Institute of Metals Division - An Evaluation of Procedures in Quantitative Metallography for Volume-Fraction Analysis

calculation has been made of the standard deviations to be expected in the measurement of volume fractions by areal analysis, lineal analysis and four point-counting Procedures. The effect of experimetztal errors is not included. Our conclusion is that a point count using a two-dimensional grid will be the most efficient method of volume fraction analvsis providing the grid spacing IS coarse enough. The predicted standard deviation for such an analysis is shown to he in good agreement with that determined experimentally. A metallurgist wishing to estimate a structural property by means of quantitative metallography is often faced with a choice between several different procedures. In such a case, he will naturally wish to know: a) Which procedure is the most efficient in the sense of requiring the least effort for a given precision? b) For a given procedure, what are the conditions for maximum efficiency? c) Under these conditions, how many measurements are required to attain a given precision? It is our aim in this paper to provide at least partial answers to these queries as they relate to the estimation of volume fractions from measurements on a random two-dimensional section of an opaque specimen. The commonly used techniques1,2 for volume-fraction analyses are based on one or more of the following principles: i) For an areal or Delesse3 analysis: That the areal fraction of a three-dimensional feature intercepted by a random plane provides an unbiased estimate of the volume fraction of that feature. ii) For a lineal or Rosiwal4 analysis: That the fractional intercept on a line passing at random through a two-or three-dimensional feature provides an unbiased estimate of, respectively, the areal or volume fraction of that feature. iii) For a point-count analysis: That the fractional number of randomly or regularly dispersed points falling within the boundaries of a two-dimensional feature on a plane, or within the boundaries of a three-dimensional feature in a volume, provides an unbiased estimate of, respectively, the areal or volume fraction of that feature. The absence of bias referred to in these principles does not, of course, imply that the results of an analysis will be free of error, but only that the expected result is equal to the true one. Application of the foregoing principles provide the following six possible experimental procedures: a) An Areal Analysis—This involves the measurement with a planimeter (or other means) of the area of a constitutent intercepted by the plane of polish b) A Two-Dimensional Random Point Count—Apos-sible experimental procedure for this analysis is to superimpose a sheet of transparent graph paper on a micrograph, and then use a table of random numbers to select coordinates for the points. c) A Two-Dimensiotuzl Systematic Point Count-Similar to b) except that the points are distributed in a prescribed manner, usually at the corners of a lattice superimposed on a micrograph or the screen of a projection microscope. d)A Lineal Analysis—A measurement of the fractional line length intercepted. It is usually performed by traversing the specimen under the cross hairs of a microscope and recording the distance travelled in each constituent. e) 4 One-Dimensional Random-Point Count— This could be performed by traversing the specimen with stops at random intervals to identify the constituent then present under the cross hairs. f) A One-Dimensionul Systematic Point Count— Similar to e) except that the traverse is stopped at prescribed (usually equal) intervals. It will be noted that the point-counting procedures b) and c) can be regarded as methods of estimating the areal fraction. Similarly, e) and f) are indirect methods of making a lineal analysis. All of the six procedures described above involve at least one stage of sampling. Thus, quite apart from any experimental errors, there will always be a statistical uncertainty associated with the final results. It is with the calculation of this uncertainty that we will be concerned. To avoid unnecessary repetition, the statistical relationships that will be used in the calculations are collected together in the appendix. For a fuller discussion reference should be made to one of the many textbooks5,6 on statistics. For symbols relating to the specimen structure we will follow as far as possible the terminology used by Smith and Guttman.7