CEE507 HW5 Maozhe Gong

1. Measure Total Porosity (%) for each of the four samples by computer
software. Use any software of your own choosing and develop a measurement
technique based on segmenting porosity on the basis of grey scale tone. You will
have to use your judgment as to what threshold grey value is best to separate
porosity from solid in the image. Total Porosity is the area of "porosity" as a
fraction of total image size. Note: You may use image processing techniques to
reduce noise, etc., according to your best judgment.

I used Image J to measure the total porosity. The procedure is the following.
1) File tab – Open – Select image of interest
2) Analyze tab – Set measurements – Make sure value of interest are checked
3) Image tab – Adjust – Threshold – adjust the value by the sliding bar until all white area
are filled red
4) Analyze tab – Measure – in the result tab that popped up, the percent area is shown

Source Porosity
AAC1epoxy 51.9%
ACC1wm 71.7%
LWAepoxy 45.9%
LWAwm 36.8%

Note: in AAC1epoxy, the pores are excluded from the measurement, so porosity is
calculated by 100% – 48.1%.
CEE507 HW5 Maozhe Gong
CEE507 HW5 Maozhe Gong

2. Estimate Total Porosity (%) for each of the four images using a point count
method. To perform a point count estimate, display the image on a computer
screen and use a technique of your own devising to pick points within the image in
an unbiased way. Make a visual judgment of the phase (porosity vs. solid) of each
point. Estimate Total Porosity % by dividing the #porosity "hits" by the total #
points.

In this problem, I set the image type to 32-bit gray scale, and then I calibrated the scale
shown. Under the plugin tab, I set the grid type to cross since it will be easier to track than
points. The next step is to count the number of points that intersect the grains. If the point
is completely inside the grain, it counts as 1; If it only touches the grain boundary, it counts
as 1/2. At the end, I set up an Excel spreadsheet to count each point.
CEE507 HW5 Maozhe Gong
CEE507 HW5 Maozhe Gong
CEE507 HW5 Maozhe Gong

3. Do your computer-measured and point-count measurements agree? If not,

why not?

Source Computer-Measured Point-Counted

AAC1epoxy 51.9% 50.0%
AAC1wm 71.7% 58.0%
LWAepoxy 45.9% 67.6%
LWAwm 36.8% 45.8%

The results from both method do not agree exactly but they show approximately which
sample has a higher porosity. In terms of the value, the point-counted method is not
accurate. Possible reasons are the points are not enough. I believe the results will converge
to the computer-measured method as more points are taken.
CEE507 HW5 Maozhe Gong

4a. Do your measurements of AAC1epoxy.tiff and AAC1wm.tiff agree? If not,

why not? (they ARE the same material)
The measurements of AAC1 do not agree but they are relatively close. The epoxy version
has a smaller porosity.
4b. Do your measurements of LWAepoxy.tiff and LWAwm.tiff agree? If not,
why not? (they ARE the same material)
The measurements of LWA do not agree and there are a large difference. The epoxy version
has a larger porosity.
5. Discuss the difference between the microstructure and porosity of ACC1
and LWA. How might the differences influence strength?
From both the results from computer-measured and point-counted, the ACC has larger
porosity than LWA. It is reasonable because the ACC is the short for Autoclaved Aerated
Concrete, and it is a porous concrete to improve the thermal efficiency. As a trade-off, ACC
has a low density thus a lower compressive strength. LWA is the short for Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete, it is usually used to reduce the weight of concrete structures. Like the
ACC, LWA also has a great porosity, which makes it structurally weak.