ASNT Industry Handbook

Aerospace
NDT

American Society for Nondestructive Testing

Aerospace
NDT
ASNT Industry Handbook

Technical Editor
Richard H. Bossi

The American Society for

Nondestructive Testing, Inc.
ASNT Industry Handbook: Aerospace Nondestructive Testing
Richard H. Bossi, Technical Editor

Copyright © 2014 by The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc. (ASNT) is not responsible for the authenticity or accuracy of information
herein. Published opinions and statements do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ASNT. Products or services that are advertised or
mentioned do not carry the endorsement or recommendation of ASNT.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by means electronic or mechanical including
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the expressed prior written permission of The American Society for Nondestructive
Testing, Inc.

IRRSP, NDT Handbook, The NDT Technician, and www.asnt.org are trademarks of The American Society for Nondestructive Testing,
Inc. ACCP, ASNT, Level III Study Guide, Materials Evaluation, Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Research in Nondestructive
Evaluation, and RNDE are registered trademarks of The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.

First printing 10/14

Errata, if available for this printing, may be obtained from ASNT’s website, www.asnt.org, or as hard copy by mail, free on request
from ASNT at the address below.

ISBN 978-1-57117-339-3 (print)

ISBN 978-1-57117-340-9 (ebook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014949019

Printed in the United States of America

Published by:
The American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Inc.
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, OH 43228-0518
www.asnt.org

Edited by: Patrick O. Moore, Handbook Editor

Assisted by: Robert B. Conklin, Educational Materials Editor
Hollis Humphries, Technical Publications Supervisor
Joy Grimm, Production Manager
Timothy E. Jones, Senior Manager of Publications

ASNT exists to create a safer world by promoting the profession and technologies of nondestructive testing.

ii
Preface
This ASNT Industry Handbook on Aerospace NDT
was conceived by ASNT’s Aerospace Committee as a
means to consolidate, from the large method
volumes of the NDT Handbook, information
pertinent to the aerospace community into one
volume. In Spring 2004, Gary L. Workman (chair)
reported to the Handbook Development Committee
that members in the Industrial Division of ASNT’s
Technical and Education Council envisioned new,
industrially oriented handbooks. This Aerospace NDT
handbook is the first. Although it is not intended to
be comprehensively detailed, the handbook’s vision
is to provide the fundamental material that would be
useful to inspectors, engineers, and managers in the
aerospace industry who have responsibilities for
decisions related to the selection and implementation
of nondestructive testing (NDT) for their products.
The handbook has pulled material from the NDT
Handbook and from other sources to provide current
information on a wide range of NDT methods and
applications useful to the aerospace industry. The
challenge in implementing the vision is mainly the
decision of how to organize the information.
Material types or components often use multiple
NDT methods, and any single NDT method may
be used in a variety of aerospace materials or
components. As a solution, this volume offers the
cross reference tables in Chapter 4. There, the reader
can look up a component or material and see which
methods are applicable. Likewise a method can be
reviewed in the cross reference tables for aerospace
applications. The chapters on each method
include more details about the applications. This
arrangement will hopefully prove to be practical
for the book’s users in the industry. It is the hope
of ASNT’s Aerospace Committee and ASNT’s
Handbook Development Committee that the
Aerospace NDT handbook will be a useful reference
and addition to the bookshelves of those working in
the aerospace industry.
A very large number of contributors worked
on this handbook over ten years, and their names
are listed on the title pages of particular chapters.
There were also many advisors and reviewers who
contributed to the handbook during its development
and helped greatly to shape the content. Their
efforts, both large and small, are greatly appreciated
although their names may not appear. Particular
support of the handbook did come from the
Aerospace Committee leadership, including Kevin
Smith, Lisa Brasche, N. David Campbell Jr., B. Boro
Djordjevic, and Shant Kenderian. A special thank
you is due to Eric v.K. Hill for his detailed editorial
review of every chapter, and to Eugene Mechtly for
his review of metric units. Special thanks are also
due to Patrick O. Moore, ASNT handbook editor, and
the ASNT staff. I also thank the Boeing Company for
its support of my activities.
Richard H. Bossi
Senior Technical Fellow (retired)
The Boeing Company
iii
Contributors
Richard H. Bossi, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington (introduction, visual, electromagnetic,
ultrasonic, radiologic, bond, in-situ NDT for
structural health, microwave, X-ray diffraction)
Lisa Brasche, Pratt and Whitney, Hartford,
Connecticut (introduction, reliability, magnetic
particle, penetrant, ultrasonic)
John C. Brausch, United States Air Force, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio (electromagnetic)
Byron B. Brenden, Richland, Washington
(ultrasonic)
David J. Brown, VM Products, Puyallup,
Washington (electromagnetic)
Clifford Bueno, General Electric, Niskayuna, New
York (radiologic)
Donald R. Christina, The Boeing Company,
Charleston, South Carolina (visual)
Michele D. Dorfman, Lockheed Martin, Fort Worth,
Texas (acoustic emission)
Thomas C. Dreher, Rolls-Royce, Indianapolis,
Indiana (magnetic particle)
John C. Duke, Virginia Polytechnic and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia (in-situ tests for
structural health)
Charles W. Eick, Horizon NDT Services, Cabot,
Arizona (penetrant, magnetic particle)
Barry A. Fetzer, The Boeing Company, Renton,
Washington (ultrasonic)
Michael D. Fogarty, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington (in-situ tests for structural health)
David S. Forsyth, Texas Research Institute, Austin,
Texas (reliability)
Joseph J. Gabris, The Boeing Company, Saint Louis,
Misssouri (reliability)
Gary E. Georgeson, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington (ultrasonic, in-situ tests for structural
health)
Valery F. Godinez-Azcuaga, Shaw Pipeline Services,
Houston, Texas (acoustic emission)
Neil J. Goldfine, Jentek Sensors, Waltham,
Massachusetts (in-situ tests for structural health)
Matthew J. Golis, Columbus, Ohio (introduction,
glossary)
Trey Gordon, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington (radiologic, X-ray diffraction)
Eric v.K. Hill, New Smyrna Beach, Florida (acoustic
emission)
David K. Hsu, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
(bond)
Dwight L. Isenhour Jr., Newport News, Virginia
(radiologic)
Leanne M. Jauriqui, Vibrant NDT, Albuquerque,
New Mexico (resonance)
Timothy E. Kinsella, Dassault Falcon Jet, Teterboro,
New Jersey (radiologic)
Doron Kishoni, Centennial, Colorado (ultrasonic)
Victoria A. Kramb, University of Dayton, Dayton,
Ohio (ultrasonic)
Jocelyn A. Langlois, Sigma Transducers, Kennewick,
Washington (ultrasonic)
Mark P. Lessard, Thermo Scientific Portable
Analytical Instruments, Tewksbury, Massachusetts
(X-ray fluorescence)
Glenn M. Light, Southwest Research Institute, San
Antonio, Texas (in-situ tests for structural health)
Eric A. Lindgren, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Dayton, Ohio (ultrasonic)
Chester Lo, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
(barkhausen)
Paul J. Lomax, Fischer Technology, Windsor,
Connecticut (beta backscatter)
E.I. Madaras, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Langley Research Center, Hampton,
Virginia (in-situ NDT for structural health)
Xavier P.V. Maldague, University Laval, Quebec,
Quebec, Canada (thermographic)
Kane M. Mordaunt, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington (leak)
William P. Motzer, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington (ultrasonic)
v
 John W. Newman, Laser Technology, Norristown,
Pennsylvania (shearographic)
David A. Raulerson, Pratt and Whitney, West Palm
Beach, Florida (electromagnetic)
Alan J. Rein, Agilent Technologies, Danbury,
Connecticut (fourier transform infrared)
Dennis P. Roach, Sandia National Laboratories,
Albuquerque, New Mexico (bond)
Gregory C. Sayler, Presto Casting Company,
Phoenix, Arizona (visual)
Karl F. Schmidt, Jr., Evisive, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana (microwave)
John A. Seelenbinder, Agilent Technologies,
Danbury, Connecticut (fourier transform infrared)
Steven M. Shepard, Thermal Wave Imaging,
Ferndale, Michigan (thermographic)
Surendra Singh, Honeywell Aerospace, Phoenix,
Arizona (resonance)
Flynn Spears, Laser Technology, Seattle,
Washington (electromagnetic)
vi AEROSPACE NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING
Robert E. Stevens, United Airlines, San Francisco,
California (visual)
Jeffrey G. Thompson, Boeing, Kent, Washington
(electromagnetic, ultrasonic)
Jeffrey A. Umbach, Pratt and Whitney, Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida (X-ray diffraction)
James L. Walker II, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Huntsville, Alabama (acoustic
emission)
Andrew P. Washabaugh, Jentek Sensors, Chula
Vista, California (electromagnetic, in-situ NDT for
structural health, dielectrometry)
Gregory J. Weaver, Vibrant NDT, Albuquerque, New
Mexico (resonance)
Gary L. Workman, University of Alabama,
Huntsville, Alabama (ultrasonic)
Steven M. Younker, The Boeing Company, Seattle,
Washington (magnetic particle)
Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction to Aerospace
Nondestructive Testing
1. Nondestructive Testing ....................................... 1.2
2. Purpose of Aerospace Handbook ..................... 1.3
3. Development ....................................................... 1.5
References................................................................. 1.7
Chapter 2. Aerospace Structures
1. Introduction......................................................... 2.2
2. Types of Vehicles and Missions........................ 2.3
3. Propulsion Systems............................................. 2.6
4. Importance of Nondestructive Testing ............ 2.8
5. Structural Failure Modes................................... 2.10
6. Evolution of Structural Design and
Fatigue Considerations .................................... 2.13
7. Static Life, Infinite Life, and Safe Life............ 2.16
8. Damage Tolerant Design ................................. 2.18
9. Structural Design and Damage Tolerance
for Composite Materials ................................... 2.24
10. Bonded Assemblies ......................................... 2.32
11. Inservice Nondestructive Testing .................. 2.36
References .............................................................. 2.37
Chapter 3. Reliability
1. Reliability of Nondestructive Testing................ 3.2
2. Probability of Detection and Other
Performance Measures in Practice ................... 3.5
3. Mistakes in Estimation of Nondestructive
Test Reliability .................................................... 3.7
4. Human Factors and Nondestructive
Testing ................................................................. 3.8
5. Model Assisted Probability of Detection......... 3.11
References .............................................................. 3.12
Chapter 4. Cross Reference Tables
for Test Method Selection
1. Introduction ........................................................ 4.2
2. Materials, Structure, and Processes
Tables ................................................................... 4.3
3. Method Tables ................................................... 4.10
References .............................................................. 4.20
Chapter 5. Visual Testing
1. Introduction......................................................... 5.2
2. Optical Principles................................................ 5.3
3. Optical Techniques ............................................. 5.8
4. Applications ...................................................... 5.16
References............................................................... 5.24
Chapter 6. Liquid
1. Penetrant Testing ................................................ 6.1
2. Introduction......................................................... 6.2
3. Penetrant Principles ........................................... 6.3
4. Penetrant Techniques ......................................... 6.5
5. Safety ................................................................... 6.9
6. Standards and Specifications.......................... 6.10
7. Applications ...................................................... 6.11
References .............................................................. 6.16
Chapter 7. Magnetic Particle Testing
1. Magnetic Particle Testing Principles................ 7.2
2. Magnetic Particle Testing Standards
and Specifications ............................................ 7.10
3. Magnetic Particle Testing Applications......... 7.13
References .............................................................. 7.17
vii
 Chapter 8. Electromagnetic Testing
1. Principles of Electromagnetic Testing ............. 8.2
2. Eddy Current Coil Techniques .......................... 8.4
3. Nonconventional Electromagnetic
Methods ............................................................. 8.18
4. Relevant Standards and Specifications ......... 8.25
5. Aerospace Applications of Eddy
Current Testing ................................................. 8.27
References .............................................................. 8.48
Chapter 9. Ultrasonic Testing
1. Principles of Ultrasonic Testing ........................ 9.2
2. Basic Ultrasonic Techniques ........................... 9.14
3. Specialized or Emerging Techniques .............. 9.21
4. Relevant Standards and Specifications .......... 9.28
5. Application Examples...................................... 9.30
References .............................................................. 9.37
Chapter 10. Radiologic Testing
1. Radiologic Test Principles ................................ 10.2
2. Radiologic Test Techniques ........................... 10.10
3. Factors Affecting Image Quality ................... 10.19
4. Sensitivity Measurement ............................... 10.29
5. Radiologic Test Interpretation ...................... 10.31
6. Specialized and Emerging
Radiation Techniques..................................... 10.33
7. Radiologic Testing Standards ........................ 10.36
8. Applications of Radiologic Testing .............. 10.37
References ............................................................ 10.43
Chapter 11. Thermographic Testing
1. Thermographic Principles ................................ 11.2
2. Thermographic Instrumentation ..................... 11.7
3. Interpretation and Analysis of
Thermographic Results ................................... 11.11
4. Emerging Thermographic Techniques ......... 11.14
viii AEROSPACE NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING
5. Thermographic Test Standards ..................... 11.16
6. Application Examples .................................... 11.17
References ...............................................................11.21
Chapter 12. Shearographic and
Holographic Testing
1. Introduction ...................................................... 12.2
2. Shearography Operation ............................... 12.10
3. Relevant Standards ........................................ 12.16
4. Applications .................................................... 12.19
5. Laser and Acoustic Excitation Safety ......... 12.29
References ............................................................ 12.32
Chapter 13. Acoustic Emission Testing
1. Acoustic Emission Principles .......................... 13.2
2. Acoustic Emission Test Techniques ............... 13.7
3. Acoustic Emission Standards
and Specifications ............................................ 13.9
4. Acoustic Emission Test Applications............. 13.11
References ............................................................ 13.17
Chapter 14. Bond Testing
1. Introduction ...................................................... 14.2
2. Bond Testing Methods ..................................... 14.5
References ............................................................ 14.10
Chapter 15. In-Situ Tests for
Structural Health Monitoring
1. Principles ........................................................... 15.2
2. Methods ............................................................. 15.4
3. Applications ...................................................... 15.5
References ............................................................ 15.14
Chapter 16. Leak Testing
1. Introduction ...................................................... 16.2
2. Leak Test Techniques and Applications ........ 16.3
References ............................................................ 16.12
Chapter 17. Other Methods 3. Magnetic Particle Testing ............................... 18.2

1. Barkhausen Effect ............................................ 17.2 4. Electromagnetic Testing .................................. 18.3

2. Microwave Testing ........................................... 17.5 5. Ultrasonic Testing ............................................ 18.3

3. Dielectrometry: Capacitance Sensing .......... 17.12 6. Radiologic Testing ........................................... 18.4

4. X-Ray Diffraction .......................................... 17.15 7. Thermographic Testing .................................... 18.5

5. X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy............... 17.18 8. X-Ray Diffraction ............................................ 18.6

6. Fourier Transform Infrared Testing .............. 17.20

Chapter 19. Glossary
7. Beta Backscatter ............................................. 17.22
1. Introduction ...................................................... 19.2
8. Resonance and Vibration Testing ................ 17.24
2. Terms ................................................................. 19.3
References............................................................. 17.27
References ............................................................ 19.22

Chapter 18. Formulas

Index .................................................................... 20.1
1. Visual Testing ................................................... 18.2
2. Penetrant Testing ............................................. 18.2
Figure Sources ........................................... 20.12

ix
 1
X
CHAPTER

Introduction to
Aerospace
Nondestructive
Testing
Contents
Part 1. Nondestructive
Testing, 1.2
Part 2. Purpose of Aerospace
Handbook, 1.3
Part 3. Development, 1.5
References, 1.7

Contributors
Richard H. Bossi
Lisa Brasche
Matthew J. Golis

1.1
PART 1 Nondestructive Testing
Nondestructive testing is a materials science
concerned with many aspects of quality and
serviceability of materials and structures. The science
of nondestructive testing incorporates all the
technology for process monitoring and for detection
and measurement of significant properties, including
discontinuities, in items ranging from research test
objects to finished hardware and products in service.
Nondestructive testing examines materials and
structures without impairment of serviceability and
reveals hidden properties and discontinuities.
Nondestructive testing is becoming increasingly
vital in the effective conduct of research,
development, design, and manufacturing programs.
Only with appropriate nondestructive testing can the
benefits of advanced materials science be fully
realized. The information required for appreciating
the broad scope of nondestructive testing is available
in many publications and reports.
Definition
Nondestructive testing (NDT) has been defined as
those methods used to test a part or material or
system without impairing its future usefulness (ASNT
2012). The term is generally applied to nonmedical
investigations of material integrity.
Nondestructive testing is used to investigate
specifically the material integrity or properties of a
test object. A number of other technologies — for
instance, radio astronomy, voltage and amperage
measurement, and rheometry (flow measurement) —
are nondestructive but are not used specifically to
evaluate material properties. Radar and sonar are
classified as nondestructive testing when used to
inspect dams, for instance, but not when used to
chart a river bottom.
Nondestructive testing asks, “Is there something
wrong with this material?” In contrast, performance
and proof tests ask, “Does this component work?” It
is not considered nondestructive testing when an
inspector checks a circuit by running electric current
through it. Hydrostatic pressure testing is a form of
proof testing that sometimes destroys the test object.
A gray area in the definition of nondestructive
testing is the phrase future usefulness. Some material
investigations involve taking a sample of the test
object for a test that is inherently destructive. A
noncritical part of a pressure vessel may be scraped
or shaved to get a sample for electron microscopy,
for example. Although future usefulness of the vessel
is not impaired by the loss of material, the procedure
is inherently destructive and the shaving itself — in
one sense, the true test object — has been removed
from service permanently.
The idea of future usefulness is relevant to the
quality control practice of sampling. Sampling (that
is, less than 100 percent testing to draw inferences
about the unsampled lots) is nondestructive testing if
the tested sample is returned to service. If steel bolts
are tested to verify their alloy and are then returned
to service, then the test is nondestructive. In
contrast, even if spectroscopy in the chemical testing
of many fluids is inherently nondestructive, the
testing is destructive if the samples are discarded
after testing.
Nondestructive testing is not confined to crack
detection. Other anomalies include porosity, wall
thinning from corrosion, and many sorts of
disbonds. Nondestructive material characterization is
a field concerned with properties including material
identification and microstructural characteristics —
such as resin curing, case hardening, and stress —
that directly influence the service life of the test
object.
 Purpose of Aerospace Handbook
This ASNT Industry Handbook on aerospace
nondestructive testing is intended to provide the
practitioner of nondestructive testing in the
aerospace industry a useful reference to the variety
of principles, techniques, and methods that may be
needed to inspect aerospace components and
structures. The goal is to include the fundamental
physical principles and tables of constants used in
aerospace nondestructive testing. The content of the
handbook is intended to cover applications and
techniques of interest to NDT Level II and III
technical staff, nondestructive evaluation research
engineers, manufacturing engineers, aerospace
structures engineers, and management. The
handbook provides a number of cross reference
tables to associate applicable nondestructive test
methods and techniques to material evaluations and
measurements of possible interest. The objective is to
provide the reader with the baseline approach most
commonly used for the evaluation of the common
aerospace materials and structures, and also to
include alternative possibilities for those situations
where the baseline approach is insufficient or not
applicable. While the details of advanced methods
are not expanded upon in this handbook, the intent
is to provide sufficient insight for the reader to be
able to seek additional information from other
sources.
ASNT provides the inspection and testing
community with nondestructive testing method
handbooks. Each method handbook covers the
technical information in great detail for engineers
and researchers that are working in that discipline.
This aerospace industry handbook draws together the
basic method information as it applies to the
materials and structures used in aerospace. This
handbook addresses the material problems of interest
in the aerospace industry and identifies the
applicability of the different nondestructive testing
methods to those problems. The information is aimed
at providing approaches and solutions to inspection
issues in the aerospace industry. The method
chapters in this handbook summarize the basic
physics of the method, the variations of its
applicability, and examples of its usage.
Importance of Inspection to
Aerospace Industry
The aerospace industry is particularly sensitive to
the quality condition of components because of the
severity of the consequences of failure during service
and the costs of the equipment. It was a cracked
propeller that led to the first crash of a Wright flyer
PART 2
in 1908 and the tragic death of Thomas Selfridge.
Figure 1 shows the wreckage.
From the very beginnings of flight, lightweight
and durable materials have been the key to
successful aerospace structures. Validation of the
quality of the materials and assembly is of utmost
importance. Nondestructive testing plays a
paramount role in ensuring that high quality.
Inspection criteria for aerospace structures tend to be
the most critical of the industries that employ
nondestructive test methods. The restrictions on
weight to create effective and economical structures
limit the ability to have large safety margins and
redundancy. Safety margins are often substantial for
critical components in other industries, such as
factors of 4 or higher. But for aerospace applications,
the factors are much lower, typically from 1.15 to
1.5. The cost of structural weight to deliver high
safety margins would be prohibitive to the mission,
especially in space applications. Thus, aerospace
nondestructive testing is concerned with a small
discontinuity size that will not grow to critical size
within the operational cycle. Additionally, aircraft
structure and engine components require that
inspections be performed during their service life to
ensure that discontinuities are detected while below
critical size during their lifetimes. Nondestructive
testing developments play a critical role in aerospace
economics because the minimum detectable
discontinuity size sets the inspection interval. Poor
discontinuity detectability increases the frequency of
inspection with added cost while high sensitivity and
reliable nondestructive testing methods can extend
Figure 1. Fatal crash of the Wright Flyer, September 17, 1908.
1.3
 Table 1. Structure issues for nondestructive testing.

Issue Comments for Nondestructive Testing

Thin structure Small discontinuity size criteria result in high resolution/sensitivity requirements for
nondestructive testing capability.

Reinforcement Complex geometries have limited access and boundary edges. Multilayered materials,
multiple materials, and nonuniformity are challenges to nondestructive test schemes.

Shape/contour Aerodynamic, nonparallel and nonflat surfaces require contour following capability.

Temperature High cost, heat resistant materials can challenge inspection systems for penetration and
sensitivity to detail.

Coatings Paint and coatings can have special requirements for detection sensitivity and thin layer
evaluation.

Bonds Adhesive bond quality validation can be very challenging depending on the design and
bonding process.

Propulsion systems Jet engine components and propellant rocket motor systems require high reliability verified
by sensitive nondestructive testing.

Thick components Casting and forging geometries can have thick sections complicated by microstructural
noise.

inspection intervals, thereby increasing the
operational efficiency.
Aerospace structures such as aircraft, rotorcraft,
spacecraft, rockets, and missiles also have some other
characteristics that can make them particularly
challenging for nondestructive test methods. Jet
engines and rocket motors have additional
challenges. Table 1 lists some of these structural and
materials issues. First, to maintain light weight, the
structures must be thin but stiffened for strength.
Discontinuity size limitation in thin structures must
be small, demanding fine resolution and sensitivity
for nondestructive test systems. Stiffening of the
structure results in complex geometries that can
challenge nondestructive test methods for sensitivity
near edges or radius geometries. Internally, aerospace
structures are designed with frequent changes in
thickness and layers of materials to create optimized
strength and stiffness as a function of position. This
nonuniformity greatly complicates nondestructive
testing. Efficient aerodynamics requires special
contours and shapes that challenge nondestructive
test equipment to maintain proper inspection
orientations. Aerospace structures have high and low
temperature characteristics that require specific
materials with their subsequent nondestructive test
limitations. Coatings and bonds in aerospace systems
present their own quality issues that affect
nondestructive test operations. Finally, propulsion
systems such as jet engines or rocket motors must
have exceedingly high reliability, requiring
sophisticated and sensitive nondestructive test
methods. The success of nondestructive testing is
reflected in the reduction of the number of engines
that are used for modern commercial aircraft.

Early Years
Even as early as the Wright brothers’ efforts at
achieving powered flight, it was recognized that the
materials in vehicles heavier than air needed to be of
the utmost quality if the venture was to be a success.
Early concerns were therefore focused on the
integrity of aircraft component materials. In most
cases, a close visual check was all that could be done
to ensure that no weak spots existed in materials
being incorporated into the early experimental
aircraft. With the advent of radiography, it became
possible to see both surface blemishes and internal
conditions that could lead to unexpected and
premature failure. Particularly in cast metal parts,
internal discontinuities became visible and
radiography became an integral part of screening for
discontinuity-free materials. Early records show that
the military, as early as 1919, within the Material
Section based at McCook Field in Dayton, Ohio, was
charged with the task of testing fabricated parts and
to make routine inspection tests for their
procurement section. Of the three dozen or so
nondestructive test methods used or investigated in
the twenty-first century, nearly all have appeared
since the 1920s. And most have appeared since the
1940s (Straw 1984).
World War II
As with many industrial needs, the period
between 1940 and 1945 resulted in the discovery
and application of numerous technologies that
served the needs of the war effort. For aircraft
structures, the materials of most concern were
aluminum, magnesium, and stainless steel. During
this period, the need for improved inspection of
these nonmagnetic structural materials resulted in
the development of ultrasonic systems to inspect
aircraft component materials using both contact and
immersed transducer scanning systems. This
permitted the detection of ever finer discontinuities
through improved resolution in comparison to that
achieved with contact techniques on heavier steel
structures and components.
The concepts of eddy currents were expanded
from simply using encircling coils for screening
discontinuities in drawn wire and tubes and sorting
small components for size and alloy consistency to
the application of probe based systems for
determining material alloy content, detecting
inservice discontinuities, and gaging the thicknesses
of thin metals and nonmetallic coatings on
conductive substrates. Surface discontinuities were
being found with fluorescent liquid penetrant
Development PART 3
systems, whereas ferromagnetic parts could be tested
with the magnetic particle systems of the time.
Although the equipment was bulky and
somewhat crude by twenty-first century standards,
it represented a major step in ensuring the integrity
of materials being used in both aircraft structures
and engines. It became clear that the assurance of
discontinuity free materials significantly enhanced
the capability of designers to develop structures and
systems with ever declining levels of conservatism
and thus leading to higher performance aircraft and
reduced bulk materials costs (Hagemaier 1985).
Organization and
Standardization
In 1959, the original version of the
Nondestructive Testing Handbook edited by
Robert C. McMaster was published by Ronald Press
(ASNT 1959). It was created using contributions
from the world’s experts in the various
nondestructive test methods and rapidly became the
resource that the entire industry relied on for the
theory and application of inspection practices. It
was the first time that the disparate collections of
techniques used in nondestructive testing were
presented in a cogent and practical format. It
explained the philosophy of nondestructive testing:
how it supported the goals of controlling the quality
of materials being used in industry, especially in
aerospace applications because of their intolerance
of failure and tighter safety margins. This aerospace
specific handbook builds on the earlier work by
expanding on the operational nondestructive testing
details used to ensure the integrity of materials
being used in today’s contemporary air vehicles.
As with all evolving disciplines, there comes a
time when the exploratory stage of invention needs
stabilization, often through the mechanisms of
standardization and regulations. Throughout the
1950s and into the 1960s, nondestructive testing
came into its own when its technologies were
incorporated into national and international
standards for the many industrial sectors. In the
case of the aerospace industry, nondestructive
testing was divided into the military set of directives
(the MIL-STD series) and those formulated by the
commercial aircraft industry (supported by the
directives of the FAA). It was a time when
professional groups such the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM, later to become ASTM
International), the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE, later to become SAE International), the
American Society for Metals (ASM, later to become
the American Society for Materials and then ASM
1.5
International), the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), the American Society for Welding
(AWS), the American Petroleum Institute (API), and
others, through the use of consensus committees,
formulated their individual approaches to how
nondestructive test methods were to be applied in
their respective systems and products.
These standards and regulations were the results
of intensive laboratory and field investigations and
demonstrations of the capabilities of the
nondestructive test methods. The stage was set for
the wide ranging standards documents that now
guide the ways that nondestructive tests are to be
performed. The technical issues of nondestructive
test practices and acceptance criteria rested mostly
with the military and ASTM standards. In general,
the various industry sectors adapted these basic
performance documents in accordance with their
specific tolerance for risk of failure (ANSI 2010).
Fracture Mechanics and
Quantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation
While stress-strain curves and safety factors have
played a key role in the design of aerospace
structures, advances in fracture mechanics concepts
made in the 1960s placed a new emphasis on
nondestructive testing, requiring approaches that
went beyond simple detection to include crack
sizing. With the introduction of fracture mechanics
and damage tolerance concepts into the design
process came the need to quantify inspection
capability.
Even with the somewhat controlled studies into
the limits of the nondestructive test techniques in
use, it was suspected that the broad array of
inspection techniques being used throughout the
many classes of inspection tasks, particularly those
done manually, might vary between diverse
inspection situations (locations, personnel,
equipment, and instructions). A landmark study was
conducted in the late 1960s and launched the use of
a statistical inferences approach to determining the
reliability of nondestructive tests (Haviland 1973).
The concept of probability of detection (for
nondestructive testing purposes) was born.
Explosion in Equipment
Capabilities and Modern
Materials
With the discovery of the transistor and other
emerging avenues for consolidating enormous
operational capabilities into a small space, the bulky
instruments of yesteryear became an endangered
species. With this vast increase in performance and
computational possibilities, the equipment used in
nondestructive testing has continued to shrink in
size and has absorbed many of the operational
details associated with calibration, standardization,
data gathering, and results analysis.
Concurrently, more sophisticated and complex
materials are being developed to serve the needs of
the aerospace industry. The continual development
of new materials emphasizes the point of having to
determine how these materials (including advanced
composites, ceramics, and thermal or
electromagnetic shielding systems) are to be
examined for their mission critical characteristics.
And with these new materials comes the need for
nondestructive testing standards development to
ensure that those critical characteristics are met.
As a better understanding of material and
structural failure modes has evolved in recent years,
the role of nondestructive testing for inservice
applications has become integral to the ways that
fleets of aircraft and critical components are
managed. The effectiveness and reliability of
nondestructive testing processes remain of utmost
importance to the aerospace community, both now
and in the future.
References
ANSI. 2010. NSSN: A National Resource for Global Standards. Website.
New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
ASNT. 1959. Nondestructive Testing Handbook, first edition, 2 vols. New
York, NY: Ronald Press, reprinted Columbus, OH: American Society
for Nondestructive Testing.
ASNT. 2012. Nondestructive Testing Handbook, third edition; Vol. 10,
Nondestructive Testing Overview. Columbus, OH: American Society
for Nondestructive Testing.
Hagemaier, D.J. 1985. “Aerospace Radiography — The Last Three
Decades.” Materials Evaluation 43(10): 1262-1264+.
Haviland, G.P., and C. Tiffany. 1973. AIAA Paper 73-18, “The USAF
Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). Proceedings of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 9th Annual
Meeting and Technical Display [Washington, DC, January 1973].
Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Straw, R. 1984. “Voices in the Air — The Early Days of Aircraft NDT.”
Materials Evaluation 42(2): 152-160.
1.7
PART 1 Introduction

Aerospace vehicles include air vehicles, control, communication, navigation, weather,

spacecraft, rockets, and missiles. Ensuring the
integrity of the vehicle structure and associated
avionics and systems is essential when considering
manufacturing costs, the value of items that are
transported, and human safety.
Avionics are generally the aviation electronics,
computers, and software that govern guidance and
weapons, and anticollision systems. Aerospace
systems may be broken into many categories, such
as propulsion, environmental control, hydraulics,
and armament.
Some typical components of aircraft structure are
illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Basic aircraft components (Boeing 737).

Vertical stabilizer tip

Rudder
Vertical stabilizer trailing edge

Vertical stabilizer leading edge Tailcone

Elevator
Dorsal fin
Horizontal stabilizer
trailing edge

Horizontal stabilizer tip

Horizontal stabilizer leading edge

Wing-to-body fairings

Main flaps
Aft flap Aft flap
Door (typical)
Spoilers
Aileron
Nose radome Wing Fixed trailing edge

Krueger flaps Wing tip

Slats Wing fixed
Nose landing leading edge
gear (NLG)
Airstair Engine strut fairing
NLG doors
Engine strut
Main landing gear (MLG)
Nozzle and plug

MLG doors Fan duct cowl and thrust reverser

Fan cowl
Legend Inlet cowl
= primary structure
= secondary structure
 (Figure 2a). When H is returned to zero, residual
magnetism will exist as shown in Figure 2b. The
point at which the field intensity is zero but
magnetism remains is the retentivity point with
residual magnetism Br. As the magnetic field is
reversed and increased in intensity (in the negative
direction), the magnetism will go to zero at the point
of coercivity as shown in Figure 2c. Increasing the
negative field intensity will result in saturation of
the object in the opposite direction (polarity) at point
P2 (Figure 2d). Figures 2e and 2f show the reverse
residual magnetism and full hysteresis loop.
Understanding the hysteresis loop for a material
can be helpful for many reasons. One of these is that
it is generally necessary to demagnetize an object
following completion of a magnetic particle
examination. Demagnetization can be done by
reversing the magnetic field to the coercivity point.
Although not commonly done, it is also possible to
demagnetize a material by heating it above its curie
temperature. The curie temperature is the point
above which a material can no longer retain its
magnetic property and becomes paramagnetic with
no alignment of magnetic domains. Demagnetization
is important because residual magnetism can
negatively affect subsequent manufacturing
operations such as chip forming and electron beam
welding. Residual magnetism can also result in
excessive wear in the service of components such as
bearings because residual magnetism can attract
metallic shavings.
Magnetization Fields
In magnetic particle testing, there are two
primary directions of the magnetic fields: circular
and longitudinal. Numerous methods can be used to
generate each of these fields in the component being
examined. Circular fields permit the detection of
discontinuities oriented in the axial (longitudinal)
Figure 3. Circular field induction magnetic particle testing with
magnetic particle bench unit: (a) current through single test object;
(b) current through multiple test objects.
(a)
Electric Magnetic field
current
(b) Cracks
Magnetic field
Magnetizing current
direction whereas longitudinal fields are used to
detect circumferential discontinuities. Note that the
strongest leakage field is produced when the
discontinuity causing the leakage is perpendicular to
the field direction. If the discontinuity is at an
orientation other than perpendicular to the field, the
indication will be weaker.
Circular fields can be created by passing an
electrical current directly through a test object. This
is typically accomplished by clamping the test object
between contact heads on a wet, horizontal “mag”
machine, but contact can also be made through
clamps or prods. It should be noted that passing
current directly through the test object comes with
the risk of arc burning the test piece. This risk is
significantly increased with prods. For this reason,
prods are rarely approved for machine finished
aerospace components.
Circular fields are often induced in hollow or ring
shaped test objects or test objects having through
holes by placing a conductor through the opening
and passing a current through this central conductor.
Conductors can be constructed from solid bars (often
copper or aluminum) so that they can be clamped
between the contact heads on a wet horizontal
magnetic unit; wires or cables may also be used. The
diameter of these conductors must be large enough
to carry current high enough for magnetic particle
testing. The magnetic field created around this
conductor is shared with the test piece. Although
often referred to as a central conductor, the term
central is somewhat misleading: these conductors
can be positioned so that they are centered or
concentric with the test piece but can also be offset
or eccentric. Magnetizing currents must be adjusted
depending on whether conductors are concentric or
offset. A conductor might be offset because its
diameter is too wide to fit in the test piece. Most
specifications require multiple magnetizations when
a conductor is offset. One big advantage of central
conduction is that this noncontacting technique
dramatically reduces the risk of arc burning. It is
generally considered good practice to insulate these
conductors to further reduce the risk of arc burning
and to prevent metal-to-metal contact. Figure 3
illustrates the creation of circular magnetic fields in
test objects.
In some cases, conductors can be used to create
circular fields in test objects having L or U shaped
sections (such as flap tracks), but caution should be
exercised in these instances because distortion of the
field can occur: magnetizing currents may need to
be increased because of the lack of a closed loop for
the field to follow. To prevent arc burning, some
maintenance facilities have placed test objects
immediately next to a conductor to induce circular
fields in solid test objects that would typically be
magnetized with direct current. Although this
proximity can result in some portion of the test piece
having a field with a circular or circumferential
component, this technique does not produce a truly
circular or encircling field. Because only a sector of
the larger field encircling the conductor is shared,
areas on the test object will not be properly
inspected. This practice is generally not
recommended unless approved by the cognizant
engineering organization.
 9
X
CHAPTER

Ultrasonic
Testing
Contents
Part 1. Principles of Ultrasonic
Testing, 9.2
Part 2. Basic Ultrasonic
Techniques, 9.14
Part 3. Specialized or Emerging
Techniques, 9.21
Part 4. Relevant Standards and
Specifications, 9.28
Part 5. Application Examples, 9.30
References, 9.37

Contributors
Richard H. Bossi Gary E. Georgeson Eric A. Lindgren
Lisa Brasche Doron Kishoni William P. Motzer
Byron B. Brenden Victoria A. Kramb Jeffrey G. Thompson
Barry A. Fetzer Jocelyn A. Langlois Gary L. Workman

9.1
PART 1 Principles of Ultrasonic Testing

Ultrasonic testing plays a critical role in the
production and inservice inspection of aerospace
structures. It is applied to metallic and composite
parts and structures by using a wide range of
techniques, frequencies, and waveform types. The
applications range from routine to unique.
Predominately, the ultrasonic methods are checking
for discontinuities such as cracks, corrosion,
delaminations, porosity, and inclusions. Ultrasonic
testing may also be used for determining
dimensional measurements and material properties
(Vary 1980; ASNT 1998). Table 1 lists aerospace
materials and their inspection issues. The table
indicates where ultrasonic testing is applied for
material inspection. Eddy current, radiographic,
penetrant, magnetic particle, and other quality
assurance methods may be more appropriate for
particular inspection issues. A normal incidence
ultrasonic beam is best for detecting planar
discontinuities perpendicular to its path. When
discontinuities have an oblique orientation such that
they are not detectable with a normal incidence
beam, wedges are then used to give the transmitted
beam an oblique direction. Ultrasonic beams that
enter a test object at an angle oblique to the surface
work well for detecting cracks perpendicular to the
surface: the beam interacts with the corner trap
created and reflects back to the transducer.
Ultrasonic testing is based on the transmission,
reflection, refraction, scattering, and mode changes
of mechanical waves in materials. The wave is a
small mechanical disturbance that transfers energy
through a medium (solid, liquid, or gas). For
aerospace applications, the physics of ultrasound
plays a very critical role in the inspection of many
materials because the waves’ mechanical motion is
related to the material properties of density and
modulus (Shull 2002, 91). In aerospace applications,
ultrasonic waves cover a wide range of frequencies
above the audible range but are most commonly
applied in the 1 to 10 MHz range.

Table 1. Aerospace material inspection issues.

Material Inspection Issues Comments on Ultrasonic Test Application

All types cracks, voids, inclusions, Ultrasonic testing requires alignment of ultrasonic beam to test
thickness, coatings subject: either normal to surface of part or oriented at precise
angles to entry surface. Normality is found by peaking signal
response from entry surface or from alignment of ultrasonic
transducers. Curved surfaces may require surface following so
beam orientation can be maintained throughout inspection area.
Radii require concentric alignment of probes to radius in order to
remain normal to surface. For cracks, angle beams may be used to
find crack reflection based on orientation.

Fiber reinforced polymer composite
laminate/glass epoxy
consolidation, porosity, Through-transmission and pulse echo are primary techniques for
inclusions, fiber-to-resin acceptance of composite laminate materials using automated
ratio, delaminations, scanning with water coupled piezoelectric transducers. Depending
wrinkles, surface layers, on material, configuration, thickness, and sensitivity requirements,
curved surfaces, radii, many ultrasonic techniques are applicable: hand held, resonance,
noodles laser, air coupled, spectroscopic, roller probe, and others. All
testing requires correlation with acceptance standards. Generally,
consolidation and porosity are monitored by acoustic attenuation
using through-transmission testing, pulse echo amplitude from
back wall, or pulse echo with reflector plate. Delaminations, voids,
and some inclusions are detectable with through-transmission
testing. Pulse echo reflection is more sensitive to inclusions
depending on materials. Wrinkles may be detectable with
ultrasonic testing using pulse echo B-scan imaging at relatively
high frequency (over 3 MHz). Surface coatings can be monitored
with high frequency (for example, 20 MHz) pulse echo or
resonance ultrasonic testing. Pitch catch configuration may be
used across radii to check for quality of noodles in root of
T shaped joints.
Table 1. Aerospace material inspection issues (continued).
Material Inspection Issues
Foam core composite cracking, voids, density,
bonding to skin, inclusions,
fluid ingress, skin quality,
skin porosity
Honeycomb core structure bonding of core to skin,
crushed/damaged core, filled
core, inclusions, skin
quality/porosity
Carbon/carbon consolidation, dry plies,
porosity, delamination,
wrinkles
Castings cracks, voids/porosity,
inclusions, shrinkage, weld
repairs, dimensional
tolerances
Forgings cracks, inclusions, grain size,
residual stress
Machined parts cracks, residual stress,
dimensional tolerance,
repairs
Fastened structure cracks, corrosion, alloy type
Welded joints voids, porosity, lack of
fusion, lack of penetration,
undercut, shrinkage, cracks,
slag, inclusions, residual
stress
Bonded joint assemblies disbonds, voids, degradation,
bondline thickness
Coatings paint thickness, conductive
layers, thermal coatings,
insulation, low observable
coatings
Subsystems cracks, residual stress,
surface condition
Inservice and/or damaged structure impact damage, heat
damage, moisture ingress,
fatigue cracks, corrosion,
lightning strike,
disbonds/delaminations
Comments on Ultrasonic Test Application
Through-transmission testing is most common inspection with
standard water squirter systems nominally at 1 MHz, looking for
wide range of discontinuities. Ultrasound may be air coupled.
Resonance and low frequency vibration techniques may be used
where access to both sides is limited.
Through-transmission testing is most common technique with
standard water squirter systems at 1 MHz, looking for core-to-skin
delaminations, disbonds, and damaged core. Ultrasound may be air
coupled. Resonance and low frequency vibration techniques may be
used where access to both sides is limited.
Ultrasonic testing is used to detect delaminations and porosity.
Inspection concerns exist about means of coupling to
carbon-to-carbon surface.
Ultrasonic testing pulse echo normal beam, angle beam, and phased
array inspection are used for discontinuity location and detection.
Grain size effects cause noise that affects detail sensitivity.
Complex geometry may limit coverage.
Ultrasonic testing pulse echo inspection of billets checks for
inclusions, porosity, and voids. Angle beam ultrasonic testing is used
for inspection for cracks. Complex geometry may limit coverage.
Pulse echo angle beam inspection and phased arrays are used for
crack detection. Internal dimensions can be checked with high
frequency ultrasonic testing.
Pulse echo and phased array ultrasonic tests with angle beams are
used for cracks around fasteners. Normal beam ultrasonic testing is
used for corrosion detection by measuring loss of material in top
layer.
Normal or angle beam ultrasonic testing is used for cracks, voids,
inclusions, lack of fusion, and lack of penetration in welds. Phased
arrays can be used for beam steering in both pulse echo and pitch
catch modes along welds.
Ultrasonic testing normal to bond interface detects disbonds and
voids. Spectroscopy can be sensitive to subtle interface changes
correlated to bond quality in some studies. Resonance and low
frequency vibration techniques detect stiffness changes.
High frequency pulse echo ultrasonic testing can measure paint
thickness. Thermal coatings, insulation, and low observables usually
require low frequency in through-transmission mode if possible or
resonance ultrasonic testing.
Pulse echo angle and normal ultrasonic testing are useful for crack
detection.
Ultrasonic testing is useful for composite impact damage and
disbond/delaminations with normal beams. Moisture ingress may be
detected by ultrasonic testing because of changes in wave speeds
and attenuation. Fatigue cracks may be detectable with normal or
angle beam ultrasonic testing. Corrosion is detectable by changes in
thickness detected by ultrasonic testing for accessible layers.
Resonance and low frequency vibration techniques are commonly
used to detect inservice damage in core structures.
9.3
 The two most common ultrasonic techniques are
through-transmission and pulse echo ultrasonic
Basic Wave Characteristics
testing (Figure 1). The through-transmission The ultrasonic wave propagates in a medium as a
technique measures attenuation of sound through a physical displacement of material atoms from their
material from one transducer to another in order to equilibrium position. Figure 3 shows a simple
determine the uniformity of the material or to find sinusoidal wave depiction for an ultrasonic wave
discontinuities. Pulse echo ultrasound reflects from where the vertical axis represents the level of
features such as cracks, delaminations, inclusions, displacement or amplitude A and the horizontal axis
layers, or geometric features. Less common is the represents time t or distance x. Time and distance are
pitch catch configuration (Figure 2), where two related by the velocity v of the wave where v = x/t.
transducers are on the same side of the test object. The wavelength λ is the distance between peaks of
There are many variations to the application of the sine wave and is related to the frequency by
ultrasound based on the frequency, waveforms, and f = v/λ. As the frequency increases, the wavelength
transducers or sensors that can be used. becomes smaller. The wavelength is also the period P
of the wave when distance is converted to time on
the horizontal axis. Figure 3a represents a wave
Figure 1. Through-transmission and pulse echo ultrasonic testing whose particle motion is shown in time. The wave in
showing effect of discontinuity on wave penetration in material. Figure 3b is shifted in time such that its particle
displacement shows differing amplitude, the wave
Through-transmission actually moving in a different direction from the
ultrasound wave in Figure 3a at each point in time. This is a
Through-transmission phase shift f. This phase difference and the relative
ultrasound
particle motion are important when multiple waves
Pulse echo Pulse echo
interact in a material.
Transducer The material displacement and the direction of
the wave may vary representing different modes of
Early
Test sample reflection the transmission. Figure 4 shows the difference
between longitudinal (compression) waves and
transverse (shear) waves: longitudinal waves displace
material particles in the direction of wave
Little or no transmission propagation whereas transverse waves displace
particles perpendicularly to the wave direction. These
Transducer transverse waves may also be polarized to have a
particular direction of transverse motion. Because of
the difference in the particle motion, the velocity of
the waves will be different. The wavelengths will be
different as a function of the frequency.
Figure 2. Pitch catch configuration for two transducers. Table 2 lists the velocity and wavelength of
ultrasound in common materials. Note that
Transmitting transducer transverse wave velocity is not given for water or air
Receiving transducer Discontinuity because liquids and gases cannot support transverse
wave particle motion. The materials shown in
Table 2 are linear elastic materials, so velocity is not
a function of frequency in them. For these materials,
the modulus is related to acoustic velocity in
homogeneous and isotropic materials by:

Figure 3. Sinusoidal plane waveforms showing wavelength, period, and velocity: (a) wave; (b) wave at different phase
(ASNT 2007, 36).
(a) (b)
f
P or λ P or λ
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5 A
Amplitude A
Amplitude A

t t
0 or 0 or
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 x 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 x

0.5 0.5

1.0 1.0
Time Time
Legend
A = amplitude of sine wave
P = period, used with time axis t
f = phase shift
λ = wavelength, used with distance axis x
(1) E ∝ ρv2 (1 + ν) (1 − 2ν )
(2) E = ρv 2
1− ν
where E is the elastic modulus (N/m2),
v [the letter
vee] is longitudinal velocity (m/s), and ρ is density In Equation 2, ν [the greek nu] is Poisson’s ratio, the
(kg/m3). The unit balance is achieved because 1 kg ratio of transverse contraction to longitudinal
mass is equal to N·s2·m–1. The more precise extension:
expression for longitudinal waves is:
εtransverse
(3) ν = –
εlongitudinal
Figure 4. Directions of particle vibration:
(a) longitudinal wave, also called compression or where ε is the symbol for strain. Poisson’s ratio ν
has a value between 0 and 0.5 for solid isotropic
pressure wave; (b) transverse wave, also called
materials. Aluminum for example has a value of
shear wave (ASNT 2007, 36). around 0.33. For the transverse waves, the
transverse modulus G (N/m2) is given by:
(a)

(4) G = ρv2trans
Direction of propagation Direction of particle motion

Wave propagation in thin linear elastic materials

(b) such as plates, shells, and sheets will exhibit wave
velocities that are a function of the frequency. A
wave traveling in these media will become
Direction of dispersive, which means that, as the wave progresses,
propagation the different frequency components in an original
signal will begin to separate in time because each
Direction of particle motion frequency travels at a different speed.

Table 2. Velocity and wavelength of ultrasound in common materials.

Acoustic
Density Velocity Wavelength (mm)
Material –3 impedance
(g·cm ) Wave (mm/µs) 500 kHz 1 MHz 2.25 MHz 3.5 MHz 5 MHz 10 MHz 15 MHz 20 MHz
(g·cm–2∙s)

Air 1.20 ¥ 10–3 0.400 Longitudinal 0.33 0.66 0.33 0.15 0.094 0.066 0.033 0.022 0.017
Water 1.0 0.400 Longitduinal 1.48 2.96 1.48 0.66 0.423 0.296 0.148 0.099 0.074
Acrylic 1.15 3.11E ¥ 105 Longitudinal 2.70 5.40 2.70 1.20 0.771 0.540 0.270 0.180 0.135
Transverse 1.10 2.20 1.10 0.49 0.314 0.220 0.110 0.073 0.055
Graphite/ 1.55 4.65 ¥ 105 Longitudinal 3.00 6.00 3.00 1.33 0.857 0.600 0.300 0.200 0.150
epoxy
Aluminum 2.71 1.71E ¥ 106 Longitudinal 6.30 12.60 6.30 2.80 1.800 1.260 0.630 0.420 0.315
Transverse 3.10 6.20 3.10 1.38 0.886 0.620 0.310 0.207 0.155
Magnesium 1.72 9.98E ¥ 105 Longitudinal 5.80 11.60 5.80 2.58 1.657 1.160 0.580 0.387 0.290
Transverse 2.30 4.60 2.30 1.02 0.657 0.460 0.230 0.153 0.115
Titanium 4.50 2.73E ¥ 106 Longitudinal 6.07 12.14 6.07 2.70 1.734 1.214 0.607 0.405 0.304
Transverse 3.10 6.20 3.10 1.38 0.886 0.620 0.310 0.207 0.155
Steel, mild 7.80 4.60E ¥ 106 Longitudinal 5.90 11.80 5.90 2.62 1.686 1.180 0.590 0.393 0.295
Transverse 3.20 6.40 3.20 1.42 0.914 0.640 0.320 0.213 0.160
Steel, 7.83 4.54E ¥ 106 Longitudinal 5.80 11.60 5.80 2.58 1.657 1.160 0.580 0.387 0.290
stainless Transverse 3.10 6.20 3.10 1.38 0.886 0.620 0.310 0.207 0.155
Nickel 8.88 5.00E ¥ 106 Longitudinal 5.63 11.26 5.63 2.50 1.609 1.126 0.563 0.375 0.282
Transverse 2.96 5.92 2.96 1.32 0.846 0.592 0.296 0.197 0.148
Nickel 8.59 5.00E ¥ 106 Longitudinal 5.82 11.64 5.82 2.59 1.663 1.164 0.582 0.388 0.291
chromium Transverse 3.02 6.04 3.02 1.34 0.863 0.604 0.302 0.201 0.151
alloy

9.5
Ultrasonic Transmission and
Reflection
The transmission and reflection of ultrasound in
media and across interfaces is fundamental to its
application in nondestructive testing. Within a
material and at interfaces, the ultrasound maintains
continuity of particle velocity, acoustic pressure, and
phase. These conditions, particularly at boundaries,
determine the amplitude and direction of the
transmitted and reflected waves.
The velocity and wavelength of ultrasound play
important roles in the selection of ultrasonic
techniques and applications. As the ultrasonic
frequency increases, the wavelength becomes shorter
and smaller features can be detected. But as the
frequency increases, the smaller wavelength will
increase attenuation due to scatter of the ultrasound
and the inspection depth becomes limited.
Attenuation of the sound pressure amplitude of a
plane wave (in two dimensions) can be represented:
(5) A = A0e − ad
where A is the end pressure amplitude, Ao is the
initial pressure amplitude, α is the attenuation
coefficient (in nepers per unit distance), and d is the
distance traveled. For travel over a distance d, the
attenuation is:
A R0 signal amplitude), T is the transmission
(6) α d = ln 0
A amplitude), and Z1 and Z2 are the acoustic
In practice it is useful to use a logarithmic
measurement to express reduction (attenuation) or
increase (gain) of a signal. The decibel (dB) unit,
named after Alexander Graham Bell, is based on a
logarithmic ratio:
I
(7) 1 dB = 10 log10
I0
where I0 and I are the initial and final intensity or
power. Intensity or power is proportional to the
square of the potential V (volts) or pressure
amplitude A. This gives the conversion:
I A2
(8) 10 log10 = 10 log10 = 20 log10
I0 A02
where Ao is initial signal amplitude and A is the
final signal amplitude.
The dB measure of attenuation is useful for the
range of values that occur in ultrasonics. A change
of 6 dB in the amplitude of a signal represents a
Figure 5. Notional attenuation of ultrasound
with frequency.
–15
Attenuation (dB/cm)
–10
–5
0 0.0001
0 1 2 3
Frequency (MHz)
change by about a factor of 2, and a change of
20 dB in amplitude represents a change by a factor
of 10. Table 3 shows the attenuation fraction and the
dB value that corresponds to it. Measured in
decibels, the neper is 8.7 dB. Figure 5 is a notional
diagram showing the effect of frequency on the
attenuation of ultrasound. When the frequency is
low, the wavelength may be larger than small
features in a material such as the crystalline grains
in metals, so attenuation is low. As the frequency
increases, wavelength becomes smaller and these
ultrasound-to-grain interactions will increase
attenuation due to scatter.
The ability of ultrasound to detect features during
inspection is a function of the changes in acoustic
impedance at interfaces. This forms the basis for the
vast majority of ultrasonic inspection techniques
used for discontinuity detection. Transmission and
reflection of ultrasonic pressure across interfaces are
given by:
At Z2
(9) T = =
A0 Z2 + Z1
and
Rt Z2 − Z1
(10) R = =
R0 Z2 + Z1
where At is transmitted pressure amplitude, R is the
reflection coefficient (ratio of reflected Rt to initial
coefficient (ratio of transmitted to initial signal
impedances of materials 1 and 2 at an interface
(Krautkrämer 1990, 15-16). Acoustic impedance is
the product of the acoustic velocity and density of
the medium through which the ultrasonic signal is
propagating. Table 4 lists interface transmission and
reflection coefficients and their corresponding
decibel values for several possible aerospace
inspection interfaces. The table shows that, because
of the large change in acoustic impedance at an air
interface, it is difficult to couple sound into air. The
high impedance mismatch between air and most
materials to be inspected results in low transmission
coefficients. This, in turn, allows only a small
A fraction of the signal intensity to be transmitted
across the interface. Therefore, immersion or contact
A0
ultrasonic testing is preferred unless a noncontact
and dry condition is strictly specified. The velocity
of material particles at the interface are equal, so
Table 3. Attenuation and decibel value.
Relative Ultrasonic
Attenuation (dB)
Signal Amplitude
1 0
0.5 6
0.25 12
0.125 18
0.1 20
0.03 30
0.01 40
0.001 60
80
4 5
0.00001 100
the pressure is higher in a high density material for detection depending on the relative material
next to a low density material. The transmission acoustic impedances. The equation for the reflection
coefficient minus the reflection coefficient equals 1. coefficient can result in a negative number. This
A negative reflection is a phase inversion, which means that the waveform is phase reversed (upside
cancels excess pressure of the incoming wave for down) at the interface. This effect can be seen in the
interfaces of high to low density. acoustic waveform and can be useful for the
Cracks are an interface between the material and interpretation of interfaces. Figure 6 shows an
air and thus provide a large amplitude reflection, example, using simulation software, of the change in
making them easy to detect in pulse echo or waveform for different interfaces for an acrylic block
through-transmission testing. Inclusions are scanned in water at 5 MHz. Notice how differently
embedded material whose interface with the base the phase of the reflected waveform is changed by a
material may or may not have sufficient reflection crack (Figure 6c), versus a steel inclusion (Figure 6d).

Table 4. Interface transmission and reflection coefficients.

Transmission Reflection Transmission Reflection

Interface Coefficient Coefficient Amplitude Amplitude
2Z2/(Z2 + Z1) (Z2 – Z1)/(Z2 + Z1) (dB) (dB)

Lead zirconate titanate to air 0.00002 –0.99998 –92.69 0.00

Air to lead zirconate titanate 1.99998 0.99998 6.02 0.00
Lead zirconate titanate to water 0.08227 –0.91773 –21.70 –0.75
Water to lead zirconate titanate 1.91773 0.91773 5.66 –0.75
Graphite epoxy to air 0.00017 –0.99983 –75.29 0.00
Air to graphite epoxy 1.99983 0.99983 6.02 0.00
Water to graphite epoxy 1.51713 0.51713 3.62 –5.73
Graphite epoxy to water 0.48287 –0.51713 –6.32 –5.73
Acrylic to graphite epoxy 1.20000 0.20000 1.58 –13.98
Graphite epoxy to acrylic 0.80000 –0.20000 –1.94 –13.98
Aluminum to air 0.00005 –0.99995 –86.58 0.00
Air to aluminum 1.99995 0.99995 6.02 0.00
Water to aluminum 1.84046 0.84046 5.30 –1.51
Aluminum to water 0.15954 –0.84046 –15.94 –1.51
Water to titanium 1.89715 0.89715 5.56 –0.94
Titanium to water 0.10285 –0.89715 –19.76 –0.94
Water to steel 1.93766 0.93766 5.75 –0.56
Steel to water 0.06234 –0.93766 –24.10 –0.56

Figure 6. Simulated 5 MHz signals as function of interface materials in acrylic sample for water immersion test:
(a) configuration; (b) A-scan away from discontinuity; (c) A-scan of crack; (d) A-scan of steel inclusion.
(a) (c) 0.8
Amplitude (relative units)

0.6
Transducer 0.4
0.2
0
Discontinuity (air
–0.2
or steel insert)
–0.4 Insert signal
–0.6
–0.8
6 8 10 12 14
Time (µs)
(b) 0.8 (d) 0.8
Amplitude (relative units)

0.6 0.6
Amplitude (relative units)

0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
–0.2 –0.2
Front face
–0.4 –0.4
of acrylic Back face
–0.6 –0.6 Insert signal
of acrylic
–0.8 –0.8
6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14
Time (µs) Time (µs)

9.7
 Often there is interest in the transmission or 1990). Figure 7 shows the effect of 5 MHz
reflection of ultrasound for thin layers or gaps. A ultrasound on a brass inclusion in a composite
crack or delamination, for example, is a thin gap laminate. At certain frequencies, the reflection is
embedded in a material. Coatings are also thin layers reduced and the ultrasonic transmission increases.
of material. When the ultrasonic wavelength is
longer than the gap or layer, multiple reflections
occur at each interface and the reflection and
transmission pressure depends on the phase position Ultrasonic Refraction
of the wave. Equations for transmission T and Ultrasound will refract (change direction) when
reflection R are given (Krautkrämer 1990, 19) as: passing from one medium to another based on the
relative velocity within the two materials as
1 governed by Snell’s law:
(11) T =
2
Z Z   2 πd 
1 + 0.25  1 − 2  sin2  
 Z2 Z1   λ  sin (θ1 ) v1
(13) =
and sin ( θ2 ) v2

  2  where v1 and v2 are the acoustic velocities in the two

0.25  Z1 − Z2  sin2  2π d  materials, q1 is the incident angle in material 1, and
  Z2 Z1   λ  q2 is the refracted angle in material 2.
(12) R = 2 Figure 8 shows the refracted beams in a test
Z Z   2πd 
1 + 0.25  1 − 2  sin2   material 2 from an angulated beam in material 1.
 Z2 Z1   λ  The interaction of the particle motion at the interface
will also give rise to mode conversions. As the angle
where d is the gap thickness, Z1 and Z2 are acoustic of incidence is increased from the normal to the
impedances for the material and the thin layer or surface, both longitudinal and transverse angle
gap respectively, and λ is wavelength (Krautkrämer beams are created in the part. When the incident
angle is increased such that the longitudinal wave is
refracted at 90 degrees to normal, the first critical
Figure 7. Simulated 5 MHz transmission and angle is reached and longitudinal waves will no
longer exist in the part. Further increase of the
reflection signals of brass insert in composite as
incident angle will reach the second critical angle,
function of brass thickness. where the refracted transverse wave is refracted at
90 degrees to normal and will not exist in the part.
1.0
Figure 9 shows the modeling of the waves and the
Relative transmittance

0.8 complications that arise from multiple reflections

or reflectance

and refractions. In Figure 9a, the transducer is at

0.6 Transmission 9.6 degrees and produces both longitudinal and
transverse waves with mode conversions at the
0.4 interfaces. In Figure 9b, with the transducer at
0.2
19 degrees to the surface normal, transverse wave
Reflection inspection is performed. Note that water does not
0 support transverse waves. Because of the multiple
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.2 1.4 wave complication for angle beam inspections, it is
Insert thickness (mm) typical to use a wedge with an angle greater than the
first critical angle so that only transverse (shear)

Figure 8. Refraction of ultrasound transmitting from one material to another: (a) angle of incidence
producing longitudinal wave; (b) first critical angle, no more longitudinal wave.

(a) (b)

First critical angle

q1 Reflected wave Reflected wave
q1
Material 1 Material 1
Material 2 Material 2
q2t q2t

q2l Longitudinal wave Transverse wave

Transverse wave
Legend
q1 = angle of incidence
q2l = angle of refraction for longitudinal wave
q2t = refraction for transverse wave
waves are generated (Figure 10). Table 5 lists critical
angles. The velocity of the transverse wave is slower
than the longitudinal wave, so its shorter wavelength
improves resolution. Table 6 lists the incident angle
for creating 30, 45, or 60 degree angle beams of
either longitudinal or transverse waves for
immersion water coupling or contact coupling.
Figure 9. Example of ultrasonic beams in
aluminum plate from ultrasound: (a) in water at
9.6 degree incident angle; (b) at 19 degree
incident angle.
(a)
Transducer at 9.6°
Diffraction
Ultrasonic waves, like electromagnetic waves,
diffract at the edges of objects. When ultrasonic
waves interact with an aperture, the sound field will
diverge as shown in Figure 11. The edges of cracks
are sources of spherical diffraction waves that can be
detected if they have sufficient intensity at the
detector.
Transducer Sources and
Detection of Ultrasound
Ultrasound is most commonly generated and
detected by transducers, sensors that convert
electrical energy into mechanical motion and also

Water
coupling X
Figure 10. Wedge for transverse wave angle beam inspection in
Aluminum aluminum plate.
plate Z
(a) Transducer on
polystyrene wedge for
45° transverse wave in
Transverse wave aluminum plate X Notch in plate
in aluminum
Z
Longitudinal wave Longitudinal
in aluminum wave in water

(b) Longitudinal
wave in
water
Transducer at 19° Reflected wave (b)
Amplitude (scalable units)

Corner trap reflection from notch

0.05
Water
coupling X
0
Aluminum
plate Internal
Z
–0.05 reflections in
wedge
Transverse wave in
aluminum 20 40 60 80
Time (µs)

Table 5. Critical refraction angles.

V1L V2L V2T First Critical Second Critical

Material 1 Material 2
(mm/µs) (mm/µs) (mm/µs) Angle Angle

Water acrylic 1.48 2.7 1.1 33.2° not applicable

aluminum 1.48 6.3 3.1 13.6° 28.5°
titanium 1.48 6.07 2.4 14.1° 38.1°
stainless steel 1.48 5.8 2.3 14.8° 40.1°
high temperature nickel 1.48 5.82 3.02 14.7° 29.3°
chromium alloy

Acrylic aluminum 2.7 6.3 2.5 25.4° not applicable

titanium 2.7 6.07 2.4 26.4° not applicable
stainless steel 2.7 5.8 2.3 27.7° not applicable
high temperature nickel 2.7 5.82 3.02 27.6° 63.4°
chromium alloy

9.9
 Table 6. Incident angles (q1) for refracted beams. See Figure 8.

Longitudinal qL Transverse qT
Material 1 Material 2
30° 45° 60° 30° 45° 60°

Water acrylic 15.9° 22.8° 28.3° 42.3° 72.1° not applicable

aluminum 6.7° 9.6° 11.7° 17.2° 24.7° 30.8°
titanium 7.0° 9.9° 12.2° 13.8° 19.7° 24.4°
stainless steel 7.3° 10.4° 12.8° 18.8° 27.1° 33.9°
high temperature nickel 7.3° 10.4° 12.7° 14.2° 20.3° 25.1°
chromium alloy

Acrylic aluminum 12.4° 17.6° 21.8° 25.8° 38.0° 49.0°

titanium 12.9° 18.3° 22.7° 34.2° 52.7° 77.0°
stainless steel 13.5° 19.2° 23.8° 35.9° 56.1° not applicable
high temperature nickel 13.4° 19.1° 23.7° 26.6° 39.2° 50.7°
chromium alloy

Figure 11. Diffraction of acoustic waves at aperture.
Barrier
Diffracted spherical
wavefront
Plain wave
Aperture
mechanical motion into electrical energy. Table 7
lists sensor materials common in ultrasonic test
systems: lead zirconate titanate (PZT), lead
metaniobate (LMN), lithium niobate (LiNbO3),
1–3 composites, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
The first three are ceramic. Polyvinylidene fluoride is
a flexible polymer that has much lower density than
the ceramics. Polyvinylidene fluoride is used in
broadband and flexible arrays. The ceramic
transducers are generally more powerful and
sensitive.
The 1-3 composite transducers are ceramic rods
embedded in a composite matrix that can improve
the range of the transducer and imaging quality. The
composite transducer is formed by dicing the surface
of the ceramic and then filling the interstices with
epoxy material. The selection of the dicing
spacing/size and fill materials optimizes the
performance of the transducer. This matrix
construction provides a means to adjust the
dielectric constant in order to optimize pulse form
and amplitude (Splitt 1998).
Several characteristics of these transducers are
listed in Table 7. The coupling coefficient is a
measure of the conversion of electrical energy into
acoustic energy and should be high. The dielectric
constant should match the electrical impedance of
the detector electronics. Table 8 contains general
information about the transducer material types. The
transducers come in a variety of sizes and shapes to
meet the operational needs. Most often the issues for
the operator are the selection of the transducer
frequency, bandwidth, diameter, and focal length.
These issues are briefly discussed below.
The generation of ultrasound is a function of the
transducer design and the electrical excitation. The
excitation is normally a pulse of electrical energy or
a tone burst of a specific frequency. With spikes or
square wave pulses, the transducer will respond at
the fundamental frequency for the piezoelectric
material at the thickness excited but will contain a
frequency spectrum depending on the electrical pulse
width and the manufacture of the transducer.
Transducer manufacturers use piezoelectric materials
that suppliers have cut to the thickness that will
optimize performance at a design frequency. For the
most generalized applications, the transducers are
manufactured at 1, 2.25, 3.5, 5, 10, and 15 MHz that
adequately cover a range of aerospace ultrasonic
requirements.
Transducers that have very little frequency range
are called narrowband transducers, usually made
lightly backed so that they essentially ring at their
fundamental frequency. These transducers usually
have a high Q factor, a high conversion efficiency of
electrical pulse energy into acoustic energy. Highly
damped transducers have a backing applied to the
piezoelectric material during assembly that reduces
resonant ringing. Damped transducers will be able to
generate a broader energy spectrum than
narrowband transducers but usually have a lower
Q factor because of damping. Although it might be
thought the high Q factor would be more valuable,
in practice the broadband transducer with a short
duration electrical spike pulse is more common. Its
broad spectrum and short duration pulse result in
very sensitive depth timing. The narrowband

C
Table 7. Ultrasonic transducer materials: lead zirconate titanate (PZT), lead metaniobate (LMN), lithium niobate (LiNbO3),
composite, and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).

Acoustic Frequency
Transducer Density Coupling Dielectric
Impedance Constant Mechanical Q
Material g/cm3 Coefficient Constant
g·cm–2·s (rayl) (Hz·m)

PZT-5A 7.8 3.05 × 107 1980 0.49 1700 75

PZT-5H 7.8 3.1 × 107 2030 0.52 3000 70
PZT-4 7.4 3.1 × 107 2030 0.41 1300 80
LMN K81 6.1 1.9 × 107 1525 0.3 300 15
LMN K83 4.5 2.45 × 107 2740 0.39 180 300
LMN K85 5.7 1.85 × 107 1675 0.35 750 15
1-3 composite 4.2 to 5.2 8.× 106 to 15 × 106 1300.to 1500 0.6 to 0.75 900.to 2000 2.to 30
LiNbO3 36-Y 4.64 3.2 × 107 3680 — — 10,000
PVDF 1.8 2.7 × 106 1500 0.14 10 5

Table 8. Ultrasonic transducer general information.

Type Comment

Modified lead zirconate titanate (PZT) PZT5A PZT5A is widely used for general purposes; choice for 1-3 composites, hydrophones,
accelerometers, level sensors, acoustic emission, pressure, flow, nondestructive
testing, medical, knock, sonar, igniters.

PZT5H PZT5H has high coupling and dielectric constants; good for 1-3 composites, arrays,
actuators, sensitive receivers, and line hydrophone applications.

PZT4 PZT4 is highly resistant to depoling under severe mechanical stress and electric
drive; low dielectric losses at high electric fields; high power acoustic radiating
transducers, for ultrasonic cleaning, welding and sonar, high voltage generators,
medical therapy, and high intensity focused ultrasound.

Modified lead metaniobate (LMN)
K81 K81 has very stable parameters under time, temperature, and pressure variations
and has low acoustic impedance, low aging, and Q factor. Used in discontinuity
detectors, thickness gages, accelerometers, high frequency hydrophones and to
measure acoustic emissions, pressure, knock, flow, level, and well logging under
high pressure and temperatures up to 300 °C.

K83 K83 has low dielectric constant coupled with high frequency constant, resulting in
lower capacitance for higher frequency driving, and has low acoustic impedance.

K85 K85 has higher signal-to-noise ratio with low Q factor and low acoustic
impedance.

Piezo composites Piezo composites have a very low mechanical Q factor, low acoustic impedance,
and high electromechanical coupling factor — ideal for discontinuity detectors,
thickness gages, and medical imaging.

Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)
PVDF is flexible and acoustically well matched to composite materials. It can be
formed into shaped transducers, providing special focal characteristics. It is useful
in applications requiring very thin piezo elements, where ceramics are too fragile
and cannot be shaped to desired geometries. Center frequencies of 3 to 10 MHz
and –6 dB fractional bandwidths exceeding 100 pecent are typical with PVdF
transducers. It is possible to achieve uniformity of ±1 dB between elements of a
multielement PVdF transducer array.

Lithium niobate LiNbO3 36-Y Very high Q factor transducer material with potential for high temperature
(>500° C) applications.

9.11
 transducer will have ringing effects that result in a It is possible to focus ultrasound using lenses.
longer ultrasonic pulse, making the interpretation of Lens material is selected according to the ultrasonic
signal echo times difficult. Figure 12 shows the velocity in the material for refraction. Figure 13
difference between a broadband and narrowband shows how focusing can help resolve features. Both
transducer for separating features in a sample. The steps are detected with an unfocused broad beam
narrowband transducer signal (Figure 12c) has more (Figure 13a) at the transducer location; a focused
acoustic power, but the sensitivity to separate out beam (Figure 13b) allows finer details to be detected.
features is lost relative to the broadband transducer The transducer generation of ultrasonic waves is
signal (Figure 12b). The broadband signal is able to subject to near- and far-field effects on the
resolve much finer details. uniformity of the beam. Very close to the transducer

Figure 12. Simulated 5 MHz signals as function of transducer bandwith: (a) configuration; (b) broadband, 5 MHz, 80 percent
bandwidth; (c) narrowband, 5 MHz, 20 percent bandwidth.

(a) Transducer

Ultrasound

Step 3
Step 4

(b) (c)
Amplitude (relative units)

Amplitude (relative units)

0.2 Front surface of 0.2
step block
0.1 0.1

0 0

–0.1 –0.1
Step 4
–0.2 Step 3 –0.2

5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
Time (µs) Time (µs)

Figure 13. Simulated 5 MHz signals: (a) unfocused broad beam; (b) focused transducer beam.

(a) (b)

Front surface of
0.2 step block 0.2
Amplitude (relative units)

Amplitude (relative units)

0.1 0.1

0 0

–0.1 –0.1
Step 4
Step 4
–0.2 Step 3 –0.2

5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
Time (µs) Time (µs)

Transducer Transducer
Ultrasound
Ultrasound

Step 4 Step 3
Step 4
the ultrasonic waves are just forming in the media
and are subject to constructive and destructive
interference that can affect the uniformity of the
pressure waves. As the distance increases from the
transducer to the far field, the ultrasonic beam
becomes more uniform but spreads out with
distance. The diameter and the frequency of the
transducer govern the length of the near field and
the beam spread in the far field. These effects are
shown in Figure 14. Inspection in the near field can
be problematic because of the zones of low and high
intensity that can misrepresent reflection from
features. The near field is defined as:
2 2
(14) d −λ
N =
4λ
where d is the diameter of the transducer, N is the
near field distance, and λ is the wavelength. The
angle of divergence of the beam beyond the near
field is given:
Other Waveforms
In addition to longitudinal and transverse waves,
there are other modes of ultrasound that are
sometimes used in the aerospace industry (Table 9).
Many of the modes are generated by conversion
from other modes at interfaces because of beam
orientation, refraction indices, or other geometric
characteristics. The wave characteristics can be used
to enhance certain inspections in particular
geometries.
Figure 14. Near and far field effects of transducer.
Transducer
N
f
d

λ
(15) sin φ = 1.2
d Legend
d = diameter of transducer
N = near field distance
where f is the half angle of the spread shown in f = half angle of spread
Figure 14.

Table 9. Waveform types.

Wave Name Characteristic Generation Applications

Longitudinal (or pressure or Particle displacements are in from transducer planar inspection by attenuation
compressional) direction of wave propagation. measurement or reflection from
features

Transverse (shear) Particle displacements are by first refraction angle at angle beam inspection in parts;
perpendicular to direction of interfaces or by special shorter wavelength than
wave propagation. transverse transducers longitudinal for better resolution
or sensitivity

Lamb (or guided) Waves travel in thin (relative to conversion of compressional or emerging method for in-plane
wavelength) medium. transverse waves in thin media inspections for discontinuities
over extended distances, and
material properties

Surface (or rayleigh) Wave travels on surface. second refraction index on surface breaking cracks and
surface residual stress measurements

Creeping (or creep) Wave is within material but near low angle of entry between near near-surface crack detection
surface. first or second refraction index

9.13
PART 2 Basic Ultrasonic Techniques

Standard Pulse Echo and Access

Through-Transmission Testing
The pulse echo and through-transmission
ultrasonic test techniques are used at frequencies
appropriate for the thickness and attenuation
characteristics of the materials being inspected. The
sensitivity to fine detail is a function of wavelength
and active beam size (diameter). The major issues for
aerospace applications are the access to the part,
coupling of the ultrasound, speed of inspection, and
sensitivity. Pulse echo inspection has the advantage
of being able to locate in-depth features or
anomalies from one side of the part. The
through-transmission technique has the advantages
of more power, no near-surface resolution issues,
and calibration for acoustic attenuation
measurement. Table 10 lists common
implementations of ultrasound for hand held and
mechanical scanners.
The access to the part, the region of interest,
orientation of the discontinuity, or the material
character of interest often determine whether pulse
echo, through-transmission, pitch catch, or other
techniques will be used. For structures where only
one side is accessible, pulse echo and pitch catch
approaches are normally required. For structures that
can be accessed from both sides,
through-transmission testing is preferred if the
geometry is not too complicated.
Coupling and Scanners
Coupling of the conventional ultrasound
transducer to the object under inspection is generally
necessary in the inspection schemes listed in
Table 10. For hand held operations, common
coupling materials are water, cleaning fluids,

Table 10. Common means of ultrasonic insonification.

Implementation Method Typical Forms Comments

Hand held contact pulse echo hand scanning Place single transducer at locations or scan over areas of interest
and observe A-scan waveform display. Water or gel is used for
coupling.

through-transmission hand scanning Hold two transducers, one on each side of part, and check for
transmission. Alignment can be difficult.

pulse echo surface scanning Hand held probes can be connected to position encoders and
moved by hand to create linear B-scan or area map C-scan data.

linear array scanning Arrays of transducers can be moved by hand to scan over part.
E-scans (similar to B-scans) are created at each location using
electronic scanning of the array elements.

phased array Array transducers can be placed at region of interest, and array
scanned in phase to create sector (S) formatted B-scans

Mechanical scanners water tank immersion scanning Water tanks have greatest versatility for scanning schemes,
(through-transmission testing), using one or many transducers and orientation for
pulse echo, pitch catch) through-transmission, pulse echo or pitch catch techniques. Part
must fit in water tank.

surface riding dribbler or bubbler Mechanical systems can replace hand held motion and scan over
(pulse echo) regions of interest, creating wide variety of scans. Transducer
rides on surface in special shoe or captured water column to
maintain orientation and proper coupling.

water squirter system (through- Water pressure can be used to create nonturbulent stream
transmission and pulse echo testing) through nozzle that also contains transducer. Ultrasound is sent
through water column and allows inspection of very large parts.
alcohol, and gels. For mechanical scanners, the
common coupling means are immersion in water,
surface riding water dribblers, or water squirter
systems. Figure 15 shows an immersion system that
has two transducer arms that can be moved about a
part for many combinations of inspection at various
angles. Immersion systems offer considerable
Figure 15. Immersion scanner.
Figure 16. Portable scanner.
flexibility for inspection of parts that can be
placed in a water tank. Figure 16 shows a surface
riding transducer on a portable scanner system.
The portable scanner allows flexibility for field
inspection. Figure 17 shows a multiple-axis gantry
system that can handle a complex object for water
squirter coupling. Such a system can be designed
to handle very large components. The squirter
can be used in the pulse echo as well as
through-transmission test mode.
Scan speeds depend on the data spacing of the
inspection. Mechanical scanners can run at speeds
over 0.5 m/s (20 in./s) and then index at a selected
test data spacing. The data acquisition spacing
should be about a third of the minimum
discontinuity size detection requirement or smaller.
For faster coverage of large areas, multiple
transducers or transducer linear arrays are used. The
array technology is commonly mounted on the
surface following dribbler scanners, either portable
or gantry mounted. The index stepping can then be
an entire array width of about 100 to 200 mm
(several inches or more); data acquisition stepping
(that is, indexing) remains small and results in faster
area scanning while maintaining required detection.
Data Display: A-, B-, and C-Scans
The displays of ultrasonic data are commonly
called A-, B-, and C-scans. Table 11 explains the
scan types. The A-scan is a plot of amplitude versus
time of the signal measured with a transducer at
one position. The B-scan is a consecutive series of
A-scan waveform values displayed as an image, with
one axis as time and the other axis as distance from
the transducer. Each grayscale level in the image
represents the amplitude of a corresponding A-scan.
The B-scan is likened to a cross section of the test
object. A C-scan provides a planar view — for
example, of a plate lying flat and viewed from
above. The two axes on a C-scan are used to index
locations in the scanned area. The bitmapped image
is related to a parameter taken from the A-scan at
each point, usually the maximum signal amplitude
within a specified gate in the time domain.
Figure 17. Gantry scanner inspection of large
aircraft component.
9.15
Table 11. Common ultrasonic testing displays..

Display Scan Type Description Comments

A-scan plot of ultrasonic signal voltage Waveform signal that registers ultrasonic amplitude as function of
versus time time, representing propagation time for transmission and
reflection in test material. Depth in part can be inferred from
propagation time.

B-scan image of time versus position with The B-scan is image display of array of A-scans. Transducer is
gray scale in image of ultrasonic moved in one direction across test object. For phased array
signal level transducers, B-scan format can be sector formed by changing
angle of beam from transducer and is called an S-scan.

C-scan image of x and y positions on part; C-scan is normal output of through-transmission scanning where
gray scale of image is value selected received ultrasound signal is typically magnitude of ultrasound
from A-scan at that location signal at position on test object. For pulse echo images, C-scan
value can be amplitude in signal at particular time (amplitude
C-scan) or time that particular amplitude first occurs within gated
region of A-scan (time-of-flight C-scan).

Figure 18. Photograph of composite flat bottom holes used for demonstration of A-, B-, and C-Scan
display.

0 50 100 150 200 250

Scale (mm)

Figure 19. A- and B-scans: (a) A-scan plot of amplitude versus time; (b) B-scan image of time versus
reflector depth. The B-scan presents multiple A-scans; color or gray shade indicates amplitude.
(a) (b)
Front
Internal Back surface
Front surface feature surface
echo echo echo
Transducer output (relative units)

60
40
Time

20
0
–20 Back
surface
–40
–60
0 2 4 6 8 10
1.2
2.5
3.8
5.0
6.2
7.5
8.8

Time (relative units)

Incremented points of interrogation
(arbitrary scale)
 Figure 18 is a photograph of a flat bottom hole
sample in a 4.3 mm (0.170 in.) thick composite Figure 20. A-scan and amplitude C-scan: (a) A-scans can be interpreted
panel. The flat bottom hole values tell the thickness for amplitude or gated amplitude peak; (b) C-scan plot of amplitude as
of material at hole locations when ultrasonically function of position.
inspected from the opposite side of the panel.
Figure 19 shows the relationship between A- and Internal Back
(a)
B-scans. The B-scan in Figure 19 is taken over the Front surface feature surface
top row of flat bottom holes in Figure 18. The echo echo echo Value
vertical time axis in the B-scan has the front surface 60 extracted
at the top and back surface at the bottom. The
40

Transducer output (units)

deepest cut holes have thus caused a reflection
nearer the top surface. The shallowest cut hole shows Electronic
20 gate
a reflection very close to the back surface echo. This
standard was constructed to test the detectability of 0
a pulse echo ultrasonic test system for a single ply
near the back surface. Figures 20 and 21 show how –20
the pulse echo generated A scans can be interpreted
in a C-scan. –40
The C-scan is the two-dimensional planar display
of a value extracted from a series of A-scans taken –60
0 2 4 6 8 10
over the same area. Using a gating system, either the
Time (relative units)
peak amplitude in the gate or the first crossing of a
threshold in the gate is often used for the display (b) 250 mm
value. The C-scan of Figure 20 shows the peak
amplitude; Figure 21 shows either the first crossing
of a threshold of the time of flight.

100 mm

Figure 21. A-scan and time-of-flight C-scans: (a) A-scan gated for
transit time signal; (b) signal’s time-of-flight indexed to shade of gray,
indicating reflector depth in C-scan.

(a) Back surface

Front surface echo extracted
echo
Internal feature for peak in gate
60 echo extracted
for first in gate
40
Transducer output (units)

20

–20

–40

–60
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (relative units)
(b)
250 mm

100 mm

9.17
Figure 22. Simple resolution sensitivity for scanning: transducer beam size relative to feature size affects sensitivity. In this
drawing, discontinuities are delaminations.

0.6
0.4
0.2
D
0
–0.2 Transducer
–0.4
–0.6
6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (µs)

Discontinuity
Discontinuity size = 2 D Discontinuity size = 1 D size = 0.5 D Discontinuity size = 0.25 D
Amplitude (relative units)

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
–0.2 –0.2 –0.2 –0.2
–0.4 –0.4 –0.4 –0.4
–0.6 –0.6 –0.6 –0.6
6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14 6 8 10 12 14
Time (µs) Time (µs) Time (µs) Time (µs)

against a reference standard. For longitudinal pulse

Figure 23. Reference standard incorporating thickness steps and flat
bottom holes.
Sensitivity
Sensitivity to discontinuities is a function of the
frequency and bandwidth of the ultrasound.
Sensitivity is also a function of the orientation, beam
size, and scan step resolution. When the beam is
normal to the discontinuity and the beam size is
smaller than the discontinuity, the sensitivity can be
estimated from the signal change as the beam is
scanned over the discontinuity zone, provided no
other features in the component interfere with wave
propagation. Figure 22 demonstrates this effect.
When the beam is larger than the discontinuity, the
sensitivity is based on the amplitude of the signal
assuming that no other features affect measurement.
The amplitude based sensitivity must be calibrated
echo testing, a flat bottom hole is a common
reference standard. Figure 23 is an example of a
standard design that incorporated thickness variation
using a step block configuration and some flat
bottom holes. When using angle beams and corner
trap detection methods for discontinuity detection,
the sensitivity is based on the signal amplitude
compared to a standard. Discontinuities whose
reflection intensity is different from the standard
may be detected with less sensitivity. However,
accept/reject criteria for discontinuities are normally
based on the reflection amplitude in the standard,
usually a machined notch selected for a very
conservative signal. There are numerous blocks
commercially available for calibration of ultrasound
inspection. Figure 24 shows several types of metallic
calibration blocks (ASNT 2007, 197). Figure 24c is
the International Institute of Welding (IIW) block
that is very common. For many aerospace
inspections, specific reference standards are used
(ASNT 2007, 499).
Resonance
Resonance testing is an alternative ultrasonic
technique of interpretation of the ultrasonic
transducer response. Resonance testing is based on
establishing a standing wave in the material under
test (ASNT 1991, 376). The standing wave occurs
when the effective thickness of the material is equal
to an integral number of half wavelengths.
Resonance testing is usually applied to either
thickness measurement or bond testing. For
thickness measurements, the frequency is normally
swept over a range of frequencies where the
wavelengths are smaller than the object thickness.
When the resonant frequency is found, the material
thickness can be gaged according to multiples of its
corresponding wavelength.
In bond testing, a tone burst at a particular
frequency is typically used to establish the effective
mechanical impedance of the test object, the material
serving as a termination load for the piezoelectric
transducer. The transducer’s electrical impedance at
the selected frequency can be displayed as an
impedance plane plot. As the transducer is scanned
over the test object, changes in mechanical
impedance, such as disbonds or composite impact
damage, change the electrical impedance output of
the transducer. When used in a scanning mode, it is
customary to display the X and Y values of the
impedance plane output as C-scan image plots.
Figure 25 compares a 5 MHz pulse echo
time-of-flight C-scan of impact damage with the
resonance scan’s X and Y outputs, separately plotted.
The top image of Figure 25 uses a colorized scale to
represent the time-of-flight (depth) in the part of the
signal reflection. The resonance scan is at 237 kHz,
much lower than the frequencies typically used in
the pulse echo technique. Depending on the material
and its thickness, either the X or the Y plots may
have greater sensitivity to particular material
changes. In Figure 25, the scans are taken on the
impacted side of a composite foam core (25 mm, or
1 in., thick) sandwich structure; Figure 26, however,
shows resonance inspection of the damage from the
far side of the sandwich structure using 152 kHz.
This far side inspection through the foam could not
be accomplished with pulse echo ultrasonic testing
because of the attenuation of the foam core. The low
frequency application of resonance testing can be
very effective on attenuating and complicated
structures, particularly bonded structures.

Figure 24. Ultrasonic test calibration blocks: Figure 25. Comparison of ultrasonic images of
(a) angle beam calibration block; (b) ASME basic impact damage in composite test object:
calibration block; (c) IIW block (ASNT 2007, (a) pulse echo; (b) resonance X plot at 237 kHz;
197). (c) resonance Y plot at 237 kHz.
(a)
(a)
Reference 9.5 mm 25 mm
point (0.37 in.) (1.0 in.)

4 3 2 1
75 mm
(3.0 in.) (b)
25 mm radius 63 mm
(1.0 in.) (2.5 in.)
radius
4 3 2 1
3 mm
(0.125 in.) (c)
0.75 mm
(0.03 in.)

(b) 4 3 2 1

Figure 26. Far side test of foam filled sandwich

Side drilled 3t minimum
hole (typical) structure using 152 kHz resonance to detect
t/2
discontinuities 3 and 4 of test object in
≥38 mm (1.5 in.) Figure 25: (a) X plot; (b) Y plot.
150 mm (6.0 in.) minimum (a)

3t/4
t/4

Notches (optional) t
t/2
4 3

(c)

Side drilled holes 2 mm (b)

(0.08 in.)
1.5 mm
)
)
)

(0.06 in.) Curved notch

deg
deg
deg

25 mm (1 in.)
(45
60
(70

radius 100 mm
(

50 mm
rad
rad
rad

(2.0 in.) (4.0 in.)

4 3
0.8

radius
1.0
1.2

9.19
 Phased Array
Ultrasonic phased arrays use multiple ultrasonic
elements and electronic timing delays to generate
and receive ultrasound. Beams are created by
constructive or destructive interference through the
superposition of the waveforms based on the timing
of the pulsing on each transducer. Phased arrays
offer advantages over conventional single probe
ultrasonic testing because a phased array beam can
be electronically scanned and the beams created by
the superimposed waveforms can be steered and
provide focus. The electronic scanning (E-scan)
permits rapid coverage of test objects. Typically,
phased array scanning will be an order of magnitude
faster than single probe scanning. Beam steering,
called sectorial scanning (S-scan), is used for
mapping components at selected angles. S-scanning
is useful for inspections where only a minimal
footprint is possible. The S-scan display is similar to
a B-scan but is an image of the signal in time versus
the angle. Electronic timing can be used to
superimpose the waveforms from each element to
optimize the beam shape at the discontinuity for the
greatest detection sensitivity. Because the phased
arrays can direct the ultrasound beam without
moving the transducer, they can generate B-scan
formatted images without mechanical motion.
Phased array ultrasound is similar in principle to
radar and sonar. The arrays can be linear or
two-dimensional. Linear arrays are more common.
The individual elements in the array are wired
independently for pulsing and time shifting.
Figure 27. Phased array scanning: (a) E-scan; (b) S-scan; (c) superposition focusing (ASNT 2007, 91).
(a) (b)
(relative scale)
Delay
Acoustic field 1 Acoustic field 5 αN
αl
Figure 27 shows a diagram of the linear array
operation of electronic (E) scanning and sectorial (S)
scanning. Groups of elements are used together with
timing delays to cause the beam to have a particular
shape. The performance of characteristics of phased
array systems can be assessed using ASTM
procedures (ASTM E 2491 2008). In electronic
scanning (Figure 27a), a small number of transducers
are grouped for sending a wave and then the group is
shifted along the array to create a scan. In sectorial
scanning (Figure 27b), the array of elements is timed
to cause a series of beams to be directed from a range
of angles slightly different from each other. Changing
the timing causes the elements to fire in turn along
the array and interrogate a single point on the test
object in what is called a sector scan. Resolution can
be controlled by the group spacing. By using a large
number of elements and appropriate timing of the
elements, the superposition of the waves from each
element can cause a focusing effect (Figure 27c). The
focusing can be dynamically changed to create an
effective continuous depth focus.
Phased array implementation requires an
ultrasonic instrument that can appropriately control
the timing of signals and record the echo
information. The probe design, however, may need
to be specifically constructed for some applications,
and the phased array probes are considerably more
expensive than conventional ultrasonic transducers.
The predominant advantages of phased arrays are
the speed, flexibility, and angle scanning into
locations of interest.
(c)
Focal law 1
Focal law 5
Linear array
Beam spot N
Beam spot 1
 Specialized or Emerging Techniques PART 3

Air Coupled Ultrasonic Testing Figure 28. Air coupled through-transmission testing of aircraft
The coupling of ultrasound into a test object is component at 50 kHz .
normally performed through a liquid or gel. This
Air coupled transducer Hand held through-transmission scanning yoke
requires that the couplant contact the surface. In
some cases, it is preferred that the surface not be
contacted; in other cases, it is impractical to apply
couplant. It is possible to couple ultrasound through
the air but not without difficulty. Table 4 lists the
transmission and reflection coefficient for ultrasound
at interfaces. For an interface of lead zirconate
titanate (a piezoelectric element) to air, the
transmitted amplitude has a 92 dB loss. After the
sound is transmitted into a part and then exits, the
total signal loss can be on the order of 160 dB.
Additionally, the attenuation of ultrasound in air can
be significant as the frequency increases, to over
100 dB/m at 1 MHz. To overcome attenuation, air
coupled systems have large, high power transducers
with high dynamic range receiving systems and
operate at lower frequencies (50 kHz to 1 MHz) than
conventional ultrasound. Air coupled ultrasonic
testing is performed in either through-transmission
or pitch catch modes because the tone burst is high Figure 29. Air coupled, pitch catch, ultrasonic
powered. The front surface reflection from the object test of fillet weld radius at 250 kHz.
would dominate the signal if the transducer were
used in pulse echo mode. The pitch catch mode uses
two transducers, but they might not be directly
aligned as in through-transmission testing.
Advances are being made in air coupled
transducers to improve performance. Impedance
matching layers are designed to reduce the losses at
the transducer-to-air interface (ASNT 2007, 131-132;
Bhardwaj 2009). Other air coupled transducer types,
not relying on lead zirconate titanate elements, have
emerged and become more common (Song 2006).
Materials with lower acoustic impedance such as
sandwich panels with foam or honeycomb core
construction are good candidates for air coupled
ultrasonic testing. Figure 28 shows a low (50 kHz)
hand held air coupled inspection of an aircraft
control surface in the field. These are typically
honeycomb structures. A large yoke holds the
transducer and scans around the part while the
operator observes the through-transmission signal
on the display. Care must be taken around the edges
of parts with air coupled ultrasonic testing because Figure 30. Air coupled, through-transmission
the signal can leak. Figure 29 shows a pitch catch testing of bonded laminate panel at 400 kHz.
application of air coupled ultrasonic testing at about
250 kHz, and Figure 30 shows a 400 kHz air coupled
C-scan inspection of a bonded composite laminate.
The technique is adequate for gross discontinuities
such as disbonds or voids but is less sensitive to
porosity or inclusions than is water coupled
ultrasonic testing.
Void/disbond
in adhesive

9.21
 Electromagnetic Acoustic
Transducers (EMATs)
Ultrasound can be coupled without liquids by
electromagnetic acoustic transducers. This technique
is applicable to conductive or magnetic materials
because it uses lorentz forces to create and detect
ultrasound. Lorentz force is due to the interaction of
eddy currents and magnetic fields where a force is
created by a changing electric current in a magnetic
field. A transducer that contains a coil winding and
a bias magnet can create forces in a nearby
conductor and detect its motion. The quality of the
transducer depends on the intensity of the magnetic
field and current density available.
Figure 31 shows cross sectional views of practical
electromagnetic acoustic transducer designs. Notice
how the electromagnetic acoustic transducer
construction can create a number of particular wave
motions by orienting the lorentz force through the
relative eddy current and magnetic field
configurations.
Electromagnetic acoustic transducers are useful
because they can operate in vacuums, at high
temperature, at high speed, or in moving tests. Their
abilities include self alignment, phased array
configurations, and excitation of horizontally
polarized transverse waves for the measurement of
stress or for tests of anisotropic weldments. Their
major drawback is that they are less efficient than
piezoelectric transducers. Careful modeling is needed
to design electromagnetic acoustic transducers that
perform well for a particular application.
Laser Ultrasonic Testing
Laser techniques are applicable to the generation
and detection of ultrasound (Monchalin 2004; ASNT
2007, 107-114). The laser energy input into the test
material creates internal mechanical waves. Surface
displacement from mechanical waves in the material
can likewise be detected by laser methods. The
primary advantage of laser methods is that no
mechanical contact is made with the object. Table 12
lists other advantages and disadvantages of laser
ultrasonic testing.
The absorption of the laser optical energy
produces thermal heating that can generate useful
elastic waves by expansion. The pulse width of the
laser generation beam will affect the frequency of
the ultrasound. At low pulse energies, the
predominant ultrasound generation mechanism is
the localized thermal expansions known as the
thermoelastic regime. At high pulse energies,
ablation can occur. Care should be taken to avoid
power levels that melt or evaporate surface material
(surface ablation). Figure 32 diagrams three modes of
laser interaction on a steel surface where the energy
is absorbed. The thermoelastic effect on a free
surface is shown in Figure 32a and results in a
conical beam (Figure 33a). To generate a forward
wave normal to the surface of Figure 33b, a
transparent constraining layer as shown in
Figure 32b may be used. Ablation will also generate
a normal beam but damages the surface. To increase
absorption and avoid ablation damage, test surfaces
may be painted black. Graphite fiber reinforced

Figure 31. Cross sections of practical electromagnetic acoustic transducer configurations: (a) spiral coil exciting radially polarized
transverse wave propagating normal to surface; (b) tangential field electromagnetic acoustic transducer for exciting plane
polarized longitudinal waves propagating normal to surface; (c) normal field transducer for exciting plane polarized transverse
waves propagating normal to surface; (d) meander coil transducer for exciting oblique longitudinal or vertically polarized
transverse waves, rayleigh waves, or guided modes of plates; (e) periodic permanent magnet for exciting obliquely propagating
horizontally polarized transverse waves or guided horizontally polarized transverse modes of plates (ASNT 2007, 116).

(a) (b) (c)

S S N

N N S
N S

(d) (e)
S

S N S N S N S N
N N S N S N S N S
Table 12. Advantages and limitations of laser ultrasonic testing.

Laser techniques are noncontacting.

In remote applications, unlike other noncontact ultrasonic methods, laser techniques can operate from substantial
standoff distances.
Broadband signal contains many frequencies.
It is easy to scan contoured parts. Ultrasound beam is generated to propagate normal to test surface.
Advantages
Scan rate is limited only by ultrasound generation, laser repetition rate, and ultrasound transit times.
Laser techniques can interrogate parts with limited access.
Laser techniques can perform inspections in hostile environments where human presence is not possible.
Laser techniques can inspect moving parts.
Laser techniques can easily generate surface waves and plate waves.

Surface must be suitable to absorb laser energy and generate ultrasound without damage; ablation layer may be
required.
Too much power may damage some surface types.
Broadband signal with limited strength at particular frequencies.
Signal quality may be degraded relative to standard transducers.
Limitations
Laser techniques can be large and expensive and require laser safe rooms for protection.
Off normal scanning is usually limited to about 45 degrees. Then part must be repositioned and/or reoriented to
laser beam.
For high power lasers, pulse repetition rate may limit scan rates.

Figure 32. Types of laser generated ultrasound: Figure 33. Radiation energy distribution patterns
(a) thermoelastic or free surface; (b) constrained of laser generated ultrasound: (a) free surface
surface; (c) ablated surface (ASNT 2012, 382). thermal expansion; (b) constrained thermal
expansion or ablation (ASNT 2012, 382).

(a)
Air Steel (a)

1.5 rad
(90 deg)

Laser beam Heated zone

Laser
impinges
here
1 rad (60 deg)
0 rad (0 deg)
(b)

Laser beam Heated zone

(b)
Transparent 1.5 rad
bonded plate (90 deg)

(c)

Laser beam Heated zone 0 rad (0 deg)

Ablated
material

9.23
polymer composites represent a good application for
laser ultrasonic testing because the surface has a thin
transparent epoxy layer with black fibers below,
constraining heating and creating longitudinal
ultrasound normal to the surface (ASM 2001). For
contoured composite parts, the laser can be scanned
easily, without undue concern for mechanical
alignment normal to the surface. Angles of up to
about 45 degrees from normal have been
successfully inspected using laser ultrasonic
scanning. With laser pulse repetition rates of 400 Hz
and higher, inspection speed can be greater than
6 m2/h (64 ft2/h).
Laser interferometry is the commonly used
detection technique for laser ultrasonic testing. This
requires a separate laser aimed at the location where
the acoustic energy is expected to be at the surface.
The generation and detection laser combinations can
operate in the pulse echo, through-transmission, or
pitch catch configurations. Laser ultrasonic testing of
a complex ply drop part is compared to a
conventional C-scan in Figure 34. The test object is a
composite ply drop standard containing multiple
areas of ply drops and numerous inserts. Similar
sensitivities were realized with similar scan times of
the two systems.
Figure 34. Ply drop standard ultrasonic test:
(a) photograph; (b) laser ultrasonic C-scan;
(c) conventional ultrasonic C-scan.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Spectroscopy
In an earlier section, it was pointed out that the
ultrasound can be either broadband or narrowband
depending on whether the piezoelectric transducer is
damped or undamped and that the frequency is
affected by the thickness of the element. The
frequency content in the transmitted and received
signals can be analyzed using spectroscopic
techniques to aid interpretation of the ultrasound. If
a broadband transducer is the pulser, the signal in
the beam will contain a range of frequencies. Figure
35 shows the configuration of an ultrasonic
spectroscopy system (Fitting 1981).
The spectrum at the receiving transducer will be
altered from the initial spectrum depending on the
medium, the material traversed. Layered materials or
inclusions in particular can show spectral shifts
indicative of material condition. Small changes in
thickness, such as corrosion and roughness, are
detectable with spectroscopic analysis. Spectroscopy
with a broadband source suffers from bandwidth
limitations and amplitude at each frequency. A
sequence of narrowband tone burst frequencies or a
chirp (tone burst with changing frequency) can
improve the signal-to-noise ratio in spectral analysis
(Tucker 1997). One technique of ultrasonic
spectroscopy is to use angle beams for quantitative
inspection of adhesive bonds (Adler 1999). By
combining longitudinal and transverse wave beam
spectroscopy, it is possible to extract material
properties associated with adhesive bonds
(Wang 1991).
Surface Waves
Surface waves are constrained to propagate along
the surface of a solid or liquid. Most of their energy
is concentrated in a relatively small region about
one wavelength deep below the surface. The most
common surface waves are called rayleigh waves,
where the wave travels in a solid medium with an air
or vacuum boundary (Shull 2002, 115). The rayleigh
wave velocity can be estimated by the expression:
0.87 + 1.12 ν
(16) vR = vT
1 + ν
where vR is the rayleigh velocity, ν (the Greek nu) is
Poisson’s ratio, and vT is the transverse (shear)
velocity.
The particle motion is elliptical, like the motion of
a buoy on water as a wave passes. Surface waves
can be generated by the use of a wedge transducer at
the second critical angle where the mode converted
transverse wave is at 90 degrees. Surface waves are
slower than transverse waves for a given material,
typically in the range of 0.87 to 0.96 v T. They can
propagate relatively long distances because the
energy propagates mostly near the surface and is not
spread throughout the bulk of the material. Surface
waves are useful in aerospace applications for crack
and surface blemish detection (Halabe 1999). They
can be sent around curved surfaces to detect surface
cracks in difficult to reach locations (Lavrentyev
1999).
Guided/Lamb Waves Figure 35. Ultrasonic spectroscopy system (ASNT 2007, 156).
Guided or lamb waves are waves that travel
within a structural boundary. The theory of lamb
waves was originated by Horace Lamb to describe
the characteristics of waves propagating in plates Transmitter
(Lamb 1917). Most structures are natural waveguides
when the wavelengths are large enough to interact
with the upper and lower boundaries of the
structure. To get some idea of how guided waves are Transmitting transducer Spectra
developed in a waveguide, imagine many bulk waves
bouncing back and forth inside a waveguide with
Test object
mode conversions between longitudinal and Magnitude
transverse constantly taking place at each boundary.
The resulting superimposed waveform traveling Receiving transducer
along the waveguide is the sum of all these waves.
The traveling wave velocities are a function of
frequency because the various wavelengths that
Phase
correspond to the frequencies have different ratios
relative to the thickness of the waveguide. The Analysis
Amplifier system
dependence of the velocities on the frequency is
known as dispersion. Dispersion distorts the wave
shape as the wave propagates. This is different from
bulk waves where the velocity is independent of the
frequency. The guided wave appears complex
because it contains a range of frequencies traveling
at different velocities. Changing the spacing between
the source and detector will change the waveform. Figure 36. Guided wave motions in plate: (a) symmetric;
Changes in the material condition of the waveguide (b) antisymmetric (ASNT 2007, 100).
between the source and detector will also change the
waveform.
These waves are also referred to as structural
waves because in a thin element relative to the
wavelength, the wave engages the entire piece in (a)
symmetric or antisymmetric surface motion.
Figure 36 shows the representation of these modes.
Figure 37 then shows an example of a dispersion (b)
curve for guided waves in a 3 mm (1/8 in.) thick
aluminum plate where the phase velocity is plotted
against the frequency. Phase velocity depends on
frequency. The figure includes the transverse
horizontal mode that also propagates in the structure
but is not dispersive (Redwood 1960; Rose 1999).
The principal benefits of guided waves are the
ability to inspect over long distances, the ability to
inspect hidden structure, and inspection speed
because large area coverage reduces scanning. Figure 37. Example of dispersion curves in guided wave modes in
Greater sensitivity than conventional normal beam 3.18mm (0.125 in.) thick aluminum plate, showing symmetric (S0)
ultrasonic testing can be obtained, even with low and asymmetric (A0) lamb modes as well as transverse horizontal (SH0)
frequency guided wave testing techniques. However, mode.
guided waves also present several difficulties: their
generation, data extraction, and data interpretation. 100
Guided wave energy can be induced into a
waveguide by various techniques. The challenge is to
excite a particular mode at a specific frequency. 80
Normal beam probes can be used. Angle beam
Phase velocity (mm/µs)

sensors can also be used to impart beams that lead to

60 S0
desired kinds of guided waves in a plate. A comb
transducer (a number of different elements at a
specific spacing) can be used to pump ultrasonic 40
energy into a plate, causing wave propagation of a SH0
certain wavelength in the waveguide (Rose 1999).
Laser ultrasonic testing is also an efficient means of 20
A0
generating guided waves.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Frequency (MHz)

9.25
 A variety of different problems can be tackled in
the aircraft industry using guided waves (Rose 2000,
1080-1086). Aircraft skins are well suited to guided
wave testing. Figure 38 shows setup for guided
waves to travel across a lap splice. Ultrasonic energy
is passed from the transmitter to the receiver through
the lap splice bond. Integrity of the bond line can be
evaluated in this manner by the quality of the signal.
Nonlinear Acoustics
Homogenous, isotropic materials are generally
considered to have linear elastic behavior according
to Hooke’s law (ASNT 2012, 2007):
(17) σ = Eε
ε is strain, and σ is stress. Acoustic waves
where E is Young’s modulus, or material stiffness,
transmitted in this material will retain their shape
and frequency. However, materials are not uniform
and will contain some degree of heterogeneities that
give rise to nonlinear acoustic behavior. In
particular, microcracking and fatigue result in
nonlinear acoustic effects. During nonlinear
transmission, the waveform is distorted because the
compression of the waveform will transmit slightly
differently than the rarefaction portion. When this
happens, harmonics of the fundamental frequency
are generated. Figure 39 shows this graphically. The
detection of the harmonics can be used to measure
the degree of nonlinear behavior in the material.
Figure 38. Guided wave testing of lap splice (ASNT 2007, 105).
Transmitter
Receiver
1 crystal display. It can be scanned over the surface to
2 be inspected. A portable computer is used to control
Figure 39. Nonlinear effect on acoustic propagation results in distorted
waveform with harmonic frequency f.
Distorted Output composed
of attenuated f0
Input signal f0 output signal
Material
sample
+ Harmonic 2f0
Transmitter Receiver
For nonlinear behavior, Hooke’s law is expanded
to include higher order terms. The nonlinear
characteristics of the material can be shown to be
related to the harmonic frequency characteristics by
the parameter β that can be measured
experimentally. It is given by the expression:
8 A2
(18) β =
A12k2 x
where A2 is the amplitude of the second harmonic
frequency, A1 is the amplitude of the fundamental
frequency, k is the wavenumber of the fundamental
frequency, and x is sample thickness (Yost 1999,
2067). This expression says that the ratio of the
harmonic to the fundamental frequency squared
provides a measure of the nonlinearity.
Nonlinear measurements are the subject of
research for fatigue and microcracking of materials.
The measurement techniques are subject to a number
of caveats to obtain useful results (Cantrell 2001,
Shui 2008, Bermes 2008).
Real Time Ultrasonic Testing
Imaging
Ultrasound can be observed in real time (that is
while it is recorded) by using several technologies.
One technique uses a piezoelectric material deposited
on a silicon readout chip. This semiconductor
technology takes images at 30 frames per second.
The system uses a transducer to excite a large area
with ultrasound at 1 to 10 MHz. The reflected
ultrasonic energy is focused by an acoustic lens onto
the acoustic sensitive detector array silicon chip.
Typically, the array has about 120 ¥ 120 pixel
elements. The picture generated represents the
acoustic pattern from the illuminated object.
Figure 40 shows an example of an ultrasonic
imaging camera. The camera has a water filled lens
cavity, a rubber coupling interface, and a liquid
the operational features and displays the image.
Figure 40b shows the image pattern obtained over a
composite material directly on the unit liquid crystal
display. Discontinuities in the composite are readily
imaged. The technology is particularly effective for
rapid field inspection of potentially damaged areas.
Another device for real time ultrasonic imaging is
an acousto-optic sensor (ASNT 1995, 278-284). The
acousto-optic sensor is based on a mesophase
material whose optical characteristics are changed by
the ultrasound pressure on the surface. The real time
imaging of the ultrasound field on the sensor is
detected by a camera focused on the sensor. Sensors
have been readily made in sizes up to 150 ¥ 150 mm
(6 ¥ 6 in.); larger sizes are possible.
Acoustic Holography
Acoustical holography is a technique used to
form an optical image of an ultrasonic field. It is
useful in nondestructive testing because of its
excellent lateral resolution, its ability to focus deep
Aer09rev_Layout 1 10/3/14 1:15 PM Page 9.27

within a test volume, and its speed of data
collection. Two types of acoustical holography
equipment have been used for nondestructive testing
applications. In one system, a hologram is formed by
scanning a focused transducer over a plane. In the
other system, a liquid surface is used as an ultrasonic
detector.
Scanned Focused Transducer
Holography
The scanned focused technique has been used to
map voids and inclusions in thick walled metal
components and is useful for sizing (Brenden 1974,
Holt 1977). The transducer is usually focused on the
surface of the piece being examined and is used as
the ultrasonic source and receiver. A complete scan
provides a holographic record. The digital
holographic data can then be processed by computer
to focus at any depth within the test volume. This
focusing capability makes possible the measurement
of the size and shape of any discontinuity within the
test volume. Holograms can be made using either
longitudinal or transverse waves.
Measurement accuracy depends upon the depth of
the discontinuity, the size of the scan plane, and the
wavelength of the ultrasound in the test material.
The uncertainty ΔB of lateral dimensional
measurement is given by:
television system forms an image of the test object
using the energy diffracted into the first order. Thus,
the liquid surface converts an ultrasonic field pattern
into an optical field pattern that can be read by a
closed circuit television system.
Images formed in 100 μs are produced 60 times
per second. This characteristic of the liquid surface
allows examination of up to 20 m2/h (215 ft2/h). At
any instant, a 75 × 75 mm (3 × 3 in.) field in the
object is seen. Using 5 MHz ultrasound, the field
displays 5625 resolvable picture elements
instantaneously. Thus testing speed and resolution
are the strong features of this system.
The system can be calibrated to provide a map of
the absolute attenuation of the object. Video pixel
brightness is used as an indicator of attenuation.
More information can be found in the literature
(ASNT 2007, 300-302; Hildebrand 1974).
Figure 40. Real time ultrasonic camera system: (a) with portable
computer; (b) liquid crystal display on search unit.
(a)

ΔB = λ
(19) r
2L
where L is the size of the scan plane, r is the depth,
and λ is the wavelength.

Liquid Surface Holography

The second type of acoustical holography uses a
liquid surface as an ultrasonic detector. A liquid
surface holography system has been successfully
used for the inspection of composite aircraft
components. These systems provide excellent lateral
resolution and greatly increase the speed of
inspection. Video image processing equipment is
included in the system primarily to frame average
for noise reduction in real time. Attenuation
quantification and discontinuity identification can (b)
be automated.
Holographic images of ultrasonic fields produced
by liquid surface detectors give realistic displays of
relative ultrasonic intensity levels. An object beam
transducer generates a tone burst of 3 or 5 MHz
ultrasound, 50 to 100 μs in duration. This wave
packet propagates through the test object, and
ultrasonic lenses act on the transmitted ultrasound to
project an image of the object on the liquid surface.
A second beam of ultrasound, generated by a
reference beam transducer, is mixed with the object
beam at the liquid surface to form an interference
pattern that shapes the liquid surface into a grating.
The amplitude of the grating is proportional to the
product of the object beam and reference beam
pressure amplitudes. When the liquid surface grating
is illuminated by coherent infrared energy from a
laser diode, some of the energy is diffracted. Where
the grating amplitude is large, more infrared energy
is diffracted; where it is small, less is diffracted. A

9.27
PART 4
Relevant Standards and
Specifications

Ultrasonic inspection in the aerospace industry Additionally, there are a number of industrial
follows a number of specifications. Each company specifications available from industry groups that
may have both internal specifications for itself and may be applied. Table 13 lists a number of the
specifications that it requires of its suppliers. relevant ultrasonic test specifications.

Table 13. Relevant industry specifications for ultrasonic inspection.

Specification
Title Purpose
Number

SAE AMS 2628 Ultrasonic Inspection, Titanium and Provides details for ultrasonic inspection of wrought titanium and
Titanium Alloy Bar and Billet titanium alloy products over 12.7 mm (0.5 in.) in diameter. Procedure is
used typically for locating internal discontinuities, such as cracks, voids,
spongy areas, and other structural discontinuities, which may or may not
be exposed to surface. Most inspection is by longitudinal, pulse echo
immersion with some customers calling for transverse inspection as well.
Specification includes provision for zoned inspection, revision
incorporated as result of Federal Aviation Administration funded research
results.
SAE AMS 2630B Ultrasonic Inspection of Product Over 0.5” Provides procedures for pulse echo ultrasonic inspection of flat,
Thick rectangular, round, cylindrical, and contoured products having thickness
or cross sectional dimension greater than 12.7 mm (0.50 in.), using either
contact or immersion methods, and using longitudinal wave or transverse
wave modes or combinations of the two, as necessary. This specification
may apply to testing finished machined parts provided parts meet basic
testability requirements, such as size, contour, metallurgical structure,
and thickness. This procedure has been used typically for locating and
defining internal discontinuities such as cracks, voids, laminations, and
other structural discontinuities that may or may not be exposed to
surface.
SAE AMS 2634 Ultrasonic Inspection of Thin Wall Metal Provides procedures for ultrasonic inspection of thin wall metal tubing of
Tubing titanium, titanium alloy, and corrosion and heat resistant steels and
alloys having nominal outside diameter over 4.762 mm (0.1875 in.) with
outside diameter to wall thickness ratio of 8 or greater and wall
thickness variation not exceeding ±10% of nominal. This process has
been used typically for locating internal discontinuities, such as cracks,
voids, seams, and other discontinuities, which may or may not be
exposed to surface.
SAE ARP 2654 Ultrasonic Thickness Testing Provides general instructions for accomplishing ultrasonic thickness
measurements. Measurements can be made from one side of material
when access to opposite side is restricted. This recommended practice is
intended for, but not limited to, use at maintenance and overhaul
facilities to inspect aerospace structures and hardware for material loss
or remaining thickness after rework or fabrication processes.
ASTM E 114-10 Standard Practice for Ultrasonic Pulse- Describes method for ultrasonic examination of materials by pulse echo
Echo Straight-Beam Examination by technique using straight beam longitudinal waves introduced by direct
Contact Method contact of search unit with part. This technique can be used in inservice
applications and on more limited basis for production inspection for
detection of embedded discontinuities.
ASTM E 127-10 Standard Practice for Fabricating and Provides procedure for fabricating aluminum alloy ultrasonic standard
Checking Aluminum Alloy Ultrasonic reference blocks that can be used for checking performance of ultrasonic
Reference Blocks testing equipment and controlling ultrasonic tests of aluminum alloy
products using pulsed longitudinal waves introduced by either contact or
immersion.
Table 13. Relevant industry specifications for ultrasonic inspection (continued).
Specification
Title
Number
ASTM E 164-13 Standard Practice for Ultrasonic Contact
Examination of Weldments
ASTM E 214-05 Standard Practice for Immersed
Ultrasonic Examination by the Reflection
Method Using Pulsed Longitudinal Waves
ASTM E 317-11 Standard Practice for Evaluating
Performance Characteristics of Ultrasonic
Pulse-Echo Testing Instruments and
Systems without the Use of Electronic
Measurement Instruments
ASTM E 428-08 Standard Practice for Fabrication and
Control of Steel Reference Blocks Used in
Ultrasonic Examination
ASTM E 494-10 Standard Practice for Measuring
Ultrasonic Velocity in Materials
ASTM E 587-10 Standard Practice for Ultrasonic Angle
Beam Examination by the Contact
Method
ASTM E 664M-10 Standard Practice for the Measurement
of Apparent Attenuation of Longitudinal
Ultrasonic Waves by Immersion Method
ASTM E 797M-10 Standard Practice for Measuring
Thickness by Manual Ultrasonic Pulse-
Echo Contact Method
ASTM E 1001-11 Standard Practice for Detection and
Evaluation of Discontinuities by the
Immersed Pulse-Echo Ultrasonic Method
Using Longitudinal Waves
ASTM E 1065M-14 Standard Guide for Evaluating
Characteristics of Ultrasonic Search Units
ASTM E 1901-13 Standard Guide for Detection and
Evaluation of Discontinuities by Contact
Pulse Echo Straight Beam Ultrasonic
Methods
ASTM E 2491-13 Standard Guide for Evaluating
Performance Characteristics of
Phased-Array Ultrasonic Testing
Instruments and System
Purpose
Covers techniques for ultrasonic A-scan examination of specific weld
configurations joining wrought ferrous or aluminum alloy materials to
detect weld discontinuities.
Describes ultrasonic examination procedure for detection of
discontinuities in materials using instruments that transmit and receive
pulsed longitudinal ultrasonic waves in immersion. This is process
typically used for detection of embedded discontinuities in billets and
forgings.
Describes procedures for evaluating following performance characteristics
of ultrasonic pulse echo examination instruments and systems: horizontal
limit and linearity; vertical limit and linearity; resolution — entry surface
and far surface; sensitivity and noise; accuracy of calibrated gain
controls.
Provides procedure for fabrication and control of metal alloy reference
blocks used to verify performance of ultrasonic instrumentation and
transducers. Similar approaches are used for other alloys more prevalent
in aviation including titanium and nickel.
Provides test procedure for measuring ultrasonic velocity in materials
with conventional ultrasonic pulse echo discontinuity detection
equipment. This method is often used to determine skin thickness and
detection losses due to corrosion.
Describes method for ultrasonic examination of materials by pulse echo
technique using angular incidence. Approach is often used for detection
of cracks on backside of part.
Describes procedure for measuring attenuation in materials or
components with flat, parallel surfaces using conventional ultrasonic
equipment. Important for ensuring adequate inspectability throughout
part's volume.
Provides test procedure for measuring ultrasonic velocity in materials
using contact pulse echo method. Often used to determine skin thickness
and to detect losses due to corrosion.
Describes procedures for ultrasonic examination of bulk materials or parts
by transmitting pulsed, longitudinal waves through liquid couplant into
material and observing reflected waves for indication of presence of
discontinuities. This pulse echo, immersion method is often used for
inspection of billets, forgings and structural elements for detection of
embedded discontinuities, voiding, and porosity.
Describes measurement procedures for evaluating transducers used in
ultrasonic inspection.
Describes procedures for contact ultrasonic examination of bulk materials
or parts by transmitting pulsed ultrasonic waves into material and
observing indications from reflected waves using pulse echo. Technique
can be used in inservice applications and on limited basis for production
inspection for detection of embedded discontinuities.
Describes procedures for evaluating some characteristics of phased array
ultrasonic test instruments and systems.
9.29
PART 5 Application Examples

Advantages and Limitations What Can Go Wrong

Ultrasonic testing of aerospace materials, like all
nondestructive test methods, has advantages and
limitations. Table 14 lists the major issues with
ultrasonic testing.
Ultrasonic testing is the method of choice in
aerospace for composite material inspection and is
used in a number of metallic inspections as well. It is
useful to note what can sometimes go wrong with
ultrasonic testing so that the proper application is
performed. Table 15 lists the major issues with
ultrasonic testing.

Table 14. Advantages and limitations of ultrasonic testing.

Advantages of Ultrasonic Testing

Safe Benign test without risks encountered with ionizing radiation methods.

Mechanical measurement Physics of ultrasound are based on mechanical waves related to basic material properties.

Simple to complex Can be performed with simple hand held low cost equipment.

Technology can be scaled to more difficult inspection and geometries.

Automatable Systems can be adapted to be fully automated with image display outputs.

Speed Can be adapted to provide fast coverage of large areas by using high speed scanners or arrays of
transducers.

Limitations of Ultrasonic Testing

Coupling Must normally be coupled to surface of part to be inspected.

Coupling methods can sometimes be detrimental or prohibitive to inspection.

Does not normally transmit across gaps in parts so inspection only covers up to material gaps.

Interpretation Ultrasound waves come in multiple modes that are converted at interfaces based on materials and angles.

Interpretation of returning or transmitted signals can be difficult if modes and beam paths are not
understood.

Standards Standards of aerospace inspection should be representative of component being testing, and these can be
difficult and/or expensive to obtain.
Turbine Engine inspection
Aerospace turbine engine disk materials and
components are generally inspected with eddy
current but may also undergo ultrasonic immersion
techniques. High resolution, high sensitivity
inspections are performed using 10 MHz transducers.
Some inspections, especially at large depths, may
require the use of 5 MHz transducers. Although
actual embedded discontinuities in aerospace
materials vary widely in composition and physical
description, sensitivity has traditionally been
referenced to machined targets, such as flat bottom
holes or side drilled holes. Some reference standards
offer spherical targets of different sizes and
reflectivity. Spherical targets in reference standards
are beneficial because they can be made to more
closely represent the reflectivity range expected for
embedded discontinuities and can be detected from
multiple directions in the specimen (Stubbs 2005b).
Billet Inspection
In the first stage of production, the raw material
may be in the form of a large billet or pancake.
Large bulk materials such as these are interrogated
primarily by using longitudinal ultrasonic beams at
normal incidence. Full coverage for these inspections
requires immersion techniques that place the focal
point of the transducer close to the region being
interrogated. Multiple fixed focus transducers may
interrogate a specific depth zone within the billet.
Transducers used for billet inspections may also have
two radii of curvature to account for the diameter of
the part as well as the desired depth of inspection.
Phased array probes can also reproduce the focusing
effect of several different fixed focus transducers. A
time corrected gain or depth amplitude correction is
used to maintain a constant sensitivity level
throughout the depth zone. Sensitivity is usually
determined by referencing the focused beam to the
amplitude from a flat bottom hole target at the depth
of interest. Calibration of a transducer may require
multiple flat bottom hole targets at various depths
throughout the inspection zone to ensure a constant
sensitivity (Kramb 2004a).
Forging Inspections
Forging inspections are performed on a part
shape roughly the size and shape of the engine
component but before its final machining. This is
called a sonic shape because it is suitable for
ultrasonic testing. Sonic shapes allow tests through
relatively flat surfaces, minimizing geometry effects

Table 15. What can go wrong with ultrasonic testing.

Issue Comment Options to Check or Consider

Lack of penetration Material attenuation is too high. Decrease frequency, increase ultrasound power, use larger
transducers, use tone burst power, or consider resonance technique.
Lack of signal Coupling is poor. Beam is lost, not reflected Check for air bubbles; check surface roughness; change couplant,
back to transducer. material, or method; check material velocities and possible beam
paths; or add wetting agent to water to improve coupling efficiency.
Lack of sensitivity Frequency is too low, so pulse is too broad. Increase frequency, narrow pulse, increase transducer damping,
switch to transverse waves, or reduce data spacing.
Lack of resolution Beam is too large. Use smaller transducer, use focused transducer, or reduce data
spacing.
Poor resolution Contact transducer signal at surface has Add delay line to transducer to change impedance match at front
near front surface too much ringing to detect near surface surface, or increase damping to reduce ringing.
discontinuities.
Speed Data take too long to acquire. Use array of transducers, increase data spacing, or use larger
transducer.
Access Transducer access or material contact is Use reflector plate on back side, use reflector to bounce ultrasound
difficult. beam, use contact techniques, use specially designed transducers,
flood object to transmit through, or send beam along part rather
than across.

9.31
as shown in Figure 41. Similar to billet inspections,
forging inspections primarily use longitudinal
beams. However, to follow the contours of the sonic
shape and provide full coverage, some longitudinal
beams are refracted at small incident angles. In a
well designed scan plan, these refracted longitudinal
inspections will account for the loss in sensitivity as
the transducer approaches a corner, as well as
provide additional sensitivity for embedded
discontinuities misaligned with respect to the
inspection surface. Ultrasonic coverage for forgings
requires a near surface inspection zone beginning as
close as 1.52 mm (0.060 in.) below the part surface.
These requirements for high near-surface sensitivity
restrict the number of transducers to those that can
satisfy this requirement.
Also similar to the billet inspections, subsurface
focusing is used in forging inspections, with multiple
zones within the part used to provide full depth
coverage and sensitivity. Inspection sensitivity is
usually referenced to flat bottom hole targets of a
certain size at a particular depth. An added
complication to forging inspections is the presence
of flow lines created during forging. To reduce the
effects of grain noise, grain orientations are
preferred that produce locally high noise regions
(requiring smaller depth inspection zones) and
narrower beams (Margetan 2002, Kramb 2004b).
Part surface curvature can result in an increase or
decrease in sensitivity relative to a flat surface. In
contrast to billet inspections where part curvature is
accounted for by using a curved transducer, forging
inspections typically account for surface geometry
through gain correction. Curvature correction factors
that vary with radius of curvature and depth in the
test object can be applied to adjust sensitivity for a
flat surface. Other correction factors can also be
applied to the calibration gains to adjust sensitivity
for material attenuation or for variations in the
calibration target response.
Figure 41. Schematic drawing of sonic shape
cross section with contour of final machined
turbine disk cross section embedded within sonic
shape. Note envelope between finished part and
sonic shape may be as small as 1.5 mm (0.06 in.).
Sonic shape
cross section
Final turbine disk
cross section
Serviced Engine Inspections
Inspection of serviced engine components
requires full coverage of the interrogated region.
Microstructural changes that may have occurred in
service or final machining of the part may introduce
additional noise into the ultrasonic response.
Machining marks, as well as complex geometries in
the finished part, must also be accounted for in
design of inspections for serviced engine
components. In addition to the challenges inherent
in inspecting the finished product, the detection
sensitivity requirements for serviced components
may be higher than that originally required for the
new production material. Longitudinal wave
inspections are used over most part geometries, so
that processing discontinuities that may have been
missed, or modified by service loads, may be
detected. To satisfy the large range of coverage and
sensitivity requirements within complicated
geometries, serviced engine component inspections
may include refracted transverse in addition to
longitudinal inspections (Figure 42). Refracted
transverse beams may be directed circumferentially
around the part to detect discontinuities produced by
service loads. Transverse beams directed axially
along the bore inside surface provide additional
detection capability for embedded discontinuities
hidden in the high noise regions of the bore. Near
surface sensitivity is provided by high angle
transverse beams directed circumferentially around
the bore and web regions. These high angle
transverse beams are sensitive to surface
discontinuities and surface condition, sometimes
detecting machining marks and scratches on the
surface. Ultimately, the combination of multiple look
angles and modes results in an inspection that
provides nearly full coverage of the interrogated
volume (Figure 43).
In contrast to forging and billet inspections,
calibration and sensitivity for serviced engine
components are usually referenced to side drilled
holes because they can be used to set up both
longitudinal and transverse beams (Klaassen 2004).
Most serviced engine component inspections use
surface focusing techniques. However, phased array
technology has been implemented into some turbine
engine disk inspections (Kramb 2005a; Kramb
2005b). The phased array ultrasonic technique also
provides inspection capability that can be automated
with subsurface focusing techniques.
Turbine Engine Disks
Turbine engine disks are typically inspected in
production facilities, where repeatability is
important. Despite careful design, inspection
personnel may affect repeatability more than the
inspection system does. Many systems automate data
acquisition, storage, and display, but the operator
controls positioning, transducers, discontinuity
evaluation, and gate positioning. Operator variability
is difficult to quantify and control. In high volume
and operator intensive production inspections,
automation has been shown to improve system
reliability and repeatability.
Phased array technology lends itself to inspection
automation. The individual element response
provides information regarding the alignment of the
probe, while focused beams can be used to steer and Figure 42. Multiple mode inspection requirements for serviced turbine
focus the beam at the region of interest. One system engine component.
that incorporates inspection automation with phased Mechanical motion or beam steering
array technology is the fully automated ultrasonic follows contours of curved surface
inspection system developed under the United States
Air Force turbine engine sustainment initiative
program (Stubbs 2005a, 87; Stubbs 2005c, 346-353).
The engine test system incorporates a six-axis
robotic manipulator and phased array ultrasonics to Longitudinal, circumferential,
perform immersion ultrasonic inspections of rotating and radial/axial refracted Turbine disk bore
turbine engine components. Figure 44 shows a transverse bore inside
diameter inspections
picture of the engine test system. Designed for depot
level inspections requiring fully automated testing, Axis of rotation for generating
the engine test system has demonstrated highly transverse beam
repeatable inspection capability under a variety of
conditions.
Longitudinal and circumferential
transverse beam inspections

Ultrasonic Inspection of
Aerospace Structures
Ultrasonic testing is used extensively for the Figure 43. Serviced engine component coverage maps: (a) longitudinal;
detection of cracks, corrosion, delaminations, and (b) circumferential 45° transverse; (c) circumferential 60° transverse;
disbonds in aerospace structures. Given the size of (d) radial-to-axial 45° transverse; (e) all coverage.
many aircraft structures, large scale automated
scanning systems have been developed to inspect (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
various aircraft structural components. Figures 15
through 17 show automated inspection systems used
in the aerospace industry. Aerospace inspection
involves both inspections at manufacture and
periodic inspections in the field. Many ultrasonic test
designs such as squirter systems require the
disassembly of the component from an aircraft for
inspection. Over the years, mobile ultrasonic test
equipment has been developed and used in depot
maintenance environments for on-wing inspection
of cracks and corrosion.

Manufacturing Inspection Figure 44. Turbine engine sustainment initiative

Ultrasonic testing is commonly used for the (TESI) fully automated ultrasonic inspection
inspection of stock material, such as aluminum sheet system.
or steel forgings, at the manufacturer’s facility. High
speed arrays of transducers are typically used to keep
pace with production. For composite inspection,
ultrasonic testing is used to validate the
consolidation of the material following the cure
cycle. Ultrasonic beam theory and system
technology, discussed above, are used to focus
energy and provide coverage based on the geometric
configuration of the aerospace components. The
major concerns for composites are the detection of
porosity, foreign material inclusions, disbonds, and
delaminations. The ultrasound system will be
qualified for the inspection based upon the ability to

9.33
 detect the discontinuity criteria defined by structural
requirements and built into test standards. Figure 45
shows a multiple-axis squirter ultrasonic testing
system for the inspection of complex contoured
aircraft structures. Such systems can align to the
surface at the proper angle for the desired inspection.
Figure 45. Multiple-axis ultrasonic system for
inspection of composite structures having
complex contours.
Both through-transmission and pulse echo tests can
be performed simultaneously. Similar systems can be
designed for very high scanning rates by the
addition of transducer arrays and surface following.
Typical production data spacing will be set at one
third the minimum discontinuity size to be detected
by the specification. This means that, for a 6 mm
(0.25 in.) discontinuity, data spacing will be set at
2 mm (0.080 in.). Single transducer systems can
operate at about 1.9 m2/h (20 ft2/h) of coverage,
depending on part complexity. Array based systems
can test faster than 9 m2/h (100 ft2/h), and some
systems can operate at over 90 m2/h (1000 ft2/h).

Cracks in Multilayer Structures

Lap and splice joints are multiple-layer structures
found in most aircraft where access is available from
a single side of the multiple-layer stack. Cracks
around fastener holes also require inspection.
Because conventional bolt hole eddy current
techniques require the removal of the fastener,
ultrasonic techniques cost significantly less and
minimize maintenance induced damage. An angle
beam transverse wave technique looks for fatigue
cracks around fastener holes. Corner reflection of the
incident wave between the crack face and layer
surface is the primary component of the crack signal
response, but tip diffraction and the scattering of
Figure 46. View of vertical leg inspection site with adjacent multilayer creep waves around the hole also play a role. This
technique was successfully developed and deployed
(horizontal) joints for lower wing skin spar cap.
for second layer crack detection of the Lockheed
C-141 Starlifter® lower inner wing spanwise splice,
Vertical leg ensuring reliable operation through the end of the
Location fleet life (Andrew 1996). Alternatively, phased array
of web techniques can also be used to sweep a region
Potential crack surrounding a bolt hole and detect cracks if present.
Fasteners locations (in red)
(gray regions)
Cracks in Vertical Risers
Interior
Vertical risers and stiffening ribs in aircraft
structures can be found in a variety of forms, one
Ultrasonic signal sent in at angle to propagate example being shown in Figure 46. In most cases,
down vertical leg to fastener holes costly teardowns or entry by the operator into the
Exterior
wing is required for access to these fastener sites
using conventional ultrasonic testing. Often these
measures can result in maintenance induced damage
or unacceptable variation in operator performance
given the difficult work conditions. One important
Transducer
Wing skin example is the weep hole, placed in the risers of
inner wing panels in C-141 aircraft to allow fuel to
be properly distributed during flight. These sites were
initiation sites of fatigue crack growth, with cracks
Figure 47. Angle beam pitch catch technique. in both the near and far (shadow) region of the hole.
Angle beam transverse wave test techniques are
required to detect fatigue cracks at such locations
Fastener X Far crack
site in riser with limited accessibility of the transducer from the
outer wing. A diagram of this inspection problem is
shown in Figure 47. To detect the presence of a
Near
crack fatigue crack in the far crack location, a means was
Y developed to generate and measure circumferential
creep waves around the weep hole with two
transducers in pulse echo and pitch catch modes
(Nagy 1994). Subsequent work developed and
Pitch transducer
45° transverse wedge validated an automated ultrasonic procedure
demonstrating the capability of finding cracks
around holes with limited access under depot
Catch transducer maintenance conditions (Aldrin 2001).
 Figure 48. Lap splice geometry showing typical scribe locations.

Up

Upper skin Inboard

Upper bonded
doubler

Sealant
A-A
A
Lower skin

Typical scribe location A-A

View from outside

Many conventional ultrasonic test techniques where the sealant was removed. Typically, an
exist for aircraft components. These techniques additional clearance of 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) must be
typically use portable hand held ultrasonic examined circumferentially along the length of the
discontinuity detectors and have been used fuselage. To ensure an adequate inspection, the
successfully since 1980. However, as many airframes transverse wave transducer must be indexed
are being used beyond their original life expectancy, circumferentially as it moves along the length of the
inspection requirements are becoming more fuselage to ensure that the narrow transverse wave
complex, requiring the development of new, more beam is aligned with the crack enough to cause a
sophisticated inspection techniques to enable these sufficient echo. This precaution is reliable but
inspections to be performed with minimal aircraft tedious and time consuming.
disassembly and related maintenance actions to An alternate method uses a 16-element ultrasonic
access and prepare the region to be inspected. An phased array. Rather than using a fixed mechanical
example of inspection of such a structure is the wedge to create a sound beam with a single refracted
lower forward spar cap in the center wing of the angle in the part, multiple groups of the 16 elements
C-130 Hercules® (Lindgren 2005). are energized with time delays, enabling the sound
beam to be electronically refracted, focused, or
swept, based on the “focal laws” generated by the
Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing for computer in the phased array instrument and the
Scribe Line Crack at Lap Splices input from the inspector. Figure 49 shows a phased
Paint is routinely removed from airplane skins array instrument and ultrasonic transducer on a
with a variety of techniques. However the fillet seal reference standard.
on the edge of a fuselage lap splice joint must be
carefully removed by mechanical means. A plastic
Figure 49. Phased array instrument and
scraper is recommended; sharper objects have been
improperly used to remove the fillet seal, and often ultrasonic transducer on reference standard.
the upper skin at the lap splice is used as a guide for
the tool. At the edge of the lower skin, the tool can
cause a “scribe line” that can serve as a crack
initiation point. An initial inspection is required to
examine the fuselage skin panels to visually identify
panels that contain scribe marks. Periodic ultrasonic
inspections are required to ensure that the scribes do
not grow into cracks. Figure 48 shows the
configuration of the aircraft skin and scribe line.
Transverse wave ultrasound can be used to
generate a sensitive wave in the skin to detect
echoes reflected from cracks that can grow from the
scribe mark. Because the scribe marks caused by the
tools can occur away from the edge of the upper
skin when the sealant is removed, the inspection
must be performed on the surface of the lower skin

9.35
 For the scribe line application, sweeping the
Figure 50. Phased array ultrasonic scan geometry: (a) A-scan; sound beam over a range of angles obviates a
(b) sector scan. circumferential scan, because the transducer sweeps
the beam automatically. A traditional A-scan
(a)
(amplitude versus time) display is provided, and the
inspector can adjust the angle displayed, but the
primary display monitored by the inspector is the
sector scan (Figure 50). The sector scan displays
angle versus time-of-flight information. The
amplitude of the return signal is given a color that is
displayed on the sector scan. A two-color pallet can
be used in which a crack signal that exceeds the
reject threshold causes a binary change of color that
(b) simplifies the signal interpretation. The inspector is
required only to move the transducer array
longitudinally along the fuselage using the skin lap
40.0 as a probe guide. The array increases the inspection
reliability while improving the scan speed.
Ultrasonic phased arrays are becoming more
common for inservice airplane inspection
applications. Large multiple-element arrays are used
to examine large structures for disbonds. The large
arrays enable a wide swath of structure to be
examined at one time with multiple longitudinal
wave transducers. The technique is very reliable for
composite panel inspections and for inspections of
composite repairs.
References
Adler, L., S. Rokhlin, C. Mattei, G. Blaho, and Q. Xie. 1999. “Angle
Beam Ultrasonic Spectroscopy System for Quantitative Inspection
of Adhesive Bonds,” Review of Progress in Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation 18B [Snowbird, UT, July 1998]. New
York, NY: Plenum, 1553-1559.
Aldrin, J., J.D. Achenbach, G. Andrew, C. P’an, B. Grills, R.T. Mullis,
F.W. Spencer, and M. Golis. 2001. “Case Study for the
Implementation of an Automated Ultrasonic Technique to Detect
Fatigue Cracks in Aircraft Weep Holes.” Materials Evaluation
59(11): 1313-1319.
Andrew, G., T. MacInnis, and R.T. Mullis. 1996. “Second-Layer
Ultrasonic Inspection of C-141 Splice Joints.” Nondestructive
Evaluation of Aging Aircraft, Airports, and Aerospace Hardware.
SPIE Proceedings 2945: 436-443. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
ASM. 2001. “Quality Assurance,” ASM Handbook 21: Composites.
Materials Park, OH: ASM International.
ASNT. 1991. Nondestructive Testing Handbook 7: Ultrasonic Testing,
2nd edition. Columbus, OH: American Society for Nondestructive
Testing.
ASNT. 1995. Nondestructive Testing Handbook 9: Special Nondestructive
Testing Methods, 2nd edition. Columbus, OH: American Society for
Nondestructive Testing, 278-284.
ASNT. 1998. Topics on Nondestructive Evaluation Series 1: Sensing for
Materials Characterization, Processing and Manufacturing.
Columbus, OH: American Society for Nondestructive Testing.
ASNT. 2007. Nondestructive Testing Handbook 7: Ultrasonic Testing,
3rd edition. Columbus, OH: American Society for Nondestructive
Testing.
ASNT. 2012. Nondestructive Testing Handbook 10: Nondestructive
Testing Overview, 3rd edition. Columbus, OH: American Society for
Nondestructive Testing.
ASTM E 2491. 2008. Standard Guide for Evaluating Performance
Characteristics of Phased-Array Ultrasonic Testing Instruments and
Systems. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Bermes, C., J.Y. Kim, J. Qu, and L.J. Jacobs. 2008. “Nonlinear Lamb
Waves for the Detection of Material Nonlinearity.” Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing 22(3): 638-646.
Bhardwaj, M. 2009. “Phenomenally High Transduction Air/Gas
Transducers for Practical Non-Contact Ultrasonic Applications.”
Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 28A:
920-927. New York, NY: Plenum.
Brenden, B.B., and H.D. Collins. 1974. “Acoustical Holography with
Scanned Hologram Systems.” Holographic Nondestructive Testing.
New York, NY: Academic Press, 405-428.
Cantrell, J.H., and W.T. Yost. 2001. “Nonlinear Ultrasonic
Characterization of Fatigue Microstructures.” International Journal
of Fatigue 23 (supplement 1): 487-490. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier.
Fitting, D., and L. Adler. 1981. “Ultrasonic Spectral Analysis for
Nondestructive Evaluation.” New York, NY: Springer.
Halabe, U., and R. Franklin. 1999. “Fatigue Crack Detection in Metallic
Members Using Spectral Analysis of Ultrasonic Rayleigh Waves,”
Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 18B
[Snowbird, UT, July 1998]. New York, NY: Plenum, 1771-1777.
Hildebrand, B.P., and B.B. Brenden. 1974. An Introduction to Acoustical
Holography, Rosetta edition. New York, NY: Plenum.
Holt, A.E., and W.E. Lawrie. 1977. “Ultrasonic Characterization of
Defects.” Acoustical Holography 7: 599-609.
Klaassen, R. 2004. “Calibration Approaches for Phased Array
Ultrasound.” Proceedings of the Workshop on Phased Array
Ultrasonics for Aerospace Applications. Dayton, OH: University of
Dayton.
Kramb, V.[A.] 2004a. “Defect Detection and Classification in Aerospace
Materials Using Phased Array Ultrasonic.” 16th WCNDT 2004 —
World Conference on NDT [Montréal, Canada, August-September
2004].
Kramb, V.A. 2004b. “Use of Phased Array Ultrasonics in Aerospace
Engine Component Inspections: Transition From Conventional
Transducers.” 16th WCNDT 2004 — World Conference on NDT
[Montréal, Canada, August-September 2004].
Kramb, V.A. 2005a. “Coverage and Sensitivity Considerations for
Complex Geometries Using Phased Array Ultrasonics.” ASNT Fall
Conference and Quality Testing Show 2005: Paper Summaries 87.
Columbus OH: American Society for Nondestructive Testing.
Kramb, V.A. 2005b. “Use of Phased Array Ultrasonics in Aerospace
Engine Component Inspections.” In Proceedings of the 8th Joint
DoD/FAA/NASA Aging Aircraft Conference [Palm Springs CA,
2005].
Krautkrämer, J., and H. Krautkrämer. 1990. Ultrasonic Testing of
Materials, 4th edition. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Lamb, H. 1917. “On Waves in an Elastic Plate.” Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London A 93, 114-128.
Lavrentyev, A. 1999. “NDE of Metal Surface Breaking Cracks under
Adhesive Coating.” Review of Progress in Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation 18B [Snowbird, UT, July 1998]. New
York, NY: Plenum, 1757-1763.
Lindgren, E., J. Abel, M. Concordia, T. MacInnis, J. Mandeville,
J.C. Aldrin, P. Christiansen, D. Fritz, T. Mullis, F. Spencer, and
R. Waldbusser. 2005. “PoD Results and Deployment of the
Inspection for the Vertical Leg of the C-130 Center Wing
Beam/Spar Cap.” Proceedings of the 8th Joint DoD/FAA/NASA
Aging Aircraft Conference [Palm Springs CA, 2005]. Springfield,
VA: National Technical Information Service, for the Federal
Aviation Administration.
Margetan, F.J., M. Gigliotti, L. Brasche, and W. Leach. 2002.
DOT/FAA/AR-02/114 Final Report, Fundamental Studies: Inspection
Properties for Engine Titanium Alloys. Springfield, VA: National
Technical Information Service, for the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Monchalin, J.P. 2004. “Laser-Ultrasonics: From the Laboratory to
Industry,” Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation 23A: 3-31. New York, NY: Plenum.
Nagy, P.B., M. Blodgett, and M. Golis. 1994. “Weep Hole Inspection by
Circumferential Creeping Waves.” NDT&E International 27(3):
131-142. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.
Redwood, M. 1960. Mechanical Waveguides: The Propagation of
Acoustic and Ultrasonic Waves in Fluids and Solids with
Boundaries. New York, NY: Pergamon.
Rose, J.L. 1999. Ultrasonic Waves in Solid Media. London, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, J.L., and L.E. Soley. 2000. “Ultrasonic Guided Waves for the
Detection of Anomalies in Aircraft Components.” Materials
Evaluation 59(10): 1080-1086.
Shui, G., J.Y. Kim, J. Qu, Y.S. Wang, and L.J. Jacobs. 2008. “A New
Technique for Measuring the Acoustic Nonlinearity of Materials
Using Rayleigh Waves.” NDT&E International 41(5): 326-329.
Shull, P.J., and B.R. Tittmann. 2002. “Ultrasonics.” Nondestructive
Evaluation Theory Techniques and Applications. New York, NY:
Marcel Dekker.
Song, J., S. Holland, and D. Chimenti. 2006. “A Spherically Focused
Capacitive-Film Air-Coupled Transducer.” Review of Progress in
Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 25B: 908-915. New York,
NY: Plenum.
Splitt, G. 1998. “Piezocomposite Transducers — A Milestone for
Ultrasonic Testing.” Insight 40(7): 760.
Stubbs, D.A. 2005a. “Overview of the USAF Automated Ultrasonic
Inspection System for Detecting Internal Defects in Aging Turbine
Engine Components.” Proceedings of the 8th Joint DoD/FAA/NASA
Aging Aircraft Conference [Palm Springs CA, 2005]. Springfield,
VA: National Technical Information Service, for the Federal
Aviation Administration.
9.37
Stubbs, D.A. 2005b. “Probability of Detection for Embedded Defects:
Needs for Ultrasonic Inspection of Aerospace Turbine Engine
Components.” Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation 19B [Golden, CO, July 2004]. Melville, NY: American
Institute of Physics, 1909-1916.
Stubbs, D.A., R. Cook, D. Erdahl, I. Fiscus, D. Gasper, J. Hoeffel,
W. Hoppe, V. Kramb, S. Kulhman, R. Martin, R. Olding, D. Petricola,
N. Powar, and J. Sebastian. 2005c. “An Automated Ultrasonic
System for Inspection of Aircraft Turbine Engine Components.”
Insight 47(3): 346-353.
Tucker, J.R. 1997. “Ultrasonic Spectroscopy for Corrosion Detection.”
Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 16B
[Brunswick, ME, July-August 1996]. New York, NY: Plenum,
1437-1441.
Vary, A. 1980. “Ultrasonic Measurement of Material Properties.”
Research Techniques in Nondestructive Testing 4: 159-204. London,
United Kingdom: Academic Press.
Wang, W., and S.I. Rokhlin. 1991. “Evaluation of Interfacial Properties
in Adhesive Joints of Aluminum Alloys Using Angle-Beam
Ultrasonic Spectroscopy.” Journal of Adhesion Science and
Technology. 5(8): 647-666.
Yost, W.T., and J.H. Cantrell. 1993. “The Effects of Artificial Aging of
Aluminum 2024 on Its Nonlinearity Parameter.” Review of Progress
in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 12B [La Jolla, CA, July
1992]. New York, NY: Plenum, 2067-2073.
 1X
4 CHAPTER

Bond Testing
Contents
Part 1. Introduction, 14.2
Part 2. Bond Testing Methods, 14.5
References, 14.10

Contributors
David K. Hsu
Richard H. Bossi
Dennis P. Roach

14.1
PART 1 Introduction
Bonded structures are ubiquitous in aerospace
applications; their inspection, maintenance, and
repair are important to the aerospace industry
(Armstrong 2005). Bonded structures can take a
variety of forms, including adhesively bonded
metallic or composite joints and sandwich structures
with various face sheets and core materials.
Honeycomb and foam sandwich structures are
widely used on aerospace structures, especially as
light control surfaces such as ailerons, spoilers,
rudders, and trailing edge flaps. Bonds are being
applied in increasingly significant (primary and
secondary) structures for design, weight, and cost in
manufacturing, and for repairs. As the application of
bonding for critical applications increases, the
quality of the bonding to ensure bond strength
increases in importance.
Bond testing during manufacture is concerned
with proper assembly of the adherends and adhesive,
the geometric fitup, and bondline thickness. Basic
nondestructive testing is concerned with detecting
feature discontinuities such as voids, thinning, and
unbonded regions. Advanced techniques that
measure modulus, stiffness, or nonlinear
characteristics of the interface are also of interest.
However, nondestructive testing methods do not
directly measure the adhesive strength in bonded
joints. The strength of a bond is measured in the
plastic regime of material behavior and, therefore, is
not a parameter that could be nondestructively
measured directly in the elastic regime.
Nondestructive test methods can measure
characteristics that under certain conditions can
indicate a potential loss of strength, or a weakened
bond relative to a strong bond. Correlation of elastic
(nondestructive) properties has not been consistently
demonstrated for all forms of weak bonds that might
be encountered in manufacture. Therefore, associated
tests and measurements may be required to assist
nondestructive testing as part of the process control
of bonding operations.
Bond inspection during service is concerned with
the detection of damage in the form of disbonds
between adhesively bonded layers of delaminations
in composite laminates. In the case of sandwich
structures, disbonds between the face sheet and core
are of interest. These disbonds almost invariably lead
to a reduction in the stiffness of the structure,
especially the contact stiffness on the surface. This
change in stiffness can be detected by a number of
nondestructive testing techniques. Two main causes
for delamination and disbond damage are low
velocity impacts occurring during maintenance, such
as those due to dropped tools, and impact damage
caused by hail, runway debris, and bird strikes.
Depending on the face sheet thickness and stiffness,
impact damage of honeycomb sandwich structures
may not leave visible indications on the surface
(referred to as barely visible impact damage). One of
the nondestructive testing goals is therefore to
characterize the severity of the discontinuities or
damage in terms of size, shape, location, and
severity. In applying the nondestructive test
methods, accessibility of the inspection area plays a
key role. Certain techniques, such as
through-transmission air coupled ultrasonic testing,
can only be applied when two-sided access is
available. For thick honeycomb sandwiches with
only one-sided access, the detection of far side
disbonds then becomes more challenging.
Tables 1 and 2 list some of the typical
nondestructive testing and alternative approaches for
assessing bond quality that are applied to bonded
joints. The principles and the application of those
techniques are noted along with issues that should
be taken into consideration. In general, using more
sophisticated techniques increases the sensitivity to
finer feature characteristics at a cost of time and
effort to acquire data and extract information.
Table 1. Acoustic techniques and applications for bond line evaluation.
Technique
Tap test
Bond testers (1 to 100 kHz); sonic and
mechanical impedance analysis
Resonance ultrasonic testing
(100 to 400 kHz)
Acousto-ultrasonic testing
Pulse echo or through-transmission
ultrasonic testing (1 to 5 MHz typical)
Air coupled ultrasonic testing
Transverse wave ultrasonic testing
Ultrasonic spectroscopy
(1 to 5 MHz typical)
Angle beam ultrasonic spectroscopy
(1 to 5 MHz typical)
Guided wave ultrasonic testing
Nonlinear acoustics
(500 kHz to 10 MHz)
Acoustic emission testing
Principles and Application
Sound emitted from mechanical tapping on
structure is evaluated for changes. Detects
disbonds by change in acoustic dampening or
mechanical stiffness of structure.
Low frequency pitch catch technique for
sending and receiving pressure waves. Velocity,
mechanical impedance, and thickness affect
measurement.
Low and mid frequency ultrasound using
continuous waves or wave trains. Senses
changes in mechanical impedance by
interaction of test object with transducer.
Mid frequency ultrasonic pitch catch technique Stress wave factor has similarity to acoustic
with signal interpreted to extract stress wave
factor correlated to bond properties. Sensitivity
to weak bonds has been claimed.
Detects voids and disbonds in adhesive joints
by changes in acoustic impedance at
interfaces. Can be used for bondline thickness
measurement and for porosity measurement in
bonded repairs.
Low frequency, usually 50 to 400 kHz. Detects
delamination of skin-to-core bonds.
Uses transverse acoustic vibration to increase
sensitivity to bondline features relative to
conventional pulse echo or
through-transmission ultrasonic testing.
Changes in spectral content of ultrasound can
be sensitive to changes in adhesive and
interface. Some data correlation to certain
types of weak joints has been noted,
particularly with degraded bonds.
Extracts properties of bonded interface such as
thickness, density, and modulus. Correlates to
changes in manufacturing parameters. Is more
sensitive to those changes than conventional
ultrasonic testing is.
Guided waves that travel in adherend or
adhesive are affected by subtle changes in
boundary conditions.
This approach relies on detecting harmonic
features in mixed acoustic signals where
kissing or weak bond transfers energy across
joint differently in compression or tension
motion of acoustic waves. Nonlinear
measurement of velocity change is also
possible by testing sample under load.
Senses emission of acoustic signals during
loading. Weak bonds typically have higher level be repeated.
and rate of emission of signals relative to
strong joints.
Issues
Subjective but good for disbond detection in thin
structure, particularly honeycomb with thin skin
(less than five plies).
Good for disbond and damage detection, including
far side honeycomb structure. Frequency
optimization can enhance sensitivity.
Good for disbond and damage detection,
particularly in bonded metallic or solid laminate
structures.
emission analysis.
Generally regarded as main technique for
inspection because it proves adhesive contact with
adherends. But interfaces can be acoustically
coupled without adhesion — “kissing” bonds.
Used for inservice inspection of control surfaces.
More difficult to implement than longitudinal
(pressure) wave pulse echo ultrasonic testing.
More difficult to implement than conventional
ultrasonic testing. Consistent reliability has never
been shown. Variations in thickness will be
detected.
Requires sophisticated data extraction, subject to
characteristics of laminate and adhesive materials
and to their shape and volume, all of which make
interpretation difficult.
Difficulty in launching and receiving of wave into
bondline makes it difficult to distinguish subtle
difference at weak bond.
Difficult to implement and obtain reliable signals.
Requires loading of joint. Test cannot necessarily
14.3
Table 2. Various methods and applications for bond line evaluation.
Method
Infrared thermography
Vibrothermography
Dielectric property measurement
Radiologic testing (X-ray)
Shearographic and holographic testing
High power ultrasound testing (not
nondestructive testing)
Stress waves (not nondestructive
testing)
Proof testing (not nondestructive
testing)
Witness coupons (not nondestructive
testing)
Principles and Application Issues
Infrared waves detect changes in heat transfer Detects disbonds and delaminations.
capability of test object. Weak bond detection
would require some change in thermal
conductivity of weak versus strong adhesive
joint.
Vibration induces heating at strained Most effective on cracklike interfaces.
interfaces.
Measures changes in adhesive dielectric Applicable to environmental degradation changes
properties. that could weaken bonded interface.
Detects volumetric features. Can detect missing adhesive and adhesive
thickness variations.
Stress (thermal or mechanical) is applied to Loading must affect interface, so shearographic
part and displaces surface. Disbonds and weak testing and holographic testing are best on thin
bonds are indicated by change in stiffness skins.
from differences in surface motion relative to
strong bonds.
High power vibrations from low frequency Energy level testing that will not damage strong
(20 kHz) ultrasound horn are used to stress bonds can be difficult to assign. Mechanism of
bonds. Weak bonds fail at lower levels of stress failure is not well understood.
than strong bonds.
Localized dynamic proof test that sends tensile Method is subject to size and configuration of
loading stress waves through interface. Waves bonded joint.
of calibrated strength can find weak bonds by
creating small disbond.
Loads part enough to indicate joint will be safe Expensive to implement on full scale parts. Can be
in service. performed on extracted plugs.
Sample is fabricated at same time as structural Test is not on part in service.
bond by using identical materials and
processes or is cut from finished bond and
then mechanically tested to prove bond
strength.
 Bond Testing Methods PART 2

The nondestructive test techniques for testing
bonded structures may be divided into three
categories: (1) mechanical techniques of testing;
(2) sonic and ultrasonic techniques using low
frequencies (Cawley 1990), high frequency bond
testing techniques, and conventional ultrasound
including specialized data acquisition and analysis
(Drewry 2009); and (3) emerging nondestructive test
techniques with bond testing capability. The
mechanical techniques include the manual
(qualitative) tap test, the instrumented (quantitative)
tap test, and portable load displacement devices such
as the elasticity laminate checker. The low frequency
techniques refer to several established test
techniques that do not require a coupling fluid or gel
between the transducer and the test surface; these
include mechanical impedance analysis, the
membrane resonance technique, and the pitch catch
technique. In addition to the low frequency “sonic”
techniques, ultrasonic testing using the low end of
the frequency spectrum (typically less than 1 MHz) is
sometimes used on bonded structures as well. A
number of additional nondestructive test techniques
where k is the stiffness constant of the surface, m is
the mass, and t is the time of contact. The above
equation is based on a simple harmonic vibration
assumption for the tapped surface and provides a
quick way to determine its local spring constant k
independent of the tapper mass and largely
independent of the tap force used. Physically, when
a surface is tapped with a different force, the
amplitude of the vibration changes, but the time of
contact t, related to the period of frequency of the
Figure 1. Force-versus-time diagrams of honeycomb sandwich panel:
(a) undamaged region; (b) damaged region. Vertical axis shows
increments of 0.5 relative amplitude units; horizontal axis, of 100 µs.
(a)
Force, 0.5 per division

have emerged and proven to be effective in the

inspection of bonded structures; these include
shearography (Newman 2005), thermography and
thermal wave imaging (Crane 2001), air coupled
ultrasound (Peters 2004), and stress wave testing
(Bossi 2002). Stress wave testing is one of a few
techniques that can potentially provide a measure of
bond strength, although strictly speaking it is not
nondestructive but rather a localized load test.

Tap Testing ∆t 0.00 µs 1/∆t ∞

Manual tap testing using a coin or other metal Time, 100 µs per division
piece is the most widely practiced inspection for
bonded structures and composites. Despite its (b)
qualitative nature, it remains the most convenient
and cost effective method for inspecting bonds.
Audible tap testing is based on discernment of the
frequency content of sound versus unsound
materials when subjected to a light tapping.
Force, 0.5 per division

Structures with reduced stiffness produce a duller

“thud,” with the human ear detecting the increased
low frequency content, while stiffer structures create
a higher, “ringing” note. The physical basis of the
instrumented tap test is that the time of contact
between the tapper and the surface, that is, the width
of the force-versus-time curve, is a function of the
stiffness constant k and the mass m of the tapper
(Hsu 2000):

m
(1) τ = π
k ∆t 0.00 µs 1/∆t ∞
Time, 100 µs per division

14.5
 vibration, remains approximately the same.
Figure 1a shows the time of contact response on an
undamaged part of a honeycomb panel tapped by
an accelerometer. The larger amplitudes correspond
to taps of greater force. Similarly, Figure 1b shows
the time of contact response of an impact damaged
portion of the panel as tapped by the same
accelerometer. The damage in the honeycomb core
causes a reduction of the contact stiffness k and
hence leads to a longer time t of contact. The
reason that t is largely independent of the tap force
and vibration amplitude is the same as that of a
pendulum swing whose period is approximately
independent of the amplitude for small oscillations.
It has been demonstrated using aircraft composite
parts that the stiffness k deduced from a tap test is
in agreement with the k determined in mechanical
load displacement tests (Peters 2001).
Figure 2. Three examples of instrumented tap test devices:
(a) hand held automated tapping device; (b) rapid damage detection
device; (c) computer aided tap tester.
(a)
(b)
(c)
For hearing based, manual tap tests of bonded
structures on aircraft, manufacturers recommend
various convenient tapper sizes and masses in their
service manuals. One difficulty with the qualitative
manual tap test is that benign substructures such as
ply overlap, core splice, ribs, and spars of a part can
often lead to confusing audio responses that can
hamper the making of a call. Over the years, a
number of instrumented tap test devices have been
developed (Mitsui 2014, Georgeson 1996). To take
advantage of the visual judgment of the inspector, a
computer aided tap tester was developed for
producing tap test images based on the contact time
t and stiffness k. Figure 2 shows three instrumented
tap test devices, and Figure 3 shows a tap test image
produced by the computer aided tap tester on a
carbon fiber reinforced polymer honeycomb panel
containing engineered discontinuities. In an
extensive test program for composites that involved
both the conventional and emerging nondestructive
test techniques, the computer aided tap tester was
found to have an 85 percent probability of detection
for discontinuities of 38 mm (1.5 in.) in diameter
(Roach 2003). When a manual or instrumented tap
test is used in the inspection of honeycomb panels
(either carbon fiber reinforced polymer or graphite
fiber reinforced polymer), the limit for face sheet
thickness is about eight or nine plies for good
results.
Mechanical Impedance Analysis
The mechanical impedance of a structure, defined as
the ratio of the applied force F to the resultant
velocity v, is a measure of the test object’s resistance
to its own motion. Like the tap test, the mechanical
impedance technique also exploits the reduced
stiffness, hence reduction in the resistance to
motion, of a structure containing damage. For
example, when the same force is applied to the face
sheet of a sandwich over a region of fractured core,
the resultant velocity will be higher and the
mechanical impedance will be lower than for a
region of no damage. Like electrical impedance,
mechanical impedance is also frequency dependent.
In commercial mechanical impedance instruments,
the probe consists of two piezoelectric crystals with
a driver positioned behind the receiver within the
same holder. The driver converts electrical energy
into sonic vibrations, and the receiver, being in
direct contact with the test surface, converts the
modified vibrations into electrical signals for
processing by the instrument. In general, a
discontinuity will produce a signal with an
amplitude proportional to its stiffness with a
possible phase change. The displayed information
can be either an impedance plane (flying dot), a
meter deflection, or a horizontal bar graph. Alarm
thresholds can be used to provide audible or visual
warnings.
Low Frequency Bond Testing
Low frequency bond testing refers to bond testers
that operate below 100 kHz and are generally called
sonic bond testers. Sonic bond testers typically are
dry coupled: they do not require liquid couplant and
operate in the audible or nearly audible frequency
 Figure 3. Tap test image of carbon fiber reinforced polymer honeycomb sandwich panel containing
artificial discontinuities.

19 (0.75) Contact time (µs)

38 (1.5)
57 (2.25) 607 to 648
76 (3.0)
95 (3.75) 566 to 607
114 (4.5)
133 (5.25) 525 to 566
152 (6.0)
171 (6.75) 484 to 525
191 (7.5)

mm (in.)
210 (8.25) 443 to 484
228 (9.0)
248 (9.75) 402 to 443
267 (10.5)
286 (11.25) 361 to 402
305 (12.0)
324 (12.75) 320 to 361
343 (13.5)
362 (14.25) 279 to 320
381 (15.0)
400 (15.75) 238 to 279
419 (16.5)
(0.25)
(1.25)
(2.25)
(3.25)
(4.25)
(5.25)
(6.25)
(7.25)
(8.25)
(9.25)
(10.25)
(11.25)
(12.25)
(13.25)
(14.25)
(15.25)
(16.25)
6
32
57
83
108
133
159
184
210
235
260
286
311
337
362
387
413

mm (in.)

range. Different techniques for transmitting and

receiving energy have been developed for low Figure 4. Two portable bond testers. Each
frequency bond test applications. Each technique design offers choice of techniques: mechanical
introduces a pressure wave into the specimen and impedance, high frequency (resonance), and
then detects the transmitted or reflected wave. pitch catch modes.
The pitch catch impulse test technique uses a
dual-element, point contact, dry coupled, low
frequency sonic probe. One element transmits
acoustic waves into the test part and a separate
element receives the sound. The sound propagates in
a complex wave mode across the test piece between
the probe tips. The return signals are processed and
the difference between the effects of good and bad
areas of the part along the sound path are analyzed
and compared. A complex wave front is generated
internally in the material as a result of characteristic
velocity, acoustical impedance, and thickness. The
time and amount of received energy is affected by
the changes in material properties, such as thickness,
disbonds, and discontinuities. The instrument
processes the received impulse and displays the
received information on a phase and amplitude
meter. Figure 5. Computer aided instrument for low
Figure 4 shows portable bond test instruments frequency bond testing.
being used on a test standard. Figure 5 shows a
computer aided instrument. This instrument operates
with a chirp between 3 kHz and 25 kHz, after which
an optimum frequency may be chosen from the
spectral response (Smith 2010). Scanning at the
selected optimum results in the best accuracy for
detection and sizing of discontinuities.

High Frequency Bond Testing

High frequency bond testing, also referred to as
resonance testing, uses interrogating frequencies of
25 to 500 kHz. It is similar in application to contact
ultrasonic testing in that a transducer with a hard

14.7
wear face is acoustically coupled to the item under
inspection using a liquid couplant. High frequency
bond testing uses special narrow band transducers,
which, when coupled to the item under test, produce
a continuous sound field in the material. The test
material, in turn, provides a mass loading on the
transducer, thereby increasing the transducer
bandwidth as well as changing the transducer’s
resonant frequency. Anomalies (such as disbonds) or
changes in material thickness result in changes to
the transducer loading that cause changes in
transducer resonance. These changes are
subsequently detected as differences in phase and
amplitude of the electronic detection circuits.
Acoustic impedance changes can be thought of as a
variation in the ability to transmit sound. With the
probe and the material under test in contact, the
changes in the material’s acoustic impedance cause a
corresponding change in the electrical impedance of
the transducer, and these electrical impedance
changes are monitored by the instrument.
Ultrasonic Techniques
Ultrasonic testing, discussed in its own chapter, is
a very common method for bond evaluation in both
its basic form and in advanced techniques.
Through-transmission and pulse echo ultrasonic
techniques are suitable to detect disbonds in many
cases. Through-transmission ultrasonic technique is
commonly used for sandwich structures. Nonlinear
and spectroscopy techniques have tested for the
bonds with the particular intent of extracting greater
information about the bond condition. Parameters
such as modulus, density, thickness, and resonant
frequency can be useful in the characterization of
the consistency of the bonding process. Ultrasonic
techniques such as spectral analysis, angle beams,
transverse waves, and guided waves can be used to
assist in bond characterization.
Air coupled inspection is an accepted technique
for inservice inspection of control surfaces for
skin-to-core disbonds. The low frequency (50 to
400 kHz) is effective despite the significant reflection
loss at an air-to-solid interface due to the acoustic
impedance difference between air and material. The
advances in transducer technology and electronics
are making air coupled ultrasonic testing a practical
technique for bonded structures in the field. There
are two types of air coupled transducers:
piezoceramic (disk or composite) and capacitive.
Most of the field applications use piezoceramic type.
Air coupled ultrasonic nondestructive testing
implemented in the through-transmission mode with
transducers mounted on a yoke for aircraft
components affording two-sided access is discussed
in the chapter on ultrasonic testing.
Shearography
Shearography, discussed in another chapter, is a
wide area interferometric imaging technique that can
detect micrometer sized displacements in the surface
of a structure. Shearography equipment monitors the
surface of a structure for any changes in the surface
strain field. Stressing the material in the appropriate
way ensures that the subsurface anomalies are
manifested on the surface of the structure.
Shearography is implemented by comparing two
interference patterns on a detector plane, typically
“before” and “after” an object is stressed. If the
stressing causes motion, and subsequent out-of-
plane deformations, thereby changing the optical
path, then the speckle patterns differ. These images
can be compared by subtraction or other algorithms
to obtain an image of the object with fringe patterns
superimposed. These fringe patterns can then be used
to identify the presence, size, and depth of disbonds
in a structure. Holographic techniques may also be
used, although they are normally more difficult to
implement than shearography (Heslehurst 2009).
When disbonds or weak bonds (where the modulus is
altered) are present, the surface over the poor bond
region is able to displace a greater distance relative
to the surface over the strong bond locations.
Shearography or holography can be usefully applied
to detect these greater displacement regions.
Shearography is particularly effective on thin skin
where it is easier for the surface to displace under
load.
Thermography
Thermography or infrared testing, discussed in
the chapter on thermographic testing, is a
nondestructive test method that uses thermal
gradients to analyze the physical characteristics of a
structure. Because of the lateral thermal flow in
materials, thermography is useful for thin structures,
particularly for skin over honeycomb core
inspection. Thermography can be very useful for
detecting disbonds over metallic core and in thin
(<2.5 to 5 mm [0.1 to 0.2 in.] thick) top layer
structures. When disbonds occur, the flow of heat
into the structure is altered and the surface
temperature is different over the disbond relative to
the bonded regions. For skin over honeycomb core,
however, this disbond detection is problematic.
Thermography is a wide area test method relatively
easy to implement in cases where the test materials
are suitable.
Weak Bond Determination
No standard nondestructive test method can
provide a value for the bond strength in a joint. A
number of studies have tried to correlate a measured
parameter to strength (Alers 1977; Rokhlin 1981;
Hagemaier 1985; Rokhlin 1986; Pilarski 1988;
Adams 1988; Yuhas 1988; Wegman 1989; Dickstein
1989; Grady 1989; Cawley 1993; Scala 1995). These
studies examined parameters such as bulk modulus,
shear modulus, nonlinear coefficients, density,
porosity, acoustic attenuation or transmission,
and/or some combination of these characteristics. In
certain cases of bond degradation, a correlation can
be made. However, the problem remains unresolved
for the detection of the general weak bond condition
where the loss of strength may occur due to effects
such as contamination or out of process conditions.
Fatiguing a bond by ultrasonic vibration has been
tested as a potential technique (Couchman 1979).
Proof testing and witness coupon testing remain
the standard methods for validating strength. Proof
testing can be very expensive on full scale
structures. The full scale proof test is normally
required to be at 100 percent of limit load. An
alternative to a full scale test would be localized
stress testing at selected locations in the bonded
joint. The localized test relies on the assumption that
if a bond is strong at one location, the process is
validated for strength at nearby locations, similar to
witness coupons but performed on the structure that
is actually used. The extent or range to which the
relationship of a test at one location satisfies nearby
locations depends on the variability of any specific
bonding process. In some cases, a hole is cut into the
structure to perform this test. Plugs can then be
tested in place or extracted for testing on a machine.
The tested region must then be repaired.
Stress wave loading and ultrasonic fatiguing are
alternative approaches that have been successful for
localized testing of a bond joint (Bossi 2002; Bossi
2004; Arrigoni 2008; Bossi 2009). Stress wave
testing uses strong mechanical waves to create a
tension load on the bond. If the bond is weak, the
joint will fail at the test point. This failure can be
detected by sensors in the test instrument or by a
follow-up nondestructive test technique, such as
ultrasonic testing. Although stress wave techniques
are not nondestructive, for nominal strength bonds
tested at a load level below failure, the bond is not
damaged and the structure is ready for service.
14.9
References
Adams, R.D., and P. Cawley. 1988. “A Review of Defect Types and
Nondestructive Testing Techniques for Composites and Bonded
Joints.” NDT International 21(4): 208-222.
Alers, G.A., P.L. Flynn, and M.J. Buckley. 1977. “Ultrasonic Techniques
for Measuring the Strength of Adhesive Bonds.” Materials
Evaluation 55(4): 77-84.
Armstrong, K.B., L.G. Bevan, and W.F. Cole, II. 2005. Care and Repair of
Advanced Composites, 2nd edition. Warrendale, PA: Society of
Automotive Engineers.
Arrigoni, M., S.E. Kruger, A. Bouin, D. Levesque, M. Lord, and J.-P.
Monchalin. 2008. “The Use of Laser Doppler Interferometry Based
on a Fabry-Perot Etalon for Shock Adhesion Test Applied to
Adhesively Bonded Materials.” 1st International Symposium on
Laser Ultrasonics: Science, Technology and Applications [Montreal,
Canada, July]. Boucherville, Quebec: National Research Council
Canada, NRC Publications Archive.
Bossi, R.H., K. Housen, and W. Shepherd. 2002. “Using Shock Loads to
Measure Bond Joint Strength.” Materials Evaluation 60(11):
1333-1338.
Bossi, R.H., K. Housen and W. Shepherd. 2004. “Application of Stress
Waves to Bond Inspection.” Paper 49-174, presented at SAMPE
Spring Conference, Seattle, WA (May). Covina, CA: Society for the
Advancement of Material and Process Engineering.
Bossi, R.H., K. Housen, C. Walters, and D. Sokol. 2009. “Laser Bond
Testing.” Materials Evaluation 67(7): 819-827.
Cawley, P. 1990. “Low Frequency NDT Techniques for the Detection of
Disbonds and Delaminations.” British Journal of NDT 32(9):
454-461.
Cawley, P., T. Pialucha, and M. Lowe. 1993. “A Comparison of Different
Methods for the Detection of a Weak Adhesive/Adherend Interface
in Bonded Joints.” Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE 12
[La Jolla, CA, July 1992]. New York: Plenum Press, 1531-1538.
Couchman, J.C., B.G. W. Yee, and F.H. Chang. 1979. “Adhesive Bond
Strength Classifier.” Materials Evaluation 37(5): 48-50.
Crane, R.L., T. Astarita, H. Berger, G. Cardone, G. Carlomagno, T. Jones,
M. Lansing, S. Russell, J. Walker, G. Workman. “Aerospace
Applications of Infrared and Thermal Testing.” 2001. Nondestructive
Testing Handbook 3: Infrared and Thermal Testing, 3rd edition
Columbus, OH: American Society for Nondestructive Testing,
489-526.
Dickstein, P., Y. Segal, E. Segal, and A.N. Sinclair. 1989. “Statistical
Pattern Recognition Techniques: A Sample Problem of Ultrasonic
Determination of Interfacial Weakness in Adhesive Joints.” Journal
of Nondestructive Evaluation 8(1): 27-35.
Drewry, M.A., R.A. Smith, A.P. Phang, D. Yan, P. Wilcox, and D. Roach.
2009. “Ultrasonic Techniques for Detection of Weak Adhesion.”
Materials Evaluation 67(9): 1048-1057.
Georgeson, G., S. Lea, and J. Hansen. 1996. “Electronic Tap Hammer for
Composite Damage Assessment.” SPIE Proceedings 2945,
Nondestructive Evaluation of Aging Aircraft, Airports, and
Aerospace Hardware. Bellingham, WA: SPIE, 328-338.
Grady, D.E., and M.E. Kipp. 1989. Structural Failure. New York:
Wiley, 1-40.
Hagemaier, D. 1985. “Nondestructive Inspection.” Adhesive Bonding of
Aluminum Alloys. New York: Marcel Dekker, 337-423.
Heslehurst, R. 2009. “Optical NDT of Adhesively Bonded Joints.”
Materials Evaluation 67(7): 837-842.
Hsu, D.K., D.J. Barnard, J.J. Peters, and V. Dayal. 2000. “Physical Basis
of Tap Test as a Quantitative Imaging Tool for Composite Structures
on Aircraft.” AIP Conference Proceedings 509. Review of Progress
in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 19B [Montreal, July
1999]. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1857-1864.
Mitsui. 2014. WP632 — Tapping Exfoliation Detector. Accessed January.
http://www.wp632.html. Tokyo, Japan: Mitsui Engineering and
Shipbuilding. New York, NY: Bittech.
Newman, J.W. 2005. “Holographic and Shearographic Applications in
Aerospace Manufacturing.” Materials Evaluation 63(7): 746-750.
Peters, J., J. Zachary, A. Nielsen, and D.K. Hsu. 2001. “Comparison of
Local Stiffness of Composite Honeycomb Sandwich Structures
Measured by Tap Test and Mechanical Test.” Review of Progress in
Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 20B [Ames, IA, July 2000].
Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1031-1038.
Peters, J.J., D.J. Barnard, and D.K. Hsu. 2004. “Development of a
Fieldable Air-Coupled Ultrasonic Inspection System.” Review of
Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation 23B [Green Bay,
WI, July-August 2003]. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics,
1368-1375.
Pilarski, A., and J.L. Rose. 1988. “Ultrasonic Oblique Incidence for
Improved Sensitivity in Interface Weakness Determination.” NDT
International 1(4): 241-246.
Pilarski, A., J.L. Rose, and K. Balasubramaniam. 1990. “The Angular
and Frequency Characteristics of Reflectivity from a Solid Layer
Embedded between Two Solids with Imperfect Boundary
Conditions.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 87(2):
532-542.
Roach, D. 2003. “Improving In-Service Inspection of Composite
Structure: It’s a Game of CATT and MAUS.” Paper presented at 7th
DoD/FAA/NASA Conference on Aging Aircraft (New Orleans, LA.
September).
Rokhlin, S.I., M. Hefets, and M. Rosen. 1981. “An Ultrasonic
Interface-Wave Method for Predicting the Strength of Adhesive
Bonds.” Journal of Applied Physics 52(4): 2847-2851.
Rokhlin, S.I., and D. Marom. 1986. “Study of Adhesive Bonds Using
Low Frequency Obliquely Incident Ultrasonic Waves.” Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America 80(2): 585+.
Scala, C.M., and P.A. Doyle. 1995. “Ultrasonic Leaky Interface Waves
for Composite-Metal Adhesive Bond Characterization.” Journal of
Nondestructive Evaluation 14(2): 49-59.
Smith, N. R, J.R. Kollgaard, and L. Dickinson. 2010. “Improved Flaw
Detection in Honeycomb Sandwich Structure Using Pitch-Catch
(Low Frequency) Bondtesters.” Paper 55-190, presented at SAMPE
Spring Conference, Seattle, WA (May). Covina, CA: Society for the
Advancement of Material and Process Engineering.
Wegman, R., and J.R. Mitchell. 1989. “Evaluation of Adhesive Bond
Strength by Nondestructive Testing: Advanced Materials: The Big
Payoff.” Proceedings of the 21st International SAMPE Technical
Conference [Atlantic City, NJ, September]. Covina, CA: Society for
the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering, 196-209.
Yuhas, D.E., B.P. Dolgin, C.L. Vorres, H. Nguyen, and A. Schriver. 1988.
“Ultrasonic Methods for Characterization of Interfacial Adhesion in
Spectra Composites.” Interfaces in Polymer, Ceramic and Metal
Matrix Composites: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Composite Interfaces [Cleveland, OH, June]. New
York: Elsevier, 595-609.
 1X
5 CHAPTER

In-Situ Tests for

Structural
Health
Monitoring Contents
Part 1, Principles, 15.2
Part 2, Methods, 15.4
Part 3, Applications, 15.5
References, 15.14

Contributors
Richard H. Bossi Neil J. Goldfine
John C. Duke Glenn M. Light
Michael D. Fogarty E.I. Madaras
Gary E. Georgeson Andrew P. Washabaugh

15.1
PART 1 Principles

Health monitoring of systems and structures is
of interest for management of technically complex
assets, including condition based maintenance,
prognosis, maintenance scheduling, and early
warning of imminent failure. Nondestructive
testing plays a critical role in the structural risk
management of aerospace systems. Maintenance and
structural engineering performs periodic inservice
inspections during the life of a structure to ensure its
continued safe operation. Sensors applied on board
the aerospace vehicle or system are commonly
referred to as structural health monitoring (SHM)
devices and provide information to help assess and
manage the status of the structure. The most
common structural health monitoring systems
provide information about the structure, such as
monitoring of loads in certain locations and of flight
dynamics. There is continued interest in structural
health monitoring information to detect cracking,
delaminations, disbonding, degradation, or other
damage that may occur in service. This regime of
structural health monitoring is effectively in-situ
nondestructive testing that can detect and measure
damage (Stolz 2009). In situ is a Latin phrase
meaning “in place” — in-situ inspections do not
require that the aerospace system be removed from
service or disassembled as during maintenance. The
implementation of in-situ nondestructive testing
structural health monitoring is subject to a number
of caveats for value (cost and weight), reliability, and
sensitivity.
The principal difference between continuous
monitoring and periodic inspection is that, in the
latter, data are collected at regular intervals. This
period is much briefer than the propagation to
failure of any degradation mechanism expected in
the service of the structure or system. Inservice
nondestructive testing is performed periodically over
regions of a structure to obtain a detailed check on
the condition, most commonly to detect cracks of
subcritical size and to monitor their onset and
growth. Structural health monitoring approaches are
often conceived to continuously monitor a large area
of an aircraft with sensitivity. In the more near term
and practical applications, the sensors are directed at
particular locations or “hot spots.” The sensors are
checked on a periodic basis as in-situ nondestructive
testing. For structural health monitoring concepts
that involve global sensor evaluation of a structure,
the sensors need to be several orders of magnitude
more sensitive than a local “hot spot” sensor to
assess critical discontinuities from far away and to

Table 1. Nondestructive test sensors for in-situ structural health monitoring.

Physical Principles Mode Scale Purpose Sensors

Vibration passive structure global damage accelerometer

Strain passive in local component or environmental and mechanical resistance strain gages, fiber
structure fatigue optic
Acoustic emission passive in component or structure damage incident piezoelectric
Ultrasonic guided waves active structure damage piezoelectric, magnetostrictive,
electromagnetic acoustic,
others
Ultrasonic bulk wave active local structure crack detection and growth piezoelectric pulse echo or pitch
scattering catch
Electromagnetic active local structure crack detection and growth eddy current
monitoring
Leak active/passive local structure crack detection, service life, vacuum check
degradation
Temperature passive component environmental and chemical thermocouple, fiber optic
degradation
Chemistry active/passive component chemical degradation fiber optic
Moisture passive structure environmental degradation fiber optic
provide sufficient warning for removal from service
(Duke 2004). For nondestructive test personnel,
in-situ nondestructive test techniques for structural
health monitoring require an awareness of the
structural discontinuity detection requirements and
the validation of the discontinuity detection
sensitivity (Buynak 2009).
In-situ nondestructive testing structural health
monitoring sensors and systems are based on
physical principles of mechanical motion,
electromagnetics, optics, and acoustics. Most
nondestructive test methods offer techniques that
can be used for in-situ nondestructive testing.
Table 1 lists physical measurements commonly
considered. In-situ nondestructive test principles go
beyond the conventionally applied nondestructive
test methods for crack detection. Other
measurements such as strain, temperature, and
chemistry can provide useful information concerning
the service condition of a structure. In the structural
health management plan, this additional information
informs inspectors of potential structural damage.
Vibration analysis and strain monitoring are
potential approaches to assess conditions of an
aircraft through measurements at selected points.
Acoustic emission detects changes in a structure near
the sensor. Ultrasonic and electromagnetic
techniques rely on nondestructive test principles for
active inspection at selected locations. Some cracks
can be detected with leak test techniques.
Temperature, chemistry, and moisture sensing can be
useful for assessing degradation and for managing
systems.
15.3
PART 2 Methods

In-situ nondestructive testing methods for
structural health monitoring have been developed for
a variety of scenarios. The common methods are
listed in Table 2.
Resistance and fiber optic (Guemes 2009) strain
gages are useful for fleet surveillance, mission
planning, and condition based maintenance. Strain
gages are installed in military aircraft to monitor
loads at various locations. However, because data are
not required for mission readiness, sensors might not
be replaced when they fail. The United States Navy
uses a strain based fatigue analysis approach for
highly stressed low cycles-to-failure components
designed using a safe life approach (Iyyer 2010). The
limitation of such an approach is that the remaining
life may be underestimated by as much as a factor of
10 because of material variation (Christodoulou
2004).
Fiber optic gages have not been used in aerospace
applications as much as other civil structures
because of the bulkiness of the interrogation
optoelectronic units (Volanthen 2009).
Acoustic emission sensing is a common method
for monitoring structures during structural tests.
Acoustic emission testing has been tested for
inservice aircraft crack monitoring with mixed
success on such aircraft as the F-111™, VC-10™,
KC-135™, F-14™, and Cessna® aircraft (Carlyle 1999;
Demeski 1997). Chapter 13 discusses acoustic
emission in more detail.
Ultrasonic sensors, mostly piezoelectric, are
considered for a variety of structural health
monitoring applications. The most common are
localized inspection of regions where repairs have
been made or damage is expected. Some applications
of consideration are to use guided wave modes over
considerable distances to evaluate a structure (Guao
2007).
Electromagnetic sensors, particularly flexible
circuit eddy current, can be mounted on or near
structures to continuously monitor locations of
interest, such as the growth of metal cracks below
patch repairs.
Comparative vacuum monitoring is an unusual
method of monitoring cracks in a structure. It uses
flexible plastic channels sealed against the structure
and attached to a vacuum system. When a crack
occurs in the structure under the channels, the
vacuum is lost and indicates a discontinuity.

Table 2. Common nondestructive test methods for in-situ structural health monitoring.

Method Application Comments

Resistance strain gaging Measures load in structure. Data help to determine fatigue life in structure and to schedule
needed maintenance.

Fiber optic strain gaging Measures load in structure. Embedded in structure.

Acoustic emission testing Listens for impact damage. Spacecraft applications.

Ultrasonic testing Detects discontinuities. In-situ sensors and periodic evaluation.

Electromagnetic testing Detects cracks and fatigue. In-situ sensors for continuous or periodic evaluation.

Comparative vacuum monitoring Detect cracks and crack growth. Patches over regions of potential crack initiation and growth.

Advantages and Limitations
Implementation of structural health monitoring
for aerospace applications has been limited by a
number of factors. As the structural health
monitoring sensing and data interpretation
technology improves, these limiting factors will be
overcome. Some advantages and limitations of
structural health monitoring are listed in Table 3.
Table 3. Advantages and limitations of structural
health monitoring.
Advantages
Continuous monitoring
Instant or near real time interpretation
Global or local coverage
Limitations
Added weight to structure
Sensor operational reliability
Sensor lifetime and repair
Sensitivity to critical discontinuity criteria
Probability of detection reliability
Structural Testing
An important application of in-situ
nondestructive testing is the structural testing of
aerospace composites. The study of laminated,
bonded, and cocured composite interface behavior
under load is important to the proper design and use
of these structures. As part of the evaluation,
structural analysis codes are used to predict locations
and load levels for failure initiation. Manufacturers
of composites and of structures incorporating
composites use various mechanical test instruments
to stress representative specimens to failure in order
to validate and refine the structural performance
codes. These instruments range from small,
laboratory fixtures that produce a controlled static
load to full scale multiple element systems designed
to test an aircraft wing-to-body response to a variety
of loading conditions.
Accurately defining the onset of failure is
extremely valuable for structural analysis codes.
However, it is usually not possible to locate initiation
Applications PART 3
of failure (due to cracking, disbond, or delamination)
by using the load displacement curve produced
during mechanical testing. Local strain gages can
provide information regarding where failure is
occurring if they are close enough, but they suffer
from significant limitations in identifying specific
details. Often, test engineers cannot verify where
damage is initiating or growing. In-situ
nondestructive testing can address this issue.
Along with traditional mechanical testing, a
nondestructive test technician may be required to
periodically inspect locations of the structure under
test. In such cases, testing has to be stopped — that
is, the load is removed from the structure under test.
This load removal lets the nondestructive test
technician safely hold an ultrasonic transducer in
place to inspect the unit. However, for safety, an
operator is not allowed to hold a transducer to a
structure during loading: the load must be removed
before the inspection. This process may leave a high
demand test machine idle until nondestructive
testing is performed to check for growth of a crack,
delamination, or disbond. Moreover, the precision of
the dimensional measurement is limited by the
nondestructive test technique and by the technician’s
ability to discern small changes. In the twenty-first
century, improvements have been made in structural
testing with the application of in-situ nondestructive
testing. These systems increase the sensitivity,
accuracy, and repeatability of measurements and
information that lead to detecting the onset of
failure. Real time nondestructive testing of structural
components throughout a testing regime can be
done using mounting techniques and associated
methods. The output is captured by a data
acquisition system and recorded for direct
comparison to the loading condition through
complete failure.
Sensor Configurations and Mounting
Although ultrasonic testing, using longitudinal or
lamb waves, is the most common method for in-situ
nondestructive testing in composites, other methods,
such as eddy current or microwave measurements,
are not excluded. Pulse echo, through-transmission,
and various pitch catch ultrasonic techniques can be
used with careful mounting of the transducers. There
are, in fact, a wide variety of sensor attachment
methodologies. Several effective mounts and
configurations have been developed and patented,
which support in-situ nondestructive testing for
composite structural testing.
In general, a mounting means must keep the
sensor fully attached and coupled to the surface of
the structure throughout the test. In many cases, the
in-situ mounts must maintain contact and coupling
15.5

Figure 1. Vacuum attached water coupled
mount for focused ultrasonic pulse echo
monitoring of disbond initiation at lap joint.
Figure 2. Spider mount for ultrasonic testing:
(a) top view; (b) bottom view. Elastic band
holds mounting cap down on ultrasonic
transducer screwed into center ring containing
ultrasonic gel couplant.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3. Magnetically coupled ultrasonic pitch catch mount allows composite joint to be monitored for
internal initiation of growth during testing: (a) transducers are angled into joint and couple ultrasound
into it using material that conforms to corner; (b) magnets couple to one another and hold in-situ mount
firmly against joint.
(a)
under high bending or torsional strains. The specific
in-situ mount types are selected to suit the particular
structural test, inspection location, and needed test
data. Some examples of mounting configurations are
shown in Figures 1 to 3.
In-Situ Nondestructive Test
Systems
Depending on test requirements, there is a wide
range in the number of sensors mounted to support a
structural test. Multiplexers that can handle many
inputs are used for sequentially interrogating the
sensors at a predetermined repetition rate and are
either part of the ultrasonic test system or connected
to it. Subscale lab tests may require only one or two
sensor mounts and a low channel multiplexer. Full
scale structural tests often require 30, 60, or more
channels and two or more banks of multiplexers
linked together. Of course, cabling between sensors
and multiplexers is required, and routing options for
large numbers of cables need to be considered
carefully.
A data acquisition system that includes a
nondestructive test device, such as an ultrasonic test
instrument, is used to collect and store the sensor
data. The sensor data are monitored in real time with
a technician watching updated plots on a general
user interface or a digital signal that indicates a
preselected condition. Figure 4 shows a simple setup.
The benefits of the in-situ nondestructive test
method can be summarized as follows.
1. Structural response can be directly compared to
part loading regime.
2. When high damage sensitivity is available, it
detects small discontinuities and damage
initiation or growth.
3. Monitoring of multiple locations during static
and fatigue cycling is possible.
4. In-situ inspection does not require periodic
stoppages for inspection.
5. Automatic signal output does not require
constant operator observation.
6. In-situ inspection can be used to automatically
stop static and fatigue testing when damage is
detected.
7. Cost of operation is low, even over extended
time periods.
(b)
Crack Monitoring Figure 4. Eight-channel multiplexer is connected to ultrasonic test
Damage tolerant design concepts discussed in the instrument, cycling through each transducer during test. When preset
chapter on aerospace structures, as allowed by MIL- alarm is triggered, red light (shown) indicates disbond.
STD-1530C (DOD 2005), provide a mechanism to
determine the inspection thresholds and intervals for
crack detection on aircraft. Periodic inspection
intervals are planned based on the nondestructive
inspection capability for crack detection such that
any crack below the inspection sensitivity crack size
threshold would not grow to critical length in fewer
than two inspection periods (Fahr 2014; Goranson
1993; Grandt 2004).
To aid such periodic inspections, in-situ structural
health monitoring methods have been suggested:
placing sensors at strategic locations on an aircraft to
reduce the cost of periodic inspections (Roach 2009).
Such systems have been demonstrated but not
implemented as of May 2014. In other structural
health monitoring concepts, monitoring of cracking
has been suggested to detect crack initiation and then
providing an alert so that action can be initiated to
remove the system or structure from service. This
monitoring regime requires either extensive coverage Figure 5. In-situ structural health monitoring of F-16 fighter for
of the structure or prior knowledge of where cracks cracks under patch repair: (a) patch in wheel well; (b) periodic system
are likely. Acoustic emission and vibration interrogation.
monitoring are two methods that could provide
extensive coverage. Acoustic emission with sparse
sensor spacing may detect crack initiation at (a)
relatively large distances, provided that a true crack
is distinguished from noise. Structural vibration
monitoring requires that the allowable crack size be
large enough to affect the global structure vibration
response. In-situ nondestructive test systems target
specific regions for crack detection. These approaches
are topics for research as of May 2014.
An in-situ crack monitoring system was
demonstrated in the United States Air Force program
for hot spots (Haugse 2005; Malkin 2007). In this
case, an identified crack was repaired by the
application of a composite overlay patch. The goal of
the demonstration program was to show that an in-
situ sensor could be used to monitor that no further
crack growth would occur under the patch. A
periodic check of the sensors could be performed to
show that the repair was working and that the cracks
below the repair were not growing. Figure 5 shows
the location in the wheel well of an F-16 where a
repair patch was bonded over the cracked skin and
sensors were bonded onto the patch. To the patch was (b)
bonded a piezoelectric based sensor array that uses
guided waves to check for cracks from multiple send
and receive positions. After a specified number of
flights, the sensor circuitry can be checked
periodically to detect crack growth under the patch.
The ability to detect crack growth under repairs has
been demonstrated, but such a system has not been
implemented as of May 2014.

Aircraft Damage Monitoring

Guided ultrasonic waves, discussed in the chapter
on ultrasonic testing, often propagate in different
wave modes and orders and are known to be
dispersive — that is, their velocity depends on
frequency. Guided waves are generated using any
number of transduction methods such as piezoelectric
transducers or laser ultrasound. They propagate

15.7
 Figure 6. Magnetostrictive sensor monitoring data compared to reference data.

Reference waveform - reference waveform Plate end

Initial pulse
After placing a 51 percent thickness deep notch
13 mm (0.5 in.) long waveform - reference waveform

Front patch Back patch

Amplitude (0.1 volt/division)

25 mm (1 in.) long waveform - reference waveform

38 mm (1.5 in.) long waveform - reference waveform

51 mm (2.0 in.) long waveform - reference waveform

–150 0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050

(–0.5) (0.5) (1.0) (1.5) (2.0) (2.5) (3.0) (3.5)
Distance, mm (ft)

through structures that are thin relative to their
wavelengths and can be transmitted over relatively
long distances. Like other ultrasonic waves, guided
waves detect cracks when they interact with the
crack interface and reflect back to the sensor.
Typically, a tone burst signal at a desired frequency
or a signal swept over a frequency range is used.
Magnetostrictive Sensor Guided Wave
Example
The magnetostrictive sensor is a guided wave
device developed originally for pipe inspection and
adapted later for aircraft. The sensor consists of a
thin magnetostrictive strip material (usually an iron
cobalt alloy) about 25 to 31 mm (1.0 to 1.25 in.) long
by 13 mm (0.5 in.) wide and 125 µm (0.005 in.)
thick, bonded to the part under inspection with an
excitation coil about the same size and about 250
µm (0.01 in.) thick placed over the iron cobalt alloy.
The sensor is configured to apply a time varying
magnetic field to the material under test and pick up
magnetic induction changes in the material caused
by the guided wave. For aircraft applications, where
the test range is relatively short and discontinuity
sizes to be detected are small, the test frequency
ranges from about 200 kHz to 1 MHz. Detection is
achieved through the reverse process. Monitoring is
accomplished by leaving the magnetostrictive sensor
bonded in place. Data are collected and processed
periodically. Waveform processing can be simple
because the sensor is fixed in position. Leaving it in
place is acceptable because the sensor is relatively
inexpensive.
Damage Detection
The technology can also be used to monitor
cracks or bonded structures, such as adhesively
bonded doublers. Figure 6 shows data for sawcut
notches from 0 to 50 mm (2 in.) long under the
100 mm (4 in.) wide bonded doubler. These
monitoring data show that notches as small as
13 mm (0.5 in.) are detected.
The technology has been demonstrated for
detecting fatigue cracking in longerons on an A-10
fatigue test specimen (Figure 7). Magnetostrictive
sensor data has been collected at a number of these
sites over a large range of fatigue cycles. The
magnetostrictive sensor monitoring data indicated
sites where crack initiation and growth were
observed at about 75 to 125 mm (3 to 5 in.) from the
magnetostrictive sensor. These indications were
verified with eddy current tests.
The magnetostrictive sensor technology has also
been tested in the repair of an aluminum bulkhead
of the F-16 fighter to monitor the bond line of the
doubler. The sensor is actually in the high velocity
air stream, and an exciting probe is periodically
placed on the bonded iron cobalt alloy strip material
to excite the guided waves through the bond. The
application is illustrated in Figure 8. The technique
has been tested on aircraft but not validated as of
May 2014.
 Figure 7. Magnetostrictive sensor locations on A-10 fatigue test specimen.

FS 395 FS 480

WS 23
10 1 15
12 14
17 2

18 3
9 8 4 16
11 WS 23

FS 130 FS 265 FS 380 FS 430 FS 541

7
13 5
WS 100
6

Region of air force installed wing lower cover repair

FS 405 FS 468
Magnetostrictive sensor locations
= wing lower cover
= fuselage upper longeron Magnetostrictive sensors that have found discontinuities during
= fuselage upper auxiliary longeron fatigue cycling

Wing Leading Edge Figure 8. Magnetostrictive sensor strip on F-16 fighter. Periodically,
The loss of the space shuttle Columbia as a result when aircraft is on ground, exciting coil is placed over iron cobalt
of impact damage from foam debris during ascent sensor material bonded over repairs, and monitoring data are collected.
led the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration to investigate the feasibility of
on-board impact detection technologies. During the
accident investigation, it was demonstrated that
catastrophic foam impacts to the reinforced
carbon-on-carbon wing leading edge could be
detected with accelerometers as well as acoustic
emission sensors.
Based on this successful demonstration,
additional testing was performed during the shuttle
“return to flight” initiative to establish a database of
sensor system responses to a variety of impacts. The
impacting materials included foam, ice, and ablators
at ascent velocities as well as simulated
hypervelocity micrometeoroids and orbital debris. On
the basis of the availability of flight qualified
instrumentation, accelerometers were selected for
implementation of a system to detect impacts on the
leading edge of wings. Although the higher
frequency range of acoustic emission sensors offered
a good ratio of signal to noise, the development and
flight qualification of acoustic emission sensors and powered data acquisition and processing units with
data acquisition hardware would have been schedule wireless transmitters were also mounted inside the
and cost prohibitive. An array of 66 accelerometers wing cavity to record data from the accelerometers
was installed on the leading edge spar of each wing during launch, ascent, and orbit.
in all of the space shuttles (Figure 9). There were Each data acquisition unit monitored three
roughly three sensors per panel spaced at three of accelerometers and one temperature sensor. Data
the four corners where the panels were mounted on from the temperature sensors helped predict
the spar. A much higher sensor density than required remaining battery life in orbit within the cold wing
provided redundancy in the case of sensor or data cavity, which was not environmentally controlled.
acquisition failure, as well as more data for analysis Because of limited telemetry bandwidth, the raw data
to detect and localize impact signals. Battery were first preprocessed in the data acquisition units

15.9
 Figure 9. Shuttle wing leading edge impact detection system.
Wing leading
edge with
22 reinforced
carbon-carbon
panels
to calculate root mean square acceleration values
and detect peaks that may represent impact signals.
Summary files of root mean square acceleration peak
values were wirelessly transmitted to an on-board
laptop computer and then relayed to the mission
control center at Johnson Space Center, Houston,
Texas. The summary peak information was analyzed
to represent impact events. For suspect impact
events, raw time history data windows were then
downloaded for further analysis.
Results from this system were used along with
data from video and radar during the mission to
specify locations on the wing leading edge for
focused inspections with the orbiter boom sensing
system. The system was successfully used on all
shuttle flights after the Columbia accident. A number
of probable small impact events both during launch
and ascent, as well as on orbit were detected,
although none were damaging.
Spacecraft Leakage
In manned spacecraft, leaks of atmosphere to
vacuum are a hazard due to micrometeoroid orbital
debris along with failures of seals and gaskets,
structural failures, and human error. A collision of a
Russian resupply cargo spacecraft with the Mir space
station’s Spektr module on 25 June 1997 was due to
human error, causing damage to the solar panels and
creating a major leak in the Spektr module. The
result was a depressurization and costly disuse of the
Accelerometer
Reinforced
carbon-to-carbon
acquisition panel
Wireless
data
acquisition
Thermal sensor
Spektr module. Despite an exhaustive, sophisticated
effort to locate the leak in the Spektr module once it
was depressed, none of the available techniques were
successful. This experience has shown that the best
time to locate a leak is while the leakage is active,
because the internal energy of the escaping gas is a
significant source of physical phenomena to pinpoint
a leak.
There are many possible detection ideas that can
be envisioned for locating a leak, but in space
applications, most concepts suffer from application
limitations and many practical considerations. It
should be noted that most space structures are very
densely packed with equipment and supplies so it is
most likely that these materials will be between an
astronaut and a leak in the pressure shell. Hence,
visual or thermal cameras that can see damage or
thermal cold spots indicating a leak are impractical
because the visual field of the pressure shell is
limited. A 2007 NASA report reviewed many of the
commercially available systems that might help
locate leaks (Wilson 2008).
Leaks through the pressure wall generate acoustic
and ultrasonic signals, both in the air and in the
structure (Wilson 2008, Richards 2013). It should be
pointed out that the signal from a leak sounds like
noise and does not present a definable phase signal
like a signal from an acoustic emission event or from
micrometeoroid orbital debris impact, so common
location algorithms from acoustic emission are
invalid for leak location. Current ultrasonic based
systems already exist for indicating leaks in
Figure 10. Wireless, self-contained distributed
chemical and petroleum industries (ADEC 1999;
Wilson 2008). Ultrasonic clamp-on flow meters that impact detection system module with four
use mass or volume balance techniques can be sensors attached.
attached to pipelines to detect small leaks. Because a
pipe acts as a waveguide, the signals can travel far
from the source. Another commercial system is based
on airborne ultrasound, where the microphone is
directional. The operator has only to wave the
microphone around looking for the largest signal. In
a space vehicle, the problem requires a more
sophisticated solution: an integrated vehicle health
monitoring system automatically locates a leak in a
structure. Leak location in principle requires an array
of sensors and algorithms to process the ultrasonic
signals.
In the case of airborne signals, they are highly
attenuated above 50 kHz in air but can travel
reasonable distance below 40 kHz (Lawrence 1982).
One concept for leak monitoring on the International
Space Station is based on arrays of directional Figure 11. Sensor array: (a) closeup of lead
microphones. Such a system is simple in concept, but zirconium titanate element mounted to printed
there are concerns that many of the structural circuit; (b) output from cross correlation
impediments within a space vehicle might make such showing direction to noise source with predicted
a system ineffective. This concept is challenging (red) and actual (white) vectors shown.
because the airborne sound might travel a tortuous,
reflected path in reaching the microphones, making
detected directions erroneous. (a)
In a space vehicle, much of the pressure shell is a
thin metal wall, so structure borne ultrasonic signals
travel as a first order flexural mode plate wave. That
type of wave can range in frequency from audible
frequencies up to the megahertz range. Ultrasound
about 5 m from a small leak has detected frequencies
as high as 400 kHz in structures like those in the
International Space Station. One benefit of this
method is that such a broad bandwidth would let the
system be optimized for the quietest frequencies of
the background noise. If the transmission
characteristics of the structure were known, then it
would be possible from amplitude data to infer noise
source location with a small set of sensors
(Tian 2009). One such sensor for impact detection
consists of a small, low power, wireless, high speed,
four-channel digitizer (Figure 10) (Champaigne 2005;
Champaigne 2007). The system features a (b)
commercially available device wirelessly connected
0.25
Vertical spatial frequency (mm–1)

to a computer.
0.2
An alternative system (Holland 2005; Holland 0.15
2006) involves cross correlating one element with 0.1
each of the other elements in a 64-element array 0.05
(Figure 11). This process can be done serially on a 0
noise signal to map the direction of the noise. This –0.05
process does depend on having enough signal –0.1
attenuation to suppress sensitivity to reflections, –0.15
which travel a long distance. From that map, vectors –0.2
pointing to various noise sources can be generated. –0.25
–0.2 –0.1 0 0.1 2.0
Horizontal spatial frequency (mm–1)
Fatigue and Stress
Eddy current sensors and sensor arrays can be
permanently or temporarily placed near, on, or
within a structure at selected locations to monitor configurations that form an array in a plane parallel
damage and usage variables to support life to a test surface. One such sensor is a meandering
management decisions. Arrays are sensor constructs winding magnetometer described in the chapter on
with a common drive (primary winding) and electromagnetic testing. When used for damage
multiple one-dimensional or two-dimensional sensor detection and monitoring, embedded or surface

15.11
 Figure 12. Meandering winding magnetometer array: (a) mounted to monitor fatigue cracks at bolt hole
on aircraft structure; (b) fastener geometry with sensor location.

Smart washer
(a) (b) meandering winding
magnetometer rosette

Crack

mounted eddy current sensors perform interrogation

Figure 13. Four-directional magnetic stress gages: (a) nine gages similar to that of conventional eddy current sensors.
mounted to preexisting assembly installed around unmodified main These sensors can serve as smart washers and
rotor shaft; (b) array for main rotor shaft torque measurement. linear arrays for nondestructive testing in locations
that would otherwise require disassembly. Mounted
under a fastener collar, nut, or bushing retainer, a
(a) smart washer with a circular meandering winding
magnetometer array can detect cracks before they
propagate from under a fastener. Only a thin and
conformable sensor flies on the vehicle. Inspections
are performed by plugging in a portable data logger
to a connector at an easy access location. Because
eddy current sensors do not need to be on when the
crack initiates, no electronics need to fly on the
vehicle.
Practical fatigue monitoring using surface
mounted eddy current sensor arrays has been
available since the mid-1990s. Hundreds of coupon
tests and many demonstrations have been completed
(b) (Goldfine 1996; Goldfine 2003). The method is based
Location of meandering on the realization that fatigue cracks, during the
winding magnetometer
arrays early or advanced stages, affect the material’s
electromagnetic properties, such as electrical
conductivity and magnetic permeability. Full scale
fatigue monitoring of critical structural members
Sensors was demonstrated in 1998 on P-3 aircraft (Goldfine
2001) in difficult-to-access locations. A rosette
configuration with a meandering winding
magnetometer is practical for some in-situ structural
health monitoring. Figure 12a shows an example of
how such sensors are placed under a washer.
Alternatively, the sensors can become a part of a
“smart” washer (Figure 12b).
four-directional For noncontact monitoring of dynamic stress, a
magnetic stress gages, network of eddy current based, four-directional
expanded view magnetic stress gages are installed on a preexisting
assembly around a rotor shaft (Denenberg 2008).
Figure 13 shows the configuration. The four
meandering winding magnetometer sensors are
stacked, with axes of sensitivity in four different
directions: 0°, 90°, 45°, and –45°. The layout, Figure 14. Four-directional magnetic stress gage measured torque
orientation, secondary element size, and other versus applied torque.
geometrical properties are designed to make the
sensing elements of one sensor insensitive to the 5 000
magnetic fields of the other three sensors. This

Four-directional magnetic stress gage

insensitivity permits measurement of directional
4 000

pure torque estimate (N·m)

properties, such as conductivity or permeability, in
four directions simultaneously.
Although each sensor has a different liftoff, the 3 000
differences are known and can be compensated for
by precomputed databases of sensor responses. The
installation has three sensor strips, each with three 2 000
four-directional magnetic stress gages covering a
third of the shaft’s circumference. In each
four-directional magnetic stress gage, the magnetic 1 000
permeability and thus the stress are measured. The
stresses at all nine locations can then be used to 0
determine the torque, pitch, and lift loads. Figure 14
0 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000
shows a nearly linear relationship between the
hysteresis corrected magnetometer measurements of Applied dynamic torque (N·m)
permeability, the stresses in the rotor shaft, and the
resulting stresses between magnetometer estimated
torque and applied torque.

15.13
References
ADEC. 1999. “Technical Review of Leak Detection
Technologies 1.” Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (October), 31.
Buynak, C.F., J.C. Brausch, and E.A. Lindgren. 2009. “Lessons
Learned from the Deployment of Inspection Procedures for
Complex Aircraft Structural Components.” Structural Health
Monitoring 2009 2. Lancaster PA: DEStech Publications,
2181-2187.
Carlyle, J.M., H.L. Bodine, S.S. Henley, R.L. Dawes, R. Demeski,
and E.v.K. Hill. 1999. “Practical AE Methodology for Use on
Aircraft.” ASTM STP 1353, Acoustic Emission: Standards
and Technology Update. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International, 191-208.
Champaigne, K.D., and J. Sumners. 2005. “Wireless Impact and
Leak Detection and Location Systems for the ISS and
Shuttle Wing Leading Edge.” IEEE Aerospace Conference
(March).
Champaigne, K.D., and J. Sumners. 2007. “Low-Power
Electronics for Distributed Impact Detection and
Piezoelectric Sensor Applications.” IEEE Aerospace
Conference (April).
Christodoulou, L., and J.M. Larsen. 2004. “Using Materials
Prognosis to Maximize the Utilization Potential of
Mechanically Complex Systems.” Journal of Materials
(March): 15-19.
Demeski, R.J. 1997. Manuscript, Cessna T303 S/N T30300260,
Installation and Design Substantiation for In-Flight Safe
Life Monitoring Specimen. Daytona Beach, FL:
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
Denenberg, S., T. Dunford, N.[J.] Goldfine, D. Grundy, C. Parker,
M. Robuck, D. Schlicker, Y. Sheiretov, and V. Silberstein.
2008. “Magnetic Stress Gages for Torque and Load
Monitoring in Rotorcraft.” 64th Annual Forum [Montreal,
Canada, April-May]. Alexandria, VA: American Helicopter
Society.
DOD. 2005. MIL-STD-1530C, Aircraft Structural Integrity
Program. Arlington, VA: United States Department of
Defense (DOD).
Duke, J. 2004. “Structural Health Monitoring: Before and After
Crack Birth.” Materials Evaluation 62(1): 53-55.
Fahr, A. 2014. Aeronautical Applications of Non-Destructive
Testing. Lancaster, PA: DEStech Publications, 11-13.
Goldfine, N.J., and D. Clark. 1996. “Introduction to the
Meandering Winding Magnetometer (MWM) and the Grid
Measurement Approach.” SPIE Proceedings 2944, NDE
Techniques for Aging Infrastructure and Manufacturing
(December), 186-192.
K. Walrath, A.P. Washabaugh, and D. Van Otterloo. 2001.
Goldfine, N.J., V.A. Zilberstein, D.E. Schlicker, Y. Sheiretov,
“Surface Mounted Periodic Field Current Sensors for
Structural Health Monitoring.” SPIE Proceedings 4335,
Advanced Nondestructive Evaluation for Structural and
Biological Health Monitoring (July), 20-34.
Goldfine, N.J., V. Zilberstein, A.J. Washabaugh, D. Schlicker,
I. Shay, and D. Grundy. 2003. “Eddy Current Sensor
Networks for Aircraft Fatigue Monitoring.” Materials
Evaluation 61(7): 852-859.
Goranson, U.G. 1993. “Damage Tolerance Facts and Fiction.”
ICAF 17, 1993 — Durability and Structural Integrity of
Airframes [Proceedings of 17th International Committee on
Aeronautical Fatigue Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden,
June]. Warrington, UK: EMAS Publishing, for the
International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue (ICAF).
Grandt, A. 2004. Fundamentals of Structural Integrity, Damage
Tolerant Design and Nondestructive Evaluation. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley, 20-22.
Guao, H., and J. Rose. 2007. “Multifeature Optimization of
Guided Wave Modes for Structural Health Monitoring of
Composites.” Materials Evaluation 65(10): 1035-1041.
Guemes, A., and B. Soller. 2009. “Optical Fiber Distributed
Sensing: Physical Principles and Applications.” Structural
Health Monitoring 2009 1. Lancaster PA, DEStech
Publications, 14-28.
Haugse, E. 2005. USAF/AFMC AFRL Final Report, Contract
F33615-00-D-3052. “Air Vehicle Technology Integration
Program (AVTIP) Delivery Order 28: Structural Health
Monitoring for Bonded Repairs” (March).
Holland, S.D., J.[H.] Song, D.E. Chimenti, and R. Roberts. 2005.
“Leak Detection in Spacecraft Using a 64-Element
Multiplexed Passive Array to Monitor Structure-Borne
Noise.” AIP Conference Proceedings 820, Quantitative
Nondestructive Evaluation [Brunswick, ME, July].
Warrendale, PA: American Institute of Physics, 885-891.
Holland, S. D., R. Roberts, D.E. Chimenti, and J.H. Song. 2006.
“An Ultrasonic Array Sensor for Spacecraft Leak Direction
Finding.” Ultrasonics 45 (1-4): 121-126.
Iyyer, N., and N. Phan. 2010. “Durability Issues and
Management of Aging P-3C Aircraft.” 11th International
Conference on Fracture [Turin, Italy, March 2005]. Red
Hook, NY: Curran Associates, 2078-2083.
Lawrence, B.D., and J.A. Simmons. 1982. “Measurements of
Atmospheric Attenuation at Ultrasonic Frequencies and the
Significance for Echolocation by Bats.” Journal of the
Acoustic Society of America 71(3): 585-590.
Malkin, M. 2007. Final Report, Contract 699032L, Structural
Health Monitoring for Bonded Repairs: F-16 Application.
Seattle, WA: Boeing Phantom Works.
Malkin, M., M. Leonard, M. Derriso, and E.D. Haugse. 2007.
“Hot Spot Monitoring: Development of a Framework for
SHM System Design.” Structural Health Monitoring 2007:
Quantification, Validation, and Implementation 1
[Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop, Palo Alto,
CA, September]. Lancaster, PA: DEStech Publications, 786–
792.
Malkin, M., X.P. Qing, M. Leonard, and M. Derriso. 2007.
“Structural Health Monitoring for Bonded Structural
Repairs: F-16 Application.” Proceedings of the Third
European Workshop: Structural Health Monitoring 2006
[Seattle, WA, July]. Lancaster PA: DEStech Publications.
167-175.
Richards, W.L., E. Madaras, W.H. Prosser, and G. Studor. 2013.
“NASA Applications of Structural Health Monitoring
Technology.” Presented at 9th International Workshop on
Structural Health Monitoring [Stanford, CA, September].
Roach, D., and J. Pinsonnault. 2009. “Use of Mountable Sensors
to Address Periodic Inspections for Cracks on Regional
 Aircraft.” Structural Health Monitoring 2009 1. Lancaster,
PA: DEStech Publications, 175-182.
Stolz, C., and M. Neumair. 2009. “Structural Health Monitoring,
In-Service Experience, Benefit and Way Ahead.” Structural
Health Monitoring 1. Lancaster PA, DEStech Publications,
59-66.
Tian, J., and E.I. Madaras. 2009. Technical Memorandum NASA
TM-2009-215948, An Amplitude-Based Estimation Method
for International Space Station (ISS) Leak Detection and
Localization Using Acoustic Sensor Networks. Springfield,
VA: National Technical Information Service (November).
Volanthen, M., and R. Caesley. 2009. “Compact, Lightweight
Optical Fibre Bragg Grating Instrumentation Designed
Specifically for Aerospace Applications.” Structural Health
Monitoring 2009 1. Lancaster PA: DEStech Publications,
126-133.
Wilson, W.C., N.C. Coffey, and E.I. Madaras. 2008. Technical
Memorandum NASA TM-2008-215347, Leak Detection and
Location Technology Assessment for Aerospace
Applications. Hanover, MD: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Center for AeroSpace Information
(September).
15.15