Encyclopedia of Polymer Sceince and Technology Copyright c 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING
Introduction
Polymers are macromolecules that contain repetitive, regular or irregular arrangements of organic molecular groups, ie, carbon atoms covalently bonded with other carbon and/or heteroatoms. Technical polymers usually contain additives, llers, and pigments. Polymermatrix composites (PMC) contain at least a second, insoluble phase, frequently in the form of bers or particles. The structure and morphology of polymers and PMC can be quite complex; see, eg, AMORPHOUS POLYMERS; SEMICRYSTALLINE POLYMERS; MORPHOLOGY, ADDITIVES, VISCOELASTICITY, PHASE TRANSFORMATION, and Reference 1. Properties of polymers and PMC that may be relevant for nondestructive testing (NDT) are as follows: (1) (pronounced) temperature dependence, viscoelastic behavior, and, in some cases, specic transition temperatures; (2) limited thermal stability, upper limit set by incipient decomposition or melting; (3) relatively low density; (4) transparency, semitransparency, or opaqueness with respect to the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum; (5) electrical insulation and relatively low electrical conductivity for specially formulated compositions; and (6) possible changes in volume, properties, and, in some cases, even chemical reactions induced by absorption or diffusion of media. The literature on NDT of polymers and PMC comprises the classes shown in Table 1. References illustrate the available range of literature or a specic topic. Omission or inclusion of a reference does not imply a rating by the authors. The amount of information available in electronic format only is steadily increasing, eg, References 28, and many journals feature electronic on-line editions. Electronic database searches are sensitive to spelling, eg, non-destructive yields 27, and nondestructive 384, active standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials International. Most NDT methods apply to various material classes. Those documents that explicitly mention polymers or PMC deal with effects specic to certain materials, eg, the Felicity effect in PMC (9), or with polymer products used in large quantities (1014). Standards tend to lag behind technical developments, as discussed for acoustic emission (15), but similar arguments hold for other NDT methods. Nondestructive testing (NDT) is the development and application of technical methods for the detection, location, measurement, and evaluation of discontinuities, defects and other imperfections, the assessment of integrity, the assessment of properties and composition, or the measurement of geometrical characters without impairing the intended use or application of the test object (31).
1

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

Table 1. Classes of Literature on NDT of Polymers and PMC Source type Handbooks Sample references (1626) Remarks Some volumes available in 3rd edition, others in preparation; 3rd edition also available in electronic format on compact disc with supplemental information Few codes and standards are explicitly on NDT applied to polymers and PMC, but most NDT codes and standards are applicable to polymers and PMC, except when explicitly stating another class of materials; up-to-date information can be obtained on the Web sites of standards-issuing organizations, eg (25) A few guidelines are explicitly on NDT applied to polymers and PMC, but most NDT guidelines apply to polymers and PMC, except when stating explicitly another class of materials Literature on NDT of polymers and PMC comprises two classes (see Bibliography for examples): A. journals dealing with NDT B. journals dealing with polymers and PMC Conference proceedings Class A Class B Conferences again comprise two classes: A. general or topical (on specic NDT methods and/or applications) NDT conferences B. conferences on polymers and PMC Information on many conferences is available on the Internet, eg, through links on the Web sites of national NDT societiesa Provided, eg, by equipment manufacturers or test agencies

Monographs Normative codes and standards

(27,28) (914)

Guidelines (without normative character) Journals

(29,30)

Electronic journals Class A (6,7) Class B (8)

Technical documents

Educational documents
a Web

Equipment descriptions, technical manuals, application notes Lecture notes, training manuals

Provided, eg, by lecturers, national NDT societies, NDT training and certication agencies

sites of most national NDT societies can be found at www.icndt.org/directory.htm (however, some listings may not be up-to-date).

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

Composites are a combination of at least two materials, insoluble in one another, combined to yield a material with certain properties not possessed by the constituents (32). In PMC, polymers form a continuous constituent, called matrix, in which the other phase(s) are embedded (see COMPOSITE MATERIALS). The distinction between natural and synthetic polymers or PMC (eg, natural versus synthetic rubber, plastics versus biopolymers, wood versus ber-reinforced composites) is of limited relevance for the application of NDT methods. Classes of Nondestructive Test Methods. NDT methods are classied according to the physical principle or effect that constitutes their base (26), corresponding to the probe-type or energy source (Table 2, the list of methods is incomplete). Each NDT method can be characterized by its type of (1) probe or energy source, (2) interaction with the test object, (3) signal detection, (4) signal recording, and (5) signal interpretation (26). Other categories for grouping NDT methods are, eg, (1) imaging versus nonimaging methods, (2) volume versus local method, (3) noncontact versus contacting methods, (4) in situ versus ex situ or eld versus laboratory testing, (5) real-time versus post-test indication and (6) small or specic specimen size versus full-scale testing.

Mechanical Test Methods

Determination of mechanical properties is one, although indirect, way of nding indications of defects (see MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE OF PLASTICS). The elastic modulus of polymers and PMC depends, among others, on porosity or microcrack content. Quantitative evaluation requires comparison with specimens with known content from destructive analysis or others (33). Qualitative, relative comparison is feasible, but still requires careful conditioning, since mechanical properties depend on humidity content and temperature. The tensile elastic modulus of samples from one batch typically yields standard deviations of 35% for carbon ber-reinforced polymers (CFRP) and of 57% for glass ber-reinforced polymers (GFRP). Values around 2% have been obtained for high quality CFRP laminates. Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (qv) (DMA) or dynamic thermal mechanical analysis (DTMA) indicate damage in polymers or PMC (34), and aging effects in polymers by a shift in the transition temperature (35). Limitations are the volume of the test chamber or the required specimen shape. Compliance, ie, the displacement-to-load ratio, is used in fracture mechanics tests to determine crack length or to monitor crack growth (36). Vibration or modal analysis yield indications of defects in structural elements or parts when excited by suitable loads (37) (also see SONIC AND ULTRASONIC TEST METHODS). The literature mainly describes applications to PMC laminates, aiming at detecting critical delaminations (38). A relative comparison for a specic element with time, loading, or exposure may be sufcient to nd indications of a defect or of a change in the behavior of the structure. Comparison with nite element calculations is one approach for quantitative evaluation (39). Recent research on monitoring of PMC elements or structures also investigates the use of piezoelectric sensors for detection of delaminations by external excitation (40).

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

Table 2. Classes of NDT Methods Class Mechanical Methods (examples) E-modulus measurement Vibration analysis Modal analysis Scanning probe microscopy Visual inspection Optical microscopy Brillouin scattering Photoelasticity Projection moire Shearography Optical holography X-ray radiography X-ray tomography -ray radiography Neutron radiography Neutron scattering Electron microscopy Dielectric spectroscopy Resistance measurement Eddy-current testing Tap testing Acoustic emission Acousto-ultrasonics Ultrasonics Acoustic microscopy Thermography Remarks Mostly indirect indications of defects

Optical

Using visible part of electromagnetic spectrum (wavelength roughly between 400 and 700 nm)

Penetrating radiation

Electromagnetic (wavelengths below about 1 nm) and particle radiation

Electromagnetic

X-ray and -ray classied among penetrating radiation

Sonic/ultrasonic

Thermal/infrared

Infrared spectrometry is classied among chemical/analytical

Chemical/analytical

Infrared spectrometry Raman spectrometry Ultraviolet spectrometry X-ray spectrometry Magnetic resonance imaging

Scanning probe microscopy of polymers (listing of web sites on Atomic Force and Scanning Probe Microscopy, with images, is available at http://www.ou.edu/research/electron/www-vl/afm.shtml) and PMC (41,42), beside images indicating possible defects, yields mechanical properties, eg, force-stiffness relations (43), and quantitative surface roughness or corrugation relating to tribology (44), on a microscopic scale (see also MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE OF PLASTICS).

Optical Test Methods

Optical test methods use the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum; ie, they comprise a subset of the electromagnetic test methods.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

Visual inspection by eye is certainly the oldest method and is widely used, but subject to physiological limitations. Optical and electronic equipment, eg, endoscopes originally developed for medical applications, and electronic image recording and processing have become standard tools for visual inspection. Composition and/or morphology of many polymers and PMC limit NDT visual inspection to surface and near-surface features. Transparent polymers and semitransparent PMC allow for the detection of inhomogeneities, such as voids, pores, or cracks, as well as qualitative or semiquantitative estimates of ber volume fraction and/or ber alignment. Light sources enhance sensitivity in visual through-thickness and surface inspection. Standards for visual inspection of polymer products are in preparation (12). Evaluation requires experience and is operator-dependent. Indications can be documented with photography. Digital photography or digitization of photographs allow for image processing and automated image analysis. Conventional dye penetrant testing for surface crack detection in PMC is described in older literature (45), but is now rarely used, except for highlighting cracks in PMC after destructive sectioning (46). Optical microscopy has also proted from recent advances. Scanning near eld optical microscopy (SNOM) (47) (SNOM images of polymers and other materials are available at, eg, http://wwwex.physik.uni-ulm.de/SNOMWeb/), eg, reaches spatial resolution at the molecular level when using uorescent molecules, competing with the scanning probe methods (48). The limitations are typical specimen size and scanning area. Using coherent or structured light to illuminate the test object can reveal information that is not accessible to visual inspection (25,49,50). Commonly, a lm or camera is used to record this information. Interferometric methods use laser illumination to measure surface deformations under thermal, mechanical, vibration, or pressure loading (51). By virtue of the high sensitivity of a few tens of nanometer, inhomogeneities in the interference fringe pattern due to cracks, delaminations, or material inhomogeneities can be revealed using small loads. Because the laser light is only used to record the information, care must be taken to set up the appropriate loading scheme that enhances the type of defect to be found. Well-known methods in composite testing, especially for aerospace and spacecraft applications, are electronic or digital speckle pattern (correlation) interferometry (ESPI or DSPI) (5255) and shearography, also termed shearing speckle pattern interferometry (SSPI) (56). The methods are used to nd indications of delaminations, voids, and cracks. Quantitative evaluation of deformation and strain is also important (57) and can be used to measure stress concentrations, vibration modes (58,59), or material parameters. By nature, the techniques discussed are surface techniques and therefore most appropriate for surface or close-to-surface defects. However, when combined with transient loads, some information on the depth of a aw can be gained (60). (Digital) holographic interferometry (61) basically yields the same information as DSPI, but is limited because it requires a development step (photographic processing or numerical reconstruction) before indicating the load effect on the object.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

Limitations of the interferometric techniques are due to the required mechanical stability of the measurement head relative to the object of better than 1 m. Safety regulations for using high power lasers also have to be observed. , projection moire , and Structured light methods comprise shadow moire fringe projection (25,62). They use a structured intensity pattern, most commonly a set of parallel fringes, to illuminate the object. A camera records the fringes on methods (63) ne pitch the object surface from a triangulation angle. In moire gratings can be used, because the imaged fringes are demodulated by a reference methods are usually used grating in front of the camera before recording. Moire to measure deformations or to compare the shape of objects, eg, in production control, with a resolution of roughly 1/10,000 of the eld of view (6466). The physics of fringe projection is basically the same (67), but the fringes are directly recorded by the camera. Hence, the pitch of the grating is limited by the camera resolution. By using a sequence of ever coarser gratings and a calibrated setup, the absolute shape of an object is acquired with a resolution of roughly 1/1,000 of the eld of view (68).

Penetrating Radiation Test Methods

Penetrating radiation comprises electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range below about 1 nm (roughly equivalent to 1 keV energy) or particle radiation. The former is generated in the electronic shell of atoms (X-rays) or by processes in the atomic nuclei ( -rays). Particle radiation can be generated with particle accelerators, sometimes requiring special targets. Neutrons, eg, come from a spallation source (69) or a nuclear reactor. X-rays are produced by electron beam impact on targets in evacuated tubes or in accelerators by Bremsstrahlung, the braking radiation emitted by accelerated, charged particles. Ultraviolet and low energy X-ray radiation of high intensity from synchrotrons is used for analysis (70) and processing (71) of polymers and PMC. A list of currently operational synchrotron sources is available, eg, at http://www.src.wisc.edu/community/sr sources.html (see SYNCHROTRON RADIATION). Polymers and PMC are of relatively low density and hence do not absorb X-rays or -rays efciently. Low energy radiation (typically 1040 keV) yields enhanced contrast for X-ray radioscopy or radiography of polymers and PMC due to the nonlinear shape of the absorption versus energy curve (72). Higher energy - and X-ray sources are hence less suitable. Contrast can be enhanced by X-ray contrast agents or X-ray dye penetrants (73). These consist of high density materials, eg, liquid halogen compounds (ZnI, methylenediiodide, or diiodobutane) and are different from the dye penetrants used in visual penetrant testing. Test objects are immersed or the contrast agent is injected into, eg, cracks or delaminations extending to the surface of the test object. Any pore, void, crack, or delamination not extending to the surface hence escapes detection. Sufcient wetting between contrast agent and material is important for complete penetration. Even then, a minimum amount of contrast agent is necessary to obtain detectable contrast. Many commercial contrast agents (1) are toxic or carcinogenic requiring appropriate safety measures, (2) are volatile to some degree, limiting immersion time and imaging duration, (3) are of limited

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

shelf live, and (4) raise concerns about inducing deleterious effects (73). There is at least one documented case of suspected dye penetrant induced microcracking in PMC (74). Penetration and absorption of the electromagnetic or particle radiation results in energy deposition (heating) and implantation of beam particles. Energy deposition and particle irradiation may affect the microstructure and induce breaking or formation of new molecular bonds. Examples are gamma radiation effects (75) and cross-linking in polyethylene by electron irradiation (71). The intensity needed for cross-linking usually exceeds that obtained from NDT beam sources. Conventional X-ray tubes with an energy range from 10 to 450 keV have a typical source diameter (focal spot) of a few millimeters. Microfocal X-ray sources (76) with a source diameter of about 5 to 10 m allow for magnication in X-ray radiography by projection imaging (test object close to source, imaging system at a distance). The small source size limits the blur due to geometrical projection with conventional X-ray sources. Energymicrofocal X-ray sources operate up to about 200 keVand intensity limit the maximum distance between source and imaging system. Magnication can be up to 100 times, but frequently the size of details to be imaged or the maximum size of the imaging system set lower limits. At energies below 40 keV, X-ray absorption in air is a major limitation, and replacing air by low density helium has been recommended (77). This requires a special enclosure for X-ray source and imaging system, often limiting the size of the test object. X-ray beam hardening (78), ie, the preferential absorption of low energy X-rays in the test object, also occurs in polymers and PMC, but to a lesser extent than in denser materials. Low X-ray intensity yields longer exposure times; for a 1-mm thick CFRP plate a G2 class X-ray lm (79) (ie, a D4 class lm at that time), 1718 keV X-ray energy, 1000 mm imaging systemfocus distance, and a focusobject distance of 150 mm, resulted in an exposure of about 600 s (80). X-ray image intensiers converting the incident X-rays into an image on a scintillating screen allow time-resolved X-ray imaging when recorded with a video camera. Crack initiation in PMC, eg, was investigated with a microfocal X-ray source and X-ray image intensier with 25-Hz video imaging at magnications between 5 and 10 times (81). Digitized frames of the video recording can be electronically processed and analyzed. Conventional or X-ray lm still images can also be digitized for electronic processing (82). X-ray radiography is moving from X-ray lm to computed radiography (CR). Reusable imaging plates with 25 or 50 m resolution are commercially available. Manufacturers data sheets indicate that up to 1000 recorderase cycles can be performed (83). Special electronic lters may improve detection of indications. Electronic image recording and storage allow for easy processing and electronic data transmission. However, long-term storage and readability of the records may pose problems in the future. Development of standards in CR is under way (84,85). X-ray Compton back-scattering can yield indications of delaminations in PMC without the use of contrast agents, ie, including those that do not extend to the surface. The basis is a special sourcedetector arrangement (86).

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

X-ray laminography was developed for investigating specic layers of berreinforced laminate sheets by multiple exposure on the same lm. Recently, it has been developed into a computer tomography (CT) method (87), but is rarely used. X-ray CT with commercial CT equipment or synchrotron radiation (70) is increasingly used in research and development, and industrial use is incipient. X-ray micro-CT yields spatial resolution of around 1020 m for microfocal (76) and down to 12 m for synchrotron X-ray sources (88). These resolutions require small test objects, around a few cubic decimeters in the microfocal and a few cubic centimeters in the synchrotron X-ray source. X-ray refraction, based on small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS), may prove useful in the detection of microdamage in PMC, such as crack growth (89) and ber debonding (90). SAXS images of polymer nanocomposites are shown in Reference 91. Near-edge X-ray absorption ne structure (NEXAFS) and related X-ray techniques provide information on composition and morphology of polymers on a microscopic scale (see X-RAY MICROSCOPY). Neutrons nd various applications in the characterization of polymers and PMC (92). Neutron scattering experiments investigate structure and behavior of polymers at the atomic level (93). Neutron absorption as a function of the atomic number of the elements differs from that of X-rays, and the power of neutron radiography (94) for polymers and PMC, even combined with metals, is illustrated at, eg, http://neutra.web.psi.ch/gallery/index.html. Currently operational neutron radiography sources are listed at www.anlw.anl.gov/nr/oldindex.htm. Positron annihilation spectroscopy (PAS) is used in research on free volume (95) or on aging effects in polymers (96), and muon spin resonance with muon beams (97) yields information on dynamic processes in polymers (98), but specimen size may be limited. Electron microscopy is one example of electron beam analysis of polymers and PMC. Beam charging effects occur in most polymers and PMC (99), unless when coated with a thin conductive layer (carbon, gold, or platinum). Environmental scanning electron microscopes (ESEM) do not require such coatings (100). Size and shape of the test object and possible electron beam heating effects then decide whether the method is NDT.

Electromagnetic Test Methods

Many polymers and most PMC show no or only comparatively low electrical conductivity, which limits application of electromagnetic test methods. One of the main exceptions is CFRP. The continuous network of carbon bers in CFRP allows for electrical resistance measurements, eg, based on the four-probe method. Electrical potential (101) or resistance methods are used in fracture mechanics to detect delaminations (102) and to monitor damage in CFRP (103). Whether the application of electrodes is nondestructive depends on the intended use. Electrical conductivity measurements have also been developed as tomography (104). Eddy-current testing (ET) of CFRP laminates is feasible (105). ET is noncontact and NDT, as long as thermal effects from resistive heating and energy dissipation are sufciently small. Superconducting quantum interference devices (SQUID) have been used for ET to detect damage in CFRP (106). However, SQUID

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

may soon be replaced by sensors based on giant magnetoresistance (GMR) or giant magnetoimpedance (GMI) effects (107). Dielectric measurements are performed on polymers and PMC for research and industrial applications, specically to nd materials with low dielectric losses (108) (see DIELECTRIC RELAXATION). Fractoluminescence (109), ie, the emission of visible light, and electromagnetic emission from fracture of polymers or PMC (110) have not yet been investigated as NDT tools. Microwave testing is applicable to nonconducting materials (111) and used, eg, for exciting ultrasonic waves in PMC (112) or the characterization of anisotropic materials, such as short berreinforced injection molded parts (113). The energy deposition due to microwave radiation, on the other hand, is applied in processing of polymers and PMC (114).

Sonic and Ultrasonic Test Methods

Sonic and ultrasonic test methods use elastic waves propagating in solid or uid media and are classied into active and passive methods. The former requires emission of waves into the test object; the latter, waves emitted by the material itself. Tap testing a PMC structure by hand or by a suitable instrument, an experienced operator can tell whether the structure is sufciently defect-free (115). Acoustic emission (AE) analysis is an example of a passive method (21). Beside piezoceramic lead zirconate titanate (PZT) sensors, thin piezoelectric poly(vinylidene uoride) (PVDF) lms (116) and noncontact interferometry (117) also sense the rapid, transient elastic waves generated inside most materials. Composites (118) made from PZT bers have recently been characterized as AE sensors (119). AE of polymers and PMC is affected by (1) relatively large signal attenuation limiting the maximum distance between sensor and signal source, and mainly in PMC; (2) anisotropy, limiting location accuracy; and (3) several source mechanisms that can act simultaneously. In PMC, the so-called Felicity effect ie, the appearance of AE activity at the same sensitivity but lower load levels than previously attained (31), forms the base of commercial AE applications in integrity assessment of PMC structures (9). Quantitative AE analysis for characterizing damage accumulation in PMC is described in Reference 120, approaches for signal analysis and identication of mechanisms in Reference 121, and a practical AE application to automotive composites in Reference 122. Ultrasonic waves (typically in the MHz range) can be excited by piezoelectric transducers coupled to the test object. Electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMAT) (123) cannot be used for ultrasonics of polymers and PMC; alternatives are discussed in Reference 124. The waves propagate and are scattered and attenuated in the material. The signal can be detected in either reection or transmission mode (by the transducer emitting the ultrasonic pulse for reection or by additional transducers at other locations in transmission). Acousto-ultrasonics (AU) (11) records low frequency guided waves (typically 30500 kHz) emitted at another location to detect changes in the test objects, eg, in carboncarbon

10

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

composites (125). Recently developed stacked transducers look promising for low frequency applications (126). Ultrasonic A-, B-, and C-scans (23) can be obtained from polymers and PMC. Isotropic or anisotropic elastic constants, attenuation, and phase transitions are detected in detailed A-scan data analysis (127,128). Ultrasonics is also used for process monitoring in manufacturing of polymeric or PMC parts (129). Ultrasonic C-scan is standard for quality inspection of PMC plates (28), but the large signal attenuation with penetration depth limits this to thin plates. Lower frequency waves, eg, 0.5 MHz, yield larger penetration for equivalent attenuation, but the longer wavelengths limit the spatial resolution (eg, 6 mm for 0.5 MHz at 3000 m/s). Another limitation is posed by the shadowing effect in PMC. The delamination closest to the transducer will reect the ultrasonic pulse to such an extent that delaminations below will be masked, unless their lateral size is larger. Even C-scans taken on both sides do not necessarily guarantee detection of delaminations in all layers. In the reection mode, repeat echoes from multiple reections have to be distinguished from real indications, especially in relatively thin PMC shells. The shape of certain structures, eg, shells or thin rods with small radii of curvature, limits the application of ultrasonics, but there is equipment that allows three-dimensional movement of the transducer (130). The standard coupling via immersion in water or use of water jets may be prohibited, since many polymers and PMC change mechanical properties or chemical composition due to penetration of water (swelling, softening, leaching of components, hydrolysis). If immersion in water is used, formation of gas-bubbles from dissolved air has to be prevented. Gel-like coupling agents may leave stains on the surface, but now wheel array sensors for dry coupling (131,132) are available, eg, for the inspection of aerospace structures (133). Air-coupled ultrasonics also offer an alternative (131,134,135). Ultrasonic pulses in polymers and PMC can also be generated by laser (136,137), but this may lead to heating effects. Ultrasonic imaging is widely used for electronic components, where indications of defects (delaminations, cracks, pores) in the epoxy packaging have to be detected (138). Ultrasonic computer tomography (CT) of polymers is feasible (139). Recently, phased-array technology (140) has become a novel ultrasonic scanning technique. Multielement transducers in conjunction with high speed electronics allow for electronic focusing and steering of the ultrasonic beam. Since no mechanical movement is involved, the scanning speed can be enhanced, enabling imaging for on-line control of manufacturing (141,142). Ultrasonic transducers can excite various wave modes, eg, guided Lamb waves that may be suitable for specic applications (143). Ultrasonic excitation is also used to detect the so-called acoustic nonlinearity associated with defects, eg, in PMC (144,145). The combination of recording guided ultrasonic waves with numerical back-calculation of wave propagation for detecting indications of defects in PMC pipes also looks promising (146). Surface-bonded ber optics can detect ultrasonic waves via interferometric techniques (147). Beyond frequencies of 1 GHz, ultrasonics is called acoustic microscopy; for details, the reader is referred to Reference 148. This technique can be applied to polymers or PMC (149), specically to polymeric microelectronics packaging (150).

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

11

Thermal and Infrared Test Methods

Thermal and infrared methods can also be classied as passive or active (see THERMAL ANALYSIS). Passive thermography, ie, recording the temperature distribution, is rarely used for detecting indications, but probably found useful in polymer and PMC process monitoring (151). The emissivity of the specimen and other factors have to be considered for accurate measurements (152). Active thermography requires the application of a stimulus (thermal heat), either as single pulse (153) or continuously varying with time (154). The pulse, typically from ash lights, its duration, and intensity, as well as direction (surface or back side of test object) will affect the detectability of the indications (155). Surface nish or paint coats may affect the absorption of the pulse. In CFRP, excitation by short ultrasonic pulses (156) and noncontact eddy currents is also feasible. In lock-in thermography (154), the selected frequency of the heat wave to which the detector is tuned (locked) is important. Heat waves are diffusion waves that yield a quadratic dependence on time for the observation of indications at a certain depth of the test object. For thin-walled PMC shells (a few millimeters) this does not constitute a severe limitation (157). Limited operating temperature, pronounced temperature-dependent properties, and thermal degradation may pose limits on the application of active thermography to polymers and PMC. A recent example of a possible application of active thermography in PMC is the determination of the ber orientation of CFRP (158) that, in the future, may replace the conventional destructive methods.

Chemical and Analytical Test Methods

Chemical analysis of polymers typically deals with monomers or functional groups rather than constituent atoms. Thermal infrared and laser optical Raman spectrometry are the typical tools (36) (see TEST METHODS; VIBRATIONAL SPECTROSCOPY), but frequently, specic specimen size or form is required. For physical properties, mechanical and sonic/ultrasonic NDT methods are available (see above). Molecular mass distribution and related properties of polymers, or ber or particle volume fraction and distribution for PMC, are usually determined destructively (see TEST METHODS).

Detection, Sizing, and Evaluation of Indications with Nondestructive Test Methods Basic Approaches. The morphology of polymers and PMC comprises several levels, each with specic defects (see MORPHOLOGY). In NDT, a defect is an aggregate of or a single imperfection or discontinuity that exceeds specied acceptance criteria. These criteria may depend on and vary with location, size, or orientation of the indication. The indications can further be (1) relevant, (2) nonrelevant, or (3) false (31). Hence, not all detected indications are defects.

12

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

Locating the indication is frequently performed with imaging methods that also image reference points on the test object. Some nonimaging methods also yield information on location, eg, from source location algorithms in acoustic emission analysis (21). Locating is a prerequisite for sizing, ie, the determination of geometrical dimensions required by specied size criteria. This relates to the spatial resolution of the NDT method. For nonimaging methods, sizing may be replaced, eg, in acoustic emission by defect severity evaluation (159). Principles, limitations, and accuracy of defect location and sizing in polymers and PMC with specic NDT methods are described in (1626). Defect types frequently relate to the mechanism causing the indication. Many NDT methods have an intrinsic sensitivity for specic types of indications. Examples are (1) ultrasonic C-scans sensitive to boundaries between materials of different acoustic impedance (eg, voids, delaminations), (2) X-ray radiography sensitive to variations in density (eg, inclusion of foreign objects, voids), and (3) acoustic emission sensitive to microscopic stress release (eg, crack growth).

Determination of Structural Integrity with Nondestructive Test Methods. Some commercial NDT applications, mainly on PMC, do not aim at detection and evaluation of individual indications, but rather at the so-called structural integrity. Most technical structures contain aws that may evolve into defects that accumulate and grow with time. Structural integrity analysis evaluates test objects with respect to critical defect accumulation, beyond which further use may lead to catastrophic failure. A prime method for determination of the integrity of PMC structures is acoustic emission analysis (9,21). Driven in part by economic considerations, predicting the remaining service-life is increasing in importance. NDT monitoring is hence expected to contribute to, or to be incorporated into, service-life engineering approaches to design. Smart Monitoring of PolymerMatrix Composites Elements. The increasing use of PMC in structural elements or as reinforcement or for repair may, at least in critical applications, require periodic inspection or even continuous monitoring. Intermittent or continuous, smart monitoring of PMC aims at automatic detection of specied defects. One research direction develops intelligent materials or structures that sense indications, assess their signicance, eg, with computer-based evaluation or expert systems (160), and, if considered signicant, take appropriate corrective measures. A full review of smart monitoring of PMC structures is beyond the scope of this article, but a few examples will illustrate this active research area. Fiber optics based monitoring of PMC includes, eg, strain (161), temperature, acoustic emission signals, and other measurements (162). Electromagnetic resistance measurements yield information on strain changes and defect accumulation (101104). Even carbon nanotubes are now investigated as strain sensors in PMC (163). Piezoelectric thin wafers or plates (164) or active ber composites made from piezoelectric bers (165) also yield, eg, strain and acoustic emission signals. The performance of ber optics and piezoelectric sensors for detection of microdamage in CFRP is compared in Reference 166. Another area receiving increasing attention recently is the application of electroactive polymers in actuators and sensors (167). Quite likely, this could lead

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

13

to new approaches for NDT of polymers and PMC in the context of smart monitoring of structural elements.

Special Applications of Nondestructive Test Methods Determination of Geometry or Size and Reverse Engineering. So far, determination of geometrical characteristics has only been discussed with respect to defect location and sizing. However, NDT also comprises determining geometrical characteristics of test objects per se (31). Determination of size and shape, with calipers by hand, with gauges, or with computer-controlled tactile coordinate-measuring machines, is a routine quality assurance procedure, but noncontact methods are also used (168). Size and shape of the test object may pose some limitations. Another example is wall thickness measurements with dedicated ultrasonic thickness gauges (169). As discussed above, the maximum thickness is limited by the frequency-dependent, attenuating properties of polymers and PMC. Requirements on spatial resolution, eg, for test objects where the wall thickness varies over distances that are short compared with the size of the probe, pose another limitation. CT offers another approach for determining geometrical characteristics, X-ray CT being most widely used. CT based on other probe types (see Table 2), eg, ultrasonics (139), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), also called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) imaging (170) (see NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE), optical coherence tomography (mainly applicable to GFRP but with limited penetration in CFRP and not suitable for aramide berreinforced PMC) (171), thermal impedance tomography (172), and positron emission tomography (173) are feasible as well. The driving force behind the development of industrial CT has been and still is the medical eld; new methods and improvements are likely to originate there (174). Spatial resolution in X-ray CT depends on the type of X-ray source and on the size and shape of the test object (76,88). X-ray and MRI CT, however, yield more than geometrical characteristics; the data can be converted into distributions of, eg, density, elemental composition (175), or even velocity (176). Three-dimensional CT representations of the geometry, converted into computeraided design (CAD)-compatible les (177), are used for quality control by comparing with CAD design data for deviations from specication and tolerances, or for computer-aided manufacturing, such as rapid prototyping or reverse engineering (178,179). Nondestructive Testing of Adhesive Joints. Many commercially available adhesives are based on polymers. NDT of adhesive joints (180) poses challenges because of (1) the small size of possibly deleterious defects (eg, porosity), (2) the thinness of the adhesive layers, and (3) sometimes, the size, shape, and material of the adherends. Acousto-ultrasonics (181) and various types of ultrasonics (182,183) are applicable to adhesive joints. Ultrasonics can be combined with noncontact optical methods (184) and pulsed thermography (185). However, the assessment of the quality or of the quantitative strength of the adhesive bond based on the NDT data often proves difcult. Process Monitoring and Process Control with Nondestructive Test Methods. NDT plays an important role in quality assurance for products from

14

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

all classes of materials and is increasingly used in process monitoring and control. NDT monitoring of polymers and PMC comprises, eg, cure monitoring of molding with thermography (151), infrared methods (186), ber optics (187), dielectric spectroscopy (188), or ultrasonics (129). Phased-array ultrasonics may be used for on-line manufacturing control (142). NDT process control requires sufciently fast data analysis and feedback into the process management or steering facility. Some approaches for smart monitoring of PMC, eg, AE, show potential for NDT process control. Cost may limit process control to either crucial or most effective parameters, eg, pressure and temperature in extrusion (189). Process simulation for optimization of parameters (190) prior to process implementation is also a cost-effective tool (see PROCESSING, MODELING).

Summary and Outlook

Beside technical aspects mentioned above, there are additional considerations for selecting NDT methods for a specic purpose. Cost, frequently, is decisive and major cost factors are (1) test duration, including time used for setup and post-test analysis and assessment; (2) type of equipment, its sophistication, calibration, and maintenance (compatibility with previous records from periodic inspection may require costly maintenance of aging equipment); (3) equipment operator, specically operator training and certication (191); (4) accreditation of test agency; (5) qualication or validation of the NDT method (192); and (6) accuracy and precision estimates required by test standards or quality management systems. NDT may hence be effective and economic in scientic research, product or process development, manufacturing process control, quality assurance, and inservice monitoring of crucial or high performance rather than mass produced, low cost polymer and PMC products. Size and shape of the test object relative to the required spatial and, sometimes, temporal resolution may signicantly inuence the choice of the NDT method. Small objects are readily tested with commercial equipment, while large objects may require portable equipment or robots, special test rigs, or several operators. Single shot imaging, if satisfying the specication, is to be preferred over scanning, where test duration mainly depends on scan time, ie, scan step to scan area ratio. The shape of test objects may preclude the use of imaging methods, eg, because of hidden areas or uneven spatial resolution. Large size combined with high spatial and/or temporal resolution increases the amount of data and duration of analysis. Five trends seem to govern the development of NDT, namely, (1) increasing sensitivity, (2) increasing spatial resolution, (3) decreasing test and analysis duration, (4) increasing automation of testing, analysis, and evaluation, and (5) increasing use of so-called real-time NDT methods (80). The increase in computing power at constant or even lower cost, frequently projected to follow an exponential growth, called Moores law (http://www.intel. com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm), is still defying predictions that computer technology will reach physical limits. Hence, the last three trends may continue, while the rst two may reach physical or economic limits sooner.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

15

Applying a combination of NDT methods is advisable in many cases. A useful guiding principle is to choose NDT methods that yield complementary information, eg, based on different probe types (Table 2). One example is acoustic emission monitoring with high sensitivity for potentially critical areas, followed by high spatial resolution inspection of such areas by, eg, ultrasonic or X-ray methods to quantitatively locate and size the indication. The general problem of selecting the optimum NDT method for polymers and PMC requires consideration and balancing of several aspects. These are (1) requirements on type and size of indications that have to be detected with specied condence compared to size and shape of the test object; (2) technical feasibility of the test method, including behavior of the material under the applied stimulus; (3) availability of the test method; (4) (eventually) formal requirements, eg, operator certication, test facility accreditation, test method validation; (5) (eventually) compatibility with previous measurements; and (6) overall cost. It would be of interest to have more quantitatively evaluated, comparative tests applying different NDT methods to specimens with simulated, known defects (80) or to real test objects. A comparative study of the cost of different NDT methods for polymer and PMC would also be welcome.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. M. Stamm and B. Carlowitz, Ullmanns Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, WileyVCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, Germany, 2002. 2. International Organization for Standardization Web site: http://www.iso.ch. Europe en de Normalisation Web site: http://www.cenorm.be. 3. Comite 4. International Electrotechnical Commission Web site: http://www.iec.ch. 5. American Society for Testing and Materials International Web site: http://www.astm.org. 6. J. ASTM Int. Electronic journal starting Jan. 2004, see Ref. 5. 7. NDT.net. Electronic journal available at http://www.ndt.net. 8. e-polymers. Electronic journal available at http://www.e-polymers.org. 9. ASTM E1067, Standard Practice for Acoustic Emission Examination of Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Resin (FRP) Tanks/Vessels, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.03, American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2004. 10. ASTM E1118, Standard Practice for Acoustic Emission Examination of Reinforced Thermosetting Resin Pipe (RTRP), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.03, American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2004. 11. ASTM E1736, Standard Practice for Acousto-Ultrasonic Assessment of FilamentWound Pressure Vessels, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.03, American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2004. 12. EN 13100-1, Nondestructive testing of welded joints of thermoplastics semi-nished products, Part 1: Visual examination. 13. prEN 13100-2, Nondestructive testing of welded joints of thermoplastics semi-nished products, Part 2: X-ray radiographic testing. 14. prEN 13100-3, Nondestructive testing of welded joints of thermoplastics semi-nished products, Part 3: Ultrasonic testing. 15. A. J. Brunner and J. Bohse, NDT.net 7(9), 10 (2002).

16

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

16. C. N. Jackson, C. N. Sherlock, and P. O. Moore, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 1: Leak Testing, 3rd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1998. 17. N. Tracy and P. O. Moore, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 2: Liquid Penetrant Testing, 3rd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1999. 18. X. P. V. Maldague and P. O. Moore, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 3: Infrared and Thermal Testing, 3rd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 2001. 19. R. H. Bossi, F. A. Iddings, G. C. Wheeler, and P. O. Moore, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 4: Radiographic Testing, 3rd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 2002. 20. S. S. Udpa and P. O. McIntire, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 4: Electromagnetic Testing, 3rd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 2004. 21. R. K. Miller and P. McIntire, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 5: Acoustic Emission Testing, 2nd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1987. 22. Th. J. Schmidt, K. Skeie, and P. McIntire, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 6: Magnetic Particle Testing, 2nd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1989. 23. A. S. Birks, R. E. Green Jr., and P. McIntire, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 7: Ultrasonic Testing, 2nd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1991. 24. M. W. Allgaier, S. Ness, P. McIntire, and P. O. Moore, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 8: Visual and Optical Testing, 2nd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1993. 25. R. K. Stanley, P. O. Moore, and P. McIntire, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 9: Special Nondestructive Testing Methods, 2nd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1995. 26. S. Ness, C. N. Sherlock, P. O. Moore, and P. McIntire, eds., Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Vol. 10: Nondestructive Testing Overview, 2nd ed., American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, Ohio, 1996. 27. J. Summerscales, ed., Non-Destructive Testing of Fibre-Reinforced Plastics Composites, Vol. 1, Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford, 1987. 28. J. Summerscales, ed., Non-Destructive Testing of Fibre-Reinforced Plastics Composites, Vol. 2, Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford, 1990. 29. Committee on Acoustic Emission from Reinforced Plastics, CARP of the Society of Plastics Industries, J. Acoustic Emission 11(3), C1C24 (1993). 30. ASTM E1495, Standard Guide for Acousto-Ultrasonic Assessment of Composites, Laminates, and Bonded Joints, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.03, American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2004. 31. ASTM E1316, Standard Terminology for Nondestructive Examinations, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 03.03, American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2004. 32. ASTM D3878, Standard Terminology for Composite Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.03, American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, Pa., 2004. 33. ASTM WK581, Standard Guide for Assessing the Porosity of Polymeric Scaffolds for Use in Tissue-Engineered Medical Products, New Work Item, ASTM Subcommittee F04.42, see information in Ref. 5.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

17

34. D. S. Jones, Int. J. Pharm. 179, 167178 (1999). 35. C. Saron and M. I. Felisberti, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 370, 293301 (2004). 36. P. Davies, A. J. Brunner, and B. R. K. Blackman, Appl. Compos. Mater. 5(6), 354364 (1998). 37. S. S. Kessler, S. M. Spearing, M. J. Atalla, C. E. S. Cesnik, and C. Soutis, Compos., Part B: Eng. 33, 8795 (2002). 38. S. Vanlanduit and P. Guillaume, Mech. Systems Signal Process. 18, 7988 (2004). and A. Schorderet, Compos., Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 35(7/8), 39. J. Cugnoni, Th. Gmur, 977987 (2004). 40. P. Tan and L. Tong, J. Compos. Mater. 38(4), 321325 (2004). 41. D. W. Bonnell, Scanning Probe Microscopy and Spectroscopy, Theory, Techniques, and Applications, 2nd ed., Wiley-VCH, New York, 2001. 42. B. D. Ratner and V. V. Tsukruk, eds., Scanning Probe Microscopy of Polymers (ACS Symposium Series 694), American Chemical Society Division of Polymer Chemistry, Calif. ACS Meeting, Orlando, 1996. ne, J.-B.D. Green, and G. U. Lee, Curr. Opin. 43. R. J. Colton, D. R. Baselt, Y. F. Dufre Chem. Biol. 1, 370377 (1997). 44. G. V. Dedkov, Phys. Status Solidi A 179, 375 (2000). 45. R. Vipond and C. J. Daniels, Composites 16(1), 1418 (1985). 46. S. A. Hitchen and S. L. Ogin, Compos. Sci. Technol. 47(3), 239244 (1993). 47. K. D. Jandt, Mater. Sci. Eng. R 21, 221295 (1998). 48. J. Michaelis, C. Hettich, J. Mlynek, and V. Sandoghdar, Nature 405, 325328 (2000). 49. P. K. Rastogi and D. Inaudi, eds., Trends in Optical Non-destructive Testing and Inspection, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000. 50. P. K. Rastogi, ed., Optical Measurement Techniques and Applications, Artech House, London, 1997. 51. R. Jones and C. Wykes, Holographic and Speckle Interferometry, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. 52. M. V. Rao, R. Samuel, and A. Ananthan, Opt. Lasers Eng. 40, 563571 (2003). 53. G. Georgeson, Proc. Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. SPIE 4704, 104115 (2002). 54. M. O. W. Richardson, Z.-Y. Zhang, M. Wisheart, J. R. Tyrer, and J. Petzing, Compos., Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 29(7), 721729 (1998). 55. W. C. Wang, C. H. Day, C. H. Hwang, and T. B. Chiou, Res. Nondestr. Eval. 10(1), 115 (1998). 56. H. O. Nyongesa, A. W. Otieno, and P. L. Rosin, Compos. Struct. 54(2/3), 313318 (2001). 57. V. Shchepinov and V. Pisarev, eds., Strain and Stress Analysis by Holographic and Speckle Interferometry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996. 58. M. Whelan, Key Eng. Mater. 167/168, 12231 (1999). 59. M. Roesel, K. Herstrass, and P. Bajons, Ultrasonics 41, 663669 (2003). 60. A. Davila, P. D. Ruiz, G. H. Kaufmann, and J. M. Huntley, Opt. Lasers Eng. 40, 447 458 (2003). 61. T. Kreis, Holographic Interferometry, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1996. 62. M. Heredia-Ortiz and E.-A. Patterson, Strain 39(3), 95100 (2003). 63. O. Kafri and I. Glatt, The Physics of Moire Metrology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1990. 64. H. R. Meyer-Piening, M. Farshad, B. Geier, and R. Zimmermann, Compos. Struct. 53(4), 42735 (2001). 65. A. H. Fagg, B. Hales, and H. P. Stahl, Proc. Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. SPIE 1779, 6872 (1992). 66. T. M. Wang, I. M. Daniel, and J. T. Gotro, J. Compos. Mater. 26(6), 883899 (1992). 67. P. Tatasciore and E. K. Hack, Opt. Eng. 34(7), 18871898 (1995). 68. W. Osten, Opt. Eng. 39(1), 232243 (2000).

18
69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING
G. S. Bauer, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B 139, 6571 (1998). R. J. Cernik and P. Barnes, Radiat. Phys. Chem. 45(3), 445457 (1995). R. L. Clough, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B 185, 833 (2001). R. C. Barry and R. A. Betz, Mater. Eval. 49, 474477 (1991). G. Sala, Compos., Part B: Eng. 31, 357373 (2000). A. Paige Clifton Furrow, D. A. Dillard, T. L. St. Clair, J. Hinkley, J. Compos. Mater. 32, 3148 (1998). J. C. M. Suarez and R. S. de Biasi, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 82(2), 221227 (2003). R. V. Ely, ed., Microfocal Radiography, Academic Press, London, U.K., 1980. I. Rudich, L. Lesensky, and F. Kapelewski, Mater. Eval. 44, 11581184 (1986). R. Ferreira de Paiva, J. Lynch, E. Rosenberg, and M. Bisiaux, NDT&E Int. 31(1), 1722 (1998). EN 584-1, Non-destructive testingIndustrial radiographic lmPart 1: Classica Europe en de Normalisation, tion of lm systems for industrial radiography, Comite 1994. A. J. Brunner and J. Neuenschwander, in C. A. Mota Soares, C. M. Mota Soares, and M. J. M. Freitas, eds., Mechanics of Composite Materials and Structures (NATO Science Series E: Applied Science 361), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass., 1999, pp. 261278. A. J. Brunner, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 185(2/4), 161172 (2000). M. K. Choong, M. Bister, P. Sathyamoorthy, Zaharah, H. Y. Boey, and Y. C. Wong, Int. Congr. Ser. 1256, 285291 (2003). U. Ewert, Y. Onel, U. Zscherpel, J. Stade, and P. Willems, in Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 27252732. ASTM WK670, Test Method for Classication of Computed Radiology Systems, New Work Item, ASTM Subcommittee E07.01, see information in Ref. 5. ASTM WK4511, Standard Practice for the Qualication of Computed Radiography Systems, New Work Item, ASTM Subcommittee E07.01, see information in Ref. 5. J. Kosanetzky, G. Harding, H. H. Fischer, and A. Meyer, Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Pergamon Press, New York, 1988, pp. 21182132. ning, and W. Arnold, Nucl. Eng. Des. S. Gondrom, J. Zhou, M. Maisl, H. Reiter, M. Kro 190, 141147 (1999). kely, K. Rufeux, Ph. Thurner, B. Muller, F. Beckmann, M. Huser, F. Maspero, G. Sze and E. Wintermantel, Biomol. Eng. 19, 7378 (2002). K.-W. Harbich, M. P. Hentschel, and J. Schors, NDT&E Int. 34, 297302 (2001). M. P. Hentschel, K.-W. Harbich, and A. Lange, NDT&E Int. 27(5), 275280 (1994). S. S. Ray and M. Okamoto, Prog. Polym. Sci. 28, 15391641 (2003). M. W. Johnson, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 46(6/7), 673680 (1995). R.-J. Roe, Methods of X-Ray and Neutron Scattering in Polymer Science (Topics in Polymer Science Series), Oxford University Press, New York, 2000. S. Fujine, K. Yoneda, K. Yoshii, M. Kamata, M. Tamaki, K. Ohkubo, Y. Ikeda, and H. Kobayashi, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 424, 190199 (1999). D. Fink, M. Muller, S. Ghosh, K. K. Dwivedi, J. Vacik, V. Hnatowicz, J. Cervena, Y. Kobayashi, and K. Hirata, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 156, 170176 (1999). D. M. Bigg, Polym. Eng. Sci. 36(6), 737743 (1996). H. Daniel, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 68, 459467 (1992). F. L. Pratt, S. J. Blundell, Th. Jestadt, B. W. Lovett, A. Husmann, I. M. Marshall, W. Hayes, A. Monkman, I. Watanabe, K. Nagamine, R. E. Martin, and A. B. Holmes, Physica B 289/290, 625630 (2000).

80.

81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

86.

87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

96. 97. 98.

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

19

99. G. Czeremuszkin, M. Latr` eche, and M. R. Wertheimer, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 185, 8899 (2001). 100. C. M. Ramsdale, I. C. Bache, J. D. MacKenzie, D. S. Thomas, A. C. Arias, A. M. Donald, R. H. Friend, and N. C. Greenham, Physica E 14, 268271 (2002). 101. A. Todoroki, H. Kobayashi, and K. Matuura, JSME Int. J. Ser. A 38(4), 524530 (1995). 102. A. Todoroki and Y. Tanaka, Compos. Sci. Technol. 62(5), 629639 (2002). 103. D. D. L. Chung and S. K. Wang, Polym. Polym. Compos. 11(7), 515525 (2003). 104. R. Schueler, S. P. Joshi, and K. Schulte, Compos. Sci. Technol. 61(6), 921930 (2001). 105. G. Mook, R. Lange, and O. Koeser, Compos. Sci. Technol. 61(6), 865873 (2001). 106. Y. Hatsukade, N. Kasai, M. Kurosawa, R. Kawai, H. Takashima, F. Kojima, and A. Ishiyama, Physica C 372376, 267270 (2002). 107. A. E. Mahdi, L. Panina, and D. Mapps, Sens. Actuators, A 105, 271285 (2003). 108. M. Bini, R. Olmi, A. Ignesti, J. Abusleme, M. Bassi, and A. Sanguineti, Mater. Res. Innovations 8(1), 2326 (2004). 109. L. M. Sweeting, ChemMatters 8(3), 1012 (1990). 110. C. Sklarczyk, S. Winkler, and B. Thielicke, Materialwissenschaft und Werkstofftechnik 27, 559566 (1996) (in German). 111. W. Saleh, N. Qaddoumi, and M. Abu-Khousa, Compos. Struct. 62(3/4), 403407 (2003). 112. E. Guilliorit, B. Hosten, C. Bacon, and D. E. Chimenti, Ultrasonics 41, 97103 (2003). 113. L. Diener, Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestr. Eval. 14, 615 (1995). 114. S. Zhou and M. C. Hawley, Compos. Struct. 61, 303309 (2003). 115. D. K. Hsu, D. J. Barnard, and J. J. Peters, Proc. Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. SPIE 4336, 100107 (2001). 116. R. Stifer and E. G. Henneke, Mater. Eval. 41, 956960 (1983). 117. M. Enoki, M. Watanabe, P. Chivavibul, and T. Kishi, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 1, 157 165 (2000). 118. A. Bent and N. W. Hagood, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 8(11), 903919 (1997). 119. M. Barbezat, A. J. Brunner, P. Flueler, C. Huber, and X. Kornmann, Sens. Actuators, A 114(1), 1320 (2004). 120. R. A. Nordstrom, A. J. Brunner, and P. Flueler, J. Acoustic Emission 13(3/4), 6777 (1995). 121. J. Bohse, Compos. Sci. Technol. 60(8), 12131226 (2000). 122. N. Sato and T. Kurauchi, Res. Nondestr. Eval. 9, 119136 (1997). 123. S. Dixon and S. B. Palmer, Ultrasonics 42(10), 11231136 (2004). 124. W. M. D. Wright, D. A. Hutchins, A. Gachagan, and G. Hayward, Ultrasonics 34, 825833 (1996). 125. P. K. Raju and U. K. Vaidya, Polym. Compos. 17(2), 275287 (1996). 126. A. Cochran, P. Reynolds, and G. Hayward, Ultrasonics 36, 969977 (1998). 127. S. Baudouin and B. Hosten, Ultrasonics 34(25), 379382 (1996). 128. K. Matsushige, N. Hiramatsu, and H. Okabe, Adv. Polym. Sci. 125, 147186 (1996). ring, W. Stark, and G. Hinrichsen, NDT&E Int. 33(2), 123130 129. M. Rath, J. Do (2000). 130. D. J. Cotter, J. E. Michaels, T. E. Michaels, I. V. Ivakhnenko, and D. Kass, in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Paper No. 216, 2000; available in Ref. 7. 131. D. J. Cotter, T. E. Michaels, J. E. Michaels, D. Kass, M. E. Stanton, I. V. Kosenko, and F. H. C. Hotchkiss, in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Paper No. 215, 2000; available in Ref. 7. 132. S. J. Bourne, M. Newborough, and D. J. Highgate, INSIGHT 43(1), 2628 (2001). 133. C. J. Brotherhood, B. W. Drinkwater, and R. J. Freemantle, INSIGHT 45(11), 729734 (2003).

20

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

134. J. Buckley, in Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Paper No. 507, 2000; available in Ref. 7. 135. A. Neild, D. A. Hutchins, and D. R. Billson, Ultrasonics 42(19), 859864 (2004). 136. F. H. Chang, T. E. Drake, M. A. Osterkamp, R. S. Prowant, J. P. Monchalin, R. Heon, P. Bouchard, C. Padioleau, D. A. Froom, W. Frazier, and J. P. Barton, Rev. Prog. Quant. Nondestr. Eval. 12A, 611616 (1993). 137. J. P. Monchalin, Rev. Prog. Quantitative Nondestr. Eval. 23A, 331 (2004). 138. G. Pfannschmidt, in A. Briggs and W. Arnold, eds., Advances in Acoustic Microscopy, Vol. 2, 1996, pp. 138. 139. T. H. Gan, D. A. Hutchins, D. R. Billson, and F. C. Wong, Res. Nondestr. Eval. 13, 131152 (2001). 140. X. E. Gros, N. B. Cameron, and M. King, INSIGHT 44(11), 6736768 (2002). 141. M. Lethiecq, C. Pejot, M. Berson, P. Guillemet, and A. Roncin, NDT&E Int. 27(6), 311315 (1994). 142. J. Neuenschwander, B. Blau, I. L. Horvath, T. Luthi, and H. Marti, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 12, 11991202 (2002). 143. M. Castaings and B. Hosten, NDT&E Int. 34(4), 249258 (2001). 144. D. Donskoy, A. Sutin, and A. Ekimov, NDT&E Int. 34, 231238 (2001). 145. N. Krohn, R. Stoessel, and G. Busse, Ultrasonics 40, 633637 (2002). 146. T. Leutenegger and J. Dual, Ultrasonics 41(10), 811822 (2004). 147. T. S. Jang, S. S. Lee, and Y. G. Kim, Ultrasonics 42(19), 837841 (2004). 148. A. Briggs, Acoustic Microscopy, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992. 149. F. Lisy, A. Hiltner, E. Baer, J. L. Katz, and A. Meunier, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 52(2), 329352 (1994). 150. J. Yang, Microeletron. Reliability 36(9), 12911295 (1996). 151. A. R. Greenberg, S. S. Shojaie, W. B. Krantz, and S. B. Tantekin-Ersolmaz, J. Membr. Sci. 107, 249261 (1995). , and M. Svantner, 152. M. Honner, P. Litos Infrared Phys. Technol. 45, 131142 (2004). 153. S. M. Shepard, J. R. Lhota, T. Ahmed, and Y. L. Hou, SAMPE J. 39(5), 5359 (2003). 154. D. Wu and G. Busse, Revue Ge ne rale de Thermique 37, 693703 (1998). 155. G. Giorleo and C. Meola, NDT&E Int. 35, 287292 (2002). 156. A. Mian, X. Han, S. Islam, and G. Newaz, Compos. Sci. Technol. 64, 657666 (2004). 157. H. Berglind and A. Dillenz, NDT&E Int. 36, 395399 (2003). 158. W. Karpen, D. Wu, and G. Busse, Res. Nondestr. Eval. 11, 179197 (1999). 159. B. R. A. Wood and R. W. Harris, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping 77, 125132 (2000). 160. S. N. Dwivedi and A. Sharan, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 141, 155162 (2003). nnimann, A. Frank, P. Mauron, and U. Sennhauser, Proc. Int. Soc. 161. P. M. Nellen, R. Bro Opt. Eng. SPIE 3860, 4454 (1999). 162. P. Clark, J. Boriniski, M. Gunther, S. Poland, D. Wigent, and S. Watkins, Smart Mater. Bull. 2001(6), 811 (2001). 163. A. H. Barber, Q. Zhao, H. D. Wagner, and C. A. Baillie, Compos. Sci. Technol. 64, 19151919 (2004). 164. G. Mook, J. Pohl, and F. Michel, Smart Mater. Struct. 12, 9971004 (2003). 165. X. Kornmann, C. Huber, M. Barbezat, and A. J. Brunner, in Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Composite Materials, 2004, p. 9, Paper B047. 166. J.-M. Park, S.-I. Lee, O.-Y. Kwon, H.-S. Choi, and J.-H. Lee, Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 34, 203216 (2003). 167. Y. Bar-Cohen, ed., Proc. Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. SPIE 5385, 2004. 168. W. Li and P. Gu, Computer-Aided Des. 36, 13951417 (2004). 169. prEN 1427 Non-Destructive TestingUltrasonic Thickness Measurement, Comite en de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 2003. Europe

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

21

170. D. E. Demco and B. Blumich, Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 5, 195202 (2001). 171. J. P. Dunkers, F. R. Phelan, D. P. Sanders, M. J. Everett, W. H. Green, D. L. Hunston, and R. S. Parnas, Opt. Lasers Eng. 35, 135147 (2001). 172. R. Smallwood, P. Metzerall, D. Hose, M. Delves, H. Pollock, A. Hammiche, C. Hodges, V. Mathot, and P. Willcocks, Thermochim. acta 385, 1932 (2002). 173. C. Degueldre, H. Pleinert, P. Maguire, E. Lehmann, J. Missimer, J. Hammer, K. Leen ck, and D. Townsend, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 140, 213225 (1996). ders, H. Bo 174. G. Sakas, Comput. Graphics 26, 577587 (2002). 175. D. H. Phillips and J. J. Lannutti, NDT&E Int. 30(6), 339350 (1997). 176. R. Kimmich, A. Klemm, and M. Weber, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 19, 353361 (2001). 177. A. F. Obrist, A. Flisch, and J. Hofmann, NDT&E Int. 37(5), 373380 (2004). 178. X. Yan and P. Gu, Computer-Aided Des. 28(4), 307318 (1996). 179. B. Schillinger, W. Blumlhuber, A. Fent, and M. Wegner, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 424, 5865 (1999). 180. R. D. Adams and B. W. Drinkwater, NDT&E Int. 30(2), 9398 (1997). 181. O.-Y. Kwon, T.-H. Kim, and K.-J. Lee, Proceedings 15th World Conference on NonDestructive Testing, Paper No. 473, 2000; available in Ref. 7. 182. C. J. Brotherhood, B. W. Drinkwater, and S. Dixon, Ultrasonics 41(7), 521529 (2003). 183. A. M. Robinson, B. W. Drinkwater, and J. Allin, NDT&E Int. 36, 2736 (2003). 184. F. Lanza di Scalea, M. Bonomo, D. Tuzzeo, Res. Nondestr. Eval. 13, 153171 (2001). 185. J. A. Schroeder, T. Ahmed, B. Chaudhry, and S. Shepard, Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 33, 15111517 (2002). and S. Andjelic , Polymer 37(8), 12951303 (1996). 186. J. Mijovic 187. C. Li, M. Cao, R. Wang, Z. Wang, Y. Qiao, L. Wan, Q. Tian, H. Liu, D. Zhang, T. Liang, and C. Tang, Compos. Sci. Technol. 63, 17491758 (2003). 188. J.-M. Gonnet, J. Guillet, C. Raveyre, G. Assezat, R. Fulchiron, and G. Seytre, Polym. Eng. Sci. 42(6), 11711180 (2002). 189. S. A. Nield, H. M. Budman, and C. Tzoganakis, Control Eng. Practice 8, 911920 (2000). 190. A. Gokce, K.-T. Hsiao, and S. G. Advani, Compos. Part A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 33, 1263 1272 (2002). 191. EN 473, Nondestructive Testing: Qualication and Certication of NDT Personnel Europe en de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 2000. General Principles, Comite 192. prCEN/TR 14748, Non-Destructive TestingMethodology for Qualication of Non Europe en de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, Aug. 2003. destructive Tests, Comite

ANDREAS J. BRUNNER ERWIN HACK JURG NEUENSCHWANDER Center for Nondestructive Testing, EMPA, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research