Composite NDT PDF

Development of Air-Coupled Ultrasound
for NDI of Honeycomb Structures
David K. Hsu, John J. Peters, Daniel J. Barnard,

and Vinay Dayal
Center for Nondestructive Evaluation
Iowa State University
Work supported by FAA under Contract

#DTFA03-98-D00008, Delivery Order
IA047 as part of the CASR program
Outline
• Inspect with Air-Coupled Ultrasound
– Basic physics
– Instrumentation
– Advantages and limitations
• Inspect Honeycomb Structures
– Composite honeycomb
– Aluminum honeycomb
– Damage and repair of honeycomb
• Develop Portable Air-Coupled UT Scanner
– Manual scan and imaging
– Position encoding with “flock of birds”
– Field test results
Basic Principles
Transmission and Z1 Z2
Reflection Coefficients (Energy) pi pt
pr
2
 Z 2− Z 1 
α 
= 
α →1 >> >>
+ when Z Z or Z Z
r
 Z 2 Z1 r 2 1 1 2
4Z 2Z1
α =
α → 0 >> >>
(Z 2 + Z 1)2 Z Z Z Z
t
t
when 2 1
or 1 2
Impedance Ratios: CFRP : Water = 3:1, CFRP : Air = 10,000: 1

From Air to Solid: From Water to Solid:
αt αr αt αr
CFRP 0.04% 99.96 CFRP 75% 25%
Aluminum 0.01% 99.99 Aluminum 30% 70%
Transmission of Toneburst Through a Plate
Incident air-coupled toneburst:
Time domain Si(t) Frequency domain Si(f)
Transmission coefficient for the toneburst is

1
T ( f ,d) = × Si( f )
 1  1 
2

2  2 π fd  
1 +  m −  sin  
 4  m   c 

Inverse Fourier transform of the transmission coefficient gives the time domain
signal ∞
S i ( f ) e i 2 π ft
S t (t , d ) = ∫ df
 
 1 + 1  m − 1  sin 2  2 π fd  
2
0
 4  m   c  

Transmission Coefficient Through a Plate
Peak-peak amplitude of St(t,d) versus thickness of the plate ‘d’. Calculated
and measured amplitudes of the signal are compared for aluminum and
CFRP plates at different thicknesses
Instrumentation
Different types of air-coupled ultrasonic transducers:
Piezoceramics with matching layers

(mostly narrow band and sub-megaHertz)
Capacitive (electrostatic) transducers

(broadband, up to a few MHz)
Capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer (cMUT)

(using microelectronic and MEMS technologies)
Commercial availability of air UT instruments

Air-Coupled UT System and Scanner
Air-Coupled Utrasonic System from QMI, Inc.
Scanning a repaired composite panel

Defects in Composite Honeycomb Sandwich
Single Teflon
tape, front
Single Teflon
tape, back
10 mm 15 mm 20 mm 30 mm Crushed core,
front
Double Teflon
tapes, back
2”
Kevlar Skin over Nomex honeycomb core

Flaws in Composite Solid Laminate
Transmission Air Scan of Flaws in 16-Ply Laminate

400 kHz with focused receiver
7/16”
3/8
5/16
1/4
3/16
1/8
Note: Flaws at different depth do not look alike in this TTU image.
The Anatomy of a Repair
Core splice potting

delamination delamination
Nomex core
0.75 inch
gap gap
Re-cored region
Correlation between internal condition and air UT Image
core splice
delamination delamination
Red & orange-- high transmission

Blue & green—low transmission
1.2” Thick Composite Rocket Case Specimen
Disbonds in adhesive layer
120kHz air-coupled TTU scan image

Advantages, Limitations of Air UT
No couplant, non-contaminating, non-contact
Limited to low frequencies, partly due to high attenuation

of air
Transmission mode works well, but pulse-echo needs

development
Single side Lamb wave is possible, but image broadens in

one direction
Piezoceramic-based air UT uses long toneburst; poor time

resolution
Hail Damage of Aluminum Honeycomb
Boeing 737 Spoiler
Taken in flight: ORD to DSM
Bell UH-1 Huey rotor blade

Two Different Types of Damage
Composite Skin
Honeycomb Core
Failed honeycomb cell walls

Nomex/Fiberglass Core
Aluminum Core
Air Coupled TTU of Damaged Al Honeycomb Flap
1.6 Joule drop weight impact, dent depth = 1.5 mm, TOF delayed by 16µs
Undamaged Region of UAL Flap
0.6
0.4
Amplitude (v)
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
1.70E-04 1.90E-04 2.10E-04 2.30E-04 2.50E-04 2.70E-04 2.90E-04 3.10E-04
Tim e (s)
Damaged Region of UAL Flap
0.1
Amplitude (v)
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
1.70E-04 1.90E-04 2.10E-04 2.30E-04 2.50E-04 2.70E-04 2.90E-04 3.10E-04
Time (s)
120 kHz Unfocused T & R

Cross-Sectional View of Crushed Honeycomb
Aluminum honeycomb, 1/8” cell size,

0.002” wall, compressed by 31%
Buckling of a Split Double Wall
Thickness decreased, but time of flight increased….
T im e of Flight versus % Deform ation

6.000
5.500
5.000
Time of Flight (us)
4.500
4.000
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
% Deformation
Modeling a Buckled Sheet
Input
Input Parameters:
Aluminum 0.005” thick
Input Pulse of 5 MHz
Young’s modulus 10 Msi
15000
10000 Poisson ratio 0.3

Pressure (psi)
5000
0 Density 2.7 g/cc

-5000
-10000 TOF of Bottom Surface

-15000
4.0E-06
0.00E+00 5.00E-08 1.10E-07 1.50E-07 2.00E-07
3.0E-06
Time (s)
A m plitud e (in )
2.0E-06
1.0E-06
0.0E+00
-1.0E-06
Finite Element ANSYS -2.0E-06

-3.0E-06
Setup for analyzing TOF 0.00E+00 1.00E-06 2.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 6.00E-06
Time of Flight (s)
through a 2-D flat plate. Left Side Node Right Side Node
Output
Comparing Experimental Data with ANSYS
0.300
Apparent Velocity (in/us)
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
% Deformation
Experimental Theory
Fieldable Air-Coupled UT Scan System
QMI
Pulser/Receiver Transducers
and yoke
QMI to PC T
Interface
R
Test Specimen
FOB
RCVR
FOB
XTMR
Ascension Technology
PC utilizing Visual Basic and MS Excel
“FLOCK OF BIRDS”
Yoke for Manual Air UT Scanner
“Flock of Birds” receiver

on 6” standoff
Light weight composite construction (~ 3 lbs)

Specifications of manual air UT scanning system
Position Encoding Subsystem

Pulsed DC Magnetic Field
Metals Sensitivity: L.O.S between transmitter/receiver or within 6” of receiver
Throughput: 144 samples/sec.
Minimum Step Size: 1/16 inch
Range: 72 inches from transmitter
Nominal Scan Size: 48” x 24” (yoke throat depth)
Orientation Independent
Yoke and Transducers
Yoke Weight: 3 lbs.
Scan “Reach”: 24 inches
Focused and unfocused transducers
Probe Freq: 120 and 400 KHz
Software
Data Acquisition and Control: Visual Basic
Analysis: Excel and VBA
Field Test on Beechcraft KingAir
Transmitted
Amplitude
230-255
205-230
180-205
2” 155-180
130-155
105-130
80-105
55-80
30-55
5-30
Scan is of leading edge of outboard left

hand landing gear door. The step size is
0.2”. The receiving and transmitting
transducer are 120 kHz probes. The
large area of high transmitted signal (red
region) occurs in a region where the
structure contains no honeycomb.
Field Test: Midwest Airlines in Milwaukee
Transmitted
Amplitude
230-255
205-230
180-205
155-180
130-155
105-130
80-105
55-80
30-55
5-30
Scan was performed on an outboard flap

on the right wing of an MD-80 aircraft.
The transducers used were 120 kHz
unfocused probes. There were no
anomalies found in the structure.
Summary
• Air-coupled ultrasound is used for nondestructive imaging of

composite and aluminum honeycomb structures of aircraft.
• Transmission scan reveals defects, repairs, and various internal

structures.
• Impact induced aluminum core buckling reduces transmitted

amplitude and increases time of flight of air-coupled ultrasound.
• A portable manual air UT scanner has been developed; field

tests are underway.
Improving
Improving In-Service
In-Service Inspection
Inspection of
of
Composite
Composite Structures
Structures ––
It’s
It’s aa Game
Game of
of CATT
CATT and
and MAUS
MAUS
Dennis Roach
Kirk Rackow
Sandia National Labs
FAA Airworthiness Assurance Center
FAA Hughes Technical Center Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed-Martin
Company, for the United States Dept. of Energy under Contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
Team
Team Participants
Participants
This work is a joint effort of the FAA’s Airworthiness
Assurance Center operated by Sandia National Labs and
the Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee (CACRC)
CACRC Inspection Task Group Members:
Gerry Doetkott – Northwest Airlines

Tom Dreher - United Airlines
John Hewitt – Airbus Industrie (Co-chair)
Bruce Garbett – Airbus Industrie
Jim Hofer - Boeing
Jeff Kollgaard - Boeing
Glae McDonald - US Airways
Kirk Rackow - Sandia Labs AANC
Dennis Roach - Sandia Labs AANC (Co-chair)
Darrell Thornton – American Airlines
Richard Watkins - Delta Air Lines
Dave Galella – FAA
Fred Sobeck – FAA
Al Broz - FAA
FAA Hughes Technical Center
Program Motivation - Extensive/increasing use of
composites on commercial aircraft and increasing use of
NDT to inspect them (e.g. post-repair inspections, rudders
and elevators)
An Experiment to Assess &

Improve Flaw Detection
Performance in
Composite Aircraft Structure

Goals
Goals of
of Composite
Composite Honeycomb
Honeycomb
Flaw
Flaw Detection
Detection Experiment
Experiment
Utilize airline inspectors to establish
industry-wide performance curves that
quantify:
1) how well current inspection techniques are

able to reliably find flaws in composite
honeycomb structure
2) the degree of improvements possible

through the integration of more advanced
NDI techniques and procedures.

Jackstands
Ground Handling
Impact Damage
Bird Strikes
Lightning Strikes

Sources
Sources of
of Damage
Damage in
in Composite
Composite Structure
Structure
• Normal & abnormal flight loads
• Fluid ingress into honeycomb cores
• Paint strippers, hydraulic fluid, etc.
• Impact (in-flight, ground handling equipment)
• Heat & UV exposure
Inspection Challenges
• Hidden damage
• Small amounts of moisture
• Heat damage that affects resin matrix
• Weak bonds (manuf. or environment induced)

An
AnExperiment
Experimentto
toAssess
AssessFlaw
FlawDetection
Detection
Performance
PerformanceininComposite
CompositeAircraft
AircraftStructures
Structures
Goal: utilize a series of composite honeycomb specimens with

statistically relevant flaw profiles to evaluate & improve flaw
detection via human or automated tap test methods and
other NDT devices
Approach:
• Statistical design of flaws and other variables affecting NDI
• Study factors influencing inspections including composite
materials, flaw profiles, mechanical interactions (impact and
audible response), and environmental conditions
• Blind application of techniques to study hits, misses, false
calls, and flaw sizing
• POD and signal-to-noise data gathering

Tap
TapTesting
Testingat
atMaintenance
MaintenanceDepots
Depots
s c an
Myriad of
fl w
aTap
e of d ?
ty
tTestp Devices fi n
W ha
p ec t to
x
we e

Early Tap Test Inspections

Airbus Manual Tap Hammer Boeing Manual Tap Hammer
V-95 Mechanical Impedance Analysis S-9 Sondicator (LFBT)

Mitsui Woodpecker with
Digital Readout
Automated Tap Test Devices
Wichitech Digital Tap Hammer
CATT Instrumented
Tap Test System

Advanced
AdvancedNDI
NDIfor
forComposite
CompositeFlaw
FlawDetection
Detection
Shearography
SAM System
Digital Radiography
Laser Ultrasonics
PE Phased Array UT
UT Wheel Array
MAUS Thermography
System

Experiment
Experiment Design
Design
Specimen Types - modeled after range of construction found on
aircraft; carbon graphite & fiberglass skin over Nomex core
Flaw Types - statistically relevant flaw distribution with sizes ranging

from 0.2 in.2 to 3 in.2 Low Energy Impact
1) interply delaminations 0
0
2) skin-to-core air gap disbonds +45
-45
3) skin-to-core “kissing” disbonds 0
90
4) impact damage 90
0
-45
+45
0
0
P id P ttM t i C Pattern
Pyramid kf iMatrixt
Application of NDI - blind tests implemented in aircraft Crack from impact

maintenance depots; guideline procedures provided; use
of ref. standards to set up equipment
Expected Results - evaluate performance attributes
1) accuracy & sensitivity (hits, misses, false calls, sizing)
2) versatility, portability, complexity, inspection time (human factors)
3) produce guideline documents to improve inspections
4) introduce advanced NDI where warranted
Inspection
InspectionChallenge
Challenge––
Hidden
HiddenImpact
ImpactDamage
Damage
1″ IMPACTOR
• Skin fracture
• Core crush
• Damage size ∝ impactor size
3″ IMPACTOR
• No visible surface damage in
skin
• Core fracture
• Backside skin fracture

Airlines,
Airlines,3rd
3rdParty
PartyMaintenance
Maintenanceand
andAdv.
Adv.NDI
NDI
Organizations
OrganizationsWho
WhoHave
HaveParticipated
Participated
Delta Air Lines (Atlanta) ! Alaska Airlines !

Delta Air Lines (Dallas) ! First Air
Swiss Air ! Olympic Airways
KLM ! BF Goodrich Aero (LA)
British Airways ! Wichitech (Seattle)
Air France ! Boeing (Long Beach)
GKN Westland Aerospace ! Boeing (Seattle)
FLS Aerospace ! AANC !
US Airways (Charlotte) ! Computer Aided Tap Tester (ISU) !
American Airlines (Tulsa) ! Thermal Wave Imaging !
American Airlines (Ft. Worth) ! Thermosonix
United Airlines (Indy) ! Phased Array Ultrasonics !
United Airlines (Oakland) ! Shearography !
Aloha (Honolulu) Air Coupled UT
Northwest Airlines (St. Paul) ! Ultra Image UT Scanner
Air Canada (Montreal) MAUS MIA & Resonance Scanner !
FedEx (LAX) ! Digital Radiography (Lock.-Martin) !
Continental (Houston)
! = completed
Experiment
ExperimentImplementation
Implementation

Performance
Performanceof
ofSingle
SingleDevice
Device(Woodpecker)
(Woodpecker)
Over
OverRange
Rangeof
ofTest
TestSpecimen
SpecimenTypes
Types
Cumulative PoD - Woodpecker for All Panel Types
3 Ply Fiberglass
3 Ply Fiberglass
3 3PlyPlyFiberglass
Carbon
3 3PlyPlyFiberglass
Carbon
63 3PlyPlyFiberglass
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
6 6PlyPlyFiberglass
Carbon
9 6PlyPlyFiberglass
Carbon
9 Ply Fiberglass
9 Ply Carbon
0.9
0.8
Pro b ab ility o f D etectio n
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Flaw Size (Dia. in Inches)

Variation
Variationin
inPerformance
PerformanceofofaaDevice
Device
Over
Overthe
theSet
Setof
ofInspectors
Inspectors
PoD Curve Comparisons

PoD Curve Comparisons - LFBT
- LFBT on 6 Ply on 6 Ply
Fiberglass Fiberglass
with Cumulative Average PoD Curve Comparisons - MIA on 6 Ply Carbon
with Cumulative Average
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
MIA-1
0.7 MIA-2
0.7 MIA-1
Probability of Detection
MIA-3
LFBT-1 MIA-2
0.6 MIA-4
0.6 MIA-3
LFBT-2
LFBT-1 MIA-5
LFBT-2
LFBT-3
MIA-4
0.5 MIA-6
0.5 MIA-5
LFBT-3
LFBT-4 MIA-7
LFBT-4 MIA-6
0.4 LFBT-5 0.4 MIA-8
LFBT-5 MIA-7
LFBT-6 MIA-9
LFBT-6 MIA-8
0.3 LFBT-7 0.3 MIA-10
LFBT-7 MIA-9
LFBT-8 Cum. Ave.
LFBT-8 MIA-10
0.2 LFBT-9
LFBT-9 0.2
LFBT-10
LFBT-10
0.1 LFBT-11
LFBT-11 0.1
Cum. Ave.
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Flaw Size (Dia. in Inches) Flaw Size (Dia. in Inches)
Large Variation in Device Performance Small Variation in Device Performance

Performance
Performanceof
ofMultiple
MultipleDevices
Devicesfor
for
AASingle
SingleType
Typeof
ofTest
TestSpecimen
Specimen
Cumulative PoD of All Conventional NDI Devices for 3 Ply Fiberglass
Airbus Tap Hammer Boeing Tap Hammer LFBT MIA Wichitech DTH Woodpecker
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Performance
Performanceof
ofMultiple
MultipleDevices
Devicesfor
for
AASingle
SingleType
Typeof
ofTest
TestSpecimen
Specimen
Cumulative PoD of All Conventional NDI Devices for 6 Ply Carbon
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Performance
Performanceof
ofMultiple
MultipleDevices
Devicesfor
for
AASingle
SingleType
Typeof
ofTest
TestSpecimen
Specimen
Cumulative PoD of All Conventional NDI Devices for 9 Ply Carbon
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Inspection
InspectionImprovements
ImprovementsVia
Via
Advanced
AdvancedNDI
NDITechniques
Techniques
Comparison of Advanced Inspection Techniques with
Best Conventional NDI Result on 6 Ply Carbon
98% detection - MAUS IV Thermography Shearography S.A.M. CATT MIA
False Calls 12 2 0 37 1 1.3
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Inspection
InspectionImprovements
ImprovementsVia
Via
Advanced
AdvancedNDI
NDITechniques
Techniques
Comparison of Advanced Inspection Techniques with
Best Conventional NDI Result on 9 Ply Carbon
Thermography MAUS IV Shearography CATT S.A.M. Wichitech DTH
False Calls 0 0 0 4 74 4.4
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Overall
OverallPerformance
PerformanceSummary
Summary
by
byNDI
NDIMethod
Method
Flaw Sizing & False Call Summary Table for 6 Ply Fiberglass
Flaw Coverage
90%PoD False
Inspection Device 100% 99%-75% 74%-50% 49%-25% <25% Level Calls
Airbus Tap Hammer 28% 30% 27% 13% 2% 2.44 2.9
Boeing Tap Hammer 21% 34% 25% 16% 4% 2.33 4.7
LFBT 28% 29% 20% 18% 5% 2.55 3.3
MIA 26% 26% 26% 18% 4% 1.49 1.9
Wichitech DTH 32% 39% 19% 8% 2% 1.71 1.6
Woodpecker 31% 28% 20% 14% 7% 2.05 0.1
CATT 28% 38% 19% 13% 2% 1.10 1.0
MAUS 47% 31% 4% 4% 14% 0.55 9.0
S.A.M. 11% 40% 32% 9% 8% 0.84 8.0
Shearography 49% 27% 15% 9% 0% *<.50 0.0
Thermography 75% 15% 5% 5% 0% 0.70 3.0
* 100% detection of all flaws

Secondary
SecondaryVariables
Variables––
Affects
Affectsof
ofInspection
InspectionTime
Timeon
onPOD
POD
90%
90%PoD
PoDValues
Valuesversus
versusInspection
InspectionTimes
Timesfor
for
Boeing Tap Hammer
Wichitech DTH onon 3 Ply
9 Ply Fiberglass
Fiberglass
3.00
3.00
90% PoD Value
2.50
90% PoD Value
2.50
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Inspection Time
Inspection Time

Conclusions
Conclusions
• How are we doing? – Flaw Detection with Conventional NDI
" 90% POD is not achieved for 1” dia. flaws; at 9 plies it exceeds 2” dia.
" POD can improve as inspection time per area increases (up to a limit)
" False call rate was independent of inspection time
" External noise affects tap testing
" Tap testing is difficult above 9 plies; CATT improves on this approach via
C-scan
" Human factors issues (time, attention to detail, proper deployment)
" Some inspectors marked grids on panel to aid in coverage of inspection
area – most inspectors had good coverage; some followed random
pattern (find small flaws but miss large ones)
" Boeing and Airbus inspection procedures were provided but used very
little by the inspectors
" Some Wichitech DTH users would listen for pitch change during
inspection then verify by looking at digital readout
" Difficulty/complexity in deploying LFBT equipment produced large data
spread
" Overall, MIA mode worked well (reliability, repeatability, ease of use)

Conclusions
Conclusions (cont.)
(cont.)
• How can advanced NDI help? – Flaw Detection with More Sophisticated NDI
" Note that NDI techniques evaluated are in different states of maturity
" Improvement in flaw detection ranged from 66% to 72%
" Automated deployment & data presentation/analysis reduces many
human factors concerns (100% coverage; flaw recognition on images)
" Allow for more rapid inspections
" If greater sensitivity is needed, NDI methods are available now to
address those needs
" MAUS, Thermography (sizing), Shearography all performed well
• Composite flaw detection experiment is available for continued testing

2003 NASA/FAA/DoD Aging Aircraft Conference
Improving In-Service Inspection of Composite Structures: It’s a Game of CATT and MAUS
Dennis Roach and Kirk Rackow

Sandia National Laboratories
FAA Airworthiness Assurance Center
Abstract
The aircraft industry continues to increase its use of composite materials, most noteworthy in the arena of principle structural
elements. The extreme damage tolerance and high strength-to-weight ratio of composites have motivated designers to expand
the role of fiberglass and carbon graphite in aircraft structures. This has placed greater emphasis on the development of
improved nondestructive inspection (NDI) methods that are more reliable and sensitive than conventional NDI. The FAA
Airworthiness Assurance Center at Sandia Labs has been pursuing this goal via a host of studies on inspection of composite
structures. The majority of composite honeycomb structure inspections are performed visually and supplemented by tap test
methods. Tap testing, which uses a human-detected change in acoustic response to locate flaws, and more sophisticated
nondestructive inspection (NDI) methods such as ultrasonics or thermography, have been applied to an increasing number of
applications to detect voids, disbonds, and delaminations in adhesively bonded composite aircraft parts. Low frequency bond
testing and mechanical impedance analysis tests are often used to inspect thicker laminates. A Probability of Detection
experiment was completed to assess the performance of both conventional and advanced NDI techniques. A series of
composite honeycomb specimens with statistically relevant flaw profiles were inspected using both human tap test equipment
and new inspection techniques which have recently been introduced to automate and improve composite NDI. Industry-wide
performance curves have been produced to establish: 1) how well current inspection techniques are able to reliably find flaws
in composite honeycomb structure, and 2) the degree of improvements possible through the integration of more advanced NDI
techniques and procedures. This paper compares and contrasts the results from a wide array of NDI methods and identifies
limitations and optimum applications of specific inspection methods. The advanced NDI techniques that were evaluated
ranged from an automated, sensor-based form of tap testing (Computer Aided Tap Tester or CATT) to C-scan technology for
improved flaw identification (Mobile Automated Scanner or MAUS).

A Portable Rapid Inspection
UT C-scan System
presented by
Neil Hankinson
NDT Solutions Ltd
Presentation Outline
- Introduction to RapidScan
- Components
- Key Features
- Scan Rates
- Corrosion Test Results

- Calibration Specimens
- Trials at Sandia National Laboratories
- VC10 lap joint specimen
- Summary
RapidScan Components
Wheel Probe Features
- UT Array Transducer
housed in custom
axle
- Optical rotary
encoder recording
linear position
- Water filled rubber

tyre acting as delay
line and coupling
medium
Coupling to Non Uniform Surfaces
- Rubber tyre conforms to
coarse surface topography
- Water mist couples to fine
surface topography
- Ultrasonically observed as
a single water delay line
- Pulse echo
technique
- Wheel probes
designed to suit test
geometry
System Features
- 32 channel pulser-receiver, multiplexed to
128 elements
- New data capture board under development

- Hardware gating
- State of the art digitiser
- Completion date, Dec 2003
- Scan rate set to increase by 50% – 100%
- Objective is to capture data at the acoustic

limit of the test specimen
Current Scan Rates
(full waveform capture, 2 gates, 1000 data points)
Using 64 element, 2” wide array
scan resolution : 0.032” x 0.032” : 0.032” x 0.063”

linear scan speed : 6”/sec (30 ft/min) : 1 ft/sec (60 ft/min)
area scan rate : 5 ft²/min : 10 ft²/min
Using 64 element, 4” wide array
scan resolution : 0.063” x 0.032” : 0.063” x 0.063”

linear scan speed : 6”/sec (30 ft/min) : 1 ft/sec (60 ft/min)
area scan rate : 10 ft²/min : 20 ft²/min
Testing for Hidden Corrosion
- Testing subject to same limitations as any UT
pulse echo technique
- Current testing for ageing aircraft has been

focused on quantifying hidden faying surface
corrosion in aircraft skins
- Performance trials split into three areas

- Calibration specimens
- Sandia National Laboratories engineered panels
- VC10 lap joint specimen
Corrosion Calibration Specimens
Samples with 10 %, 20 %, and 30 % material loss
Nominal skin thickness : 0.1”
30 % 20 % 10 %
30 % 20 % 10 %
30 % 20 % 10 %
Sandia National Laboratories
Engineered Specimens
Scans are formatted to fit in percentage loss bins

10 % to 20 % Material Loss
RapidScan Image
>2% >8% > 14 %

RapidScan Image
>2% >8%
RapidScan Image
>2% >8%
RapidScan Image >2%

RapidScan Image >2%

RapidScan Image >2%

VC10 Lap Joint Specimen
- Specimen cut from aircraft for a comparative study of
techniques for corrosion detection and quantification
Lower Skin & Doubler
Location of
corrosion
Lower Skin (0.06” thick)
Lap Joint
Upper Skin (0.055” thick)
1 Layer 2 Layers 3 Layers

Time of Flight C-Scan of Corrosion
(data provided by R. Smith, Qinetiq)
- Scan performed with 20 MHz polymer pen probe with 4 mm tip

- Depth Resolution, 5ns ≈ 0.6 thou
- Scan Resolution, 0.04”
- Scan time, 2 min (probe speed of 8”/sec)
Time of Flight C-Scan of Corrosion
Using RapidScan
- Scan performed with 10 MHz unfocused wheel probe

- Depth Resolution, 2 ns ≈ 0.25 thou
- Scan Resolution, 0.032”
- Scan time, 18 secs (with 3 cumulative averages, probe
speed 6”/sec)
Summary
- RapidScan has shown capability for detecting and
quantifying hidden faying surface corrosion in aircraft
skins. 2% loss has been detected on engineered
samples and on actual structure
- Reliability of detection has not been quantified thus far. If

there is sufficient interest then we will consider
participation in trials at Sandia National Laboratories
- Instrumentation shows great potential for rapid

inspection of large areas of aircraft structures, already in
use as a production QA tool
Summary
- Inspection performance is comparable to any
other UT pulse echo technique with the added
advantages
- Scan time is dramatically increased over single

element mapping systems
- No need for gel couplants, just a fine water mist
- Good coupling to roughened surfaces

Thank You!

Composite NDT PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Composite NDT PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Development of Air-Coupled Ultrasound

for NDI of Honeycomb Structures

David K. Hsu, John J. Peters, Daniel J. Barnard,

Work supported by FAA under Contract

Impedance Ratios: CFRP : Water = 3:1, CFRP : Air = 10,000: 1

Incident air-coupled toneburst:

Time domain Si(t) Frequency domain Si(f)

Transmission coefficient for the toneburst is

Different types of air-coupled ultrasonic transducers:

Piezoceramics with matching layers

Capacitive (electrostatic) transducers

Capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer (cMUT)

Commercial availability of air UT instruments

Air-Coupled Utrasonic System from QMI, Inc.

Scanning a repaired composite panel

Kevlar Skin over Nomex honeycomb core

Transmission Air Scan of Flaws in 16-Ply Laminate

Core splice potting

Red & orange-- high transmission

Disbonds in adhesive layer

120kHz air-coupled TTU scan image

No couplant, non-contaminating, non-contact

Limited to low frequencies, partly due to high attenuation

Transmission mode works well, but pulse-echo needs

Single side Lamb wave is possible, but image broadens in

Piezoceramic-based air UT uses long toneburst; poor time

Boeing 737 Spoiler

Taken in flight: ORD to DSM

Bell UH-1 Huey rotor blade

Failed honeycomb cell walls

Undamaged Region of UAL Flap

Damaged Region of UAL Flap

120 kHz Unfocused T & R

Aluminum honeycomb, 1/8” cell size,

T im e of Flight versus % Deform ation

10000 Poisson ratio 0.3

0 Density 2.7 g/cc

-10000 TOF of Bottom Surface

Finite Element ANSYS -2.0E-06

“Flock of Birds” receiver

Light weight composite construction (~ 3 lbs)

Position Encoding Subsystem

Scan is of leading edge of outboard left

Scan was performed on an outboard flap

• Air-coupled ultrasound is used for nondestructive imaging of

• Transmission scan reveals defects, repairs, and various internal

• Impact induced aluminum core buckling reduces transmitted

• A portable manual air UT scanner has been developed; field

Gerry Doetkott – Northwest Airlines

An Experiment to Assess &

FAA Hughes Technical Center

1) how well current inspection techniques are

2) the degree of improvements possible

FAA Hughes Technical Center

FAA Hughes Technical Center

FAA Hughes Technical Center

Goal: utilize a series of composite honeycomb specimens with

FAA Hughes Technical Center

FAA Hughes Technical Center

FAA Hughes Technical Center

V-95 Mechanical Impedance Analysis S-9 Sondicator (LFBT)

Automated Tap Test Devices

Wichitech Digital Tap Hammer