This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Table 1. Effect of Varying Shape Factor & Magnification on Nodule Count (Nod/mm2


)‒10µm Trap Size (CM2 & TCC2)


Table 2. Effect of Varying Shape Factor & Magnification on Nodularity (% Area)‒10µm Trap Size (CM2 & TCC2)


Table 3. Effect of Varying Shape Factor & Magnification on Nodularity (% No. Nodules)‒10µm Trap Size (CM2 & TCC2)


Repeatability Tests


Before looking at the results of the ILS and examining the magnitude of the differences observed between the partici- pant laboratories, the magnitude of the variation to be ex- pected for a given laboratory on a single sample was evaluat- ed. Image analysis repeatability tests were performed on an actual sample with a nodularity of 70%-80% (Figure 8). The sample was a cast tensile bar with a 2,3cm (7/8 in.) diameter.


Table 4 summarizes the testing procedures used in these tests, while Table 5 details the results (nodule count, nodu- larity by area and by number %). These tests were conducted using the following parameters, magnification = 100x, shape factor = 0,5 roundness, trap size = 10µm.


International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 8, Issue 2, 2014


for the nodule count and less than 0,5% for the nodularity. This indicates that the IA results for a given set of fields analyzed is repeatable. Comparing the average results obtained for Tests #1 and #2 yields the influence of selecting different sets of fields in a given sample. In this particular case, the comparison between the two different sets of fields resulted in a 5% difference in the nodule count values (190,5 vs 200,7 Nod/mm2


) and less than 1% variation


in the nodularity values. These differences are believed to be the result of the intrinsic variations which exist locally in a microstructure.10-11


57


The results presented in Table 5 indicate that, when analyz- ing the same series of 25 fields ten times (Tests #1 for a given set of 25 fields and Test #2 for another given set of 25 fields), the error associated with the measurements was ± 1,2 and 0,8 Nod/mm2


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