4.5 Article

A comparison of different approaches for imaging cracks in composites by X-ray microtomography

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0037

Keywords

four-dimensional imaging; carbon fibre composite; damage evolution; image-based modelling

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/F007906/1, EP/F001452/1, EP/M010619/1]
  2. China Scholarship Council
  3. EPSRC [EP/J021229/1, EP/F001452/1, EP/M010619/1, EP/F007906/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M010619/1, EP/F007906/1, EP/J021229/1, EP/F001452/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

X-ray computed tomography (CT) has emerged as a key imaging tool in the characterization of materials, allowing three-dimensional visualization of an object non-destructively as well as enabling the monitoring of damage accumulation over time through time-lapse imaging. However, small defects and cracks can be difficult to detect, particularly in composite materials where low-contrast, plate-like geometries of large area can compromise detectability. Here, we investigate a number of strategies aimed at increasing the capability of X-ray CT to detect composite damage such as transverse ply cracking and delamination, looking specifically at a woven glass fibre-reinforced three-dimensional composite. High-resolution region of interest (ROI) scanning, in situ loading, phase contrast and contrast agents are examined systematically as strategies for improving the defect detectability. Spatial resolution, contrast, signal-to-noise ratio, full width at half maximum, user friendliness and measurement time are all considered. Taken together, the results suggest that high-resolution ROI scanning combined with the increased contrast resulting from staining give the highest defect detectability. This article is part of the themed issue 'Multiscale modelling of the structural integrity of composite materials'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available