Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Corrosion Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/corsci

IR thermographic detection and characterization of hidden corrosion in metals:

General analysis
S. Marinetti a,*, V. Vavilov b
a
ITC-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti, 4, 35127- Padova, Italy
b
Institute of Introscopy, Savinykh St., 7, 634028-Tomsk, Russia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Principles of infrared thermographic non-destructive testing for determining hidden corrosion in met-
Received 30 June 2009 als are summarized and discussed. 1D, 2D and 3D heat conduction models are introduced to simulate
Accepted 6 November 2009 thermal processes in corroded areas. In thick metals, the lateral heat dissipation is mainly responsible
Available online 11 November 2009
for significantly smoothing the temperature contrast curves. Modelling small-size corroded sites
requires 3D numerical models. Numerous defects have been simulated and the inversion formulas
Keywords: for determining material loss have been modelled for both flash and square-pulse heating. It has been
A: Steel
shown that corrosion characterization inaccuracy is lower than 20% in cases representing a practical
B: IR thermography
B: Modelling studies
interest.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2. Theoretical

Detecting and evaluating hidden corrosion remains a challeng- 2.1. 1D analysis

ing task in many vital industrial areas. Infrared (IR) thermography
is a remote and fast diagnostic tool attractive for practitioners. In
the last decade, this technique proved to be useful in the inspection
of corrosion in aircraft aluminium panels where induced tempera-
ture signals are relatively high, even if they exist for short periods of
time (up to 100 ms in aluminium) [1]. Availability of commercial
high-speed IR cameras using focal plane array detectors in conjunc-
tion with powerful flash tubes delivering thousands of Joules in 5–
10 ms has allowed solving many technical problems related to
inspection of thin metals. Corrosion is detected and characterized
by analyzing spatial–temporal phenomena which occur in corroded
sites subject to stimulated heating. In short, the heat flux delivered
onto a sample surface by an external source propagates in-depth
and experiences specific disturbances in corroded areas. Peculiari-
ties of such detection technique were discussed in [1–8] from the
point of view of non-destructive testing (NDT). Very few studies
were devoted to analyzing relationship between different types of
corrosion and corresponding surface temperature patterns [9].
In this study, we summarize principle features of using IR ther-
mography in corrosion detection, with the most attention being
paid to assessment of material loss in presence of three-dimen-
sional (3D) heat diffusion.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 49 8295 724; fax: +39 49 8295 728.
E-mail address: sergio.marinetti@itc.cnr.it (S. Marinetti).
Analysis of IR thermographic corrosion detection has been
mainly done by applying one-dimensional (1D) models thus
assuming that transient thermal processes occur independently
in sound (non-defect) and defect areas. Within this approach,
defects, such as uniform corrosion, must be relatively large to
allow neglecting boundary heat diffusion phenomena (Fig. 1a).
As a matter of fact, thermal NDT produces better results if sub-
surface defects are laterally-extended to offer a considerable resis-
tance to a heat flux propagating in-depth. In steels, the
characteristic size (diameter D) of disk-shaped defects should be
about six times larger than the sample thickness L [5] to ensure
transition to 1D cases, while in aluminium alloys this condition
is more rigid (up to D/L > 17) [10].
The formulation of the related mathematical problem is trivial
in both the 1D and 3D implementation (Fig. 1b) and can be reduced
to the following assumptions:
(a) heat diffusion in samples occurs due to pure conduction,
(b) front sample surface (that is the surface optically accessible
and not affected by corrosion) is subject to heating with the
heat flux which can be uniform or localized; heating func-
tion can be described as a square pulse characterized by
the maximum density of absorbed power Q and the duration
sh (Fig. 1a),

0010-938X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2009.11.005
866 S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov / Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872

10
(a) ΔL/L=90%

T/W'
4 ΔL/L=75%

ΔL/L=50%
2
ΔL/L=25%
ΔL/L=10%
ΔL/L=0%
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Fo

10
(b)
ΔL/L=90%
Fig. 1. (a) 1D and (b) 3D sample models for corrosion detection. 8
Δ T/W'
Crun
(c) both the front and rear sample surfaces exchange heat with 6
the ambient by the Newton’s law, however, in most cases
adiabatic conditions can be accepted,
4
(d) boundaries between a host material and gas-filled defects
can be regarded adiabatic (possible presence of corrosion ΔL/L=75%
products deserves a special treatment), 2
(e) defects are regarded as flat bottom holes or grooves to sim-
ΔL/L=50%
ulate uniform, crevice or pitting corrosion, ΔL/L=25%
(f) variations of material thermal properties because of chemi- 0 ΔL/L=10%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cal reactions are neglected.
Fo

A grade of corrosion expressed in relative material loss d = DL/L Fig. 2. 1D corrosion analysis results: (a) normalized front surface temperature
is characterized by the transient differential temperature signal evolution (Dirac-pulse heating), (b) normalized differential temperature signal DT/
DT(s) = Td(s)  Tnd(s), where s is time, Tnd and Td are the surface W0 and running contrast Crun evolution.

temperatures over a non-defect and defect area, respectively.

The 1D analysis of corrosion detection involves using the classi- fect areas occurs at particular times when the sample
cal heat conduction solutions which describe flash or square-pulse temperature transits into the stationary regime.
heating of a plate with adiabatic boundary conditions. The corre- The normalized differential temperature signal DT(Fo)/W0 and
sponding front surface solutions are as follows: the running temperature contrast Crun = DT(Fo)/Tnd(Fo), which are
two parameters routinely used in thermal NDT, behave similarly,
T X1
W a
¼1þ2
2 2
en p Fo ; W0 ¼ ð1Þ as shown in Fig. 2b.
W0 n¼1
K L The dimensionless times Fo1%, when Crun values become lower
by only 1% than the corresponding asymptotic values, specify the
P
1
2 2 2 2 observation times for extended defects (Table 1).
T
Q0
¼ Foh þ p22  1
n2
 en p Fo  ðen p Foh  1Þ These values are within the Fo = 0.546–0.751 range. The partic-
n¼1 ð2Þ
ular value of Fo = 0.68 was earlier suggested as a good compromise
Q 0 ¼ QKL
between the time which is needed to reach a high signal and the
where a is the thermal diffusivity [m2 s1], K is the thermal conduc- time at which finite-size defect indications start to disappear be-
tivity [Wm1 K1], W is the absorbed heat energy density [Jm2], s cause of lateral heat diffusion [2,5].
is the time [s], Q is the absorbed heat power density [Wm2], sh is Generally, the relative sensitivity SL to the sample thickness L
the heat pulse duration, Fo = as/L2 and Foh = ash/L2 are the dimen- can be described by the following expressions which illustrate
sionless Fourier numbers. Used within the 1D model of Fig. 1a, Eq. the temporal evolution of the relative temperature increase in
(1) describe the temperature evolutions in both a non-defect and the corroded area for each 1% of material loss [11]:
defect area by considering respectively either the L or the l param- P
1
2 2

eter, where l is the sample residual thickness in a corroded site. It is n2 en p Fo

DT=T
worth noting that in thermal NDT one always deals with sample ex- SDirac
L ¼ ¼ 1 þ 4p2 Fo n¼1
P
1 ð3Þ
DL=L
cess temperature (i.e. temperature variations), thus the sample ini- 1þ2 en2 p2 Fo
n¼1
tial temperature is assumed to be 0 °C.
Some summarizing graphical illustrations resulting from the 1D
Table 1
approach are presented in Fig. 2. The plots in Fig. 2a, normalized by
Optimum dimensionless observation times in corrosion detection determined by
the parameter W0 = W a/KL, illustrate the very principle of corro- maximum running contrast (1% lower than the corresponding asymptotic values).
sion detection by analyzing the surface temperature evolutions
DL/L,% 0 10 25 50 75 90
after Dirac-pulse heating. It is clearly seen (Fig. 2b) that a maxi-
Fo1% (by Crun) – 0.751 0.677 0.606 0.565 0.546
mum temperature difference between sound (DL/L = 0%) and de-
 S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov / Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872 867

1 h
P  i
1þ2
2 2 2 2 2 2
en p ðFoh FoÞ  FoFo en p Fo en p Foh  1 garded 1D, thus requiring their lateral dimensions to be much
DT=T h
larger than L.For objects of a cylindrical and spherical shape, the
SSP
L ¼ ¼ 1  2  Foh n¼1
1 
P  
DL=L corresponding 1D inversion formulas have been proposed as fol-
Foh þ p22 1
n2
en2 p2 Fo en2 p2 Foh  1
n¼1 lows [8]:
ð4Þ (  )
1 T nd   1=2
2
where the superscripts Dirac and SP refers to the Dirac and square- dC ¼ 1  1 1 1  ð1  rÞ ; cylinder ð6Þ
r Td
pulse heating functions.
The corresponding plots are presented in Fig. 3a. The negative (  )
1 T nd   1=3
values of sensitivity mean that a decrease in thickness will result dS ¼ 1  1 1 1  ð1  rÞ3 ; sphere ð7Þ
in an increase in temperature. It is clearly seen that there is a par- r Td
ticular time period when corrosion cannot be detected because
both the sound and defect areas behave as the semi-infinite body where r is the ratio between wall thickness and external radius. It
(SL = 0). The Dirac pulse estimate for this ‘dead time’ is was shown that taking into account the shape of a tested sample
Fo1% might improve the accuracy of data inversion by up to 15% [8].
sens ¼ 0:124 (again, the 1% threshold is assumed).
Detecting corrosion is a typical inversion problem of transient In this study, 3D heat diffusion phenomena will be further ex-
heat conduction which allows, in the 1D case, to evaluate relative plored in application to defects of different geometry of which
material loss d by the Tnd(s)/Td(s) ratio (or Crun) through the follow- detection requires choosing carefully both heat source parameters
ing inverse formula proposed in [2]: and observation times.

T nd ðsÞ C run
d1D
P ðsÞ ¼ 1  ¼ ð5Þ 2.2. 3D analysis
T d ðsÞ 1 þ C run

where the subscript P specifies a plane geometry (plate), and the
superscript 1D means that the formula holds in the 1D case. Eq.
(5) is valid for uniform heating of adiabatic samples with extended
defects [2], as well as in the case of a moving heat source [6,7]. Cor-
rosion estimates by Eq. (5) depend on observation time s. The accu-
racy of such estimates can be expressed with the coefficient
l ¼ d1D
P =ðDL=LÞ, of which evolution vs. Fo is presented in Fig. 3b.
If the process can be assumed adiabatic, the sensitivity to rear-
side corrosion is increasing in time reaching a particular maxi-
mum. The accuracy in evaluating d is high if defects can be re-
2.2.1. 3D model verification
1D models explain qualitative features of thermal NDT, but in
practice quantitative estimates are needed thus justifying imple-
mentation of 3D models. It was shown elsewhere that, in case of
disk-shape defects, signal reduction due to lateral heat diffusion
can be described with a coefficient which tends to unity in the case
of extended defects (see Fig. 4) [2–5,8,12].
Such a coefficient g(D0 ), with D0 = D/L, was obtained for round-
shape defects using Eq. (5) at Fo = 0.68 in the following form [5]:
3
ðD0 Þ4 1:1102 ðD0 Þ3 101 ðD0 Þ2 6:1102 ðD0 Þþ3:9102
gðD0 Þ ¼ 1  e1:810 ð8Þ

ensuring the approximation accuracy under 5% in the range of D0

Square pulse (Foh=0.1) from 1 to 8.The corresponding inversion formula for identifying
0
Square pulse (Foh=0.5) material loss is:
-0.2 Square pulse (Foh=1.0) d1D
P ðFo ¼ 0:68Þ
d2Dest ¼ ð9Þ
gðD=LÞ
-0.4
where the superscript ‘‘2Dest” specifies the corrosion estimate in a
SL

-0.6
2D case (axial symmetric geometry).
A more general approach to defining a correction coefficient as a
function of time s, material loss DL/L, D/L ratio and sample thick-
-0.8
ness L will be discussed below.
(a) The 3D transient heat conduction problem formulated as re-
-1 Dirac pulse
ported above has been solved by using the ThermoCalc-6L program
1%
0 Fosens 0.5 1 1.5 2
Fo
1

1 0.8

0.8
0.6
ΔL/L=10%
η

0.6 ΔL/L=25%
μ

ΔL/L=50% 0.4

0.4 ΔL/L=75%
ΔL/L=90% 0.2
0.2
(b)
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 D/L
Fo
Fig. 4. 3D heat diffusion correction coefficient adapted from [11] for round-shape
Fig. 3. (a) Sensitivity to sample thickness vs. Fo, (b) accuracy of Eq. (3) vs. Fo. defects (Dirac-pulse heating, Fo = 0.68).
868 S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov / Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872

from Innovation, Ltd., Russia [10], which implements a finite-dif-
ference method and an implicit computation scheme. Some results
have been also obtained by using the COMSOL MultiphysicsÒ pack-
age involving a finite elements method. The computation accuracy
was first checked in a sound area by comparing the numerical re-
sults with the classical solution for heating an adiabatic plate with
a square pulse and proved to be better than 1%.
‘‘Defect” temperatures have been checked by comparing two
50%-material loss models: a disk-shaped defect with a 2.8 mm ra-
dius (2D axial symmetric geometry, COMSOL Multiphysics pro-
gram) and a 5  5 mm square defect (3D Cartesian geometry,
ThermoCalc-6L program). The temperature profiles and their rela-
tive difference are shown in Fig. 5a. The observed divergence,
which is partially due to the difference in the shape of the two de-
fects having the same in-plane area, is less than 1% in the time
interval of interest. Also, the maximums of Crun (Fig. 5b) calculated
with the two programs matched well producing errors under 2.5%.
2.2.2. Corrosion detection peculiarities
The analysis below has been done on rectangular-shaped de-
fects (Fig. 1b) with different ratios between lateral dimensions
and material loss. In total, over 100 situations differing by defect
lateral dimensions (Dmin, Dmax), material loss (d), thermal proper-
ties (K, a), sample thickness (L) and heating time (sh) have been
computed and afterwards used to derive inversion formulas (some
cases are presented in Table 2 as illustration). Most cases were as-
sumed to be adiabatic. The correctness of such assumption is con-
firmed by Case 7 where the presence of convection on both sample
surfaces (h = 10 Wm2 K1) did not significantly change detection
parameters in regard to Case 4 (see Table 2). Also, variations in
material thermal conductivity used to lead only to variations in
15
difference [%]
(a)
10
absolute temperatures but, as shown by Cases 6 and 4, did not af-
fect the running contrast and, hence, corrosion estimates.
An example of the computed 3D corrosion model is presented in
Fig. 6a along with the temperature distributions observed at two
different times (Fig. 6b and c). It is clearly seen that heat diffusion
significantly smoothes temperature patterns over hidden defects
and thus prevents detecting small defects.
The time evolution of temperature signals in a sound and defect
area (15  15 mm) is shown in Fig. 7a for Case 1. Other plots in
Fig. 7 illustrate how the 1D estimate of material loss dest calculated
by Eq. (5) evolves in time in regard to the true material loss value
dtrue. It is seen that dest is always smaller than dtrue, and the best
estimates of corrosion appear at particular times sm which depend
on both material loss dtrue and pulse duration sh. It can be easily
demonstrated that sm is the time when the corresponding maxi-
mum running contrast Crun, or minimum Tnd/Td ratio, occurs. Note
that, with longer heat pulses, contrast maximums could appear
also within heating. In some cases, there is a local maximum of dest
which takes place immediately after a heat pulse (see Fig. 7c). In
the case of short heat pulses, optimum detection times appear after
the pulse as single maximums (Fig. 7d) thus approaching the case
of Dirac-pulse heating.
In accordance with the conclusions following the 1D analysis
[2], the results above prove that flash heating provides better esti-
mates of corrosion. However, short heat pulses available in practice
may be not powerful enough to produce detectable temperature
signals DT. Therefore, thick metallic samples should be heated long
enough to absorb a necessary amount of thermal energy. In this
case, ensuring a maximum accuracy of corrosion estimates re-
quires that heating times sh should not typically exceed predicted
sm values. If the energy absorbed by a sample by that time will not
build up temperature signals higher than a temperature resolution
of a used IR camera, heating should be continued with progressing
loss of the sensitivity to material loss.
1
The limitation of the 1D approach is illustrated in Fig. 8 where
Eq. (5) has been applied to evaluate both a 1D (extended) and 3D
0.5
(finite-size) defects representing 25% corrosion. In the 1D case,
0 the accuracy of corrosion evaluation increases in time and reaches
-0.5 the true value (25%) after the pulse due to the lack of considerable
difference, %

-1 lateral heat diffusion. In its turn, the best estimate of the 3D case
T, °C

-1.5 occurs within the heat pulse to result in only 17% of material loss.
-2
Comsol Multiphysics (r=2.8mm)
5
ThermoCalc-6L (l=5.0mm) -2.5
3. Corrosion characterization
-3
-3.5 Practical application of the methodology described above
0 -4 should result in quantitative estimation of material loss. By numer-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ical modelling, optimum inspection parameters, such as type of
Fo
heating, as well as heat pulse energy and duration, should be cho-
sen. Heating duration should be as short as possible and powerful
0.3
enough to increase sample temperature up to a detectable level at
(b) Comsol Multiphysics (2D)
time of observation. Experimental data is to be typically enhanced
0.25 ThermoCalc-6L (3D)
to provide an acceptable value of signal-to-noise ratio, then sample
0.2
areas, where corrosion is being suspected, are to be segmented.
Relative material losses in corroded sites are to be estimated by
Crun

0.15 analyzing the corresponding temperature evolutions.

While in Eq. (5) and Eq. (9) the observation time was fixed at
0.1 Fo = 0.68, the inversion formulas proposed in this paper are based
on the maximum value of Crun, that occurs at Fomax. In the case of
0.05 flash heating, the inversion formula is the following

0
 s

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi !
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Dmin Dmin
d3Dest ¼ A  exp B  þC þD ð10Þ
Fo L apparent L apparent
Fig. 5. Comparing numerical results in computing (a) defect temperature and (b)
running contrast. where
 S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov / Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872 869

Table 2
3D corrosion detection models numerically calculated with ThermoCalc-6L.

Case Dmin [mm] Dmax [mm] C max

run
dest/dtrue sm [s]
1 5.0 5.0 0.122 0.220 0.7
K = 63.9 W/(m K) 2.5 10.0 0.098 0.178 0.7
a = 18.8  106 m2/s 1.0 25.0 0.053 0.100 0.9
L = 5 mm, d = 50% 15.0 15.0 0.464 0.633 1.4
Q = 104 W/m2, sh = 5 s 7.5 30.0 0.328 0.494 1.2
3.0 75.0 0.135 0.237 0.9
25.0 25.0 0.653 0.789 2.3
12.5 50.0 0.502 0.669 1.7
5.0 125.0 0.230 0.373 1.1
2 5.0 5.0 0.033 0.128 1.0
K = 63.9 W/(m K), 2.5 10.0 0.028 0.110 1.1
a = 18.8  106 m2/s 1.0 25.0 0.017 0.068 1.4
L = 5 mm, d = 25% 15.0 15.0 0.144 0.503 1.7
Q = 104 W/m2, sh = 5 s 7.5 30.0 0.103 0.374 1.7
3.0 75.0 0.045 0.173 1.5
25.0 25.0 0.209 0.691 2.6
12.5 50.0 0.160 0.553 2.2
5.0 125.0 0.072 0.268 1.6
3 5.0 5.0 0.015 0.146 1.3
K = 63.9 W/(m K) 2.5 10.0 0.013 0.132 1.3
a = 18.8  106 m2/s 1.0 25.0 0.009 0.088 1.4
L = 5 mm, d = 10% 15.0 15.0 0.071 0.663 1.5
Q = 104 W/m2, sh = 1 s 7.5 30.0 0.050 0.484 1.4
3.0 75.0 0.022 0.221 1.4
25.0 25.0 0.099 0.898 1.7
12.5 50.0 0.078 0.718 1.5
5.0 125.0 0.035 0.344 1.4
4 2.0 2.0 0.495 0.441 0.08
K = 63.9 W/(m K) 1.0 4.0 0.325 0.327 0.08
a = 18.8  106 m2/s 0.4 10.0 0.107 0.130 0.06
L = 2 mm, d = 75% 6.0 6.0 1.469 0.793 0.18
Q = 104 W/m2, sh = 1 s 3.0 12.0 1.092 0.696 0.16
0.83 30.0 0.362 0.354 0.08
10.0 10.0 2.003 0.889 0.32
5.0 20.0 1.584 0.817 0.22
2.0 50.0 0.812 0.597 0.12
5 2.0* 2.0* 0.244* 0.392* 0.06*
K = 63.9 W/(m K) 1.0 4.0 0.473 0.427 0.04
a = 18.8  106 m2/s 0.4 10.0 0.142 0.165 0.03
L = 2 mm, d = 75% (*d = 50%) 6.0* 6.0* 0.757* 0.862* 0.10*
Q = 105 W/m2, sh = 0.01 s 3.0 12.0 1.653 0.830 0.07
0.83 30.0 0.508 0.449 0.04
10.0* 10.0* 0.934* 0.966* 0.13*
5.0 20.0 2.322 0.932 0.09
2.0 50.0 1.208 0.730 0.06
6 2.0 2.0 0.493 0.441 0.08
K = 31.95 W/(m K) 6.0 6.0 1.463 0.793 0.18
a = 9.4  106 m2/s 10.0 10.0 1.994 0.888 0.30
L = 2 mm, d = 75%
Q = 104 W/m2, sh = 1 s
7 2.0 2.0 0.495 0.441 0.08
K = 63.9 W/(m K) 6.0 6.0 1.469 0.793 0.18
a = 18.8  106 m2/s 10.0 10.0 1.994 0.889 0.30
L = 2 mm, d = 75%
Q = 104 W/m2, sh = 1 s h = 10 W/(m2 K)

Fig. 6. Modelling 25% corrosion in a 5 mm-thick steel AISI 1010 plate heated with 5 s square pulse (Case 2 in Table 2): (a) scheme of defects, (b) temperature distribution at
s = 0.1 s and (c) s = 5 s.

A ¼ 0:2652
C max
 0:036
2 þ 0:0759 In Eq. (10), the term (Dmin/L)apparent depends on the aspect ratio R of
run ðCmax
run Þ
the defect, defined as Dmax/Dmin. For square defects (R = 1)
B ¼ 1:7537  e 6:6779C max
run  1:1901 ð11Þ

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Dmin Dmin
C ¼ 1:3449  10:1429  e 3:6099 C max
run
¼ : ð12Þ
L apparent L
870 S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov / Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872

5 1
4.5 (a) 0.9 (b) 5s
4 Defect 0.8
3.5 0.7 5 mm
3 0.6 50 %

δest\δtrue
T, °C

2.5 Sound 0.5

2 5s
0.4
1.5 0.3
1 5 mm 0.2
50 %
0.5 0.1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
τm
time, s time, s

1 1
1s
0.9 (c) 0.9 (d) 0.01 s
0.8 0.8 2 mm
50 %
0.7 5 mm 0.7
50 %
0.6 0.6
δest\δtrue

δest\δtrue
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
time, s time, s

Fig. 7. Temporal evolution of corrosion detection parameters (Table 2): Case 1 (a) temperature signals in defect #4 (15  15 mm) and non-defect area, (b) dest/dtrue for the
same defect, (c) dest/dtrue for Case 3 defect #4 (15  15 mm) and (d) dest/dtrue for Case 5 defect #4 (6  6 mm).

pulse heating, the following inversion formula has been obtained by

1D fitting calculated data as functions of Foh, Fomax, Dmax/L, Dmin/L, C max
run :
0.25
C max
d3Dest ¼ run
k ð16Þ
0.2 1 þ C max
run

where
δest

0.15 3D

0:1638
0:5980
Dmax Dmin
0.1 k ¼ 0:4543  Fo0:2512
h  Fo0:4025
max  
L L
 0:2286
0.05  C max
run ð17Þ

and the superscript ‘‘3Dest” is related to 3D cases (estimated val-

0 ues).The above inversion formulas, tested on the whole simulated
0 2 4 6 8 10
time, s data set, provided an overall accuracy better than 20%.

Fig. 8. Estimates of 25% of corrosion in a 5 mm-thick steel AISI 1010 sample heated
with a 5 s square pulse: 1D (large defect) and 3D (Case 2 defect 25  25 mm).
4. Experimental

4.1. Experimental set-up

For rectangular defects (R > 1), if (Dmin/L) P 3 then


Dmin Dmin The experimental set-up included an IR imager, a flash heater
¼  1:225 ð13Þ (two tubes 4.8 kJ each delivered in 5 ms) (Fig. 10) and a tubular
L apparent L
quartz lamp heater (30 kW continuous energy). IR image se-
otherwise quences were captured with the acquisition rate varying from 1

 "
2 # to 30 Hz to be further processed on a computer by using the inver-
Dmin Dmin Dmin Dmin sion algorithms described above, as well as applying some image
¼  a þb þc ð14Þ
L apparent L L L processing tools available in thermal NDT.

where
4.2. Flash heating
a ¼ 0:0785  0:2754  e0:7817R
b ¼ 0:4635 þ 1:4809  e0:7737R ð15Þ An AISI 1045 steel sample (L = 3 mm) containing nine bottom-
0:7754R hole defects, of which scheme is shown in Fig. 11 along with some
c ¼ 1:8798  2:0579  e
raw IR images, has been inspected by using the set-up from Fig. 10.
This procedure can be easily implemented in any programming lan- The front surface of the sample was black-painted, that is a typical
guage, and the block diagram is depicted in Fig. 9.In case of square- procedure in IR thermography enhancing material absorptivity/
 S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov / Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872
Fig. 9. Corrosion inversion procedure for flash heating.
Fig. 10. Experimental set-up: IR imager and flash tube heater.
emissivity in the IR range. As for the defect dimensions Dmin and
Dmax, that are required to apply the inversion procedure in Fig. 9,
both nominal and experimentally estimated (FWHM method
[13]) values were used. The accepted handbook value of diffusivity
was 13.5  106 m2/s.The results are presented in Table 3 to prove
a reasonable accuracy of evaluating corrosion by using the 3D
model.
4.3. Square-pulse heating
A 10 mm-thick AISI 1045 steel sample containing simulated
corrosion was black painted and inspected by using a 30 kW tubu-
Fig. 11. Inspecting a 3 mm-thick AISI 1045 steel sample by flash heating
(sh = 5 ms).
871
lar quartz lamp heater which provided up to 15 kW/m2 of absorbed
energy for 5–20 s.
The sample contained bottom-holes simulating 10%, 25% and
50% material loss (Fig. 12a). The validity of defect characterization
has been checked on two defects D1 and D2 with nominal diameter
Ø = 40 and 20 mm, respectively (Fig. 12b). The sample was heated
for 20 s. The maximum running contrasts and their times of occur-
rence are reported in the table in Fig. 12. In this case, the material
diffusivity evaluated by the Parker’s method [14] was
13  106 m2/s. The apparent defect diameter, determined by the
FWHM method, was Ø = 43 mm for D1 and Ø = 21 mm for D2. Since
Eq. (16) refers to rectangular-shaped defects, equivalent square de-
fects were considered.
Note that corrosion patterns look stretched in Fig. 12b due to IR
imager inclination in respect to the sample surface. By substituting
the experimental parameters into Eq. (16), the estimates of mate-
rial loss were 52% and 54% against the true value 50%. Note that
using Eq. (5) the corrosion estimate resulted only in 40% and
26%, respectively.Some potentials of advanced data treatment are
illustrated with Fig. 13.
The detection limit by analyzing the raw image (Fig. 13a)
strongly corrupted by uneven heating is characterized by 50%
material loss (defect diameter 20 mm). Applying the Fourier trans-
formation in time, that is a standard technique in thermal NDT
[15], has insured the detection of up to 25% material loss, see the
clearly visible defects (Ø = 40 and 20 mm with d = 25%) in the
‘phasegram’ in Fig. 13b.
5. Conclusions
IR thermographic NDT has proven to be an efficient tool in
detecting hidden corrosion in thin metals, such as aircraft alumin-
ium panels, while inspecting thick metal structures requires opti-
mizing heating protocols and applying advanced data treatment.
In thick metals, the phenomenon of lateral heat dissipation is
mainly responsible for degrading surface temperature indications.
Modelling such defect situations requires solving numerically the
corresponding 3D heat conduction problem. In this study, numer-
ous defect situations have been simulated and the inversion for-
mulas for determining material loss have been proposed for both
flash and square-pulse heating. These formulas involve correction
coefficients which reflect the influence of 3D heat dissipation on
observed defect parameters. Corrosion characterization requires
determining defect apparent size and analyzing temporal evolu-
tion of the ratio between defect and non-defect temperatures.
The analysis of both flash and square-pulse heating procedures
has shown that flash heating ensures maximum temperature con-
trasts over defects but may deliver not enough energy to produce
872 S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov / Corrosion Science 52 (2010) 865–872

Table 3
Identifying material loss in a 3 mm-thick AISI 1045 steel sample, with thermal diffusivity a = 13.5  106 m2/s (Fig. 11).

dtrue [%] Dreal exp

min ðDmin Þ [mm] Dreal exp
max ðDmax Þ [mm]
sm [s] C max
r d1D
P [%] d3D
P [%]
*

50 3 (4.2) 33 (29.3) 0.231 0.322 24.4 45.1 (37.9)

50 5 (5.3) 20 (17.3) 0.276 0.541 35.1 46.8 (45.8)
50 10 (8.8) 10 (8.6) 0.350 0.652 39.5 43.6 (45.5)
25 3 (5.3) 33 (31.0) 0.278 0.109 9.8 25.7 (17.0)
25 5 (6.5) 20 (19.4) 0.339 0.158 13.6 23.0 (19.6)
25 10 (10.0) 10 (10.0) 0.424 0.205 17.0 20.4 (20.4)
10 3 (4.8) 33 (30.0) 0.375 0.020 2.0 4.2 (2.8)
10 5 (6.9) 20 (19.2) 0.465 0.054 5.1 9.6 (7.7)
10 10 (11.3) 10 (11.3) 0.419 0.090 8.3 10.9 (10.2)
exp
*
The first values refer to real defect dimensions (Dreal real exp
min ; Dmax ), while the values in brackets refer to defect size (Dmin ; Dmax ) experimentally estimated by FWHM method and
Principal Component Analysis processing.

ples with thickness up to 3 mm, while in thicker samples (up to

5 mm thick) the detection limit worsens up to 25%. Unpainted steel
samples thicker than 5 mm which are characterized by surface
noise contrast about 15% should be inspected by applying
square-pulse heating to ensure detection limit about 25% by mate-
rial loss. Enhancing sample emissivity/absorptivity by applying
‘black coatings’ might significantly improve testing results due to
reduced (up to 3%) surface noise.
The validity of the proposed inversion formulas has been con-
firmed experimentally by analyzing two samples made of AISI
1045 steel. It has been shown that the accuracy of corrosion char-
acterization varies from 0.2% to 20% in cases representing practical
interest.

References

Fig. 12. Inspecting a 10 mm-thick AISI 1045 steel sample by square-pulse heating:
(a) defect scheme and contrast features, (b) raw images.
Fig. 13. Advanced data treatment in the inspection of a 10 mm-thick AISI 1045
steel sample: (a) raw image at the best observation time, (b) phasegram.
noticeable differential temperature signals in corroded sites.
Therefore, the compromise between producing necessary temper-
ature contrasts and ensuring detectable temperature signals is to
be achieved in each particular test case.
Simple estimates for corrosion detection limits have been found
as a function of defect size and noise parameters. Flash heating is
[1] K.E. Cramer, P.A. Howell, H.I. Syed, Quantitative thermal imaging of aircraft
structures, Proc. SPIE ‘‘Thermosense XVII” 2473 (1995) 226–232.
[2] V. Vavilov, E. Grinzato, P.G. Bison, S. Marinetti, M. Bales, Inversion for hidden
corrosion characterization: theory and applications, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
(39) (1996) 355–371.
[3] E. Grinzato, V. Vavilov, Corrosion evaluation by thermal image processing and
3D modelling, Rev. Generale Termique 8 (37) (1998) 669–679.
[4] V. Vavilov, V. Shiryaev, E. Grinzato, Detection of hidden corrosion in metals by
using transient infrared thermography, Insight 6 (40) (1988) 408–410.
[5] S. Marinetti, P.G. Bison, E. Grinzato, 3D heat flux effects in the experimental
evaluation of corrosion by IR thermography, in: Intern. Conf. Proc. ‘‘Quant. IR
Thermography 6 – QIRT’02” Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2002, pp. 92–98.
[6] K.E. Cramer, R. Jacobstein, T. Reilly, Boiler tube corrosion characterization with
a scanning thermal line, Proc. SPIE ‘‘Thermosense XXIII” 4360 (2001) 594–605.
[7] D.F. Woolard, K.E. Cramer, The thermal photocopier: a new concept for thermal
NDT, Proc. SPIE ‘‘Thermosense XXVI” 5405 (2004) 366–373.
[8] E. Grinzato, V. Vavilov, P. Bison, S. Marinetti, Hidden corrosion detection in
thick metallic components by transient IR thermography, Infrared Phys.
Technol. (49) (2007) 234–238.
[9] J.-S. Han, J.-H. Park, Detection of corrosion steel under an organic coating by
infrared photography, Corros. Sci. (46) (2004) 787–793.
[10] ThermoCalc-6L Operation Manual, Innovation, Ltd., Russia, 2007.
[11] S. Marinetti, V. Vavilov, Sensitivity analysis of classical heat conduction
solutions applied to materials characterization, Heat Transfer Eng. 9 (26)
(2005) 50–60.
[12] E. Grinzato, V. Vavilov, P.G. Bison, S. Marinetti, Methodology of processing
experimental data in transient thermal NDT, Proc. SPIE ‘‘Thermosense-XVII”
2473 (1995) 167–178.
[13] D. Almond, P. Patel, Photothermal Science and Techniques, Chapman & Hall,
London, UK, 1996.
[14] W.J. Parker, R.J. Jenkins, C.P. Butler, G.L. Abbot, Flash method of determining
thermal diffusivity, heat capacity and thermal conductivity, J. Appl. Phys. (32)
(1961) 1679–1684.
[15] X. Maldague, S. Marinetti, Pulse phase infrared thermography, J. Appl. Phys. 79
(5) (1996) 2694–2698.

recommended for detecting up to 10% material loss in steel sam-