Metallic fractures assessments: OCT versus SEM

Gheorghe Hutiu; Virgil-Florin Duma; Dorin Demian; Alexandru-Lucian Dimb; Ralph-Alexandru Erdelyi; Adrian Bradu; Adrian Podoleanu

doi:10.1117/12.2542917

30 December 2019 Metallic fractures assessments: OCT versus SEM

Gheorghe Hutiu, Virgil-Florin Duma, Dorin Demian, Alexandru-Lucian Dimb, Ralph-Alexandru Erdelyi, Adrian Bradu, Adrian Podoleanu

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 11385, Optics and Measurement International Conference 2019; 1138507 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2542917
Event: Optics and Measurement 2019 International Conference, 2019, Liberec, Czech Republic

Abstract

Metals can break either in a ductile or brittle manner if a static or dynamic load is applied to the same material. This depends on a variety of factors, such as the manner in which the load is applied, the shape of the mechanical part, the operating conditions, the nature and structure of the metallic material, and the working temperature. If subjected to variable loads, metallic materials break due to what is called fatigue. The microscopic analysis of fracture surfaces is currently carried out by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). We have proposed, for the first time to our knowledge, a new method to analyze fracture surfaces, using a low coherence interferometry technique, Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) [Gh. Hutiu, V.-F. Duma, et al., Surface imaging of metallic material fractures using optical coherence tomography, Appl. Opt. 53, 5912-5916 (2014); Gh. Hutiu, V.-F. Duma, et al., Assessment of ductile, brittle, and fatigue fractures of metals using optical coherence tomography, Metals 8, 117 (2018)]. The present paper presents the way we have demonstrated that OCT can replace the gold standard in such assessments, i.e. SEM, despite the fact that OCT has a resolution of 20 to 4 μm (in our investigations), while the SEM we employed has a 4 to 2 nm resolution. A few examples are given in this respect–for different types of fractures. The advantages of OCT versus SEM are discussed. This development opens the way for in situ investigations, for example in forensic sciences, where OCT can be applied (including with handheld scanning probes. as we have developed). In contrast, SEM, TEM, and AFM are lab-based techniques, more expensive, and they require trained operators.

Citation Download Citation

Gheorghe Hutiu, Virgil-Florin Duma, Dorin Demian, Alexandru-Lucian Dimb, Ralph-Alexandru Erdelyi, Adrian Bradu, and Adrian Podoleanu "Metallic fractures assessments: OCT versus SEM", Proc. SPIE 11385, Optics and Measurement International Conference 2019, 1138507 (30 December 2019); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2542917

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members: $17.00

Non-members: $21.00 ADD TO CART

PROCEEDINGS
8 PAGES

DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

GET CITATION

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Get copyright permission Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace

KEYWORDS

Optical coherence tomography

Scanning electron microscopy

Iron

Image resolution

Crystals

Chemical analysis

Diffraction

Show All Keywords

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years