The aging and integrity of aircraft structures continues to be a matter of great concern especially for the U.S. Air
Force. With the increasing average age of commercial aircraft fleet, there exists a critical need for non-destructive
testing and evaluation (NDT&E) techniques for monitoring corrosion and detecting critical flaws both cost
effectively and timely. Corrosion is a major maintenance issue, especially for aging military aircraft. The Air Force
recently estimated that corrosion maintenance costs exceed $2.2 billion per year. Given this, it is desirable to reduce
the amount of ‘find it - fix it’ corrosion maintenance activities. One method is to introduce damage tolerance
approach for corrosion detection. This paper presents the results of the investigation on the effect of corrosion on the
behavior of adhesively bonded composite patch repairs of cracked 2024-T3 clad aluminum aircraft structures. The
cracked 2024-T3 clad aluminum panels are repaired with adhesively bonded octagonal and elliptical single sided
boron/epoxy composite patches, using AF 163-2K adhesive (3M Inc.). Two types of accelerated corrosion tests,
Continuous salt fog test (B117) and Prohesion test (Modified salt fog spray test - G85) were conducted on the
masked specimens in Q-Fog accelerated corrosion chamber. The patched specimens were subjected to varying
amount of exposure in the corrosive chamber ranging from 2 to 6 weeks, and later tension tests were conducted on
Instron Satec universal testing machine to evaluate the effect of corrosion on the strength and integrity of the patch
repair. Four broad band acoustic emission (AE) sensors were attached to the test specimen and used to monitor crack
propagation and fracture of the repaired panels exposed in the corrosive environments for different lengths of period.
AE sensor responses were studied for the entire load history during the tension testing using the four broad band AE
sensors. Crack propagation gages were used to study the events corresponding to crack initiation and propagation.
Results in the time domain and frequency domain obtained for the specimens are presented. A comparative AE
analysis of events from the specimen exposed to accelerated corrosion tests: Continuous salt fog test (B117), and
Prohesion (G85) is presented. It was observed that AE events increased with increase in the specimen exposure time
in the corrosion chamber.
1. http://corrosion-doctors.org/Aircraft/Aloha.htm (Last Visited on 5-11-12)
2. Baldwin, K.R., Smith, C.J.E., “Accelerated corrosion tests for aerospace materials: current limitations and
future trends,” Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace technology, vol. 71, no. 3, 1999, pp 239-244.
3 Klyatis, L.M., “Establishment of Accelerated Corrosion testing conditions,” Proceedings Annual Reliability
and Maintainability Symposium, 2002, pp 639-641.
4 Lyon, S.B., Thomson, G.E., Johnson, B.J., “Material evaluation using Wet-Dry mixed salt spray methods,”
New Methods for Corrosion Testing of Aluminum Alloys, ASTM STP 1134, pp 20-31.
5. Suga, S., and Suga, S., “Cyclic Corrosion tests in Japanese Industries,” Cyclic Cabinet Corrosion Testing
ASTM ST 1238, Gardner S. Haynes, Ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1995, pp 99-114.
6. Becker, A.J., Rennekamp, S.J., Lifka, B.W., “Use of ASTM Standard Practice G85 Annex A2 for rapid
Screening of Inorganic coatings on Aluminum 1100 Alloy Fins for Heat Exchangers,” Cyclic Cabinet
Corrosion Testing, ASTM ST 1238, Gardner S. Haynes, Ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1995
7. Singh, C.B., Cordo, O.L., “A Review of Alternative Accelerated Corrosion Testing,” Cyclic Cabinet
Corrosion Testing, ASTM ST 1238, Gardner S. Haynes, Ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1995, pp 31-36.
8. Peng, A.Y.M., Lyon, S.B., Thomson, G.E., Johnson, J.B., Wood, G.C., Ferguson, J.M., “Comparison of
cross-sectional image analysis with weight change measurements for assessing non-uniform attack during
corrosion testing of aluminum,” British Corrosion Journal, 1993, vol.28, no.2, pp 103-106.
9. Daniel, I.M., Luo, J.J., Sifniotopoulos, C.G., Chun, H.J., “Acoustic emission monitoring of fatigue damage
in metals,” Nondestructive Testing & Evaluation. vol. 14 no.1-2 1998. pp 71-87.
10. Daniel, I.M., Sifniotopoulos, C.G., Luo, J.J., “Analysis of Acoustic Emission Output from Propagating
Fatigue Crack,” Review of progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation. vol. 17/A, 1998.
11. Daniel, I.M., Luo, J.J., Hsiao, H.M., “Acousto-Ultrasonic Techniques for Evaluation of Bond Integrity of
Composite Repair Patches,” Review of progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation, vol. 17/B, 1998.
12. Talebzadeh, M., Roberts, T.M., “Correlation of Crack Propagation and Acoustic Emission Rates,” Key
engineering materials, 2001, no. 204/205, pp 341-350.
13. Liptai, R.G., Harris, D.O., Engle, R.B, Tatro, C.A., “Acoustic Emission Techniques in Materials Research,”
International Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 1971, vol. 3, pp 215-275.
14. Choi, J., Luo, J.J., Daniel I.M., “Analysis of Acoustic Emission Waveforms from Propagating Fatigue
Crack,” Review of Progress in Quantitative Non-Destructive Evaluation, vol. 19 B, pp 351-358.
15. Heaton, P.B., Yu, T.J., “Composite Repair of Aircraft Structures (CRAS),” Design Manual, Release 0.2,
2001, The Boeing Company.
16. Okafor, A.C., Singh, N., Enemuoh, U.E., Rao, S.V., “Design, Analysis and Performance of adhesively
Bonded Composite Patch Repair of Cracked Aluminum Aircraft panels,” Composite Structures, vol. 71,
2005, pp 258-270.
17. Okafor, A.C., Bhogapurapu, Hari, “Design and Analysis of Adhesively Bonded Composite Patch Repair of
Corrosion Grind-out and Cracks on 2024-T3 clad Aluminum Aging Aircraft Structures,” Composite
Structures, vol 76, 2006, pp 138-150.
18. Okafor, A.C., Appani, H., “Effect of Corrosion on the Strength and Integrity of Adhesively Bonded
Composite Patch Repairs of Damaged Aircraft Structures,” MS Thesis, Missouri University of Science and
Technology, August 2004, pp 53 - 103.
19. Q-Fog Operating Manual, Q-Panel Lab Products, Cleveland, OH, USA.
20. Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog Testing), Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 03.02.
21. www.vishay.com (Last visited on 02-01-2004).