Test Conditions in Stress Wave Factor Measurements for Fiber Reinforced Composites and Laminates

  • M. Bhatt
  • P. J. Hogg


The acousto-ultrasonic technique using Vary’s definition of the stress wave factor has been evaluated (SWF = g.r.n.). It was found that the technique needed to be reappraised and conditions under which the stress wave factor is reproducible defined carefully. The Acoustic Emission Technology Model AU 206 was used for the study. Instrument variables were sequentially eliminated and reduced to the instrument gain and the background noise. Regions of validity were then defined in terms of the background noise levels, and of the instrument gain on various unreinforced and glass reinforced polyester resins, with and without introduced defects. The stress wave factor is found to be most reproducible when independent of background noise, and at high gains. The equivalence of readings taken using through transmission, and those taken by placing transducers on the same side is investigated. These were found to be equivalent only at high gain, with doubtful results for low gain. The stress wave factor is interpreted in light of the present study.


Acoustic Emission Background Noise Threshold Voltage High Gain Polyester Resin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. K. Govada, J. C. Duke, Jr., E.G. Henneke, II, and W. W. Stinchcomb, “NASA Contractor Report 174870,” NASA, Cleveland (1985) .Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. E. Green and J. Rodgers, SAMPE National Symposium and Exhibition, San Diego (1982).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. C. Duke, Jr., E. G. Henneke, II, and W. W. Stinchcomb, “NASA Contractor Report 3976,” NASA, Cleveland (1986).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Ono and R. DeSpain, in: “Proceedings of the International Symposium on Acoustic Emission in Reinforced Composites,” Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., (1983).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. K. Phani and N. R. Bose, J Mat Sci. 21:3633 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. K. Phani and N. R. Bose, Comp Sc & Tech. (in press).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. M. Rodgers, Acoustic Emission 1:322 (1982).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Sarrafzadeh-Khoee, M. T. Kiernan, J. C. Duke, Jr. and E. G. Henneke, II, “NASA Contractor Report 4002,” NASA, Cleveland (1986).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. K. Srivastava, J Mat Sci. 21:3638 (1986).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Talreja, A. Govada and E. G. Henneke, II, in: “Proceedings of the Review of Research in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 2” D. O. Thompson and D. Chimenti, eds., Plenum Press, New York (1982).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Vary, in: “Mechanics of Nondestructive Testing,” W. W. Stinchcomb, ed., Plenum Press, New York (1980).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Vary, Matls Eval. 40:650 (1982).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Vary and K. J. Bowles, Poly Eng Sci. 19:373 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Vary and R. F. Lark, J Test & Eval. 7:185 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Bhatt
    • 1
  • P. J. Hogg
    • 1
  1. 1.Queen Mary CollegeUniversity of LondonUK

Personalised recommendations