Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Quantitative measurement of grain size in the fusion zone (FZ) of Ti-6Al-4 V GTAW weldments is difficult because the large, uneven grain morphologies can introduce operator bias in conventional metallography. In this study, a calibrated openCV based image-processing workflow was developed, and its results were compared with those of the Jeffries planimetric, the Heyn linear-intercept, and Abrams three-circle methods of ASTM E112. Four GTAW conditions were considered: conventional DC, pulsed DC, ultrasonic vibration-assisted (UAV) DC, and UAV pulsed DC. The workflow comprises grayscale conversion, filtering, boundary detection, segmentation, morphological operations, grain identification and spatial calibration at approximately 3.03 μm/pixel for the FZ micrographs. The OpenCV mean linear intercepts (± standard deviation) were 421.0 ± 21.0, 300.0 ± 20.6, 261.0 ± 31.9 and 243.9 ± 10.4 μm for DC, pulsed DC, UVA DC and UVA pulsed DC, respectively, showing progressive grain refinement with pulsing and ultrasonic vibration. Relative to the planimetric, linear-intercept and three-circle methods, the OpenCV mean biases were − 20.18, -65.13, and − 128.12 μm, with mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) of 6.47%, 17.04%, and 29.60%, respectively. Although the OpenCV approach enables consistent grain-size determination, it should not be regarded as an exact replacement for ASTM E112 analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gudisi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: