1209
Acoustic Emis
Kanji Ono
Acoustic emission (AE) 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 mater-
ial or structure. It is an indispensable and effective
nondestructive inspection method and a valuable
tool of materials research, detecting dynamic mi-
croscopic 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.
30.1 Background ........................................ 1209
30.2 Acoustic Emission Signals ..................... 1210
30.2.1 AE Signals and Source Functions.. 1210
30.2.2 Sensors .................................... 1213
30.2.3 Signal Characterization .............. 1215
Acoustic emission (AE) is transient elastic waves pro-
duced by the rapid release of strain energy from
a localized source or sources within a material or
structure [30.1–7]. This term (or microseismic activ-
ity in the geotechnical field) is also used to describe
the class of phenomena that generate such waves per
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
E610-98A. Under loading, AE typically originates at
cracks in structures of all kind, defective welds and
30.1 Background
A dynamic mechanical event typically produces AE.
When a crack advances under stress, it proceeds in
discrete steps that give rise to AE from the stress re-
laxation at the crack tip [30.9, 10]. AE can originate
from a number of mechanisms in any engineering ma-
30. Acoustic Emission
30.3 Source Location ................................... 1215
30.4 Sources of Emissions
and Materials Behavior ........................ 1216
30.4.1 Plastic Deformation of Metals ..... 1217
30.4.2 Fracture and Crack Growth ......... 1218
30.4.3 Fiber Fracture and Delamination
of Composite Materials............... 1221
30.4.4 Rock and Concrete Fracture ........ 1222
30.4.5 Other Emission Sources .............. 1223
30.5 Structural Integrity Monitoring ............. 1224
30.5.1 Fiber-Reinforced Composite
Pressure Vessels, Tanks,
and Piping ............................... 1224
30.5.2 Metal Pressure Vessels, Tanks,
and Piping ............................... 1225
30.5.3 Aerospace ................................ 1225
30.5.4 Geological Structures ................. 1226
30.5.5 Bridges .................................... 1226
References .................................................. 1227
yielding regions in alloys and at delamination, and
fiber and matrix cracks in fiber-reinforced compos-
ites. Other active sources of AE include fretting at
extant flaws, especially in concrete structures, leaks
of pressurized fluids, and hydrogen gas evolution in
aqueous corrosion. All these AE phenomena provide
the foundation of sensitive, nondestructive evaluation
Part H 30
methods and an effective tool in structural health moni-
toring [30.8].
terials and structures. AE is also reported in bones and
teeth [30.11] and its use for biomedical studies has ex-
panded to knee and hip joints [30.12, 13] and to soft
tissues and ligaments [30.14–16]. Mechanical deforma-
tion and fracture are the primary sources of AE, while
1210 Part H Engineering Acoustics
phase transformation, corrosion, friction, and magnetic
processes, among others, also produce AE [30.17, 18].
The elastic waves then travel through the structure to
a sensor. Wave propagation and attenuation greatly af-
fect 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 struc-
tures, the surface wave is often the dominant mode of
propagation, while fluids in tanks and pipes carry waves
efficiently over long distances [30.1]. Wave attenuation
poses serious problems to AE detection in polymeric
materials and biological tissues [30.19]. Weak electri-
cal signals produced by the sensor are amplified and
characterized, relying on the waveform shape, inten-
sity, 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 [30.1, 20].
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 struc-
ture or component. Since AE signals can usually travel
over a long distance, the entire structure can be exam-
ined in a single test sequence, e.g., during preservice
30.2 Acoustic Emission Signals
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,
Amplitude (mV)
4 sor. Continuous-type emissions are produced by many
Rise
Peak
2
Duration
0 feres with AE measurements at lower frequencies, while
Part H 30.2
–2
–4
0 164 328
Time (µs)
Fig. 30.1 A representative burst acoustic emission signal
waveform of the transverse matrix crack from a cross-
ply carbon fiber composite test. 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),
and PAC WD wideband sensor (after [30.25])
or periodic inspection. AE can continuously monitor
the integrity of a structure in service. AE is a passive
test method, in that no direct excitation is applied, un-
like the ultrasonic test method. However, AE testing
does require the application of a certain stimulus to
a test piece. With bridges, live traffic and loaded trucks
are sufficient. In pressure vessels and piping, hydro-
static 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 the aerospace, petrochemical, and
transport industries [30.1, 3–6, 20].
Materials research is another area where AE is valu-
able because of its sensitivity to dynamic microscopic
processes [30.17,18]. 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). Increas-
ingly detailed modeling offers new insights in gaining
the understanding of AE mechanisms and AE signal
propagation [30.21–24].
fiber fracture and delamination. A representative ex-
ample from a cross-ply composite test is shown in
Fig. 30.1, in which commonly used signal features are
indicated [30.25]. It has a sharp rise, followed by an ex-
ponential decay. This ringing pattern arises from various
resonances in a structure and the resonance of the sen-
overlapping events and observed from the plastic de-
formation of metals and from liquid or gas leaks. For
typical structural monitoring, ultrasonic frequencies of
30 kHz to 2 MHz are detected. Air-borne noise inter-
signal attenuation makes the higher frequency range dif-
ficult to use. In industrial composite testing, the upper
frequency limit is 300 kHz [30.26, 27]. 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 [30.2, 19].
30.2.1 AE Signals and Source Functions
An AE signal contains the information on its source,
the propagation medium (sample or structure), AE
 Acoustic Emission 30.2 Acoustic Emission Signals 1211

sensor, and electrical instrument used. These can be ex-
pressed by the characteristic or transfer functions of
the source, propagation medium, sensor, and electron-
ics (Hs , Hm , Ht , and He ), respectively [30.17,18]. In the
time domain, the source function of a crack is force or
displacement versus 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 Green’s function) to rep-
resent 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 .
Figure 30.2 shows an example from a model signal in
a fiber composite [30.23]. While the AE source is given
as a smoothly decreasing function with frequency, the
medium has the major effect on the final signal de-
tected. 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 sensors are employed and the first motions
of signals are clearly recorded [30.28–30]. However,
this approach is limited and impractical for most ap-
plications. AE signals detected with a wideband sensor
can still be classified according to the generating source
types by means of pattern recognition 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 elastody-
namic formulation or finite element analysis for certain
geometries [30.9, 10, 21, 22]. By varying source pa-
rameters (rise time and source strength or the product
of displacement amplitude and source area), a simu-
lated waveform can be matched to the observed one
(30.1) for specific test geometry. Elastodynamic displacement
solutions assuming smooth-rising source functions of
varying rise time are given in terms of dislocation mo-
tion, or by using a moment tensor, which is commonly
used in geophysics [30.3–5, 9, 10, 31]. Such model-
ing is most useful for obtaining details of a source
by seeking the best fit of calculated and observed
waveforms. This forward-processing scheme avoids the
deconvolution procedure, which is prone to instability
in the presence of noise. This method has been used
successfully in analyzing various AE signal types in

Norm. FFT-magnitude Norm. FFT-magnitude Norm. FFT-magnitude

1 1 1
0.9
0.8 Source Material and Sensor
0.7 geometry 0.1
0.1
0.6

0.5 0.01
0.01
0.4
0.001

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Frequency (kHz) Frequency (kHz) Frequency (kHz)

Norm. FFT-magnitude Norm. FFT-magnitude

Part H 30.2
1 1

Amplifier Recorded acoustic

0.1
0.1
emission signal

0.01

0.01
0.001

0.001
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000
Frequency (kHz) Frequency (kHz)
Fig. 30.2 Normalized magnitude of fast Fourier transform (FFT) of various transfer functions in the frequency domain
in log-linear plots (0–2 MHz) (after [30.23])
1212 Part H Engineering Acoustics

Displacement (× 10–12 m) Displacement (× 10–12 m) Displacement (× 10–12 m)

3 2
No. 1 S 4 No. 2 No. 3
2
1 0
2 S
0 SP
P –2
–1 0
–2 P SP –4
–2
–3
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (µs) Time (µs) Time (µs)
Source location (–0.52, –4.07, –0.86) Source location (–10.63, –0.24, –0.5) Source location (–19.7, –5.31, –3.1)
Propagation distance 7.2 mm Propagation distance 12 mm Propagation distance 12 mm
ΔTpr = 0.85 µs ΔUp = 1 × 10–12 m ΔTpr = 0.35 µs ΔUp = 1 .9 × 10–12 m ΔTpr = 0.55 µs ΔUp = 3.79 × 10–12 m

Displacement (× 10–12 m) Displacement (× 10–12 m) Displacement (× 10–12 m)

3 2
S
2 Mode II 4 Mode I S Point of dilation
SP 0
1 2
0
P –2
–1 0
–2 P –4
–2 SP
–3
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (µs) Time (µs) Time (µs)
ΔTpr = 0.8 µs ΔUp = 1 .22 × 10–16 m ΔTpr = 0.2 µs ΔUp = 1 .4 × 10–16 m ΔTpr = 1.1 µs ΔUp = 8.6 × 10–16 m

Fig. 30.3 Observed and matched calculated waveforms with source parameters. Unidirectional glass fiber composite test
(after [30.32])

composite materials under loading [30.32]. For exam-
ple, Fig. 30.3 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
Crack volume (×10–16 m3 )
6 in addition to shear cracks, which are the focus in seis-
22 m/s
5 6.5 m/s
2.3 m/s
Part H 30.2
function, crack velocity estimates were also obtained
(Fig. 30.4) [30.32].
The use of the moment-tensor representation of
a source function leads to moment tensor analysis or
moment tensor inversion [30.3–5]. This method is an
extension of a similar method used in geophysics, but
in AE applications it is important to find tensile cracks
b1 (µm)
7 mology. It relies on the first arriving P-waves at multiple
sensor locations and obtains the tensile and shear com-
6 ponents of the source motion. This approach is most

suited for large civil engineering structures. In concrete

4 5
and rock testing, the source types of AE during crack
4 propagation have been identified (Fig. 30.5) [30.33]. In
3
most other materials testing, however, sample sizes are
3 too small to use this method.
2 The use of 3-D finite element analysis (FEA) is
2 effective in characterizing AE signals and their propaga-
1
1
Fig. 30.4 Crack volume versus source rise time, giving the
0 0 average crack velocity of 6.5 m s−1 . Data points are within
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 the zone between crack velocities of 2.3 and 22 m s−1 (af-
Source rise time (µs)
ter [30.32]) 
 Acoustic Emission 30.2 Acoustic Emission Signals 1213

Frequency (kHz)
2000
0

1600 0.67×10–5

1.34 ×10–5
1200
2.01 ×10–5
800
2.68 ×10–5
S0
400 A0 3.35 ×10–5

Fig. 30.5 Results of moment tensor analysis of acoustic-
emission signals from simulated corrosion cracks in a large
concrete block. Arrows indicate stress direction and disks
mark the plane of crack. Pink: tensile; blue: mixed mode;
yellow: shear crack (after [30.33])
tion. A wide range of AE signals generated and propa-
gated on a plate, both isotropic metals and anisotropic
composites, are analyzed [30.21–24]. The completed
modeling includes Lamb waves generated by an artifi-
cial source in thin and thick plates, the effects of the
source rise time, monopole versus dipole sources, plate
thickness, and plate width. The FEA method is espe-
cially valuable for modeling interior AE sources as these
cannot be simulated experimentally. Figure 30.6 shows
a result of Lamb wave propagation of 50 mm from a fi-
nite crack source at the mid-plane in a carbon-fiber
composite plate. This signal essentially comprises the
symmetric Lamb wave mode as the crack opening dis-
placement is in the direction of the propagation [30.24].
30.2.2 Sensors
0
Amplitude (fm)
0.4
0.2
0
–0.2
–0.4
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Time (ms)
Fig. 30.6a,b 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
S0 mode (zeroth order symmetric Lamb mode). (b) waveform of
displacement, normal to the plate [30.24]
of a few tens of kV s/m−1 , these are 20–40 dB more
sensitive than those used for conventional ultrasonic
testing. Given a resonant AE sensor with 10.5 kV s/m
peak sensitivity at 200 kHz (−70 dB in reference to
1 V μbar−1 ), a 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 sen-
sitivity is to place a high impedance amplifier within
the sensor housing. This eliminates the effects of ca-
ble capacitance, allowing the use of long sensor cables.
The frequency responses of AE sensors are usually
characterized (face-to-face) against a secondary stan-

Acoustic emission sensors typically employ a disk of
piezoelectric ceramic or crystal and respond to velocity
or acceleration normal to the face of a sensor. One type
has a broadened frequency 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 with-
out using a backing material. These are resonant or
narrowband sensors and are employed most often in
AE testing because of their high sensitivity. Typical
resonant AE sensors have peak velocity sensitivities
Part H 30.2
dard using compressional waves at normal incidence.
For many applications, however, surface or plate waves
are dominant and their movements normal to the sur-
face are detected, and the size of a sensor affects its
responses through the aperture effect. Proper sensor se-
lection for frequency ranges or wave modes improves
the sensitivity of AE detection. For concrete, rocks,
and geotechnical applications, low frequency sensors,
such as geo-phones, hydrophones, and accelerometers
are also used. These can have flat frequency responses
and some have good directionality, allowing the con-
struction of tri-axial sensors [30.2–6].
1214 Part H Engineering Acoustics

Sensor response (dB) (relative to 1 V/nm) Sensor response (dB) (relative to 1 V/nm)
20 20
a) Glaser b) PAC R15
0 0

–20 –20

–40 –40

Position 1 - ball drop Position 1 - ball drop

–60 Position 1 - capillary –60 Position 1 - capillary
Position 2 - ball drop Position 2 - ball drop
Position 2 - capillary Position 2 - capillary
–80 –80
101 102 103 101 102 103
Frequency (kHz) Frequency (kHz)
Sensor response (dB) (relative to 1 V/nm) Sensor response (dB) (relative to 1 V/nm)
20 20
c) PAC NANO30 d) DW B1025
0 0

–20 –20

–40 –40
Position 1 - ball drop
Position 1 - ball drop Position 1 - capillary
–60 Position 1 - capillary –60 Position 2 - ball drop
Position 2 - ball drop Position 2 - capillary
Position 2 - capillary Velocity ref. line
–80 –80
101 102 103 101 102 103
Frequency (kHz) Frequency (kHz)

Fig. 30.7 (a) Frequency response of a conical sensor of Glaser design showing flatness over 10 kHz to 1 MHz. (b,c)
Narrowband AE sensor responses for PAC-R15 and PAC nano30. (d) A broadband velocity response of DW B1025
(after [30.37])

Surface displacements are also measured using a ca-
pacitive sensor or a laser interferometer. Both serve an
important role in sensor calibration, although these are
still impractical for field use due to difficulty of han-
Part H 30.2
under test is placed at a symmetric position to the ca-
pacitive sensor standard (or a laser interferometer). For
a working calibration of the AE measuring system, the
breaking of pencil lead (0.3 ≈ 0.5 mm outer diameter)

dling and surface preparation (capacitive sensor) and to
their large size, high cost, and low sensitivity (interfer-
ometer). 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 outer diameter) [30.34, 35].
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 sur-
face waves that match well with theoretical predictions.
Peak surface displacements of ≈ 0.15 nm are gener-
ated at 0.1 m from the capillary break. Here, a sensor
has been used effectively. This is known as the Hsu–
Nielsen source and generates ≈ 1 N force drop over
a 1 μs period [30.36].
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 the surface displacement detec-
tion. Proctor at NBS (now NIST) used a small element
with matched backing and obtained a flat (±3 dB) re-
sponse to 2 MHz [30.38]. 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 [30.29, 37]. The frequency response of the most
recent design by Glaser exhibits exceptional flatness in
over 10 kHz to 1 MHz, as shown in Fig. 30.7a [30.37],
which also shows two other narrowband AE sensor re-
sponses with resonances (Fig. 30.7b,c) and a broadband
velocity response (Fig. 30.7d).
30.2.3 Signal Characterization
Characteristics of the acoustic-emission signals in com-
mon use are:
1. AE event count (and AE event rates): the number
(and rates) of burst-type emissions (in multisensor
AE detection systems, the term hit is used in place
of event since a single AE event can reach more than
one sensor and is counted each time).
2. The averaged signal intensity of continuous-type
emissions (e.g., root mean square (rms) voltages of
amplified signals).
3. The peak amplitude.
4. Rise time.
5. Duration of burst emissions (defined with the
threshold).
6. The signal strength of burst emission (area of the
signal envelope, Fig. 30.1 for the definition of 3.–5.).
30.3 Source Location
A major goal of acoustic-emission testing is to deter-
mine the location of active flaws in a structure. AE
testing uses the structure itself to discover disconti-
nuities through the generation and propagation of AE
signals, which can be continuous (e.g., fluid/gas leaks
and fretting) or burst emissions (e.g., metal 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. Figure 30.8
shows typical sensor placements on a storage tank when
complete coverage is desired in AE testing [30.40, 41].
In most applications, the structures can be regarded
as a two-dimensional shell structure, 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 locally on large structures, when expected
damage locations can be anticipated. It is common
Acoustic Emission 30.3 Source Location 1215
In addition, the distributions of peak amplitude,
rise time, and duration are also obtained, as well
as arrival time differences of burst emissions at dif-
ferent sensors [30.1–7]. Frequency-based parameters
are also useful. These include peak frequency, me-
dian frequency, spectral centroid (or mean frequency),
and partial powers for various frequency bands. These
signal parameters can be acquired in real time with
dedicated hardware. The duration of typical burst emis-
sions is 0.1–1 ms, however, at most several thousand
signals per second can be distinguished from a sensor.
For higher rates of emissions, average intensity mea-
surements are utilized. By recording acoustic-emission
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 narrowband sensors are used. These fea-
tures are also used in constructing intelligent classifiers
of pattern recognition analysis [30.23, 25, 39]. Com-
binations of these and other test parameters, such as
applied force or pressure, time under load, and ground
tilt and displacement are used to evaluate the nature of
AE sources.
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 exam-
ple [30.42].
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
Part H 30.3
the first hit signal or receiving the strongest AE signal
(typically in peak amplitude). 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 subdivision is equal
to that of surrounding sensors. When the amplitudes
of the signals received are measured, further improve-
ments in source location accuracy are possible through
1216 Part H Engineering Acoustics
29.9 m
8 mm
7.0 m
26.3 m 7.0 m
7.0 m
11.4 mm
2.6 m
= AE sensor
5.9 m 16 sensors
(Typ) Each row
(64 total)
Fig. 30.8 Typical acoustic-emission sensor placements on
a storage tank (after [30.40, 41])
an interpolation technique by taking the attenuation into
account [30.40, 41].
In a discrete source location, the full spatial co-
ordinates of an AE source are defined by measuring
the differences in arrival times of AE signals at mul-
tiple sensors. The AE signals must be burst-type and
strong enough to reach three or more sensors. In atten-
uating media, the sensor spacing must be sufficiently
small. Generally, the wave velocity is assumed constant
and triangulation techniques are used. A pair of sen-
sors 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 hyper-
bolae. Hundreds of sources per second can be located
by typical AE instruments. For this method to be prac-
tical, 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.
Part H 30.4
Several source location algorithms are available in mod-
ern AE systems for optimizing the results [30.44, 45].
A number of more sophisticated algorithms from seis-
mology are also adopted, especially in the geotechnical
30.4 Sources of Emissions and Materials Behavior
Plastic deformation of most structural alloys gener-
ates acoustic emission that reaches a maximum at or
near the yield stress and diminishes with work hard-
a) Sensors b)
–90° view – Back view 90° view – Front view
Locations of energetic events
Fig. 30.9a,b Distribution of energetic acoustic-emission
events in a 24 h period before the final fracture. Kevlar
composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) (af-
ter [30.43])
field. The accurate determination of signal arrival times,
or signal onset, is also important in assuring good
source location. Several automatic onset pickers have
been incorporated, but one based on the Akaike infor-
mation criterion is best suited for AE signals [30.6].
Another important source location approach uses ori-
entation and propagation-mode dependence of wave
velocity [30.45–47], in particular, those of plate waves
that are dominant in thin composite structures [30.48].
In order to evaluate the severity of an AE source,
the intensity and activity of the source and its proxim-
ity 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 Fe-
licity ratios (FR) during load cycling [30.49]. Statistical
analysis, e.g., amplitude distribution, of AE signals re-
ceived at individual sensors is also useful. An example
of a located source display is given in Fig. 30.9. This
spherical vessel is a carbon-fiber composite, subjected
to stress rupture testing. Clusters of energetic events
were detected in the final day of a 250-day test prior
to failure [30.43].
ening (4340 steel; Fig. 30.10) [30.50–52]. AE from
plastic deformation is due to dislocation motion, and
AE signals are of the continuous type. Purely elastic
 Acoustic Emission 30.4 Sources of Emissions and Materials Behavior 1217

Vrms (µV) Stress (GPa) Stress (MPa) AE rms voltage (µV)

3 1000
4340 steel
1.2 20
800
2
a) b)
600
0.6 Stress
1 10
400

¼ ½1 5 10 15 20
Strain (%)
0 0
0 10 20
Nominal strain (%)
Fig. 30.10 Acoustic-emission behavior of 4340 steel, oil
quenched and annealed at 600 ◦ C. Acoustic-emission in-
tensity is measured using rms voltages. See insert for strain
values (after [30.52])
deformation produces no AE. Once the work hard-
ening begins, the AE activities subside and the rms
voltage is only slightly above the background with occa-
sional spikes due to burst emissions (Fig. 30.10). These
burst emissions originate from microcracks or from
the fracture and decohesion of nonmetallic inclusions.
The latter is active in short transverse loading, even
from the preyield elastic region (Fig. 30.11a) [30.53].
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.
AE
200
0 0
0 1.25 2.5 0 1.25 2.5
Crosshead displacement (mm)
Fig. 30.11 (a) Acoustic-emission behavior of A533B steel,
quenched and tempered at 550 ◦ C. Loaded in short
transverse orientation, showing inclusion-induced acous-
tic emission in the elastic region. (b) Immediate reloading
after the first loading in (a). Kaiser effect is observed (af-
ter [30.53])
30.4.1 Plastic Deformation of Metals
Figure 30.12 shows AE behavior of a copper single
crystal, deformed at 300 K [30.54]. The stress–strain
plot shows typical three-stage behavior, while AE en-
ergy peaked at the start of Stage II. Median frequency
was ≈ 250 kHz in Stage I; it increased with decreas-

10 6 600
Stress σ (MPa)

AE energy (µV2 s)

Median frequency fmed (kHz)

Stress
AE energy
5
8 AE median frequency
500

Part H 30.4
4
6
3 400
4
2
300
2
1

0 0 200 Fig. 30.12 Acoustic-emission be-

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Strain ε havior of a copper single crystal
deformed at 300 K (after [30.54])
1218 Part H Engineering Acoustics
ing AE energy in Stage II and jumped at Stage III. This
trend developed from the reduced glide distance of dis-
locations with work hardening and the resultant increase
in the number of glide loops. Solid solution alloying
shows a reduction in the intensity of AE, which is at-
tributed to the raised frictional stress due to solution
hardening, which in turn increases median frequency as
more dislocations are needed to account for the reduced
dislocation velocity [30.54, 55].
Acoustic emission phenomena are irreversible.
When a sample is deformed, unloaded, and reloaded,
it emits no AE until the previously applied load is
exceeded. This is known as the Kaiser effect. This be-
havior is illustrated in Fig. 30.11a,b where a sample was
loaded, unloaded, and reloaded immediately [30.53].
The Kaiser effect is useful for the determination of
a prior loading level, but it 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 ac-
tivity is suppressed; often it is eliminated completely
as these have high dislocation densities, which limits
glide distances. When the grain size is reduced, AE in-
tensity often increases along with the strength. Other
factors may, however, override the grain size effect.
In most precipitation-hardened alloys, AE intensity de-
creases with aging. In Al alloys, peak AE intensity at
yield decreases 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 disloca-
tions or hard precipitates, the mean free path of mobile
dislocations is reduced. When an individual glide mo-
tion of the mobile dislocations is restricted, the AE
intensity diminishes even though the number of such
mobile dislocations increases, raising the median fre-
quency [30.17, 18, 50, 51].
The test temperature affects the AE behavior of ma-
terials undergoing plastic deformation. In pure metals
Part H 30.4
and dilute alloys, the peak AE level at yield initially in-
creased by 50 to 100% with the test temperature, but
decreased above T/Tm of 0.3–0.4, where Tm is the ab-
solute melting temperature. In normalized steels, the
AE level at yield increased fivefold over −150–150 ◦ C,
while the yield strength decreased by 30%. AE from
austenitic stainless steels increased 10–20 times from
room temperature to 1000 K, 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 [30.17, 18].
Dynamic strain aging or the Portevin–Le Chatelier
effect produces repeated load drops from the locking
and unlocking of gliding dislocations. This effect is
prominent at room temperature in Al alloys, while in
steels, it causes so-called blue-brittleness at ≈ 300 ◦ C.
These load drops or serrations result in AE intensity
fluctuations [30.50, 51]. Similarly, Lüders deformation
in steel also exhibits high AE activity, as shown in
Fig. 30.10. 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 significant AE sources during tensile loading of
steels in the short-transverse direction and of most high
strength Al alloys. In steels, decohesion of MnS in-
clusions is the most important (Fig. 30.11a). These are
burst-type emissions and their number is proportional
to the inclusion content. 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 frac-
ture of Al-Si-Fe and other nonmetallic inclusions causes
most AE observed, often masking the AE activity at
yielding. Here, inclusion-induced acoustic emission is
of continuous-type, since many small particles con-
tribute to the overall activity [30.17, 18, 50, 51].
30.4.2 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 engineer-
ing structures. This application has been and remains
the major driving force of AE technology develop-
ment [30.1, 20].
Brittle solids under tension or in bending, including
ultra-high strength steels and ceramics, often generate
only a small number (< 100) of AE signals just be-
fore final fracture [30.17, 18]. Subcritical crack growth
is minimal, which limits the AE activities. This be-
havior is unfortunate because these materials are most
likely to fail suddenly and the need for preventing such
failures is the greatest. However, 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 refer-
ence to 1 μV at the sensor. (This is often denoted as
60 dBAE .) In some brittle materials, subcritical crack
 Acoustic Emission 30.4 Sources of Emissions and Materials Behavior 1219

log ΣNAE Acoustic emission event counts

5 2000

4
200
Brittle steel
b=1
Alumina
3
20
HT80 Ductile steel
2 b = 1.65

SNCM8
1 Peak amplitude (mV)
D6ac
0 steel for brittle (quenched) and ductile (tempered) condi-
0 1 2 3
log KI (MPa m)
Fig. 30.13 Acoustic-emission event counts increase with
stress intensity factor
growth (or the fracture process zone ahead of the crack
tip) is found. During subcritical crack growth, AE event
counts increase in proportion to the m-th √ power of stress
intensity factor K I , which is equal to Y σ a, where Y is
a geometrical factor, σ stress, and a the crack length;
Nc = A(K I )m , (30.2)
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,
Nc = B(Vp )−b , (30.3)
where Vp is the peak amplitude, and 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. 30.13). The
2
0.01 0.1 1 10
Fig. 30.14 Amplitude distribution of burst AE of A533B
tions (after [30.56])
volved. That is, in addition to those mentioned above,
low energy tear, alternating shear, and microvoid coa-
lescence are observed. Again, AE event counts increase
with the stress intensity factor according to (30.2) with
higher m values of 3–20 (Fig. 30.13) and a power law
amplitude distribution of (30.3) with b = 0.7–1.5. The
exponent m often increases as K I approaches the frac-
ture criticality. Transition in microfracture mechanisms
can be reflected more clearly by plotting cumulative
AE energy against JI (Fig. 30.15). Here, AE energy is
defined as the square of the peak amplitude, and JI
is given by (1 − ν)K I2 /E, where E and ν are Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio. The transition is sharp
log EAE (mV2)
3
4340-Q 4340-6
2024 Al

Part H 30.4
2 0.5 Mo
values of b in brittle materials (alumina, quenched
steels) are 0.5–1, while ductile steels showed b of 1–2
(Fig. 30.14) [30.17, 18, 56]. When plastic flow occurs at SNCM8
the crack tip or when inclusion failure occurs, different 1
distribution laws (Weibull types) were found [30.56].
When the J-integral (JI ) values increase from 2 to A533B
200 kN/m, as in high strength Al and Ti alloys and in
high strength steels, AE signals are produced as the 0
plastic zone ahead of the crack tip expands. AE ac- 0 1 2
log JI (kN/m)
tivity becomes significant with many high amplitude
emissions (> 60 dB) when the crack starts to grow. In Fig. 30.15 Cumulative AE energy against JI for steels and
this stage, various mechanisms of microfracture are in- 2024 Al (data from [30.17] and others)
1220 Part H Engineering Acoustics
when cleavage microcracks initiate as in SNCM8 and
as-quenched 4340 steels (4340-Q), but is also visible
when fibrous microfracture begins as in 2024Al, 0.5Mo,
A533B, and quenched and tempered (at 600 ◦ C) 4340
(4340-6) steels [30.17, 18].
Higher fracture toughness materials typically fail
under plane stress conditions by microvoid coalescence
and shear mechanisms with some tearing. In these duc-
tile solids, the expansion of plastic zones ahead of
the crack tip initially generates AE, with AE activ-
ity reaching a maximum at general yield just like the
AE behavior of plastic deformation. This is the weak-
est among fracture-related AE with a 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 ),
which reflects the high microscopic ductility of the
materials.
In moderate to high fracture toughness materials,
nonmetallic inclusions exert a substantial influence on
the AE behavior. The decohesion of MnS inclusions
emits moderately strong AE (a peak 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. 30.11a [30.53]. Plastic flow and fracture
Crack growth rate da /dN (m/cycle) Cumulative AE counts
1000
10–6
10–7
500
10–8
Part H 30.4
AE counts
Region II total 587
10–9
Region III
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
Maximum stress intensity factor Kmax (MPa m)
Fig. 30.16 Fatigue crack growth rate ( da/ dN) and AE
(event) counts against K max for SUJ2 steel f = 20 Hz,
R = 0.1. : ΔK increasing test; : ΔK decreasing test;
solid line: da/ dN = 1.35 × 10−10 ΔK 2.25 (after [30.57])
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. 30.16, AE activity is low in Region
II (the Paris law) fatigue crack growth. As Region III
fatigue begins, AE counts rise [30.57]. 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 K max levels. In [30.57], the√crack was trans-
granular until K max exceeded 8 MPa m (near Region
III). Above this level, the crack became intergranu-
lar 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 condi-
tions. In cyclically loaded structures, similar trends have
been found. For welded steel cruciform under cyclic
loading, da/ dN and dU/ dN (= integrated AE en-
log(da /dN), log(dU/dN)
8
log(dU/dN) = 6.09 log(ΔK) – 6.65
6 log(da/dN) = 3.37 log(ΔK) – 9.72
4
2
0
–2
–4
–6
–8
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
log(ΔK)
Fig. 30.17 Fatigue crack growth rate ( da/ dN) and AE en-
ergy per cycle ( dU/ dN) follow power laws against ΔK
(after [30.58])
 Acoustic Emission
ergy per cycle) follow similar power laws against ΔK
(Fig. 30.17) [30.58].
Once a crack develops, different types of AE are
emitted as a function of loading cycle phase:
1. Near a peak tensile load, AE due to crack growth
and inclusion fracture is observed.
2. 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.
3. As the load increases again, crack faces that had
stuck together separate, producing AE.
All three types of fatigue AE can be used in de-
tecting 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 concentrate at the maximum load
toward the end of fatigue loading. For the detection of
fatigue cracking, frictional AE due to fretting and crack
face separation are important. In addition, particles of
oxides and various corrosion products often form be-
tween the crack faces. Their subsequent fracture also
contributes to AE due to fatigue [30.1].
30.4.3 Fiber Fracture and Delamination of
Composite Materials
Most composite materials in current use are rein-
forced by glass and carbon fibers, which take various
forms, such as short random fibers, mats, woven rov-
ings, and continuous fibers. Aerospace composites use
higher modulus carbon and aramid fibers. Matrix ma-
terials include thermosetting plastics (polyester and
epoxy) and thermoplastics (polypropylene and polysul-
fone). These resin-matrix composites are difficult to
inspect with conventional nondestructive test methods
and AE has been used widely. Main sources of emis-
sions are fiber fracture, delamination (matrix cracks
between reinforcement layers), splitting (matrix cracks
parallel to fibers), and transverse matrix cracks [30.59].
When unidirectionally reinforced composites are
stressed, fiber fracture and matrix cracks contribute 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 lo-
cally above 50% of the fracture load of the composites
and produce low amplitude (30–60 dBAE ) emissions,
which reflects their smaller diameters and lower frac-
ture strain. The rate of emissions increases rapidly as
the final fracture load is approached, similarly to the
30.4 Sources of Emissions and Materials Behavior 1221
behavior of brittle solids. Near the final fracture, high
amplitude, long duration signals from splitting are also
observed. Delamination occurs when reinforcement
layers (called plies) have different fiber orientations or
notches. AE signals from delamination are the strongest
(50–130 dBAE peak amplitude) and have the longest
duration (0.1–10 ms) [30.59].
Most composite structures are fabricated with mul-
tiple plies with various combinations of reinforcement
orientations. When they are stressed, complex stress
patterns develop between reinforcing fibers and plies,
and copious emissions are generated, mainly from
the transverse matrix cracks and delamination. Dis-
crimination 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 discrim-
ination 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 [30.25, 39].
When a composite sustains damages, the Kaiser ef-
fect is no longer observed. FR is defined as a ratio of
the load, at which AE is observed upon reloading, to
the maximum prior load. FR is 1.0 or higher when the
composite is sound and decreases after severe loading.
As shown in Fig. 30.18, FR drops to 0.75 by stress-
ing to 80% of the fracture load in glass and carbon
Felicity ratio
1
0.9
Part H 30.4
0.8
Carbon fiber (UD)
Carbon fiber composite
Glass fiber composite
0.7
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Stress/fracture strength (%)
Fig. 30.18 FR versus applied stress normalized by the frac-
ture load in glass and carbon fiber reinforced composite
vessels. Results for unidirectional carbon fiber composite
retains high FR (data from [30.59] and others)
1222 Part H Engineering Acoustics

fiber reinforced composites. Such damage depends on

Felicity ratio
1 the ply sequence and is less in simpler ply structures;
FR3 = 0.0172 PI + 0.5 a unidirectional carbon fiber composite retains high fe-
(r2 = 0.342) licity ratios (> 0.9) up to 95% of the fracture load. The
0.9
FR2 = 0.0219 PI + 0.381 Felicity effect is a valuable tool in assessing compos-
(r2 = 0.914)
ite damages. An example is shown in Fig. 30.19, where
0.8 burst pressure-Felicity ratio correlation is given [30.60].
(D)
This applies to Kevlar-overwrapped pressure vessels,
0.7 which shows that this ratio can predict burst pressure
from AE testing at lower stress levels. While several
Cycle 2 other AE parameters have been used for this purpose
0.6 Cycle 3
since the earliest days of AE technology, the Felicity ef-
fect appears most promising. Yet a number of factors
70 80 90 100 110 120 130
influence FR ratio at burst, and more work is needed, as
Failure strength, PI (MPa)
is reviewed in [30.59].
Fig. 30.19 Burst pressure–felicity ratio correlation for
Kevlar COPV with different levels of impact damage (af- 30.4.4 Rock and Concrete Fracture
ter [30.60])
AE monitoring for mine safety is the oldest applica-
tion and started in the 1930s at the US Bureau of
Mines [30.2–6]. Rock fracture initiates throughout the
a) Deviatoric stress (MPa) Velocity (m/s)
650 6000
stressed region from uniformly distributed microcrack
A B C D E F nucleation. This stage corresponds to AE source loca-
520
5500 tions spread over the entire sample. At close to peak
stress, faults nucleate and propagate by the interaction
5000
390
of tensile microcracks, when a clustering of AE occurs
Deviatoric stress
Velocity 4500 and leads to an expanding fracture nucleus with concen-
260
trated AE activity. This becomes the fracture process
4000 zone of intense tensile cracking, followed by a region
130 of shear cracking [30.61]. These stages are shown in
3500
Fig. 30.20, where microcracks develop in A and B (ac-
0 3000 companied by 30% drop in sound velocity), the fracture
0 11 500 23 000 34 500 46 000 57 500 69 000 nucleus begins at C, and final fracture at F. Observed
Time (s)
AE locations for B, D, and F are indicated in the bottom
b) row. AE signal characteristics varied with crack devel-

Deviatoric stress (MPa) b-value

645 3.5
A B C D E
Part H 30.4

3
2.5
545
2
1.5
445 Deviatoric stress
B) 5100 –18 540 D) 31 950 – 58 500 F) 62 820 – 69 300 b-value 1
Time (s)
0.5
Fig. 30.20a,b Loading curve in deviatric stress and sound velocity 345 0
versus time for Westerly granite (a). Microcracks develop in A and 355 385 415 445 475 505 535
Time (s)
B with 30% drop in sound velocity. Fracture nucleus begins at C
and D. Final fracture at F. (b) Observed AE locations for B, D, and Fig. 30.21 AE signal characteristics, b values, decreased
F given in the bottom row (after [30.61]) with crack development (after [30.61])
 Acoustic Emission 30.4 Sources of Emissions and Materials Behavior 1223

Fig. 30.22 AE behavior of concrete

Load (kN) Number AE events
60 600
under repeat-loading (after [30.3])

50 500

40 400

30 300

20 200

10 100

0 0
9:35:00 9:55:00 10:15:00 10:35:00 10:55:00 11:15:00 11:35:00 11:55:00 12:15:00 12:35:00
Time (hh:mm:ss)

opment, which is revealed clearly in the decrease of b
values, as shown in Fig. 30.21 [30.61]. The b values
are above 1.5 until shear cracking develops and drop
suddenly when fracture is imminent. A similar trend
in b values was found in steel fracture, as noted in
Sect. 30.4.2.
Concrete fracture is similar to that of rock above.
Here, tensile microcracks initiate at large aggregates
that are mixed with a 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 during unloading in cyclically
stressed concrete. The AE behavior of concrete under
repeat loading is shown in Fig. 30.22 [30.3]. AE events
increase with load and even during unloading beyond
the fourth loading. The Felicity effect is found im-
mediately from the second loading and the load ratio
(this term is used in the concrete field in place of FR)
Calm ratio
Heavy
decreases to 0.3 at the seventh loading. This AE dur-
ing unloading is useful in concrete damage evaluation.
A calm ratio for a load cycle is defined as (unloading
AE activity)/(total AE activity of the particular load cy-
cle) [30.33]. In this case, it started to rise at the fourth
cycle (≈ 0.1) and reached a high value of 0.27 at the
seventh cycle. A low load ratio and a high calm ratio are
indicative of severe damage, while a high load ratio and
a low calm ratio correlate to minor damage, as shown
in Fig. 30.23 [30.33]. The frictional origin of AE during
unloading is manifested as low average frequency and
long duration of AE signals.
30.4.5 Other Emission Sources
Acoustic emission is observed under corrosion from hy-
drogen 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 deformation. The detection of hydrogen em-

Part H 30.4
0.15 damage
brittlement is one of the early applications of AE
techniques. During crack propagation due to hydrogen
0.1 embrittlement, high amplitude emissions are observed
and can be distinguished easily from the active path cor-
rosion process. The latter generates only a small number
0.05 of low amplitude emissions. The crack growth rate for
Intermediate Minor
damage damage stress corrosion cracking shows a three-stage behav-
0 ior with respect to the K I applied; that is, an initial
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 increase above a threshold K I , followed by a region
Load ratio
with a nearly constant rate and the final rise near the
Fig. 30.23 Concrete damage classification using the load critical K I . AE activities follow a similar trend [30.18,
and calm ratios of AE activity (after [30.33]) 62].
1224 Part H Engineering Acoustics
An exceptional stress corrosion AE involving poly-
thionic acid and stainless steels should be noted. 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) [30.62, 63]. Simultaneous monitoring of AE and
corrosion potential fluctuation helps clarify operative
corrosion mechanisms [30.63, 64].
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 welds in spot-welding can also be detected.
These in-process monitoring methods may avoid elec-
trical welding noise by using guard sensors and gating
circuits synchronized to the welding steps. Evalu-
ation of welds has been the primary goal of AE
monitoring of welded structures, such as pressure ves-
sels, tanks, and highway bridges. Defective welds can
30.5 Structural Integrity Monitoring
Modern AE technology grew from the need to in-
spect glass-fiber reinforced rocket motorcases in the
1960s [30.65]. It developed rapidly and was used ex-
tensively in the US space and defense industries. The
use of AE in the chemical industry followed. AE testing
procedures of fiber reinforced plastic vessels and piping
have been standardized [30.40, 41, 49, 59, 66].
30.5.1 Fiber-Reinforced Composite Pressure
Vessels, Tanks, and Piping
Test vessels and piping are typically pressurized to
110% of the maximum allowable working pressure
to locate substantial flaws. Using the zone location
method, AE activities of flaws within each zone are de-
tected and the zone represents the approximate position
Part H 30.5
of these flaws. Sensors are positioned to detect struc-
tural flaws at critical sections of the test vessel, i. e.,
high stress areas, geometrical discontinuities, nozzles,
and manways. Pressurization in AE testing of a ves-
sel 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 crite-
ria, including emissions during pressure hold periods,
FR, historic index (average signal strength of recent
events divided by that of all events), severity (average
signal strength of ten largest events), and high ampli-
be located by AE in real time or in post-tests and
further evaluated by other nondestructive test meth-
ods [30.1].
Monitoring of various machining or metal removal
processes detects tool wear, tool fracture, and cutting
conditions. These are based on AE due to friction be-
tween tool and chips or a workpiece, abnormal signals
from chipped tools, plastic deformation, and fracture
of chips. This application is important with automated
manufacturing processes. Other important AE sources
in metals include: martensitic transformation, solidifi-
cation (hot cracking), oxidation (oxide cracking and
spalling). Other sources are gas and fluid leakage, mag-
netization (AE equivalent of the Barkhausen effect),
corona discharges in power transformers, and friction
and rubbing noise from rotating machinery. AE also is
used in detecting crack initiation during scratch testing
of thin films [30.1, 18].
tude events. Emissions during hold indicate continuing
permanent damage and a lack of structural integrity.
For in-service vessels, an FR criterion (when it is less
than 0.95) is an important measure of previous dam-
age. The historic index is a sensitive measure to detect
a sudden increase in signal strength. Large severity val-
ues result from delamination, adhesive bond failure,
and crack growth. High amplitude events indicate struc-
tural (glass-fiber) damages, especially in new vessels.
AE testing of these tanks and vessels has been highly
successful 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. The AE-based ASME
Code Case has now been developed to provide the
accept-or-reject criteria using the curvatures of cumula-
tive events and energy curves [30.67–69]. Another prob-
lem for composite tanks is the inspection of liquefied
natural gas (LNG)/compressed natural gas (CNG) tanks
as well as self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) air
tanks. Technically, AE can be used for certain. However,
testing these tanks at low cost to assure extended 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 30.24 shows the stress rup-
ture life of three types of composite strands [30.70–73].
The poor stress rupture property of glass fibers is un-
derstandable, but even aramid (Kevlar) fiber loses 1/4

Ultimate tensile strength (%)
100
10% Specimen failure lines
90
80
70
Carbon (T-50S)
60 Kevlar
S-glass
50 –2
10 10–1 100 101 102 103 104
Time to failure (h)
Fig. 30.24 Stress rupture data for three types of fiber com-
posite strands (data from [30.70])
its strength in a few hundred hours. Recent stress rup-
ture data for Kevlar-overwrapped pressure vessels show
comparable behavior to that of Kevlar strands [30.70–
72]. 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 h [30.73]. The Felicity effect is the probable
basis for the AE method for remaining life estimation.
Research continues [30.59], but more work is needed.
30.5.2 Metal Pressure Vessels, Tanks,
and Piping
Acoustic emission testing of metallic tanks and pressure
vessels is conducted during pressurization. The tanks
and vessels are pressurized following applicable code
specifications. The maximum 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 ac-
tivities are low and AE test results should be evaluated
carefully. Once the metals are embrittled by the envi-
ronment 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 [30.1].
Highway gas-trailer tubes and chemical and petro-
chemical vessels are monitored with AE periodically
without the vessels being emptied, thus minimizing the
cost of testing. According to current industrial prac-
Acoustic Emission 30.5 Structural Integrity Monitoring 1225
Ch.1 0° Thickness (mm)
8.4–8.6
8.2–8.4
Ch.8 Ch.2 8–8.2
7.8–8
7.6–7.8
e 7.4–7.6
7.2–7.4
Ch.7 Ch.3
270° 90°
a
b d
Ch.6 c Ch.4
Ch.5 180°
Fig. 30.25 Tank bottom thickness data (in color) and ac-
tive AE clusters (a–e). Two AE clusters 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 ◦ C (af-
ter [30.74])
tice, the located flaws are usually confirmed by other
nondestructive test methods. Increasingly, however, AE
testing alone is used to evaluate tanks and pressure ves-
sels. For certain 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 accord-
ing to criteria similar to those for composite vessels.
These provide real-time indications of defective areas of
the pressure vessel being tested and prevent catastrophic
failure of the vessel. The identified defective areas are
then inspected using other test methods. Acoustic emis-
sion testing is applied on various types of vessels,
including ammonia spheres and tanks, hydroformer re-
actors, and catalytic cracking units [30.1, 75].
In condition monitoring of the bottom plates of
aged petroleum tanks, experience with standard AE test
methods was reviewed [30.76]. These often encounter
Part H 30.5
difficult conditions and have poor location accuracy.
Lamb wave-based methods can bring the needed im-
provements, accurately positioning corroded sections.
Correlations of active AE areas with thinned sections
are shown in Fig. 30.25 [30.74].
30.5.3 Aerospace
The first application of AE testing was to verify the
structural integrity of filament-wound Polaris rocket
motorcases in 1961 [30.65]. Hydrostatic testing of
rocket motorcases was instrumented using accelerom-
1226 Part H Engineering Acoustics
eters, audio recording, and sound analysis equipment.
Crack initiation and propagation were detected prior to
catastrophic failure. Later, burst pressure was success-
fully predicted based on AE data during proof testing.
The composite rocket motorcases are still successfully
inspected with the use of three (or four) 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
the 80% level. The AE behavior during the third cycle
is used to examine the Felicity effect and is the deter-
mining 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 the substan-
tial noise generated from structures that are joined
by numerous fasteners and from engines. For specific
components, however, AE can detect the presence of
cracks and incipient fracture. For surveillance of struc-
tural and fatigue damage of aircraft components during
limit load and fatigue testing, AE has demonstrated its
utility. All significant cracks were located during full-
scale fatigue testing, including those emanating from
bolt holes amid a wide range of spurious AE sources.
AE in curved fuselage panes of honeycomb sandwich
composites was monitored, showing the evolution of
notches and a good correlation with accumulated AE.
Strong AE from fiber damage was less than 5% of
the total AE events recorded [30.77]. AE indications
of damage severity vary depending on the particular
component, but include load hold emissions, FR, 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 observa-
tions. Other developments include fiber sensors capable
of being integrated into composite structures and ac-
tive surveillance schemes using AE sensing for damage
detection [30.78–80].
Part H 30.5
30.5.4 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 [30.2–6]. For this purpose many AE sen-
sors are placed in and around mine tunnels and monitor
low frequency (below several kHz) AE signals. A min-
ing operation itself can be a stimulus, as underground
rocks have numerous preexisting flaws and are under
geological pressure. Drilling exploratory holes ahead
of a mining region can also activate the areas of high
local stresses. Multichannel AE sensing has also been
applied to the evaluation of hydrofracturing in geother-
mal wells [30.81]. The stability of underground storage
caverns is another area of AE applications [30.5].
By using the Kaiser effect, underground stresses
may be estimated. Compressive stresses are applied on
a sample bored out from underground. When the previ-
ously existing stress is exceeded, AE activities increase
and the preexisting stress can be estimated. Since a high
compressive pressure always exists, the directionality of
stresses must be taken into account. However, loading
methods and relaxation after coring may have effects
on the results [30.82].
AE techniques have been applied to monitoring
the stability of highway slopes, tunnels, and landslide-
prone areas [30.2]. AE measurements utilize waveg-
uides 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. Be-
cause 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 [30.3–6].
30.5.5 Bridges
AE monitoring of thousands of steel bridges has been
conducted, providing operators ample warning of po-
tential disasters [30.83, 84]. Most test sites had no
fatigue indications, but a dozen or so had high AE ac-
tivity in a 10-year period. AE monitoring is applied
to selected locations, not globally to large structures.
These include: hanger connections, link pin connection,
copes and stringers, and stiffener to weld connection.
Loading is supplied by regular rail traffic. Other moni-
toring efforts are summarized in [30.85].
A recent example of large bridge monitoring used
600+ AE channels to monitor about 400 critical sites on
the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge [30.86]. 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 struc-
tural integrity evaluation exist, including off-shore oil
rigs, on-board rocket and spacecraft, continuous moni-
toring of rocket motorcases, cable-stayed bridges, wind
turbine blades, power plants, refinery, factory installa-
tions, and gas tanks. Details are usually inaccessible, but
some references are listed in [30.87–90].

References
30.1 R.K. Miller, E.V.K. Hill (Eds.): Acoustic Emission Test-
ing, Nondestructive Testing Handbook Vol. 6, 3rd
edn. (American Society for Nondestructive Testing,
Columbus 2005)
30.2 H.R. Hardy Jr.: Acoustic Emission/Microseismic
Activity, Vol. 1: Principles, Techniques and Geotech-
nical Applications (Balkema, Lisse 2003)
30.3 C.U. Grosse, L.M. Linzer: Signal-based acoustic
emission analysis. In: Acoustic Emission Testing,
Basics for Research – Applications in Civil Engi-
neering, ed. by C.U. Grosse, M. Ohtsu (Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg 2008) pp. 53–99, Chap. 5
30.4 C.U. Grosse, M. Ohtsu: Moment tensor analysis.
In: Acoustic Emission Testing, Basics for Re-
search – Applications in Civil Engineering, ed. by
C.U. Grosse, M. Ohtsu (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
2008) pp. 175–200, Chap. 8
30.5 G. Manthei, J. Eisenblätter: Acoustic emission in
study of rock stability. In: Acoustic Emission Test-
ing, Basics for Research – Applications in Civil
Engineering, ed. by C.U. Grosse, M. Ohtsu (Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg 2008) pp. 239–310, Chap. 11
30.6 J.H. Kurz, S. Köppel, L. Linzer, B. Schechinger,
C.U. Grosse: Source localization. In: Acoustic Emis-
sion Testing, Basics for Research – Applications
in Civil Engineering, ed. by C.U. Grosse, M. Ohtsu
(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2008) pp. 101–147,
Chap. 6
30.7 T. Kishi, M. Ohtsu, S. Yuyama (Eds.): Acoustic Emis-
sion – Beyond the Millenium (Elsevier, Amsterdam
2000)
30.8 M.R. Gorman: Acoustic emission in structural
health monitoring (SHM). In: Encyclopedia of
Structural Health Monitoring, ed. by C. Boller,
F.-K. Chang, Y. Fujino (Wiley, Hoboken 2009)
pp. 79–100, Chap. 4
30.9 M. Ohtsu, K. Ono: A generalized theory of acous-
tic emission and Green’s function in a half space,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 3, 27–40 (1984)
30.10 M. Ohtsu, K. Ono: The generalized theory and
source representations of acoustic emission,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 5, 124–133 (1986)
30.11 S. Shrivastava, R. Prakash: Assessment of bone
condition by acoustic emission technique: A re-
view, J. Biomed. Sci. Eng. 2, 144–154 (2009)
30.12 H. Chen: Discovery of Acoustic Emission Based
Biomarker for Quantitative Assessment of Knee
Joint Ageing and Degeneration. Ph.D. Thesis (Uni-
versity of Central Lancashire, Preston 2011)
30.13 M. Browne, A. Roques, A. Taylor: The acoustic emis-
sion technique in orthopaedics: A review, J. Strain
Anal. Eng. 40(1), 59–79 (2005)
30.14 C.D. Arvanitis, M.S. Livingstone, N. Vykhodtseva,
N. McDannold: Controlled ultrasound-induced
blood-brain barrier disruption using passive
Acoustic Emission References 1227
acoustic emissions monitoring, PLoS ONE 7(9),
e45783 (2012)
30.15 K.B. Chandren, L.F Mockros, J.M. Fildes, K.B. Chan-
dran, M.J. Vonesh, D.D. McPherson, A. Nagaraj,
C. Davidson: Vascular acoustic emission analysis in
a balloon angioplasty system, US Patent 5957950
(1999)
30.16 D.G. Aggelis, N.K. Paschos, N.M. Barkoula,
A.S. Paipetis, T.E. Matikas, A.D. Georgoulis: Rupture
of anterior cruciate ligament monitored by acous-
tic emission, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(6), EL217–222
(2011)
30.17 K. Ono: Current understanding of mechanisms of
acoustic emission, J. Strain Anal. Eng. 40(1), 1–15
(2005)
30.18 K. Ono: Acoustic emission in materials research –
A review, J. Acoust. Emiss. 29, 284–308 (2011)
30.19 A. Khan-Edmundson, G.W. Rodgers, T.B.F. Wood-
field, G.J. Hooper, J.G. Chase: Tissue attenuation
characteristics of acoustic emission signals for wear
and degradation of total hip arthoplasty implants,
8th IFAC Symp. Biol. Med. Syst. (BMS12), Biol. Med.
Syst. 8(1), 355–360 (2012)
30.20 K. Ono: Application of acoustic emission for struc-
ture diagnosis, Proc. 56 Sci. Conf., Kielce-Krynica
(PAN, Warsaw 2010) pp. 317–341
30.21 M.A. Hamstad, A. O’Gallagher, J. Gary: Model-
ing of buried monopole and dipole sources of
acoustic emission with a finite element technique,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 17, 97–110 (1999)
30.22 M.A. Hamstad: Some observations on Rayleigh
waves and acoustic emission in thick steel plates,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 27, 114–136 (2009)
30.23 M. Sause: Identification of Failure Mechanisms
in Hybrid Materials Utilizing Pattern Recognition
Techniques Applied to Acoustic Emission Signals.
Augsburg Univ. Dissertation (Mensch und Buch,
Berlin 2010)
30.24 M.G.R. Sause, S. Horn: Simulation of Lamb wave
excitation for different elastic properties and
acoustic emission source geometries, J. Acoust.
Emiss. 28, 142–154 (2010)
Part H 30
30.25 K. Ono, Q. Huang: Pattern recognition analysis
of acoustic emission signals, Progress in Acous-
tic Emission VII, ed. by T. Kishi, Y. Mori, M. Enoki
(Jpn. Soc. Non-Destructive Inspection, Tokyo 1994)
pp. 69–78
30.26 W.H. Prosser: Advanced AE techniques in compos-
ite materials research, J. Acoust. Emiss. 14, S1–S11
(1996)
30.27 K. Ono, A. Gallego: Attenuation of Lamb waves in
CFRP plates, J. Acoust. Emiss. 30, 109–121 (2012)
30.28 H.N.G. Wadley, C.B. Scruby: Acoustic emission
source characterization, Proc. Int. Conf. Acoust.
Emiss. (Dunhart, Knoxville 1981) pp. 125–153
1228 Part H Engineering Acoustics
30.29 D.J. Buttle, C.B. Scruby: Characterization of fatigue
of aluminum alloys by acoustic emission. Part I,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 9, 243–254 (1990)
30.30 D.J. Buttle, C.B. Scruby: Characterization of fatigue
of aluminum alloys by acoustic emission. Part II,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 9, 255–270 (1990)
30.31 M. Takemoto, H. Nishino, K. Ono: Wavelet trans-
form – Applications to AE signal analysis. In:
Acoustic Emission – Beyond the Millenium (Elsevier,
Amsterdam 2000) pp. 35–56
30.32 H. Suzuki, M. Takemoto, K. Ono: The fracture dy-
namics in a dissipative glass-fiber/epoxy model
composite with AE source simulation analysis,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 14, 35–50 (1996)
30.33 M. Ohtsu, T. Isoda, Y. Tomoda: Acoustic emission
techniques standardized for concrete structures,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 25, 21–32 (2007)
30.34 F. Breckenridge, C. Tscheigg, M. Greenspan: Acous-
tic emission: Some applications of Lamb’s problem,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 57, 626–631 (1975)
30.35 F.R. Breckenridge: Acoustic emission transducer
calibration by means of the seismic surface pulse,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 1(2), 87–94 (1982)
30.36 N. Hsu: Acoustic emission simulator, US Patent
4018084 (1975)
30.37 G.C. McLaskey, S.D. Glaser: Acoustic emission sen-
sor calibration for absolute source measurements,
J. Nondestruct. Eval. 31, 157–168 (2012)
30.38 T. Proctor: An improved piezoelectric acoustic
emission transducer, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 71, 1163–
1168 (1982)
30.39 A. Anastasopoulos: Pattern recognition techniques
for acoustic emission based condition assessment
of unfired pressure vessels, J. Acoust. Emiss. 23,
318–330 (2005)
30.40 T.J. Fowler: Acoustic emission testing of chem-
ical industry vessels, Progress in Acoustic Emission
II, ed. by M. Onoe, K. Yamaguchi, H. Takahashi
(Jpn. Soc. Non-Destructive Inspection, Tokyo 1984)
pp. 421–449
30.41 T.J. Fowler: Chemical industry applications of
acoustic emission, Mater. Eval. 50, 875–882
(1992)
30.42 D.E. Kosnik, T. Hopwood, D.J. Corr: Acoustic emis-
Part H 30
sion monitoring for assessment of steel bridge
details, AIP Conf. Proc. 1335, 1410–1417 (2011)
30.43 D. McColskey, M. Hamstad, R. Saulsberry, J. Waller:
Production/performance monitoring of composite
tanks NDE methods for certification and produc-
tion/performance monitoring of composite tanks,
Int. Hydrogen Fuel Press. Vessel Forum, Bei-
jing (2010), available online at http://www1.eere.
energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/ihfpv_
mccloseky.pdf
30.44 M. Ge: Analysis of source location algorithms,
Part I, J. Acoust. Emiss. 21, 14–28 (2003)
30.45 M. Ge: Analysis of source location algorithms,
Part II, J. Acoust. Emiss. 21, 29–51 (2003)
30.46 M.R. Gorman, W.H. Prosser: AE source orientation
by plate wave analysis, J. Acoust. Emiss. 9, 283–288
(1990)
30.47 K.M. Holford, D.C. Carter: Acoustic emission source
location, Key Eng. Mater. 167/168, 162–171 (1999)
30.48 L. Wang, F.G. Yuan: Group velocity and character-
istic wave curves of Lamb waves in composites:
Modeling and experiments, Compos. Sci. Technol.
67, 1370–1384 (2007)
30.49 T.J. Fowler, J.A. Blessing, P.J. Conlisk, T.L. Swanson:
The MONPAC system, J. Acoust. Emiss. 8, 1–10 (1989)
30.50 C.R. Heiple, S.H. Carpenter: Acoustic emission pro-
duced by deformation of metals and alloys –
A review, Part I, J. Acoust. Emiss. 6, 177–204 (2012)
30.51 C.R. Heiple, S.H. Carpenter: Acoustic emission pro-
duced by deformation of metals and alloys –
A review, Part II, J. Acoust. Emiss. 6, 215–229 (2012)
30.52 S.H. Carpenter, C. Pfleiderer: Acoustic emission
from AISI 4340 steel as a function of strength,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 12, 141–148 (1994)
30.53 I. Roman, H.B. Teoh, K. Ono: Thermal restoration
of burst emissions in A533B steel, J. Acoust. Emiss.
3(1), 19–26 (1984)
30.54 A. Vinogradov, V. Patlan, S. Hashimoto: Spectral
analysis of acoustic emission during cyclic defor-
mation of copper single crystals, Philos. Mag. A 81,
1427–1446 (2001)
30.55 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, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 341, 57–73 (2003)
30.56 H.B. Teoh, K. Ono: Fracture-induced acoustic
emission during slow bend tests of A533B steel,
J. Acoust. Emiss. 6(1), 1–18 (1987)
30.57 A. Yonezu, T. Ogawa, M. Takemoto: Fatigue frac-
ture dynamics of high strength steel studied by
acoustic emission technique, Progress in Acoustic
Emission XIII (Jpn. Soc. Non-Destructive Inspection,
Tokyo 2006) pp. 463–470
30.58 N. Nemati: Acoustic Emission Assessment of Steel
Bridge Details Subjected to Fatigue. Ph.D. Thesis
(University of Miami, Miami 2012)
30.59 K. Ono, A. Gallego: Research and applications of
AE on advanced composites, J. Acoust. Emiss. 30,
180–229 (2012)
30.60 J.W. Whittaker, W.D. Brosey, M.A. Hamstad: Cor-
relation of felicity ratio and strength behavior of
impact-damaged spherical composite test speci-
mens, J. Acoust. Emiss. 9, 84–90 (1990)
30.61 B.D. Thompson, R.P. Young, D.A. Lockner: Fracture
in westerly granite under AE feedback and constant
strain rate loading: Nucleation, quasi-static prop-
agation, and the transition to unstable fracture
propagation. In: Rock Damage and Fluid Trans-
port – Part I, ed. by G. Dresen, O. Stephansson,
A. Zang (Birkhäuser, Basel 2006) pp. 995–1019
30.62 M. Takemoto, H. Cho: Acoustic emission dur-
ing stress corrosion cracking test, 26th Eur. Conf.

Acoust. Emiss. Test. (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zer-
störungsfreie Prüfung, Berlin 2004) pp. 511–518,
Lecture 51
30.63 A. Yonezu, H. Cho, M. Takemoto: AE for suscepti-
bility evaluation of type 304 steel to polythionic
acid stress corrosion cracking, Progress in Acoustic
Emission XVIII (Jpn. Soc. Non-Destructive Inspec-
tion, Tokyo 2006) pp. 489–496
30.64 K. Kageyama, T. Ogawa, A. Yonezu, H. Cho, M. Take-
moto: AE and corrosion potential fluctuation (CPF)
for environmental assisted fracture, J. Acoust.
Emiss. 24, 127–138 (2006)
30.65 A.T. Green, C.S. Lockman, H.K. Haines: Acoustic ver-
ification of structural integrity of polaris chambers,
Mod. Plast. 41(11), 137–139 (1964)
30.66 ASME Boiler, Pressure Vessel Committee Section V:
Nondestructive Examination, Subcommittee on Fi-
ber Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels, 2004 Edition
with subsequent addenda (ASME, New York 2004)
30.67 N.L. Newhouse, G.B. Rawls, M.D. Rana, B.F. Shel-
ley, M.R. Gorman: Development of ASME Section X
code rules for high pressure composite hydro-
gen pressure vessels with non-load sharing liners,
Proc. 2010 ASME Press. Vess. Pip. Conf., PVP 2010
(ASME, New York 2010) p. 10, Paper No. PVP2010-
25349
30.68 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section X,
Fiber-reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels, Manda-
tory Appendix 8-620 and NB10-0601 (ASME, New
York 2012), Suppl. 9
30.69 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. Acoust. Emiss. 29, 1–28 (2011)
30.70 R.L. Moore, M.A. Hamstad, T.T. Chiao: Stress-
rupture behavior of graphite fiber/epoxy strands,
Compos. Mater. Struct. 3, 19–23 (1974)
30.71 Orbiter Kevlar/Epoxy Composite Overwrapped Pres-
sure Vessel Flight Rationale Technical Assessment
Report, Vols. I and II, NASA NESC Rep. RP-07-34
(2007)
30.72 J.B. Chang: Implementation Guidelines for ANSI/
AIAA S-081: Space Systems Composite Overwrapped
Pressure Vessels, Aerospace Rep. TR-2003(8504)-1,
AD A413531 (2003)
30.73 S.E. Groves, S.J. DeTeresa, R.J. Sanchez, M.A.
Zocher, R.M. Christensen: Accelerated Stress Rup-
ture Lifetime Assessment for Fiber Composites,
UCRL-ID-126454 (1997)
30.74 M. Takemoto, H. Cho, H. Suzuki: Lamb-wave
acoustic emission for condition monitoring of tank
bottom plates, J. Acoust. Emiss. 24, 12–21 (2006)
30.75 Monpac Technology issue, J. Acoust. Emiss. 8(3),
1–34 (1989)
30.76 G. Lackner, P. Tscheliesnig: Field testing of flat
bottomed storage tanks with acoustic emission –
Acoustic Emission References 1229
A review on the gained experience, J. Acoust.
Emiss. 22, 201–207 (2004)
30.77 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.
SPIE 6934, 1–16 (2008)
30.78 N. Takeda, S. Minakuchi: Recent development of
structural health monitoring technologies for air-
craft composite structures in Japan, Proc. 17th
Int. Conf. Compos. Mater. (ICCM-17), Edinburgh
(2009)
30.79 P. Cawley, M.J.S. Lowe, D.N. Alleyne, B. Pavlakovic,
P. Wilcox: Practical long range guided wave testing:
Application to pipes and rail, Mater. Eval. 61(1),
66–74 (2003)
30.80 T. Clarke, P. Cawley: Enhancing the defect local-
ization capability of a guided wave SHM system
applied to a complex structure, Struct. Health Mon-
itor. 10(3), 247–259 (2010)
30.81 H. Niitsuma: Acoustic emission/microseismic tech-
nique: Review of research in the 20th century and
future aspects. In: Acoustic Emission – Beyond the
Millenium (Elsevier, Amsterdam 2000) pp. 109–125
30.82 A. Lavrov: The Kaiser effect in rocks: Principles and
stress estimation techniques, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 40, 151–171 (2003)
30.83 J.A. Cavaco: Measures taken to mitigate the effects
of fatigue on critical railway bridges at Canadian
National, Bridge Struct. 3(1), 51–66 (2007)
30.84 D.R. Hay, J.A. Cavaco, V. Mustafa: Monitoring the
civil infrastructure with acoustic emission: Bridge
case studies, J. Acoust. Emiss. 27, 1–10 (2009)
30.85 A. Nair, S.S. Cai: Acoustic emission monitoring of
bridges: Review and case studies, Eng. Struct. 32,
1704–1714 (2010)
30.86 M.B. Johnson, D. Ozevin, G.A. Washer, K. Ono,
R.S. Gostautas, T.A. Tamutus: Real time steel fa-
tigue crack detection in eyebar using acoustic
emission method, J. Transp. Res. Board 2313, 72–79
(2012)
30.87 C. Allevato: The use of acoustic emission testing
on long term monitoring of damaged component,
Proc. EWGAE 2010, 29th Eur. Conf. Acoust. Emiss.
Part H 30
Test. (TÜV, Vienna 2010) pp. 34–39
30.88 P. Tscheliesnig: Thirty years experience of indus-
trial applications of acoustic emission testing at
TÜV Austria, J. Acoust. Emiss. 25, 276–285 (2007)
30.89 J.M. Rodgers: Acoustic emission testing of seam-
welded high energy piping systems in fossil power
plants, J. Acoust. Emiss. 25, 286–293 (2007)
30.90 D. Papasalouros, N. Tsopelas, A. Anastasopoulos,
D. Kourousis, D.J. Lekou, F. Mouzakis: Acous-
tic emission monitoring of composite blade of
NM48/750 NEG-MICON wind turbine, J. Acoust.
Emiss. 31, 36–49 (2013)