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

net/publication/302546333

Acoustic Emission

Chapter · January 2014

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-0755-7_30

CITATIONS READS
9 1,856

1 author:

Kanji Ono
University of California, Los Angeles
146 PUBLICATIONS   2,771 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kanji Ono on 04 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A chapter in Handbook on Acoustics, to be published from Springer

Acoustic Emission

Kanji Ono
University of California, Los Angeles

Acoustic emission originates from mechanical deformation and fracture as well as from phase
transformation, corrosion, friction and magnetic processes. It refers to the generation of transient
elastic waves due to the rapid release of energy from a localized source or sources within a mate-
rial or structure. It is an indispensable and effective nondestructive inspection method and a val-
uable tool of materials research, detecting dynamic microscopic processes of materials. Sensors
attached to the structure detect AE signals, from which the locations and activity levels of the
sources are evaluated and structural integrity is assessed.

1 Introduction

Acoustic emission (AE) is transient elastic waves produced by the rapid release of strain energy
from a localized source or sources within a material or structure [1-4]. This term (or microseis-
mic activity in geotechnical field) is also used to describe the class of phenomena that generate
such waves per ASTM E610-98A. Under loading, AE typically originates at cracks in structures
of all kind, defective welds and yielding regions in alloys and at delamination, fiber and matrix
cracks in fiber-reinforced composites. Other active sources of AE include fretting at extant flaws,
especially in concrete structures, leaks of pressurized fluids and hydrogen gas evolution in aque-
ous corrosion. All these AE phenomena provide the foundation of sensitive non-destructive
evaluation methods and an effective tool in structural health monitoring [5].

A dynamic mechanical event typically produces AE. When a crack advances under stress, it pro-
ceeds in discrete steps that give rise to AE from the stress relaxation at the crack tip [6]. AE can
originate from a number of mechanisms in any engineering materials and structures. AE is also
reported in bones and teeth [7] and its use for biomedical studies has expanded to knee and hip
joints [8,9] and to soft tissues and ligaments [10-12]. Mechanical deformation and fracture are
the primary sources of AE, while phase transformation, corrosion, friction and magnetic process-
es among others also produce AE [13]. The elastic waves then travel through the structure to a
sensor. Wave propagation and attenuation greatly affect the nature of AE signals at the sensor.
For example, when a section size is comparable to the wavelength, the wave travels as a guided
wave. In thick-walled structures, the surface wave is often the dominant mode of propagation,
while fluids in tanks and pipes carry waves efficiently over long distances [1]. Wave attenuation
poses serious problems to AE detection in polymeric materials and biological tissues [14]. Weak
electrical signals produced by the sensor are amplified and characterized relying on the wave-
form shape, intensity, frequency spectrum and other features. For a large structure, like a bridge,
hundreds of sensors are used to cover all the critical sections under scrutiny [1,15].

The detected AE signals are used to determine the locations and activity levels of the sources in
real time. Results are utilized for the evaluation of the structure or component. Since AE signals
can usually travel over a long distance, the entire structure can be examined in a single test se-
quence; e.g., during pre-service or periodic inspection. AE can continuously monitor the integri-
ty of a structure in service. AE is a passive test method, in that no direct excitation is applied un-
1
like the ultrasonic test method. However, AE testing does require an application of a certain
stimulus to a test piece. In bridges, live traffic and loaded trucks are sufficient. In pressure ves-
sels and piping, hydrostatic pressurization slightly above the operating level is usually employed
to activate AE sources. Acoustic emission has become the inspection method of choice for fiber-
reinforced composite vessels and for metallic tanks, especially in aerospace, petrochemical and
transport industries [1,3,15].

Materials research is another area where AE is valuable because of its sensitivity to dynamic mi-
croscopic processes [13]. It is difficult, however, to establish a mechanical phenomenon at the
source of a detected AE signal. This stems from the high sensitivity of AE techniques (since no
other means exist to independently observe most dynamic source phenomena). Increasingly de-
tailed modeling offers new insights in gaining the understanding of AE mechanisms and AE sig-
nal propagation [16,17].

2 AE Signals

2.1 AE signals and source functions

We classify AE signals into two types, burst-type (pulse-like) and continuous-type (random
noise-like) signals. Burst-type emissions arise from distinct events of elastic energy release, such
as crack advances, fiber fracture and delamination. A representative example from a cross-ply
composite test is shown in Fig. 1, on which commonly used signal features are indicated [18a]. It
has a sharp rise, followed by an exponential decay. This ringing pattern arises from various reso-
nances in a structure and the resonance of the sensor. Continuous-type emissions are produced
by many overlapping events and observed from plastic deformation of metals and from liquid or
gas leaks. For typical structural monitoring, ultrasonic frequencies of 30 kHz to 2 MHz are de-
tected. Air-borne noise interferes with AE measurements at lower frequencies, while signal at-
tenuation makes the higher frequency range difficult to use. In industrial composite testing, the
upper frequency limit is 300 kHz [18b,c]. For applications involving concrete and rocks, a range
of several kHz to 100 kHz is used. For geotechnical monitoring and soft tissue diagnosis, useful
signal frequencies lie below several kHz [2, 14].

An AE signal contains the information on its source, the propagation medium (sample or struc-
ture), AE sensor and electrical instrument used. These can be expressed by the characteristic or
transfer functions of the source, propagation medium, sensor and electronics (Hs, Hm, Ht, and He),
respectively [13]. In the time domain, the source function of a crack is force or displacement vs.
time history, describing the normal displacement of the crack of area A. This is combined using a
convolution integral with the impulse response of the mechanical system (or the Green's func-
tion) to represent a source. In the frequency domain, the transfer function of the AE signal, HAE,
is given by the product of the four transfer functions above:

HAE = Hs × Hm × Ht × He. (1)

Figure 2 shows an example from a model signal in a fiber composite [17a]. While the AE source
is given as a smoothly decreasing function with frequency, the medium has the major effect on
the final signal detected. In this example system, even a large change in Hs is hardly detectable.
For a simple geometry, source functions can be recovered by deconvolution when wideband sen-
sors are employed and the first motions of signals are clearly recorded [19]. However, this ap-

2
proach is limited and impractical for most applications. AE signals detected with a wideband
sensor can still be classified according to the generating source types by means of pattern recog-
nition analysis. This scheme depends on the differences in the excitation of various modes of
resonance and wave propagation and on their time history.

AE waveforms can be simulated using elastodynamic formulation or using finite element analy-
sis for certain geometries [6,16]. By varying source parameters (rise time and source strength or
the product of displacement amplitude and source area), a simulated waveform can be matched
to observed one for specific test geometry. Elastodynamic displacement solutions assuming
smooth-rising source functions of varying rise time are given in terms of dislocation motion, or
by using a moment tensor, commonly used in geophysics [6,20]. Such modeling is most useful in
obtaining details of a source by seeking the best fit of calculated and observed waveforms. This
forward-processing scheme avoids deconvolution procedure, prone to instability in the presence
of noise. This method has been used successfully in analyzing various AE signal types in compo-
site materials under loading [21]. For example, Fig. 3 shows three types of failure, displacement
signals observed and matched simulated waveforms for a unidirectional glass-fiber composite.
This led to signal classification as a function of loading. From the source function, crack velocity
estimates were also obtained. See Fig. 4 [21].

The use of the moment-tensor representation of a source function leads to “moment tensor analy-
sis” or moment tensor inversion [3a,b,c]. This method is an extension of a similar method used in
geophysics, but in AE applications it is important to find tensile cracks in addition to shear
cracks, which are the focus in seismology. It relies on the first arriving P-waves at multiple sen-
sor locations and obtains the tensile and shear components of the source motion. This approach is
most suited for large civil engineering structures. In concrete and rock testing, the source types
of AE during crack propagation have been identified. See Fig. 5 [22]. In most other materials
testing, however, sample sizes are too small to use this method.

The use of 3D finite element analysis (FEA) is effective in characterizing AE signals and their
propagation. A wide range of AE signals generated and propagated on a plate, both isotropic
metals and anisotropic composites, are analyzed [16,17]. Completed modeling includes Lamb
waves generated by an artificial source in thin and thick plates, effects of source rise time, mon-
opole vs. dipole sources, plate thickness and plate width. FEA method is especially valuable for
modeling interior AE sources as these cannot be simulated experimentally. Figure 6 shows a re-
sult of Lamb wave propagation 50 mm from a finite crack source at the mid-plane in a carbon-
fiber composite plate. This signal essentially comprises of the symmetric Lamb wave mode as
the crack opening displacement is in the direction of propagation [17b].

2.2 Sensors

Acoustic emission sensors typically employ a disk of piezoelectric ceramic or crystal and re-
spond to velocity or acceleration normal to the face of a sensor. One type has a broadened fre-
quency response using a backing material behind a transducer element. This construction is
common to that of the ultrasonic transducers. Another type enhances the sensitivity by using the
thickness and/or radial resonance of a transducer element without using a backing material. The-
se are resonant or narrow-band sensors and are employed most often in AE testing because of
their high sensitivity. Typical resonant AE sensors have peak velocity sensitivities of a few tens
of kV·s/m; these are 20 to 40 dB more sensitive than those used for conventional ultrasonic test-

3
ing. Given a resonant AE sensor with 10.5 kV·s/m peak sensitivity at 200 kHz (-70 dB in refer-
ence to 1 V/µbar), 1 µV signal corresponds to a 0.1 fm surface displacement over 1 µs. Since a
preamplifier has the input noise of 0.6 µVrms, this signal is at the detection limit. Another method
to enhance the sensitivity is to place a high impedance amplifier within the sensor housing. This
eliminates effects of cable capacitance, allowing the use of long sensor cables. The frequency
responses of AE sensors are usually characterized (face-to-face) against a secondary standard
using compressional waves at normal incidence. For many applications, however, surface or
plate waves are dominant and their movements normal to the surface are detected and the size of
a sensor affects its responses through the aperture effect. Proper sensor selection for frequency
ranges or wave modes improves the sensitivity of AE detection. For concrete, rocks and ge-
otechnical applications, low frequency sensors, such as geo-phones, hydrophones and accel-
erometers, are also used. These can have flat frequency responses and some have good direction-
ality, allowing the construction of tri-axial sensors [2,3].

Surface displacements are also measured using a capacitive sensor or a laser interferometer. Both
serve an important role in sensor calibration, although these still are impractical for field use due
to difficulty of handling and surface preparation (capacitive sensor) and to large size, high cost
and low sensitivity (interferometer). A primary sensor calibration system has been constructed
using a capacitive sensor in combination with a large steel block and a mechanism to break a fine
glass capillary (~0.2 mm OD) [23]. The breaking of the glass capillary produces a sudden release
of force (~20 N within a few tenths of µs) and provides a reproducible source of body waves and
surface waves that match well with theoretical predictions. Peak surface displacements of ~0.15
nm are generated at 0.1 m from the capillary break. Here, a sensor under test is placed at a sym-
metric position to the capacitive sensor standard (or a laser interferometer). For a working cali-
bration of AE measuring system, breaking of pencil lead (0.3~0.5 mm OD) has been used effec-
tively. This is known as the Hsu-Nielsen source and generates ~1 N force drop over 1 µs period
[24].

High fidelity capture of signal waveforms is needed for specialized studies of AE sources. A
special sensor design based on a truncated conical element achieves an exceptional fidelity in
surface displacement detection. Proctor at NBS (now NIST) used a small element with matched
backing and obtained flat (±3 dB) response to 2 MHz [25]. This design has been refined, reduced
in size to that of a conventional sensor and ruggedized, thus joining the rank of practical AE sen-
sors [19b,26]. The frequency response of most recent design by Glaser exhibits exceptional flat-
ness in over 10 kHz to 1 MHz, as shown in Fig. 7a [26]. This figure shows two other narrow-
band AE sensor responses with resonances (Fig. 7b and c) and a broadband velocity response
(Fig. 7d).

2.3 Signal characterization

Characteristics of AE signals in common use are a) AE event count (and AE event rates): the
number (and rates) of burst-type emissions [in multi-sensor AE detection systems, the term "hit"
is used in place of "event" since a single AE event can reach more than one sensor and counted
each time], b) the averaged signal intensity of continuous-type emissions (e.g., rms voltages of
amplified signals), c) the peak amplitude, d) rise time and e) duration of burst emissions (defined
with the threshold), f) the signal strength of burst emission (area of the signal envelope). See Fig.
1 for the definition of c) - e). In addition, the distributions of peak amplitude, rise time and dura-
tion are also obtained, as well as arrival time differences of burst emissions at different sensors

4
[1-4]. Frequency-based parameters are also useful. These include peak frequency, median fre-
quency, spectral centroid (or mean frequency) and partial powers for various frequency bands.
These signal parameters can be acquired in real time with dedicated hardware. Since the duration
of typical burst emissions is 0.1 to 1 ms, however, at most several thousand signals per sec. can
be distinguished from a sensor. For higher rates of emissions, average intensity measurements
are utilized. By recording AE signals digitally, the power density spectrum or more commonly
frequency spectrum and shape parameters of the signal waveforms can be utilized. Peak intensity
and position in the frequency domain, shifts in dominant frequency over time and rates of rise
and decay of the waveform are the features of importance. Their values diminish when narrow-
band sensors are used. These features are also used in constructing intelligent classifiers of pat-
tern recognition analysis [17a,27]. Combinations of these and other test parameters, such as ap-
plied force or pressure, time under load, ground tilt and displacement, are used to evaluate the
nature of AE sources.

3 Source Location

A major goal of AE testing is to determine the location of active flaws in a structure. AE testing
uses the structure itself to discover discontinuities through the generation and propagation of AE
signals, which can be continuous (e.g., fluid/gas leaks and fretting) or burst emissions (e.g., met-
al fracture and delamination of composites). Two sensors are used to locate the source in a linear
structure such as a pipe and a tube (linear location). More sensors are needed when the linear
structure becomes longer or when two- or three-dimensional structures are examined. When
complete coverage is desired in AE testing, Fig. 8 shows typical sensor placements on a storage
tank [28]. In most applications, the structures can be regarded as a two-dimensional shell struc-
ture and the surfaces can be laid out on a plane. For example, a spherical tank can be represented
by an icosahedron and by 20 triangles on a planar display. This method can also be applied local-
ly on large structures, when expected damage locations can be anticipated. It is common to cover
an area of a few square meters with several sensors and as many sets as required are utilized to
monitor the critical zones of a large bridge, for example [29].

Source location utilizes two general approaches; i.e., zone location and discrete source location.
In the zone location method, a source is presumed to exist within the zone that belongs to the
sensor receiving the first hit signal or receiving the strongest AE signal (typically in peak ampli-
tude). This method is suited for locating leaks (continuous emissions) and for sources in a highly
attenuating medium (fiber composites and metals coated with viscous insulation). This method
can be refined by determining which sensor receives the second-hit signal or the second strongest
signal. In zone location, the zone around each sensor is sub-divided, and the number of the sub-
division is equal to that of surrounding sensors. When the amplitudes of the received signals are
measured, further improvements in source location accuracy are possible through an interpola-
tion technique by taking the attenuation into account [28].

In discrete source location, the full spatial coordinates of an AE source are defined by measuring
the differences in arrival times of AE signals at multiple sensors. The AE signals must be burst-
type and strong enough to reach three or more sensors. In attenuating media, the sensor spacing
has to be sufficiently small. Generally, the wave velocity is assumed constant and triangulation
techniques are used. A pair of sensors defines an arrival time difference and a hyperbola passing
through a source. The location of the source can be obtained as the intersection of two such hy-
perbolae. Hundreds of sources per second can be located by typical AE instrument. For this

5
method to be practical, the attenuation through the structure cannot be high to avoid the use of
excessive sensors and signal processing channels. Emission rates must be moderate so that the
arrival time differences of a single event can be detected without interference of the next event.
Several source location algorithms are available on modern AE systems for optimizing the re-
sults [30a]. A number of more sophisticated algorithms from seismology are also adopted, espe-
cially in geotechnical field. The determination of signal arrival times, or signal onset, accurately
is also important in assuring good source location. Several automatic onset pickers have been
incorporated, but one based on Akaike information criterion is best suited for AE signals [3d].
Another important source location approach uses orientation and propagation-mode dependence
of wave velocity [30b-d], in particular, those of plate waves that are dominant in thin composite
structures [30e].

In order to evaluate the severity of an AE source, the intensity and activity of the source and
proximity to neighboring sources are determined. This requires the collection of additional data
on the AE sources and typically involves post-test analysis. Such data include the presence of
high amplitude emissions, AE activities during load hold, those during stress increases and Felic-
ity ratios during load cycling [31]. Statistical analysis, e.g., amplitude distribution, of AE signals
received at individual sensors is also useful. An example of located source display is given in Fig.
9. This spherical vessel is a carbon-fiber composite, subjected to stress rupture testing. Clusters
of energetic events were detected in the final day of 250-day test prior to failure [32].

4 Sources of Emissions and Materials Behavior

4.1 Plastic deformation of metals

Plastic deformation of most structural alloys generates AE that reaches a maximum at or near the
yield stress and diminishes with work hardening (4340 steel; Fig. 10) [33,34]. The AE from plas-
tic deformation is due to dislocation motion and AE signals are of the continuous type. Purely
elastic deformation produces no AE. Once the work hardening begins, the AE activities subside
and the rms voltage is only slightly above the background with occasional spikes due to burst
emissions (Fig. 10). These burst emissions originate from microcracks or from the fracture and
decohesion of nonmetallic inclusions. The latter is active in the short transverse loading, even
from the pre-yield elastic region (Fig. 11a) [35]. In some alloys, twinning produces burst-type
AE. At high temperatures where work hardening is low, the AE signal intensity remains strong
even at high strains.

Figure 12 shows AE behavior of a copper single crystal, deformed at 300 K [36a]. The stress-
strain plot shows a typical three-stage behavior, while AE energy peaked at the start of Stage II.
Median frequency was ~250 kHz in Stage I, increased with decreasing AE energy in Stage II,
and jumped at Stage III. This trend developed from reduced glide distance of dislocations with
work hardening, and resultant increase in the number of glide loops. Solid solution alloying
shows the reduction in the intensity of AE, attributed to the raised frictional stress due to solution
hardening, in turn, increasing median frequency as more dislocations are needed to account for
the reduced dislocation velocity [36].

Acoustic emission phenomena are irreversible. When a sample is deformed, unloaded and re-
loaded, it emits no AE until the previously applied load is exceeded. This is known as Kaiser ef-
fect. This behavior is illustrated in Fig. 11a and 11b where a sample was loaded, unloaded and

6
reloaded immediately [35]. Kaiser effect is useful for the determination of a prior loading level,
but is not permanent. Extended holding and/or annealing before the second loading may reduce
the load at which AE starts to be emitted again.

Microstructural variation affects the AE behavior. When a metal or alloy is cold worked, the AE
activity is suppressed; often it is eliminated completely as these have high dislocation densities,
limiting glide distances. When the grain size is reduced, AE intensity often increases along with
the strength. Other factors may, however, override the grain size effect. In most precipitation-
hardened alloys, AE intensity decreases with aging. In Al alloys, peak AE intensity at yield de-
creases by more than a factor of 3 from the solution-treated condition to the fully aged condition.
When alloys are strengthened by the addition of dislocations or hard precipitates, the mean free
path of mobile dislocations is reduced. When an individual glide motion of the mobile disloca-
tions is restricted, the AE intensity diminishes even though the number of such mobile disloca-
tions increases, raising the median frequency [13,33].

Test temperature affects the AE behavior of materials undergoing plastic deformation. In pure
metals and dilute alloys, the peak AE level at yield initially increased by 50 to 100% with test
temperature, but decreased above T/Tm of 0.3 to 0.4, where Tm is the absolute melting tempera-
ture. In normalized steels, the AE level at yield increased 5-fold over -150˚ to 150˚C, while the
yield strength decreased by 30%. AE from austenitic stainless steels increased 10 to 20 times
from room temperature to 1000K, where the AE level reached a maximum. The large changes in
stainless steels appear to reflect an increase in the stacking fault energy, thus altering the slip
mode from planar to non-planar with increasing test temperature [13].

Dynamic strain aging or Portevin-Le Chatelier effect produces repeated load drops from locking
and unlocking of gliding dislocations. This effect is prominent at room temperature in Al alloys,
while in steels, this causes the so-called blue-brittleness at ~300˚C. These load drops or serra-
tions result in AE intensity fluctuations [33]. Similarly, Lüders deformation in steel also exhibits
high AE activity as shown in Fig. 10. Lüders deformation, however, occurs only once at the start
of yielding.

Inclusions and second phase particles are another important origin of AE during deformation.
Inclusions are the significant AE sources during tensile loading of steels in the short-transverse
direction and that of most high strength Al alloys. In steels, decohesion of MnS inclusions is the
most important (Fig. 11a). These are burst-type emissions and their number is proportional to the
inclusion content. The inclusion-induced AE exhibits anisotropic behavior; i.e., the strongest AE
activities are found in the short-transverse direction and the lowest in the longitudinal direction.
In many Al alloys, the fracture of Al-Si-Fe and other nonmetallic inclusions causes most AE ob-
served, often masking the AE activity at yielding. Here, inclusion-induced AE is of continuous-
type since many small particles contribute to the overall activity [13,33].

3.2 Fracture and crack growth

Most materials and structures produce large, audible sounds during final fracture. In high
strength materials, strong elastic waves are generated during cracking. AE can be detected long
before final fracture and can be utilized in preventing catastrophic failures of engineering struc-
tures. This application has been and remains to be the major driving force of AE technology de-
velopment [1,14].

7
Brittle solids under tension or in bending, including ultra-high strength steels and ceramics, often
generate only small number (<100) of AE signals just before final fracture [13]. Subcritical crack
growth is minimal, limiting the AE activities. This behavior is unfortunate because these materi-
als are most likely to fail suddenly and the need of preventing such failures is the greatest. How-
ever, all the microfracture mechanisms that are operative in these materials, i.e., cleavage, quasi-
cleavage and intergranular fracture, can be detected easily since a large fraction of the AE events
have peak amplitudes above 1 mV or 60 dB in reference to 1 µV at the sensor. (This is often de-
noted as 60 dBAE.) In some brittle materials, subcritical crack growth (or fracture process zone
ahead of the crack tip) is found. During the subcritical crack growth, AE event counts increase
in proportion to m-th power of stress intensity factor, KI, which is equal to Yσ√a, where Y is a
geometrical factor, σ is stress
m
and a is the crack length;
Nc = A (KI) (2)
where Nc is the cumulative number of AE events and A is a constant. The cumulative amplitude
distribution of such AE signals can be approximated by a power-law distribution of the form,
–b
Nc = B (Vp) (3)
where Vp is the peak amplitude, B and b are constants. In low toughness materials (e.g., alumina)
showing cleavage and intergranular fracture, m = 4. In steels, m varies from 2.5 to 10 (Fig. 13).
The values of b in brittle materials (alumina, quenched steels) are 0.5-1, while ductile steels
showed b of 1-2 (Fig. 14) [13,37a]. When plastic flow occurs at the crack tip or when inclusion
failure occurs, different distribution laws (Weibull types) were found [37a]. Attenuation needs to
be accounted for in using amplitude analysis for source discrimination [37b].

When the fracture toughness (JIc) values increase to 10 to 100 kJ/m2, as in high strength Al and
Ti alloys and in high strength steels, AE signals are produced as the plastic zone ahead of the
crack tip expands. AE activity becomes significant with many high amplitude emissions (>60
dB) when the crack starts to grow. In this stage, various mechanisms of microfracture are in-
volved. That is, in addition to those mentioned above, low energy tear, alternating shear and mi-
crovoid coalescence are observed. Again, AE event counts increase with stress intensity factor
according to Eq. 2 with higher m values of 3-20 (Fig. 13) and the power law amplitude distribu-
tion with b = 0.7-1.5. The exponent m often increases as KI approaches the fracture criticality.
Transition in microfracture mechanisms can be reflected more clearly by plotting cumulative AE
energy against JI (cf. Fig. 15). Here, AE energy is defined as the square of peak amplitude and JI
is given by (1-ν)KI2/E, where E and ν are Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio. The transition
is sharp when cleavage microcracks initiate as in SNCM8 and as-quenched 4340 steels (4340-Q),
but is also visible when fibrous microfracture begins as in 2024 Al, 0.5Mo, A533B and quenched
and tempered (at 600˚C) 4340 (4340-6) steels [13].

Higher fracture toughness materials fail typically under plane stress conditions by the microvoid
coalescence and shear mechanisms with some tearing. In these ductile solids, the expansion of
plastic zones ahead of the crack tip initially generates AE, with AE activity reaching a maximum
at general yield just like the AE behavior of plastic deformation. This is the weakest among frac-
ture-related AE with the peak amplitude of <40 dBAE. Beyond the general yield, stable crack
growth processes begin. It is often difficult to detect this by AE as the AE amplitude is still low
(<60 dBAE), reflecting high microscopic ductility of the materials.

In moderate to high fracture toughness materials, nonmetallic inclusions exert substantial influ-
ence on the AE behavior. The decohesion of MnS inclusions emits moderately strong AE (peak
8
amplitude of <55 dBAE) from the early part of elastic loading and is the primary source of strong
emissions in ductile steels. This is shown as AE in the nominally elastic loading range in Fig.
11a [35]. Plastic flow and fracture of inclusions (especially in Al alloys) also produce AE events.
Still, even the maximum AE intensity due to inclusions is less than that from brittle fracture in
low toughness materials. This inclusion effect is strongest in samples stressed in the short-
transverse direction. The total counts at the maximum load for the short-transverse samples are
20-50 times that of longitudinal samples of the same steel.

Fatigue leads to eventual fracture in a number of engineering structures under repeated loading.
AE accompanies fatigue crack initiation and subsequent growth, showing rapid rise just before
final fracture. As shown in Fig. 16, AE activity is low in Region II (Paris law) fatigue crack
growth. As Region III fatigue begins, AE counts rise [38]. Here, SUJ2 high strength steel was
examined and da/dN matches the established Paris law. The absence of AE in Region I is natural
as even fatigue striations are not found at these low Kmax level. In this work, the crack was trans-
granular until Kmax exceeds 8 MPa√m (near Region III). Above this level, crack became inter-
granular and AE activity increased. Often, the detection of AE precedes an optical observation of
a fatigue crack, but initial stages of fatigue are hard to detect because of attendant noise under
typical cyclic loading conditions. In cyclically loaded structures, similar trends have been found.
For welded steel cruciform under cyclic loading, da/dN and dU/dN (= integrated AE energy per
cycle) follow similar power laws against ΔK (Fig. 17) [39].

Once a crack develops, different types of AE are emitted as a function of loading cycle phase.
a) Near a peak tensile load, AE due to crack growth and inclusion fracture is observed.
b) As the load is reduced to zero, crack closure noise is detected as AE; i.e. AE from crack
face fretting and crushing of oxide particles.
c) As the load increases again, crack faces that had stuck together separate producing AE.
All three types of fatigue AE can be used in detecting the presence of a fatigue crack. Peak load
AE contributes less than 10% of the total AE activity in some cases, but more when high stress
ranges are used. Initially, AE events are detected over a wide range of loading, but tend to con-
centrate at the maximum load toward the end of fatigue loading. For the detection of fatigue
cracking, frictional AE due to the fretting and crack face separation are important. In addition,
particles of oxides and various corrosion products often form between the crack faces. Their sub-
sequent fracture also contributes to the AE due to fatigue [1].

3.3 Fiber fracture and delamination of composite materials

Most composite materials in current use are reinforced by glass and carbon fibers, which take
various forms, such as short random fibers, mat, woven rovings and continuous fibers. Aero-
space composites use higher modulus carbon and aramid fibers. The matrix materials include
thermosetting plastics (polyester and epoxy) and thermoplastics (polypropylene and polysulfone).
These resin-matrix composites are difficult to inspect with conventional nondestructive test
methods and AE has been used widely. Main sources of emissions are fiber fracture, delamina-
tion (matrix cracks between reinforcement layers), splitting (matrix cracks parallel to fibers) and
transverse matrix cracks [40].

When unidirectionally reinforced composites are stressed, fiber fracture and matrix cracks con-
tribute to AE. Glass fibers generate high amplitude emissions (>70 dBAE) just prior to composite
fracture (>90% of the fracture load). Carbon fibers start to fracture locally above 50% of the

9
fracture load of the composites and produce low amplitude (30-60 dBAE) emissions, reflecting
their smaller diameters and lower fracture strain. The rate of emissions increases rapidly as the
final fracture load is approached, similar to the behavior of brittle solids. Near the final fracture,
high amplitude, long duration signals from splitting are also observed. Delamination occurs
when reinforcements layers (called plies) have different fiber orientations or notches. AE signals
from delamination are the strongest (50 to 130 dBAE peak amplitude) and have the longest dura-
tion (0.1-10 ms) [40].

Most composite structures are fabricated with mulitple plies with various combinations of rein-
forcement orientations. When they are stressed, complex stress patterns develop between rein-
forcing fibers and plies and copious emissions are generated, mainly from the transverse matrix
cracks and delamination. Discrimination of individual AE signals relies on peak amplitude, rise
time and duration. Damage indications in glass fiber composites include high amplitude emis-
sions (>70 dBAE), long duration signals and emissions during load hold periods. However, signal
discrimination is often difficult, because of high rates of emissions and strong signal attenuation.
The use of pattern recognition analysis is essential to differentiate various sources [18a,27].

When a composite sustains damages, Kaiser effect is no longer observed. Felicity ratio is de-
fined as a ratio of the load, at which AE is observed upon reloading, to the maximum prior load.
Felicity ratio is 1.0 or higher when the composite is sound, and decreases after severe loading.
As shown in Fig. 18, Felicity ratio drops to 0.75 by stressing to 80% of the fracture load in glass
and carbon fiber reinforced composite. Such damage depends on ply sequence and is less in sim-
pler ply structures: a unidirectional carbon fiber composite retains high Felicity ratios (>0.9) up
to 95% of the fracture load. Felicity effect is a valuable tool in assessing composite damages. An
example is shown in Fig. 19, where burst pressure-Felicity ratio correlation is given [41]. This
applies to Kevlar-overwrapped pressure vessels, showing this ratio can predict burst pressure
from AE testing at lower stress levels. While several other AE parameters have been used for
this purpose since the earliest days of AE technology, Felicity effect appears most promising.
Yet a number of factors influence the Felicity ratio at burst and more work is needed, as re-
viewed in [40].

3.4 Rock and concrete fracture

AE monitoring for mine safety is the oldest application that started in the 1930s at the US Bureau
of Mines [2,3]. Rock fracture initiates throughout the stressed region from uniformly distributed
microcrack nucleation. This stage corresponds to AE source locations spread over the entire
sample. At close to peak stress, faults nucleate and propagate by the interaction of tensile mi-
crocracks, when a clustering of AE occurs and leads to an expanding fracture nucleus with con-
centrated AE activity. This becomes the fracture process zone of intense tensile cracking, fol-
lowed by a region of shear cracking [42]. These stages are shown in Fig. 20, where microcracks
develop in A and B (accompanied by 30% drop in sound velocity), fracture nucleus begins at C
and final fracture at F. Observed AE locations for B, D and F are indicated in the bottom row.
AE signal characteristics varied with crack development, which is revealed clearly in the de-
crease of b values, as shown in Fig. 21 [42]. The b values are above 1.5 until shear cracking de-
velops and drop suddenly when fracture is imminent. A similar trend in b values was found in
steel fracture as noted in sec. 3.2.

Concrete fracture is similar to that of rock above. Here, tensile microcracks initiate at large ag-

10
gregates that are mixed with mortar matrix. At a later stage of fracture, shear cracks become
dominant from the shearing of crack surfaces. This shearing/fretting also contributes to AE dur-
ing unloading in cyclically stressed concrete. AE behavior of concrete under repeat loading is
shown in Fig. 22 [3a]. AE events increase with load and even during unloading beyond the 4th
loading. Felicity effect is found immediately from the 2nd loading and Load ratio (this term is
used in concrete field in place of Felicity ratio) decreases to 0.3 at the 7th loading. This AE dur-
ing unloading is useful in concrete damage evaluation. Calm ratio for a load cycle is defined as
(unloading AE activity)/(total AE activity of the particular load cycle) [22]. In this case, it started
to rise at the 4th cycle (~0.1) and reached a high value of 0.27 at the 7th cycle. Low Load ratio and
high Calm ratio are indicative of severe damage, while high Load ratio and low Calm ratio corre-
late to minor damage, as shown in Fig. 23 [22]. The frictional origin of unload AE is manifested
as low average frequency and long duration of AE signals.

3.5 Other emission sources

AE is observed under corrosion from hydrogen evolution, pitting and exfoliation, but anodic
metal dissolution produces no AE. When materials are subjected to stress corrosion or hydrogen
environments, they produce AE by a number of different mechanisms, including film breakage,
hydrogen-induced cracking, inclusion and particle fracture at the crack tip and plastic defor-
mation. The detection of hydrogen embrittlement is one of the early applications of AE tech-
niques. During crack propagation due to hydrogen embrittlement, high amplitude emissions are
observed and can be distinguished easily from active path corrosion process. The latter generates
only a small number of low amplitude emissions. The crack growth rate for stress corrosion
cracking shows the three-stage behavior with respect to the applied KI; that is, an initial increase
above a threshold KI, followed by a region with a nearly constant rate and the final rise near the
critical KI. The AE activities follow a similar trend [13b,43a].

An exceptional stress corrosion AE involving polythionic acid and stainless steels should be not-
ed. This industrially important corrosion occurs via active path dissolution, yet very strong AE
bursts are emitted from the ejection of individual grains (also called grain drop-off) [43a,b].
Simultaneous monitoring of AE and corrosion potential fluctuation helps clarify operative corro-
sion mechanisms [43b,c].

AE monitoring of welding processes can locate weld cracks and slag inclusions and find the
depth of weld penetration and mistracking. Expulsion and lack of weld in spot-welding can also
be detected. These in-process monitoring methods may avoid the electrical welding noise by
using guard sensors and gating circuits synchronized to welding steps. Evaluation of welds has
been the primary goal of AE monitoring of welded structures, such as pressure vessels, tanks and
highway bridges. Defective welds can be located by AE in real time or in post-test and further
evaluated by other nondestructive test methods [1].

Monitoring of various machining or metal removal processes detects tool wear, tool fracture and
cutting conditions. These are based on AE due to friction between tool and chips or a workpiece,
abnormal signals from chipped tools and plastic deformation and fracture of chips. This applica-
tion is important with automated manufacturing processes. Other important AE sources include;
in metals, martensitic transformation, solidification (hot cracking), oxidation (oxide cracking and
spalling); gas and fluid leakage; magnetization (AE equivalent of Barkhausen effect); corona

11
discharges in power transformers; friction and rubbing noise from rotating machinery. AE also is
used in detecting crack initiation during scratch testing of thin films [1,13b].

5 Structural Integrity Monitoring

5.1 Fiber-reinforced composite pressure vessels, tanks and piping

Modern AE technology grew from the need to inspect glass-fiber reinforced rocket motorcases in
the 1960s [44]. It developed rapidly and was used extensively in the US space and defense indus-
tries. The use of AE in chemical industry followed. AE testing procedures of fiber reinforced
plastic vessels and piping were standardized [28,31,40,45]. Test vessels and piping are typically
pressurized to 110% of the maximum allowable working pressure to locate substantial flaws. Us-
ing the zone location method, AE activities of flaws within each zone are detected and the zone
represents the approximate position of these flaws. Sensors are positioned to detect structural
flaws at critical sections of the test vessel; i.e., high stress areas, geometrical discontinuities,
nozzles and manways. Pressurization in AE testing of a vessel proceeds in steps with pressure
hold periods with depressure increments. A test is terminated whenever a rapid increase in AE
activities indicates an impending failure. Detected flaws are graded using several criteria, includ-
ing emissions during pressure hold periods, Felicity ratio, historic index (average signal strength
of recent events divided by that of all events), severity (average signal strength of ten largest
events), and high amplitude events. Emissions during hold indicate continuing permanent dam-
age and a lack of structural integrity. For in-service vessels, Felicity ratio criterion (when it is
less than 0.95) is an important measure of previous damage. Historic index is a sensitive measure
to detect a sudden increase in signal strength. Large severity values result from delamination,
adhesive bond failure and crack growth. High amplitude events indicate structural (glass-fiber)
damages, especially in new vessels. AE testing of these tanks and vessels has been highly suc-
cessful over the last three decades.

A recent technical challenge to AE testing is the inspection of small, but extremely high-pressure
(100-MPa hydrogen) cylinders. AE-based ASME Code case is now developed to provide the ac-
cept-or-reject criteria using the curvatures of cumulative events and energy curves [46]. Another
problem for composite tanks is the inspection of LPG/CNG tanks as well as SCBA air tanks.
Technically, AE can be used for certain. However, testing these tanks at low cost to assure ex-
tended use life is yet to be resolved. One other challenge is the long-term uses of composite tanks
and how to assure/estimate their remaining life. Figure 24 shows the stress rupture life of three
types of composite strands [47a]. The poor stress rupture property of glass fiber is understanda-
ble, but even aramid (Kevlar) fiber loses 1/4 its strength in a few hundreds hrs. Recent stress rup-
ture data for Kevlar-overwrapped pressure vessels show comparable behavior to that of Kevlar
strands [47a,b,c]. While AS-4 carbon fiber strands are comparable to the first generation T-50S,
current generation (T-1000) carbon fiber exhibits vast improvements with the apparent absence
of stress rupture behavior to almost 100,000 hrs [47d]. Felicity effect is the probable basis for AE
method for remaining life estimation. Research continues [40], but more work is needed.

5.2 Metal pressure vessels, tanks and piping

Acoustic emission testing of metallic tanks and pressure vessels is conducted during pressuriza-
tion. The tanks and vessels are pressurized following applicable code specifications. The maxi-

12
mum pressure is typically up to 110% of the operating pressure. Sources of emissions are usually
crack growth, yielding, corrosion effects (cracking or spalling of corrosion product, local yield-
ing of thinned section), stress corrosion cracking and embrittlement. The most likely locations of
flaws are at various weldments. When metals are ductile, AE activities are low and AE test re-
sults should be evaluated carefully. Once the metals are embrittled by environment or at low
temperatures, even early stages of stressing activate AE sources. In fact, AE is the best method
for detecting hydrogen induced cracking and stress corrosion cracking [1].

Highway gas-trailer tube, chemical and petrochemical vessels are monitored with AE periodical-
ly without emptying the vessels, thus minimizing the cost of testing. According to the current
industrial practices, the located flaws are usually confirmed by other nondestructive test methods.
Increasingly, however, AE testing alone is used to evaluate tanks and pressure vessels. For cer-
tain classes of metallic vessels, the use of AE examination alone can be used to satisfy code-
mandated inspection requirements in lieu of ultrasonic testing or radiography. After AE testing
indicates the locations of active AE sources, these are graded according to criteria similar to
those for composite vessels. These provide real-time indications of defective areas of the pres-
sure vessel being tested and prevent catastrophic failure of the vessel. The identified defective
areas are then inspected using other test methods. Acoustic emission testing is applied on various
types of vessels, including ammonia spheres and tanks, hydroformer reactors and catalytic crack-
ing units [1,48].

In condition monitoring of the bottom plates of aged petroleum tanks, experience with standard
AE test methods was reviewed [49a]. These often encounter difficult conditions and get poor lo-
cation accuracy. Lamb-wave based methods can bring needed improvements, accurately posi-
tioning corroded sections. Correlations of active AE areas with thinned sections are shown in Fig.
25 [49b].

5.3 Aerospace

The first application of AE testing was to verify the structural integrity of filament-wound Pola-
ris rocket motorcases in 1961 [44]. Hydrostatic testing of rocket motorcases was instrumented
using accelerometers, audio recording and sound analysis equipment. Crack initiation and prop-
agation were detected prior to catastrophic failure. Later, burst pressure was successfully pre-
dicted based on AE data during proof testing. The composite rocket motorcases are still success-
fully inspected using 3 (or 4) pressurization cycles. The first cycle is to find leaks at a low pres-
sure. The second goes to 100% (or 80%) of the mean expected operating pressure, followed by
the third to 80% level. The AE behavior during the third cycle is used to examine Felicity effect
and is the determining factor in the evaluation of the rocket motorcase integrity.

AE testing is as yet unable to monitor the integrity of aircraft structures in flight because of sub-
stantial noise generated from the structures that are joined by numerous fasteners and from en-
gines. For specific components, however, AE can detect the presence of cracks and incipient
fracture. For surveillance of structural and fatigue damages of aircraft components during limit
load and fatigue testing, AE has demonstrated its utility. All significant cracks were located dur-
ing full-scale fatigue testing, including those emanated from bolt holes amid a wide range of spu-
rious AE sources. AE in fuselage panes of honeycomb sandwich composites curved were moni-
tored, showing the evolution of notches and a good correlation with AE accumulated. Strong AE
from fiber damage was less than 5% of the total AE events recorded [50]. AE indications of

13
damage severity vary depending on the particular component, but include load hold emissions,
Felicity ratio, AE event rates and high amplitude emissions. In structural tests, wave propagation
characteristics and the nature of crack-related (crack growth and crack face fretting) sources are
also essential in evaluating AE observations. Other developments include fiber sensors capable
of being integrated into composite structures and active surveillance scheme using AE sensing
for damage detection [51,52].

5.4 Geological structures

AE monitoring has been studied to promote mine safety by detecting incipient rock bursts and
gas outbursts and by estimating the areas of stress concentration ahead of mining regions [2,3].
For this purpose many AE sensors are placed in and around mine tunnels and monitor low fre-
quency (below several kHz) AE signals. A mining operation itself can be a stimulus as under-
ground rocks have numerous pre-existing flaws and are under geological pressure. Drilling ex-
ploratory holes ahead of a mining region can also activate the areas of high local stresses. Multi-
channel AE sensing has also been applied to the evaluation of hydrofracturing in geothermal
wells [53]. The stability of underground storage caverns is another area of AE applications.

By using Kaiser effect, underground stresses may be estimated. Compressive stresses are ap-
plied on a sample bored out from underground. When the previously existing stress is exceeded,
AE activities increase and the pre-existing stress can be estimated. Since a high compressive
pressure always exists, the directionality of stresses must be taken into account. Loading meth-
ods and relaxation after coring may have effects on the results, however [54].

AE techniques have been applied to monitoring the stability of highway slopes, tunnels and land-
slide-prone areas [2]. AE measurements utilize waveguides that are driven into the ground. By
mapping high AE activity areas, potential instability regions can be predicted. Concrete with
steel reinforcement is another material used widely in civil engineering structures. Because of the
large size of concrete structures and high attenuation rates of AE signals in concrete, suitable AE
techniques for structural integrity monitoring are yet to be perfected [3].

5.5 Bridges

AE monitoring of thousands of steel bridges have been conducted, providing operators ample
warning of potential disasters [55]. Most test sites had no fatigue indications, but a dozen or so
test sites had high AE activity in a ten-year period. AE monitoring is applied to selected loca-
tions; not globally to large structures. These include: Hanger connections, Link pin connection,
Copes and stringers, Stiffener to weld connection. Loading is supplied by regular rail traffic.
Other monitoring efforts were summarized in [14,56].

A recent example of large bridge monitoring used 600+ AE channels to monitor about 400 criti-
cal sites on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge [56]. Remote monitoring was implemented
and success was achieved. The system will be transferred to the replacement bridge opened in
2013 and AE monitoring will be continued.

Many other new and old AE applications to structural integrity evaluation exist, including off-
shore oil rigs, on-board rocket and spacecraft, continuous monitoring of rocket motorcases, ca-
ble-stayed bridges, wind turbine blades, power plants, refinery, factory installations and gas

14
tanks. Details are usually inaccessible, but some references are listed [58].

References

1. R.K. Miller, E.v.K. Hill (Eds.), Acoustic Emission Testing, Nondestructive Testing Handbook,
3rd edition, Vol. 6 (American Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH, 2005)
2. H.R. Hardy Jr, Acoustic Emission Microseismic Activity, Vol. 1: Principles, Techniques and
Geotechnical Applications (Taylor & Francis, London, 2003)
3. C.U. Grosse, M. Ohtsu (Eds.), Acoustic Emission Testing, Basics for Research – Applications
in Civil Engineering (Springer, Berlin, 2008)
a. C.U. Grosse, L.M. Linzer, Ch. 5, Signal-Based AE Analysis, pp. 53-99.
b. M. Ohtsu, Ch. 8, Moment Tensor Analysis, pp. 175-200.
c. G. Manthei, J. Eisenblätter, Ch. 11, Acoustic Emission in Study of Rock Stability, pp. 239-
310.
d. J.H. Kurz, S. Köppel, L. Linzer, B. Schechinger, C.U. Grosse, Ch. 6, Source Localization,
pp. 101-147.
4. T. Kishi, M. Ohtsu, S. Yuyama (Eds.), Acoustic Emission – Beyond the Millenium (Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 2000)
5. M.R. Gorman, Acoustic emission in structural health monitoring (SHM), Encyclopedia of
Structural Health Monitoring, ch. 4, eds. C. Boller et al., (Wiley, 2009), pp. 79-100.
6. a. M. Ohtsu, K. Ono, "A generalized theory of acoustic emission and Green's function in a half
space", J. Acoustic Emission, 3, 27-40 (1984)
b. M. Ohtsu, K. Ono, The Generalized Theory and Source Representations of Acoustic Emission,
J. Acoustic Emission, 5, 124-133 (1986)
7. S. Shrivastava, R. Prakash, Assessment of Bone Condition by Acoustic Emission Technique:
A review, J. Biomedical Science and Engineering, 2, 144-154 (2009)
8. H. Chen, Discovery of Acoustic Emission Based Biomarker for Quantitative Assessment of
Knee Joint Ageing and Degeneration, PhD thesis, University of Central Lancashire (2011)
9. M. Browne, A. Roques, A. Taylor, The Acoustic Emission Technique in Orthopaedics: A Re-
view, Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design, 40(1), 59-79 (2005)
10. C.D. Arvanitis, M.S. Livingstone, N. Vykhodtseva, N. McDannold, Controlled Ultrasound-
Induced Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption Using Passive Acoustic Emissions Monitoring. PLoS
ONE, 7(9), e45783 (2012)
11. K.B. Chandren et al., Vascular Acoustic Emission Analysis in a Balloon Angioplasty System,
US Patent 5957950 A (1999).
12. D.G. Aggelis, N.K. Paschos, N.M. Barkoula, A.S. Paipetis, T.E. Matikas, and A.D. Georgou-
lis, Rupture of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Monitored by Acoustic Emission, J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 129(6), EL217-222 (2011)
13. a. K. Ono, Current Understanding of Mechanisms of Acoustic Emission, Journal of Strain
Analysis for Engineering Design, 40(1), 1-15 (2005)
b. K. Ono, “Acoustic Emission in Materials Research – A Review”, J. Acoust Emission, 29,
284–308 (2011)
14. A. Khan-Edmundson, G.W. Rodgers, T.B.F. Woodfield, G.J. Hooper, J.G. Chase, Tissue At-
tenuation Characteristics of Acoustic Emission Signals for Wear and Degradation of Total
Hip Arthoplasty Implants, 8th IFAC Symposium on Biological and Medical Systems (BMS12),
Biological and Medical Systems, 8(1), 355-360 (2012)

15
15. K. Ono, Application of Acoustic Emission for Structure Diagnosis, Proc. 56 Scientific Con-
ference, Kielce-Krynica, (PAN, Warsaw, 2010), pp. 317-341
16. a. M.A. Hamstad, A. O'Gallagher, J. Gary, Modeling of Buried Monopole and Dipole
Sources of Acoustic Emission with a Finite Element Technique, J. Acoustic Emission, 17, 97-
110 (1999)
b. M.A. Hamstad, Some Observations on Rayleigh Waves and Acoustic Emission in Thick Steel
Plates, J. Acoustic Emission, 27, 114-136 (2009)
17. a. M. Sause, Identification of Failure Mechanisms in Hybrid Materials Utilizing Pattern
Recognition Techniques Applied to Acoustic Emission Signals, Augsburg Univ. doctoral disser-
tation, (Mensch und Buch Verlag, 2010) 305 p.
b. M.G.R. Sause, S. Horn, Simulation of Lamb Wave Excitation for Different Elastic Properties
and Acoustic Emission Source Geometries, J. Acoustic Emission, 28, 142-154 (2010)
18. a. K. Ono, Q. Huang, Pattern Recognition Analysis of Acoustic Emission Signals, Progress
in Acoustic Emission VII, eds. T. Kishi et al., (JSNDI, Tokyo, 1994), pp. 69-78.
b. W.H. Prosser, Advanced AE Techniques in Composite Materials Research, J. Acoustic Emis-
sion, 14, S1-S11 (1996).
c. K. Ono and A. Gallego, Attenuation of Lamb Waves in CFRP Plates, J. Acoustic Emission, 30,
109-121 (2012).
19. a. H.N.G. Wadley, C.B. Scruby, Acoustic Emission Source Characterization, Proc. Intl Conf.
on Acoustic Emission, (Dunhart, Knoxville, 1981) pp. 125-153.
b. D.J. Buttle, C.B. Scruby, Characterization of Fatigue of Aluminum Alloys by Acoustic Emis-
sion, Part I-II, 9, 243-254, 255-270 (1990)
20. M. Takemoto, H. Nishino, K. Ono, Wavelet Transform – Applications to AE Signal Analysis,
Acoustic Emission – Beyond the Millenium, (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000) pp. 35-56.
21. H. Suzuki, M. Takemoto, K. Ono, “The fracture dynamics in a dissipative glass-fiber/epoxy
model composite with AE source simulation analysis”, J. Acoustic Emission, 14, 35-50 (1996)
22. M. Ohtsu, T. Isoda, Y. Tomoda, Acoustic Emission Techniques Standardized for Concrete
Structures, J. Acoustic Emission, 25, 21-32 (2007)
23. a. F. Breckenridge, C. Tscheigg, M. Greenspan, Acoustic emission: some applications of
Lamb’s Problem, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 57, 626–631 (1975)
b. F.R. Breckenridge, Acoustic Emission Transducer Calibration by Means of the Seismic Sur-
face Pulse, J. Acoustic Emission, vol. 1(2), 87-94 (1982)
24. N. Hsu, Acoustic emission simulator, U.S. Patent 4018084 (1975)
25. T. Proctor, An Improved Piezoelectric Acoustic Emission Transducer, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
71, 1163–1168 (1982)
26. G.C. McLaskey, S.D. Glaser, Acoustic Emission Sensor Calibration for Absolute Source
Measurements, J. Nondestruct Eval. 31, 157-168 (2012)
27. A. Anastasopoulos, Pattern Recognition Techniques for Acoustic Emission Based Condition
Assessment of Unfired Pressure Vessels, J. Acoustic Emission, 23, 318-330 (2005)
28. a. T.J. Fowler, Acoustic Emission Testing of Chemical Industry Vessels, Progress in Acous-
tic Emission II, eds., M. Onoe, et al., (Japan Soc. Nondestructive Inspection, Tokyo, 1984) pp.
421-449.
b. T.J. Fowler, Chemical Industry Applications of Acoustic Emission”, Materials Evaluation, 50,
875-882 (1992)
29. D.E. Kosnik, T. Hopwood, D.J. Corr, Acoustic Emission Monitoring for Assessment of Steel
Bridge Details, Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation: AIP Conf. Proc.
1335, (2011) pp. 1410-1417

16
30. a. M. Ge, Analysis of Source Location Algorithms, Pat I – II, J. Acoustic Emission, 21, 14-28,
29-51 (2003)
b. M.R. Gorman, W.H. Prosser, AE Source Orientation by Plate Wave Analysis, J. Acoustic
Emission, 9, 283-288 (1990)
c. K.M. Holford, D.C. Carter, Acoustic Emission Source Location, Key Engineering Materials,
167-168, 162-171 (1999)
d. M. Surgeon, M. Wevers, One Sensor Linear Location of Acoustic Emission Events using Plate
Wave Theories, Materials Science & Engineering, A265, 254-261 (1999)
e. L. Wang, F.G. Yuan, Group Velocity and Characteristic Wave Curves of Lamb Waves in
Composites: Modeling and experiments, Composites Science and Technology, 67, 1370–1384
(2007)
31. T.J. Fowler, J.A. Blessing, P.J. Conlisk, T.L. Swanson, The MONPAC System, J. Acoustic
Emission, 8, 1-10 (1989)
32. D. McColskey, M. Hamstad, R. Saulsberry, J. Waller, “Production/performance Monitoring
of Composite Tanks NDE Methods for Certification and Production/performance Monitoring of
Composite Tanks”, NIST-NASA presentation.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/ihfpv_mccloseky.pdf
33. C.R. Heiple, S.H. Carpenter, Acoustic Emission Produced by Deformation of Metals and Al-
loys - A Review, Part I and II, J. Acoustic Emission, 6, 177-204, 215–229 (2012)
34. S.H. Carpenter and C. Pfleiderer, Acoustic Emission from AISI 4340 Steel as a Function of
Strength, J. Acoustic Emission, 12, 141-148 (1994)
35. I. Roman, H.B. Teoh , K. Ono, Thermal Restoration of Burst Emissions in A533B Steel, J.
Acoustic Emission, 3(1), 19-26 (1984)
36. a. A. Vinogradov, V. Patlan, S. Hashimoto, Spectral Analysis of Acoustic Emission during
Cyclic Deformation of Copper Single Crystals, Phil. Mag. A81, 1427-1446 (2001)
b. A. Vinogradov, D. L. Merson, V. Patlan, S. Hashimoto, Effect of Solid Solution Hardening
and Stacking Fault Energy on Plastic flow and Acoustic Emission in Cu-Ge Alloys, Materials
Science and Engineering, A341, 57-73 (2003)
37. a. H.B. Teoh, K. Ono, Fracture-induced Acoustic Emission during Slow Bend Tests of
A533B Steel, J. Acoustic Emission, 6(1), 1-18 (1987)
b. L. Lorenzo and H.T. Hahn, On the Applicability of Amplitude Distribution Analysis to the
Fracture Process of Composite Materials, J. Acoustic Emission, 5(1), 15-24 (1986)
38. A. Yonezu, T. Ogawa and M. Takemoto, Fatigue Fracture Dynamics of High Strength Steel
studied by Acoustic Emission Technique, Progress in Acoustic Emission, XIII, Proc. IAES18,
(JSNDI, Tokyo, 2006) pp. 463-470.
39. N. Nemati, Acoustic Emission Assessment of Steel Bridge Details Subjected to Fatigue, PhD
thesis, Univ. of Miami, 2012.
40. K. Ono, A. Gallego, Research and Applications of AE on Advanced Composites, J. Acoustic
Emission, 30, 180-229 (2012)
41. J.W. Whittaker, W.D. Brosey, M.A. Hamstad, Correlation of Felicity Ratio and Strength Be-
havior of Impact-Damaged Spherical Composite Test Specimens, J. Acoustic Emission, 9, 84-90
(1990)
42. B.D. Thompson, R.P. Young, D.A. Lockner, Fracture in Westerly Granite under AE Feed-
back and Constant Strain Rate Loading: Nucleation, Quasi-static Propagation, and the Transition
to Unstable Fracture Propagation, Rock Damage and Fluid Transport, Part I, G. Dresen, O.
Stephansson, A. Zang (Eds.), (Birkhäuser, Basel, 2006) pp. 995-1019.
43. a. M. Takemoto, H. Cho, Acoustic Emission during Stress corrosion Cracking Test, 26th Eu-
ropean Conf. on Acoustic Emission Testing, (DGfZP, Berlin, 2004) Lecture 51, pp. 511-518.

17
b. A. Yonezu, H. Cho, M. Takemoto, AE for Susceptibility Evaluation of type 304 steel to Poly-
thionic Acid Stress Corrosion Cracking, Progress in AE, XVIII, (JSNDI, Tokyo, 2006) pp. 489-
496.
c. K. Kageyama, T. Ogawa, A. Yonezu, H. Cho, M. Takemoto, AE and Corrosion Potential Fluc-
tuation (CPF) for Environmental Assisted Fracture, J. Acoustic Emission, 24, 127-138 (2006)
44. A.T. Green, C.S. Lockman, H.K. Haines, Acoustic Verification of Structural Integrity of Po-
laris Chambers, Modern Plastics, 41(11), 137-139 (1964)
45. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee, Section V: Nondestructive Examination, Sub-
committee on Fiber Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels, 2004 Edition with subsequent addenda
(ASME, New York, 2004)
46. a. N.L. Newhouse, G.B. Rawls, M.D. Rana, B.F. Shelley, M.R. Gorman, Development of
ASME Section X Code Rules for High Pressure Composite Hydrogen Pressure Vessels with
Non-Load Sharing Liners, Proceedings of the 2010 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Confer-
ence, PVP 2010, Paper No. PVP2010-25349, (ASME, New York, 2010) 10 p.
b. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sec. X, Fiber-reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels,
Mandatory Appendix 8-620 and NB10-0601, Supplement 9.
c. M.R. Gorman, Modal AE Analysis of Fracture and Failure in Composite Materials, and The
Quality and Life of High Pressure Composite Pressure Vessels, J. Acoustic Emission, 29, 1-28
(2011)
47. a. R.L. Moore, M.A. Hamstad, T.T. Chiao, Stress-Rupture Behavior of Graphite Fiber/Epoxy
Strands, Composite Materials & Structures, 3, 19-23 (1974); UCRL-74838, (1974)
b. Orbiter Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel Flight Rationale Technical
Assessment Report, vols. I and II, NASA NESC Report RP-07-34, April 12, 2007.
c. J.B. Chang, Implementation Guidelines for ANSI/AIAA S-081: Space Systems Composite
Overwrapped Pressure Vessels, Aerospace Report No. TR-2003(8504)-1, AD A413531, 2003, 83
p.
d. S.E. Groves, S. J. DeTeresa, R.J. Sanchez, M. A. Zocher, R. M. Christensen, Accelerated
Stress Rupture Lifetime Assessment for Fiber Composites, UCRL-ID-126454, (1997)
48. Monpac Technology issue, J. Acoustic Emission, 8(3), 1-34 (1989)
49. a. G. Lackner, P. Tscheliesnig, Field Testing of Flat Bottomed Storage Tanks with Acoustic
Emission – A Review on the Gained Experience, J. Acoustic Emission, 22, 201-207 (2004)
b. M. Takemoto, H. Cho, H. Suzuki, Lamb-Wave Acoustic Emission for Condition Monitoring
of Tank Bottom Plates, J. Acoustic Emission, 24, 12-21 (2006)
50. F.A. Leone, Jr., D. Ozevin, V. Godinez, B. Mosinyi, J.G. Bakuckas, Jr., J. Awerbuch, A. Lau,
T.-M. Tan, Acoustic Emission Analysis of Full-Scale Honeycomb Sandwich Composite Curved
Fuselage Panels, Proc. of SPIE, vol. 6934, (SPIE, 2008) pp. 1-16.
51. N. Takeda and S. Minakuchi, Recent Development Of Structural Health Monitoring Tech-
nologies for Aircraft Composite Structures in Japan, Proc. 17th Int. Conf. on Composite Materi-
als (ICCM-17), Edinburgh, UK, 27-31 July 2009.
52. a. P. Cawley, M.J.S. Lowe, D.N. Alleyne, B. Pavlakovic, and P. Wilcox. Practical Long
Range Guided Wave Testing: Application to Pipes and Rail, Materials Evaluation, 61(1), 66-74
(2003)
b. T. Clarke, P. Cawley, Enhancing the Defect Localization Capability of a Guided Wave SHM
System Applied to a Complex Structure, Structural Health Monitoring, 10(3), 247-259 (2010)
53. H. Niitsuma, Acoustic Emission/ Microseismic Technique: Review of Research in the 20th
Century and Future Aspects, Acoustic Emission – Beyond the Millenium, (Elsevier, 2000) pp.
109-125

18
54. A. Lavrov, The Kaiser Effect in Rocks: Principles and Stress Estimation Techniques, Int J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 151-171 (2003)
55. a. J.A. Cavaco, Measures Taken to Mitigate the Effects of Fatigue on Critical Railway Bridg-
es at Canadian National, Bridge Structures, 3(1), 51-66 (2007)
b. D.R. Hay, J.A. Cavaco and V. Mustafa, Monitoring the Civil Infrastructure with Acoustic
Emission: Bridge Case Studies, J. Acoustic Emission, 27, 1-10 (2009)
56. A. Nair, S.S. Cai, Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Bridges: Review and Case Studies, En-
gineering Structures, 32, 1704-1714 (2010)
57. M.B. Johnson, D. Ozevin, G.A. Washer, K. Ono, R.S. Gostautas, T.A. Tamutus, Real Time
Steel Fatigue Crack Detection in Eyebar using Acoustic Emission Method, J. Transportation Re-
search Board, 2313, 72-79 (2012)
58. a. C. Allevato, The Use of Acoustic Emission Testing on Long Term Monitoring of Dam-
aged Component, Proc. EWGAE 2010, 29th European Conference on Acoustic Emission Testing
(TUV, Vienna, 2010) pp. 34-39.
b. P. Tscheliesnig, Thirty Years Experience of Industrial Applications of Acoustic Emission
Testing at TÜV Austria, J. Acoustic Emission, 25, 276-285 (2007)
c. J. M. Rodgers, Acoustic Emission Testing Of Seam-Welded High Energy Piping Systems In
Fossil Power Plants, J. Acoustic Emission, 25, 286-293 (2007)
d. D. Papasalouros, N. Tsopelas, A. Anastasopoulos, D. Kourousis, D.J. Lekou, F. Mouzakis,
Acoustic Emission Monitoring of Composite Blade of NM48/750 NEG-MICON Wind Turbine,
J. Acoustic Emission, 31, 36-49 (2013)

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. A representative burst AE signal waveform of the transverse matrix crack from a cross-
ply carbon fiber composite test [18]. PAC WD wideband sensor. Defined in the figure are Rise
time (23 µs), Signal duration (205 µs), Peak amplitude (2.9 mV) along with the threshold value
used (0.3 mV).
Fig. 2. Normalized magnitude of FFT of various transfer functions in the frequency domain in
log-linear plots (0 – 2 MHz) [17a].
Fig. 3. Observed and matched calculated waveforms with source parameters. Unidirectional
glass fiber composite test [21].
Fig. 4. Crack volume vs. source rise time, giving the average crack velocity of 6.5 m/s. Data
points are within the zone between crack velocities of 2.3 and 22 m/s [21].
Fig. 5. Results of moment tensor analysis of AE signals from simulated corrosion cracks in a
large concrete block. Arrow indicates stress direction and disk mark the plane of crack [22].
Pink: tensile, Blue: mixed mode, Yellow: shear crack.
Fig. 6. Simulated Lamb wave from a finite crack at the mid-plane in a carbon-fiber composite
plate, propagated 50 mm. a) Choi-Williams distribution diagram, showing dominant So mode. b)
Waveform of displacement, normal to the plate [17b].
Fig. 7. a) The frequency response of a conical sensor of Glaser design showing flatness over 10
kHz to 1 MHz. b) and c) narrow-band AE sensor responses for PAC-R15 and PAC nano30. d) a
broadband velocity response of DW B1025 [26].
Fig. 8. Typical AE sensor placements on a storage tank [28].
Fig. 9. Distribution of energetic AE events in 24-hrs period before the final fracture. Kevlar
COPV [32].
Fig. 10. AE behavior of 4340 steel, oil quenched and annealed at 600˚C. AE intensity is meas-

19
ured using rms voltages. See insert for strain values [34].
Fig. 11. a) AE behavior of A533B steel, quenched and tempered at 550˚C. Loaded in short trans-
verse orientation, showing inclusion-induced AE in the elastic region. b) Immediate reloading
after the first loading in a). Kaiser effect is observed [35].
Fig. 12. AE behavior of a copper single crystal, deformed at 300 K [36a].
Fig. 13. AE event counts increase with stress intensity factor.
Fig. 14. Amplitude distribution of burst AE of A533B steel for brittle (quenched) and ductile
(tempered) conditions. Data from [37a].
Fig. 15. Cumulative AE energy against JI for steels and 2024 Al. Data from [13a] and others.
Fig. 16. Fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN) and AE (event) counts against Kmax for SUJ2 steel
[38].
Fig. 17. Fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN) and AE energy per cycle (dU/dN) follow power laws
against ΔK [39].
Fig. 18. Felicity ratio vs. applied stress normalized by the fracture load in glass and carbon fiber
reinforced composite vessels. Results for unidirectional carbon fiber composite retains high Fe-
licity ratios. Data from [40] and others.
Fig. 19. Burst pressure-Felicity ratio correlation for Kevlar COPV with different levels of impact
damage [41].
Fig. 20. Loading curve in deviatric stress and sound velocity vs. time for Westerly granite. Mi-
crocracks develop in A and B with 30% drop in sound velocity. Fracture nucleus begins at C and
D. Final fracture at F. Observed AE locations for B, D and F given in the bottom row [42].
Fig. 21. AE signal characteristics, b values, decreased with crack development [42].
Fig. 22. AE behavior of concrete under repeat-loading [3a].
Fig. 23. Concrete damage classification using the Load and Calm ratios of AE activity [22].
Fig. 24. Stress rupture data for three types of fiber composite strands. Data from [47a].
Fig. 25 Tank bottom thickness data (in color) and active AE clusters (a – e). Two at a and b
matched well with thinned spots in the third quadrant. No AE was detected from a spot between
Ch 1 and 8 at 340˚ [49].

20
Fig. 1. A representative burst AE signal waveform of the transverse matrix crack from a cross-
ply carbon fiber composite test. [18] PAC WD wideband sensor. Defined in the figure are Rise
time (23 µs), Signal duration (205 µs), Peak amplitude (2.9 mV) along with the threshold value
used (0.3 mV).

Fig. 2. Normalized magnitude of FFT of various transfer functions in the frequency domain in
log-linear plots (0 – 2 MHz). [17a]
Fig. 3. Observed and matched calculated waveforms with source parameters. Unidirectional
glass fiber composite test. [21]

Fig. 4. Crack volume vs. source rise time, giving the average crack velocity of 6.5 m/s. Data
points are within the zone between crack velocities of 2.3 and 22 m/s. [21]
Fig. 5. Results of moment tensor analysis of AE signals from simulated corrosion cracks in a
large concrete block. Arrow indicates stress direction and disk mark the plane of crack. [22]
Pink: tensile, Blue: mixed mode, Yellow: shear crack.

Fig. 6. Simulated Lamb wave from a finite crack at the mid-plane in a carbon-fiber composite
plate, propagated 50 mm. a) Choi-Williams distribution diagram, showing dominant So mode. b)
Waveform of displacement, normal to the plate. [17b]
Fig. 7. a) The frequency response of a conical sensor of Glaser design showing flatness over 10
kHz to 1 MHz. b) and c) narrow-band AE sensor responses for PAC-R15 and PAC nano30. d) a
broadband velocity response of DW B1025. [26]

Fig. 8. Typical AE sensor placements on a storage tank. [28]

Fig. 9. Distribution of energetic AE events in 24-hrs period before the final fracture. Kevlar
COPV. [32]

Fig. 10. AE behavior of 4340 steel, oil quenched and annealed at 600˚C. AE intensity is
measured using rms voltages. See insert for strain values [34].
Fig. 11. a) AE behavior of A533B steel, quenched and tempered at 550˚C. Loaded in short
transverse orientation, showing inclusion-induced AE in the elastic region. b) Immediate
reloading after the first loading in a). Kaiser effect is observed. [35]

Fig. 12. AE behavior of a copper single crystal, deformed at 300 K. [36a]

Fig. 13. AE event counts increase with stress intensity factor.

Fig. 14. Amplitude distribution of burst AE of A533B steel for brittle (quenched) and ductile
(tempered) conditions. Data from [37a].
Fig. 15. Cumulative AE energy against JI for steels and 2024 Al. Data from [12a] and others.

Fig. 16. Fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN) and AE (event) counts against Kmax for SUJ2 steel.
[38]
Fig. 17. Fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN) and AE energy per cycle (dU/dN) follow power laws
against ΔK. [39]

Fig. 18. Felicity ratio vs. applied stress normalized by the fracture load in glass and carbon fiber
reinforced composite vessels. Results for unidirectional carbon fiber composite retains high
Felicity ratios. Data from [40] and others.
Fig. 19. Burst pressure-Felicity ratio correlation for Kevlar COPV with different levels of impact
damage. [41]

Fig. 20. Loading curve in deviatric stress and sound velocity vs. time for Westerly granite.
Microcracks develop in A and B with 30% drop in sound velocity. Fracture nucleus begins at C
and D. Final fracture at F. Observed AE locations for B, D and F given in the bottom row. [42]
Fig. 21. AE signal characteristics, b values, decreased with crack development. [42]

Fig. 22. AE behavior of concrete under repeat-loading. [3a]

Fig. 23. Concrete damage classification using the Load and Calm ratios of AE activity. [22]

Fig. 24. Stress rupture data for three types of fiber composite strands. Data from [47a].
 Fig. 25 Tank bottom thickness data (in color) and active AE clusters (a – e). Two at a and b
matched well with thinned spots in the third quadrant. No AE was detected from a spot between
Ch 1 and 8 at 340˚. [49]

View publication stats