See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267593941

Acoustic Emission Test on Steel/Composite and Steel/Composite/Steel Built-Up

Sections

Conference Paper · January 2011

DOI: 10.1115/IMECE2011-63882

CITATIONS READS
0 473

3 authors, including:

Gary Anderson Fereidoon Delfanian

South Dakota State University South Dakota State University
53 PUBLICATIONS   269 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   244 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Linking an Energy-Based Fatigue Life Prediction to Fracture Mechanics View project

Utilization of Non-destructive Testing (NDT) Methods for Composite Material Inspection (phased Array Ultrasonic) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary Anderson on 04 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Final Paper
Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
IMECE2011
November 11-17, 2011, Denver, Colorado, USA

IMECE2011-63882

ACOUSTIC EMISSION TEST ON STEEL/COMPOSITE AND

STEEL/COMPOSITE/STEEL BUILT-UP SECTIONS

Rushie Ghimire Gary Anderson

South Dakota State University
Department of Engineering Technology and
Management, METLAB
Brookings, SD, USA
rghimire@jacks.sdstate.edu
South Dakota State University
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems
Engineering, METLAB
Brookings, SD, USA
Gary.Anderson@sdstate.edu

Fereidoon Delfanian
South Dakota State University
Department of Mechanical
Engineering, METLAB
Brookings, SD, USA
Fereidoon.Delfanian@sdstate.edu

ABSTRACT were compared and analyzed relative to AE and material

Acoustic Emission (AE) has been widely used to monitor
and inspect built-up steel/composite sections; primarily at the
glue line. AE testing was conducted on steel-composite (SC)
and steel-composite-steel (SCS) built-up sections to determine
the glue line failure and damage sustained by the inner layer of
the built-up section by putting the sensors on the inner and
outer layers of the built-up sections. The straight specimens of
steel/composite and steel/composite/steel were tested with load
applied to only one steel layer. The AE sensors were placed on
the outer steel component so that detected signals traveled
through the loaded steel, glue lines, and the composite or the
loaded steel component, two glue lines, composite and
unloaded steel components of the built-up section(s). The AE
signals received by the sensors placed on the loaded steel in
tension was compared to signals of sensors placed directly
opposite on the unloaded steel or composite to determine the
effect the steel/composite and steel/composite/steel built-up
sections had on the signal. AE signals were also compared to
signals generated during tensile tests of steel specimens only
and composite specimens only. AE parameters like amplitude,
hits, counts, frequency, cumulative count, and rise time of the
AE signals were recorded, analyzed, and compared. AE
parameters were also compared to traditional material
properties (like yield and failure stress and strain). Tested
specimens were examined with a microscope and observations
parameters, and reported.
INTRODUCTION
Steel is one of the most common materials used in industry
as it is wear resistant, can withstand high temperature, and has
good strength and fatigue resistance. Composite materials like
carbon fiber composites due to qualities like high corrosion
resistance and high strength-to-weight ratio are coming into
favor in industry. Composite pipes and pressure vessels are an
effort to utilize the advantages of steel and fiber composites
together to produce strong, light weight, and durable structural
systems. Pipes of this construction have an inner steel liner
overwrapped with a composite layer and are commonly used to
store and transport high pressure gases like hydrogen [4]. Also,
composites are bonded to steel structures to strengthen and/or
repair the existing structure. One common example of this type
of built-up section is in bridge construction where steel girders
are reinforced with carbon fiber composite material. The long
term use of this type of built-up section may result in fatigue
damage to the steel and composite material or adhesive bond
failure which can lead to sudden structural failure and collapse.
Thus to prevent an abrupt failure or for quality control
purposes, non-destructive testing (NDT) can be useful in
determining the fatigue state of the materials and/or the
integrity of the adhesive bond between the two materials. NDT

Copyright © 2011 by ASME

is a method used to examine the material and its properties
without damaging it and reducing its future usefulness [9].
Acoustic emission is one of the NDT methods that have
been used in monitoring and characterizing damage, voids,
corrosion, etc. in both composites (fiber break, delamination,
and fiber pullout) and steel (plastic deformation, dislocations,
etc.) structures [2,3,5,6,8-10]. It has also been used in
adhesively joined steel and composite structures [8]. The
acoustic emission is a “sound” which is generated by the
material under load or events that cause damage. The sound
from the material is measured and used by the AE system to
find damage and discontinuities in the material. Acoustic
emission systems typically consist of sensors, pre-amplifier,
cables and a data-acquisition system. A typical AE signal is
shown in Figure1. Amplitude, rise-time, duration, and counts
are AE parameters and are used in analyzing AE signals.
Threshold is a user defined limit setting. Signals below the
threshold setting are not acquired by the AE system and are
treated as background noise while signals above the threshold
setting are acquired by the AE system. Figure 1 shows that a hit
is recorded once a signal peak has crossed the threshold and
continues until the signal peaks no longer cross the threshold.
Amplitude is the highest peak for a hit, duration is the time
from first threshold crossings to the last threshold crossing
(time duration of the hit), and rise-time is the time from first
threshold crossing to highest peak. Counts are the number of
peaks which crossed the threshold during the hit [9]. There are
a total of 6 counts in the hit shown in Figure 1. AE has been
used to monitor the damage in steel/composite built-up sections
in the past, but little or no research has been conducted on
steel/composite/steel built-up sections with load applied to only
one section (steel). Further, few studies have evaluated AE
signals measured by sensors that are mounted on a section
(composite in the SC built-up section and unloaded steel
section in the SCS built-up section) that is not loaded to
compare the signal with signals received by sensors on the
loaded steel section. The loaded section of a SC built-up pipe or
pressure vessel is not exposed and thereby not easily accessed
for the placement of sensors. AE measurements must be on the
outer unloaded portion of the built-up section rather than the
loaded inner steel section.
This paper presents the laboratory test results of AE
measurements taken from the composite section of SC built-up
sections and the unloaded steel section of a SCS built-up
section. The sections were loaded in tension. The results are
compared to the tensile test results of measured AE signals
from tests on specimens of steel only and composite material
only.
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Material and specimens
ASTM A36 steel flats and unidirectional Carbon-Fiber
Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) composite material was used to
construct the steel, composite, steel/composite built-up section
(SC), and steel/composite/steel built-up section (SCS)
specimens for the test. The yield strength, tensile modulus and
ultimate strength of the A36 steel was 250MPa, 200GPa, and
400MPa respectively [1]. The material properties of the
unidirectional CFRP specimens provided by the company had a
tensile strength of 1965MPa, tensile modulus of 121GPa, a
flexural strength of 2137MPa, and a flexural modulus of
117GPa [7]. SC and SCS built-up sections were prepared with
Duralco™ 4525 adhesive from Cotronics Company and super
glue. The steel flats used in the specimen construction were
nominally 3.175 mm thick, 177.8 mm and 254 mm long, and
25.4 mm wide. The CFRP material used to make the specimens
was 1.5240 mm thick, 177.8 mm long and 25.4 mm wide. Tests
were also performed on steel and CFRP only specimens.
Figure 1: Typical AE signal
Table 1: Cross-sectional areas of the specimens
Cross-sectional Areas of the specimens
Flat Steel CFRP SC built-up SCS built-
Specimen Specimen Section up section
(mm2) (mm2) (mm2) (mm2)
80.645 38.7096 104.0042 184.6492
AE and Tensile Tests
The 4-channel acoustic emission system from Physical
Acoustic Corporation (PAC) was used to measure and record
AE signals during the tensile testing of all the specimens. Wide
band AE sensors with a frequency range of 100 KHz to 1MHz
were used. Two sensors were used for steel flat specimen tests
and the CFRP specimen tests and four sensors were used for the
built-up section tests. A threshold setting of 55 dB was used
which was above the noise from the universal test machine
grip. The pre-amplifier gain was set at 40dB for the tests. A
MTS 370 Landmark Universal Test Machine (UTM) was used
to load the specimens in tension. The load rate used for the
testing was 100 N/sec. The tests were load controlled since it
was desired to load the specimens to pre-established loads. The
specimens were loaded to three different loadings; 25kN, 35kN,
and failure. An extensometer was attached to the specimens.
The sensors were mounted on the specimens using the couplant
(bonding agent) provided by PAC and electrical tape. Figure 2
shows a SC built-up section specimen and the location of the
sensors.
2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Figure 2: Test Setup; (a) AE sensor location on a SC specimen (b) AE
sensor location on a SCS specimen (c) Schematic diagram of AE
system.
The glue-line between the loaded steel flat and CFRP
failed in the SC and SCS specimens during each loading. The
adhesive first used failed around 10kN. The specimens were
cleaned using sand-paper and a degreaser and super-glue was
used to bond the sections of the specimens together for the next
loadings. Glass-fiber tabs were attached to the CFRP specimens
to reduce damage to the specimens caused by the grip. Tabs
were also attached with the Duralco 4525 adhesive. The tabs
pulled free from the CFRP specimens when they were loaded to
25kN. Super-glue was used to re-attach the tabs to the CFRP
specimens for the next two loadings.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Steel Specimen Tests
The steel specimens when loaded to 25kN showed elastic
behavior and very few acoustic emissions were recorded. The
maximum AE amplitude was in the range of 60dB and was
measured between 20 and 25kN. The hits had a short duration
with the longest being 95µs. The number of counts recorded
was low (1-7 per hit). The lack of recorded emissions shows
that no significant damage was present or being done to the
specimens at this loading. The yield stress of A36 steel is
250MPa and the stress in the steel flat at a 25kN load is
310MPa.
When loaded to both 35kN and failure, most AE activity
was found when the specimens yielded. Thus, yielding or the
beginning of the plastic zone marked the maximum number of
hits. The observations are similar to those found by Roy et al.
for SA333 and AISI 304LN steel and Akbari & Ahmadi for
AISI 1010 un-notched steel [2,10] specimens. Hits with high
amplitude (up to 90dB) and gradually increasing in AECC
(Acoustic Emission Cumulative Count) were found at yielding
of the specimens when loaded to both 35kN and failure (see
Figure 4a and 4b). When loaded to failure most AE activity was
recorded after the previous loading (35kN), behaving as
prescribed by the Kaiser Effect. The “Kaiser Effect” states that
no emission should be present below the previous maximum
load applied to a specimen [9]. Microscopic images showed
surface cracks on the specimens taken after they were loaded to
35kN and to failure (see Figure 7). Duration and amplitude
often are used to distinguish plastic deformation, crack
development or growth, rubbing between crack edges or the
UTM grips and the specimen, and noise signals in metals [9].
Plastic deformation displays hits with short duration and low to
medium amplitude, cracking has a short hit duration and high
amplitude, and rubbing has a long duration with medium
amplitude [9]. The specimens yielded during the 35kN loading
at approximately 30kN which corresponds to a stress of
372MPa which is 1.49 times greater than stated. Figure 3a
shows that the specimens deformed plastically until the
deformation reached ~3.5mm when the steel began to strain
harden. The strain hardening continued through the test load of
35kN (434MPa). Figure 3b shows that in the loading to failure
test, the steel yielded at a load of nominally 37kN (459MPa),
somewhat higher than it had strain hardened to during the 35kN
loading. The specimen deformed plastically for 3-4mm
displacement before exhibiting further strain hardening to
approximately 40kN (496MPa) before fracturing at about
33kN. The ultimate strength of the A36 steel was listed as
400MPa.
AE results from duration and amplitude plots showed hits
that are representative of crack formation because they
exhibited high amplitude from 70-90 dB with a short duration
of 1-210µs when loaded to both 35kN and failure (see Figure
5a and 5b). Hits accredited to be from plastic deformation had
amplitudes in the range of 55-70dB with a short duration in the
range of 1-200µs (see Figure5a and 5b). Also, the plastic
deformations exhibited a short hit duration of 1-200µs and had
few counts (1-15 per hit) (see Figure 6a and 6b). The counts per
hit due to cracks were in the range of 15-30 (see Figure 6a and
6b). The hits with a medium amplitude of 55-65dB and a long
duration in the range of 400-1200µs which are attributed to
rubbing, were more noticeable when loading the specimens to
35kN than when loading to failure (see Figure 5a and5b).
Figure 3: Load vs. displacement plot for a typical steel specimen (a)
loaded to 35kN (b) loaded to failure
3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Figure 4: (a) Amplitude and AECC vs. load loaded to 35kN (b)
amplitude and AECC vs. load loaded to failure
Figure 5: Duration vs. amplitude for a typical steel specimen (a)
loaded to 35kN (b) loaded to failure
Figure 6: Duration vs. count for the steel specimen (a) loaded to 35kN
(b) loaded to failure
Figure 7: Microscopic images typical steel specimen (a) loaded to
35kN (b) loaded to failure.
CFRP Composite Tests
CFRP specimens when loaded to 25 kN had the glass fiber
tabs come off. The tabs were re-attached on the CFRP
specimens using superglue. Visible cracks were seen across the
length of the specimens near the grip area on specimens 1, 2
and 3. After the 35 kN loading, the tabs were still attached to
the CFRP specimens. Visible cracks were seen on all the
specimens near the grip area running parallel to the length of
the specimen. Cracks from the previous loading extended
across the width of specimens 1, 2, and 3 near the grip. CFRP
specimens 1, 2 and 3 failed but specimens 4 and 5 did not fail
when loaded to the UTM load capacity. The cracks developed
along the length of the specimens near the edges parallel to the
length of the specimens. The remaining portion of the specimen
cross section broke across the width of specimens 1, 2 and 3
near the grip. Some fibers came out of the specimens at the
edges of specimens 4 and 5 but the specimens did not fail.
Figure 8 shows the CFRP specimens after each of the three
loadings. Hits with high amplitude and long duration are
generally associated with fiber breakage. Hits with low to
medium amplitude and short duration are associated with
matrix cracking [3, 5].
When loaded to 35kN and failure the damage observed in
the CFRP test was mostly longitudinal cracking of the matrix,
fiber splitting and delamination (combination of fiber-matrix
de-bonding and matrix cracking). The AE hits, attributed to
matrix cracking had an amplitude in the range of 57-67dB and
started to accumulate at a lower load. The hits had a short
duration (1-200µs), high (57-700 KHz) average-frequency
(Count/Duration) and low number of counts (1-15) (see Figures
10 and 11). The anticipated amplitude from delamination is low
to medium (65-77dB) with medium duration (200-400 µs),
medium count number (15-40) and medium average-frequency
(200-450 kHz) (see Figures 10 and 11). The hits from fiber
splitting had amplitude in the range of 77 to 99dB with low
average-frequency in the range of 99-200 kHz, long duration
(300-800 µs) and a high number of counts (40-130). AE hits
due to matrix cracking and fiber splitting were more numerous
when the specimens were loaded to failure (see Figure 9b).
AECC did not show a sudden rise indicating the point of crack
initiation so AE cumulative signal strength (AECSS) was used
because it showed the point of crack initiation. Signal strength
is the integral of the rectified voltage signal divided by the
duration of the AE hit. A sudden change in slope of the
cumulative signal strength versus time curve is referred to as a
“knee” in the curve. The formation of a knee is considered to be
an indication of the onset of damage to the specimens [5]. The
knee in the graphs was seen at 18kN when loading to 35kN (see
Figure 9a) and around 23kN when loading to failure (see Figure
9b). After the initial formation of the knee, AECSS increased
along with load at a decreasing rate until failure (see Figure
9b). Figures 12a and 12b show the microscopic image of
specimens after the 35kN loading and loading to failure. The
exposed fiber shown in the image may be from delamination or
debonding of the fiber from the matrix which would give rise to
the knees shown in Figure 9.
Figure 8: CFRP specimens after loading to (a) 25kN, (b) 35kN, and (c)
failure
4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Figure 9: AECSS and amplitude vs. load (a) loaded to 35kN (b) loaded
to failure for CFRP specimen 1
Figure 10: Average-frequency, Duration vs. Amplitude (a) loaded to
35kN (b) loaded to failure for CFRP specimen1
Figure 11: Average-frequency vs. Count (a) loaded to 35kN (b) loaded
to failure for CFRP specimen1
Figure 12: Microscopic Image showing surface cracks in CFRP
specimen (a) loaded to 35kN (b) loaded to failure.
Steel/Composite (SC) built-up section Tests
The glue-line between the steel and CFRP in the SC built-
up sections failed during each loading. The SC specimens when
loaded to 35kN and failure showed signs of yielding in the
load-displacement plot (see Figures 15 and 16). A loud “pop”
was heard right after yielding of the steel during the 35kN and
failure loading which is deemed to indicate that a portion of
glue-line bonding the steel to the CFRP failed. Surface cracks
similar to those shown in Figure 7a were seen on all the steel
flats of the built-up sections but the CFRP did not show any
signs of damage through each loading so the acoustic emissions
recorded by the sensors are taken to be from the steel exhibiting
yielding behavior or glue-line failure. The stress-strain data
moved abruptly in the negative direction due to the sudden
failure of the glue-line causing the extensometer to slip on the
SC specimen. The slipping of the extensometer on the specimen
results in an apparent negative strain, (see Figures 14, 15 and
16). The load applied to the steel flat is carried by both the steel
flat and the CFRP relative to the two materials stiffness and
cross sectional area; assuming no adhesive slip. The load
carried by the steel flat is the applied load divided by (1 +
(EA)c/(EA)s) and the load carried by the composite is the
applied load divided by (1 + (EA)s/(EA)c). The terms EAs and
EAc refer to the axial stiffness (cross sectional area multiplied
by the modulus of elasticity) of the steel and composite
sections. Given the cross sectional area and modulus of
elasticity of the materials, 77.5% of the load would be carried
by the steel flat and 22.5% of the load would be carried by the
CFRP. The glue line would transfer 22.5% of the applied load
between the CFRP and steel flat. The load sharing continues in
this manner until the steel begins to yield (~33kN for loading to
35kN and ~40kN when loaded to failure). At yielding, the steel
flat elongates while carrying little additional load (ignoring
strain hardening at this time). With the steel flat carrying little
or no additional load, the glue line must transfer all additional
load to the CFRP. Transfer of the additional applied load causes
the glue line or a portion of it to fail which in turn causes the
steel flat to yield at a faster rate since the UTM is under load
control meaning that it will maintain the prescribed load rate.
The steel does undergo strain hardening allowing the load to
increase to 35kN for the test that loads to 35kN and then to
higher loads for the failure loading. A loud “pop” and a less
loud “pop” were heard during the test indicating that portions
of the glue-line were failing at two different times. When a
portion of the glue-line fails, the load that was being carried by
the CFRP and steel is carried only by the steel in the region of
the glue line failure. The increased load carried by the steel and
applied abruptly by the glue-line failure caused the steel
without support from the CFRP to elongate suddenly. The
sudden elongation of the steel produces a load-displacement or
stress-strain plot similar to what is expected when the material
yields; significant increase in displacement or strain with little
increase in load or stress.
The acoustic emission signals from all four sensors; two
placed on steel and two placed on CFRP of the built-up section
were analyzed. Not many hits were recorded at the 25kN
loading. This is likely due to the loading being less than that
required to yield the steel flat. Steel yielding is a major source
of acoustic emissions. CFRP test results showed medium to
high amplitude hits due to the forming of cracks that were near
the grip area and were visible to the naked eye as well as under
the microscope. Therefore, high amplitude hits in the range of
70-90dB from the SC built-up section when loaded to 25kN are
from glue-line failure since no damage was seen on the steel
flat or CFRP of the SC specimens. Hits similar to those seen
when the steel specimens yielded are also seen when the glue-
line failed in the SC specimen tests. The maximum amplitude
of the hits was in the range of 90dB for all the built-up
specimens when the glue-line failed. A gradual increase in
AECC was also noted (see Figure 17). High amplitude hits in
5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
the range of 80-90 dB started to accumulate at lower loads between the crack edges or the steel, the UTM grips, and the
(around 5kN) for all the SC specimens. Duration vs. count and glue-line.
duration vs. amplitude plots had high amplitude hits (70-90dB) When loaded to failure, the loud sound was again heard
with long duration 100-1000µs and a high count of 15-150 when the specimens yielded (around 40kN), indicating the
recorded by sensors 1,2 and 4 and counts of 15-135 by sensor 3 glue-line failed and the stress-strain curve also moved in the
(see Figures 18 and 19). Hits displaying counts, amplitude, and negative direction. This time the strain moved back into the
duration of these magnitudes and relative proportions were not positive direction at around 42kN load (see Figures16a and
seen during the steel specimen tests to the 25kN load. It is 16b). The hits of medium to high amplitude started to
speculated that the hits are from glue-line failure which was accumulate at a lower load (around 5kN) as seen by comparing
recorded by all four sensors. the plots for the 25kN and 35kN loadings. The sudden increase
When the SC specimens were loaded to 35kN, the AE hits in AECC gives a better understanding of the damage being
recorded reached a maximum when the steel portion of the done to the steel flat and the glue-line of the SC specimens. SC
specimen exhibited yielding and the glue-line failed. Around specimen 2 when loaded to failure produced a soft audible
33kN load a loud “pop” was heard indicating a portion of the “pop” at 21kN, it can be seen that there is sudden a rise in
glue-line failed and the stress-strain curve moved abruptly in AECC along with the amplitude of the hits becoming high (up
the negative direction. Figure 15a illustrates that the steel to 99dB) at all four sensors (See Figure 23). The medium to
specimen was yielding. At 33kN the steel flat would have been high amplitude hits (65-100dB) with long duration (200-
carrying 25.59kN (77.5%) resulting in a steel stress of 317MPa. 1800µs) and high counts (50-250) are again assumed to be from
The 25.59kN carried by the steel flat is less than the load the glue-line and were recorded by all the sensors when the
required to yield the steel flat specimens tested in tension specimens were loaded to failure (see Figures 24 and 25) .
(~33kN), indicating the steel was not yielding. Figures 14a and During the loading to failure, the glue line transferred load
14b show that the glue line for the SC specimens loaded to between the steel flat and CFRP to approximately 40kN. The
25kN failed at loads of 23-24kN; the glue line was transferring load transferred by the glue-line was 8.98kN (22.5%) which is
5.17-5.39kN (22.5%). It is likely that the glue line failed first in higher than what the glue-line transferred before failing during
this case shifting the total load of 33kN to the steel flat thereby the 35kN loading. The increased glue-line strength indicates
causing the steel to suddenly yield and elongate rapidly. Figure that either the glue-line for the failure loading was stronger or
3 shows the steel flat material after yielding will begin to strain the glue-line failure is coupled to the steel flat yielding.
harden at a displacement of 3-4mm and the load carrying
capacity of the steel increases to nominally 40kN which allows
the SC specimen to continue loading to 35kN. The maximum
number of AE hits with a high amplitude (up to 100dB) and a
gradual increase in AECC was recorded around 33kN load by
all 4 sensors (see Figure 20). The AE test results for the steel
specimens exhibited maximum amplitude of 98dB. The
amplitude of 100dB may have been from the glue-line failing at
the 33kN load. The 100dB amplitude was recorded during the
testing of all the SC specimens. When compared to the hit
duration and counts for the steel specimens, the maximum Figure 13: SC specimens showing the location and type of failure of
count recorded for all specimens was in the range of 1-40 the steel flat of the built-up section.
counts with a few hits reaching 60 counts. The SC specimens
generated a higher count number with the maximum being 300
at sensor 1 and 250 at the other sensors. The hits also had a
long duration (200-1800µs) (see Figures 21 and 22). Hits with a
high amplitude ranging from 65-100dB with long durations of
200-1800µs and high counts (40-300) are from the glue-line
failure because the steel specimens did not display hits with this
magnitude of amplitude, durations, and counts. Thus by
comparing the steel specimen test results to the SC specimen
test results, it can be said that the medium amplitude hits (55-
70dB) with a short duration and low number of counts (1-30
counts) are primarily from elastic deformation of the steel and
very few are from the glue-line failing. The high amplitude hits Figure 14:(a) Load vs. displacement (b) stress vs. strain for typical SC
(70-90dB) with a short duration of 1-200µs and counts in the specimen loaded to 25kN
range of 20-50 are from crack formation and propagation in the
steel. The medium amplitude hits (55-60dB) with long duration
(200-1800µs) and low counts (1-50) are from the rubbing

6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

Figure 15: Load vs. displacement (b) stress vs. strain for a typical SC
specimen loaded to 35kN

Figure 19: Duration vs. count plots for SC specimen1 (a) sensor 1 (b)
sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to 25kN.

Figure 16: (a) Load vs. displacement (b) stress vs. strain for a typical
SC specimen loaded to failure

Figure 20: AECC and amplitude vs. load plots for SC specimen1 (a)
sensor 1 (b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when
loaded to 35kN

Figure 17: AECC and amplitude vs. load plots for SC specimen1 (a)
sensor 1 (b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when
loaded to 25kN.

Figure 21: Duration vs. amplitude plots for SC specimen 1 (a) sensor 1
(b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to 35kN

Figure 18: Duration vs. amplitude plots for SC specimen1 (a) sensor 1
(b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to 25kN.

Figure 22: Duration vs. count plots for SC specimen 1(a) sensor 1 (b)
sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to 35kN.

7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME


Figure 23: AECC and amplitude vs. load plots for SC specimen2 (a)
sensor 1 (b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when
loaded to failure.
Figure 24: Duration vs. amplitude plots for SC specimen 2 (a) sensor 1
(b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to failure
Figure 25: Duration vs. count plots for SC specimen 2 (a) sensor 1 (b)
sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to failure
Steel/composite/steel (SCS) built-up section Tests
SCS specimens loaded to 25kN generated very few hits at
sensors 3 and 4 compared to sensors 1 and 2, placed on the
loaded steel flat. The hits recorded at sensors 3 and 4 are
believed to be from the glue-line between the loaded steel flat
and the CFRP because no glue-line failure was observed
between the CFRP and the steel flat that was not loaded.
Applied load was distributed between the two steel flats and the
composite in the same manner as described for the SC sections;
Load carried by a steel flat is the load divided by (2 +
(EA)c/(EA)s) and the load carried by the composite is the
applied load divided by (1 + (2(EA)s/(EA)c). The steel flats
each carried 43.7% of the load and the composite carried
12.7%. The glue line between the loaded flat and the composite
transfers 56.4% of the load while the other glue line transfers
43.7% of the load. At the 25kN load, the glue line between the
loaded steel flat and CFRP would be transferring 14.1kN
(56.4%) which is higher than what was transferred during the
SC tests. The loaded steel flat stress at a load of 25kN is
135.4MPa (43.7%), which is well below any yield stress
observed during testing. The glue line strength shown during
these tests provides support for the hypothesis that the steel
yielding and glue-line failure are not independent events.
SCS specimens loaded to 35kN produced a loud sound
similar to those heard when the SC specimens were tested
indicating glue-line failure near the yield point of the loaded
steel flat for all specimens. The stress-strain curves also moved
abruptly in the negative direction (see Figure 26a and 26b). The
stress-strain curves for specimen 2 moved slightly in the
negative direction when a soft pop sound was heard. The hits
that became continuous with an amplitude of 65-90dB seen
during the SC specimen tests by all the sensors was not
recorded by the sensors during the SCS specimen tests. Hits at
a load of around 10kN were present at sensors 1 and 2;
whereas, sensors 3 and 4 had very few and scattered hits. In
specimen 1, hits at the 10kN load were mostly absent at sensor
4 (see Figure 27d). At a load of 10kN, the glue line between the
loaded steel flat and the CFRP was transferring 5.63kN (56.4%)
while the glue line between the CFRP and the steel flat that was
not loaded was 4.37kN (43.7%). The load transfer of 5.63kN is
similar to the glue line load transfer when the glue line failed
during the 25kN loading of the SC specimens. The sensors
placed on the unloaded steel flat recorded only high signal
amplitude hits that are due to significant damage such as plastic
deformation and glue-line failure. A maximum number of hits
were seen at around 30kN when the steel exhibited yielding and
a loud pop was heard indicating a portion of the glue-line
between the loaded steel flat and the CFRP failed. The
maximum number of hits with amplitudes up to 100dB and a
sudden increase in AECC was seen by all four sensors at 30kN
(see Figure 27). High amplitude hits (70-100dB) with long
duration (200-1800µs) are assumed to be from glue-line failure
and were recorded during the SCS built-up section tests (see
Figure 28). The medium amplitude hits (55-70dB) with short
duration (1-200µs) that were believed to be from the
deformation of the steel flats and from the glue-line failure
were also recorded by all the sensors (see Figure 28). Long
duration hits also had high count numbers (50-250) similar to
those observed during the SC specimen tests that were
attributed to glue-line failure (see Figure 29). At 30kN of load,
the glue-line would be expected to transfer 16.9kN (56.4%)
between the loaded steel flat and the CFRP. The glue-line
capacities are increasing, suggesting that either the glue-line is
not rigid and the flexibility of the glue-line is reducing the load
transferred significantly requiring the loaded steel flat to carry a
greater portion of the applied load than expected, or there is an
interaction between the glue line failure and yielding of the
steel. It should be noted that a different adhesive was used for
the 25kN loading than was used for the 35kN loading and
failure loading of the SC and SCS specimens. The anticipated
steel stress is 162.5MPa (43.7% of the 30kN load) which is
below the steel yield stress.
8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
 When each of the SCS specimens was loaded to failure, a
loud pop was heard twice during the testing. The first pop was
heard before yielding of the steel flat at different loads for the
different specimens but the second pop was heard at yielding
of the steel flat as seen by the load-displacement curve (see
Figure 26c and 26d). The first loud pop was heard around 24kN
of load during the testing of specimen 1 (see Figure 26c).
Around that load, high amplitude hits with a rise in AECC were
recorded at all four sensors (see Figure 30). More of the hits at
around 24kN were recorded at sensors 1 and 2 than sensors 3
and 4 possibly indicating that the signals and portion of the glue
line failing is closer to sensors 1 and 2. The maximum number Figure 28: Duration vs. amplitude plots for SCS specimen 1 (a) sensor
1 (b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to 35kN.
of hits with a sudden rise in AECC was seen at the yield load
(around 40kN) and/or glue-line failure when a second loud pop
was heard. The same hit pattern was seen during the testing of
all SC and SCS specimens. Long duration hits (200-1800µs)
with high amplitude (70-100dB) and high counts (50-250) were
also exhibited by the SCS specimens that are attributed to glue-
line failure (see Figures31 and 32). The stress in the loaded
steel flat would be expected to be 216.6MPa which is
approaching the steel yield stress and the glue line load transfer
to the composite is 22.5kN (56.4%). In the testing of the steel
flat, SC, and SCS specimens the yield point was 30-35kN for
the 35kN test and 40kN for the test to failure. The reason for
Figure 29: Duration vs. count plots for SCS specimen 1(a) sensor 1 (b)
the consistent yielding which coincides with the glue line sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to 35kN.
failure for the SC and SCS specimen is not immediately
obvious. The steel yielding may interact with the glue-line
failure, or the glue-line is flexible thereby not transferring load
as anticipated.

Loud Pop heard

Figure 30: AECC and amplitude vs. load plots for SCS specimen1 (a)
sensor 1 (b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to
failure.
Figure 26: (a) Load vs. displacement (b) stress vs. strain for a typical
SCS specimen loaded to 35kN (c) Load vs. displacement (d) stress vs.
strain for a typical SCS specimen loaded to failure.

Figure 31: Duration vs. amplitude plots for SCS specimen 1 (a) sensor
1 (b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to failure.

Figure 27: AECC and amplitude vs. load plots for SCS specimen1 (a)
sensor 1 (b) sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to
35kN.

9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME


Figure 32: Duration vs. count plots for SCS specimen 1(a) sensor 1 (b)
sensor 3 (c) sensor 2 and (d) sensor 4 when loaded to failure.
CONCLUSION
The results and comparison of AE monitoring of the SC
and SCS built-up sections and the steel and CFRP specimen
tests were presented. The AE signals from the sensors placed on
the CFRP sections of the SC and SCS specimens were
compared to the signals from the steel specimens, and it was
found that damage such as plastic deformation of the steel had
short hit duration (1-200µs) with low to medium amplitude (55-
70) and that crack formation and growth exhibited high
amplitude (70-90dB) and short duration (1-210µs) hits. An AE
event (hit) from glue-line failure had signals with principally
medium to high amplitude (65-100dB), long duration (200-
1800µs) and a large number of counts (50-250). The number of
hits with a similar amplitude range recorded by all four sensors
showed that the sound made by steel under load and glue-line
failure was recorded by the sensors on the CFRP as well as the
steel in the SC specimens. However, in the case of the SCS
built-up specimens, fewer hits were recorded by the sensors
placed on the unloaded steel flat than the sensors placed on the
loaded steel flat. AE events related to steel yielding and glue-
line failure were recorded by the sensors on the unloaded steel
flat. These sensors recorded high amplitude hits with both long
duration and short duration signals and medium amplitude hits
with short duration signals showing that the sensors on the
unloaded steel flat were able to sense the signals produced
when the loaded steel flat yielded and when the glue-line failed.
The AE test results from the unidirectional CFRP
specimens showed that matrix cracks produced hits with low to
medium amplitude (57-67dB) and have a low to high average-
frequency (57-700 kHz) with a short duration (1-200µs) and
with hits displaying fewer counts (1-15). The test results
showed that fiber splitting generated signals with high
amplitude (77-99dB) had a low average frequency (99-200
kHz), a long duration (300-800µs) and large number of counts
(40-130). The plots of average-frequency verses count can be
used to distinguish the type of damage that was sustained by the
CFRP.
AE measurements on the CFRP portion of the SC built-up
section can aid in monitoring the damage sustained by both the
steel and glue-line. In the case of the SCS built-up sections,
attenuation of the AE hits occurs as the signal generated in the
loaded flat and glue-line between the CFRP and loaded flat
travels to the sensors mounted on the unloaded steel flat.
View publication stats
However, glue-line failure and plastic deformation of the steel
and crack formation and growth produce signals with sufficient
energy to be recorded by sensors on the unloaded steel flat of
the SCS built-up section.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mr. Sunil Macwan for helping with the testing and operating
the universal test machine. Research was sponsored by Benet
Laboratories on behalf of the US Army Contracting Command
Joint Munitions & Lethality Contracting Center and was
accomplished under Cooperative Agreement Number
W15QKN-09-2-2-0002. The views and conclusions contained
in this document are those of the authors and should not be
interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed
or implied, of Benet Laboratories or the U.S. Government. The
U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute
reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any
copyright notation heron.
REFERENCES
[1]. [http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-
d_417.html, (access on: 23rd May 2011)
[2]. Akbari, M., & Ahmadi, M. 2009,“The application of
acoustic emission technique to plastic deformation of low
carbonsteel”
[3]. Ativitavas, N., 2002, “ Acoustic emission signature
analysis of failure mechanisms in fiber reinforced
plasticstructures”.Ph.D.thesis,
repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/442/ativitavas
n029.pdf
[4]. Bohse, J., Mair, G., & Novak, P., 2006,” Acoustic
emission testing of high-pressure compoiste
cylinders”Advanced material researchVol. 13-14 , pp. 267-272
[5]. Chen, Y., Ziehl, P., Ramirez, G., & Fowler, T. J.,
2007,“Effect of temperature on acoustic emisison evaluation of
FRP vessels (tensile specimens)”. Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology, 516-524.
[6]. Gostautas, R. S., Ramirez, G., Peterman, R. J., &
Meggers, D., 2005, “Acoustic emission monitoring and analysis
of glass fiber-reinforced composites bridge decks”, 713-721
[7]. http://www.acp-composites.com/home.php?cat=4850,
(access on: 23rd May 2011)
[8]. Matta, F., Rizzo, P., Karbhari, M., V., Scalea, F.,
2006,“Acoustic emission damage assessment of steel/CFRP
bonds for rehabilitation”, Journal of Composites for
Construction, 10(6), 265-274
[9]. Moore, P. O., Miller, R. K., & Hill, E. v., 2005,
American Society for Nondestructive Testing “Acoustic
Emission Testing”, Columbus,Ohio,(pp. 1-4,pp. 152-153,pp.
369-371)
[10]. Roy, H., Parida, N., Sivaprasad, S., Tarafder, S., &
Ray, K. k., 2008, “Acoustic emissions during fracture
toughness tests of steels exhibiting varying ductility”, Journal
of Material science and Engineering, 562-571
10 Copyright © 2011 by ASME