1090 Dai Tang et al. REFERENCES
ATKINSON, H.V. & SHI, G. (2002). Characterization of inclusions in clean steels: A review including the statistics of extremes methods. Prog Mater Sci 48, 457–520.
GOLDSTEIN, J.I.,NEWBURY,D.E., JOY,D.C., LYMAN,C.E., ECHLIN,P., LIFSHIN, E., SAWYER,L.&MICHAEL, J.R. (2003). Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis, 3rd
ed.New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
IZRAELI, E.S., TSACH,T. & LEVIN, N. (2014). Optimizing FEG-SEM combined with an SDD EDX system for automated GSR analysis. X-Ray Spectrom 43,29–37.
KAUSHIK, P., LOWRY, M., YIN,H.&PIELET, H. (2012). Inclusion characterisation for clean steelmaking and quality control. Ironmaking Steelmaking 39(4), 284–300.
Figure 14. Calculated automated inclusion microanalysis time versus measured analysis time on XL30 (accelerating voltage 10kV and spot size 5); scanning electron microscope (SEM) set- tings [magnification, energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) live time, backscattered electron (BSE) pixel dwell time, and BSE image size] are listed in Table 3. Each symbol is for a different sample; con- tributions of BSE imaging, EDX analysis, and stage movement to the total analysis time are shown. “Dirty sample” refers to a sam- ple with a high concentration of inclusions (700 per mm2), for which EDX analysis took longer than BSE imaging.
evaluation. This paper discusses the effects of some of the fundamental instrument settings (accelerating voltage, spot size, and BSE image pixel dwell time) for two instru- ments: a tungsten filament SEM (FEI/ASPEX Explorer) and a field-emission SEM (FEI/Phillips XL30). Similar trends of poorer BSE spatial resolution and higher beam current with increased spot size are found for the two instruments. BSE imaging is responsible for a large fraction of the total analysis time, even after optimizing the pixel dwell time based on measured BSE image noise; a larger BSE detector would facilitate faster analysis. Use of the lower accelerating voltage (10 kV) (and the associated smaller interaction volume) improves detection of smaller inclusions and decreases the systematic error of inclusion microanalysis by EDX; the difference in X-ray count rate between 10 and 20kV depends on the details (inclusion depth; dependence of beam current on accelerating voltage; choice of spot size), but the difference can be unexpectedly small.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Support of this work by the industrial members of the Center for Iron and Steelmaking Research and by FEI/ASPEX is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also acknowledge use of the Materials Characterization Facility at Carnegie Mellon University supported by the grant no. MCF-67785. Some of the material in this paper was first presented at the Clean Steel 9 conference (Hungary, 2015).
MERLET, C. (1994). An accurate computer correction program for quantitative electron probe microanalysis. Mikrochim Acta 114/115, 363–376.
PISTORIUS, P.C. & PATADIA, A. (2012). The steel matrix affects microanalysis of CaO-Al2O3-CaS inclusions. In Clean Steel 8, pp. 1–12. Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Mining and Metallurgical Society.
PISTORIUS, P.C., PATADIA,A.&LEE, J. (2013). Correction of matrix effects on microanalysis of calcium aluminate inclusions. In AISTech 2013 Proceedings, pp. 1037–1044. Pittsburgh, PA: Association for Iron & Steel Technology.
PISTORIUS, P.C., TANG,D.&FERREIRA, M.E. (2015). Consistency in automated inclusion microanalysis. In Clean Steel 9, pp. 1–8. Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Mining and Metallurgical Society.
PISTORIUS, P.C. & VERMA, N. (2011). Matrix effects in the energy dispersive X-ray analysis of CaO-Al2O3-MgO inclusions in steel. Microsc Microanal 17, 963–971.
POUCHOU, J.L. & PICHOIR, F. (1991). Quantitative analysis of homogeneous or stratified microvolumes applying the model “PAP”.In Electron Probe Quantitation, Heinrich, K.F.J. & Newbury, D.E. (Eds.), pp. 31–75. New York: Plenum Press.
PRETORIUS, E., OLTMANN,H.&CASH, T. (2010). The effective modification of spinel inclusions by Ca Treatment in LCAK steel. Iron Steel Technol 7(7), 31–44.
REISCHL, M., FRANK, G., MARTINEZ, C., AIGNER, S., LEDERHAAS,B.& MICHELIC, S. (2011). Automated SEM/EDX particle analysis to determinate non-metallic inclusions in steel samples. Round robin tests aiming at studying the comparability of results from different measurement systems. PractMetallogr 48(12), 643–659.
RITCHIE, N.W.M. (2009). Spectrum simulation in DTSA-II. Microsc Microanal 15, 454–468.
SALVAT, F., ESCUDER, J.A., BOTE,D.&LLOVET,X. (2007). Simulation of EPMA spectra using PENELOPE. Microsc Microanal 13(S2), 1388–1389.
STORY, S.R. (2006). Study of casting issues using rapid inclusion identification and analysis. In AISTech 2006 Proceedings, vol. I, pp. 879–889. Cleveland, OH: Association for Iron & Steel Technology.
TANG,D. & PISTORIUS, P.C. (2015). Optimizing speed and quality of automated inclusions analysis. In AISTech 2015 Proceedings, vol. III, pp. 3326–3337. Cleveland, OH: Association for Iron & Steel Technology.
WINKLER, W., ANGELI,J.&MAYR, M. (2007). Automated SEM-EDX cleanness analysis and its application in metallurgy. Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh 152,4–9.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180
