Nondestructive Evaluation of Aerospace Materials and Structures II: Program Papers and Abstracts [Saint Louis, MO, May

2010]: pp 59-63.
Copyright 2010, 2011, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Acoustic Emission Fatigue Crack Monitoring of a Simulated Aircraft Fuselage Structure

Jeremy Lucas
EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University
136 Forest Lake Blvd, Apt 901
Daytona Beach, FL 32119
269/382-8834
JLucas759@aol.com
Co-Author(s): Eric Hill, EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University, Michael Marsden, Weldon Thornton

I.

Introduction

As commercial aircraft are pushed into longer and longer service by operators trying to minimize costs,
fatigue crack growth in these aircraft will become an ever increasing problem. Fatigue crack growth has in the past
led to multiple catastrophic failures, one of the most notable incidents being the 1988 Aloha Airlines Flight 243[1],
where an eighteen foot long section of fuselage separated from a Boeing 737-200 in flight due to corrosion fatigue.
Airlines have attempted to mitigate the risk associated with fatigue crack growth and avoid repeating these failures
by implementing programs to periodically inspect and replace critical parts that are likely to undergo fatigue failure.
Additionally, past research has been done on the use of acoustic emission (AE) to provide real time, in flight
monitoring of aircraft. For example, in flight testing was used with good results on the C-130 Hercules aircraft [2].
The basic idea behind AE nondestructive testing (NDT) is to record the sound of crack growth as it occurs in a given
material under load. As a crack grows, it gives off energy that is transmitted throughout the object in the form of a
sound wave. By placing piezoelectric transducers on the object, it is possible to monitor these sound waves. Since
there are almost always other sources of sound in the object other than just fatigue crack growth, it is necessary to
classify these sounds based on what caused them. The different sources of acoustic emission signals give off
different waveforms. By using a Kohonen self-organizing map (SOM) neural network to classify these waveforms
into appropriate categories and understanding the physics behind each of the sources of noise, it is possible to
determine which AE hits corresponded to each noise source.
Thornton [3] and Marsden [4] each wrote a thesis on this subject. Thornton focused his research on using
power spectrums of the AE waveforms to classify the various acoustic emission sources. Although this approach
seemed to have had reasonable success, it was clear that the methods used to classify the signals would need to be
improved upon. Marsden continued this research a year later using the AE waveform quantification parameters
instead of the waveforms themselves in order to classify each hit. This led to more promising results, although a
direct comparison between the two was difficult. The current approach being undertaken on this subject has focused
on using the AE parameters to classify the data, as this has been more widely used in other AE applications in the
past. The resulting classification of this data seemed to be much cleaner than the results originally obtain by
Marsden. Next, the AE waveforms of each of the classifications was examined in order to validate the results.
Finally, a source location algorithm was used to determine the source of each of the AE hits, allowing for a second
verification of the data.
This paper will detail the technical background behind acoustic emission testing and self organizing maps.
It will then explain the setup of the current experiment, and give the results of these research efforts.

II.

Technical Background

This section gives an overview of both acoustic emission nondestructive testing and self organizing map
neural networks. These technologies will be described as they relate to the monitoring of fatigue crack growth in an
aircraft fuselage.

Acoustic Emission Nondestructive Testing

As a crack grows in a structure, it gives off energy that propagates throughout the structure as a sound
wave. By placing an AE transducer on the surface of an object undergoing fatigue crack growth, it is possible to
record the signals given off. However, much of the data recorded will be background noise given off by sources

59

Nondestructive Evaluation of Aerospace Materials and Structures II: Program Papers and Abstracts [Saint Louis, MO, May 2010]: pp 59-63.
Copyright 2010, 2011, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

other than fatigue crack growth. In the current experimental setup, this background noise will come primarily from
either metal rubbing or rivet fretting. However, due to the highly sensitive nature of the transducers, noise will also
be picked up from sources external to the experimental setup, such as other machines operating in the same room,
the door to the room closing, and various other sources of noise. Further, electromagnetic interference from other
surrounding electrical devices can also cause unwanted noise in the data. The transducers are connected to an AE
data recording device, which can capture both the waveforms and the AE parameters.
There are five primary parameters commonly used to classify an acoustic emission hit as shown in Figure
1. The first of these is the amplitude, which is the maximum amplitude that a signal reaches in decibels [dB]. The
duration of the signal is the signals length, measured in microseconds [s]. The counts is the number of times the
signal rises above the preset threshold, and the energy is the measured area under the rectified signal envelope. The
fifth, and less commonly used, parameter is the rise time. This measures the length of time it takes from the first
threshold crossing to the maximum amplitude, again in microseconds [s]. Other acoustic parameters will also
often be used for various purposes, but these are in fact combinations of these five primary parameters. For
example, average frequency is used herein, it is the counts divided by the duration. The threshold used in the current
research effort has been set at 30 dB. This level is intended as a prefilter to remove some of the unwanted low
amplitude noise, while leaving the AE data almost entirely intact. The AE data analyzer system will also record the
waveforms of the AE signals, which can be used in conjunction with the AE parameters to classify the various
signals.
One of acoustic emissions strengths is that it can be used as a passive technique, not requiring the removal
or destruction of a part undergoing testing. This allows for monitoring of a part while it is in service, reducing the
costs associated with the testing. However, this method can only be used while the crack is actually growing, which
will only occur when the part is placed under stress. This means that it is only possible to monitor an aircraft while
it is actually in flight experiencing aerodynamic-loading; it cannot be used by maintenance personnel on the ground.
However, if implemented properly, it can at least provide a warning that there is fatigue crack growth occurring,
which can then be visualized by other nondestructive testing techniques.

Figure 1. Acoustic Emission Parameters

Self-Organizing Maps

The Kohonen self-organizing map (SOM) is a type of artificial neural network (ANN), used for
classification of data An ANN is a mathematical tool that operates on the same principles as the human brain.
These can be used to classify large amounts of nonlinear data relatively quickly, using a series of artificial neurons,
or processing elements (PEs). These PEs use the weighted inputs of the data to classify it into various categories.
The SOM used in this research has fairly simple architecture. The data is entered in the input layer, with
each input PE corresponding to one of the AE parameters used for classification. Since various input variables have
different units and therefore different ranges of data, the input values are normalized to all fall between negative and
positive one, so as to avoid an AE input parameter with a higher range of values from overriding other AE input
parameters with smaller ranges. This operation is done automatically by most neural network computer programs.
Each of these input PEs are connected to each output PE by a weight. This weight is initially assigned a random

60

Nondestructive Evaluation of Aerospace Materials and Structures II: Program Papers and Abstracts [Saint Louis, MO, May 2010]: pp 59-63.
Copyright 2010, 2011, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

value between zero and one. The number of output PEs corresponds to the number of expected classifications. For
example, if it is assumed that there are three primary sources of AE signals, three output PEs are used.
The running of a SOM is broken down into two phases. The first is the training phase, wherein the weights
connecting the input and output PEs are constantly changing. During the training phase, each time a data point is
classified to a specific output classification, the weight that connects the input parameter and output classification is
updated. Here the weight is changed to be closer to the value of the input parameter, so that other data points similar
to the one just classified are more likely to be classified into the same output classification. The training phase
typically consists of the data being run through the SOM multiple times in order to train the network properly. The
second phase is the testing phase. Here the weights are held constant, and the trained network classifies new input
data.

III.

Testing Procedure

This section outlines the experimental setup and procedure used in this research. This experiment was
performed in the Structure and Instrumentation Lab in the Lehman Engineering and Technology Center at the
Daytona Beach campus of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Fabrication

For this research, an aluminum cylinder was used to simulate an aircraft fuselage. The current approach
used three cylinders made out of 2024-T3 aluminum and three made out of 7075-T6 aluminum. Each of these
cylinders were made from a single sheet of 0.0040 inch thick aluminum, and were 12 inches long and 12 inches in
diameter, with a single lap joint secured with a line of rivets on the back. In order to simulate a defect in an aircraft
fuselage that would likely produce fatigue crack growth, a one inch hole was drilled into the front of the cylinder,
with a triangular notch filed out at the top. This defect was then covered from the inside with an aluminum patch
that was riveted into place, representing a typical repair done to an aircraft in service. A picture of the defect used in
testing is shown in Figure 2. A bladder made of PVC rubber was made, and placed inside the aluminum cylinder in
order to prevent water leakage. Two end plates were created out of steel, with rubber attached to one side using
adhesive. The cylinder was clamped between these endplates, with the rubber being used as a compressive seal to
prevent water leakage. Three ports were installed in the endplates. One port was used for filling the apparatus with
water, one for pressurization, and one for a pressure gauge. The testing apparatus is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Intentional Defect

Figure 3. Testing Apparatus

Testing

For testing, the apparatus was filled with water. A hose was attached to the port for pressurization, with the
other end attached to a piston. The piston was actuated by a hydraulically operated tension/compression machine.
The piston was cycled at 1 Hz, and created a cyclic pressure load that went from approximately 45 psi at a minimum
to 75 psi at a maximum. Four acoustic emission transducers were used to collect data for this experiment. These

61

Nondestructive Evaluation of Aerospace Materials and Structures II: Program Papers and Abstracts [Saint Louis, MO, May 2010]: pp 59-63.
Copyright 2010, 2011, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

sensors were placed on a line at two inches above the defect (Figure 3), and were positioned around the cylinder in
order to be able to determine the location of any acoustic emission signal. All of the sensors used were 150 Hz
resonant transducers, and were attached to the metal cylinder using hot melt glue. The hot glue acted to not only
hold the transducers to the cylinder, but also to effectively transmit the acoustic emission signals from the metal to
the transducer. The data from these transducers were captured by a multi-channel AE analyzer that was connected
to a laptop which recorded the data.

Results

Due to the sensitivity of the piezoelectric transducers, a large part of the data that was captured during the
testing of these cylinders was due to the results of noise sources other than fatigue crack growth. Some of the
sources of noise that were present during this testing were water entering and leaving the cylinder during each
compression cycles, the PVC bladder rubbing against the aluminum cylinder, leakage of water form the cylinder,
electromagnetic interference, and multiple hit data. Multiple hit data occurs when the system records two signals as
though they were one signal. It was important to filter out as much of this data as possible before using the SOM to
classify the data. The method used to do this was a variation of the method used by Suleman, et al [5]. Each source
of acoustic emissions tends to have a narrow frequency band at which it is emitted. Therefore, it was possible to
determine, from past research and preliminary results, the typical frequency range of the data of interest. Using this
knowledge, it was possible to remove data that were above this average frequency. The data that were removed was
anything with an average frequency at or above 1000 kHz. Once this was accomplished, the data were run through a
SOM, using average frequency, duration and amplitude as the classification parameters. This data were sorted into
three distinct classifications. One of these classifications was seen to be further noise data. This noise was also
removed, and the SOM run again, this time classifying into two categories. One of these categories was clearly a
combination of metal rubbing and rivet fretting, and the other was a combination of fatigue cracking and plastic
deformation. The duration vs. counts for these data is shown in Figure 4, with the points labeled Mechanism 1
representing the combination of fatigue cracking and rivet fretting. This category was then run through another
SOM, and the two categories were separated out. The amplitude histogram of the sorted data is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Duration vs. Amplitude Initial SOM

Figure 5. Amplitude Histogram Final SOM

Validation of the data occurred through two methods. First, the waveforms of the data that were suspected
to be fatigue cracking were examined. These waveforms had the expected shape of a clean acoustic emission signal,
which can easily be differentiated from noise waveforms. An example of a typical waveform is shown in Figure 6.
Second, the source of the acoustic emission signals was also examined. The signals that were expected to be from
the fatigue cracking were shown to be in the same area of the stress concentration, therefore giving another
validation to the results of this analysis.

62

Nondestructive Evaluation of Aerospace Materials and Structures II: Program Papers and Abstracts [Saint Louis, MO, May 2010]: pp 59-63.
Copyright 2010, 2011, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH.

Figure 6. Typical Fatigue Crack Waveform

IV.

Conclusions

It is clear that acoustic emission NDT, combined with proper data analysis , yields feasible method of inflight monitoring of aircraft. However, it is critical to understand the noise sources that will be present in the data as
well as the physics of the failure that is of interest. Without a proper understanding of the noise sources, the true
data can easily be tainted by the noise, and the classification of the data will be both extremely difficult and probably
incorrect. A misunderstanding of the physics of failure will lead to inaccurate descriptions of the classifications that
the SOM produces. However, if each of these is understood fully and applied correctly, this can be a powerful tool
to help reduce the threat of aircraft failure due to fatigue cracking.
More research will have to be done before this can be implemented for monitoring of an aircraft. A
potential next step would be to incorporate information on the water pressure on the cylinder when each signal is
emitted. This could lead to more insight into how the crack forms, and potentially to better classifications. Finally,
in-flight data collection would be the biggest obstacle in future work. The first step would be to place transducers
on an aircraft where fatigue cracking is unlikely to collect the noise associated with normal flight operations. After
that, it should be possible to use the knowledge gained in the lab, combined with this noise data, to perform actual
in-flight tests, and eventually, in-flight monitoring.

V.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.

References
OLone, R.G., Safety of Aging Aircraft Undergoes Reassessment, Aviation Week and Space Technology,
Vol. 128, Issue 20, May 16, 1988, pp. 16-18.
McBride, S.L., and Machlachlan, J.W., Acoustic Emission Due to Crack Growth, Crack Face Rubbing, and
Structural Noise in CC-130 Hercules Aircraft,, Journal of Acoustic Emission 3 (April 1984), pp. 1-9.
Thornton, Weldon P. "Classification of Acoustic Emission Signals from an Aluminum Pressure Vessel Using a
Self-Organizing Map." MSAE Thesis. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, 1995.
Marsden, Michael L. "Detection of Fatigue Crack Growth in a Simulated Aircraft Fuselage." MSAE Thesis.
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, 1996.
Suleman, Jamil, Okur, Muhammed A., and Eric v. K. Hill. Neural Network Fatigue Life Prediction in
Aluminum from Acoustic Emission Data. Technical Paper for Aging Aircraft Conference 2009 -- EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University, April 2009.
Acoustic Emission Testing (Nondestructive Testing Handbook (3rd ed.) Vol. 6). New York: American Society
for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH, 2005.
"Fractures&Joints.lec1." UC Santa Cruz - ITS - Instructional Computing. Web. 18 Mar. 2010.
<http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart150/Lectures/Joints/joints.htm>.
Rovik, Christopher L. "Classification of In-Flight Cracks In Aircraft Structures Using Acoustic Emission and
Neural Networks." MSAE Thesis. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, 1996.

63