Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Defect Detectability in CFRP Composites Using Long Pulse Thermography: A Comparative Study of Five Defect Types Cover

Defect Detectability in CFRP Composites Using Long Pulse Thermography: A Comparative Study of Five Defect Types

Open Access
|Jun 2026

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Paper inserts used to simulate interlayer foreign-body inclusions.

Figure 2.

A – Prepreg foil; B – Flat-bottom hole; C – Paper insert; D – Flat-bottom hole filled with epoxy resin; E – Graphite foil.

Figure 3.

Photographs of the specimen (A – bottom side, B – top side).

Figure 4.

Schematic diagram of the specimen.

Figure 5.

Heating cycle graph for specimen manufacturing.

Figure 6.

Schematic diagram of the thermography test configuration.

Figure 7.

Photograph of the C-CheckIR system during specimen testing.

Figure 8.

Representative LPT response of the CFRP panel. The five rows correspond to the defect classes defined in Figure 2: Row 1 – prepreg foil; Row 2 – flat-bottom holes; Row 3 – paper inserts; Row 4 – flat-bottom holes filled with epoxy resin; Row 5 – graphite foil. The displayed indications represent thermographic footprints of equivalent-diameter responses; lateral heat diffusion smooths the triangular and square geometries, which is why the indications do not reproduce sharp non-circular edges.

Figure 9.

Distribution of defects and mean measured dimensions in the panel grid. Each cell contains the nominal dimension (N) and the mean measured dimension (A). The grayscale background represents the ratio A/N, indicating whether a defect was underestimated, accurately reproduced, or overestimated by LPT.

Figure 10.

Detection rate as a function of nominal defect dimension for each defect type. The figure shows that 6 mm defects are generally below the robust LPT detectability limit, whereas detectability increases markedly from approximately 13 mm onward.

Figure 11.

Mean measured dimension versus nominal dimension for each defect type. The diagonal line represents perfect agreement between the measured and nominal dimensions. Flat-bottom holes are predominantly underestimated, whereas flat-bottom holes filled with epoxy resin are systematically overestimated.

Detection rate as a function of nominal defect dimension_

Nominal dimension [mm]Detected / totalDetection rate [%]
63 / 1030.0
1310 / 1566.7
1911 / 1573.3
258 / 1080.0
388 / 1080.0

Summary of LPT detectability, sizing error, and repeatability by defect type_

Defect typeDetected / totalDetection rate [%]Mean error [mm]Mean error [%]Mean SD [mm]
Prepreg foil8 / 1266.7−0.58−2.91.41
Flat bottom hole10 / 1283.3−2.61−12.41.33
Paper inserts10 / 1283.30.8221.00.94
Flat bottom hole filled with epoxy resin12 / 12100.02.5119.30.92
Graphite foil0 / 120.0

Acquisition parameters_

ParametersValue
Sync ModeFree run
Acquisition duration120 [s]
Acquisition frame rate5 [Hz]

Excitation parameters_

ParametersValue
ModulationRect.
Amplitude low0 [%]
Amplitude high90 [%]
Excitation period120 [s]
Duty time10 [s]
Rising ramp time0.8 [s]
Falling ramp time0.8 [s]
Number of measurements359
Best results measurement346
Language: English
Submitted on: Apr 10, 2026
Accepted on: Apr 30, 2026
Published on: Jun 6, 2026
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2026 Patryk Ciężak, Paulina Kamińska, Marcin Kurdelski, Jakub Kotowski, Piotr Synaszko, Andrzej Leski, published by ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

AHEAD OF PRINT