation in the grain with the smallest 1st nearest-neighbor KACM as
the reference ~99.9% indexing success rate and 0.1% cleanup!.
Average Orientation Versus Minimum Kernel-Based
Reference Orientations (ROD)
In the ROD map, various methods can be employed for
selecting the reference orientation. The results for two po-
tential choices of reference orientation are shown in Fig-
ure 27. One approach is to use the average orientation
calculated from all scan points contained in the grain. It
should be noted in this case that a point with this orienta-
tion may not actually exist in the grain. However, when
using the point in the grain with the lowest kernel average
misorientation, a point with this orientation must necessar-
ily exist within the grain. It should be pointed out that any
point colored blue in Figure 27 is very near the reference Figure 28. Distribution of average misorientation between the
orientation for the grain to which the point belongs. kernel center points and the diagonal and off-diagonal neighbors
in a first-order kernel.
Grid Type (All)
For each type of kernel-based map, there will be an This is essentially the same effect as the step size effect as the
effect that will arise from the definition of a kernel on a diagonal neighbors are farther away than the off-diagonal
square map versus that defined for a hexagonal. This is neighbors.
most notable in a first nearest-neighbor KACM map. Fig-
ure 28 shows the average misorientation between the center Tensor Analysis
of the kernel and the off-diagonal first nearest-neighbor These local misorientation measurement approaches essen-
points and between the center of the kernel and the diago- tially assume plastic strain is a scalar value, i.e., they focus
nal first nearest-neighbors for square grid data obtained simply on GND density. More advanced analyses of OIM
from a nickel superalloy. As expected, the diagonal elements data can be performed to extract the GND tensor providing
are shifted slightly toward greater misorientation values. a more complete description of the strain state within the

Figure 29. Lines scans of the rotation tensor component w23
overlaid on a 10th nearest-neighbor KACM map ~white . 28!.
~Data courtesy of G. Miyomoto.!
Figure 30. Grain orientation spread calculated for two grains for a
series of two-dimensional slices in the x ~ yz plane!, y ~xz plane!,
and z ~xy plane! directions for a 3D OIM dataset. ~Data courtesy
of M. Uchic.!
material ~Sun et al., 2000; El-Dasher et al., 2003; Field et al.,
2005; Wilkinson et al., 2006b; Pantleon, 2008!. Figure 29
shows the w12 rotation component of the strain tensor in
austenite surrounding a lenticular martensite grain.
Scaling to Bulk Strain
If the average values from such maps are assumed to corre-
spond to the measured overall strain, then the local strain
can be quantified by assuming a linear relationship between
the local misorientation metric and the strain. However, it
should be remembered that the misorientation metrics are
based solely on GNDs and provide no information on
SSDs. One severe limitation to such an approach is the fact
Strain and EBSD 327
Figure 31. 5th nearest-neighbor KAM distribution and ~100!, ~110!,
and ~111! pole figures for textures calculated for two subsets of the
full dataset partitioned based on the KAM distribution for par-
tially recrystallized steel.
that the strain distribution in the material is inherently
three-dimensional ~3D! while the local orientation varia-
tions from a single OIM map are obtained on a two-
dimensional section plane. The variations in orientation
can vary considerably from those measured in a single
section plane. This is a particular problem with grain-based
measures of misorientation as in one plane a grain may
appear strained, whereas in another plane it may appear
unstrained. This can be observed in the results shown in
Figure 30. EBSD data were collected on serial sections
through a Ni-based superalloy sample sectioned by in situ
focused ion beam milling ~Uchic et al., 2004!. The GOSs of
two grains in the 3D data cube were analyzed along each of
the three principal directions. The measured values clearly
differ depending on which cross sections are examined.
S TATISTICAL C ORR ELATION OF
EBSD S TRAIN I NDICATORS WITH
C RYSTAL O RIENTATION
As described previously, various metrics such as IQ or local
misorientation can be correlated to calibration curves to
provide a somewhat quantitative measure of strain within
the scan area. The general idea is to correlate the strain
behavior of polycrystals with crystallographic orientation.
Two approaches can be taken. The first is to partition the
data using one of the various measures of “strain,” while the
second is a more continuous approach termed “scalar”
texture.
328 Stuart I. Wright et al.
Figure 32. ~100!, ~110!, and ~100! pole figures showing the aver-
age KAM value as a function of pole orientation for a partially
recrystallized steel.
Partitioning
Because of the discrete nature of OIM data, it is possible to
correlate the strain measurements with specific orienta-
tions. One approach is to divide a dataset into two subsets
or partitions. Figure 31 shows an example for a large
combined beam and stage scan obtained on the partially
recrystallized steel sample already described. This measure-
ment contains nearly 3.4 million individual orientation
measurements. The KAM distribution was calculated for
these measurements, and the data were then partitioned
into two subsets: one containing all of the measurements
with KAM values less than 1.58 and another subset con-
taining all of the orientation measurements with KAM
values greater than 1.58. The texture calculated for the low
angle KAM partition thus represents the texture of the
recrystallized material, whereas the texture of the high angle
KAM partition represents the texture of the deformed
material.
Scalar Textures
The correlation between any scalar parameter and crystal-
lographic orientation can be characterized using an ap-
proach termed scalar textures ~Wright et al., 1993; Nowell &
Wright, 2005!. In a scalar texture, orientation space is
divided up into many bins. For each orientation measure-
ment in the OIM scan, the bin corresponding to the
measured orientation is incremented by the value of the
scalar parameter in question. A second value is tracked for
the bin, that is, the number of points contributing to the
bin. Thus, an average value for the given scalar parameter
can be calculated for each bin. This enables a function like
the orientation distribution function to be calculated. In-
stead of the function providing a value of times random, it
provides the average scalar value. “Pole figures” and “inverse
pole figures” can be constructed as well showing the varia-
tion in the scalar parameter average value with crystallo-
graphic orientation. This technique works best when there
are many random orientations. Using this approach any of
the parameters described previously such as the IQ or the
measures of local misorientation can be determined as a
function of orientation. Figure 32 shows the KAM scalar
texture for the large dataset described in the previous
section.
C ONCLUSION
Various research teams around the world are exploring ways
to improve the strain measurement capabilities of EBSD for
both elastic and residual strain. However, it is important to
remember that most of the proposed methods for character-
izing plastic or residual strain give only an indication of
strain; extrapolating actual strain values remains difficult
and should be done with great care. It is also important to
be very careful of sample preparation as EBSD is very much
a surface sensitive technique. Any deformation introduced
during preparation of the sample can mask the true defor-
mation structure ~Field et al., 2010!.
EBSD is very much capable of identifying areas of
concentrated strain within a microstructure but not well
suited to identifying the actual magnitude of strain in those
areas. However, some of the current research shows promise
for more quantitative measurement of both elastic and
plastic strain using EBSD.
It should be noted that most of the measurements
described here are highly sensitive to sample preparation.
Most sample preparation induces some deformation into
the surface of a sample. Absolute values of plastic strain will
always be difficult to obtain on prepared surfaces. When
comparing results from different samples, it is very impor-
tant to maintain the same sample preparation routines and
setting on the microscope and EBSD hardware as well as
any applied post processing.
A CKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are indebted to Goro Miyamoto of the Institute
of Materials Research at Tohoku University and Michael
Uchic of the Air Force Research Lab at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base for providing data used in constructing some of
the figures in the article. We also acknowledge Rouman
Petrov of Ghent University for providing the partially recrys-
tallized steel samples used in the various local misorienta-
tion maps.
R EFER ENCES
Adams, B.L., Wright, S.I. & Kunze, K. ~1993!. Orientation imag-
ing: The emergence of a new microscopy. Metall Trans 24A,
819–831.
Bertness, K.A., Geiss, R.H., Keller, R.R., Quinn, T.P. & Roshko,
A. ~2004!. EBSD measurement of strains in GaAs due to oxida-
tion of buried AlGaAs layers. Microelectron Eng 75~1!, 96–102.
Brewer, L.N., Othon, M.A., Young, L.M. & Angeliu, T.M. ~2002!.
Misorientation mapping for visualization of plastic strain via
electron back-scattered diffraction. In Microscopy and Micro-
analysis 2002, Voelkel, E., Piston, D., Gauvin, R., Lockley, A.J.,
Bailey, G.W. & McKernan, S. ~Eds.!, pp. 684CD–685CD. Québec
City, Québec, Canada: Cambridge University Press.
El-Dasher, B.S., Adams, B.L. & Rollett, A.D. ~2003!. Viewpoint:
Experimental recovery of geometrically necessary dislocation
density in polycrystals. Scripta Mater 48~2!, 141–145.
Field, D.P. ~1995!. Quantification of partially recrystallized poly-
crystals using electron backscatter diffraction. Mater Sci Eng A
190, 241–246.

Field, D.P. ~1997!. Recent advances in the application of orienta-
tion imaging. Ultramicroscopy 67~1–4!, 1–9.
Field, D.P., Kumar, M., Trivedi, P.B. & Wright, S.I. ~2005!.
Analysis of local orientation gradients in deformed single crys-
tals. Ultramicroscopy 103~1!, 33–39.
Field, D.P., Magid, K.R., Mastorakos, I.N., Florando, J.N.,
Lassila, D.H. & Morris, J.W., Jr. ~2010!. Mesoscale strain
measurement in deformed crystals: A comparison of X-ray
microdiffraction with electron backscatter diffraction. Philos
Mag 90, 1451–1464.
Kacher, J., Landon, C., Adams, B.L. & Fullwood, D. ~2009!.
Bragg’s law diffraction simulations for electron backscatter
diffraction analysis. Ultramicroscopy 109~9!, 1148–1156.
Katrakova, D. & Mucklich, F. ~2001!. Specimen preparation
and electron backscatter diffraction—Part I: Metals. Prac Met-
allog 38~10!, 547–565.
Keller, R.R., Roshko, A., Geiss, R.H., Bertness, K.A. & Quinn,
T.P. ~2004!. EBSD measurement of strains in GaAs due to
oxidation of buried AlGaAs layers. Microelec Eng 75~1!, 96–102.
Krieger Lassen, N.C., Juul Jensen, D. & Conradsen, K. ~1994!.
Automatic recognition of deformed and recrystallized regions
in partly recrystallized samples using electron backscattering
patterns. Mater Sci Forum 157–162, 149–158.
Kunze, K., Wright, S.I., Adams, B.L. & Dingley, D.J. ~1993!.
Advances in automatic EBSP single orientation measurements.
Text Microstruc 20~1–4!, 41–54.
Kysar, J.W. & Briant, C.L. ~2002!. Crack tip deformation fields in
ductile single crystals. Acta Mater 50~9!, 2367–2380.
Lehockey, E.M., Lin, Y.-P. & Lepik, O.E. ~2000!. Mapping residual
plastic strain in materials using electron backscatter diffraction.
In Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Materials Science, Schwartz,
A.J., Kumar, M. & Adams, B.L. ~Eds.!, pp. 247–264. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Li, B.L., Godfrey, A. & Liu, Q. ~2002!. Investigation of macro-
scopic grain sub-division of an IF-steel during cold-rolling.
Mater Sci Forum 408–412, 1185–1190.
Miyamoto, G., Shibata, A., Maki, T. & Furuhara, T. ~2009!.
Precise measurement of strain accommodation in austenite
matrix surrounding martensite in ferrous alloys by electron
backscatter diffraction analysis. Acta Mater 57~4!, 1120–1131.
Nowell, M.M. & Wright, S.I. ~2005!. Orientation effects on
indexing of electron backscatter diffraction patterns. Ultramicros-
copy 103~1!, 41–58.
Nye, J.F. ~1957!. Physical Properties of Crystals. Their Representation
by Tensors and Matrices. London: Oxford.
Pantleon, W. ~2008!. Resolving the geometrically necessary dislo-
cation content by conventional electron backscattering diffrac-
tion. Scripta Mater 58, 994–997.
Sun, S., Adams, B.L. & King, W.E. ~2000!. Observations of lattice
curvature near the interface of a deformed aluminum bicrystal.
Philos Mag 80, 9–25.
Tao, X. ~2003!. An EBSD study on mapping of small orientation
differences in lattice mismatched heterostructures. PhD Thesis.
Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University.
Strain and EBSD 329
Tao, X. & Eades, A. ~2005!. Errors, artifacts and improvements in
EBSD processing and mapping. Microsc Microanal 11, 79–87.
Troost, K.Z., Vandersluis, P. & Gravesteijn, D.J. ~1993!. Micro-
scale elastic-strain determination by backscatter Kikuchi diffrac-
tion in the scanning electron-microscope. Appl Phys Lett 62~10!,
1110–1112.
Uchic, M.D., Groeber, M., IV, Wheeler, R., Scheltens, F. &
Dimiduk, D.M. ~2004!. Augmenting the 3D characterization
capability of the dual beam FIB-SEM. Microsc Microanal 10~S2!,
1136–1137 ~CD-ROM!.
Villert, S., Maurice, C., Wyon, C. & Fortunier, R. ~2009!.
Accuracy assessment of elastic strain measurement by EBSD. J
Microsc 233~2!, 290–301.
Wardle, S.T., Lin, L.S., Cetel, A.D. & Adams, B.L. ~1994!. Orien-
tation imaging microscopy: Monitoring residual stress profiles
in single crystals using and imaging quality parameter, IQ. In
Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Microscopy Soci-
ety of America, Bailey, G.W. & Garratt-Reed, A.J. ~Eds.!, pp. 680–
681. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press.
Wheeler, J., Jiang, Z., Prior, D.J., Tullis, J., Drury, M.R. &
Trimby, P.W. ~2003!. From geometry to dynamics of microstruc-
ture: Using boundary lengths to quantify boundary misorienta-
tions and anisotropy. Tectonophysics 376, 19–35.
Wilkinson, A.J. ~1997!. Methods for determining elastic strains
from electron backscatter diffraction and electron channeling
patterns. Mater Sci Tech 13~1!, 79–84.
Wilkinson, A.J., Meaden, G. & Dingley, D.J. ~2006a!. High-
resolution elastic strain measurement from electron backscatter
diffraction patterns: New levels of sensitivity. Ultramicroscopy
106~4–5!, 307–313.
Wilkinson, A.J., Meaden, G. & Dingley, D.J. ~2006b!. High
resolution mapping of strains and rotations using electron
backscatter diffraction. Mater Sci Tech 22~11!, 1271–1278.
Winkelmann, A. ~2008!. Dynamical effects of anisotropic inelastic
scattering in electron backscatter diffraction. Ultramicroscopy
108, 1546–1550.
Wright, S.I. ~1993!. A review of automated orientation imaging
microscopy ~OIM!. J Comput Assist Microsc 5, 207–221.
Wright, S.I. ~1999!. Quantification of recrystallized fraction from
orientation imaging scans. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Inter-
national Conference on Textures of Materials, Szpunar, J.A. ~Ed.!,
pp. 104–109. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: NRC Research Press.
Wright, S.I. ~2006!. Random thoughts on non-random misorien-
tation distributions. Mater Sci Tech 22~11!, 1287–1296.
Wright, S.I., Adams, B.L. & Kunze, K. ~1993!. Application of new
automatic lattice orientation measurement technique to poly-
crystalline aluminum. Mater Sci Eng A 160, 229–240.
Wright, S.I., Field, D.P. & Nowell, M.M. ~2005!. Impact of local
texture on recrystallization and grain growth via in-situ EBSD.
In Textures of Materials—ICOTOM 14, Van Houtte, P. & Kes-
tens, L. ~Eds.!, pp. 1121–1130. Leuven, Belgium: Trans Tech
Publications.
Wright, S.I. & Nowell, M.M. ~2006!. EBSD image quality map-
ping. Microsc Microanal 12, 72–84.