Experiment Overview

Every aircraft in service is inspected continuously using nondestructive evaluation (NDE) methods — techniques that find damage without harming the part being inspected. NDE is what allows airlines to operate aging aircraft safely and enables manufacturers to certify composite primary structures. This lab provided hands-on exposure to five complementary NDE techniques applied to real aerospace hardware: visual inspection (borescope), thermography, radiography, liquid penetrant, and ultrasonics.

Imaging Subject: Aircraft Wing Airfoil
Figure 1: Imaging Subject: Aircraft Wing Airfoil

Equipment & Tools

Visual Inspection – Borescope

A Ridgid Micro CA-150 borescope was inserted into the interior of a metallic aircraft wing airfoil section and navigated along the inner skin surface. Under the enhanced lighting of the borescope, visible scratches and cracks near the rivet holes were identified — the type of stress-concentration-driven fatigue damage that motivates maintenance inspection intervals for riveted structures. The borescope proved effective for hard-to-access interior surfaces that no standard optical tool could reach.

Apparatus Used: (1) - Ridgid Micro CA-150 Inspection Camera kit, (2) - Funai LED display and remote control, (3) - Video cable, (4) - Extra AA batteries, (5) - Instruction manual
Figure 2: Apparatus Used: (1) - Ridgid Micro CA-150 Inspection Camera kit, (2) - Funai LED display and remote control, (3) - Video cable, (4) - Extra AA batteries, (5) - Instruction manual
Before Inspection
Figure 3: Before Inspection
During Inspection (Internal Surface of the Airfoil)
Figure 4: During Inspection (Internal Surface of the Airfoil)
Interior Surface Deformations – Surface Crack
Figure 5: Interior Surface Deformations – Surface Crack
Interior Surface Deformations – Surface Crack
Figure 6: Interior Surface Deformations – Surface Crack
Interior Surface Deformations – Surface Scratches
Figure 7: Interior Surface Deformations – Surface Scratches
Interior Surface Deformations — Surface Scratches
Figure 8: Interior Surface Deformations – Surface Scratches

Thermography

The FLIR T440 camera imaged a paper subject before and after applying cold water droplets and a hand imprint. The camera resolved temperature differentials at the ±0.1°C level, with cold water appearing as cool blue zones (22.2°C) against the warm amber background (26.1°C), and the hand imprint glowing red at 26.6°C. This demonstrated how thermal gradients reveal material non-uniformities, disbonds, and coolant leaks in aerospace hardware.

Equipment Used for Thermography
Figure 9: Equipment Used for Thermography
Image Subject Used
Figure 10: Image Subject Used
Active Temperature Change in Image Subject
Figure 11: Active Temperature Change in Image Subject
Image Subject After Inducing Temperature Change
Figure 12: Image Subject After Inducing Temperature Change
Image Subject Under FLIR Camera After Temperature Change
Figure 13: Image Subject Under FLIR Camera After Temperature Change
Residual Heat Left Behind From Hand Imprint
Figure 14: Residual Heat Left Behind From Hand Imprint

Radiography

X-ray images of a welded aluminum plate revealed the weld bead geometry and internal profile useful for quality assurance. An Apple Watch image illustrated how overlapping components complicate defect discrimination in complex assemblies — a known limitation of 2D projection radiography. The X-ray system required a dedicated computer and shielded enclosure for operator safety.

Radiography equipment: (1) – Test subject, (2) – X-ray detector, (3) – X-ray system
Figure 15: Radiography equipment: (1) – Test subject, (2) – X-ray detector, (3) – X-ray system
Radiography computer used to partner with X-ray system
Figure 16: Radiography computer used to partner with X-ray system
X-ray Inverse of a weld on an aluminum plate
Figure 17: X-ray Inverse of a weld on an aluminum plate
Xray of an apple watch
Figure 18: Xray of an apple watch

Liquid Penetrant

A fluorescent dye was applied to an aluminum pressure vessel and allowed to dwell for ~10 minutes before being wiped and developed. Under UV illumination, at least eight discrete damage indications appeared as bright zones against the green developer background — scratches and cracks completely invisible under normal white light. This demonstrated the technique’s superior sensitivity to shallow, tight surface discontinuities.

Liquid penetrant equipment: (1) – Ultraviolet light, (2) – Developer, (3) – Cleaner
Figure 19: Liquid penetrant equipment: (1) – Ultraviolet light, (2) – Developer, (3) – Cleaner, (4) – Penetrant, (5) – Paper wipes, (6) – Test part
Test Part before preparation
Figure 20: Test Part before preparation
Test surface with penetrant
Figure 21: Test surface with penetrant
Test surface with penetrant and developer
Figure 22: Test surface with penetrant and developer
Test surface under UV light showing three damage areas
Figure 23: Test surface under UV light showing three damage areas
Test surface under UV light showing five damage areas
Figure 24: Test surface under UV light showing five damage areas

Ultrasonics

A 5 MHz piezoelectric transducer was coupled with ultrasonic couplant to stepped aluminum calibration blocks (SCB). As the probe moved from the thickest section (~24.96 mm) to the thinnest (~3.32 mm), echo spacing in the A-scan decreased proportionally, tracking known thickness steps with clear step-wise echo patterns. Ledge edges produced slight amplitude reduction from scattering, validating the technique’s sensitivity to internal geometry changes — the same principle airlines use to monitor skin corrosion on aging aircraft from the outer surface.

Ultrasonics equipment: (1) – Portable Ultrasonic Inspection Device, (2) – 5 MHz piezoelectric transducer, (3) – Ultrasonic couplant, (4) – Aluminum calibration block (SCB)
Figure 25: Ultrasonics equipment: (1) – Portable Ultrasonic Inspection Device, (2) – 5MHz piezoelectric transducer and cable, (3) – Ultrasonic Couplant, (4.1-4.4) – Aluminum Calibration Blocks, (5) – Instruction Manual, (6) – Paper wipes, (7) – Cotton Swabs
Aluminum Calibration Block before the experiment
Figure 26: Aluminum Calibration Block before the experiment
Aluminum Calibration Block after the application of Ultrasonic Couplant
Figure 27: Aluminum Calibration Block after the application of Ultrasonic Couplant
Aluminum Calibration Block during the experiment
Figure 28: Aluminum Calibration Block during the experiment
Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum
Figure 29: Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum
Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum
Figure 30: Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum
Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum
Figure 31: Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum
Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum
Figure 32: Ultrasonic inspection device screen for showing the echo pattern for Aluminum

Valuable Takeaways

← Back to Structures & Instrumentation Labs