Figure
8 Detection of cracks in cut test blade sample D. (a) Cross-sectional
microscope composite image of sample D imaged along the edge of the cut
(defocus due to irregular edge). Notations indicate the scale,
orientation, coating thickness (double arrow), and crack (arrow). (b)
OCT surface topography near the edge of the sample. (c,d) Corresponding
OCT volume projections at different depths, revealing cracking along
different planes. (e) B-scan near the sample edge, showing the two
cracks “c” and “d” at different depths. (f,g) Cross-sections from 10
and 20 B-scans, respectively, in the same orientation as the microscope
image in (a). Scan positions are indicated by the blue dashed lines in
(c) and (d).
4 | CONCLUSION
This work demonstrates the potential of MIR OCT as a non-destructive
method for inspection of coatings on wind turbine blades. It was found
that the SC laser is able to penetrate polyurethane leading edge
coatings and image subsurface defects, such as bubbles and cracks below
250 μm in depth. In coatings less than 150 μm, OCT can clearly delineate
the interface between different coating layers and between the coating
and substrate to reveal defects and cracks. OCT is a contactless
technology, that unlike ultrasound can image through air gaps, such as
cracks and bubbles. However, due to the highly scattering nature of
these coatings, and especially the putty layer which has a high content
of filler particles, the penetration depth of 4 μm OCT is curently
limited to imaging only very close to the surface and requires
relatively long integration times on the order of milliseconds per line
(seconds per B-scan) to do so. Still, there is currently no other
existing non-destructive method that can image just below the surface
with sufficient detail to identify coating defects. With further
developments in MIR SC lasers and detector technology to increase the
wavelength range and reduce the noise, the penetration depth and
sensitivity of OCT is expected to improve. OCT therefore has a unique
potential to complement existing methods in the quality control of
coatings on wind turbine blades and RET specimens, which can contribute
to improving the lifetime of turbine blades, reducing waste, and making
wind energy production cheaper and more reliable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the DURALEDGE project partners for providing the
test specimens for this work.
ORCID
Christian Rosenberg Petersen (0000-0002-2883-7908), Søren Fæster
(0000-0001-5088-2396), Jakob Ilsted Bech (0000-0003-0228-6375), Kristine
Munk Jespersen (0000-0002-6796-6200), Niels Møller Israelsen
(0000-0001-9632-7902), Ole Bang (0000-0002-8041-9156).
REFERENCES
1. C. B. Hasager, L. Mishnaevsky, C. Bak, J. I. Bech, S. Fæster, and N.
F.-J. Johansen, How Can We Combat Leading-Edge Erosion on Wind
Turbine Blades? (Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, Institut for
Vindenergi, Risø Campus, 4000, Roskilde, Danmark, 2021).
2. L. Mishnaevsky, S. Fæster, L. P. Mikkelsen, Y. Kusano, and J. I.
Bech, ”Micromechanisms of leading edge erosion of wind turbine blades:
X‐ray tomography analysis and computational studies,” Wind Energy23 (3), 547–562 (2020).
3. S. Fæster, N. F. Johansen, L. Mishnaevsky, Y. Kusano, J. I. Bech, and
M. B. Madsen, ”Rain erosion of wind turbine blades and the effect of air
bubbles in the coatings,” Wind Energy 24 (10), 1071–1082
(2021).
4. C. Xu, L. He, D. Xiao, P. Ma, and Q. Wang, ”A Novel High-Frequency
Ultrasonic Approach for Evaluation of Homogeneity and Measurement of
Sprayed Coating Thickness,” Coatings 10 , 676 (2020).
5. I. Alig, S. Tadjbach, P. Krüger, H. Oehler, and D. Lellinger,
”Characterization of coating systems by scanning acoustic microscopy:
Debonding, blistering and surface topology,” Prog. Org. Coat.64 (2–3), 112–119 (2009).
6. Z. Qu, P. Jiang, and W. Zhang, ”Development and Application of
Infrared Thermography Non-Destructive Testing Techniques,” Sensors20 , 3851 (2020).
7. Z. Liu, D. Jiao, W. Shi, and H. Xie, ”Linear laser fast scanning
thermography NDT for artificial disbond defects in thermal barrier
coatings,” Opt. Express 25 (25), 31789–31800 (2017).
8. J. Zeitler and L. Gladden, ”In-vitro tomography and non-destructive
imaging at depth of pharmaceutical solid dosage forms,” Eur. J. Pharm.
Biopharm. 71 (1), 2–22 (2009).
9. R. S. Bradley, Y. Liu, T. L. Burnett, X. Zhou, S. B. Lyon, P. J.
Withers, A. Gholinia, T. Hashimoto, D. Graham, S. R. Gibbon, and B.
Hornberger, ”Time-lapse lab-based x-ray nano-CT study of corrosion
damage,” J. Microsc. 267 (1), 98–106 (2017).
10. Y. Wang, J. Adrien, and B. Normand, ”Porosity Characterization of
Cold Sprayed Stainless Steel Coating Using Three-Dimensional X-ray
Microtomography,” Coatings 8 , 326 (2018).
11. D. Huang, E. A. Swanson, C. P. Lin, J. S. Schuman, W. G. Stinson, W.
Chang, M. R. Hee, T. Flotte, K. Gregory, C. A. Puliafito, and J. G.
Fujimoto, ”Optical Coherence Tomography,” Science 254 (5035),
1178–1181 (1991).
12. N. M. Israelsen, M. Maria, M. Mogensen, S. Bojesen, M. Jensen, M.
Haedersdal, A. Podoleanu, and O. Bang, ”The value of ultrahigh
resolution OCT in dermatology - delineating the dermo-epidermal
junction, capillaries in the dermal papillae and vellus hairs,” Biomed.
Opt. Express 9 (5), 2240–2265 (2018).
13. M. Mogensen, L. Thrane, T. M. Jørgensen, P. E. Andersen, and G. B.
E. Jemec, ”OCT imaging of skin cancer and other dermatological
diseases,” J. Biophotonics 2 (6–7), 442–451 (2009).
14. Y. Dong, S. Lawman, Y. Zheng, D. Williams, J. Zhang, and Y.-C. Shen,
”Nondestructive analysis of automotive paints with spectral domain
optical coherence tomography,” Appl. Opt. 55 (13), 3695–3700
(2016).
15. C. Wang, N. Zhang, Z. Sun, Z. Li, Z. Li, and X. Xu, ”Recovering
hidden sub-layers of repainted automotive paint by 3D optical coherence
tomography,” Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 51 (3), 331–339 (2019).
16. N. Zhang, C. Wang, Z. Sun, H. Mei, W. Huang, L. Xu, L. Xie, J. Guo,
Y. Yan, Z. Li, X. Xu, P. Xue, and N. Liu, ”Characterization of
automotive paint by optical coherence tomography,” Forensic Sci. Int.266 , 239–244 (2016).
17. J. Zhang, B. M. Williams, S. Lawman, D. Atkinson, Z. Zhang, Y. Shen,
and Y. Zheng, ”Non-destructive analysis of flake properties in
automotive paints with full-field optical coherence tomography and 3D
segmentation,” Opt. Express 25 (16), 18614–18626 (2017).
18. C. S. Cheung, J. M. O. Daniel, M. Tokurakawa, W. A. Clarkson, and H.
Liang, ”High resolution Fourier domain optical coherence tomography in
the 2 μm wavelength range using a broadband supercontinuum source,” Opt.
Express 23 (3), 1992–2001 (2015).
19. C. R. Petersen, P. M. Moselund, L. Huot, L. Hooper, and O. Bang,
”Towards a table-top synchrotron based on supercontinuum generation,”
Infrared Phys. Technol. 91 , 182–186 (2018).
20. I. Zorin, R. Su, A. Prylepa, J. Kilgus, M. Brandstetter, and B.
Heise, ”Mid-infrared Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography with a
pyroelectric linear array,” Opt. Express 26 (25), 33428–33439
(2018).
21. N. M. Israelsen, C. R. Petersen, A. Barh, D. Jain, M. Jensen, G.
Hannesschläger, P. Tidemand-Lichtenberg, C. Pedersen, A. Podoleanu, and
O. Bang, ”Real-time high-resolution mid-infrared optical coherence
tomography,” Light Sci. Appl. 8:11 (2019).
22. N. M. Israelsen, P. J. Rodrigo, C. R. Petersen, G. Woyessa, R. E.
Hansen, P. Tidemand-Lichtenberg, C. Pedersen, and O. Bang,
”High-resolution mid-infrared optical coherence tomography with kHz line
rate,” Opt. Lett. 46 (18), 4558–4561 (2021).
23. C. R. Petersen, N. Rajagopalan, C. Markos, N. M. Israelsen, P. J.
Rodrigo, G. Woyessa, P. Tidemand-Lichtenberg, C. Pedersen, C. E.
Weinell, S. Kiil, and O. Bang, ”Non-Destructive Subsurface Inspection of
Marine and Protective Coatings Using Near- and Mid-Infrared Optical
Coherence Tomography,” Coatings 11 (8), 877 (2021).
24. P. Liu, R. M. Groves, and R. Benedictus, ”3D monitoring of
delamination growth in a wind turbine blade composite using optical
coherence tomography,” NDT E Int. 64 , 52–58 (2014).
25. A. Fraisse, J. I. Bech, K. K. Borum, V. Fedorov, N. Frost-Jensen
Johansen, M. McGugan, L. Mishnaevsky, and Y. Kusano, ”Impact fatigue
damage of coated glass fibre reinforced polymer laminate,” Renew. Energy126 , 1102–1112 (2018).
26. L. A. Feldkamp, L. C. Davis, and J. W. Kress, ”Practical cone-beam
algorithm,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1 (6), 612 (1984).
27. I. Hartl, X. D. Li, C. Chudoba, R. K. Ghanta, T. H. Ko, J. G.
Fujimoto, J. K. Ranka, and R. S. Windeler, ”Ultrahigh-resolution optical
coherence tomography using continuum generation in an air–silica
microstructure optical fiber,” Opt. Lett. 26 (9), 608–610
(2001).
28. G. Woyessa, K. Kwarkye, M. K. Dasa, C. R. Petersen, R. Sidharthan,
S. Chen, S. Yoo, and O. Bang, ”Power stable 1.5–10.5 µm cascaded
mid-infrared supercontinuum laser without thulium amplifier,” Opt. Lett.46 (5), 1129–1132 (2021).
FIGURE LEGENDS
Figure 1 (a) Photographic overview of the test samples. Arrows
indicate impact sites.
Figure 2 XCT data and density segmentation revealing cracks
(red) and air bubbles (blue) inside the coated sample B.
Figure 3 (a) Experimental setup for the 4 μm OCT system. (b)
OCT imaging depth for different spectrometer integration time. The scale
bar corresponds to 200 μm assuming a refractive index of n=1.
Figure 4 OCT imaging of transparent coating sample A at 1.3 μm.
(a) Close-up en face optical image of the impact area taken with the OCT
onboard camera. (b,c) OCT surface- and subsurface en face projection of
the impact area, respectively. (d) Single B-scan across the impact area
shown by the vertical dashed line in (b). (e) Superposition of 200
B-scans showing the patterns of cracks in the area between the
horizontal dashed lines in (b). The scale bars indicate optical depth
assuming of n = 1.
Figure 5 OCT imaging of sample B using both 1.3 μm and 4 μm
OCT. (a) Close-up of the impact area taken with the OCT onboard camera.
(b,c) 1.3 μm and 4 μm OCT surface en face projection of the impact area,
respectively. (d) XCT verification of subsurface voids. (e,f) 1.3 μm and
4 μm OCT subsurface en face projection of the impact area, respectively.
Horizontal dashed lines indicate the scan positions in (g) and (h),
which are offset due to different scan orientations. (g,h) Superposition
of 10 B-scans using 1.3 μm and 4 μm OCT, respectively.
Figure 6 Detection of sub-surface bubbles in sample B using 4
μm OCT with XCT verification. (a,b) OCT and (c,d) XCT surface- and
subsurface en face projections of the scan area, respectivly. (e,g,i)
OCT and (f,h,j) XCT cross-sections of bubbles (1)-(5). Note that the XCT
scale is a physical scale, while the OCT scale is optical path distance
(OPD) (i.e. multiplied by n).
Figure 7 (a,b) Microscope- and OCT cross-sections of monolayer
sample B, respectively (not the same position). (c,d) Microscope- and
OCT cross-sections of multilayer sample C, respectively (not the same
position). (e) Line scan average of the two samples showing difference
in scattering properties of the coating layers. The two traces represent
an averaged over ten adjacent A-scans from ten consecutive B-scans, and
are aligned to the strong surface reflection (0 μm OPD). Dashed arrows
in (b) and (d) indicate the line scan positions.
Figure 8 Detection of cracks in cut test blade sample D. (a)
Cross-sectional microscope composite image of sample D imaged along the
edge of the cut (defocus due to irregular edge). Notations indicate the
scale, orientation, coating thickness (double arrow), and crack (arrow).
(b) OCT surface topography near the edge of the sample. (c,d)
Corresponding OCT volume projections at different depths, revealing
cracking along different planes. (e) B-scan near the sample edge,
showing the two cracks “c” and “d” at different depths. (f,g)
Cross-sections from 10 and 20 B-scans, respectively, in the same
orientation as the microscope image in (a). Scan positions are indicated
by the blue dashed lines in (c) and (d).