Active thermographic inspection is a very powerful tool for many areas of science. However, there is no agreement about the proper stimulation and post-processing method for a particular material and defect type, which forces technicians to carry out trial and error tests. This study presents a comparison of three stimulation and six post-processing thermographic inspection methods applied to aeronautical carbon fibre reinforced polymer with different kind of simulated defects. The obtained results have been quantitatively assessed using the signal-to-noise ratio metric. Conclusions provide recommendations for technicians interested in thermographic inspection of this type of material.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Usamentiaga et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: