| Literature DB >> 32605188 |
Yanjie Wei1,2, Zhilong Su1,2, Shuangshuang Mao1,2, Dongsheng Zhang1,2.
Abstract
Infrared thermography (IRT) is a full-field, contactless technique that has been widely used for nondestructive evaluation of structural materials due to many advantages. One of the major limitations of IRT is the fuzzy edge and low contrast in the inspected images-as well as the cost of the system. An efficient image post-processing with an affordable and portable device is of great interest to the engineering society. In this study, a convenient and economical inspection system using common halogen lamps was constructed. The corresponding image-processing scheme, which includes Fourier phase analysis and specific image enhancement was developed to identify defects with sharp and clear edges and good contrast. This system was applied to localized of defects in glass-fiber-reinforced composite panels. The results showed that defects with an effective diameter as small as 5 mm can be detected with excellent image quality. As a conclusion, the developed system provides an economic alternative to traditional infrared thermography which is able to identify defects with good qualities.Entities:
Keywords: composite structures; image enhancement; infrared thermography
Year: 2020 PMID: 32605188 PMCID: PMC7374367 DOI: 10.3390/s20133626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) Schematics of a panel with defects; (b) phase variation at locations with and without defects; (c) variation of phase difference corresponding to locations with defects.
Figure 2Schematics of defect distribution in the glass-fiber-reinforced plastic (GFRP) panels.
Figure 3Detected images with varied methods in the GFRP panel. (a) Raw image; (b) thermographic signal reconstruction (TSR)+1D, (c) TSR+2D; (d) pulse phase thermography (PPT); (e) principal component analysis (PCA); (f) proposed method.
Figure 4Grayscale profile in a horizontal line for the 5 mm defects.
Comparison of the Flaw Diameters with Measured and Designed.
| Flaw | Measured (mm) | Designed (mm) | Error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.2 | 5 | 5.2 |
| 2 | 9.9 | 10 | 1.0 |
| 3 | 15.2 | 15 | 1.3 |
| 4 | 20.5 | 20 | 2.5 |
| Average = 2.5% |
Comparison of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and the Computational Time for the Proposed and Existing Methods.
| Method | SNR (dB) | Computational Time (s) |
|---|---|---|
| TSR+1D | 2.69 | 70.357 |
| TSR+2D | 7.78 | 67.073 |
| PPT | 3.27 | 18.510 |
| PCA | 9.13 | 96.881 |
| Our | 13.33 | 24.548 |
Comparison of the Contrast-Per-Pixel (CPP) Index and Computational Time with Different Grayscale Levels.
| M CPP Index | Memory Consumption (MB) | Computational Time (s) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10bit | 18.97 | 200 | 20.346 |
| 16bit | 66.01 | 320 | 24.548 |
| 20bit | 70.23 | 400 | 33.447 |
Figure 5Coefficient images a with different subset windows and ɛ.
Comparison of the CPP Indices with Different Parameter Combinations.
|
|
| CPP Index |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 3×3 | 40.75 |
| 1000 | 3×3 | 63.70 |
| 10,000 | 3×3 | 66.01 |
| 0.1 | 11×11 | 11.86 |
| 1000 | 11×11 | 12.09 |
| 10,000 | 11×11 | 11.25 |
Figure 6Detected images with varied image sampling rate in the GFRP panel. (a) 1 Hz; (b) 5 Hz; (c) 10 Hz; (d) 30 Hz.
Figure 7Phase difference variations for different sampling rates.