4.6 Article

Evaluation of coating thickness by thermal wave imaging: A comparative study of pulsed and lock-in infrared thermography - Part II: Experimental investigation

期刊

INFRARED PHYSICS & TECHNOLOGY
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 24-29

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.infrared.2018.05.001

关键词

Thermal barrier coatings; Topcoat thickness measurement; Thermal wave imaging; Pulsed thermography; Lock-in thermography; Fourier transform; Phase angle

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea - Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea [NRF-2016R1D1A1B03932587]
  2. Human Resources Development program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant - Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic of Korea [20154030200940]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1D1A1B03932587] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we focused on the experimental arrangement of thermal wave imaging (TWI) methods for the quantitative evaluation of non-uniform topcoat thickness of thermal barrier coatings (TBCs). Two TWI techniques, pulsed thermography (PT) and lock-in thermography (LIT) were implemented on plasma sprayed TBCs with varied topcoat ranging from 0.1 mm to 0.6 mm. In PT, a short and high energy light pulse was applied on a sample surface whereas, in LIT, the sample surface was excited by a sinusoidal heat flux at several modulation frequencies ranging from 2 Hz down to 0.01 Hz. Furthermore, an infrared camera was used to capture the surface temperature of a thermal wave that propagated into the sample and the effect of the applied heat flux in both techniques was analyzed by Fourier transform. The results of PT and LIT techniques were compared based on the evaluated accuracy of each technique. Finally, it was concluded that both the techniques could be applied to the fast and accurate evaluation of TBCs thickness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据