RESEARCH PAPERS: Experimental Techniques

Analysis of Pulsed Thermography Methods for Defect Depth Prediction

[+] Author and Article Information
J. G. Sun

 Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439

J. Heat Transfer 128(4), 329-338 (Oct 24, 2005) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2165211 History: Received May 23, 2005; Revised October 24, 2005

Pulsed thermography is an effective technique for quantitative prediction of defect depth within a specimen. Several methods have been reported in the literature. In this paper, using an analysis based on a theoretical one-dimensional solution of pulsed thermography, we analyzed four representative methods. We show that all of the methods are accurate and converge to the theoretical solution under ideal conditions. Three methods can be directly used to predict defect depth. However, because defect features that appear on the surface during a pulsed thermography test are always affected by three-dimensional heat conduction within the test specimen, the performance and accuracy of these methods differs for defects of various sizes and depths. This difference is demonstrated and evaluated from a set of pulsed thermography data obtained from a specimen with several flat-bottom holes as simulated defects.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

(a) Temperature and (b) first derivative of temperature as a function of time in log-log scale for flat-bottom holes A–F

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Dimensionless temperature-contrast slope as a function of time for flat-bottom holes A–F

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Temperature and its first and second derivatives as functions of nondimensional time ω in log-log scale

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Dimensionless peak-slope time ωs and peak slope d(ΔVs)∕dωr as functions of thickness ratio y

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Slope of temperature contrast d(ΔV)∕dωr as a function of ωr for y=0.2, 0.5, and 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Temperature contrast ΔV as a function of dimensionless time ωr for thickness ratio y=0.2, 0.5, and 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Surface temperature decay curves T and Tr at points 1 and 2, respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 1

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic diagram of pulsed thermography setup and heat conduction through and around lateral crack within test sample

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Schematic illustration of ceramic sample with machined flat-bottom holes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Thermal images on front surface of ceramic specimen taken at t=0.007 and 0.67s after thermal flash

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Predicted depth image of ceramic sample with flat-bottom holes as illustrated in Fig. 7

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Second derivative of temperature as a function of time in log-log scale for flat-bottom holes A–F

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Measured and fitted first derivatives of temperature in log-log scale for flat-bottom holes A, B, and F

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

(a) Comparison of predicted and measured depths and (b) prediction error as function of depth for three thermography methods



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In