NDE DEVELOPMENT FOR BONDED HONEYCOMB

STRUCTURES PRODUCED USING NON-AUTOCLAVE

MANUFACTURING PROCESSES

Donald D. Palmer, Jr.

Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 516
St. Louis, MO 63166

1. INTRODUCTION
Honeycomb materials have been used traditionally in adhesive-bonded sandwich structures
designed for stiffness-critical applications. For the most part, these structures have been
fabricated using autoclave-based curing processes, requiring curing under pressure in order to
obtain quality bonds. Also, nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of bonded honeycomb structures
has traditionally been performed using through-transmission ultrasonic inspection processes in
large, water-coupled, gantry-based automated scanning systems. Recent advances in composite
manufacturing technology have taken composites out of the autoclave, allowing greater
flexibility in composites processing and manufacturing floor space usage. As such, the non-
autoclave manufacturing approach has opened up opportunities for the use more rapid and
portable NDE processes to assess laminate quality. The potential also exists for use of similar
NDE processes for rapid evaluation of adhesive bond quality in honeycomb structures produced
outside of the autoclave. This paper will focus on evaluation of NDE methods as they relate to
detection of bondline flaws and core defects in bonded honeycomb structure. The goal of this
evaluation was to define an inspection process that could be performed from one side of the part
in the manufacturing cell in order to eliminate the need to move the part to a gantry-based
ultrasonic scanning system.

2. BACKGROUND
Since the introduction of structural composite materials for aerospace applications back in the
1960’s, through-transmission ultrasonics has been considered the primary nondestructive
evaluation approach to assess bond quality. As illustrated in Figure 1, through-transmission
ultrasonics requires access to both side of the structure such that sound can be sent through the
material and the resulting attenuation quantified in order to assess the bonding condition.
Although this well-established process has been effective, it still requires parts to be routed out
of the production flow and into an area where large-scale ultrasonic scanning systems are
operated. Depending on backlog, these parts could be out of the production flow from up to a
few days to up to several weeks.
 Figure 1. Bonded honeycomb structure undergoing through-transmission ultrasonic inspection
in Automated Ultrasonic Scanning System (AUSS)

Resonance methods are also employed as nondestructive evaluation approaches for bonded
honeycomb structure, most frequently for smaller parts and parts with geometries too complex
for through-transmission ultrasonics. Resonance-based inspection approaches, both coupling and
non-coupling, are often performed manually, as shown in Figure 2. The manual approaches are
efficient for relatively small parts; however, for large parts containing bonded areas, the manual
approaches are time consuming. Semi-automated scanning platforms, such as the Mobile
Automated Scanner (MAUS), shown in Figure 3, have helped take significant time out of large
area inspections. Developed initially for pulse-echo ultrasonic inspection of composite laminates,
later versions of the MAUS have incorporated additional drive capabilities to allow scanning
with resonance-based transducers and probes as well [1]. There are a variety of probe types that
fall under the general category of “resonance” probes, including standard resonance, pitch/catch
resonance and mechanical impedance analysis.

Figure 2. Manually-operated resonance inspection of small bonded honeycomb structure

 (a) (b)

Figure 3. Mobile Automated Scanner (MAUS) portable large area scanning system: (a) system
control unit and (b) flexible scanning track for remote scanning

Using standard resonance testing, the contact transducer is driven at its resonance frequency and
coupled to the sample using water, or some other low-viscosity couplant. This is critical for
obtaining repeatable results; standard ultrasonic couplant should not be used. Coupling the probe
to a composite part causes the part to act as a damping member, reducing the amplitude and
increasing the bandwidth of the transducer as well as changing the resonant frequency [2]. By
nulling out the good bond signal, the phase- and amplitude- vector end points of a disband are
compared to a good bond on a polar coordinate display. Materials such as graphite or fiberglass,
with low impedance, require lower frequency probes than metal skin layers. Frequencies in the
range of 35 -500 kHz have been useful for most bond testing, with the higher frequencies used
for thinner or metallic layers.

Pitch/Catch resonance inspection utilizes probes that contain two sensing elements. A sine wave
burst is applied to one of the elements to generate a surface wave in the material. The signal
frequencies for the excitation frequency are in the 10-40kHz range. The surface wave is detected
by the second element. Changes between the excitation and receive signals indicate changes in
the stiffness of the structure or bondline. This method is effective for examination of bonding
between thin skins and non-metallic core. In a bonding condition, a portion of the acoustic
energy is attenuated by the structure below the inspection surface, resulting in a lower signal
amplitude being displayed on the instrument [2]. In a disband condition, the waves travel
between the transmit (pitch) and the receive (catch) element with very little attenuation or
damping from the bonded structure. The result is that a higher signal amplitude is displayed.

The mechanical impedance analysis (MIA) test mode uses a single-tipped dual-element probe
[2]. A drive element generates sound waves and a receive element detects the effect of the
structure on probe-tip loading. During setup, the drive frequency is swept from 2-10 kHz to
establish the optimum test frequency. Testing is then performed at a fixed frequency. When the
drive and receive elements are nulled on a good bond, they vibrate together at the same phase
and amplitude. When the probe is placed on a structure, the receiving element is affected by the
sample stiffness, which varies from bonded to disbonded conditions. This change is monitored as
a comparison between the drive and receive phase and amplitude signals.

Infrared thermography is a nondestructive testing method that is based on imaging of thermal

patterns relative to the material or structure being evaluated. Strictly speaking, the term
“thermography”, refers to all thermographic inspection techniques regardless of the physical
phenomena used to monitor the thermal changes. For instance, the application of a temperature
sensitive coating to a surface in order to measure its temperature is a thermographic inspection
contact technique based on heat conduction where there is no infrared sensor involved. Infrared
thermography on the other hand, is a nondestructive, nonintrusive, noncontact mapping of
thermal patterns or "thermograms", on the surface of objects through the use of some kind of
infrared detector [3]. There are two modalities used in infrared thermographic inspection: (1)
passive, in which the features of interest are naturally at a higher or lower temperature than the
background, for example: the surveillance of people on a scene; and (2) active, in which an
energy source is required to produce a thermal contrast between the feature of interest and the
background. For inspection of aerospace structures, active thermography is typically used. A
variety of equipment is available for active thermography applications, ranging from simple
infrared cameras to measure temperature changes to fully equipped systems designed for
industrial thermography applications, such as the Thermal Wave Imaging Thermoscope DM
system, shown in Figure 4. This system was used to investigate the merits of infrared
thermography as it relates to bonded honeycomb structures.

Infrared Camera

Quartz Lamps/Hood Display

Control Unit

Figure 4. TWI Thermoscope DM portable infrared thermographic inspection system

Although ultrasonic through-transmission inspection is considered the baseline approach for

evaluating bonded honeycomb structures, there are cases where radiographic inspection is also
required. Radiographic inspection represents a family of inspection approaches that use short
wavelength radiation (X-rays, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.) to penetrate materials and detect
hidden flaws. For bonded honeycomb structures, radiographic methods are valuable in detecting
flaws associated with the core materials themselves, including node-bond failure and core splice
defects. Traditionally, these inspections have been performed using film-based radiographic
inspection processes. However, over the past decade, many film-based radiographic inspection
processes have been transitioning to digital processes in order to capitalize on a number of
technical advantages and reduced costs associated with the elimination of film, processing
chemicals and environmentally compliant disposal.
Digital radiography is a form of x-ray imaging, where digital X-ray sensors are used instead of
traditional photographic film. Advantages include time efficiency through bypassing chemical
processing and the ability to digitally transfer and enhance images. Also less radiation can be
used to produce an image of similar contrast to conventional radiography. Digital Radiography is
essentially filmless X-ray image capture. In place of X-ray film, a digital image capture device is
used to record the X-ray image and make it available as a digital file that can be presented for
interpretation and saved as part of the patient’s medical record. The advantages of DR over film
include immediate image preview and availability, a wider dynamic range which makes it more
forgiving for over- and under-exposure as well as the ability to apply special image processing
techniques that enhance overall display of the image [4]. The largest motivator for aerospace
manufacturing facilities to adopt DR is its potential to reduce costs associated with processing,
managing and storing films. Typically there are two variants of digital image capture devices.
These devices include Flat Panel detectors (FPDs), and High Density Line Scan Solid State
detectors.

The digital radiographic inspection approach utilized in this investigation involved a flat panel
amorphous silicon indirect conversion detector in conjunction with a standard x-ray tube.
Indirect conversion detectors have a scintillator that first converts x-rays into visible light. The
light is then coverted into an electric charge by means of photo-detectors, such as amorphous
silicon diode arrays or charge-coupled diodes. The specific system used was a Varian 2520
amorphous silicon sensor array with a cesium iodide scintillator and a 127 μm pixel size.

The technical approach focused on evaluation of alternative NDE approaches for inspection of
bonded honeycomb structures fabricated using out-of-autoclave manufacturing processes. Keys
to this evaluation were reference standards fabricated to simulate anomalous conditions of
interest. The first of two honeycomb standards fabricated included defected in the bondlines and
is shown in Figure 5. The simulated defects consisted of two layers of Teflon inserted into areas
above and below the adhesive layers. The second of two honeycomb standards fabricated
included defects in the core areas. A schematic of the core defect standard is shown in Figure 6.
This standard included defects in foam adhesive bondlines at core splice areas as well as node
bond failures in the core field. Typically, these defects are detected and quantified using
radiographic inspection methods, although ultrasonic through transmission techniques have show
potential for detecting these conditions. The objective of this investigation was to assess newer
digital radiographic inspection technology and compare this with conventional film-based
radiography as it relates to inspections traditionally performed using radiography.
 Under wrap
6.35 cm
between adhesive
layer and core

Under wrap
2” Land Under wrap

between skin and

Core In ramp area
adhesive layer
CoreRibbon Direction
Ribbon between adhesive
In ramp area layer and core
between skin and
adhesive layer

2.54 cm x 2.54 cm
35.56 cm
1.90 cm x 1.90 cm
18”cm
45.72
1.27 cm x 1.27 cm

0.95 cm x 0.95 cm

Between skin and

Core
Core Ramp Area
Ramp Area Between adhesive
adhesive layer
- layer and core
(tool side)
(tool side)

6”

Between skin and

40.64
16” cm 2”
adhesive layer
50.8 Between adhesive
20” cm
(bag side)
layer and core
(bag side)

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of bondline defect standard

Lack of Foam 6.35 cm

Expansion

Core Ribbon
Direction

Node
Bond
1 cell
8 cells 4 cells 2 cells
1 cell
2 cells
Core Splice
38.1 cm
Locations 4 cells
50.8 cm

8 cells

11.43 cm 11.43 cm
33.02 cm
45.72 cm
Figure 6. Schematic diagram of core defect standard
 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Prior to evaluating potential single-sided large area inspection solutions, a through-transmission
ultrasonic inspection was performed on the bondline defect standard at 5 MHz using the
Automated Ultrasonic Scanning System. The results are presented in Figure 7. Two different
attenuation ranges were needed to fully evaluate the standard. For monolithic laminate regions, a
lower attenuation range was needed. For areas containing honeycomb materials and adhesive
bonds, additional gain was required to bring these areas into focus. In the case of the bondline
defect standard, an additional 43 dB of gain was required to detect the artificial bondline flaws
incorporated into the standard. All 36 inserts were clearly detectable.

(a) (b)
Figure 7. Ultrasonic through-transmission C-scans of bondline defect standard generated at 5
MHz: (a) 49-81 dB attenuation range to highlight honeycomb areas and (b) 6-38 dB range to
highlight laminate “edgeband” regions.

In addition to through-transmission, ultrasonic pulse-echo inspections were performed using the

AUSS system from both bag and tool sides. Normally, pulse-echo inspections would not be
performed on structures containing adhesive bonds due to significant sound attenuation
attributed to the bondlines. As can be seen in Figure 8, very few of the inserts are visible in the
two images. Even though pulse-echo ultrasonics can be performed with single-sided access, and
has shown to be useful for laminate structures, it is clearly not an effective approach for bonded
structures.
 (a) (b)

Figure 8. Ultrasonic pulse-echo C-scans of bondline defect standard generated at 5 MHz: (a) bag
side incidence and (b) tool side incidence

The bondline defect standard was then evaluated using the Mobile Automated Scanner (MAUS)
in combination with several resonance-based sensors. Data were first collected using standard
resonance transducers, which still require some form of couplant (e.g., water, silicon gel, etc.)
Since resonance data are generated as a function of an impedance plane display, data can be
presented as functions of both X and Y coordinates. Resonance inspection results generated
using the MAUS at 260 kHz are shown in Figure 9. The scans were performed from the bag side,
which is typically the rougher of the two surfaces. The results show that nearly all flaws closest
to the bag side mold line are detectable in either X or Y data displays, or both. At 260 kHz,
resonance inspection appears effective for near surface flaw detection, but cannot overcome the
thickness of the core material in order to detect flaws in both bondlines.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. MAUS-based resonance inspection of bondline defect standard generated at 260 kHz
and scanned using bag side incidence: (a) X-plane data and (b) Y-plane data

The next resonance-based sensor evaluated was the non-coupling pitch-catch sensor. These
sensors operate at far lower frequencies than their conventional resonance counterparts. Data
were collected using the MAUS system at 16 kHz, and are presented in Figure 10. The scans
were performed from the tool side due to the effects the surface roughness would have from the
bag side on the non-coupling sensors. The results were somewhat encouraging in that defects
from both inner and outer mold line adhesive bondlines were detectable from one side; however,
the number of defects detected was relatively small.

(a) (b)
Far Surface Defect
Near Surface Defect (between adhesive and core)

Figure 10. MAUS-based pitch-catch resonance inspection of bondline defect standard generated
at 16 kHz and scanned using tool side incidence: (a) X-plane data and (b) Y-plane data.

In order to complete the investigation of non-coupling sensors, a mechanical impedance analysis

(MIA) probe was interfaced with the MAUS. Both X and Y component data generated at 10 kHz
using the MIA probe are shown in Figure 11. Like the pitch-catch probe, scans generated using
the MIA probe were collected from the tool side due to surface roughness concerns. The results
were a little more encouraging in that a larger percentage of both near surface and far surface
bondline flaws were detected. However, with limited ability to detect the far surface flaws,
establishing a suitable single-sided inspection approach was still a concern.

(a) (b)
Far Surface Defects
Near Surface Defects (between adhesive and core)

Figure 11. MAUS-based mechanical impedance analysis (MIA) inspection of bondline defect
standard generated at 10 kHz and using tool side incidence: (a) X-plane data and (b) Y-plane
data

Although all of the artificial flaws were detected in through-transmission mode and their relative
sizes verified, there were questions whether the “bonded insert” approach for standards was
appropriate for resonance-based methods. This question was raised due to the limited
detectability of even the near surface bondline flaws. As a result, an alternative approach for
incorporating artificial defects was attempted on a section of the “graduation panel”, which was a
small production verification article similar to the full scale wing skin in configuration. A series
of flat-bottom holes were milled into the standard at depths constent with the near-surface and
far-surface bondlines and at 1.27 cm and 3.18 cm diameters. The resulting scan using the pitch-
catch probe in conjunction with the MAUS at 16 kHz is shown in Figure 12. All three flat-
bottom holes were clearly detected, especially in the Y-plane data. These results prompted
optimism in the ability to establish a single-sided inspection process for the full scale skin. Given
these results, the limited experimentation time and previous experience in using both non-contact
resonance sensors, a decision was made to use pitch-catch resonance on the full scale article.

MAUS Pitch Catch Resonance MAUS Pitch Catch Resonance

4.1 mm x 4.1 mm Flaw Resolution 4.1 mm x 4.1 mm Flaw Resolution

1.27 cm IML 3.18 cm OML 1.27 cm IML

3.18 cm IML 3.18 cm OML 3.18 cm IML
Skin to Core Hole Skin to Core Hole Skin to Core
Skin to Core Hole Skin to Core Skin to Core Hole

(a) (b)
Figure 12. MAUS-based pitch-catch resonance inspection of “Graduation Panel” honeycomb
standard generated at 16 kHz and using tool side incidence: (a) X-plane data and (b) Y-plane
data.

In order to evaluate alternative “image based” approaches for inspection of bonded honeycomb
structures, infrared thermography was evaluated as a potential candidate large area inspection
approach. The limitations of the technique relative to depth of penetration were recognized;
however, the thought about capturing both sides using an image-based approach faster than
scanning one side using a raster-scanning approach came to mind. Before the rate aspect could
be investigated, the ability to resolve defects both above and below the adhesive layer in each
bondline had to be verified. A Thermal Wave Imaging Thermoscope DM system was used to
evaluate the bondline defect standard. Some of the results are shown in Figure 13. As can be
seen, defects both above (white indications) and below (dark indications) are clearly detectable,
opening the door for a more detailed evaluation of inspection rate.

Core

Figure 13. Infrared thermography evaluation of bondline defect standard showing image
processing enhancements bringing defects into view.
Baseline ultrasonic through transmission data was first collected on the standard using an
Automated Ultrasonic Scanning System (AUSS) equipped with a 5 MHz alpha transducer. The
ultrasonic through-transmission inspection results are presented in Figure 14. The results show
that the methods for incorporating defects to simulate lack of foam expansion may have met with
mixed success. The ultrasonic inspection results show that several pockets of expansion
problems are clearly detectable, especially in the lower splice. Foaming adhesive bondline
irregularities are evident in the upper splice, but there are no clearly discernible pockets as were
seen in the lower splice. The simulated node bond failures were evident in the ultrasonic data.
Node bond failures extending from four to eight cells were clearly detectable in the C-scan. An
argument could be made that the two cell node bond defects are present in the C-scan, but the
reliability of such an interpretation is somewhat questionable. Ultrasonic pulse-echo inspection
was also attempted using the AUSS-based system; however, the data quality was poor due to the
presence of the adhesive layers. The pulse-echo data was of specific interest due to the
overriding desire to develop single-sided inspection approaches for the out-of-autoclave
structures.

Detectable areas of no
foam expansion across
splice
Node bond
failures
detected

Figure 14. Ultrasonic through-transmission data generated at 5 MHz

Digital radiographic inspection results showing the foaming adhesive splice defects are shown in
Figures 15 and 16. In Figure 15, the one-and two-cell expansion defects are shown for both
splices. The digital radiograph provides a good quality image of these splices and a more detailed
view of the splice defects vs. the ultrasonic C-scan in Figure 14.
 One cell
c
expannsion Two cell
defeccts expansion
defects

F
Figure 15. Digital
D radioggraph showinng one and two
t cell foam
ming adhesivve defects

The digiital radiograaph in Figurre 16 showss the intendded locationss for the eiight-cell foaaming
adhesive defect. The paper insertts designed to
t block the foam expannsion are cleaarly visible in
i the
image; however,
h theey were appaarently inefffective as thhe foam has expanded inn both upperr and
lower spllices.

Eightt cell
expannsion
defeccts

Figure 16
6. Digital raddiograph shoowing eight cell foamingg adhesive defects
d

The corresponding film-based

fi raadiographic images weree very simillar to the diggital radiogrraphs.
In fact, an
a interpretattion of the tw
wo sets of radiographs would
w likelyy draw the saame conclussions.
A slight advantage may
m be givenn the digital technology due to the ability
a to varry the contraast in
the image without haaving to prooduce anotheer set of radiiographs. Thhis, of course, is not posssible
with film
m.

Detectionn of node bo ond failures in the core defect

d standaard using raddiographic inspection prroved
to be diffficult. A digital radiograaph of one off the eight-ccell node bonnd defects iss shown in Figure
F
17. The defect is no ot detectablee, even for an
a experiencced Level II radiographiic inspector. The
same conclusions were drawn from the corresponding film radiograph, shown in Figure 18.
Film-based techniques typically provide better spatial resolution in comparison with digital
techniques. However, the gain in resolution did not correspond to improved ability to detect the
node bond defect. Both digital and film-based techniques were able to image an increase in
absorption at the locations corresponding to the node-bond defects, but these were probably
artifacts of the process used to create the node bonds. These areas did not exhibit the classic cell
separate consistent with node bond failure.

Location of eight-
cell node bond
failure

Figure 17. Digital radiograph at the eight-cell node bond defect location
(location NB2 in Figure 14)

Location of
eight-cell
node bond

Figure 18. Film-based radiograph at the eight-cell node bond defect location
(location NB2 in Figure 14)
The inspection of the full scale core-stiffened wing skin was comprised of two separate full
scans, ultrasonic pulse echo for the laminate and resonance pitch/catch for the core regions. This
is illustrated in Figure 19. The addition of SurfaceMaster over the entire wing skin dramatically
improved the pulse echo inspection, reducing the time by 50%. The pitch/catch approach was
selected in order to have the best chance of detecting flaws on both sides of the core without
turning over the skin. This approach also resulted in a faster scan, but with lower resolution. The
full resonance scan for a major section of the wing skin is shown in Figure 20.

(a) (b)

Figure 19. MAUS-based inspection of 20.73 m core stiffened wing skin: (a) ultrasonic array
inspection of laminate edgeband regions and (b) pitch/catch resonance inspection of honeycomb
core stiffened areas.

Core areas (typ) Ply overlap (typ) Core splice (typ) Laminate areas (typ)

Figure 20. MAUS-based pitch-catch resonance inspection of midboard region of 21m core
stiffened wing skin

4. CONCLUSIONS
The most critical aspect of developing NDE processes for evaluation of bonded structure is
establishment of reliable processes capable of detecting bondline flaws of sizes that meet
structural integrity requirements. Historically, through-transmission ultrasonic inspections have
met these requirements; however, they are not the most efficient processes to deploy in a
manufacturing environment. An investigation into processes that can be performed from a single
side produced some encouraging results. Pitch/catch resonance sensors married to a semi-
automated scanning platform provided good results from both bondline inspection and efficiency
improvement standpoints. Although no quantitative assessment of inspection reliability or
probability of detection were conducted, the fact that flaws of sizes typically required for
inspection of honeycomb structures were detectable using single-side access techniques, should
help prompt further investigation into these processes. An investigation into an advanced image-
based approach such as infrared thermography produced encouraging results in the sense that all
near surface bondline flaws were detectable. However, a semi-automated process would need to
be established to adequately assess potential rate improvements.

From a core defect detection standpoint, it was difficult to draw some significant conclusions.
For detection of foaming adhesive defects, which is critical in ensuring that there is tie-in at core
splices, the radiographic techniques provided a greater amount of detail than the ultrasonic
through-transmission technique, although some of the conditions were detectable using
ultrasonics. There was also no discernable difference between digital and film-based radiography
relative to these defects. However, the extent of this comparison was limited due to the process
used to create the simulated expansion defects. For detection of node-bond failure, the results
were even less conclusive. Simulated node-bond defects were clearly visible in the ultrasonic C-
scan; however, they were virtually undetectable in both digital and film-based x-rays. Again, it is
believed that the process used to manufacture the node bond failure areas did not create the
classic node bond failure and thus, limited the ability to draw quantitative conclusions about the
merits of the various techniques

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This effort was jointly accomplished by a Boeing-led team and the United States Government
(Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA) under the guidance of the United States
Air Force. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance and support of Dr. Bill Coblenz
of DARPA/DSO and Tara Storage of AFRL/RXBC. The information in this paper was approved
for public release, distribution unlimited by 88ABW-2012-0377 and DISTAR 18554. The
views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this article/presentation are those of the
authors/presenters and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies,
either expressed or implied, of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the
Department of Defense.

6. REFERENCES
1. Palmer, Jr., D. D. and Wood, N. L., Mobile Automated Scanner System, Final Report for
Contract #F33615-91-C-5664, 1999.

2. “Bondmaster: Multimode Adhesive Bond Testing Application Guide,” EN 2010007,

Olympus NDT, 2010.

3. Maldague X. P. V., Jones T. S., Kaplan H., Marinetti S. and Prystay M. “Chapter 2:
Fundamentals of Infrared and Thermal Testing: Part 1. Principles of Infrared and
Thermal Testing,” in Nondestructive Handbook, Infrared and Thermal Testing, Volume
3, X. Maldague technical ed., P. O. Moore ed., 3rd edition, Columbus, Ohio, ASNT
Press, 2001.

4. “Flat Panel X-ray Imaging,” Varian Medical Systems, 2011.