Skip to main content

Metallic fractures assessments: OCT versus SEM

Hutiu, Gheorghe, Duma, Virgil-Florin, Demian, Dorin, Dimb, Alexandru-Lucian, Erdelyi, Ralph-Alexandru, Bradu, Adrian, Podoleanu, Adrian G.H. (2019) Metallic fractures assessments: OCT versus SEM. In: Kovačičinová, Jana, ed. Proceedings of SPIE. Proceedings Optics and Measurement International Conference 2019. 11385. SPIE ISBN 978-1-5106-3547-0. (doi:10.1117/12.2542917) (KAR id:79483)

PDF Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English
Download (683kB) Preview
[thumbnail of 2019_10_SPIE OAM Liberec_OCT vs SEM_after review.pdf]
This file may not be suitable for users of assistive technology.
Request an accessible format
Official URL


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.

Item Type: Conference or workshop item (Proceeding)
DOI/Identification number: 10.1117/12.2542917
Subjects: Q Science > QC Physics > QC355 Optics
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Natural Sciences > School of Physical Sciences
Depositing User: Adrian Bradu
Date Deposited: 06 Jan 2020 12:52 UTC
Last Modified: 16 Feb 2021 14:10 UTC
Resource URI: (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)
Bradu, Adrian:
Podoleanu, Adrian G.H.:
  • Depositors only (login required):


Downloads per month over past year