1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Scattering of ultrasonic waves by defective adhesion interfaces in submerged laminated plates
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.2036147
/content/asa/journal/jasa/118/4/10.1121/1.2036147
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/118/4/10.1121/1.2036147

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Quasistatic approximation (QSA). When the ratio of the incident wavelength to the interface-thickness is large, the interfaces of adhesion can be modeled as a distribution of transverse and normal springs.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

General problem consisting of a layered plate immersed in an acoustic fluid, in the context of the QSA. The layered plate is infinite in the and directions and has its constituent layers joined by adhesive layers. There is an interface of adhesion between each adherent and adhesive layer. Interfaces of adhesion are represented by springs. Roman numerals are used to address each medium while arabic numerals are used to address each interface. is the total number of layers plus two half-spaces and stands for the layer or interface. The symbols , etc. represent the thicknesses of the layers. In the figure, only one of the interfaces of adhesion, the one is considered to be defective.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The modeled plate. It is composed of three layers, a copper layer with thickness, an epoxy layer with thickness acting as the adhesive layer, and an aluminum layer with of thickness. It has consequently two adhesion interfaces, labeled and .

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Plane wave reflection coefficient at versus the angle of incidence. The solid line represents the reflection coefficient for the plate with original adhesion stiffness, while the dashed line represents the same for the plate with the stiffness of adhesion-interface (the in-plane or component) reduced by one-half.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Detail of Fig. 4 near 3.8°.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Detail of Fig. 4 near 13.3°.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

A comparison between the exact and perturbation method solution. The partial sums for the perturbation series truncated at different terms, representing the amplitude of the total reflected pressure field, is represented by the open circles “엯.” The exact solution is represented by the solid line. The homogeneous defect’s magnitude is 17% of the original interfacial stiffness component and the angle of incidence is 3.82°.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

The same as in the last figure, except the defect magnitude has increased from 17% to 17.5% of the original interfacial stiffness ( component).

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

A comparison between the exact and perturbation method solution. Here the angle of incidence has changed to 13.34°, and the homogeneous defect’s magnitude is 40% of the original interfacial stiffness component.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

The same as in the last figure, except the defect magnitude has increased from 40% to 44% of the original interfacial stiffness ( component).

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

A defect representing a local “kissing bond,” where only the component of the original stiffness of adhesion is affected. It is located in interface , its maximum value is 90% of the original stiffness of adhesion and its length is about .

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

The acoustic incident field. It is a time-harmonic Gaussian beam with about of length and incident at the plate’s top surface at an angle of 3.82°.

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Spectrum of the reflected pressure field. The wave number is nondimensionalized with respect to the wave number in the fluid.

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

Spectrum of the scattered pressure field. Note (a) the breadth. The spectrum is significant over a broader wave number range than that depicted in Fig. 13; (b) the peaks. These are coincident with the modes identified in the plot of the reflection coefficient, Fig. 4; (c) the “backscatter.” The amplitudes of waves traveling in the negative direction are significant. These radiate strongly at the leaky angles; and (d) the convergence. The partial sums after 30 and 50 terms are practically identical.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Mechanical properties of material constituents.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/118/4/10.1121/1.2036147
2005-10-01
2014-04-20
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Scattering of ultrasonic waves by defective adhesion interfaces in submerged laminated plates
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/118/4/10.1121/1.2036147
10.1121/1.2036147
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM