5.

12
Ultrasonic Inspection of
Composites
BERNHARD R. TITTMANN
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
and
ROBERT L. CRANE
Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH,
USA

5.12.1 OVERVIEW 2
5.12.2 BASIC ULTRASONIC INSPECTION 2
5.12.2.1 Introduction 2
5.12.2.2 Acoustic Waves 3
5.12.2.3 Generation Techniques of Ultrasound 4
5.12.2.3.1 Noncontact laser based ultrasonics 4
5.12.2.3.2 Noncontact ultrasound with electromagnetic acoustic transducers (EMATs) 6
5.12.2.3.3 Noncontact ultrasonic NDE with air-coupled ultrasound 9
5.12.2.4 Acoustic Wave Propagation in Composites 12
5.12.2.5 Reflection and Transmission of Acoustic Waves 14
5.12.2.6 Acoustic Waves in Layered Structures 15
5.12.2.7 Refraction of Acoustic Waves 16
5.12.2.8 Energy Partition of Acoustic Waves 17
5.12.2.9 Acoustic Waves in Layered Anisotropic Structures 18
5.12.2.10 Attenuation of Acoustic Waves 19
5.12.2.11 Ultrasonic Imaging Systems 20
5.12.2.12 Through-transmission vs. Pulse-echo 21
5.12.2.13 Ultrasonic Inspection Systems 23
5.12.2.14 Portable Ultrasonic Systems 24
5.12.2.15 Backscatter Imaging 25
5.12.2.16 Ultrasonic Inspection with Acoustic Microscopy 26
5.12.2.16.1 Imaging with acoustic microscopy of delaminations at elevated temperatures 26
5.12.2.16.2 Surface acoustic wave velocity 28
5.12.2.17 Data Manipulation 31
5.12.2.17.1 Flaw sizing 31
5.12.2.17.2 Ultrasonic signal processing 31
5.12.2.18 Specialized Inspection Techniques 32
5.12.2.19 Bond Testers 33
5.12.3 SUMMARY 35
5.12.4 REFERENCES 35
5.12.5 APPENDIX: ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES OF MATERIAL 38

1
2 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 1 A schematic representation of the ultrasonic inspection of a composite laminate. Reflections from
the front and back surfaces of the laminate and from the defect are labeled FS, BS, and D, respectively.
5.12.1 OVERVIEW
Ultrasonic inspection provides a noninvasive
means of probing the interior of a composite
structure. The primary purpose is for the ver-
ification of integrity, quality, and reproducibil-
ity of the final product during manufacture; as
a diagnostic tool for in-service evaluation dur-
ing maintenance of a component; and as a final
characterization in a retirement-for-cause set-
ting.
The following discussion first introduces the
basis of the ultrasonic method as it relates to
composites and then presents highlights of a
few selected advanced methods of ultrasonic
inspection.
5.12.2 BASIC ULTRASONIC
INSPECTION
5.12.2.1 Introduction
Ultrasonic NDE methods are most often
used to inspect composite structures because
they provide the inspector with images of
large flaws such as delaminations located
within individual layers of the laminate
(Kautz, 1987; Klein, 1992). Ultrasonic inspec-
tion can also find very small, widely distributed
flaws such as porosity, which is not detectable
by other methods, such as radiography. How-
ever, unlike radiographic methods that detect
flaws that are parallel to the path of the inter-
rogating energy, ultrasonic methods can only
detect flaws which are perpendicular to the
direction of propagation of the sound beam as
illustrated in Figure 1. The figure illustrates the
different types of flaws that are detectable with
ultrasound methods.
Figure 1 illustrates the typical set-up used to
inspect a composite laminate with one ultraso-
nic method. Since sound energy is reflected
from the interfaces between two dissimilar ma-
terials, this figure shows a series of reflections as
spikes on the oscilloscope's cathode ray tube
(CRT). The reflection of sound waves from the
ultrasonic transducer±air interface would be
nearly total if it were not for the couplant
material, e.g., water, oil, or a gel, placed be-
tween the two. If the speed of sound in the
composite is known, the depth of the flaw can
be calculated from the time difference between
the front surface and defect reflections. Small,
vertical ply cracks that do not produce reflec-
tions are therefore not detectable with this in-
spection set-up. Later in this section a method
for detecting these tiny flaws will be discussed.
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection
Figure 2 Schematic representation of the particle
motion compared with the direction of travel of
longitudinal waves.
5.12.2.2 Acoustic Waves
Before discussing the details of particular
ultrasonic inspection techniques, the reader
should be familiar with the physics of this
method. Ultrasound is simply sound that has
a frequency between 100 KHz and 30 MHz.
Unlike electromagnetic waves, sound waves
can exist in several forms or modes; see Pierce
(1981) and Pollard (1977), two excellent refer-
ences to acoustics. The most common form is
the compressional or longitudinal wave. In this
wave the direction of propagation and the par-
ticle displacement are coaxial as shown in
Figure 2.
Compressional waves propagate in all media.
These waves propagate in liquids and gases and
are of course used for speech. Their velocity of
propagation can be calculated from Equation (1)
s
E6 1 ÿ n†
cˆ
r6 1 ‡ n†6 1 ÿ n†
Figure 3 Schematic representation of the particle motion compared with the direction of travel of a shear
wave.
Figure 4 A plot of the phase velocity of Lamb waves vs. the frequency, f, plate thickness, d, product.
3
where c is the compressional wave speed in cm
s71, E is Young's modulus in g cm71 s72 (note
1 psi = 6.894 6 104 g cm71 s72), r is the den-
sity of the material in g cm73, and n is Poisson's
ratio.
Shear or transverse acoustic waves differ
from compressional waves because their wave
motion or particle displacement vector is per-
pendicular to the propagation vector as shown
in Figure 3.
The motion of this wave type may be either in
the plane of the paper or perpendicular to it,
i.e., the wave motion is polarized. Transverse
waves can only propagate in solids and not in
fluids. The speed of the transverse wave is
about half of the longitudinal wave in the
same material and can be calculated from
Equation (2)
s
G
bˆ 2†
r
where b is the transverse wave speed in cm s71
and G is the shear modulus of the material in
g cm71 s72. The appendix contains a list of
acoustical properties of commonly used mate-
rials.
Another wave useful to the inspector is the
plate or Lamb wave (BarCohen et al., 1993).
The wave motion is quite complicated and will
not be discussed here, but shaking a piece of
paper or thin metal foil can simulate it. The
relationship between Lamb wave speed, mate-
rial properties, and specimen dimensions is
1†
quite complex as shown in Figure 4. In practice
4 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
the Lamb wave velocity is not calculated, rather
the inspection set-up is adjusted for optimum
results when these waves are used.
5.12.2.3 Generation Techniques of Ultrasound
The conventional technique for generating
ultrasonic waves is to excite the resonance of
a piezoelectric wafer. Piezoelectric materials
such as lead zirconate titanate, lead metanio-
bate, and lithium niobate are frequently used in
commercial transducers. The commercial trans-
ducers are packaged for many different appli-
cations depending on the coupling mode
(contact or emersion), the required resolution,
and the frequency bandwidth. A variety of
electronic instruments are available for driving
the transducers depending on the mode of ex-
citation, for example, voltage spike or tone-
burst.
5.12.2.3.1 Noncontact laser based ultrasonics
The use of noncontact ultrasonic techniques
for the inspection of wings, tail sections and
fuselages of aircraft in the field environment is
an attractive alternative to current contact or
squirter approaches. This section reviews recent
work on the use of laser generation and detec-
tion of ultrasound in Gr/epoxy composite pa-
nels. Laser-based ultrasonics is a well-
documented technique (Scruby and Drain,
1990) which has been demonstrated by many
researchers. It is being applied in several indus-
trial areas, including testing in hostile environ-
ments, scanning curved surfaces, and inspecting
large areas using mirror scanners (Scruby and
Drain, 1990; Hurley, 1997; Hutchins, 1988;
Jacobs and Whitcomb, 1997; McKie and Ad-
dison, 1998; Monchalin, 1986; Gordon and
Tittmann, 1994; Tittmann et al., 1990).
Most recently, Hurley (1997) investigated
the anisotropic heterogeneous nature of laser-
generated ultrasound in carbon-fiber reinforced
epoxy. Some time ago, using a Rockwell devel-
oped interferometer based on designs devel-
oped by Monchalin (1986), Tittmann et al.
(1990) demonstrated, for example, the feasibil-
ity of transmission C-scans of 150 ply Gr/epoxy
panels containing simulated delaminations
(10 mm 6 10 mm Teflon film). The ultrasonic
signals were generated with a Q-switched
Nd:YAG laser and were detected using an op-
tical detector based on a spherical Fabry±Perot
etalon with a 400 mW argon ion laser as the
probe beam. Waveforms having signal-to-noise
ratios of greater than 40 dB in 15 mm thick Gr/
epoxy were obtained with generating laser
powers well below the ablation limit for the
graphite epoxy. Detection was shot-noise lim-
ited with a detector noise figure of about 5±
10 dB.
An optical detector of ultrasonic waves must
meet the following requirements:
(i) insensitivity to environmental (depot) dis-
turbances;
(ii) insensitivity to surface roughness and
curvature; and
(iii) sensitivity for flaw detection without
laser surface damage.
A key feature is the insensitivity to environ-
mental changes in path length caused by dust
particles, air flow turbulence, part-to-interfe-
rometer distance, and mechanical vibrations.
The spherical Fabry±Perot etalon and the opti-
cal heterodyne two-wave interferometer
(Mach±Zehnder) meet these requirements.
Other types of interferometers, including the
Michelson interferometer, do not meet them.
Another key feature is the requirement for a
large ªetendueº for the interferometer. It must
be sensitive to waves from off-axis angles, in-
sensitive to the nature of the wave front (i.e.,
nonplanar waves), and insensitive to surface
roughness. The spherical Fabry±Perot etalon
has a large collection efficiency; i.e., ªetendueº;
in this context an important advantage over the
Mach±Zehnder.
As first described by Monchalin (1986), the
key components are the probe laser, the
Fabry±Perot etalon and its feedback circuit,
the calibration circuit, and the signal proces-
sing circuit. The Fabry±Perot etalon is an op-
tical resonator with spherical mirrors whose
spacing is 500 mm and whose reflectivity
R = 0.90. The etalon feedback loop has the
purpose of compensating for long-term drift
in mirror spacing and probe laser frequency
instability. Following the optics from the probe
laser, a portion of the probe laser beam is
tapped with a beam splitter BSI and sent into
the etalon by a polarized beam splitter PBS2 as
a vertically (V) polarized beam. The primary
signal is horizontally polarized (H). The optical
feedback signal is diverted by another polar-
ized beam splitter PB1 into a detector D2. The
corresponding voltage signal is sent into a
compensation circuit (bandwidth 2 kHz) and
into the controller (Burleigh RC-45) which
provides control signals to PZT elements.
These adjust the mirror spacing to maintain
resonance as the frequency of the laser beam
fluctuates. The probe laser is an argon-ion laser
adjusted for single frequency, single line opera-
tion at a wavelength of 514.5 nm. The beam
power used in typical experiments ranges from
400 mW to 1 W.
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection
A similar interferometer was used (Tittmann
et al., 1990) to detect out-of-plane surface dis-
placements caused by through-transmitted
longitudinal wave pulses generated by a Q-
switched Nd:YAG laser. The sample was 150-
ply fully cured Gr/epoxy with the Gr fibers
oriented in parallel. The generating beam had
an energy level of 343 mJ, a pulse duration of
10 ns, and a spot size of about 3 mm. The inter-
ferometric detection system's probe laser had a
power of 400 mW and a spot size of 2 mm. In
the region of delaminations the surface displa-
cement was seen to diminish as expected. There-
fore a scanning laser beam system may be used
in a way similar to a C-scan operation for
imaging of delaminations in the noncontact
mode.
The advantages of laser-based ultrasound are
evident in terms of sensitivity, rapidity, and
remoteness. On the other hand, there are also
disadvantages in terms the cost of optical
equipment and the need for its protection as
well as protection of the operators from laser
beams. Certainly as research instruments the
techniques are invaluable and provide input
into understanding the critical issues in the
industrial process.
The delivery of laser energy to the compo-
nent is often made complicated by the use of
bulk optical components, such as lenses, mir-
rors, etc. Operations are difficult in restricted or
confined areas without direct optical access.
Radiation safety and test system flexibility are
also considerations. Under these circumstances
light delivery through optical fibers is a poten-
tially useful solution. To avoid damage to the
fibers, the pulsed laser power should be held
low and therefore thermoelastic rather than
ablative operation is preferred.
Thermoelastic generation of ultrasound has
been well-characterized in previous studies
(Rose, 1984). A primary disadvantage is that
the acoustic signals generated thermoelastically
have relatively low amplitudes, thus signal de-
tectability becomes a key parameter to be opti-
mized. The peak-to-peak amplitude of a surface
wave generated thermoelastically is directly
proportional to the incident laser energy (De-
whurst et al., 1980). However, the ablation
threshold of the material under test limits the
maximum power density that can be delivered
by a single laser source without the occurrence
of damage. This threshold is of the order of
107 W cm72 for common metals in the near-
infrared (Scruby and Drain, 1990) and is con-
siderably lower for polymer-based composite
materials. One approach, as an alternative to
single pulse illumination, is the periodic array
of line illumination sources to generate direc-
tional waves, for example, surface waves having
5
large amplitude in the propagation direction
perpendicular to the lines (Dewhurst et al.,
1980). The optimum condition for the narrow-
est bandwidth generation is approached when
the acoustic surface pulse transit time difference
between the consecutive array elements at the
detection spot equals the pulse duration (Ain-
dow et al., 1982; McKie et al., 1989). If the
detection bandwidth is matched to the narrow-
band toneburst generation through either the
use of an appropriate transducer or through
bandpass filtering (analog or postacquisition
digital), the spatial modulation technique
lends itself to an improved sensitivity of the
measurements by providing enhanced immu-
nity to broadband noise. Moreover, control of
the surface wave penetration depth is possible
through the use of narrow-band ultrasound,
since the frequency content of such a wave is
one factor which determines its penetration
depth, since this value is roughly equal to the
wavelength. Spatial arrays have been produced,
for example, by lenticular arrays (Aindow et al.,
1982), optical diffraction gratings (McKie et al.,
1989), multiple lasers (Huang et al., 1992), in-
terference patterns (Murray et al., 1996; Harata
et al., 1990; Nishino et al., 1993; Nelson et al.,
1982), and periodic transmission masks (Na-
kano and Nagai, 1991; Ash et al., 1980; Royer
and Dieulesaint, 1984). Carlson and Johnson
(1993) delivered up to 26 mJ/pulse average en-
ergy through a single silica±silica, 1 mm core
diameter, multimode fiber from a frequency
doubled Nd:YAG laser operating at 0.53 mm
with a pulse duration of 20 ns and a pulse
repetition rate of 30 Hz. Dewhurst et al.
(1988) delivered 15 mJ/pulse using a single silica
core, silicon cladding, 600 nm core diameter
multimode step-index fiber from an Nd:YAG
laser at 1.06 mm with both 20 ns and 40 ns pulse
durations.
Huang et al. (1992) report, for example, an
array for surface wave generation consisting of
ten 0.5 mm wide, 10 mm long, illumination lines
(McKie et al., 1989) giving a total irradiated
area of 50 mm72. When this value is compared
to a single point source with a diameter of
2 mm, it is evident that more optical energy
(by at least an order of magnitude) can be
used to fully exploit the array of thermoelastic
generation capabilities. This then produces the
largest signal allowed by the ablation threshold
of the material under test. In recent years, spa-
tially modulated sources have been successfully
created by employing arrays of optical fibers
and have been used mainly for ultrasonic
phased array generation purposes (Bruinsma
and Vogel, 1988; Yang et al., 1993; Jarzynski
and Berthelot, 1989; Berthelot and Jarzynski,
1990). In these applications, fiber-optic delivery
6 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 5 Elementary setup of an EMAT transducer.
was achieved by splitting the light prior to
entering the various fibers by means of a num-
ber of devices including star couplers
(Bruinsma and Vogel, 1988; Yang et al., 1993)
and beam-splitters (Jarzynski and Berthelot,
1989; Berthelot and Jarzynski, 1990). Bruinsma
and Vogel (1988) report the shortest laser pulse
duration of 15 ns. Yang et al. (1993) employed
a pulse duration of 100 ms with a peak power
per fiber element of about 125 W, while Berthe-
lot and Jarzynski (1989, 1990) used a laser
operated in a continuous wave or long pulse
mode in conjunction with an acousto-optic
(Bragg cell) modulator.
Among the critical parameters in coupling
high-power light to a fiber-optic delivery system
is fiber composition, mode distribution, dia-
meter, surface preparation, input optical
power, and position of the fiber relative to the
input beam focal point. The studies by Allison
et al. (1985) and Skutnik et al. (1981) address
many of these issues. Causes of damage in silica
appear to be electron avalanche ionization,
multiphoton ionization, self-focusing, and
self-defocusing (Bennett et al., 1981). Dust on
a surface can reduce the damage threshold by
one-half, emphasizing the importance of polish-
ing and surface treatment.
5.12.2.3.2 Noncontact ultrasound with
electromagnetic acoustic
transducers (EMATs)
Electromagnetic acoustic transduction is an-
other alternative technique for the generation
and detection of ultrasound. The method is
based on the use of eddy currents and requires
a material with good electrical conductivity. In
general, polymer matrix composites, even
though containing carbon fibers, are not good
conductors and would only be candidates for
this method if the material had a metallic clad-
ding. On the other hand, a metal matrix com-
posite would be a good candidate for this
method.
In nonferromagnetic materials, EMATs
work on the basis of a Lorentz force mechanism,
whereas in ferromagnetic materials both Lor-
entz force and magnetostriction have to be con-
sidered. Here, only the Lorentz force case under
quasistatic conditions (i.e., no propagation of
electromagnetic waves) will be considered. The
term electromagnetic is used here mostly in the
sense of electromagnetic induction of fields
across a gap between a coil and a conducting
substrate (Clark et al., 1992; Dobbs, 1974; Gen-
erazio, 1985; Gilmore et al., 1986; Hussein,
1991; Johnson and Alers, 1984; King and For-
tunko, 1983; Kino, 1987; Lemons and Quabe,
1974; McKie and Addison, 1998; Viktorov,
1967).
An EMAT in its most elementary form, as
shown in Figure 5, consists of a current-carrying
wire held close to the surface of a conducting
material and a source for a static magnetic field
such as a permanent magnet or an electromag-
net. To generate ultrasonic waves, an alternat-
ing current is sent through the wire. The current
density in the conductor generates a dynamic
magnetic induction in the surrounding air and
in the conducting material according to Max-
well's laws. The penetration depth of the eddy
currents is given by the classical skin depth. The
Lorentz force density is proportional to the sum
of the static magnetic field provided by the
permanent magnet or electromagnet and the
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 7

Figure 6 Direction of Lorentz force density.

Figure 7 Direction of induced eddy currents for the receiving case.

dynamic magnetic field of the conductor and is
exerted on the ion lattices of the material under
the conductor. The Lorentz force density in turn
gives rise to an ultrasonic wave being launched
in the material. If the conductor is in the x-
direction and the static magnetic field is in the
z-direction the resulting force is in the y-direc-
tion as shown in Figure 6.
In the case of an EMAT as a receiver of
ultrasonic waves, the set-up is essentially the
same as for the transmitting case. When an
ultrasonic wave travels in the material under
the receiving conductor with velocity vector v
locally, in the static magnetic field of the recei-
ver, a time-varying eddy current density is in-
duced in the material. The eddy current has an
associated magnetic field intensity and induc-
tion inside the material and in the surrounding
air. The time-varying magnetic induction in the
air induces an electric field in the receiving
conductor, which gives rise to a current density,
as shown in Figure 7. Various types of EMAT
transducers can be found in literature.
(i) Various types of EMAT transducers found
in literature
A broad variety of wave types can be excited
with EMATs such as longitudinal (L) waves,
vertically polarized (SV), horizontally polarized
(SH), or radially polarized (SV) shear waves,
surface acoustic waves (SAW), and guided
waves in cylinders and plates (also known as
Lamb waves or plate waves (P)). As we shall
later see both SH and Lamb waves are disper-
sive waves meaning that the phase and group
velocity of these waves is not constant over
frequency.
8 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites

Figure 8 Relation between particle movement, propagation direction, and surface for SV, SH, and L waves.

Figure 9 Pancake coil EMAT.

To distinguish between L, SV, and SH waves,
Figure 8 shows the relation between particle
movement, wave propagation, and material
surface for these wave types. The definition of
a longitudinal wave is that particle motion and
wave propagation are in the same direction.
For both types of shear waves, particle motions
perpendicular to the propagation direction are
characteristic. Considering a cross-sectional
plane of the problem that includes all sources
of wave generation, SV and SH waves can be
distinguished by the direction of particle
motion. If the particle motion is in the cross-
sectional plane, the wave is called an SV wave;
if the particle motion is perpendicular to the
plane the wave is an SH wave. Piezoelectric
transducers (PETs) can generate both L and
SV waves by normal and oblique incidence of
longitudinal waves from a wedge. It is obvious
that SH waves cannot easily be generated with
PETs, since a very viscous couplant or rather a
bonding between wedge and test material
would be required to transmit forces parallel
to the surface.
(ii) Pancake coil EMAT
Figure 9 shows a basic set-up for the genera-
tion of SR waves. The EMAT shown consists of
a spiral-shaped coil and a permanent magnet to
provide the static magnetic field perpendicular
to the surface of the test material. The conduc-
tors of the coil are arranged such that both sides
of the transducer as seen in the cross-section
produce forces parallel to the surface of the
material but in opposite directions. A radially
polarized shear wave is launched and propa-
gates perpendicular to the surface. When the
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 9

Figure 10 Meander coil EMAT.

Figure 11 SH wave EMAT.

permanent magnet is turned by 908, the static
magnetic field is now mainly parallel to the
surface and the main part of the resulting forces
perpendicular to the surface. Both wave propa-
gation and particle movement are in the same
direction, thus a longitudinal wave is launched.
(iii) Meander coil EMAT
In Figure 10 a typical EMAT set-up consist-
ing of a permanent magnet and a meander coil
is shown. The resulting eddy currents together
with the component of the magnetic field per-
pendicular to the surface of the conductive
material create a pattern of forces parallel to
the surface. The arrows underneath the test
material indicate these tractions. Depending
on the operating frequency and the thickness
of the plate, different types of waves can be
generated. If the test material is relatively thick
compared to the acoustic wavelength, bulk
longitudinal and SV waves traveling perpendi-
cular to the surface and surface acoustic waves
(SAWs) traveling along the surface of the mate-
rial are generated. In case of a thin plate under-
neath the EMAT and a suitable frequency, the
meander coil EMAT excites guided waves.
(iv) EMAT for the generation of horizontally
polarized shear waves
Shear horizontally polarized waves are gen-
erated by a set-up as shown in Figure 11. The
spatial periodicity of the transducer results
from a stacked array of permanent magnets
rather than conductors with alternating current
directions. Propagation of the SH wave is in the
plane of the cross-section shown, however, the
particle movement is normal to the plane, there-
fore this kind of shear wave is called horizon-
tally polarized.
5.12.2.3.3 Noncontact ultrasonic NDE with
air-coupled ultrasound
The use of air-coupled, noncontact transdu-
cers in the 250 kHz to 5 MHz frequency range
10 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 12 Dry contact transmitted signal through 25.7 mm thick carborized C/C. Velocity: 1330 m s71.
has caught the attention of the NDE commu-
nity and several approaches have recently been
proposed; see, for example, Ladabaum et al.
(1997) and Hansen et al. (1998). Especially the
use of microelectronics technology has opened
the possibility of two-dimensional arrays of
capacitor membranes whose excitation can be
tailored to the particular needs for beam shap-
ing and scanning. Another more traditional
approach uses piezoelectric excitation and de-
tection, but in conjunction with the use of a
stack of broadband impedance matching
layers, which gradually reduce the impedance
down to that of air. The other novel feature is
the use of digital signal processing, including
signal gating, signal averaging, and frequency
chirp to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio. This
approach is applicable to the characterization
of carbon±carbon brake material in the inter-
mediate state of processing characterized by
high microporosity and high ultrasonic at-
tenuation. In this state the material is tradition-
ally difficult to inspect, because ordinary
coupling media, such as water or gel, cannot
be used and yet the presence of a small delami-
nation would make subsequent processing
superfluous and therefore save manufacturing
costs. Here results are compared with similar
data obtained with the more conventional dry-
contact inspection.
For dry contact the transducers had a center
frequency of 250 kHz and an active area dia-
meter of 25 mm. The transmitter pulse was a
voltage spike of 200 V. The receiver bandwidth
was 1 kHz to 35 MHz. Where observations are
compared, once a particular gain was set to
obtain a good signal (generally, *1 vpp, vol-
tage measured peak-to-peak) from a ªgoodº
material condition, then this gain setting was
not altered while observing other material con-
ditions. Vertical and horizontal scales in all
observations are constant.
For the noncontact air-coupled case the
transducer frequency was the same, i.e.,
250 kHz and the active area of the transducer
was 25 mm. The system used a bandwidth set
at 110 kHz, chirp duration at 200 ms, an ampli-
tude of 75%, a chirp step of 50%, and signal
averaging at 32. The ambient air separation
distance between transmitter and receiver was
22 cm, which is equivalent to 15 wavelengths at
220 kHz. At these settings the pulse width is
18 ms or 4 wavelengths. The results are pre-
sented in Figures 12±19 as a series of acquired
waveforms as transmitted through the carbon
fiber±carbon matrix composites representative
of material pulled out of the manufacturing
process of friction components. The wave-
forms typically come in pairs, comparing the
contact with the noncontact, air-coupled
method, respectively. The captions describe
the material, i.e., normal vs. delaminated.
Figures 12±15 show several representative re-
sults for fully carborized material, whereas
Figures 16±19 show results for noncarborized
material.
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 11

Figure 13 Same as Figure 12, except by noncontact method. Transmitted signal is at: 587.3 ms. Velocity is
1290 m s71.

Figure 14 Dry contact transmitted signal through carborized 23.5 mm C±C brake in a ªgoodº region.

Figure 15 Same as Figure 14, except by noncontact method.

12 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites

Figure 16 Dry contact transmitted signal through 30.6 mm noncarborized C±C brake. Velocity: 2025 m s71.

Figure 17 Same as Figure 16, except by noncontact method. Transmitted signal is at 571.3 ms.

The results show that the noncontact, air-
coupled method gives waveforms rather com-
patible with those obtained with the dry-con-
tact technique. The significant advantages of
the air-coupled method is that it allows rapid
automated scanning to obtain images and that
it allows inspection at higher temperatures.
Both of these features are of importance when
dealing with the processing of carbon±carbon,
because the discovery of a delamination in the
early phases of processing can save the time and
cost of further processing steps.
Future work should focus on adding the
capability of pulse-echo operation, reducing
the transducer diameter to allow beam broad-
ening and therefore reduced alignment sensitiv-
ity and enhanced signal-to-noise ratio.
5.12.2.4 Acoustic Wave Propagation in
Composites
Equations (1) and (2) apply to homoge-
neous, isotropic materials. Since composites
have moduli that change with direction in a
laminate, the velocities of acoustic waves in
these materials also vary with the direction of
propagation (Chedid Helou and Herman,
1991). Figures 20 and 21 show how the acous-
tic velocity varies as a function of direction in
a unidirectional laminate. These figures were
calculated from material constants (Zimmer
and Cook, 1970; Reynolds and Wilkinson,
1974) using the methods outlined elsewhere
(Datta et al., 1984; Kriz and Ledbetter,
1985).
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 13

Figure 18 Dry contact transmitted signal through 30.5 mm noncarborized C±C brake in a ªhair-lineº
(50.1 mm) delamination region.

Figure 19 Same as Figure 18, except by noncontact method.

Both Figures 20 and 21 show the particle
displacements for each type of wave as a func-
tion of direction of propagation. The reader
will note that there are two shear waves, one
polarized parallel to the plane of the paper and
one perpendicular to it. The particle displace-
ment of the shear wave polarized perpendicular
to the plane of the paper, represented by the
circles, is called the pure shear wave. The par-
ticle displacement of this wave is always per-
pendicular to the plane of the ply. For the other
shear wave, the reader will note that the particle
displacement vector varies as a function of the
direction of propagation of the wave. Only in
the case where the acoustic wave travels parallel
or perpendicular to the fiber direction are the
particle displacement and propagation vectors
orthogonal. Between these two pure mode di-
rections the wave is a quasishear wave. The
same situation occurs in the case of the long-
itudinal wave. The anisotropic velocity profile
shown in these figures may be measured using
specially constructed specimens (Kline and
Chen, 1988). This description of the wave pro-
pagation may seem unnecessary for simple ul-
trasonic inspection of composites; it is required
in order to understand the refraction of acous-
tic waves in a composite; Snell's law, which
describes refraction, will be covered in a later
section. The measurement of acoustic velocity
in specific directions has been used to detect
such flaws as low fiber content and excessive
14 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 20 Phase velocity as a function of direction
of propagation for the three ultrasonic waves that
are supported by a unidirectional composite lami-
nate.
Figure 21 Examples of the particle displacement
directions for quasilongitudinal and quasishear
waves propagating in a composite laminate.
porosity (Porter 1988; Aindow et al., 1986).
Using Figure 21, the effect of propagation di-
rection on the character of the acoustic wave as
it travels through a composite laminate is
shown. Along the path indicated, both quasi-
longitudinal and quasishear waves are gener-
ated as indicated by the angle that the particle
displacement vector makes with the direction of
propagation
Figure 22 Schematic representation of the inci-
dent, transmitted, and reflected acoustic pressure
waves at an interface between I and II.
5.12.2.5 Reflection and Transmission of
Acoustic Waves
Even though calculations of the parameters
for an ultrasonic inspection are not as accurate
as those associated with radiography, impor-
tant initial guesses for an initial inspection con-
figuration can be obtained from the simple
approach discussed below. The reader should
note that unlike X-rays, acoustic waves are
reflected and refracted at almost all interfaces
between different materials. For the current
discussion we shall assume that the materials
under inspection are homogeneous and isotro-
pic. The different acoustic impedances on either
side of that interface determine the amount of
acoustic energy reflected from an interface. The
acoustic impedance, Z in g cm72 s72, of med-
ium I or II is defined as (Bray and Stanley,
1989)
P
Z ˆ r6v ˆ 3†
U
where r is the density of the media in g cm73, v
is the velocity of the acoustic wave along the
direction of propagation, and P and U are the
acoustic pressure and particle velocity in the
acoustic wave, respectively. The reflection or
transmission coefficients, R and T, for an
acoustic wave are defined as the ratio of the
reflected or transmitted acoustic pressure di-
vided by the incident acoustic pressure
(Krautkramer and Krautkramer, 1983). These
coefficients for the interface between media I
and II, shown in Figure 22, are given by Equa-
tions (4a) and (5a). In a similar manner one may
define reflection and transmission coefficients,
Rpwr and Tpwr, based on acoustic powers trans-
mitted or reflected at an interface which are
defined in Equations (4b) and (5b).
The reflection coefficients R and Rpwr are
defined as
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 15
pr ZII ÿ ZI
Rˆ ˆ 4a† transmission coefficients change in a significant
pi ZI ‡ ZII way. The recalculated coefficients are shown
 2 below
ppwrr 1 ÿ ZZIII Z ÿ ZII 2
Rpwr ˆ ˆ   ˆ I 4b†
ppwrt 1 ‡ ZZIII ZI ‡ ZII 6:38 ÿ 1:48
Rˆ ˆ 0:623
6:38 ‡ 1:48
Likewise, the transmission coefficients, T and 
1:48 ÿ 6:38 2

Tpwr, are defined as Rpwr ˆ ˆ 0:389
1:48 ‡ 6:38
pt 26ZII 266:38
Tˆ ˆ 5a† Tˆ ˆ 1:623
pi ZI ‡ ZII 6:38 ‡ 1:48
4 6:38=1:48†
ppwrt 4 ZZIII Tpwr ˆ ˆ 0:611
Tpwr ˆ ˆ 2
5b† 1 ‡ 6:38=1:48†2
ppwr1 ZII
1ÿ ZI
These results illustrate that the reflected wave
Equations (4) and (5) are defined only for the has a pressure that is 62.3% of that of the
situation in which the acoustic wave is incident incident wave and is in phase with it. However,
at a right angle to the plane of the interface and the transmitted wave has a pressure that is
must be modified for any other angles of in- 162.3% of the incident wave. Again the incident
cidence (Brekhouskileh, 1998). The following and transmitted powers do not add up to 1.0.
example illustrates how equations apply to the This is analogous to electrical circuits where
inspection of composites. In this case, a long- voltages can occur which, like acoustic pres-
itudinal wave is incident at normal incidence to sures, are much greater than the source voltage
a water±boron/epoxy interface, i.e., the acous- in the reactive elements, i.e., inductors and
tic wave originates from within the water and is capacitors. However, in both cases the total
traveling into the composite energy incident onto and departing from the
interface is constant.
Since most electrical instrumentation is cali-
ZBÿEp ˆ rv ˆ 1:9163:346105 g cmÿ2 sÿ2 brated in terms of the decibel, dB, reflection
ˆ 6:386105 g cmÿ2 sÿ2 and transmission coefficients are frequently
given in these units. The decibel is defined as
1:48 ÿ 6:38 a ratio of two values of pressures as given in
Rˆ ˆ ÿ0:623
1:48 ‡ 6:38 Equation (6). By using the definition of acous-
261:48 tic pressure given in Equation (3), the decibel
Tˆ ˆ 0:377 equation can be recast in terms of acoustic
1:48 ‡ 6:38
intensities
Likewise, the reflection and transmission coef-
p2 I2
ficients based on acoustic power are given as dB ˆ 206 log ˆ 106 log 6†
p1 I1
6:38 ÿ 1:48 2
 
Rpwr ˆ ˆ 0:389 p2
6:38 ‡ 1:48 Iˆ 7†
26Z
4 1:48=6:38†
Tpwr ˆ ˆ 0:611 Since it is much more common to use the dB
1:48=6:38†2
ratio when referring to the transmission and
reflection coefficients, the results of the pre-
These calculations indicate that the peak pres- vious example are restated as follows
sure of the reflected wave is 62.3% of the peak
pressure in the original longitudinal beam. The 0:623
R ˆ 206 log ˆ ÿ4:11
minus sign indicates that the reflected wave is 1:0
1808 out of phase with the incident wave. The
1:623
transmitted wave has a peak pressure that is T ˆ 206 log ˆ 4:21
only 37.7% of the incident wave. The reader 1:0
will note that the reflected and transmitted
powers add up to 1.0, which is the incident 5.12.2.6 Acoustic Waves in Layered Structures
power.
If the situation is reversed, i.e., the wave is Since composite structures are frequently
incident from water and transmitted into the thin compared to the length of the incident
boron±epoxy laminate, the reflection and acoustic waves, the constructive and destructive
16 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites

Figure 23 Energy flux coefficient vs. angle of incidence for a longitudinal wave incident on an aluminum±
epoxy±aluminum structure.

The maxima and minima in the reflection

and transmission coefficients discussed above
are shown in Figure 23 as a plot of the energy
flux coefficient vs. the frequency of the incident
wave for an aluminum±lucite±aluminum sand-
wich structure. The lucite layer is 0.0127 cm or
0.005 in. thick. In the calculations used to gen-
erate this figure the transmitted and reflected
ultrasonic energies must sum to 1.0 because
energy is conserved. This situation is different
from that with the reflection and transmission
Figure 24 Schematic representation of Snell's law coefficients defined by ratios of acoustic pres-
and the energy partition of a longitudinal wave sures in Equations (4) and (5). In that case the
incident on a solid±solid interface. coefficients did not need to sum to 1.0 because
the total energy both incident on and leaving
the interface was not considered.
interference effects that occur within these
structures must be taken into account. For a
thin plate surrounded in water the reflection 5.12.2.7 Refraction of Acoustic Waves
and transmission coefficients for a longitudinal
wave incident at 908 to the surface are given by Ultrasonic waves are reflected and refracted
Equations (8) and (9) at each interface between two different media.
Sound waves can be focused, in a manner simi-
v
  lar to light, with an acoustic lens. Snell's law,
u = m ÿ 1 2 sin2 2pd=
u 1 ÿ

4 m l given by Equation (10) with the terms defined
Rˆt 8†
u

2  
by Figure 24, describes the refraction of acous-
1 ‡ 1=4 m ÿ m1 sin2 2pd=l
ÿ
tic waves
v
u 1 sin y sin y0
Tˆt 9† ˆ 0 10†
u  

2 v v
1 ‡ 1=4 m ÿ m sin2 2pd=l 1
ÿ

Snell's law describes the reflection and refrac-

where m = Z(water)/Z(composite), d is the thick-
ness of the plate, and l is the wavelength of
the incident acoustic energy. The periodic nat-
ure of the sine function means that there will be
maxima in the transmission coefficients at d/
l = 0, 1/2, 1, . . ., and maxima in the reflection
coefficients at d/l = 1/4, 3/4, 5/4 . . ..
tion of all waves that are either incident on or
generated at an interface. For example, when a
longitudinal wave is incident on a fluid±fluid
interface, one longitudinal wave is reflected
from the interface and another is refracted
into the second fluid. However, if the second
medium is replaced with a solid, then a shear
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection
Figure 25 Energy flux coefficient vs. angle of incidence for a longitudinal wave incident on a lucite±water
interface.
wave is usually generated at the fluid±solid
interface by off-normal incidence longitudinal
waves. This process is called mode conversion
since some of the longitudinal energy is con-
verted into shear energy at the interface. This
process is so common that one usually expects
to find both longitudinal and shear waves gen-
erated at each interface in layered materials. It
is important to note that mode conversion oc-
curs only at angles of incidence other than
normal. For the generalized solid±solid inter-
face shown in Figure 24, the generalized Snell's
law is given by Equation (11)
sin yi sin yr sin gr sin yt sin gt
ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 11†
cI cI bI cII bII
Since the longitudinal wave speed cI is common
to the first two terms of Equation (11), the
angles of incidence and reflection for the long-
itudinal waves are equal. This is called the law
of reflection in optics. If the longitudinal wave
speed of medium I is less than that of medium
II, then there will be an angle of incidence at
which the transmitted longitudinal wave angle
is greater than 908. Since this situation does not
exist physically, the transmitted longitudinal
wave must disappear. The angle at which this
occurs is called the first critical angle, y1st. At
larger angles of incidence, the shear wave may
also disappear in the second medium. This
angle is called the second critical angle, y2nd.
These angles can be calculated using Equations
(12) and (13)
 
1st ÿ1 cII
y ˆ sin 12†
cI
 
bII
y2nd ˆ sinÿ1 13†
cI
17
5.12.2.8 Energy Partition of Acoustic Waves
It is frequently the case that some of the
acoustic energy incident on an interface is con-
verted to another wave type. This process is
called mode conversion. This energy partition
at an interface can be calculated theoretically
for most inspection situations. As an example,
the energy flux coefficient vs. angle of incidence
for the lucite±water interface is shown in
Figure 25. There are no critical angles in this
case because the wave speeds of the transmit-
ting media, c(water) = 1.48 6 105 cm s71 and
b(water) = 0.0, are lower those of lucite,
c(lucite) = 2.7 6 105 cm s71 and b(luci-
te) = 1.33 6 105 cm s71.
If the physical arrangement of Figure 25 is
reversed, then Figure 26 is the resultant flux
coefficient plot. In this case a critical angle
occurs at around about 338 for the lucite±
water boundary. There is no second critical
angle because the shear wave speed of lucite is
lower than the longitudinal wave speed of
water. Mode conversion of energy into a
shear wave is evident for angles of incidence
greater than 08.
Figure 27 is a plot of the energy flux coeffi-
cient vs. angle of incidence for a water±alumi-
num interface. There are two critical angles
associated with this interface, because both lon-
gitudinal and shear wave speeds of aluminum
are greater than the wave speed of water. The
arrows in the figure point to the longitudinal
critical angle at 138 and the shear critical angle
at *278. Critical angle phenomena are quite
useful in many types of inspections. For exam-
ple, if geometry restricts placement of the ultra-
sonic transducer to angles of incidence different
from 08, then the inspector frequently angles
the probe above the first critical angle and
18 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites

Figure 26 Energy flux coefficient vs. angle of incidence for a longitudinal wave incident on a water±lucite
interface. The arrow indicates the first critical angle at the interface.

Figure 27 Energy flux coefficient vs. angle of incidence for a longitudinal wave incident on a water±
aluminum interface. The arrows indicate the critical angles for the interface.

below the second. There are distinct advantages
to this angle beam mode of inspection. The
inspector uses angles of incidence between the
first and second critical angles. That way, when
only the shear wave is present, the ambiguity
associated with having to determine which type
of wave is responsible for a specific signal is
eliminated. Since the shear wave speed is about
half that for the longitudinal wave the time to
traverse a set distance with a shear wave is twice
that for a longitudinal wave. This gives the
inspector twice the resolution capability in de-
termining the position of potential defects.
With knowledge of both the intensity and the
angle that the acoustic wave makes with any
interface, it is possible to predict the results of a
simple acoustic inspection. When the angle of
incidence is different from 08, the equations
used to predict the energy partition can become
quite complex and require a computer to solve.
A generalized quantitative treatment of an ul-
trasonic inspection is beyond this discussion.
Instead generic computed generated plots of
commonly encountered inspection situations
are shown in Figures 25±27.
5.12.2.9 Acoustic Waves in Layered
Anisotropic Structures
Thus far the discussion on acoustic calcula-
tion has focused on isotropic media. The inclu-
sion of the anisotropic nature of composites
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection
Figure 28 Energy flux coefficient vs. angle of incidence for a quasi-isotropic graphite±epoxy composite. The
ultrasonic frequency is 2.5 MHz and azimuthal angle is 08.
significantly complicates such calculations.
Most ultrasonic calculations are valid for a
single wavelength and ignore effects such as
scattering from inclusions such as fibers. An
algorithm to calculate energy partition for the
interaction of longitudinal waves with a com-
posite laminate in water has been developed by
Scott (1980) and others (Jaleel et al., 1993). The
computer code is quite complex and only a
single example output is shown in Figure 28.
The significant result of this work is to explain
the sensitivity of composite laminates to the
geometric configuration of the inspection set-
up. Note that the reflection coefficient can
change from nearly zero to nearly one over a
small range of angle of incidence.
5.12.2.10 Attenuation of Acoustic Waves
Until now the effect of attenuation on the
acoustic interactions with composites has been
ignored. However, attenuation in composites is
often large because of the large number of
interfaces between the layers and the scattering
associated with the fibers. As with X-rays, the
attenuation can be described by deBeer's law.
However, here this relationship can be ex-
pressed in one of the two forms as shown by
Equations (14) and (15)
I ˆ I0 eÿax 14†
I ˆ I0 610ÿax 15†
where I0 is the incident and I is the transmitted
acoustic intensity, x is the thickness of the part
in cm, and a is the attenuation coefficient of the
19
composite in nepers cm71. In Equation (15) the
attenuation coefficient, a', is in decibels per cm
(1 neper = 8.686 dB). This latter equation is
preferred because electrical instrumentation is
usually calibrated in decibels. The attenuation
of most materials is quite small; for example,
those for steel and water are given below
a'(water) = 0.00 226 dB cm71
a'(steel) = 0.00 148 dB cm71 (longitudinal)
a'(steel) = 0.00 208 dB cm71 (shear)
In contrast to these data the attenuation of
glass/epoxy usually is about 3 dB cm71 at
7 MHz. The effect of even a small value of a
frequency-dependent attenuation coefficient is
illustrated with the following example. The cal-
culations of the energy partition in the
aluminum±lucite±aluminum structure shown
in Figure 23 were repeated with the lucite hav-
ing been assigned a small value for the attenua-
tion coefficient, 5 6 108 nepers cm71 Hz71.
The results shown in Figure 29 illustrate the
significant loss in signal as the inspection fre-
quency is increased.
Internal voids such as porosity can increase
the attenuation coefficient of a composite lami-
nate (Generazio et al., 1988; Hale and Ashton,
1988a, 1988b; Bashyam, 1990; Temple, 1988).
For thin graphite/epoxy laminates, Stone and
Clarke (1975) determined experimentally that
the attenuation coefficient of longitudinal
waves is a complex function of many material
parameters. They fitted their data to the rela-
tionship shown in Equation (16)
a' = 0.079 6 f 1.27 6 v2p (16)
20 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 29 Energy flux coefficient vs. frequency of acoustic energy for an aluminum±lucite±aluminum
structure. The effect of a frequency-dependent attenuation coefficient for the lucite is evident from the
decrease in transmitted energy.
where a' is the attenuation in dB cm71, f is the
frequency of the ultrasonic sound in MHz, and
vp is the volume percentage of porosity. The
experimental and analytical methods used to
determine this relationship are presented in de-
tail in their paper. Several other examples of
similar attenuation±porosity relationships have
been discussed in the literature (Jones and
Stone, 1976; Martin, 1976; Hale and Ashton,
1988a, 1988b; Generazio, 1985; Bashyam,
1990). The reader will note that with an energy
absorbing mechanism present in the material
the reflected and transmitted energies no longer
sum to 1.0.
5.12.2.11 Ultrasonic Imaging Systems
The particular manner in which an inspection
is carried out is quite important for determina-
tion of the size and location of defects in com-
posite materials. There are currently two
methods of collecting and displaying informa-
tion that are in common usage. The method
depicted in Figure 1 is referred to as an A-scan.
The experimental set-up for this method is
shown in Figure 30.
Using the A-scan method of presentation the
amplitude of the returned ultrasonic pulse vs.
time is displayed to the inspector. The heart of
the A-scan system is the time base or system
clock that generates a highly stable, low level
(*5 V) train of pulses. This signal is fed to the
pulser, an x-axis sweep generator, and to the
receiver. The pulser amplifies the small signals
to the high level (*800 V) required to drive the
ultrasonic transducer. The clock signal is simul-
taneously fed to the receiver to turn it off during
the pulser output in order not to overload the
input stages of the receiver. The system clock
also provides a highly accurate driver for the x-
axis of the display so that the time of the
returning signals can be accurately determined.
If the speed of the acoustic wave in the material
is known, then the depth of a feature that
produces an echo or return pulse can be accu-
rately determined.
With the A-scan method, the height of the
return echo increases as the flaw size is in-
creased, as long as the flaw is smaller than the
transducer. Flaw size can be estimated by com-
paring their return echoes with those from a set
of flat bottom hole (FBH) standards (Beck,
1985). The FBH is a block of aluminum in
which a flat bottom hole has been drilled
from the back face. Hole sizes are graduated
in increments of 1/64@, so that a No. 3 FBH is
3/64@ in diameter. Presumably a signal that has
the same height on the CRT as the No. 3 FBH is
approximately 3/64@ in diameter. This assumes
that the defect is oriented to reflect acoustic
energy back to the transducer. If the flaw is
oriented to reflect energy away from the trans-
ducer, then its size will be underestimated. The
principal advantage of the A-scan method is
that both the depth and approximate size of a
flaw are available to the inspector simulta-
neously.
For composite materials with flaw sizes much
larger than the diameter of the transducer the C-
scan data collection and imaging methods are
usually used. This method of acquiring and
presenting data is shown in Figure 31. The
heart of this system is an A-scan type pulser±
receiver connected to a large display unit. The
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection
Figure 30 Schematic representation of ultrasonic data collection and display in the A-scan mode.
instrumentation has an internal electronic gate
that senses if a returning echo exceeds some
minimum value within a specified time interval.
If such a signal is present, then the receiver
circuitry sends a signal to the display unit turn-
ing off the output and the pen in Figure 31 stops
printing. An image of a flaw is generated by
rastering the transducer across the part. C-scan
imaging is ideal for composite parts because
they are planar assemblages of layers. The sys-
tem could be set up to display information from
a set depth or a select number of plys within the
part. Since composite materials tend to have
many small delaminations spread throughout
the thickness of the laminate, this inspection
method usually has important implications for
component acceptance. An example of a C-scan
image showing several delaminations in a com-
posite is shown in Figure 32.
The void indications shown in the C-scan in
Figure 32 could represent the combined images
of several delaminations each within a different
ply. These must be differentiated for most
structural qualifications because the combined
void images could be a cause for rejection of a
part, while several smaller delaminations on
21
different levels may be acceptable. Therefore,
most current composite C-scan systems are
capable of displaying the flaws in a single ply
or a few plys at a time. An exploded view that
would be produced by such a system is shown
schematically in Figure 33. With this capability
the inspector can determine if the part meets the
acceptance criteria for delaminations and voids
within a specific volume of material.
5.12.2.12 Through-transmission vs. Pulse-echo
Thus far, the discussion of ultrasonic inspec-
tion methods has been concerned only with the
set-up that uses a single transducer to send a
signal into the laminate and to receive any
returning echoes. This method is variously re-
ferred to as pulse echo, pitch-catch, etc., inspec-
tion and is shown schematically in Figure 34.
The other frequently used inspection set-up
for composite structures is called through-
transmission. In this method two transducers
are used, one to send ultrasonic pulses and the
other placed on the opposite side of the part to
22 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites

Figure 31 Schematic representation of ultrasonic data collection. The data are displayed using the C-scan
mode.

Figure 32 A typical C-scan image of a defective

composite specimen.

receive the transmitted signals as shown sche-

matically in Figure 35.
In Figures 34 and 35 a large number of
reflections are shown from the individual la-
mina that can obscure subtle reflections from
inclusions whose reflectivity is similar to that of
the composites. Inclusions with acoustic impe-
Figure 33 An illustration that C-scan images may
dances very nearly that of the composite matrix
contain a large number of overlaid images of flaws
include such things as paper and peal plys that from different layers.
must be detected in critical composite aircraft
components. In this case, the pulse-echo inspec-
tion mode may be used to detect these flaws. On
the other hand, reflections from distributed signal. Therefore it is the loss in signal strength
flaws such as porosity, as shown in the right- of the transmitted signal of the through-trans-
hand side of both figures, can be obscured by the mission method that is most often used to detect
general background noise present in an acoustic this type of flaw. Yet while porosity is detectable
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 23

xmtr
xmtr

xmtr
rcvr
rcvr

rcvr
Figure 34 A schematic representation of the pulse-echo mode of ultrasonic inspection.

in this manner, its location cannot be deter-

Figure 35 A schematic representation of the
through-transmission mode of inspection.
mined. In this situation, the pulse-echo mode
is required because the distance from the front
or back surface to the flaw can be determined by
the relative position of the reflections of the
scattered porosity with respect to the surface
reflection. Because each method supplies impor-
tant information concerning flaw occurrence
and possible location, modern ultrasonic instru-
mentation is frequently equipped to perform
both types of inspection nearly simultaneously
(Jones, 1985). In such a set-up two transducers
are used to conduct a through-transmission test
and then each is used separately to conduct
pulse-echo tests from opposite sides of the
part. This method also helps ensure that a
large flaw does not shadow a smaller one, as
shown in the figures.

5.12.2.13 Ultrasonic Inspection Systems

Figure 36 Schematic representation of through-
transmission inspection being conducted in a water
bath.
As mentioned earlier, a fluid is used to couple
the ultrasonic energy into a part under inspec-
tion for two reasons. First, while it is possible to
use air as a couplant between the transducers
and the part (Rogovsky, 1991), water signifi-
cantly reduces the impedance mismatch be-
tween the two. Second, the liquid provides a
delay that permits the receiving system to re-
cover from the large electrical pulse used to
generate the interrogating pulse before prepar-
ing to detect the very much weaker echoes from
defects. This is particularly important in pulse-
echo systems. A simple ªfish tankº inspection
system is shown in Figure 36.
However, for very large or buoyant parts
such as honeycomb structures, the use of a
tank of water is obviously not feasible. In this
case that part is held upright and two columns
of water, squirters, are used to couple the ultra-
sonic energy into the part, as shown in
Figure 37. The water columns used in this
system are easily manipulated for curved or
complex structures.
24 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites

Figure 37 Schematic representation of through-transmission inspection being conducted with a squirter

system.

Figure 38 Field level C-scan image instrumentation that is capable of simultaneously tracking the motion
of a hand-held transducer and recording the ultrasonic information.

5.12.2.14 Portable Ultrasonic Systems
This ability to image defects on specific levels
within a laminate is so important that C-scan
instrumentation has been miniaturized for
usage in the field. An example of one such
system developed for aircraft inspection is
shown in Figure 38. The heart of this system
is a computer that records the position of a
hand-held transducer and the complete A-
scan wave train at each point scanned. The
equipment tracks the motion of the transducer
as it is scanned manually across a structure with
a set of linear acoustic microphones. The
inspector can see which areas have been
scanned noting the changing color of the
scanned area on a CRT. If areas are missed,
he can return to ªcolor them inº as shown in the
image on the CRT in Figure 38.
Computer manipulation of the ultrasonic
image data allows the inspector to select either
one or a small number of layers for evaluation.
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 25

Figure 39 Three different displays of delaminations in a 16-ply composite obtained from a field level C-
scan system. The image in (a) is a projection of all the flaws through the specimen. (b) and (c) are images
from selected depths within the specimen.

Figure 40 Back-scatter inspection of a composite

Figure 42 The through-transmission version of
plate containing a transverse ply crack.
back-scatter inspection for ply cracks.

the structure. The progression or growth of

these delaminations can be tracked if the ability
to image a specific layer in the structure is
available.

5.12.2.15 Backscatter Imaging

Figure 41 The pulse-echo version of back-scatter
inspection for ply cracks.
In this way an orderly assessment of the flaws in
critical structures can be examined. This pro-
cess of selecting flaws on a layer-by-layer basis
for evaluation is shown schematically in
Figure 39 for the instrument depicted in
Figure 38. The fact that this capability exists
in a field level instrument attests to its impor-
tance for composite inspection (Buynak and
Crane, 1987).
The ability to perform a layer-by-layer in-
spection is especially important when looking
for impact damage. Many composite structures
sustain significant subsurface damage with no
visible surface indications of the impact. This
form of damage usually results in a series of
delaminations that grow in size with depth into
Using the modes of inspection discussed so
far, the common composite flaws of delamina-
tions, porosity, inclusions, etc., can be de-
tected and imaged. Only the very small ply
crack cannot be found. These can be found
through the use of radiographically opaque
penetrants as discussed in the section on
radiography. Unfortunately, the method re-
quires the use of highly toxic materials and
so alternate methods have been sought. An
ultrasonic method has been developed to de-
tect small ply cracks (BarCohen and Crane,
1982). This method employs the very small
echo that is reflected or back-scattered from
the crack when the ultrasonic beam is incident
on it normal to its long axis as shown in
Figures 40±43.
This method has the advantage that the ex-
tremely small ply cracks can be detected and
26 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 43 Examples of back-scatter C-scan images of ply cracks in a fatigue damaged quasi-isotropic
laminate.
accurately imaged. Its principle disadvantage is
the requirement that each ply must be scanned
separately if cracks are to be detected in that
ply. Additionally, the transducer must be
aligned perpendicular to the cracks of each
ply in order for them to be imaged. If several
plies have the same orientation, then an electro-
nic gate must be changed to receive the signals
from a specific ply.
5.12.2.16 Ultrasonic Inspection with Acoustic
Microscopy
The back-scatter method is usually config-
ured in the pulse-echo mode as shown in
Figure 41, but it can also be used in the
through-transmission mode as shown in
Figure 42. Typical data obtained from this
method are shown in Figure 43 for a quasi-
isotropic fatigue specimen.
Acoustic microscopy is an advanced techni-
que making use of focused transducers. The
focusing is accomplished by attaching an acous-
tic lens to the transducer. The lens may have a
cylindrical or a spherical aperture. The lens
requires a fluid-coupling medium in order to
direct and gather the acoustic rays to a focal
point, which is typically below the specimen
surface. The lens is scanned either parallel to
the surface for imaging or perpendicular to the
surface for measurements of the surface acous-
tic wave velocity. For application to anisotropic
media the cylindrical lens is useful for providing
surface acoustic wave velocities in different
directions along the surface. Here examples of
recent applications to composite materials are
described.
5.12.2.16.1 Imaging with acoustic microscopy
of delaminations at elevated
temperatures
The use of scanning acoustic microscopy
(SAM) has been reported (Miyasaka and Titt-
mann, 1999) for in situ imaging of a delamina-
tion as it changes at elevated temperatures (up
to 500 8C). Described are the key problems and
their solutions (i.e., thermal protection of the
transducer and the peripheral equipment, the
acoustic lens design for elevated temperature,
the scanning mechanism, and the coupling
medium). The intermediate temperature SAM
was used to image the partial healing process of
internal defects of a CF/PEEK composite
caused by soft body impact. The results clearly
demonstrate the usefulness of SAM imaging
with temperature control to high enough tem-
peratures to monitor in situ materials under-
going changes in the internal structure. The
technique is completely nondestructive and
lends itself to field development.
In current technology, composite materials
(e.g., a fiber reinforced plastic or the like) are
applied to many different fields, ranging from
sports equipment (e.g., tennis rackets) to air-
craft components. An interdisciplinary interna-
tional effort is underway for developing carbon
fiber/PEEK matrix laminated composites for
turbine blades in the first stage of aircraft
turbine engines. The objective of CF/PEEK
turbine blades is to decrease the weight while
maintaining the strength and durability of the
aircraft. Recent failures under soft body impact
represented by the ªbird strikeº have shown
that maintaining the integrity of the blades
is critical (Miyasaka and Tittmann, 1999;
Choi et al., 1991a, 1991b; Morita et al., 1995).
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 27

Figure 44 Schematic diagram of key portions of the intermediate temperature SAM.

Figure 45 Schematic diagram of the gas gun system.

Experience has shown that even though no
damage is visible on the surface, the interior
may be heavily damaged in terms of delamina-
tions located at interfaces between the lami-
nates making up the composite.
Figure 44 shows a schematic diagram of the
intermediate temperature SAM. The acoustic
lens comprises a PZT transducer and a long
ceramic buffer rod including a lens focusing the
acoustic beam into the specimen. The center
frequency of the transducer is 10 MHz, and its
diameter is substantially 1 in. The length and
the diameter of the buffer rod are 2 and 1 in.,
respectively. The lens is located within the
chamber filled with automobile racing engine
oil (Mobil 1) as a coupling medium for elevated
temperature. A double wall cover for the cham-
ber is adopted for heat protection, wherein air
within the wall is used as a heat isolation mate-
rial. The specimen is set within the chamber
arranged on the heating plate mounted on the
X±Y scanning stage. A specimen holder is used
to stabilize the specimen. The temperature
within the chamber can be controlled by the
temperature controller, measured by a thermo-
couple, and increased up to 500 8C by the heat-
ing plate. Because of the double wall cover and
the low heat conductivity of the buffer rod, the
temperature at the transducer is substantially
below 100 8C when the temperature of the cou-
pling medium is increased up to 500 8C.
A CF/PEEK composite (03/303/7303)s was
selected for this experiment. The flat specimen
was cut to 100 6 100 mm and its thickness was
substantially 3 mm. A gas gun system (see
Figure 45) with a gelatin bullet was used for
providing impact to the specimen. The speci-
men was aligned so as to be impacted at the
center of the plate. The total mass of projectile
was substantially 3 g. The impact velocity was
146.1 m s71, and the corresponding impact
energy was 32.1 J. As shown in Figure 46, dela-
mination was introduced to the first interface of
the specimen.
28 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 46 Acoustic image of delamination introduced by the gas gun system. Frequency: 30 MHz, coupling
medium: water.
For obtaining the acoustic image shown in
Figure 46, a conventional C-scan system was
used with water (24.5 8C) as the coupling med-
ium with a scanning width of 30 mm 6 40 mm.
Figure 47 shows the ªhealingº process of the
CF/PEEK. As the temperature was increased,
the area of delamination was slightly increased
by removal of residual stress and thermal
expansion. Then, the area of delamination
was gradually decreased. Finally, the delamina-
tion disappeared, and only a transverse crack
remained.
There are two types of delaminations. One is
completely healed with elevated temperature
(see Figure 48). The other is closed and its
area is shrunk but not completely healed.
5.12.2.16.2 Surface acoustic wave velocity
Practically speaking, a scanning acoustic mi-
croscope (herein after called simply ªSAMº)
has two modes. One is the burst-wave mode
using tone-burst waves and operating fre-
quency range between 100 MHz and 3.0 GHz.
The burst-wave mode is applicable for obser-
ving the surface and the subsurface of speci-
mens, wherein penetration of the waves is
substantially up to 300 mm. The other is the
pulse-wave mode using pulse waves and oper-
ating at a frequency range between 10 MHz and
100 MHz. The pulse-wave mode is applicable
for observing specimens in-depth, wherein the
penetration of the waves is substantially up to
1.0 cm. In the pulse-wave mode, signals re-
flected from the surface and internal portions
can be separated time-wise by using a ªgate.º
Therefore, internal horizontal (C-scan) and
vertical (B-scan) cross-sectional images can be
obtained easily.
The imaging mechanism of the tone-burst
wave mode is described as follows. An electrical
signal is generated by an RF tone-burst source
and transmitted to a piezoelectric (e.g., zinc
oxide or the like) transducer located on the
top of an acoustic lens. The electrical signal is
converted to an acoustic signal (i.e., ultrasonic
plane wave) at the transducer. The plane wave
travels to a spherical recess (hereinafter called
simply the ªlensº) located at the bottom of the
acoustic lens. Then a highly convergent diffrac-
tion-limited acoustic beam is formed between
the lens and the specimen surface through a
coupling medium and transmitted onto the spe-
cimen. Deionized water is generally used as the
coupling medium. An acoustic beam, which
carries information about the specimen, is re-
flected from the specimen and detected by the
transducer. The detected acoustic beam is again
converted to an electric signal. The electric
signal is amplified and stored into a memory
through a receiver. In order to obtain enough
reflected electric signals to form an acoustic
image, the raster scanning technique is used
for emitting a plurality of acoustic beams
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 29

Figure 47 Acoustic images of delamination due to changes of temperature. Frequency: 10 MHz, scanning
width: 9 mm 6 12 mm, coupling medium: engine oil.
30 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites

Figure 48 Healing process of delamination.

onto a certain area of the specimen. The acous-
tic lens is able to translate axially along the z-
direction for varying the distance between the
specimen and the lens for subsurface visualiza-
tion. That is, when visualizing the surface of the
specimen, the acoustic lens is focused on the
specimen (we note z = 0 mm), and when visua-
lizing a subsurface of the specimen, the acoustic
lens is mechanically defocused toward the spe-
cimen (we note z = 7 x mm where x is the
defocused distance).
The use of a cylindrical lens, which is also
known as a line-focus lens, allows the possibi-
lity of quantitative characterization of materi-
als by acoustic microscopy. When in a pulse-
echo operation the separation z between the
lens and the sample is made to change, the
transducer voltage output shows strong ampli-
tude variations. These amplitude variations,
V(z), result from the interference between
leaky surface wave waves and the direct re-
flected waves from the surface of the sample.
Analysis of such V(z) curves permit determina-
tion of the wave speed and attenuation of the
surface wave which is the basis of the material's
surface characterization measurement.
This more quantitative data acquisition
mechanism (V(z) curve technique) is described
in more detail as follows. The transducer out-
put voltage is periodic with axial motion as
the acoustic lens advances from the focal
plane toward the specimen. The period of this
variation is characteristic of the specimen's
elastic material properties and results from
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection
Figure 49 A demonstration of edge enhancement
in C-scan image of two equivalent delaminations.
interference between the two component rays
that radiate into the liquid from the solid±liquid
interface. One component is spectrally reflected
at normal incidence while the second one un-
dergoes a lateral shift on incidence and re-radi-
ates at the critical phase-matching angle for the
Rayleigh waves. This angle yR is given by the
following equation
sin yR ˆ VL =VR 17†
where VL is the longitudinal wave velocity in
the liquid and VR is the Rayleigh wave velocity
propagating on the specimen.
The lateral shift is characteristic of the Ray-
leigh wave that is excited within the specimen
and radiates energy into the liquid at the angle
yR. The two components, except for the lateral
phase shift at the Rayleigh wave velocity, ex-
perience identical propagation delays along
their path before being summed within the
transducer. The trace of the transducer output
voltage is the V(z) curve, exhibiting a character-
istic spacing Dz that is proportional to the
square of the Rayleigh wave velocity VR of
the specimen. It has been shown that VR is
uniquely related to the characteristic spacing
Dz by the following equation
VL
VR ˆ r 18†
  2
1 VL
1ÿ 2
Dz
f
where f is a frequency. Therefore, a simple,
nondestructive determination of the VR ob-
tained by the V(z) curve technique permits a
direct measurement of a variety of important
surface-related elastic effects on a specimen.
Developed by Kushibiki and Chubachi
(1985), the line-focus beam has been used by a
number of researchers to characterize material
anisotropy, inhomogeneities, and stresses.
Using a small aperture and high f-number lens
as well as high-frequency excitations, the acous-
tic microscope is capable of high spatial resolu-
tion on a specimen. Thus the acoustic
microscope forms the basis of an acoustic mi-
croprobe for determining near-surface material
31
properties (Briggs, 1992; Liang et al., 1985;
Mihara and Obata, 1987). For example, We-
glein (1980) used this technique to measure the
dispersion of surface acoustic wave velocity in
connection with determining film thickness.
Lee et al. (1995) used the acoustic microscope
to measure elastic constants and mass density.
Most recently, Xiang et al. (1997) have de-
signed a large-aperture, lens-less, line-focus
transducer at 10 MHz using PVDF as the excita-
tion source. With this transducer constructed in
a dual-element configuration, they evaluated
rough and porous ceramic coatings. Sachse
et al. (1998) used a similar transducer to char-
acterize fiber waviness in composite specimens.
5.12.2.17 Data Manipulation
5.12.2.17.1 Flaw sizing
The sizes of large delaminations or planar
flaws in composite materials can be easily de-
termined from simple C-scan images. Since
these flaws are most often oriented parallel to
a surface, an accurate image of their shape and
dimensions are shown clearly by C-scan ima-
ging. However, in those instances when the flaw
is not favorably oriented or when the flaw is too
small to be imaged by C-scan, other techniques
of estimating flaw size are used. In instances
where these large reflections are not observable,
then a relative estimate of flaw size is obtained
using the flat bottom hole standards mentioned
earlier. Another technique covered in the litera-
ture requires calibration of the inspection pro-
cedure used to yield a more accurate estimate of
flaw dimensions (Szelazek, 1989). Since a de-
scription of this technique is beyond the scope
of this chapter, the reader is referred to the
literature for details.
5.12.2.17.2 Ultrasonic signal processing
With the advent of inexpensive and small
digital computers, it is now possible to utilize
the powerful techniques of digital signal proces-
sing in the treatment and interpretation of ul-
trasonic data (Takeshita et al., 1990; Ourak
et al., 1991). Signal processing employing math-
ematical manipulation of digital data is cur-
rently applied to most situations involving
data acquisition, transmission, and analysis
(Gonzalez and Wintz, 1987). An illustrative
example is the one shown schematically in
Figure 49 where edge enhancement has been
used to highlight the delamination. Digital fil-
tering techniques can be used to highlight flaw
images, thus improving flaw delectability and
32 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 50 The ªringdownº technique used on a
bonded structure without voids in the bond line.
Note that the signal in the adhesive quickly damps
a train of echoes from the interface.
Figure 51 The ªringdownº technique used on a
bonded structure with voids. Note that the signal in
the adhesive does not damp a train of echoes from
the interface.
easing the task of size estimation by the inspec-
tor. Recent work has shown the utility of tech-
niques such as the Wiener filter to the analysis
of ultrasonic data (McRae, 1990; Fatemi and
Kak, 1980; Buynak et al., 1989a, 1989b). In this
case, however, there is a tradeoff between the
signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio and resolution of
the signal. In other words, one must balance the
tradeoff between information about the depth-
wise location of the flaw and the lateral blurring
of the flaw image. Additionally, one can intro-
duce ripples into the image because of the
limited data set used to construct the image
(Karpur et al., 1990). These ripples can obscure
subtle features, e.g., cracks, in the image. How-
ever, spatial domain convolution (Frock and
Martin, 1988) has been used to overcome some
of the disadvantages of Wiener filtering to sup-
press noise, reduce blur, and enhance the edges
in C-scan data. Utilization of spatial domain
convolution requires large amounts of high-
speed computer memory that limits its applic-
ability to inspection situations other than the
laboratory. However, as computers continue to
improve in terms of speed and size of random
access memory, the applicability of these and
other digital processing techniques to ultrasonic
data will bemore commonplace.
5.12.2.18 Specialized Inspection Techniques
Additional methods have been developed to
detect and measure subtle flaws such as impact
induced delaminations in composite and
bonded materials (Buynak et al., 1989a,
1989b; Martin, 1989; Crane et al., 1985, 1989;
Clarke et al., 1985; Cawley, 1984). These meth-
ods rely on extensive use of digital instrumenta-
tion, which means they are useful only in a well-
equipped laboratory. However, as ultrasonic
instrumentation becomes more sophisticated
from a digital electronics or computer stand-
point, these methods that allow the imaging of
single cracks within a single ply will become
quite useful.
Another technique used to detect volumetric
flaws in bonded structures is shown in the
following examples. The ring-down method is
shown schematically in Figures 50 and 51. It is
applicable to both metal and composite struc-
tures. This method utilizes the train of return-
ing echoes from a bond line to detect the
presence of delaminations. In structures with-
out voids in the bond line, some of the ultra-
sonic energy is transmitted into the adhesive,
and so the returning echoes are diminished in
intensity. For structures with delaminations
present, all of the energy is reflected from the
bond line. Since the only signal loss mechanism
is that due to attenuation in the face sheet, there
can be a large number of reflections. The time
that is required for the echoes to decay is there-
fore a sensitive indicator of the presence of
delaminations.
There is a specialized Lamb wave inspection
method for use on a honeycomb structure
where access is limited to one side. This method
was developed to detect the loss of bonding of
the honeycomb to the face sheets of the sand-
wich structure and is shown schematically in
Figure 52. In this method, the amplitude of the
reflection from the honeycomb±face sheet bond
on the far side of the structure is used to detect
the presence or absence of a bond. The method
is tricky to set up because the exact angles
needed to generate the Lamb wave in the hon-
eycomb sheets cannot be calculated and must
be determined by trial and error. However,
 Basic Ultrasonic Inspection 33

Figure 52 A Lamb wave inspection technique used to find lack of bond in honeycomb structures. It is used
when access to the ªfar sideº is limited.

Figure 53 The acoustic response of an aluminum block driven by a low-frequency acoustic transducer.
Both the phase and amplitude of the block are plotted as it passes through a resonant frequency of the
block.

and Patton, 1993). For an extensive treatment

Figure 54 The acoustic response of the aluminum
block±structure combination plotted as a function
of driving frequency. Both phase and amplitude of
the block are plotted as it passes through a resonant
frequency.
once the technique is perfected, it is a sensitive
detector of bond line flaws in honeycomb struc-
tures.
5.12.2.19 Bond Testers
A great deal of the NDE literature is devoted
to instruments that test adhesive bonds. There
has been a recent resurgence of interest in the
inspection of adhesive bonds due to concerns
about the viability of our aging aircraft (Hsu
of most of the currently used instruments the
reader is referred to review articles (Hagemier,
1971, 1972a, 1972b) or advertisements in the
NDE literature. However, while there may
seem to be a large number of instruments,
some with exaggerated claims of performance,
most operate on the same physical principles.
Bond testing instruments use a variety of
means to excite a sonic or low-frequency
sound wave into the part. In the example
shown in Figures 53 and 55 the low-frequency
acoustic transducer is attached to a small block
of aluminum which in turn transfers the acous-
tic energy into the structure through a couplant.
As the driving frequency of the transducer is
varied, the amplitude and phase of the transdu-
cer oscillations change dramatically as it passes
through a resonance. Figure 53 shows that the
phase and amplitude of these vibrations change
very rapidly and reach a maximum as the driv-
ing frequency passes through the resonance
frequency of the isolated aluminum block.
Before flaws can be detected it is necessary to
calibrate the instrument on a perfect section of
structure that is shown schematically in
Figure 54. Note that the effect of the structure
is to dampen the resonant response of the
transducer±block combination because of the
transfer of acoustic energy into it.
34 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Figure 55 The acoustic response of an aluminum
block-defective structure combination plotted as a
function of driving frequency. Both phase and
amplitude of the block are plotted as it passes
through a resonant frequency.
Figure 56 An example of an attempt to correlate
load-carrying capability to the stiffness-related
parameters measured by a bond tester.
Defects such as delaminations and porosity
in the adhesive layer reduce the stiffness of the
structure and lower the resonant frequency of
the combination. The amplitude of the reso-
nance is increased since there is less material
to adsorb the sound energy as shown in
Figure 55. These changes in the sharpness of
the resonant response are easily detectable elec-
tronically. The effect of changing the stiffness
of the adhesive on the resonant frequency is
shown in Equation (19)
s
1 26E0
fˆ 19†
2p r6d6t
Figure 57 The schematic of a bond-testing instrument that detects delaminations by noting the increased
travel time required by their presence in structures.
where f is the resonant frequency of the block±
structure combination, E' is the stiffness of the
adhesive, d is its thickness, and r and t are the
density and the thickness of the metal face
sheets, respectively.
Some investigators have noted that as the
porosity content of the adhesive joint increases,
its load-carrying capability is proportionately
decreased. This effect has also been seen in
other porous structural materials such as
brick, concrete, and sandstone. These materials
are not particularly notch sensitive so that the
loss in cross-sectional area is more important
than the presence of cracks. Noting that the
principle defect in some adhesives is porosity
and that the bond tester described above is a
sensitive indicator of the amount of porosity
might lead one to think that these instruments
could be used to measure the load-carrying
capability of bonded structures. An example
of one such correlation is shown in Figure 56.
However, such correlation is not valid when the
adhesive is notch sensitive.
Today most NDE engineers know that such
correlations of load-carrying capability are
valid only when the material is not notch sensi-
tive. A simple example is that of glass that is
extremely notch sensitive. For example, the
strength of a freshly drawn glass fiber can be
as high as 1.0 6 105 psi, but this strength is
quickly degraded to a few hundred psi just by
touching it, which produces micron-sized flaws
in the surface of the fiber. It is an easy matter to
calculate the effects of crack-like flaws on the
strength of most materials using simple fracture
mechanics equations. Everyone now realizes
that the modulus or stiffness of the glass is
not changed at all by the presence of small
cracks. However, for those situations in which
the major defect significantly alters an acoustic
parameter such as porosity in concrete, then it
is possible to gage the load-bearing capability
of a material with acoustic measurements
(Swamy and Ali, 1984).
An alternate method of detecting flaws in
bonded components is shown in Figure 57.
With this low-frequency instrument the NDE
engineer notes the change in the time of flight
 References
Figure 58 The standard tap hammer used to detect flaws in bonded aircraft structures.
for sound waves in the layered structure both
with and without a flaw present. In the instru-
ment shown the increased time of traveling
from the transmitting (xmtr) to the receiving
(rcvr) transducer is easily detected with electri-
cal circuitry. A commercially available bond-
testing instrument successfully exploits this
principle. A clever adaptation of a commercial
version of this instrument has been used to
successfully test the joints of structures made
from sheet molding compounds (Papadakis
and Chapman, 1993).
Probably the most used method of detecting
delaminations in laminated structures is with
the instrument shown in Figure 58. The simple
tap hammer can be a sophisticated instrument
for detecting flaws since an exceedingly com-
plex computer interprets the output signal, i.e.
the human brain. Consider for a moment, most
parents can easily hear their child playing a
musical instrument in a school concert. They
can perform this task even though their child
may have a minor part to play and all the other
instruments are much louder than the one that
their child is playing. With this powerful real
time signal processing capability, inspectors can
often detect flaws that cannot be detected with
current instrumentation and computers.
5.12.3 SUMMARY
The significant features of this chapter on
ultrasonics can be summarized as follows:
(i) Flaws are most easily detectable using
ultrasonic methods when they are oriented per-
pendicular to the direction of propagation of
the sound energy. This rule of thumb, however,
is frequently violated when using such methods
as the back-scatter technique that is used to
image small ply cracks.
(ii) Only flaws with significantly different
acoustic impedance compared to the specimen
are detectable. To detect flaws with an impe-
35
dance only slightly different from the specimen
material, the pulse-echo method can be used
with special care.
(iii) New ultrasonic systems are available
which make use of the C-scan techniques in
the field-level environment. The rapid advance-
ment of computer technology has given the
field-level inspector the ability to hand scan a
part and then image a thin section in the thick-
ness of the part. This permits evaluation of the
flaws in different plys of the specimen.
(iv) All of the computer image enhancement
which is available to the radiographer can be
utilized to advantage with ultrasonic generated
C-scan images.
5.12.4 REFERENCES
J. D. Aindow, M. F. Markham, K. E. Puttick, J. G. Rider
and M. R. Rudman, NDT International, 1986, 19, 24±29.
A. M. Aindow, R. J. Dewhurst and S. B. Palmer, Opt.
Commun., 1982, 42, 116±120.
S. W. Allison, G. T. Gillies, D. W. Magnuson and T. S.
Pagano, Appl. Opt., 1985, 24, 3140±3145.
E. A. Ash, E. Dieulesaint and H. Rakouth, Electron.
Lett., 1980, 16, 470±472.
Y. BarCohen and R. L. Crane, Materials Evaluation,
1982, 40, 970±975.
Y. BarCohen, A. K. Mal and S. S. Lih, Materials
Evaluation, 1993, 51, 1285±1296.
M. Bashyam, Materials Evaluation, 1990, 48, 1360±1364.
K. H. Beck, Materials Evaluation, 1985, 50, 976±985.
H. A. Bennett, A. J. Glass, A. H. Guenther and B. E.
Newnam, Appl. Opt., 1981, 20, 3003±3019.
Y. H. Berthelot and J. Jarzynski, Review of Progress in
Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, 1990, 9, 463±470.
D. E. Bray and R. K. Stanley, in `Nondestructive Evalua-
tion, A Tool for Design, Manufacturing and Service',
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1989.
L. Brekhouskileh, in `Waves in Layered Media', Aca-
demic Press, New York, 1998.
G. A. D. Briggs, in `Acoustic Microscopy', Clarendon
Press, Oxford, UK, 1992.
A. J. A. Bruinsma and J. A. Vogel, Appl. Opt., 1988, 27,
4690±4695.
C. F. Buynak and R. L. Crane, Materials Evaluation,
1987, 45, 743±746.
C. F. Buynak, T. J. Moran and R. W. Martin, Materials
36 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites
Evaluation, 1989a, 47, 438±441.
C. F. Buynak, T. J. Moran and R. W. Martin, Materials
Evaluation, 1989b, 47, 1374±1379.
N. M. Carlson and J. A. Johnson, J. Nondestr. Eval.,
1993, 12, 187±192.
P. Cawley, NDT International, 1984, 17, 59±65.
F. A. Chedid Helou and J. H. Herman, Materials Evalua-
tion, 1991, 49, 708±715.
H. Y. Choi, R. J. Downs and F. K. Chang, J. Composite
Materials, 1991a, 25, 992±1011.
H. Y. Choi, H. Y. T. Wu and F. K. Chang, J. Composite
Materials, 1991b, 25, 1012±1038.
A. V. Clark, C. M. Fortunko, M. G. Lozev, S. R. Schaps
and M. Renken, Res. Nondestr. Eval., 1992, 4, 165±182.
M. P. Clarke, P. A. Gass and J. P. Sergent, NDT
International, 1985, 18, 345±351.
R. L. Crane, T. J. Moran and R. J. Andrews, Materials
Evaluation, 1985, 43, 536±540.
R. L. Crane and T. J. Moran, Materials Evaluation, 1989,
47, 550±557.
S. K. Datta, H. M. Ledbetter and R. D. Kriz, Interna-
tional Journal of Solids, 1984, 20, 429±435.
R. J. Dewhurst, D. A. Hutchins, S. B. Palmer and C. B.
Scruby, J. Appl. Phys., 1980, 51, 6210±6216.
R. J. Dewhurst, A. G. Nurse and S. B. Palmer, Ultra-
sonics, 1988, 26, 307±310.
R. E. Dobbs, Physical Acoustics, 1974, X, 127±191.
M. Fatemi and A. C. Kak, Ultrasonic Imaging, 1980, 2, 147.
B. G. Frock and R. W. Martin, Materials Evaluation,
1988, 47, 442±447.
H. M. Frost, Physical Acoustics, 1978, XIV, 179±275.
E. R. Generazio, Materials Evaluation, 1985, 43, 995±1004.
E. R. Generazio, D. J. Roth and G. Y. Baaklini, Materi-
als Evaluation, 1988, 46, 1338±1343.
R. S. Gilmore, K. C. Tam, J. D. Young and D. R. Howard,
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., 1986, A320, 215±235.
R. C. Gonzalez and P. Wintz, in `Digital Image Proces-
sing', Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1987.
G. Gordon and B. Tittmann, J. Nondestr. Test. Eval.,
1994, 11, 21±32.
D. J. Hagemier, Nondestructive Testing, 1971, 4, 401±406.
D. J. Hagemier, Nondestructive Testing, 1972a, 5, 38±47.
D. J. Hagemier, Nondestructive Testing, 1972b, 5, 1441±
1453.
J. M. Hale and J. N. Ashton, NDT International, 1988a,
21, 321±326.
J. M. Hale and J. N. Ashton, NDT International, 1988b,
21, 327±332.
S. Hansen, N. Irani, F. L. Degertekin, I. Ladabaum and B.
T. Khuri-Yakub, in `IEEE Ultrasonic Symposium', Sen-
dai, Japan, October 5±8, 1998; 1998 Ultrasonic Sympo-
sium Proceedings, eds. S. C. Schneider, M. Levy and B. R.
McAvoy, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engi-
neers, Inc., New York,1998, pp. 1025±1028.
A. Harata, H. Nishimura and T. Sawada, Appl. Phys.
Lett., 1990, 57, 132±134.
D. K. Hsu and T. C. Patton, Materials Evaluation, 1993,
51, 1390±1397.
J. Huang, S. Krishnaswamy and J. D. Achenbach, J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., 1992, 92, 2527±2531.
D. H. Hurley, Ph.D. Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins
University, 1997.
M. Hussein, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 1991, 27,
4258±4261.
D. A. Hutchins, Physical Acoustics, 1988, 18, 21±123.
L. J. Jacobs and R. W. Whitcomb, J. Nondestr. Eval.,
1997, 16, 57±65.
K. M. A. Jaleel, N. N. Kishore and V. Sundararajan,
Materials Evaluation, 1993, 51, 830±838.
J. Jarzynski and Y. H. Berthelot, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
1989, 85, 158±162.
W. Johnson and G. A. Alers, Wave Propagation and
Emerging Technologies, 1984, 188, 61±83.
R. B. Jones and D. E. W. Stone, Nondestructive Testing,
1976, 9, 71±79.
T. S. Jones, Materials Evaluation, 1985, 43, 746±753.
P. Karpur, B. G. Frock and P. K. Bhagat, Materials
Evaluation, 1990, 48, 1374±1379.
H. E. Kautz, Materials Evaluation, 1987, 45, 1412±1416.
R. B. King and C. M. Fortunko, Journal of Applied
Physics, 1983, 54, 3027±3035.
G. S. Kino, in `Acoustic WavesÐDevices, Imaging &
Analog Signal Processing', Prentice-Hall Inc., Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 1987.
R. A. Klein, in `Nondestructive Characterization of Com-
posite Media', Technomic Publishing Co., Lancaster,
PA, 1992.
R. A. Kline and Z. T. Chen, Materials Evaluation, 1988,
46, 986±992.
J. Krautkramer and H. Krautkramer, in `Ultrasonic
Testing of Materials', Springer, New York, 1983.
R. D. Kriz and H. M. Ledbetter, in `Recent Advances in
Composites in the United States and Japan', eds. J. R.
Vinson and M. Taya, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1985, pp. 661±665.
J. Kushibiki and N. Chubachi, IEEE Trans. Sonics and
Ultras., 1985, SU-32, 189±212.
I. Ladabaum, X. C. Jin and B. T. Khuri-Yakub, in `IEEE
Ultrasonic Symposium', ON, Canada, October 5±8,
1997; 1997 Ultrasonic Symposium Proceedings, eds. S.
C. Schneider, M. Levy and B. R. McAvoy, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York,
1998, pp. 983±986.
Y.-C. Lee, J. O. Kim and J. D. Achenbach, IEEE Trans.
Ultras. Ferroelect. Freq. Control, 1995, 42, 253±264.
R. A. Lemons and C. F. Quate, Appl. Phys. Lett., 1974,
24, 163±165.
K. K. Liang, G. S. Kino and B. T. Khuri-Yacub, IEEE
Trans. Sonics and Ultras., 1985, SU-32, 213±224.
A. G. Martin, Nondestructive Testing, 1976, 9, 242±246.
A. D. W. McKie, J. W. Wagner, J. B. Spicer and C. M.
Penney, Ultrasonics, 1989, 27, 323±330.
D. W. McKie and R. C. Addison, Jr., Proc. SPIE, 1998, 10,
107±116.
K. I. McRae, Materials Evaluation, 1990, 48, 1380±1384.
T. Mihara and M. Obata, Experimental Mechanics, 1987,
32, 817±821.
C. Miyasaka and B. R Tittmann, in `Proceedings of
ICCM-12 Conference', Paris, Woodhead Publishing,
Cambridge, UK, 1999.
J. P. Monchalin, IEEE Transactions Ultrasonic, Ferro-
electrics, Frequency Control, 1986, 33, 485±499.
H. Morita and B. R. Tittmann, in `Ultrasonic Character-
ization of Soft Body Impact Damage on CF/PEEK
Laminates with Gelatin Projectiles', Review of Progress
in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation, Vol 16, eds.
D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti, Plenum Press,
New York, 1997, pp. 1885±1892.
T. W. Murray, J. B. Deaton, Jr. and J. W. Wagner,
Ultrasonics, 1996, 34, 69±77.
H. Nakano and S. Nagai, Ultrasonics, 1991, 29, 230±234.
K. A. Nelson, R. J. D. Miller, D. R. Lutz and M. D.
Fayer, J. Appl. Phys., 1982, 53, 1144±1149.
H. Nishino, Y. Tsukahara, Y. Nagata, T. Koda and K.
Yamanaka, Appl. Phys. Lett., 1993, 62, 2036±2038.
M. Ourak, B. Nongaillard, J. M. Rouvaen and M.
Ouftouh, NDT International, 1991, 24, 21±28.
E. P. Papadakis and G. B. Chapman II, Materials Eva-
luation, 1993, 51, 496±500.
A. D. Pierce, in `Acoustics: An Introduction to Its
Physical Principles and Applications', McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York, 1981.
H. F. Pollard, in `Sound Waves in Solids', Pion Ltd.,
London, 1977.
A. M. Porter, Materials Evaluation, 1988, 47, 408±409.
W. N. Reynolds and S. J. Wilkinson, Ultrasonics, 1974, 7,
 References
109±114.
A. J. Rogovsky, Materials Evaluation, 1991, 49, 1491±1497.
L. R. F. Rose, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 1984, 75, 723±732.
D. Royer and E. Dieulesaint, J. Appl. Phys., 1984, 56,
2507±2511.
W. Sachse, K. Y. Kim, D. Xiang and N. N. Hsu, in
`Nondestructive Characterization of Material VIII', ed.
R. E. Green, Plenum, New York, 1998, pp. 401±406.
W. R. Scott, Naval Air Development Center Technical,
1980.
B. Scruby and L. E. Drain, in `Laser Ultrasonics: Techni-
ques and Applications', Adam Hilger, Bristol, UK, 1990.
B. J. Skutnik, W. B. Beck and M. H. Hodge, Proc. SPIE,
1987, 787, 8±16.
D. E. W. Stone and B. Clark, Nondestructive Testing,
1975, 8, 137±145.
R. N. Swamy and A. M. A. H. Ali, NDT International,
1984, 17, 139±146.
J. Szelazek, NDT International, 1989, 22, 26±30.
S. Takeshita, S. Taki and K. Matsushige, Materials
37
Evaluation, 1990, 48, 1473±1477.
J. A. G. Temple, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics,
1988, 21, 859±873.
B. R. Tittmann, R. S. Linebarger, R. C. Addison, Jr., in
`Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive
Evaluation', eds. D. O. Thompson and D. Chimenti,
Plenum, New York, 1990, vol. 9, pp. 479±486.
I. A. Viktorov, in `Rayleigh and Lamb Waves', Plenum,
New York, 1967.
D. R. Weglein, IEEE Trans. Sonics and Ultras., 1980, SU-
27, 82±86.
D. Xiang, N. N. Hsu and G. V. Blessing, in `Review of
Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation',
eds. D. O. Thompson and D. E. Chimenti, Plenum,
New York, 1997, vol. 16, pp. 1563±1570.
J. Yang, N. DeRidder, C. Ume and J. Jarzynski, Ultra-
sonics, 1993, 31, 387±394.
J. E. Zimmer and J. R. Cook, Journal of Acoustical
Society of America, 1970, 47, 795±803.
5.12.5 APPENDIX: ACOUSTIC PROPERTIES OF MATERIAL

Table 1 Acoustic properties of material.

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Gases
Alcohol vapor 0.23
Air 25 Atmos. 0.33
Air 50 Atmos. 0.34
Air 100 Atmos. 0.35
Air 0.34
Air 0.39
Air 0.55
Ammonia 0.42
Argon 0.00178 0.32
Carbon monoxide 0.34
Carbon dioxide 0.26
Carbon disulfide 0.19
Chlorine 0.21
Ether vapor 0.18
Ethylene 0.31
Helium 0.00018 0.97
Hydrogen 0.00009 1.28
Methane 0.00074 0.43
Neon 0.0009 0.43
Nitric oxide 0.33
Nitrogen 0.00125 0.33
Nitrogen 0.00116 0.35
Nitrous oxide 0.26
Oxygen 0.00142 0.32
Oxygen 0.00132 0.33
Water vapor 0.4
Water vapor 0.41
Water vapor 0.42

Gases - Cryogenic
Argon 1.404 0.84 1.18
Argon 1.424 0.86 1.23
Helium 0.125 0.18 0.023
Helium 0.146 0.23 0.034
Helium-4 Liquid @2K 0.15 0.18 0.027
Hydrogen Liquid @20K 0.07 1.19 0.08
Hydrogen 0.355 1.13 0.401
Nitrogen 0.815 0.87 0.708
Nitrogen 0.843 0.93 0.783
Oxygen 1.143 0.97 1.04
Oxygen 1.272 1.13 1.44
Oxygen 1.149 0.95 1.09

Liquids
Acetate Butyl (n) 0.871 1.17 1.02
Acetate Ethyl 0.9 1.18 1.06
Acetate Methyl 0.928 1.15 1.07
Acetate Propyl 0.891 1.18 1.05
Acetone 0.79 1.17 0.92
Acetone 0.791 1.16 0.92 0.0469
Acetonitrile 0.783 1.29 1.01
Acetonyl acetone 0.729 1.4 1.36
Acetylene dichloride 1.26 1.02 1.29
Adiprene CW-520 0.79 1.68 1.33 0.0469
Alcohol isopropyl 0.79 1.17 0.92 0.08
Alcohol butyl 0.81 1.24 1
Alcohol ethyl 0.789 1.18 0.93
Alcohol furfuryl 1.135 1.45 1.65
Alcohol methyl 0.792 1.12 0.89
Alcohol propyl (i) 0.786 1.17 0.92
Alcohol propyl (n) 0.804 1.22 0.98
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Alcohol t-amyl 0.81 1.2 0.97

Alkazene 13 0.86 1.32 1.14
Analine 1.022 1.69 1.68
A-Spirit Ethanol>96% 0.79 1.18 0.93
Benzene 0.87 1.3 1.13
Benzene C6H6 0.88 1.31 1.15
Benzol 0.878 1.33 1.17
Benzol ethyl 0.868 1.34 1.16
Bromo-benzene C6H5Br 1.52 1.17 1.78
Bromoform 2.89 0.92 2.66
Butanol Butyl 0.71 1.27 0.9
Butanol 0.81 1.27 1.03
Butoxyethanol (2n-) 1.31
Butylene Glycol (2.3) 1.019 1.48 1.51
Butyrate ethyl 0.877 1.17 1.03
Carbitol 0.988 1.46 1.44
Carbon disulfide 1.16
Carbon disulfide 1.26 1.15 1.45
Carbon tetrachloride CCl4 1.595 0.93 1.48
Cerechlor 42 1.26 1.43 1.8
Chinolin 1.09 1.57 1.71
Chloro benzene C6H5Cl 1.1 1.3 1.43
Chloroform 1.49 0.99 1.47
Chloro hexanol 98% 0.95 1.42 1.35
Cyclohexanol 0.962 1.45 1.39
Cyclohexanol Freon 1.2
Cyclohexanol DTE 21 Oil 1.39
Cyclohexanol Glycerol 1.52
Cyclohexanone 0.948 1.42 1.39
Decahydronaphtalin C10H18 0.89 1.42 1.27
Deca hydro naphtaline Paraffin 1.41
Diacetyl 0.99 1.24 1.22
Diamin propane (1.3) >99% 0.89 1.66 1.47
Dichloro isobutane (1.3) 1.14 1.22 1.39
Diethyl ketone 0.813 1.31 1.07
Diethylamine (C2H5) 2NH 0.7 1.13 0.8
Diethylene glycol 1.116 1.58 1.76
Dimethyl phthalate 1.2 1.46 1.75
Dioxane 1.033 1.38 1.43
Diphenyl Diphenyl oxide 1.5
Dodecanol 0.83 1.41 1.16
d-Penchone 0.94 1.32 1.24
DTE 21 Mobil 1.39
DTE 24 Mobil 1.42
DTE 26 Mobil 1.43
Dubanol Shell 1.43
Dubanol Shell 1.44
Dubanol Water 1.55
Ethanol C2H4OH 0.79 1.13 0.89 0.0421
Ethanol amide 1.018 1.72 1.75
Ethyl acetate 0.9 1.19 1.07
Ethyl ether 0.713 0.99 0.7
Ethylenclycolol Sodium benzoate 1.67
Ethylene diamine 99.5% 0.9 1.69 1.52
Ethylene glycol 99.5% 1.11 1.69 1.88
Ethylene glycol 1.2-Ethanediol 1.112 1.67 1.86
Ethylene glycol 1.113 1.66 1.85
Ethylene glycol H2O 1:4 1.6
Ethylene glycol H2O 2:3 1.68
Ethylene glycol H2O 3:2 1.72
Ethylene glycol H2O 4:1 1.72
Fluorinert H2O -72 1.68 0.51 0.86
Fluorinert FC-104 1.76 0.58 1.01
Fluorinert FC-75 1.76 0.59 1.02
Fluorinert FC-77 1.78 0.6 1.05
Fluorinert FC-43 1.85 0.66 1.21
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Fluorinert FC-40 1.86 0.64 1.19

Fluorinert FC-70 1.94 0.69 1.33
Fluoro-benzene C6H5F 1.024 1.18 1.21
Formamide 1.134 1.62 1.84
Freon 0.68
Freon MF 21.1 1.485 0.8 1.19
Freon TF 21.1 1.574 0.97 1.52
Furfural 1.157 1.45 1.68
Gasoline 0.803 1.25 1
Glycerine CH2OHCHOHCH2OH 1.23 1.9 2.34
Glycerine Glycerol >98% 1.26 1.88 2.37
Glycerine 1.26 1.92 2.42
Glycerol Water 1.22 1.88 2.29
Glycerol Butanol 1.45
Glycerol Ethanol 1.52
Glycerol Ethanol 1.56
Glycerol Isopropanol 1.57
Glycerol trioleate 0.91 1.44 1.31
Glycol Polyethylene 1.06 1.62 1.71
Glycol Polyethylene 1.087 1.62 1.75
Glycol Ethylene 1.108 1.59 1.76
Glycol Ethylene 1.112 1.67 1.86
Hexane (n-)C6H14 0.659 1.1 0.727
Honey Sue Bee Orange 1.42 2.03 2.89
Iodo benzene C6H5I 1.183 1.1 2.01
Isopentane 0.62 0.99 0.62
Isopropanol 1.14
Isopropyl alcohol 0.786 1.17 0.92
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.79 1.14 0.9 0
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.84 1.21 1.01 0.14
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.88 1.24 1.09 0.4
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.88 1.28 1.13 0.23
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.92 1.3 1.2 0.44
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.94 1.35 1.27 0.33
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.96 1.36 1.31 0.53
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.97 1.36 1.32 1.12
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 0.99 1.43 1.41 0.47
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1 1.42 1.42 1.08
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1 1.43 1.43 0.67
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.03 1.48 1.52 1.13
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.03 1.51 1.56 0.72
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.04 1.54 1.64 1.2
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.07 1.58 1.7 0.93
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.09 1.6 1.75 1.4
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.13 1.65 1.86 1.68
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.16 1.75 2.03 2.57
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.2 1.82 2.19 2.12
Isopropyl alcohol Propylene glycol 1.25 1.92 2.39 4.55
Jeffox WL-1400 1.53
Kerosene 0.81 1.32 1.07
Linalool 0.884 1.4 1.24
Mercury Hg 13.6 1.45 19.7
Mercury 20C 1.42 19.7
Mesityloxide 0.85 1.31 1.11
Methanol CH3OH 0.796 1.09 0.87 0.87 0.0262
Methyl acetate 0.934 1.21 1.13
Methyl Napthalene 1.09 1.51 1.65
Methyl salicylate 1.16 1.38 1.6
Methylene iodide 0.98
Methylethyl ketone 0.805 1.21 0.97
Modinet P40 1.06 1.38 1.47
Monochloro benzene 1.107 1.27 1.41
Morpholine 1 1.44 1.44
M-xylol 0.864 1.32 1.14
NaK Mix 0.64 1.66
NaK Mix 0.713 1.72
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

NaK Mix 0.714 1.84

NaK Mix 0.73 1.95
NaK Mix 0.736 1.77
NaK Mix 0.738 1.89
NaK Mix 0.754 2
NaK Mix 0.759 1.82
NaK Mix 0.761 1.99
NaK Mix 0.778 2.05
NaK Mix 0.781 1.88
NaK Mix 0.784 1.99
NaK Mix 0.801 2.1
NaK Mix 0.804 1.93
NaK Mix 0.807 2.04
NaK Mix 0.825 2.15
NaK Mix 0.826 1.98
NaK Mix 0.83 2.09
NaK Mix 0.848 2.2
NaK Mix 0.849 2.04
NaK Mix 0.853 2.14
NaK Mix 0.871 2.25
NaK Mix 0.876 2.19
NaK Mix 0.893 2.31
n-Hexanol 0.819 1.3 1.06
Nicotine C10H14N2 1.01 1.49 1.51
Nitrobenzene 1.2 1.46 1.75
Nitrogen N2 0.8 0.86 0.68
Nitromethane 1.13 1.33 1.5
Oil - baby 0.821 1.43 1.17
Oil - Castor Jeffox WL-1400 1.52
Oil - Castor Castor 0.95 1.54 1.45
Oil - Castor Ricinus Oil 0.969 1.48 1.43
Oil - corn 0.922 1.46 1.34
Oil - cutting 64 AS (red) 1.4
Oil - diesel 1.25
Oil - fluoro silicone Dow FS-1265 0.76
Oil - grape seed Cerechlor 0.92 1.43
Oil - grape seed Castoroil 0.936 1.44 1.35
Oil - gravity fuel AA 0.99 1.49 1.48
Oil - linseed 0.922 1.77 1.63
Oil - linseed 0.94 1.46 1.34
Oil - mineral (heavy) 0.843 1.46 1.37
Oil - mineral (light) 0.825 1.44 1.19
Oil - motor (2 cycle) 1.43
Oil - motor (SAE 20) 0.87 1.74 1.51
Oil - motor (SAE 30) 0.88 1.7 1.5
Oil - olive 1.43
Oil - olive 0.918 1.45 1.32
Oil - olive 0.948 1.43 1.39
Oil - paraffin 1.28
Oil - paraffin 1.43
Oil - paraffin 0.835 1.42 1.86
Oil - peanut 0.914 1.44 1.31
Oil - peanut 0.936 1.46 1.37
Oil - safflower 0.92 1.45 1.34
Oil - silicone Dow 710 fluid 1.35
Oil - silicone Silicone 200 0.818 0.96 0.74
Oil - silicone Silicone 200 0.94 0.97 0.91
Oil - silicone Silicone 200 0.972 0.99 0.96
Oil - silicone 30 centipoise 0.993 0.99 0.983
Oil - silicone 1.1 1.37 1.5
Oil - soybean 0.93 1.43 1.32
Oil - sperm 0.88 1.44 1.27
Oil - sun Nivea 1.41
Oil - sunflower 0.92 1.45 1.34
Oil - synthetic 0.98 1.27 1.33
Oil - transformer 0.92 1.39 1.28
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Oil - transmission Dexron (red) 1.42

Oil - Velocite Mobil 1.3
Oil - wheat germ 0.94 1.49 1.39
Paraffin 1.5 1.5 2.3
Pentane 0.621 1.01 0.63
Pentane (n-) C5H12 0.626 1.03 0.64
Petroleum 0.825 1.29 1.06
Polypropylene glycol Polyglycol P-400 1.3
Polypropylene glycol Polyglycol P-1200 1.3
Polypropylene glycol Polyglycol E-200 1.57
Polypropylene oxide Ambiflo 1.37
Potassium 0.662 1.49
Potassium 0.685 1.55
Potassium 0.707 1.6
Potassium 0.729 1.65
Potassium 0.751 1.71
Potassium 0.773 1.76
Potassium 0.796 1.81
Potassium 0.818 1.86
Propane diol (1.3) >97% 1.05 1.62 1.7
Pyridine 0.982 1.41 1.38
Sodium 0.759 2.15
Sodium 0.784 2.21
Sodium 0.809 2.26
Sodium 0.833 2.31
Sodium 0.857 2.37
Sodium 0.881 2.42
Sodium 0.904 2.48
Sodium 0.926 2.53
Solvesso #3 0.877 1.37 0.201
Sonotrack Coupling Gel 1.4 1.62 1.68
Span 20 1.48
Span 85 1.46
Tallow 0.39
Tert butyl chloride 0.84 0.98 0.82
Tetra ethylene glycol 1.12 1.58 1.77
Tetra Hydrohaphtaline (1.2.3.4) 0.97 1.47 1.42
Trichlorethylene 1.05 1.05 0.41
Triethylene glycol 1.12 1.61 1.81
Triethylene Glycol 1.123 1.61 1.98
Trithylamine (C2H5) 3N 0.73 1.12 0.81
Turpentine 0.87 1.25 1.11
Turpentine 0.893 1.28 1.14
Turpentine 1.27
Ucon 75H450 1.54
Univis 800 0.87 1.35 1.19
Water - salt solution 10% 1.47
Water - salt solution 15% 1.53
Water - salt solution 20% 1.6
Water - sea 1.025 1.53 1.57
Water - sea 1.026 1.5 1.54
Water 1 1.51 1.51
Water 1 1.55 1.55
Water Propylene glycol 1 1.5 1.5
Water Propylene glycol 1.01 1.61 1.63 0.021
Water Propylene glycol 1.02 1.69 1.72 0.038
Water Propylene glycol 1.03 1.51 1.56 0.669
Water Propylene glycol 1.03 1.62 1.66 0.213
Water Propylene glycol 1.03 1.69 1.73 0.088
Water Propylene glycol 1.05 1.6 1.69
Water Propylene glycol 1.06 1.69 1.79 0.059
Water Propylene glycol 1.07 1.58 1.7 1.025
Water Propylene glycol 1.07 1.66 1.78 0.395
Water Propylene glycol 1.07 1.71 1.83 0.174
Water Propylene glycol 1.07 1.73 1.84 0.112
Water Propylene glycol 1.11 1.71 1.89 0.086
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Water Propylene glycol 1.11 1.75 1.95 0.321

Water Propylene glycol 1.11 1.76 1.94 0.117
Water Propylene glycol 1.11 1.77 1.97 0.182
Water Propylene glycol 1.12 1.66 1.86 1.744
Water Propylene glycol 1.12 1.71 1.91 0.582
Water Propylene glycol 1.16 1.75 2.03 2.57
Water Propylene glycol 1.16 1.78 2.06 1.242
Water Propylene glycol 1.16 1.8 2.09 0.175
Water Propylene glycol 1.16 1.81 2.09 0.648
Water Propylene glycol 1.16 1.82 2.11 0.241
Water Propylene glycol 1.16 1.82 2.11 0.397
Water Propylene glycol 1.2 1.82 2.19 2.12
Water Propylene glycol 1.2 1.85 2.23 1.469
Water Propylene glycol 1.2 1.85 2.22 2.033
Water Propylene glycol 1.2 1.86 2.24 1.023
Water Propylene glycol 1.2 1.87 2.24 0.731
Water Propylene glycol 1.2 1.88 2.25 0.544
Water Propylene glycol 1.25 1.92 2.39 4.55
Water UCON 50HB400 0.79 1.16 0.91 0.11
Water UCON 50HB400 0.83 1.25 1.04 0.06
Water UCON 50HB400 0.83 1.27 1.06 0.06
Water UCON 50HB400 0.83 1.28 1.07 0.07
Water UCON 50HB400 0.83 1.29 1.07 0.07
Water UCON 50HB400 0.84 1.21 1.01 0.15
Water UCON 50HB400 0.84 1.24 1.03 0.08
Water UCON 50HB400 0.87 1.41 1.23 0.3
Water UCON 50HB400 0.88 1.31 1.16 0.15
Water UCON 50HB400 0.88 1.34 1.18 0.15
Water UCON 50HB400 0.88 1.37 1.2 0.2
Water UCON 50HB400 0.88 1.4 1.22 0.24
Water UCON 50HB400 0.89 1.26 1.12 0.26
Water UCON 50HB400 0.91 1.54 1.4 0.55
Water UCON 50HB400 0.92 1.52 1.4 0.74
Water UCON 50HB400 0.93 1.44 1.33 0.4
Water UCON 50HB400 0.93 1.48 1.38 0.57
Water UCON 50HB400 0.94 1.32 1.24 0.35
Water UCON 50HB400 0.94 1.4 1.31 0.35
Water UCON 50HB400 0.96 1.63 1.57 1.38
Water UCON 50HB400 0.96 1.64 1.57 0.03
Water UCON 50HB400 0.97 1.54 1.5 1.06
Water UCON 50HB400 0.97 1.59 1.55 1.54
Water UCON 50HB400 0.99 1.38 1.37 0.52
Water UCON 50HB400 0.99 1.49 1.46 0.7
Water UCON 50HB400 1 1.48 1.48
Water UCON 50HB400 1 1.5 1.5 0
Water UCON 50HB400 1 1.5 1.5 0.04
Water UCON 50HB400 1.01 1.61 1.63 0.13
Water UCON 50HB400 1.01 1.61 1.63 0.13
Water UCON 50HB400 1.01 1.63 1.65 0
Water UCON 50HB400 1.01 1.69 1.71 0.4
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.64 1.69 2.72
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.66 1.7 2.11
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.66 1.7 2.11
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.66 1.7 2.11
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.68 1.72 0.84
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.69 1.72 1.5
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.69 1.73 0.17
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.69 1.73 0.29
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.7 1.73 0.08
Water UCON 50HB400 1.02 1.71 1.74 0.44
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.5 1.55 0.92
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.5 1.55 0.92
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.53 1.58 0.72
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.53 1.58 0.72
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.54 1.6 0.72
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.54 1.6 0.72
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.56 1.61 0.73

Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.56 1.61 0.73
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.57 1.63 2.13
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.57 1.61 0.92
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.57 1.62 0.58
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.57 1.63 2.13
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.57 1.61 0.92
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.57 1.62 0.58
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.57 1.63 2.13
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.58 1.63 1.25
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.58 1.63 1.25
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.6 1.65 0.47
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.6 1.65 0.47
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.61 1.65 0.56
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.61 1.65 0.56
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.62 1.67 0.38
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.62 1.67 0.38
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.63 1.68 0.9
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.63 1.68 0.9
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.64 1.69 2.72
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.65 1.7 1.53
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.65 1.7 0.46
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.65 1.7 0.32
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.65 1.7 1.53
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.65 1.7 0.46
Water UCON 50HB400 1.03 1.65 1.7 0.32
Water UCON 50HB400 1.04 1.44 1.5 0.94
Water UCON 50HB400 1.04 1.44 1.5 0.94
Water UCON 50HB400 1.04 1.46 1.52 1.05
Water UCON 50HB400 1.04 1.48 1.53 1.02
Water UCON 50HB400 1.04 1.51 1.57 0.85
Water D2O 1.104 1.4 1.55
Xylene hexaflouride 1.37 0.88 1.21

Solids (Metals & Alloys)

Antimony Sb 3.4
Aluminum 2.7 6.32 3.1 17.1
Aluminum Duraluminum 2.71 6.32 3.1 17.1
Al 1100-0 2S0 2.71 6.35 3.1 2.9 17.2
Al 2014 14S 2.8 6.32 3.1 17.7
Al 2024 T4 24ST 2.77 6.37 3.2 2.95 17.6
Al 2117 T4 17ST 2.8 6.5 3.1 18.2
Bearing Babbit 10.1 2.3 23.2
Beryllium 1.82 12.9 8.9 7.87 23.5
Bismuth 9.8 2.18 1.1 21.4
Brass 70%Cu-30%Zn 8.64 4.7 2.1 40.6
Brass 8.56 4.28 2 36.6
Brass Half Hard 8.1 3.83 2.1 31.0
Brass Naval 8.42 4.43 2.1 1.95 37.3
Bronze Phospho 8.86 3.53 2.2 2.01 31.3
Cadmium Cd 8.6 2.8 1.5 42.0
Cadmium 8.64 2.78 1.5 24.0
Cesium 1.88 0.97 1.82
Columbium 8.57 4.92 2.1 42.2
Constantan 8.88 5.24 2.6 46.5
Copper - rolled Cu 8.9 5.01 2.3 44.6
Copper 8.93 4.66 2.3 1.93 41.6
Gallium 5.95 2.74 16.3
Germanium 5.47 5.41 29.6
Gold Hard Drawn 19.32 3.24 1.2 62.6
Hafnium 3.84
Inconel 8.25 5.72 3 2.79 64.5
Indium 7.3 2.22 16.2
Iron 7.7 5.9 3.2 2.79 45.4
Iron Cast 7.22 4.6 2.6 33.2
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Lead 11.4 2.16 0.7 0.63 24.6

Lead 5% Antimony 10.9 2.17 0.8 0.74 23.7
Magnesium 1.74 6.31 11.0
Magnesium AM-35 1.74 5.79 3.1 2.87 10.1
Magnesium FS-1 1.69 5.47 3 9.2
Magnesium J-1 1.7 5.67 3 9.6
Magnesium M 1.75 5.76 3.1 10.1
Magnesium O-1 1.82 5.8 3 10.6
Magnesium ZK-60A-TS 1.83 5.71 3.1 10.4
Magnesium 1.72 5.8 3 10.0
Manganese 7.39 4.66 2.4 34.4
Molybdenum 10.2 6.29 3.4 3.11 64.2
Monel 8.83 6.02 2.7 1.96 53.2
Nickel 8.88 5.63 3 2.64 50.0
Nickel-Silver 11.2 3.58 2.2 40.0
Platinum 21.4 3.96 1.7 84.7
Plutonium 1.79 28.2
Plutonium 1% Gallium 1.82 28.6
Potassium 0.83 1.82 1.51
Rubidium 1.53 1.26 1.93
Silver 10.5 3.6 1.6 37.8
Silver Nickel 8.75 4.62 2.3 1.69 40.4
Silver German 8.7 4.76 41.4
E-Solder 2.71 1.9 1 5.14
Steel 302 Cres 8.03 5.66 3.1 3.12 45.4
Steel 347 Cres 7.91 5.74 3.1 45.4
Steel 410 Cres 7.67 7.39 3 2.16 56.7
Steel 1020 7.71 5.89 3.2 45.4
Steel 1095 7.8 5.9 3.2 51.0
Steel 4150 7.84 5.86 2.8 45.9
Steel 4150 7.82 5.89 3.2 46.1
Steel 4150 7.81 5.87 3.2 45.8
Steel 4150 7.8 5.82 2.8 45.4
Steel 4340 7.8 5.85 3.2 51.0
Steel Mild 7.8 5.9 3.2 46.00
Steel Stainless 347 7.89 5.79 3.1 45.70
Tantalum 16.6 4.1 2.9 54.8
Thallium 11.9 1.62 19.3
Thorium 11.3 2.4 1.6 33.2
Tin 7.3 3.3 1.7 24.1
Titanium 4.5 6.07 3.1 27.3
Titanium 4.48 6.1 3.1 27.3
Tungsten 19.25 5.18 2.9 2.65 99.7
Uranium 18.5 3.4 2 63.0
Vanadium 6.03 6 2.8 36.2
Zinc 7.1 4.17 2.4 29.6
Zircalloy 4.72 2.4 44.2
Zirconium 6.48 4.65 2.3 30.1

Solids (Ceramics)
Arsenic trisulfide 3.2 2.58 1.4 8.25
Ammonium dihydrogen phosphate (ADP) 502/118.9:1 1.35 2.73 3.69
ADP 502/118.5:1 1.35 2.67 3.60
ADP 3.28
Barium Titanate 5.55 5.64 2.9 33.5
Boron carbide 2.4 11 26.4
Brick 1.7 4.3 7.40
Brick 3.6 3.65 2.6 15.3
Calcium fluoride CaF l. x cut 6.74
Concrete 2.6 3.1 8.00
Clay rock 2.5 3.48 3.4 14.2
Flint 3.6 4.26 3 18.9
Glass crown Reg. 2.6 5.66 3.5 14.5
Glass Crown 2.24 5.1 2.8 11.4
Glass 205 Sheet 2.49 5.66 14.1
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Glass FK3 2.26 4.91 2.9 11.1

Glass FK6 2.28 4.43 2.5 10.1
Glass Flint 3.6 4.5 16.0
Glass Macor 2.54 5.51 14.0
Glass Plate 2.75 5.71 10.7
Glass Pyrex 2.24 5.64 3.3 13.1
Glass quartz 2.2 5.57 3.4 14.5
Glass Silica 2.2 5.9 13.0
Glass Soda Lime 2.24 6 13.4
Glass T1K 2.38 4.38 10.5
Glass Window 6.79 3.4
Granite 4.1 6.5 26.8
Graphite Pyrolytic 1.46 4.6 6.60
Graphite Pressed 1.8 2.4 4.10
Hydrogen Solid @4.2K 0.089 2.19 0.19
Ice 0.92 3.6 3.20
Ice 2.65 3.99 3.3 16.4
Ivory 2.17 3.01 10.4
Lead meta niobate PbNbO3 6.2 3.3 20.5
Lead zirconate titanate PbZrTiO3 7.75 3.28 29.3
Lead zirconate titanate PbZrTiO3 7.5 4 30.0
Lead zirconate titanate PbZrTiO3 7.45 4.2 31.3
Lead zirconate titanate PbZrTiO3 7.43 4.44 33.0
Lead zirconate titanate PbZrTiO3 7.95 4.72 37.5
Lithium niobate 46 Rot. Y-cut 4.7 7.08 33.0
Marble 2.8 3.8 10.5
Lithium niobate Z-cut 4.64 7.33 34.0
Lithium niobate Y-cut 6.88
Lead metaniobate K-81 6.2 3.3 20.5
Lead metaniobate K-83 4.3 5.33 22.9
Lead metaniobate K-85 5.5 3.35 18.4
Porcelain 2.3 5.9 13.50
Potassium Chloride 4.14
Potassium Bromide 3.38
Potassium sodium niobate 4.46 6.94 31.0
PZT-2 7.6 4.41 1.7 31.3
PZT-4 7.5 4.6 1.9 34.5
PZT-5A 7.75 4.35 1.7 33.7
PZT-5H 7.5 4.56 1.8 34.2
Lithium sulfate Y-cut 2.06 5.46 11.2
Quartz 6.82 5.66 15.2
Tourmaline Z-cut 3.1 7.54 23.4
Rock Salt X dir 4.78
Rochelle Salt 2.2 5.36 3.8 13.1
Sodium bismuth titanate 6.5 4.06 26.4
Sapphire 2.6 9.8 11.7
Silica, fused 2.2 5.96 3.8 13.1
Slate 4.5
Sulfur 1.35
Slate 3 4.5 13.5
Sodium bromide NaBr 2.79
Zinc oxide 5.68 6.4 3 36.4
Uranium Oxide UO2 5.18 56.7
Silicon carbide 13.8 6.66 91.8
Silicon nitride 3.27 11 6.3 36.0
Titanium carbide 5.15 8.27 5.2 42.6
Quartz X-Cut 2.65 5.75 15.3
Rochelle salt KNaC4H4O6 2.47
Salt NaCl 2.17 4.85 10.5
Sapphire Al2O3 3.98 11.2 44.5
Silicon Anisotropic 2.33 9 21.0

Solids (Polymer)
ABS Acrylonitryl 1.04 2.11 2.20
Acrylic Resin 1.18 2.67 1.1 3.15
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Acrylic 1.2 2.7 3.24

Araldite 502/956 1.16 2.62 4.04
Bakelite 1.4 2.59 3.63
Bakelite 1.9 1.9 4.80
Butyl Rubber 1.11 1.8 2.00
Carbon pyrolytic Soft 2.21 3.31 7.31
Carbon vitreous 1.47 4.26 2.7 6.26
Celcon Acetal copolymer 1.41 2.51 3.54
Cellulose acetate 1.3 2.45 3.19
Cycolac Acrylonitrile-butadine-styrene 2.27 2.49
EPON 828 MPDA 1.21 2.83 1.2 3.40
EPOTEK 301 1.08 2.64 2.85
EPOTEK 330 1.14 2.57 2.94
EPOTEK H70S 1.68 2.91 4.88
EPOTEK V6 10PHA of B 1.23 2.55 3.14
EPOTEK V6 10PHA of B 1.23 2.61 3.21
EPOTEK V6 10PHA of B 1.26 2.55 3.22
EPOTEK V6 10PHA of B 1.25 2.6 3.25
Epoxy Silver 3.098 1.89 5.85
Epoxy Silver 3.383 1.87 6.31
Ethyl vinyl acetate 0.94 1.8 1.69
Delrin 1.36 2.47 3.36
Delrin Acetal homopolymer 1.42 2.52 3.57
DER317 10.5PHR DEH20 1.18 2.75 3.25
DER317 10.5PHR DEH20 2.23 2.07 4.61
DER317 13.5PHR MPDA 1.6 2.4 3.84
DER317 13.5PHR MPDA 2.03 2.19 4.44
DER317 13.5PHR MPDA 3.4 1.86 0.9 6.40
DER317 9PHR DEH20 7.27 1.5 10.9
DER317 9PHR DEH20 2.23 2.03 1 4.53
DER317 9PHR DEH20 2.37 1.93 4.58
DER332 10PHR DEH20 1.76 3.18 1.6 5.58
DER332 10PHR DEH20 1.2 2.6 3.11
DER332 10.5PHR DEH20 1.29 2.65 3.41
DER332 10.5PHR DEH20 1.26 2.61 3.29
DER332 10.5PHR DEH20 1.37 2.75 3.78
DER332 11PHR DEH20 1.72 2.35 4.05
DER332 11PHR DEH20 1.29 2.71 3.49
DER332 14PHR MPDA 1.25 2.59 3.24
DER332 15PHR MPDA 1.54 2.78 1.5 4.27
DER332 15PHR MPDA 1.49 2.8 1.4 4.18
DER332 15PHR MPDA 1.24 2.66 3.30
DER332 15PHR MPDA 1.24 2.55 1.2 3.16
DER332 15PHR MPDA 2.15 3.75 8.06
DER332 15PHR MPDA 2.24 3.9 8.74
DER332 15PHR MPDA 6.45 1.75 11.3
DER332 64PHR V140 1.13 2.36 2.65
DER332 75PHR V140 1.12 2.35 2.62
DER332 100PHR V140 1.1 2.32 2.55
DER332 100PHR V140 1.13 2.27 2.55
DER332 100PHR V140 1.16 2.36 2.74
Ethyl vinyl acetate 0.95 1.68 1.60
Ethyl vinyl acetate 0.93 1.86 1.72
EPX-1 or EPX-2 100PHA of B 1.1 2.44 2.68
ECHOGEL 1265 100PHA of B 9.19 1.32 12.2
ECHOGEL 1265 100PHA of B 1.4 1.7 2.38
ECHOGEL 1265 100PHA of B 1.1 1.71 1.90
Glucose 1.56 3.2 5.00
Hysol C8-4143/3404 1.58 2.85 4.52
Hysol C9-4183/3561 3.17 2.16 7.04
Hysol C9-4183/3561 2.14 2.49 5.33
Hysol C9-4183/3561 1.8 2.62 4.70
Hysol C9-4183/3561 1.48 2.92 4.30
Hysol C9-4183/3561 2.66 2.3 6.10
Hysol C8-4412 1.68 2.02 3.39
Hysol 1.5 2.32 3.49
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Hysol R9-2039/3404
Ivory 3.01
Kel-F 1.79
Kydex 1.35 2.22 2.99
Lucite Polymethylacrylate 1.29 2.72 3.50
Lucite Polymethylacrylate 1.18 2.68 1.3 3.16
Lucite Polymethylacrylate 1.15 2.7 1.1 3.10
Marlex 5003 High-density polyethylene 0.95 2.56 2.43
Melopas 1.7 2.9 4.93
Micarta Linen base 3
Mylar 1.18 2.54 3.00
Neoprene 1.31 1.6 2.10
Noryl Polyphenylene oxide 1.08 2.27 2.45
Nylon 6-6 1.12 2.6 1.1 2.90
Penton Chlorinated polyether 1.4 2.57 3.60
Penton Syntactic foam (33 lb/cu ft) 0.53 2.57 1.36
Phenolic 1.34 1.42 1.90
Plexiglas UVA 1.27 2.76 3.51
Plexiglas UVAII 1.18 2.73 1.4 3.22
Polycarbonate Lexan 1.18 2.3 2.71
Polyethylene Low density 0.92 2.06 1.90 22 26.5
Polyethylene 1.1 2.67 2.80
Polyethylene TCI 1.6
Polyethylene HD. LB-861 0.96 2.43 2.33
Polyvinylidene difluoride 1.79 2.3 4.20
Polyamide 2.6 2.90
Polyester Casting Resin 1.07 2.29 2.86
Polyisobutylene 1.49
Polyisobutylene mol. wt. 200 1.85
Polypropylene Profax 6423 0.901 2.49 2.24
Polypropylene 0.88 2.74 2.40
Polysulfone 1.24 2.24 2.78
Polystyrene 1.1 2.67 2.80
Polystyrene Styron 666 1.05 2.4 2.52
Polyurethane RP-6400 1.04 1.5 1.56
Polyurethane RP-6401 1.07 1.71 1.83 35 73
Polyurethane RP-6401 1.07 1.63 1.74
Polyurethane RP-6402 1.08 1.77 1.91
Polyurethane RP-6403 1.1 1.87 2.05
Polyurethane RP-6405 1.3 2.09 2.36
Polyurethane RP-6410 1.04 1.71 1.78 36 73
Polyurethane RP-6410 1.04 1.33 1.38
Polyurethane RP-6413 1.04 1.71 1.78 21 35.2
Polyurethane RP-6414 1.05 1.78 1.86
Polyurethane RP-6414 1.05 1.85 1.94 18 35.2
Polyurethane RP-6422 1.04 1.6 1.66
Polyurethane RP-6413 1.04 1.65 1.66
Polyurethane EN-9 1.01 1.68 1.70
Polyurethane REN Plastic 1.07 1.71 1.83 35
Polyurethane REN Plastic 1.04 1.49 1.55 36
Polyurethane REN Plastic 1.04 1.62 1.69 15
Polyurethane REN Plastic 1.04 1.71 1.78 21
Polyurethane REN Plastic 1.05 1.85 1.92 18
Polyurethane RP6422 1.04 1.62 1.69 14 27.6
Polyvinylchloride (PVC) 1.45 2.27 3.31
Poly vinylbutyral Butracite 1.11 2.35 2.60
Profax Polypropylene 0.9 2.79 2.51
Refrasil 1.73 3.75 6.49
Rubber BFG#6063-19-71 0.97 1.53 1.56
Rubber BFG#35080
Rubber Hard 1.1 1.45 2.64
Rubber Rho-C 1 1.55 1.55
Rubber Soft 0.95 0.07 1.00
Scotch Tape 2.5 Mils Thick 1.16 1.9 2.08
Silicon rubber Sylgard 170 1.38 0.97 1.34
Silicon rubber Sylgard 182 1.05 1.03 1.07
Table 1 (continued)

Attn
Comment on Density Vl Vs Imped. Attn (dB cm71 at
Material material (g cm73) (km s71) (km s71) (MRay) (dB cm71 MHz71) 5 MHz)

Silicon rubber Sylgard 182 1.12 1.03 1.15

Silicon rubber Sylgard 184 1.03 1.03 1.04
Silicon rubber RTV-11 1.18 1.05 1.24
Silicon rubber RTV-21 1.31 1.01 1.32
Silicon rubber RTV-30 1.45 0.97 1.41
Silicon rubber RTV-41 1.31 1.01 1.32
Silicon rubber RTV-60 1.47 0.96 1.41
Silicon rubber RTV-77 1.33 1.02 1.36
Silicon rubber RTV-90 1.5 0.96 1.44
Silicon rubber RTV-112 1.05 0.94 0.99
Silicon rubber RTV-511 1.18 1.11 1.31
Silicon rubber RTV-116 1.1 1.02 1.12
Silicon rubber RTV-118 1.04 1.03 1.07
Silicon rubber RTV-577 1.35 1.08 1.46
Silicon rubber RTV-560 1.42 1.03 1.46
Silicon rubber RTV-577 1.35 1.08 1.46
Silicon rubber RTV-602 1.02 1.16 1.18
Silicon rubber RTV-615 1.02 1.08 1.10
Silicon rubber RTV-616 1.22 1.06 1.29
Silicon rubber RTV-630 1.24 1.05 1.30
Silicon rubber PRC 1933-2 1.48 0.95 1.40
Silly Putty 1 1 1.00
Scotchply XP241 Syntactic foam (42 lb/cu ft) 0.65 2.84 1.84
Scotchply XP241 Syntactic foam (38 lb/cu ft) 0.61 2.81 1.71
Stycast 1251-40 1.67 2.9 1.5 4.83
Stycast 1251-40 1.63 2.95 4.82
Stycast 1251-40 1.57 2.88 4.53
Stycast 1251-40 1.5 2.77 4.16
Stycast 1264 1.19 2.22 2.64
Stycast 2741 1.17 2.29 2.68
Stycast CPC-41 1.01 1.52 1.54
Stycast CPC-39 1.06 1.53 1.63
Styron Modified polystyrene 1.03 2.24 2.31
Surlyn 1555 Ionomer 0.95 1.91 1.81
Scotchcast XR2535 1.49 2.48 3.70
Scotchply XP241 0.65 2.84 1.84
Scotchply SP1002 1.94 3.25 6.24
Styrene 50D Polystyrene 1.04 2.33 2.43
Tapox Epoxy 1.11 2.48 2.76
Techform EA700 1.2 2.63 3.14
Teflon 2.14 1.39 2.97
TPX DX845 0.83 2.22 1.84 4.2 5.8
Tracon 2135 D 1.03 2.45 1.52
Tracon 2143 D 1.05 2.37 2.50
Tracon 2162 D 1.19 2.02 2.41
Tracon 3011 1.2 2.12 2.54
Tracon 401 ST 1.62 2.97 4.82
Teflon 2.2 1.35 2.97
Uvex 2.11
WR 106-1 Fluoro elastomer 0.87
Zytel-101 Nylon-101 1.14 2.71 3.08

Solids (Natural)
Ash Along Fiber 4.67
Beech Along Fiber 3.34
Cork 0.5
Douglas Fir Cross Grain 1.4
Douglas Fir With Grain 4.8
Elm 1.4 0.798
Maple Along Fiber 4.11
Oak 4.47 3.60
Pine Along Fiber 3.32
Poplar Along Fiber 4.28
Sycamore Along Fiber 4.46
Water 0.88 4 2 3.50
 (dB cm71 at
5 MHz)
Attn

(dB cm71 MHz71)

Attn

0.12

1.57
1.57

1.68
1.55
1.58
1.62
1.65
1.60
(MRay)
Imped.
(km s71)
Vs
(km s71)
Vl

1.55
1.49
1.47
1.54
1.54
0.5
4.1

3.5

1.5
4
(g cm73)
Density

0.24

0.72
0.45
Comment on
material

Cork

Pine
Oak
Elm
Table 1 (continued)

Material

Humain
Kidney

Spleen
Wood
Wood
Wood
Wood

Brain

Liver
Beef

Copyright # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. Comprehensive Composite Materials

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any ISBN (set): 0-08 0429939
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, Volume 5; (ISBN: 0-080437230); pp. 259±320
without permission in writing from the publishers.