applied

sciences
Article
Nondestructive Ultrasonic Inspection of Composite
Materials: A Comparative Advantage of Phased
Array Ultrasonic
Hossein Taheri 1, * and Ahmed Arabi Hassen 2,3
1 Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA
2 Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Knoxville,
TN 37932, USA; [email protected]
3 Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee, Estabrook Rd,
Knoxville, TN 37916, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-912-478-7463




Received: 17 March 2019; Accepted: 16 April 2019; Published: 19 April 2019


Featured Application: The featured application of the proposed study is to develop the application
and describe the advantages of phased array ultrasonic technique for the inspection of composite
materials. The proposed method not only enhances the probability of detection of the defects in
composite materials, but also increases the distance over which the defects are detectable with a
single inspection location.

Abstract: Carbon- and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP and GFRP) composite materials have
been used in many industries such as aerospace and automobile because of their outstanding
strength-to-weight ratio and corrosion resistance. The quality of these materials is important for safe
operation. Nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques are an effective way to inspect these composites.
While ultrasonic NDT has previously been used for inspection of composites, conventional ultrasonic
NDT, using single element transducers, has limitations such as high attenuation and low signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR). Using phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) techniques, signals can be generated at
desired distances and angles. These capabilities provide promising results for composites where the
anisotropic structure makes signal evaluation challenging. Defect detection in composites based on
bulk and guided waves are studied. The capability of the PAUT and its sensitivity to flaws were
evaluated by comparing the signal characteristics to the conventional method. The results show that
flaw sizes as small as 0.8 mm with penetration depth up to 25 mm can be detected using PAUT, and the
result signals have better characteristics than the conventional ultrasonic technique. In addition, it has
been shown that guided wave generated by PAUT also has outstanding capability of flaw detection
in composite materials.

Keywords: phased array ultrasonic; composites; signal sensitivity; defect detection; nondestructive
testing (NDT)

1. Introduction
Carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) composite
materials are widely used in a variety of applications such as aerospace structures, wind turbine
blades, the automotive industry, and mass transit [1–4]. Nondestructive testing/evaluation (NDT/E)
and inspection of these materials are necessary to control the quality of the parts and inspect for
anomalies in the structures to prevent catastrophic failure. Nondestructive techniques are widely
used for material evaluation and flaw detection [5,6]. Ultrasonic testing is one of the most commonly

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628; doi:10.3390/app9081628 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 2 of 16

used NDT methods for various applications, where characteristics of ultrasonic signals, such as
reflection and scattering of ultrasound waves, are used for material properties evaluation and flaw
detection [5,7–10]. In ultrasonic testing, a piezoelectric transducer is commonly used for generation
of compression or shear wave which are propagating through the inspected media. When these
waves interact with media boundaries, they face reflection, transmission, and scattering from the
boundaries [5]. These scattering characteristics, the speed of sound wave, and travelling time provide
valuable information about the material properties and integrity. However, using conventional
ultrasonic methods for composite inspection can be challenging due to the anisotropic nature of the
composites structures [11–13]. Wave propagation in anisotropic composite structures is complex,
and random scattering as well as high attenuation of ultrasonic waves reduce the probability of defect
detection [14,15]. Several ultrasonic techniques have been used for inspection and characterization
of composite materials. Castellano et. al. (2018) introduced a new experimental approach for the
comparison between Quasi Static Indentation (QSI) damage and Low-Velocity Impact (LVI) damage in
polymer composites starting from the results of ultrasonic goniometric immersion tests [16]. In their
study, the differences and similarities between QSI and LVI damage starting from the analysis of the
variations of the acoustic behavior and by using a suitable anisotropic damage model developed in the
framework of the Continuum Damage Mechanics theory [16].
Phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT) can overcome conventional ultrasonic method limitations
by providing the capability of signal focusing and steering at desired angles and locations [17–19].
In PAUT, a series of ultrasonic elements in a phased array transducer can provide the option to
activate each individual element in a programmed sequence [20,21]. A phased array unit includes a
computer-based instrument capable of driving multielements, as well as receiving and digitizing the
returning echoes based on the appropriate delay law for firing the elements. This is done by changing
the time between the outgoing ultrasonic pulses of each element so that the superimposed wave front
effectively steers and shapes the resultant final sound beam. This capability assists in generating
the desired type of ultrasonic signal and improving the wave characteristics in comparison to the
conventional single-element ultrasonic transducer. The PAUT method can also be used to generate
guided waves [22–26]. Guided waves are another type of ultrasonic wave, which provide useable
features for inspection of plate type structures. Guided waves can travel longer distances compared to
the other types of ultrasonic waves and can cover more area of inspection, making faster inspections
possible [19,27–29]. Chimenti (1997) comprehensively discussed the composite materials and their
inspection and characterization using guided waves [30].
In this work, we first compare the defect detection capability and sensitivity of the PAUT signals
with single element (conventional) ultrasonic (SEUT). The back wall reflection of bulk wave through
the thickness of composite samples was used to study the signal characteristics of the PAUT and
compare them with SEUT. The sensitivity of the signal to flaw detection was also studied using the
response signal from the artificially made defects in composite parts. Next, guided wave modes were
generated using the PAUT system for defect detection in sample plates. The guided waves generated
using PAUT were used to show the feasibility of flaw detection on composite plates.

2. Materials and Sample Preparation

2.1. SEUT Versus PAUT Methods

GFRP plates, extracted from a wind turbine blade, were used for the experiments as shown in
Figure 1a. The GFRP samples have various thicknesses of 4, 10, 12, 18, and 25 mm. In order to study
the sensitivity of flaw detection in both the PAUT and SEUT methods, various sizes of holes were
drilled on one side of the sample (with the largest thickness being 25 mm), as shown schematically in
Figure 1b.
 Appl.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,
Sci. 2019, 9, 1628
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 16
16

(a)

(b)
90 Figure 1.
Figure 1. Samples used to to evaluate
evaluate capability
capability and
and sensitivity
sensitivity of
of defect
defect detection
detection in in single
single element
element
91 ultrasonic (SEUT) versus phased array ultrasonic (PAUT) methods: (a) glass fiber reinforced
ultrasonic (SEUT) versus phased array ultrasonic (PAUT) methods: (a) glass fiber reinforced polymer polymer
92 (GFRP) samples
(GFRP) samples from
from aa wind
wind turbine
turbine blade
blade and
and (b)
(b) schematic
schematic for
for the
the artificial
artificial hole
hole locations
locations inin GFRP
GFRP
93 sample with
sample with 25mm
25mmthickness
thickness(Thk.).
(Thk.). Sample
Samplesize
sizeisis250
250××100
100×× 25
25(L(L×× WW×× Thk.)
Thk.) mm.
mm. Width of of the
the
94 sample is
sample is 100
100 mm
mm and
and holes
holesdrilled
drilledin
inthe
themiddle
middleof ofthe
thewidth.
width.

95 2.2.
2.2. PAUT
PAUT Guided
Guided Wave
WaveMethod
Method
96 Two
Twodifferent
differenttypes
typesof ofmaterials
materialswere
wereused
used in
in this
this experiment,
experiment, Aluminum
Aluminum (Al)(Al) and
and CFRP
CFRP plates,
plates,
97 as
as introduced in Table 1. The reason for selecting these materials for guided wave evaluation that
introduced in Table 1. The reason for selecting these materials for guided wave evaluation was was
98 they were were
that they available in plate
available shapeshape
in plate and desired thicknesses
and desired (in the(in
thicknesses range of 1 toof
the range 2 mm)
1 to 2for
mm)guided wave
for guided
99 generation. For both
wave generation. ForAluminum
both Aluminumand CFRP samples,
and CFRP artificial
samples, defects,
artificial in the in
defects, form
theofform
drilled holes,
of drilled
100 were
holes,made
wereinto
made theinto
samples. Figure 2Figure
the samples. shows2ashows
schematic for the location
a schematic for the and depth
location andof depth
the artificial
of the
101 holes in both inspected samples.
artificial holes in both inspected samples.

Table 1. Test samples description used for the phased array ultrasonic (PAUT) guided wave method.
102 Table 1. Test samples description used for the phased array ultrasonic (PAUT) guided wave method.
Sample
SampleName Material Thickness (mm)
Thickness
Al-1
Material
Aluminum 6063 (Plate) 2.2
Name (mm)
Al-2 Aluminum 6063 (Plate) 0.635
Al-1 Aluminum 6063 (Plate) 2.2
CFRP Unidirectional Carbon Fiber Composite (5 layers of carbon fiber fabric) 1.0
Al-2 Aluminum 6063 (Plate) 0.635
Unidirectional Carbon Fiber Composite (5 layers of carbon
CFRP 1.0
fiber fabric)

103 3. Experimental Setup

 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 4 of 16

3. Experimental Setup
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16
3.1. SEUT Versus PAUT Methods
104 3.1. SEUT Versus PAUT Methods
It is important to understand how far an ultrasonic signal can travel through the composite
105 It is while
material important to understand
the back wall reflectionhowis far
stillan ultrasonicThis
detectable. signal canthe
shows travel through
capability the composite
of signal focusing
106 material
and propagation for an ultrasonic setup. The SEUT experiments were performed using threefocusing
while the back wall reflection is still detectable. This shows the capability of signal different
107 and propagation for an ultrasonic setup. The SEUT experiments were performed using three
frequencies including 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 MHz, where the attenuation of ultrasound signals at different different
108 frequencies
frequenciesincluding 0.5, 1.0,Inand
was evaluated. the1.5 MHz,
PAUT where the attenuation
experiments, a 1.5 MHz,of ultrasound
16-element signals at was
transducer different
used
109 frequencies was evaluated. In the PAUT experiments, a 1.5 MHz, 16-element transducer
accompanying the related normal wedge. Both SEUT and PAUT transducer and setups are shown in was used
110 accompanying
Figure 3. the related normal wedge. Both SEUT and PAUT transducer and setups are shown in
111 Figure 3.

(a)

(b)
112 Figure
Figure2.
2. Schematic
Schematicfor
forthe
thedimension
dimensionand
andartificial
artificialholes
holeslocations
locationsin
in(a)
(a)Al-1
Al-1and
andAl-2
Al-2samples
samplesand
and
113 (b)
(b)CFRP
CFRP sample.
sample.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 5 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

114114
Figure 3. Experimental setup for capability and sensitivity evaluation: PAUT (left) and SEUT (right).
115115 Figure
Figure3. 3.
Experimental
Experimentalsetup
setupfor
forcapability
capability and sensitivity
sensitivityevaluation:
evaluation:PAUT
PAUT(left)
(left) and
and SEUT
SEUT (right).
(right).
3.2. PAUT Guided Wave Method
116116 3.2.3.2. PAUT
PAUT GuidedWave
Guided WaveMethod
Method
Guided wave modes were generated on Al and CFRP plates by means of a commercially available
117117 Guided
Guided wavemodes
wave modeswereweregenerated
generated on
on Al
Al and
and CFRP
CFRPplates
platesby bymeans
meansofofa commercially
a commercially available
available
phased
118 arrayarray
probe andandwedges. The procedure of platewave
wavegeneration
generation and parametric evaluation
118 phased probe wedges. The procedure of plate and
phased array probe and wedges. The procedure of plate wave generation and parametric evaluation parametric evaluation
are described in detail in [8,18]. A 1.5 MHz phased array ultrasonic probe with 16 elements and related
119119 areare described
described inindetail
detailinin[8,18].
[8,18].AA1.5
1.5MHz
MHz phased
phased array
arrayultrasonic
ultrasonicprobeprobewith
with1616
elements and
elements andrelated
related
120120 60 60
60 degrees longitudinal
degrees longitudinal wavewavewedge
wedge was
wasused
usedforforguided wave generationandandflaw
flaw detection. Figure 4
degrees longitudinal wave wedge was used for guided
guidedwavewavegeneration
generation and flawdetection.
detection.Figure
Figure
121121
shows the setup
4 shows usedused
the setup for inspecting thethe
for inspecting artificial
artificialdefects
defects (drilled holes)inin
(drilled holes) CFRP
CFRP
4 shows the setup used for inspecting the artificial defects (drilled holes) in CFRP sample. In CFRP
sample.
sample. In CFRP
In CFRP
122 sample,
sample, guided waves
guided were generatedin in direction
direction ofofthe
thefibers.
122 sample, guidedwaves
waveswereweregenerated
generated in direction of the fibers.
fibers.

123
123124 Figure 4. Experimental
Figure setup
4. Experimental setupfor
forflaw
flaw detection inCFRP
detection in CFRPsample
sample using
using PAUT
PAUT guided
guided wavewave method.
method.

1241254. Results and

Figure 4. Discussions
Experimental setup for flaw detection in CFRP sample using PAUT guided wave method.
4. Results and Discussions

1251264.1.4.SEUT
Results Versus
4.1. SEUTand PAUT Methods
Discussions
Versus PAUT Methods

1261274.1.1. Focusing
4.1.4.1.1.
SEUT Depth
Versus
Focusing
Comparison
PAUT
Depth Methods
Comparison
Table 2 shows the signal characteristics in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for SEUT and PAUT.
127128 4.1.1. Focusing
Table 2 shows
Depth the signal characteristics in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for SEUT and
Comparison
129
Data in Table
PAUT. 2 isinplotted
Data Table 2in is Figure
plotted 5inand shows
Figure 5 andtheshows
relationship between
the relationship the thicknesses
between of theofGFRP
the thicknesses
128130
platestheTable
GFRP plates (i.e., wave traveling distance) and travelling time of ultrasound wave. It can beand
(i.e., 2
waveshows the
traveling signal characteristics
distance) and in
travelling terms
time of signal-to-noise
of ultrasound ratio
wave. (SNR)
It can for
be SEUT
observed that
129131thePAUT. Data
velocities
observed thatin
in theTable
theGFRP 2 is
velocities plotted
plate in
canGFRP
in the Figure 5 and
be calculated
plate can beshows the
ascalculated relationship
twice theas slope
twiceofthe between
the graph,
slope the
of the thicknesses
which
graph,are of
equal to
which
130 2 ×the1.57 = 3.15
GFRP plates
mm/µs (i.e.,for
wave
SEUT traveling 1.59 = 3.18
and 2 ×distance) andmm/µs
travelling time ofFigure
for PAUT. ultrasound
6 shows wave. It can befor
an example
131 typical
observed thatfor
signals thethe
velocities
back wall in the GFRP plate
reflection can be
in SEUT calculated
and as twice the
PAUT methods slope
in the of the graph,
12-mm-thick which
composite
plate. As can be seen from the results in Table 2 and considering the form of the ultrasound signal
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 6 of 16

shown in Figure 6, the features of the signals are clearer and better detectable using PAUT with lower
gain Appl. Sci. 2019,
values. The9, wave
x FOR PEER REVIEW
velocity 6 of 16of the
is important information in determining the depth and location
defects according to the ultrasound wave’s traveling time.
132 are equal to 2 × 1.57 = 3.15 mm/μs for SEUT and 2 × 1.59 = 3.18 mm/μs for PAUT. Figure 6 shows an
133 example for typical signals for the back wall reflection in SEUT and PAUT methods in the 12-mm-
Table 2. Signal characteristics of back wall reflection for SEUT method with different frequencies and
134 thick composite plate. As can be seen from the results in Table 2 and considering the form of the
PAUT method.
135 ultrasound signal shown in Figure 6, the features of the signals are clearer and better detectable using
136 PAUT with lower gain values. The wave velocity
Thickness is important information in determining the depth
Signal-to-Noise
137 andFrequency
location of theMethod
defects according (mm)
Gain (dB)
Sample to the ultrasound wave’s Time
traveling (µs)
time. Ratio
4 42 5.01 7.95
138 Table 2. Signal characteristics of back wall reflection for SEUT method with different frequencies and
139 PAUT method. 10 55.8 9.87 3.99
0.5 MHz SEUT GFRP 12 60.5 11.01 3.07
Thickness Gain Time Signal-to-noise
Frequency Method Sample
(mm)18 (dB) 61 (𝝁𝒔)14.73 2.98
Ratio
4 25 42 64.7 5.0118.92 2.53
7.95
10 4 55.818.5 9.87 4.76 3.99
5.31
0.5MHz SEUT GFRP 12 60.5 11.01 3.07
10 36 8.56 11.93
1 MHz SEUT GFRP 18 61 14.73 2.98
12 39.6 9.80 11.75
25 64.7 18.92 2.53
4 18 18.541.2 4.7613.60 11.10
5.31
10 25 36 45.9 8.5618.35 11.93
9.57
1MHz SEUT GFRP 12 4 39.615.5 9.80 4.67 11.75
5.14
18 41.2 13.60 11.10
10 37 8.48 11.75
1.5 MHz SEUT GFRP 25 45.9 18.35 9.57
12 40.8 9.76 11.10
4 15.5 4.67 5.14
10 18 37 43 8.4813.55 9.51
11.75
1.5 MHz SEUT GFRP 12 25 40.846.7 9.7618.25 11.10
9.43
18 4 43 13 13.553.64 9.51
6.10
25 46.7 18.25 9.43
10 27 7.56 5.44
1.5 MHz PAUT GFRP
4 13 3.64 6.10
12 28.5 8.93 5.81
10 27 7.56 5.44
1.5MHz PAUT GFRP 12 18 28.5 36 8.9312.49 3.39
5.81
18 25 36 40 12.4917.41 3.39
3.22
25 40 17.41 3.22

140
Figure 5. Back wall reflection experiment showing ultrasonic wave velocity evaluation measured by
141 Figure 5. Back wall reflection experiment showing ultrasonic wave velocity evaluation measured by
142 SEUT andand
SEUT PAUT methods.
PAUT methods.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 7 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

143
Figure 6. Back wall reflection signals for GFRP: (a) SEUT method and (b) PAUT method.
144 Figure
(Freq. =6.1.5
Back wallThickness
MHz, reflection=signals
12 mm).for GFRP: (a) SEUT method and (b) PAUT method. (Freq. = 1.5
145 MHz, Thickness = 12 mm).
All the measured velocities are very close in value; however, the attenuation (i.e., gain values)
146 All the measured
is improved for PAUTvelocities are very close
when compared in value;
to SEUT at 1.5however,
MHz. On thethe
attenuation
other hand, (i.e.,the
gain values) is
quantitative
147 improved for PAUT when compared to SEUT at 1.5 MHz. On the other hand,
values in Table 2 show that SNR is, on average, two times larger for SEUT when comparing the the quantitative values
peak
148 in
of Table 2 show
reflected signalthat SNR
to the is, on average,
background noise.two times larger
However, for SEUT
it should when comparing
be mentioned the peak of
that the resolution of
149 reflected
the peak signal
and itstolocation
the background
is much noise.
lower However,
in SEUT whichit should be mentioned
caused inaccuracythat forthe resolution
detection of the
purposes.
150 peak
Higherand its location
local value ofisSNR
much lower can
in SEUT in SEUT which caused
be attributed to the inaccuracy
interferenceforof detection
the signalspurposes. Higher
for each element
151 local valueQualitatively,
in PAUT. of SNR in SEUT PAUT can bemore
has attributed
uniformto and
the interference of thewith
detectable signal signals
lessfor each
jitter, element in
specifically at
152 PAUT. Qualitatively,
larger thicknesses. PAUT
Figure has more
7 shows the uniform
gain valuesand(fordetectable
differentsignal with less
inspection jitter, specifically
frequencies) in order atto
153 larger thicknesses.signal
reach detectable Figurein 7different
shows the gain values
sample (for different
thicknesses. The plotinspection
shows that frequencies)
the SNR and in order to
signal’s
154 reach detectable
attenuation were signal
improvedin different
in PAUTsample
techniquethicknesses.
when compared The plotto shows
SEUT such that that
the SNR7–20%and lesssignal’s
gain in
155 attenuation were improved in PAUT technique when compared
value was required to have detectable signal in case of 1.5 MHz transducers. to SEUT such that 7–20% less gain
156 in value was required to have detectable signal in case of 1.5 MHz transducers.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 8 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16

157
158 Figure7.7.Gain
Figure Gain(dB) value
(dB) for back
value wall reflection
for back detection
wall reflection in different
detection in sample thickness
different samplefor attenuation
thickness for
159 characteristics evaluation using SEUT and PAUT techniques.
attenuation characteristics evaluation using SEUT and PAUT techniques.
4.1.2. Sensitivity Comparison and Defect Detection
160 4.1.2. Sensitivity Comparison and Defect Detection
Figure 8 shows the signals associated with the defect (artificially drilled holes) reflections by SEUT
161 Figure 8 shows the signals associated with the defect (artificially drilled holes) reflections by
and PAUT methods. The depth of the hole can be determined based on the obtained velocity values,
162 SEUT and PAUT methods. The depth of the hole can be determined based on the obtained velocity
as in Equations (1) and (2). Both SEUT and PAUT techniques provided results that are very close
163 values, as in Equations (1) and (2). Both SEUT and PAUT techniques provided results that are very
to what was obtained by real time x-ray imaging (i.e., 11.175 mm) for validation. It was observed
164 close to what was obtained by real time x-ray imaging (i.e., 11.175 mm) for validation. It was observed
that both SEUT and PAUT techniques can detect a 0.8 mm diameter hole as the minimum size and
165 that both SEUT and PAUT techniques can detect a 0.8 mm diameter hole as the minimum size and
sensitivity limit; however, PAUT method provides approximately 15% higher SNR for the defect signal.
166 sensitivity limit; however, PAUT method provides approximately 15% higher SNR for the defect
We believe that in PAUT, lower SNR and better signal characteristics, such as higher focusing energy,
167 signal. We believe that in PAUT, lower SNR and better signal characteristics, such as higher focusing
could assist in detecting smaller-sized defect sizes, and this needs further experimental evaluation.
168 energy, could assist in detecting smaller-sized defect sizes, and this needs further experimental
169 evaluation. Time × Velocity 7.12 × 3.07
Depth(SEUT) = = = 10.9 mm (1)
Time ×2Velocity 7.12 × 2 3.07
Depth(SEUT) = = = 10.9 mm (1)
Time × 2Velocity 7.05 2× 3.23
Depth(PAUT) = Time × Velocity = 7.05 × 3.23 = 11.4 mm (2)
Depth(PAUT) = 2 = 2 = 11.4 mm (2)
In Figure 8, PAUT has a clearer and more2easily detectable 2 reflection from the defect (reflector),
as well as a better detectable back wall reflection. However, when looking at SEUT signal, due to
170 In Figure
less 8, PAUT
smoothness has a from
in signal clearer
oneand more easily
transducer detectable
element, reflection
it is more from
difficult the defect
to identify (reflector),
these reflectionas
171 well as a better
locations. detectable
In addition, as canback wallfrom
be seen reflection. However,
the data in Table 2, when looking
the gain valueatisSEUT
a verysignal, due to
important less
factor.
172 smoothness in signal from one transducer element, it is more difficult to identify
However in some cases the SNR in SEUT looks to be higher, but it was obtained with higher gain value. these reflection
173 locations.
This happenedIn addition, as can
when a small be seeninfrom
decrease the value,
the gain data inlessTable
than2,the
thevalues
gain invalue is 2,a did
Table verynot
important
provide
174 afactor. However in
good detectable some cases the SNR in SEUT looks to be higher, but it was obtained with higher
signal.
175 gain value. This happened when a small decrease in the gain value, less than the values in Table 2,
176 did not provide a good detectable signal.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 9 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

177
Figure 8. Response signal for GFRP: (a) SEUT method and (b) PAUT method. (Freq. = 1.5 MHz,
178 Figure 8. Response
Thickness = 25 mm, signal for GFRP:
Hole Diameter (a) mm,
= 0.8 SEUT method
Hole Depthand (b) PAUT method. (Freq. = 1.5 MHz,
= 12mm).
179 Thickness = 25 mm, Hole Diameter = 0.8 mm, Hole Depth = 12mm).
4.2. PAUT Guided Wave Method
180 4.2. PAUT Guided Wave Method
Tables 3 and 4 show the results for the signal response parameters for Al-1 and Al-2 samples.
181 In theTables 3 and curve
dispersion 4 showofthe results
guided for the
wave signal
modes in response
plates, the parameters for Al-1
smaller values and (i.e.,
of “fd” Al-2 frequency
samples. Inx
182 the dispersion
plate thickness) curve of guided
are more wave modes
distinctive in plates, the smaller
and, consequently, values of
have a higher “fd” (i.e., frequency
probability of detection x plate
[31].
183 thickness)
In practicalare more distinctive
application and,when
specifically consequently,
the thicknesshaveofathe higher
plateprobability
structure isofa detection
fixed and [31].
known In
184 practical application specifically when the thickness of the plate structure
value, only the frequency of inspection can be changed. So, for thicker structures, one should use is a fixed and known value,
185 only
muchthe frequency
lower of inspection
frequencies, while forcan be changed.
thinner structures, So,the
forrange
thicker structures,
of possible one should
frequencies willuse
be much
wider
186 lower frequencies,
and higher whilecan
frequencies for be
thinner
used structures,
to increase thethe range of possible
resolution. frequencies
The effect of “fd” will
value beinwider and
response
187 higher
signalsfrequencies
is presentedcan be used
in Tables to increase
3 and the resolution.
4. We find that, in lower The“fd”
effect of “fd”
values, thevalue in response
distance from whichsignals
the
188 is presented
signal from thein Tables
defect 3isand
still4.detectable
We find that, in lower
is longer. The“fd”
phase values, the for
velocity distance from which
the generated the signal
guided wave
189 from the defect based
were calculated is still on
detectable
the theory is longer. The phase
and properties velocity
of the for the generated
angle wedge. Based on theseguided waveS0,
values, were
A1,
190 calculated
and S1 modes based onpossible
were the theory forand properties
the Al-1 sampleof(fd = angle
the wedge. Based
3.3 MHz.mm), and A0 onandthese
S0 values,
modes areS0, A1, and
possible
191 S1
formodes were (fd
Al-2 sample = 0.96for
possible the Al-1 The
MHz.mm). sample (fd = 3.3
strongest MHz.mm),
reflection which and A0has
also and theS0closest
modes are possible
phase velocity
192 for Al-2
value to sample (fd =were
the theory 0.96identified
MHz.mm). asThe strongest reflection
the dominate wave modes. which alsocase
In this has the closest
it was phase
A1 for Al-1velocity
sample,
193 value
S0 for toAl-2thesample,
theoryandwere S0identified as the dominate
for CFRP sample. In Tableswave3 and modes.
4, signalInparameters
this case itfromwastheA1reflection
for Al-1
194 sample,
of the edge S0 for Al-2plate
of the sample,
closeand S0 for
to the hole,CFRP
and sample.
from theInholeTables 3 and 4, signal
are presented. Theseparameters from the
signal parameters
195 reflection of the edge of the plate close to the hole, and from the hole are presented. These signal
196 parameters include the arrival time and the amplitude of the signal at the edge of the plate and the
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 10 of 16

include the arrival time and the amplitude of the signal at the edge of the plate and the defect. Figure 9
shows the change of the signal’s amplitude over the distance of the PAUT transducer from the edge for
Al-1 and Al-2. For Al-1 it was noticed that the hole’s signal has larger amplitude at a longer distance
compared to Al-2. This is attributed to the interference of the stationary wedge reflection signal and
the signal from the hole. Figure 10 shows typical signals for the experiments in Tables 3 and 4 for Al-1
and Al-2.

Table 3. Signal parameters for flaw detection in Al-1 sample.

Experimental Setup Parameters for PAUT Guided Wave Inspection of Al-1 Sample
Frequency Thickness Element
Gain (dB) Element Qty.1 fd2
(MHz) (mm) Step3
1.5 2.2 30 4 3.3 1
1 Number of active elements at each sequence in phased array ultrasound transducer
2 frequency × plate thickness (MHz.mm)
3 Incremental steps in terms of number of elements at each sequence

Defect Detection Signal Characteristics

Hole Distance of Arrival Time Amplitude

Experimental DTime
Signal (us) (%)
Trials # Diameter Transducer from (us)
(mm) The Edge (mm) Edge Hole Edge Hole
1 Edge/Hole 50 58.07 47.61 10.5 53.9 46.6
1
2 Edge/Hole 100 87.99 70.27 17.7 33.1 24.3
3 Edge/Hole 150 109.77 92.34 17.4 10.3 21.1

Table 4. Signal parameters for flaw detection for Al-2.

Experimental Setup Parameters for PAUT Guided Wave Inspection of Al-2 Sample
Thickness Element
Frequency (MHz) Gain (dB) Element Qty.1 fd2
(mm) Step3
1.5 0.635 30 4 0.96 1
1 Number of active elements at each sequence in phased array ultrasound transducer
2 frequency × plate thickness (MHz.mm)
3 Incremental steps in terms of number of elements at each sequence

Defect Detection Signal Characteristics

Distance of Arrival Time Amplitude

Experimental Hole DTime
Signal (us) (%)
Trial # Diameter(mm) Transducer from (us)
The Edge (mm) Edge Hole Edge Hole
1 Edge/Hole 50 39.19 28.15 11.0 100 15.5
2 1 Edge/Hole 100 57.78 46.45 11.3 100 11.5
3 Edge/Hole 175 85.08 74.34 10.7 82.7 7.8
4 Edge/Hole 200 94.09 83.05 11.0 77.7 4.5
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 11 of 16
Appl.
Appl.Sci.
Sci.2019,
2019,9,9,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 11
11 ofof 16
16

205
205
206
206 Figure
Figure9.
Figure 9.Change
9. Changeof
Change ofsignal
of signalamplitude
signal amplitudeover
amplitude overdistance
over distancefor
distance forAl-1
for Al-1and
Al-1 andAl-2
and Al-2samples.
Al-2 samples.
samples.

207
207
Figure 10. Typical PAUT guided wave signal of flaw detection for (a) Al-1 sample and (b) Al-2 sample.
208
208 Figure
Figure10.
10.Typical
TypicalPAUT
PAUTguided
guidedwave
wavesignal
signalof
offlaw
flawdetection
detectionfor
for(a)
(a)Al-1
Al-1sample
sampleand
and(b)
(b)Al-2
Al-2sample.
sample.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 12 of 16

Table 5 shows the results of PAUT guided wave signal parameters for the CFRP sample. In Table 5,
the arrival time of the reflection signal from the plate edge and the defect (hole) are presented
(See Figure 2 for reference). The difference between the arrival times from the plate edge and from the
defect (hole) was calculated. Considering the wave velocity, which was experimentally determined in a
previous work [8], the distance between the plate edge and defect (hole) was determined experimentally.
Comparing the distance between the plate and the defect (hole) which was determined experimentally
with the actual location (as designed = 30 mm) shows that the location of the defect (hole) can be
determined using the proposed technique within an acceptable range. When the size of the defect
(hole) is larger, there is a better probability of detection, and the accuracy in determining the location of
the defect (hole) is higher. In addition, when there is less interference between wave modes, such as in
the case of larger distances, there is higher accuracy of detection. Better accuracy at larger distances
occurs because, when the travelling distance for the guided waves is short, these wave modes are
not stabilized and have many overlaps and low signal-to-noise ratio which cause higher inaccuracy.
Figure 11 shows a typical signal for the experimental result listed in Table 5 for CFRP. Figure 12 shows
the change in signal amplitude at different defect (hole) sizes for the experiments in Table 5 for CFRP.
The amplitude of the signal from the plate edge is inversely proportional to the hole diameter. However,
the amplitude of the signal from the hole is directly proportional to the hole diameter. As the hole
diameter increases (i.e., larger defect), a larger part of the ultrasonic energy is reflected by the defect
(hole), and consequently a smaller part will hit the edge.

Table 5. Signal parameters for flaw detection for CFRP.

Experimental Setup Parameters for PAUT Guided Wave Inspection of CFRP

Thickness Element
Frequency (MHz) Gain (dB) Element Qty.1 fd2
(mm) Step3
1.5 1 35 4 1.5 1
1 Number of active elements at each sequence in phased array ultrasound transducer
2 frequency × plate thickness (MHz.mm)
3 Incremental steps in terms of number of elements at each sequence

Defect Detection Signal Characteristics

Distance of Arrival Time

Experimental Hole DTime Ddist
Signal (us) (Edge/Hole)
Trial # Diameter(mm) Transducer from The (us) (mm)
Edge(mm) Edge Hole
1 Edge/Hole 50 25.64 13.81 11.83 48.9
0.8
2 Edge/Hole 100 35.6 24.54 11.06 45.7
3 Edge/Hole 150 46.11 37.08 9.03 37.3
1 Edge/Hole 50 26.76 14.07 12.69 52.5
1
2 Edge/Hole 100 35.62 26.11 9.51 39.3
3 Edge/Hole 150 45.97 37.28 8.69 35.9
1 Edge/Hole 50 24.52 14.11 10.41 43.0
1.2
2 Edge/Hole 100 36.24 26.89 9.35 38.6
3 Edge/Hole 150 46.25 37.36 8.89 36.7
 Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci.2019, 9, x1628
2019, 9, FOR PEER REVIEW 1313of
of 16
16
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

230
230
231 Figure 11. Typical PAUT guided wave signal of flaw detection for CFRP sample.
231 Typical PAUT guided wave signal
Figure 11. Typical signal of
of flaw
flaw detection
detection for
for CFRP
CFRP sample.
sample.

232
232 Figure 12. Change of signal amplitude over distance for CFRP samples.
233 Figure 12. Change of signal amplitude over distance for CFRP samples.
233 5. Conclusions Figure 12. Change of signal amplitude over distance for CFRP samples.
234 5. Conclusions
Conventional (single-element) ultrasonic testing and phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT)
234 5. Conclusions
235 methods are evaluated
Conventional for inspection
(single-element) of composite
ultrasonic testingmaterials.
and phased Thearray
capability comparison
ultrasonic testing tests
(PAUT) for
235
236 waves Conventional
traveling (single-element)
through the composite ultrasonic
materialstesting and
indicate phased
that array
thickness
methods are evaluated for inspection of composite materials. The capability comparison tests for ultrasonic
of up to 25 testing
mm (PAUT)
could be
236
237 methods
tested in
waves are evaluated
both SEUT
traveling for
and PAUT
through inspection of composite
methods;materials
the composite however,indicate materials.
the stability
that ofThe capability
the signal
thickness comparison
of parameters
up to 25 mm tests
is higher
could be for
in
237
238 wavesin
PAUT
tested traveling
andboth SEUT through
detectable andsignalthecan
PAUT composite
be observed
methods; materials
at lower
however, indicate
thegain that of
values.
stability thickness
The
the of parameters
up tovelocity
calculated
signal 25 mm couldthe
from
is higher be
in
238
239 tested and
PAUT in both
capability SEUT and
experimental
detectable PAUT
part
signal was
can methods;
be3.1observed
mm/µs, however,
which
at lower the stability
is close
gain to the
values. ofestimated
the
Thesignal parameters
and
calculated expected
velocity is velocities
higherthe
from in
239
240 PAUT and
in composite
capability detectable
plates andpart
experimental signal
waswascan
usedbe observed
3.1tomm/μs, at
identifywhich lower
the flaw’s gain
is close values.
location. The calculated
From the and
to the estimated velocity
sensitivity
expected from
comparison
velocitiesthe
240
241 capability
experimental
in composite experimental
results,and
plates part
it can
wasbewas
seen3.1
used tomm/μs,
that which
a 0.8 mm
identify is close
thediameter
flaw’s to the
hole
location. canestimatedthe and
be detected
From asexpected
the minimum
sensitivity velocities
comparison size
241
242 in composite plates
by both SEUTresults,
experimental and PAUT, and
it canwas
but used
bePAUT to identify
generally
seen that a 0.8 mm the flaw’s
has diameter location.
a better signal From
regarding
hole can the sensitivity
SNR. However,
be detected comparison
as the minimum PAUT does size
242
243 experimental
not
by increase
both SEUTtheresults,
and it canbut
sensitivity
PAUT, be
byseen
a big
PAUT that a 0.8 but
factor,
generallymm diameter
because
has a better ofhole
lower
signalcanregarding
be detected
noise and SNR. as the
jitter and minimum
better PAUT
However, size
signal
243
244 by both
does not SEUT
characteristics
increaseitandthePAUT,
may but PAUT
be possible
sensitivity bytoafind generally
big smaller
factor, buthasbecause
defect a better
sizesof signal
such
lowerasregarding
0.7 or 0.6
noise andmm SNR.
jitter However,
with
and PAUT
betteras PAUT
well.
signal
244
245 does not increase the sensitivity by a big factor, but because of lower noise
characteristics it may be possible to find smaller defect sizes such as 0.7 or 0.6 mm with PAUT as well. and jitter and better signal
245 characteristics it may be possible to find smaller defect sizes such as 0.7 or 0.6 mm with PAUT as well.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 14 of 16

Guided waves can also be generated using phased array ultrasonic probes and wedges with lower
frequencies. Experimental results show that the different size of flaw (0.8, 1, and 1.2 mm diameter
holes) can be detected by means of generated guided waves with the PAUT method. While the
determination of the exact location of the flaw is affected by the dispersion characteristics of the guided
waves, PAUT is a promising technique for detecting the size and location of defects in CFRP and GFRP
composite materials.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.T. and A.A.H.; Methodology, H.T.; Formal Analysis, H.T.;
Investigation, H.T. and A.A.H.; Data Curation, H.T.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, H.T.; Writing—Review
and Editing, A.A.H.; Visualization, H.T. and A.A.H.; Supervision, A.A.H.
Funding: Research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Advanced Manufacturing Office, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC.
Acknowledgments: A debt of gratitude is owed to OLYMPUS NDT technical support and sales team for all their
contributions to provide required equipment, support, and information.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interests. Notice of Copyright: This manuscript has been
authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy.
The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges
that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or
reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.
The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance
with the DOE Public Access Plan. (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).

References
1. Poudel, A.; Shrestha, S.S.; Sandhu, J.S.; Chu, T.P.; Pergantis, C.G. Comparison and Analysis of Acoustography
with Other NDE Techniques for Foreign Object Inclusion Detection in Graphite Epoxy Composites.
Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 78, 86–94. [CrossRef]
2. Raišutis, R.; Jasiuniene, E.; Sliteris, R.; Vladišauskas, A. The review of non-destructive testing techniques
suitable for inspection of the wind turbine blades. Ultrasound 2008, 63, 26–30.
3. Amenabar, I.; Mendikute, A.; López-Arraiza, A.; Lizaranzu, M.; Aurrekoetxea, J. Comparison and analysis of
non-destructive testing techniques suitable for delamination inspection in wind turbine blades. Compos. Part
B Eng. 2011, 42, 1298–1305. [CrossRef]
4. Adem, E.; Reddy, G.M.; Koricho, E.G.; Science, A.; Science, A.; Science, A.; Vehicle, C. Experimental Analysis
of E-Glass/Epoxy & E-Glass/polyester Composites for Auto Body Panel. Am. Int. J. Res. Sci. Technol. Eng.
Math. 2015, 10, 377–383.
5. Ensminger, D.; Bond, L.J. Ultrasonics: Fundamentals, Technologies, and Applications, 3rd ed.; CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011.
6. Hübschen, G.; Altpeter, I.; Tschuncky, R.; Herrmann, H.-G. (Eds.) Materials Characterization Using
Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Methods; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
7. Taheri, H. Classification of Nondestructive Inspection Techniques with Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
for Aerospace Application. In Proceedings of the ASNT 26th Research Symposium, Jacksonville, FL, USA,
13–16 March 2017; pp. 219–227.
8. Taheri, H. Utilization of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Methods for Composite Material Inspection (Phased
array Ultrasonic). Master’s Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, 2014.
9. Wertz, J.; Homa, L.; Welter, J.; Sparkman, D.; Aldrin, J.C. Case Study of Model-Based Inversion of the Angle
Beam Ultrasonic Response from Composite Impact Damage. J. Nondestr. Eval. Diagn. Progn. Eng. Syst. 2018,
1, 41001–41010. [CrossRef]
10. Taheri, H.; Delfanian, F.; Du, J. Ultrasonic phased array techniques for composite material evaluation.
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 134, 4013. [CrossRef]
11. Taheri, H.; Ladd, K.M.; Delfanian, F.; Du, J. Phased array ultrasonic technique parametric evaluation
for composite materials. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
Proceedings (IMECE); American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 13,
p. V013T16A028.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 15 of 16

12. Caminero, M.A.; García-Moreno, I.; Rodríguez, G.P.; Chacón, J.M. Internal damage evaluation of composite
structures using phased array ultrasonic technique: Impact damage assessment in CFRP and 3D printed
reinforced composites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2019, 165, 131–142. [CrossRef]
13. Hassen, A.A.; Taheri, H.; Vaidya, U.K. Non-destructive investigation of thermoplastic reinforced composites.
Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 97, 244–254. [CrossRef]
14. Aldrin, J.C.; Wertz, J.N.; Welter, J.T.; Wallentine, S.; Lindgren, E.A.; Kramb, V.; Zainey, D. Fundamentals of
angled-beam ultrasonic NDE for potential characterization of hidden regions of impact damage in composites.
AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 1949, 120005.
15. Toyama, N.; Ye, J.; Kokuyama, W.; Yashiro, S. Non-Contact Ultrasonic Inspection of Impact Damage in
Composite Laminates by Visualization of Lamb wave Propagation. Appl. Sci. 2018, 9, 46. [CrossRef]
16. Castellano, A.; Fraddosio, A.; Piccioni, M.D. Quantitative analysis of QSI and LVI damage in GFRP
unidirectional composite laminates by a new ultrasonic approach. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 151, 106–117.
[CrossRef]
17. Taheri, H.; Delfanian, F.; Du, J. Acoustic Emission and Ultrasound Phased Array Technique for
Composite Material Evaluation. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
Proceedings (IMECE): Advances in Aerodynamics; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY,
USA, 2013; Volume 1, p. V001T01A015.
18. Bai, Z.; Chen, S.; Xiao, Q.; Jia, L.; Zhao, Y.; Zeng, Z. Compressive sensing of phased array ultrasonic signal in
defect detection: Simulation study and experimental verification. Struct. Health Monit. 2017, 17, 434–449.
[CrossRef]
19. Taheri, H.; Du, J.; Delfanian, F. Experimental Observation of Phased Array Guided Wave Application in
Composite Materials. Mater. Eval. 2017, 75, 1308–1316.
20. Bolotina, I.; Borikov, V.; Ivanova, V.; Mertins, K.; Uchaikin, S. Application of phased antenna arrays for
pipeline leak detection. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 161, 497–505. [CrossRef]
21. Taheri, H.; Koester, L.; Bigelow, T.; Bond, L.J.; Braconnier, D.; Carcreff, E.; Dao, A.; Caulder, L.; Hassen, A.A.
Fast Ultrasonic Imaging with Total Focusing Method (TFM) for Inspection of Additively Manufactured
Polymer Composite Component. In Proceedings of the 27th ASNT Research Symposium, São Paulo, Brazil,
27–29 August 2018; pp. 212–220.
22. Drinkwater, B.W.; Wilcox, P.D. Ultrasonic arrays for non-destructive evaluation: A review. NDT&E Int. 2006,
39, 525–541.
23. Fromme, P.; Wilcox, P.D.; Lowe, M.J.S.; Cawley, P. On the development and testing of a guided ultrasonic
wave array for structural integrity monitoring. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2006, 53,
777–785. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Leleux, A.; Micheau, P.; Castaings, M. Long Range Detection of Defects in Composite Plates Using Lamb
Waves Generated and Detected by Ultrasonic Phased Array Probes. J. Nondestr. Eval. 2013, 32, 200–214.
[CrossRef]
25. Philtron, J.H.; Rose, J.L. Guided wave phased array sensor tuning for improved defect detection
and characterization. In Proc. SPIE 9063, Nondestructive Characterization for Composite Materials,
Aerospace Engineering, Civil Infrastructure, and Homeland Security; International Society for Optics and
Photonics: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; p. 906306.
26. Wang, W.; Zhang, H.; Lynch, J.P.; Cesnik, C.E.S.; Li, H. Experimental and numerical validation of guided
wave phased arrays integrated within standard data acquisition systems for structural health monitoring.
Struct. Control Health Monit. 2018, 25, e2171. [CrossRef]
27. Rose, J.L. Ultrasonic guided waves in structural health monitoring. Key Eng. Mater. 2004, 270, 14–21.
[CrossRef]
28. Rose, J.L. Ultrasonic Guided Waves in Solid Media; Ultrasonic Guided Waves in Solid Media;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; Volume 9781107048959, pp. 1–512.
29. Wilcox, P.; Lowe, M.; Cawley, P. Effect of dispersion on long-range inspection using ultrasonic guided waves.
NDT E Int. 2001, 34, 1–9. [CrossRef]
30. Chimenti, D.E. Guided waves in plates and their use in materials characterization. Appl. Mech. Rev. 1997, 50,
247–284. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1628 16 of 16

31. Rose, J.L. Successes and Challenges in Ultrasonic Guided Waves for NDT and SHM. In Proceedings of the
National Seminar & Exhibition on Non-Destructive Evaluation, Pune, India, 4–6 December 2009.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).