Nondestructive Testing

  • Robert D. Adams
Living reference work entry


The objective of any system of nondestructively examining an adhesive joint is to obtain a direct correlation between the strength of the joint (howsoever defined) and some mechanical, physical, or chemical parameter which can readily be measured without causing damage to the joint. Faults may be defined as anything which could adversely affect the short- or long-term strength of a joint. There are two basic areas for examination in properly made joints, the cohesive strength of the polymeric adhesive and the adhesive strength of the bond between the polymer and the substrate. In addition, voids, disbonds, and porosities create an additional issue for inspection.

During the production phase, and also in service with critical structures, it is essential to use nondestructive tests to assess the quality and fitness for purpose of the product. The nondestructive test will not measure strength directly but will measure a parameter which can be correlated to strength. It is, therefore, essential that a suitable nondestructive test is chosen and that its results are correctly interpreted. Typical defects found in adhesive joints are described and an indication given of their significance. The limits and likely success of current physical nondestructive tests will be described and future trends outlined.

It is shown that a variety of techniques are available for disbond detection, ultrasonics, and different types of bond tester being the most commonly used. These techniques are very time-consuming, especially if large bond areas are to be tested. Monitoring interfacial properties is much more difficult, and there is currently no reliable test after the joint is made although there are some indications of a possible way forward using high-powered lasers.


Nondestructive testing Defects Kissing bonds Voids Ultrasonics Sonics Tap testing Spectroscopic methods Acoustic emission Radiography Holography 


  1. Adams R, Cawley P, Guyott CCH (1987) Nondestructive inspection of adhesively-bonded joints. J Adhes 21:279–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams RD, Comyn J, Wake WC (1997) Structural adhesive joints in engineering, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London, 359 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker A, Rajic N, Davis C (2009) Towards a practical structural health monitoring technology for patched cracks in aircraft structure. Compos Part A 40:1340–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bijlmmer PA (1978) In: Allen KW (ed) Adhesion, 2nd edn. London, Applied Science Publishers, 45 pGoogle Scholar
  5. Bork U, Challis R (1995) NDE of the adhesive fillet size in a T-peel joint using ultrasonic lamb waves and a linear network for data discrimination. Meas Sci Technol 6:72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bossi R, Housen K, Shepherd W (2002) Using shock loads to measure bonded joint strength. Mater Eval 60:1333–1338Google Scholar
  7. Bossi R, Housen K, Shepherd W (2004) Application of stress waves to bond inspection. In: SAMPE proceedings, Long BeachGoogle Scholar
  8. Bossi R, Housen K, Shepherd W, Sokol D (2009) Laser bond testing. Mater Eval 67:819–827Google Scholar
  9. Bossi R, Lahrman D, Sokol D, Walters C (2011) Laser bond inspection for adhesive bond strength. In: SAMPE proceedings, Long BeachGoogle Scholar
  10. Cawley P (1984) The impedance method of nondestructive inspection. NDT Int 17:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cawley P (1988) The sensitivity of the mechanical impedance method of NDT. NDT Int 20:209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cawley P (2005) Nodestructive testing. In: Adhesive bonding: science, technology and applications. Woodhead, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Cawley P, Adams RD (1987) Vibration techniques. In: Summerscales J (ed) Nondestructive testing of fibre-reinforced plastics. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp 151–200Google Scholar
  14. Cawley P, Adams RD (1988) The mechanics of the coin-tap method of nondestructive testing. J Sound Vib 122:299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cawley P, Adams RD (1989) The sensitivity of the coin-tap method of non-destructive testing. Mater Eval 47:558–563Google Scholar
  16. Cawley P, Hodson MJ (1988) The NDT of adhesive joints using ultrasonic spectrscopy. In: Thompson DO, Chimenti DE (eds) Review of progress in QNDE 8B. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1377–1384Google Scholar
  17. Crane RL, Dillingham G (2008) Composite bonding. J Mater Sci 43(20):6682–6694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Curtis GJ (1982) Nondestructive testing of adhesively-bonded structures with acoustic methods, ultrasonic testing – non conventional testing techniques. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Drinkwater BW, Cawley P (1994) An ultrasonic wheel probe alternative to liquid coupling. Brit J NDT 36:430–433Google Scholar
  20. Farlow R, Hayward G (1994) Real-time ultrasonic techniques suitable for implementing non-contact NDT systems employing piezoceramic composite transducers. Brit J NDT 36:926–935Google Scholar
  21. Galy ME, Moysan J, El Mahi A, Ylla N, Massacret N (2017) Controlled reduced-strength epoxy-aluminium joints validated by ultrasonic and mechanical measurements. Int J Adhes Adhes 72:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gauthier C, El Kettani ME, Galy J, Pedoi M, Leduc D, Izbicki J-L (2017) Lamb waves characterization of adhesion levels in aluminum/epoxy bi-layers with different cohesive and adhesive properties. Int J Adhes Adhes 74:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gowini MEL, Moussa WA (2016) Investigating the change in surface acoustic wave velocity due to the change in adhesion of a SU-8 thin film using a SU-8/AlN/Si SAW sensor. Int J Adhes Adhes 68:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gupta V, Yuan J (1993) Measurement of interface strength by the modified laser spallation technique, II applications to metal/ceramic interfaces. J Appl Phys 74:2397–2404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gupta V, Argon AS, Cornie JA, Parks DM (1990) Measurement of interface strength by laserpulse-induced spallation. Mater Sci Eng A126:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guyott CCH, Cawley P, Adams RD (1986) The non-destructive testing of adhesively bonded structure: a review. J Adhes 20:129–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guyott CCH, Cawley P, Adams RD (1987) Use of the Fokker bond tester on joints with varying adhesive thickness. Proc IMechE 201(B1):41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hagemaier DJ (1985) Adhesive bonding of aluminium alloys. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Hart-Smith LJ, Thrall EW (1985) Adhesive bonding of aluminium alloys. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 241–335Google Scholar
  30. Hobbs CP, Kenway-Jackson D, Milne JM (1991) Quantitative measuremement of thermal parameters over large areas using pulse video thermography proc SPIE, vol 1467. Thermosense XIII, Orlando, pp 264–277Google Scholar
  31. Hobbs CP, Kenway-Jackson D, Judd MD (1994) Proceedings of the international symposium on advanced materials for lightweight structures. ESTEC, Noordwijk, (ESA-WPP-070)Google Scholar
  32. Jeenjitkaew C, Guild FJ (2017) The analysis of kissing bonds in adhesive joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 75:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jeenjitkaew C, Luklinska Z, Guild FJ (2010) Morphology and surface chemistry of kissing bonds in adhesive joints produced by surface contamination. Int J Adhes Adhes 30:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karachalios EF, Adams RD, da Silva LFM (2013) The strength of single lap joints with artificial defects. Int J Adhes Adhes 45:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim DM, Sutliff E (1978) The contact potential difference (CPD) measurement method for prebond nondestructive surface inspection. SAMPE Q 9:59–63Google Scholar
  36. Lange YV, Teumin II (1971) Dynamic flexibility of dry point contact. Sov J NDT 7:157–165Google Scholar
  37. Lloyd EA, Brown AF (1978) In: Allen KW (ed) Adhesion, 2nd edn. London, Applied Science Publishers, 133 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Marty NP, Desai N, Andersson J (2004) NDT of kissing bond in aeronautical structures. In: Proceedings of the 16th world conference for NDT, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  39. Michaloudaki M, Lehmann E, Kosteas D (2005) Neutron imaging as a tool for the non-destructive evaluation of adhesive joints in aluminium. Int J Adhes Adhes 25:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Monchalin J-P (1993) Progress towards the application of laser ultrasonics in industry. In: Thompson DO, Chimenti DE (eds) Review of progress in QNDE 12. Plenum Press, New York, pp 495–506Google Scholar
  41. Monchalin J-P (2007) Laser-ultrasonics: principles and industrial applications, Chapter 4. In: Chen CH (ed) Ultrasonic and advanced methods for nondestructive testing and material characterization. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 79–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pilarski A, Rose JL, Balasubramian K (1990) The angular and frequency characteristics of reflectivity from a solid layer embedded between two solids with imperfect boundary conditions. J Acoust Soc Am 87:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Puthillath P, Rose JL (2010) Ultrasonic guided wave inspection of a titanium repair patch bonded to an aluminum aircraft skin. Int J Adhes Adhes 30:566–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pyles R (2003) Aging aircraft: USAF workload and material consumption life cycle patterns. RAND, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  45. Rao MV, Samuel R, Ramesh K (1990) Dual vacuum stressing technique for holographic NDT of honeycomb sandwich panels. NDT Int 23:267–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds WN (1988) Inspection of laminates and adhesive bonds by pulse-video thermography. NDT Int 21:229–232Google Scholar
  47. Rose JL, Ditri JJ (1992) Pulse-echo and through transmission lamb wave techniques for adhesive bond inspection. Br J Nondestr Test 34:591–594Google Scholar
  48. Rose JL, Rajana KM, Hansch MKT (1995) Ultrasonic guided waves for NDE of adhesively bonded structures. J Adhes 50:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rose JL, Rajana KM, Barshinger JM (1996) Guided waves for composite patch repair of aging aircraft. In: Thompson DO, Chimenti DE (eds) Review of progress in QNDE. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1291–1298Google Scholar
  50. Roth W, Giurgiutiu V (2017) Structural health monitoring of an adhesive disbond through electromechanical impedance spectroscopy. Int J Adhes Adhes 73:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schindel DW, Hutchins DA (1995) Applications of micromachined capacitance transducers in air-coupled ultrasonics and nondestructive evaluation. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr 42:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schliekelmann RJ (1972) The nondestructive testing of adhesively bonded metal-to metal joints. Nondestruct Test 5:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schliekelmann RJ (1975) Nondestructive testing of bonded joints – recent developments in testing systems. Nondestruct Test 8:100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Segal E, Kenig S (1989) Acceptance criteria for NDE of adhesively bonded structures. Mater Eval 47:921–927Google Scholar
  55. Shepard SM (1997) Introduction to active thermography for non-destructive evaluation. Anti Corros Methods Mater 44:236–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thompson RB (1990) Physical principles of measurements with EMAT transducers. In: Mason WP, Thurston RN (eds) Physical acoustics, vol XIX. Academic, New York, pp 157–200Google Scholar
  57. Tighe RC, Dulieu-Barton JM, Quinn S (2016) Identification of kissing defects in adhesive bonds using infrared thermography. Int J Adhes Adhes 64:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vine K, Cawley P, Kinloch AJ (2001) The correlation of non-destructive measurements and toughness changes in adhesive joints during environmental attack. J Adhes 77:125–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Yu A, Gupta V (1998) Measurement of in situ fiber/matrix interface strength in graphite/epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 58:1827–1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yuan J, Gupta V (1993) Measurement of interface strength by the modified laser spallation technique. I. Experiment and simulation of the spallation process. J Appl Phys 74:2388–2397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations