About the Cover: An F-15 aircraft fades off to the left of its future replacement, the F-22 Raptor. The image not only represents 

the transition of fighter power, but it also represents the advancement of materials and manufacturing technology and the 

progression toward making composites more widely used on aircraft.

This past year, the C-141 Starlifter was retired from service by

the US Air Force. This storied cargo aircraft flew missions that

not only spanned the globe, but also spanned many decades

and several generations. Likely the

most famous C-141, which was bestknown as the “Hanoi Taxi”, was the

last Starlifter to be retired from service. At the end of the Vietnam War in 1973, this aircraft – tail

number 66-0177 – flew several missions to Hanoi in North

Vietnam where it picked up American POWs and returned

them to freedom on US soil. Overall, the C-141 fleet flew 51

missions to Hanoi to repatriate 567 American soldiers that

were held in North Vietnam prison camps. [1] More than

three decades later the same “Hanoi Taxi” flew aid missions in

the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The “Hanoi Taxi” was only one in a fleet of Starlifters,

which over the years served many purposes and flew several

famous missions. For instance, the Starlifter was the first jet to

land in the Antarctic. It also retrieved the Apollo 11 astronauts after they returned from their journey to the moon. In

more recent missions during the last months of its service, C141s were evacuating wounded American troops from Iraq

and Afghanistan.

Over the past decade the C-141 Starlifter was phased out of

service by the Air Force, and many of its duties were taken

over by the C-17 Globemaster III, which was entered into

service in June 1993. As newer systems replace older ones,

technological advances become much more apparent. As

such, the progression of materials technology can be observed

as newer aircraft are phased into service to replace older aircraft. For example, the C-141 was entered into service in

1964 and was built with a primary airframe structure composed of high strength aluminum and steel alloys (mostly

7075-T6, 7079-T6, and 4340 steel).[2] These structural

materials were joined with steel, mechanical fasteners, and the

aircraft had very few composite components. The C-17 on

the other hand was manufactured with approximately 16,000

pounds worth of composite parts, which are used for some of

the control surfaces and secondary structural components.[3]

Although this was a step in the right direction, 16,000 pounds

is a small percentage of the 277,000 pound aircraft.

It is well-established that composites can enhance the performance of an airframe in terms of improving the strengthto-weight ratio and the corrosion resistance. However, since

composites have been in development for decades, why

haven’t they been used to a greater extent on current aircraft?

Traditionally, there have been a few barriers which have

obstructed the use of composites; primarily cost and the risks

associated with using newer materials have limited the use of

composites in aircraft. The slow advancement of composites

for aircraft has become even more apparent on systems newer

than the C-17.

The feature article in this issue of the AMMTIAC Quarterly

focuses on an effort that was spearheaded by the US Air Force

Research Laboratory to address some of the concerns related

to the inhibited advancement of composites technology. The

article presents an overview of the Composites Affordability

Initiative, which was set up to help overcome the barriers that

have hindered the transition of composites into airframe

structures. Certainly the next generation cargo aircraft that

replace the C-17 will benefit from the successes of this initiative. And perhaps the last Starlifter, which now resides in the

National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright

Patterson Air Force Base, will not only be a marvel for its role

in history, but will be also be a time capsule for the era of airframes built with monolithic alloys and mechanical fasteners.

Ben Craig

Editor

REFERENCES:

[1] M. Novack, “The Lockheed C-141 #66-0177 The ‘Hanoi Taxi,’”

American Aviation Historical Society Journal, Vol. 51, No. 3, 

Fall 2006, pp. 162-173.

[2] L.D. Griffin and D. Latterman, “C-141A Service Experience –

Materials and Processes,” SAMPE Journal, March/April 1978, 

pp. 9-16.

[3] “C-17 Globemaster III,” GlobalSecurity.org.

Editorial: 

The Last Starlifter

The AMMTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials, Manufacturing, and Testing Information 

Analysis Center (AMMTIAC). AMMTIAC is a DoD-sponsored Information Analysis Center, administratively

managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). Policy oversight is provided by the Office of the

Secretary of Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E). The AMMTIAC Quarterly is

distributed to more than 17,000 materials, manufacturing, and testing professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMMTIAC capabilities, products, and services may be addressed to 

Chr i st ian E . Gr ethl e in , P.E .

Director, AMMTIAC (Acting)

315-339-7009

EMAIL : ammtiac@alionscience.com

URL : http ://ammtiac.alionscience.com

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

AMMTIAC

ATTN: B EN J AM IN D . C R A IG

201 Mill Street

Rome, New York 13440

PHONE: 315.339.7019

FAX: 315.339.7107

EMAIL : ammtiac@alionscience.com

Editor-in-Chief

Benjamin D. Craig

Publication Design 

Cynthia Long

Tamara R. Grossman

Information Processing

Judy E. Tallarino

Patricia Bissonette

Inquiry Services

Richard A. Lane

Product Sales

Gina Nash
INTRODUCTION

In the mid-1990’s, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) recognized that despite the potential of advanced composites to drastically reduce aircraft structural weights compared to conventional

metal structures, the aircraft industry was reluctant to implement

them in new aircraft. Although composites were used on the F-15,

F-16, and F-18 in small percentages, data showed that composite

applications had reached a plateau. For example, despite early projections of the F-22 airframe being 50% composite by weight, it settled back to 25% [1]. As a result, AFRL launched the Composites

Affordability Initiative (CAI) to address the perceived risks and barriers. What resulted was a team consisting of personnel from the

AFRL Materials and Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/ML) and

Air Vehicles Directorate, the Office of Naval Research-ManTech,

Bell Helicopter Textron, The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin

Corporation, and Northrop Grumman Corporation. Ultimately, a

$152M, eleven year effort was performed to attack the problem.

What Needed to be Done?

The CAI Team found that the key to affordability in composite

structures was to reduce assembly costs. State-of-the-art aircraft

structures have thousands of parts and hundreds of thousands of fasteners (Figure 1). In addition, drilling holes and installing fasteners

has been and still is a major source of labor and rework in aircraft

structures. If the number of fasteners is reduced substantially, structural assembly costs and cycle time could be drastically reduced. The

CAI team pursued part integration and structural assembly through

bonding parts together to achieve this goal. As a result, CAI’s objective was to “establish the confidence to fly large integrated and

bonded structures”. To meet this objective, the technical program

was structured to ensure that Department of Defense (DoD) structural integrity goals were met (see Figure 2). This required a multidisciplinary approach: maturation of materials and processes, an

understanding of the structural behavior of bonded joints, quality

assurance and nondestructive evaluation to ensure bonded joints

remain bonded throughout an aircraft’s service life, and the approval

of DoD aircraft certification authorities.

The CAI business strategy was intended to maximize leveraging

of knowledge and funding as well as improve the transition of “game

changing” technologies. CAI was a collaborative effort among all

parties, each sharing data equally for core technology efforts and

delaying data release on specific technology applications (transition

demonstrations). The industry partners agreed to a 50% cost share

with the government, which increased the leveraging and also created an internal company incentive to realize an acceptable return on

the investment by using the CAI technologies in their products.

Technology transition demonstration projects

(“T”-programs) were also a key feature of CAI.

These T-programs focused the development of

large integrated and bonded structures technology tailored to specific needs for several DoD

weapon systems. Demonstrations were performed for several aircraft, including the X-32

(Boeing JSF prototype), F-35, X-45, and C-17. A

key feature of these T-programs was that the integrated product teams (IPTs) were staffed with

people from the DoD laboratories, industry

development personnel, DoD program office

personnel, and industry program personnel.

Having representatives from each type of organization greatly improved the lines of communication and ensured the technology being delivered

met the needs of the customer.

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 3

John D. Russell

Air Force Research Laboratory

Materials and Manufacturing Directorate

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH

Figure 1. Composites Affordability Initiative’s Technical Approach.

• Reduce Part & Fastener Count

• Reduce Direct & Indirect Costs

• 11,000 Metal Components

• 600 Composite Components

• 145,000 Fasteners

• 450 Metal Components

• 200 Composite Components

• 6,000 Fasteners

Today

Design for Affordability
TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS

In light of CAI’s goal to “establish the confidence to fly large integrated and bonded structures”, the primary technology pursued for

integrated structures was Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Molding

(VARTM). Bonding was enabled by the pi-joint bonded primary

structure design and robust manufacturing processes. These technologies, along with the supporting tools and methods used to make

certification possible, are described in the following sections.

Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Molding

For integrated structures, a nonautoclave process for making large

yacht hulls was transitioned to the aerospace industry. VARTM is a

process that uses a pressure that is less than atmospheric (typically

full vacuum) to pull a liquid resin into a fiber bed. It was made

famous in the boatbuilding industry with the advent of the

SCRIMP process (Seemann Composites Resin Infusion Molding

Process). There are two key advantages of VARTM over conventional autoclave curing. First is that an autoclave is not needed, unlike

the conventional processes used for fabricating composite aerospace

parts, resulting in reduced capital equipment costs. Furthermore,

removing the need for the autoclave provides industry with a much

larger supplier base for part fabrication. Second is that the typical

VARTM resins cure at a low enough temperature to enable the use

of inexpensive tooling such as medium density fiberboard

rather than the typical invar tooling used for 350o

F

(177oC) curing autoclave materials. This also reduces 

system development costs.

While the aerospace industry dabbled in VARTM over

the years, CAI has demonstrated its viability as a valid production method for aerospace parts up to 160 ft3 (5.4 m3

).

As shown in Figure 3, several parts were demonstrated

including a replica X-32 one piece cockpit tub (top left)*,

a C-17-like fuselage skin with integral stiffeners (bottom

left), and a C-17 nose landing gear door (right). CAI’s

VARTM efforts resulted in fiber volumes and per ply

thickness comparable to typical autoclave cured aerospace

composite parts. In addition, the process worked with several resins, including EX-1510, SI-ZG-5A, and VRM-34.†

Further use of the VARTM process would be enabled

through the development of toughened resins with properties similar to the 977-3 resin‡.

Overall, VARTM has enabled reduced part counts (up to 80%),

reduced fastener counts (up to 100%), and lower part fabrication

costs as compared to conventional structures (30% to 50%). CAI

has demonstrated the VARTM process to be versatile in the parts it

can create, while achieving acceptable quality and validating its

repeatability. VARTM is a production ready process for the aerospace industry.

Adhesively Bonded Structures

While bonded primary structural joints are currently in service on

DoD aircraft, including the F-18 and Global Hawk, there continues to be an unease in the DoD airframe certification community

with regard to bonded structures. That community has a legitimate

concern based on past research programs intended to broaden the

use of bonded structures. The inability to discriminate between a

good bond and a “kissing” bond (intimate contact between adhesive

and structure without adhesion) has been the key roadblock to further use of bonded structures. Despite this unease, bonded structures have tremendous potential for aircraft structures. If designed

correctly, bonded aircraft structures have greatly reduced part count

and fastener count and also greatly reduced structural assembly

times. The CAI attacked each barrier to increase the confidence to

fly bonded primary structures.

4 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3

Figure 3. Aerospace VARTM Demonstration Parts. Figure 4. Cross Section of the Pi Joint.

Allowables

Process 

Scale-Up

Process 

Development

Material

Screening

Material 

Development

Accept/

Reject

Criteria

• Element

• Repairability • Subcomponent

• Maintainability

• Reliability

• Analysis

• Structural 

Testing

Evaluation 

of

Producibility

Manufacturing

Methods 

Development

Facility

Assessment

II. Producibility: Manufacturing Scale-Up

I. Stabilized

Materials 

and 

Processes

Structural

Integrity

V. Supportability IV. Predictability of

Structural Performance

III. Characterized

Mechanical 

Properties 

(Start of EMD)

Figure 2. Structural Integrity Areas.
Pi Joint

The first area to be addressed was design of the bonded joint.

CAI’s bonded structures work centered on the “pi” joint (Figure

4); this stiffener, shaped like the Greek letter π, can be co-cured or

co-bonded to the skin. The pi joint has several advantages. First, it

provides structural redundancy. The pi joint acts as two independent bondlines, and the joint is stronger than a double lap shear

joint. When used with EA 9394 adhesive§, the pi joint takes

advantage of the inherent properties of the material. EA 9394 has

excellent shear properties and performs better in shear than in tension loaded bonds. It also paves the way for much reduced assembly times by providing a determinate assembly feature. Tension

loaded bonded structures typically have the adhesive spread over

the skins and/or spar/rib caps prior to assembly. This leads to

adhesive out time** issues. They also may require several verifilm

cycles to ensure the correct tolerances to get the adhesive thickness

required by the designer. Conversely, out time is minimal with the

pi joint. It takes much less time to apply the adhesive into the clevis of the pi, and much less surface area is exposed to the air before

bonding takes place.

The CAI Team spent considerable energy in analyzing and verifying the design and manufacture of the pi joint. Testing has shown

that the joint is very robust and has predictable performance. A key

finding from the CAI pi joint studies is that the room temperature

paste-bonded pi joint has three to five times more strength than the

co-cure joint of the pi stiffener to the skin. Thus, the pi joint will

not be the weak link in a primary structural application. It is tolerant of several defects including: thick

bondlines; a canted blade; a blade skewed to one side

of the clevis; and typical manufacturing defects, such as

voids and peel plies that were not removed prior to

bonding. This robustness was proved by a series of successful tests ranging from coupons to full scale airframe

components (examples are given in Table 1).

The X-45A wing carry through and the X-45C wing

were structurally tested to design limit load, design

ultimate load, and finally to failure. Both articles failed

just above the predicted design ultimate load. These

structural and ballistic tests show that bonded structures can meet structural requirements for military aircraft. In addition, these structural demonstrations

showed that assembly times are drastically reduced. By

filling the pi joints with adhesive rather than mating,

drilling, deburring, remating, and installing fasteners,

assembly times can be reduced from 50 to 80%

depending on the article, translating to a cost savings of

20 to 50%.

Enabling Tools for Bonding

Besides the validation of robust designs and manufacturing processes, several key supporting tools and technologies had to be matured

and validated to make the application of bonded primary structures

a reality. These included more accurate analysis tools which took

into account peel as well as shear stresses in a bonded joint, tools to

evaluate damage progression, nondestructive inspection for the production and maintenance of bonded primary structures and finally

an acceptable certification approach.

Analysis Tools

Conventional analysis methods for bonded joints were found to be

limited in their capabilities and accuracy. For instance, A4EI, a computer code for bonded joint analysis, is only applicable to adhesive

failures in shear-loaded joints and does not account for peel stresses

or for potential adherend failures. To date, the only alternative to

these limitations has been to develop detailed finite element models

of a joint. This approach is time consuming and requires great skill

and care by the analyst to ensure stresses and strains in critical locations of the joint are properly quantified. Small errors in modeling

can lead to substantial errors in joint performance prediction.

To alleviate these problems, the CAI team implemented improvements to the StressCheck®†† P-version finite element software,

including the incorporation of a strain invariant failure theory. The

StressCheck® tool handbook function was used to expertly model

typical joints, thereby developing reusable joint models including:

single lap shear; double lap shear; scarfed lap shear; and step lap

joints for in-plane loading; as well as a pi and back-to-back angle

joints for out-of-plane loading. These handbooks are parameterized

so that similar joints in the future can be modeled by simply updating geometric parameters of the existing model. StressCheck® will

then automatically remesh the model, calculate results, check for

convergence problems in the new joint configuration, and even

post-process the results.

Durability and Damage Tolerance Analysis Methods

Users are also concerned about how the damage would progress in

order to understand the full impact of damage and the durability

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 5

Table 1. Full-Scale Structural Testing of Pi-Joints.

Test Article Testing Performed

F-35 replica wing Static and ballistic tolerance

(Figure 5, upper left)

F-35 replica vertical tail Static, damage and fatigue

(Figure 5, upper right)

X-45A replica wing carry Static

through (Figure 5, lower left)

X-45 wing (Figure 5, Static, damage and fatigue 

lower right) (2 lifetimes)

Figure 5. Full-Scale Bonded Structure Demonstration Articles. 
6 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3

Dr. John D. Russell is a Senior Materials Engineer with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Materials and Manufacturing Directorate. He has a Bachelor of Chemical Engineering degree and a Master of Science degree in materials engineering from

the University of Dayton, and a Doctor of Science degree in chemical engineering from Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. At AFRL, Dr. Russell began his research in the processing of advanced composite materials, and in particular, the processing of polyimide composites and dimensional control of composite parts. Since 2000, he has been the government’s

program manager for the Composites Affordability Initiative (CAI), where he leads a consortium of aircraft manufactures to

reduce the cost of composite airframes through the use of large integrated and bonded structures.

of the structural design. Software based on a novel implementation

of the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) was developed

under the CAI program and was being applied to the evaluation of

delaminations and disbonds in composite structures after the onset

of initial failure. VCCT plays an important role by providing

unprecedented capability for the design of aerospace structures

involving composites. Boeing has filed a patent application for this

interface fracture analysis software and ABAQUS, Inc., will market

an enhanced version of the technology commercially.

Quality Assurance

One major hurdle inhibiting the application of bonded primary

structures has been the lack of a nondestructive technique to assess

the strength of a bonded joint. Boeing, a CAI team member, led

the quality assurance technology effort and has developed a laser

bond inspection technique (patent pending).

High peak-power, short-pulse-length laser excitation generates

stress waves that can be used to discriminate between kissing, weak,

and strong bonds in graphite-epoxy composite-to-composite bonded structures. The technique is able to discriminate between variations in surface preparation techniques, levels of surface

contamination and/or changes in paste adhesive mixing. In more

than 3000 laser stress wave experiments this approach has been

found to be repeatable and reliable in the detection of weak versus

strong bonded joints. Such an approach offers a potentially cost

effective method to be certain of a minimum predetermined loadcarrying capability of a bonded joint after manufacture or in-service. A production floor laser bond inspection device is being

developed and optimized in two Small Business Innovative

Research programs with LSP Technologies sponsored by

AFRL/ML.

Certification

The CAI team worked with certification authorities from the Air

Force, Navy and FAA to understand and eliminate the barriers to

advanced bonded structures. The CAI team prepared certification

plans for three structures, each with increasing levels of innovation. The plans started with a secondarily bonded rib to a

skin/stringer interface. Next up was a vertical tail featuring 3-D pi

preforms and z-pinning‡‡. The final plan featured a bonded wing

that carried fuel with 3-D pi preforms and z-pinning. These plans

included the use of CAI-developed analysis tools and their validation, CAI-developed process controls for bonding and guidelines

for advanced processes, as well as advanced bondline inspection

tools. These tools and technologies, along with a sound certification plan of analysis supported by test, provided the certification

authorities with enough confidence that they believe the methods

were sound enough to certify an actual structure. This is a major

breakthrough to realizing the cost, cycle time and durability benefits of advanced bonded structures.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION

CAI tools and technologies have transitioned across the industrial

base. AFRL is currently aware of 22 companies and organizations

benefiting from CAI-derived technologies. Technologies include

VARTM, pi-joints, laser bond inspection, StressCheck® and crack

propagation analysis tools, and certification plans. Bonded structures are flying on the F-35 AA-1. StressCheck® and crack propagation analysis tools have become standard industry practices and are

being used to design and analyze DoD and commercial aircraft. The

C-17 landing gear door (Figure 3) will be fabricated by a first tier

supplier for future C-17’s and as a preferred spare. This article only

covers a portion of the technologies developed under CAI. Other

tools include an improved cost model for composites. This cost

model is being used by over 10 organizations worldwide. A process

maturation database capturing the entire CAI database with a complete pedigree of processing data, environmental exposures, etc., is

hosted on AMMTIAC’s National Materials Information System

(NAMIS) website (https://namis.alionscience.com/CAI/). An

exhaustive set of guidelines has been prepared to provide potential

users with clear understanding for advanced materials, designs,

analysis tools, process controls, fabrication and assembly processes,

quality assurance and repair. All of the CAI technologies, reports

and data are open to the DoD and DoD contractors.

SUMMARY

The Composites Affordability Initiative was a huge technical success. CAI matured technologies for large integrated and bonded

composite structures across the fixed and rotary-wing industrial

base. Through this program technology advancements were accelerated and structural performance and cost effectiveness exceeded the

current state-of-the-art. Furthermore, technology applications are

increasing and are anticipated to continue to expand, as a result of

this initiative.

NOTES & REFERENCE

* This piece was designed/manufactured with the Boeing’s X-32/JSF concept in mind, but did not include all features required by the program.

† EX-1510 is a cyanate ester resin; SI-ZG-5A and VRM-34 are epoxy resins.

‡ 977-3 is an epoxy resin.

§ EA 9394 is a structural paste adhesive.

** Out time is the working life of the substance, and is an issue considered

when applying epoxy adhesives and composite prepregs. If they are left

exposed at room temperature for a finite time before the resin cures too

much, they can become unusable.

†† StressCheck is a registered trademark of Engineering Software Research

and Development, Inc. (ESRD).

‡‡ Z-pinning is a method of orienting fiber bundles in the z-direction and

placing them through gaps in a two-dimensional fiber weave. This method

is intended to provide enhanced interlaminar strength.

1. F-22 Raptor Materials and Processes, GlobalSecurity.org, http://www.

globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-mp.htm.
techsolutions 2

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3

INTRODUCTION

Visual inspection is by far the most common nondestructive

testing (NDT) technique [1]. When attempting to determine

the soundness of any part or specimen for its intended 

application, visual inspection is normally the first step in the

examination process. Generally, almost any specimen can be

visually examined to determine the accuracy of its fabrication.

For example, visual inspection can be used to determine

whether the part was fabricated to the correct size, whether 

the part is complete, or whether all of the parts have been

appropriately incorporated into the device. [2]

While direct visual inspection is the most common 

nondestructive testing technique (Figure 1), many other NDT

methods require visual intervention to interpret images

obtained while carrying out the examination. For instance,

penetrant inspection using visible red or fluorescent dye relies

on the inspector’s ability to visually identify surface indications.

Magnetic particle inspection falls into the same category of 

visible and fluorescent inspection techniques, and radiography

relies on the interpreter’s visual judgement of the radiographic

image, which is either on film or on a video monitor. The

remainder of this article provides a summary of the visual testing method, which at the minimum requires visual contact

with the portion of the specimen that is being inspected.

In arriving at a definition of visual inspection, it has been

noted in the literature that experience in visual inspection and

discussion with experienced visual inspectors revealed that this

NDT method includes more than use of the eye, but also

includes other sensory and cognitive processes used by inspectors [3]. Thus, there is now an expanded definition of visual

inspection in the literature:

“Visual inspection is the process of examination 

and evaluation of systems and components by use 

of human sensory systems

aided only by mechanical

enhancements to sensory

input as magnifiers, dental

picks, stethoscopes, and the

like. The inspection process

may be done using such

behaviors as looking, listening, feeling, smelling, 

shaking, and twisting. It included a cognitive 

component wherein observations are correlated 

with knowledge of structure and with descriptions

and diagrams from service literature.” [3]

PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES

The human eye is one of mankind’s most fascinating tools. It

has greater precision and accuracy than many of the most

sophisticated cameras. It has unique focusing capabilities and

has the ability to work in conjunction with the human brain so

that it can be trained to find specific details or characteristics 

in a part or test piece. It has the ability to differentiate and 

distinguish between colors and hues as well. The human eye is

capable of assessing many visual characteristics and identifying

various types of discontinuities*. The eye can perform accurate

inspections to detect size, shape, color, depth, brightness, 

contrast, and texture. Visual testing is essentially used to detect

any visible discontinuities, and in many cases, visual testing

may locate portions of a specimen that should be inspected

further by other NDT techniques.

Many inspection factors have been standardized so that categorizing them as major and minor characteristics has become

common [4]. Surface finish verification of machined parts has

even been developed, and classification can be performed by

visual comparison to manufactured finish standards. In the fabrication industry, weld size, contour, length, and inspection for

Selecting a Nondestructive Testing Method, Part II: Visual Inspection

This edition of TechSolutions is the second installment in a series dedicated to the subject of nondestructive testing. TechSolutions 1, 

published in Volume 1, Number 2 of the AMMTIAC Quarterly, introduced the concept of nondestructive testing and provided brief 

descriptions of the various nondestructive testing techniques currently available. This article continues the series and focuses in on the most

common nondestructive testing technique: Visual Inspection. The next TechSolutions article in this series will delve into detail about 

another common nondestructive testing technique: Eddy Current Testing. Once the series on nondestructive methods is complete, we will 

combine all of the articles into a valuable desk reference on nondestructive testing. - Editor

7

George A. Matzkanin

TRI/Austin

Austin, TX

Figure 1. Visual Inspection of a Torpedo Tube Aboard a Navy

Attack Submarine (Photo Courtesy of the Department of Defense;

Photo Taken by JO3 Corwin Colbert, USN)

The human eye is one of

mankind’s most fascinating

tools and is capable of

assessing many visual

characteristics and 

identifying various types 

of discontinuities.
techsolutions 2

8 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3

surface discontinuities are routinely specified. Many companies

have mandated the need for qualified and certified visual weld

inspection. This is the case particularly in the power industry,

which requires documentation of training and qualification 

of the inspector. Forgings and castings are normally inspected

for surface indications such as laps, seams, and other various

surface conditions.

INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

Requirements for visual inspection typically pertain to the

vision of the inspector; the amount of light falling on the specimen, which can be measured with a light meter; and whether

the area being inspected is in anyway obstructed from view. 

In many cases, each of these requirements is detailed in 

regulatory code or other inspection criteria [2].

Mechanical and/or optical aids may be necessary to perform

visual testing. Because visual inspection is so frequently used,

several companies now manufacture gages to assist visual

inspection examinations. Mechanical aids include: measuring

rules and tapes, calipers and micrometers, squares and angle

measuring devices, thread, pitch and thickness gages, level

gages, and plumb lines. Welding fabrication uses fillet gages to

determine the width of the weld fillet, undercut gages, angle

gages, skew fillet weld gages, pit gages, contour gages, and a

host of other specialty items to ensure product quality.

At times direct observation is impossible and remote viewing is necessary which requires the use of optical aids. Optical

aids for visual testing range from simple mirrors or magnifying

glasses to sophisticated devices, such as closed circuit television

and coupled fiber optic scopes. The following list includes

most optical aids currently in use [2]:

• Mirrors (especially small, angled mirrors)

• Magnifying glasses, eye loupes, multilens magnifiers, 

measuring magnifiers

• Microscopes (optical and electron)

• Optical flats (for surface flatness measurement)

• Borescopes and fiber optic borescopes

• Optical comparators

• Photographic records

• Closed circuit television (CCTV) systems (alone and 

coupled to borescopes/microscopes)

• Machine vision systems

• Positioning and transport systems (often used with 

CCTV systems)

• Image enhancement (computer analysis and enhancement)

Before any mechanical or optical aids are used, the 

specimen should be well illuminated and have a clean surface.

After the eyeball examination, mechanical aids help to improve

the precision of an inspector’s vision. As specifications and 

tolerances become closer, calipers and micrometers become

necessary. The variety of gages available help to determine

thread sizes, gap thicknesses, angles between parts, hole depths,

and weld features.

As it becomes necessary to see smaller and smaller 

discontinuities, the human eyes require optical aids that enable

inspectors to see these tiny discontinuities. However, the

increased magnification limits the area that can be seen at one

time, and also increases the amount of time it will take to look

at the entire specimen. Mirrors let the inspector see around

corners or past obstructions. Combined with lenses and placed

in rigid tubes, borescopes enable the inspector to see inside

specimens such as jet engines, nuclear piping and fuel

bundles, and complex machinery. When the rigid

borescope cannot reach the desired area, flexible 

bundles of optical fibers often are able to access the

area. Figure 2 shows visual inspection using a fiber

optic borescope. Some of the flexible borescopes have

devices that permit the observation end of the scope

to be moved around by a control at the eyepiece end.

Some are also connected to CCTV systems so that a

large picture may be examined and the inspection

recorded on videotape or digitally. When the video

systems are combined with computers, the images can

be improved which may allow details not observable

in the original to be seen.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Visual inspection is applicable to most surfaces, but is

most effective where the surfaces have been cleaned

prior to examination, for example, any scale or loose

paint should be removed by wire brushing, etc. Vision

testing of an inspector often requires eye examinations

Figure 2. An Inspector at Tinker Air Force Base Gets a Magnified View of an

Engine’s High-Pressure Turbine Area with a New Digital Fiber-Optic

Borescope. (Photo Courtesy of US Air Force; Photo taken by Margo Wright)
with standard vision acuity cards such as Jaeger, Snellen, and

color charts. Vision testing of inspectors has been in use for

about 40 years. Although many changes in NDT methods have

taken place over the years and new technologies have been

developed, vision testing has changed little over time. Also little

has been done to standardize vision tests used in the industrial

sector. For those seeking certification in the area of visual 

testing, the ASNT Level III Study Guide and Supplement on

Visual and Optical Testing provides a useful reference [5].

SELECTED EXAMPLES

Two major studies of visual inspection that

have been carried out in recent years provide

a great deal of insight into the reliability 

of visual inspection. Since visual inspection is

the predominant NDT technique used for

bridge inspection, the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) Nondestructive

Evaluation Validation Center (NDEVC) 

conducted a comprehensive study to examine

the reliability of the visual inspection method

for highway bridges [6]. Performance trials

were conducted using 49 state bridge inspectors to provide overall measures of the accuracy and reliability of routine and in-depth

inspections. One of the objectives was to

study the influence of several key factors in

order to provide a qualitative measure of their

influence on the reliability of routine and 

in-depth inspections. Figures 3 and 4 show

routine and in-depth inspections at a Safety

Testing and Research (STAR) facility.

Among the findings is that vision testing

of inspectors is almost nonexistent, with only

two state respondents indicating that their

inspectors had their vision tested. From the

routine inspections it was found that the

inspections were completed with significant

variability in the results. This variability 

was most prominent in the assignment of

condition ratings, but was also present in

examination documentation. From the 

in-depth inspection tasks it was observed 

that in-depth inspections were unlikely to

correctly identify many types of specific discontinuities for

which this inspection is frequently prescribed. As an example,

only 3.9 percent of weld inspections correctly identified the

presence of crack indications.

As a result of this study, it was recommended that the 

accuracy and reliability of both routine and in-depth 

inspections could be improved through increased training 

of inspectors in the types of discontinuities that should be 

identified and the methods that would frequently allow 

identification to be possible. Also, additional research is needed

to determine whether ensuring minimum vision standards

through vision testing programs (with corrective lenses, if 

necessary) would benefit bridge inspection. Additional details

are fully documented in the two-volume final report [6].

In the second comprehensive study of visual inspection,

experiments were performed at the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection 

Validation Center (AANC) to provide a benchmark measure of

the capability for visual inspection performed under conditions

that are realistically similar to those usually found in major 

airline maintenance facilities [3]. More than 

80 percent of inspections on large transport

category aircraft are visual inspections. 

Small transport and general aviation aircraft

rely on visual inspection techniques even

more heavily than do large transport aircraft.

Visual inspection, then, is the first line of

defense for safety-related failures on aircraft

and provides the least expensive and quickest

method for assessing the condition of an 

aircraft and its parts [3]. Therefore, accurate

and proficient visual inspection is crucial 

to the continued safe operation of the 

air fleet and it is important that its reliability

should be high and well-characterized. The

experiments at the AANC were conducted on

a Boeing 737 aircraft test bed, as well as on 

a sample library of well-characterized flaws 

in aircraft components or simulated components. Figure 5 shows visual inspection inside

an aircraft.

Results showed substantial inspector-toinspector variation. For example, on a 

specific task of looking for cracks from

beneath rivet heads, the 90 percent probability of detection (percentage of cracks

expected to be detected) crack length for 

11 inspectors ranged from 0.16 to 0.36 inch,

with the 90 percent probability of detection

crack length for a twelfth inspector being

0.91 inch. Also noted was a high variability

from one inspection task to another as 

performed by the same inspector. Results of

these experiments have paved the way for

other organizations to better understand the

intricacies of visual inspection in developing

laboratory and field visual inspection protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in other NDT technologies, visual 

inspection will likely remain the first inspection method used

in many field applications. As new mechanical and optical 

aids become available, the reliability of visual inspection will

increase to more acceptable levels. It is expected that additional

visual inspection standards will be developed to provide 

guidance in applying visual inspection for nondestructive 

testing. Visual inspection will continue to be an important

NDE inspection approach that will often identify areas 

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 9

A DVANCED M ATERIALS , M ANUFACTURING AND T ESTING AMMTIAC

Figure 3. Part of a Routine

Bridge Visual Inspection [6].

Figure 4. Part of an In-Depth

Bridge Visual Inspection Using 

a Man-Lift [6].

Figure 5. Visual Inspection

Experiment inside a Boeing 737.

(Photo Courtesy of the Federal

Aviation Administration)
AMMT-019

10 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3

techsolutions 2

Product Information and Ordering

Phone Online Email

(315)339-7047 http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/products gnash@alionscience.com

AMMT-029

of structures or components where more advanced NDE 

methods need to be applied.

REFERENCES

[1] Nondestructive Testing Handbook, Volume 8: Visual and Optical

Testing, Technical Editors M.W. Allgaier and S. Ness, American 

Society for Nondestructive Testing, Columbus, OH, 1993.

[2] F.A. Iddings, Visual Inspection, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 62, 

No. 5, May 2004, pp. 500-501.

[3] F.W. Spencer, Visual Inspection Research Project Report on 

Benchmark Inspections, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal

Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, 1996.

[4] S. Kleven and L. Hyvarinen, Vision Testing Requirements for Industry, Materials Evaluation, Vol. 57, No. 8, August 1999, pp. 797-803.

[5] ASNT Level III Study Guide and Supplement on Visual and

Optical Testing, American Society for Nondestructive Testing, 

Columbus, OH, 2005.

[6] Reliability of Visual Inspection for Highway Bridges, Publication

Nos. FHWA-RD-01-020 and FHWA-RD-01-021, June 2001.

NOTE & GENERAL REFERENCES

* In general, as described in the literature of the American Society 

for Nondestructive Testing, inspectors determine the presence or

absence of indications of “discontinuities”. Whether or not a 

discontinuity is a defect is based upon the design criteria, and is 

generally not up to the inspector.

[1] S. Endoh, H. Tomita, H. Asada, and T. Sotozaki, “Practical 

Evaluation of Crack Detection Capability for Visual Inspection in

Japan,” Durability and Structural Integrity of Airframes: Proceedings of

the 17th Symposium of the International Committee on Aeronautical

Fatigue, June 9-11, 1993.

[2] J.W. Shoonard, J.D. Gould, and LA. Miller, “Studies of Visual

Inspection,” Ergonomics, Volume 16, No. 4, 1993, pp. 365-379.

[3] E.D. Megaw, “Factors Affecting Visual Inspection Accuracy,”

Applied Ergonomics, March 1979, pp. 27-32.

[4] J.N. Riley, E.P. Papadakis, and S.J. Gorton, “Availability of 

Training in Visual Inspection for the Air Transport Industry,” 

Materials Evaluation, 1996, pp.1368-1375.

Visual 

Inspection 

Summary

Discontinuity types • Cracks

(e.g., what types can the method detect) • Holes

• Corrosion

• Blisters

• Impact damage

• I.e., most discontinuities that are surface breaking or result in a 

deformation at the surface

Size of discontinuities • Approximately 0.25 inches and larger

Size of system that can be inspected • Any, i.e., Large (e.g., aircraft skin), Medium (e.g., structural 

support), Small (e.g., electrical circuitry)

Field portable method? • Yes

Inspection restrictions • Surface areas only

• Some internal and inaccessible areas can’t be inspected visually.

Inspector training (level and/or • Recommended

availability – e.g., who provides training) • Commercial training schools available

Equipment • None

• Optical aids optional except where internal surfaces require 

borescopes or small television cameras, etc.

Certification required • Depends on application

• Certification available through the American Society 

for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT)

Relative cost of inspection • Low

(i.e., compared to other methods) • Equipment cost can range from nothing to a modest price, 

but this method can be labor intensive

Probability of

Detection for NDE

NDE Capabilities

Databook
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 11

INTRODUCTION

The High Temperature Polymeric Laminate Workshops (a.k.a.

High Temple), which were initiated in 1982 by a TriService/NASA steering group, are a series of workshops that

cover the areas of design, development and application of high

temperature reinforced polymeric composites. The primary purpose of High Temple is to communicate ongoing high temperature polymer composite research among DoD, NASA, other

government agencies, industry and universities. Over the years,

interdisciplinary teams were formed to advance and implement

high temperature polymer composites in many applications,

such as advanced engine and aero-structure components. These

teams continue to make significant advances in composite related technologies, such as fiber-resin interfaces, new chemistries

that enhance thermal oxidative stability,

high temperature test methods, designmaterial databases, and low-cost and intelligent processing techniques.

In today’s world of “better, faster, cheaper,” many long-lasting relationships, which

started at High Temple workshops, generate technical advances and enable the production of light weight, low cost polymer

composite hardware. Many of the original

High Temple Workshop contributors are

no longer active participants, yet the theme

of High Temple remains the same. Today,

government overviews of federally-sponsored high temperature composites research serve to create an

awareness in both the public and private sector. Active participation from both large and small businesses report on their

advances. Similarly, university researchers describe their efforts

to advance high temperature polymer composites. Many of these

new applications and much of the knowledge was generated

from key information taught at High Temple workshops. New

monomer and polymer chemistries continue to be introduced at

High Temple, often before they are published in peer-reviewed

journals. Newer technical subjects, such as electron beam curing,

low-cost processing and coatings are some of the topics that continue to make High Temple one of the premier composite technical meetings.

HISTORY OF HIGH TEMPLE

The first High Temple Workshop was co-sponsored in May of

1982 by the Joint Army Navy NASA Air Force (JANNAF)

Structures and Mechanical Behavior and the Propulsion Costs

Subcommittees and hosted by the NASA White Sands Test

Facility in New Mexico. The purpose of the workshop was to

determine the state of development of high temperature polymeric composites and to establish an understanding of future

technology needs and service requirements. Emphasis was

placed on basic polymer chemistry, materials development, and

materials applications.

The success of the initial workshop led to a second workshop

hosted by University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) 

and held at the Dayton Mall Holidome, in Dayton, Ohio,

December 1982. Emphasis was on the

processibility and producibility of high

temperature polymeric composites from

both a lamination and filament-wound

approach.

The third workshop was hosted by

UDRI and held at the Dayton Mall

Holidome in October 1983. Emphasis

was focused on the art and science of testing and evaluating polymeric composites

that are designed to be used in a temperature range of 600°F to 1400°F. Extensive

discussions covered the topical areas of

requirements, material system usage criteria, candidate screening tests, structural element and full-scale

verification test methods, physical and mechanical properties

test methods, chemical characterization, and material system

acceptance criteria.

Workshops four through twenty-six were general topic workshops covering the area of design, development, testing, and

application of high temperature reinforced polymeric composites. Presentation materials were published during the workshops

for distribution to all attendees.

HIGH TEMPLE PROCEEDINGS DATABASE

The first effort to provide the high temperature composites community with the accumulated data from the High Temple Work-
12 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3

shops began in 1996 when a High Temple Task Group published

a list of keywords associated with the presentations previously

presented at High Temple Workshops. In 1999, AMMTIAC

established a web-based searchable database containing all the

briefings from the High Temple Workshops. This database

included an updated keyword library based on the original keyword list developed by the High Temple Task Force. This webbased database has been continuously updated after each High

Temple Workshop since inception in 1999 and is located at

http://namis.alionscience.com.

HIGH TEMPLE XXVII

12-15 February 2007 Hilton Sedona Spa and Resort -

Sedona, Arizona 

The purpose of the High Temple Workshop is to review and discuss the latest technological developments in high-temperature

polymer matrix composites with the aim of providing Government and Industry with the necessary technical data to effectively utilize these materials in aerospace applications.

The material to be presented and discussed at the Workshop

sessions may contain information covered under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR). Because of this, attendance is

limited to U.S. and Canadian citizens or registered aliens (green

card holders). Further, all non-government employees must be

preregistered with the Defense Logistics Service Center (DD

Form 2345, Military Critical Technical Data Agreement).

For more information about High Temple,

including registration information,

visit http://namis.alionscience.com/ or contact 

Mr. Dan McCray, UDRI, 937.656.6009.

TEMS Update

In Volume 1, Number 2 of the AMMTIAC Quarterly, an article

providing an overview of the Defense Technical Information

Center’s (DTIC’s) Total Electronic Migration System was published. Since publication of that article in October 2006, there 

has been significant progress in the development of the system.

As of December 2006, TEMS had approximately 111,700 fulltext documents available and more than 1,016,700 citations for

reference or further request.

TEMS allows DTIC users 

to access and search the 

scientific and technical 

knowledge base of DoD’s

state-of-the-art Information

Analysis Centers (IACs).

Through sophisticated 

software and search 

engine technology, users 

can locate, read, and 

download reports, and

assemble bibliographies 

and indexes.

Go to http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/registration/ and follow the instructions.

Once registered, visit https://tems-iac.dtic.mil/ to log in to TEMS.

To get started
Textile Preforms

for Composite Material Technology

This publication is the first and only 

one of its kind – A panoramic and 

thorough examination of fiber/textile

perform technology and its critical role

in the development and manufacture 

of high-performance composite 

materials. This product was prepared 

in collaboration with Drexel University

and authored by Dr. Frank Ko, the

Director of Drexel’s Fibrous Materials

Research Center. Dr. Ko is one the

world’s foremost authorities on fibrous

preforms and textile technology.

Order Code: AMPT-19 Price: $100 US, $150 Non-US

Blast and Penetration Resistant Materials

This State-of-the-Art Report compiles the recent and legacy DOD

unclassified data on blast and penetration resistant materials (BPRM) and

how they are used in structures and

armor. Special attention was paid to

novel combinations of materials and

new, unique uses for traditional materials. This report was sponsored by

Dr. Lewis Sloter, Staff Specialist,

Materials and Structures, in the Office

of the Deputy Undersecretary of

Defense for Science & Technology.

BONUS MATERIAL: Dr. Sloter also hosted a workshop

in April, 2001 (organized by AMPTIAC) for selected

experts in the field of BPRM and its application. The

workshop focused on novel approaches to structural protection from both blast effects and penetration phenomena. Some areas covered are: building protection from

bomb blast and fragments, vehicle protection, storage of

munitions and containment of accidental detonations,

and executive protection. The proceedings of this workshop are included with purchase of the above.

Order Code: AMPT-26 Price: $115 US, $150 Non-US

Product Information and Ordering

Phone Online Email

(315)339-7047 http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/products gnash@alionscience.com

P R ODUCTS

Our complete product catalog is available online at

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/products

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 13

National Materials Information System (NAMIS)

NAMIS is a compilation of high-value materials information featuring:

High Temperature Polymers Corrosion Data

Thermal Protection Systems Aging Aircraft

Electromagnetic Windows High Temperature Composites

Infrared Windows Hypersonic Materials

Turbine Engines Cryogenic Tanks

TRY OUR FREE Module

The result is a substantial online library, containing a volume

of data presented in the context of the original document.

To learn more about NAMIS and how to subscribe visit:

http://namis.alionscience.com

Full Subscription: $250

Over 5,000 documents

and growing
14 The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3

PACE 2007, Paint and Coatings Expo

02/11/07 - 02/14/07

Dallas, TX

Contact: Annette S. DeLorenzo

CMP; Director

PACE Meetings and Expositions

537 Stanton-Christiana Rd, Suite 111

Newark, DE 19713 

Phone: 302.998.6550

Fax: 302.234.4608

Email: delorenzo@pace2006.com

Web Link: www.pace2007.com

2007 Army Corrosion Summit

02/13/2007 - 02/15/2007

Clearwater Beach, FL

Contact: Claire Lesinski

Concurrent Technologies Corporation

7935 114th Ave

Largo, FL 33773-5026

Phone: 727.549.7013

Fax: 727.549.7010

Email: lesinskc@ctc.com

Web Link: http://www.armycorrosion.com/

U.S.Air Force T&E Days

02/13/2007 - 2/15/2007

Destin, FL

Contact: Customer Service

American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1801 Alexander Bell Dr, Suite 500

Reston, VA 20191-4344

Phone: 703.264.7500

Fax: 703.264.7551

Email: custserv@aiaa.org

Web Link: www.aiaa.org

TMS 2007 136th Annual Meeting 

and Exhibition

02/25/07 - 03/01/07

Orlando, FL

Contact: TMS Meeting Services

420 Commonwealth Dr

Warrendale, PA 15086

Phone: 724.776.9000 x243

Fax: 724.776.3770

Email: mtgserv@tms.org

Web Link: www.tms.org/AnnualMeeting.html

uv.eb WEST 2007

03/06/07 - 03/07/07

Los Angeles, CA

Contact: Mickey Fortune

RadTech - The Association 

for UV & EB Technology

6935 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 207

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Phone: 240.497.1243

Fax: 240.209.2337

Email: mickeyfortune@jangomail.com

Web Link: www.uvebwest.com

Components for Military and Space

Electronics Conference & Exhibition

(11th International CMSE Conference)

03/12/07 - 03/15/07

Los Angeles, CA

Contact: Leon Hamiter

Components Technology, Inc.

904 Bob Wallace Ave., Suite 117

Huntsville, AL 35801 

Phone: 256.536.1304 

Fax: 256.539.8477

Email: lhamiter@cti-us.com 

Web Link: www.cti-us.com/ 

SPIE Smart Structures and Materials &

Nondestructive Evaluation and Health

Monitoring 14th International 

Symposium

03/18/07 - 03/22/07

San Diego, CA

Contact: The International Society 

for Optical Engineering

PO Box 10

Bellingham, WA 98227-0010

Phone: 360.676.3290

Fax: 360.647.1445

Email: spie@spie.org

Web Link: www.spie.org

3rd International Conference and 

Exhibition on Device Packaging

3/19/2007 - 3/22/2007

Scottsdale, AZ

IMAPS-International Microelectronics 

and Packaging Society

611 2nd St, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20002

Phone: 202.548.4001

Fax: 202.548.6115

Email: imaps@imaps.org

Web Link: www.imaps.org/devicepackaging

38th Structures and Mechanical 

Behavior Subcommittee, 25th Rocket

Nozzle Technology Subcommittee,

and 16th Nondestructive Evaluation

Subcommittee Joint Meeting

03/20/07 - 03/22/07

Newport, RI

Contact: Debra S. Eggleston

The Johns Hopkins University, CPIAC

10630 Little Patuxent Pkwy, Suite 202

Columbia, MD 21044-3204

Phone: 410.992.7300

Fax: 410.730.4969

Email: dse@jhu.edu

2007 Air Force Corrosion Conference

04/06/2007 - 04/09/2007

Macon, GA

Contact: Beverly Dillard

Phone: 478.926.0558

Email: afrlmls.olr.scorr@robins.af.mil

Web Link: http://afcpo.com/

Aging Aircraft 2007

04/16/07 - 04/19/07

Palm Springs, CA

Contact: J. Jennewine

Universal Technology Corporation

1270 North Fairfield Rd 

Dayton, OH 45432 

Phone: 937.426.2808

Fax: 937.426.8755

Email: jjennewine@utcdayton.com

Web Link: www.agingaircraft.utcdayton.com

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,

Structural Dynamics, and Materials

Conference

4/23/07 – 4/26/07

Honolulu, Hawaii

Contact: American Institute of Aeronautics 

and Astronautics, Inc.

1801 Alexander Bell Dr, Suite 500

Reston, VA 20191-4344

Phone: 703.264.7500

Fax: 703.264.7551

Email: custserv@aiaa.org

Web Link: www.aiaa.org

IMAPS/ACerS 3rd International 

Conference and Exhibition 

on Ceramic Interconnect and Ceramic

Microsystems Technologies (CICMT)

4/23/07 – 4/26/07

Denver, Colorado

Contact: IMAPS-International 

Microelectronics & Packaging Society

611 2nd St, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20002

Phone: 202.548.4001

Fax: 202.548.6115

Email: imaps@imaps.org

Web Link: www.imaps.org

International Conference on 

Metallurgical Coatings and Thin Films 

4/23/07 – 4/27/07

San Diego, CA

Contact: Mary S. Gray

Suite 136, 14001-C Saint Germain Dr

Centreville, VA 20121

Phone: 703.233.3287

Email: icmctf@mindspring.com 

Web Link: www.tms.org/Meetings/Meeting.asp

AISTech 2007 

05/07/07 – 05/10/07

Indianapolis, IN.

Contact: Association for Iron & 

Steel Technology

186 Thorn Hill Rd

Warrendale, PA 15086-7528

Phone: 724.776.6040

Web Link: www.aist.org

Mark Your Calendar
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com The AMMTIAC Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 15

AMMTIAC Directory

TECHNICAL MANAGER/COR

Dr. Lewis E. Sloter II

Associate Director, Materials & Structures

ODUSD(S&T)/Weapons Systems

1777 North Kent Street, Ste 9030

Arlington, VA 22209-2110

(703) 588-7400, Fax: (703) 696-2230

Email: lewis.sloter@osd.mil

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

(DTIC) POC

Melinda Rozga, DTIC-I

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Ste 0944

Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

(703) 767-9122, Fax: (703) 767-9119

Email: mrozga@dtic.mil

AMMTIAC DIRECTOR (ACTING)

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7009, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: cgrethlein@alionscience.com

Help us improve the quality of our publication!

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/AQsurvey

answers materials, manufacturing, 

and testing questions

CALL : 315-339-7090

EMAIL : ammtiac@alionscience.com

O R

VISIT : http ://ammtiac.alionscience.com/Help/inquiry.html

AMMTIAC

MATERIALS TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

Jeffrey D. Guthrie

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7058, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: jguthrie@alionscience.com

MANUFACTURING TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7009, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: cgrethlein@alionscience.com

NON-DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION

AND TESTING TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

Dr. George A. Matzkanin

3096 Stevens Circle South

Erie, CO 80516

(303) 774-0651, Fax: (303) 774-0652

Email: gmatzkanin@tri-austin.com

TECHNICAL INQUIRY SERVICES MANAGER

Richard A. Lane

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

(315) 339-7097, Fax: (315) 339-7107

Email: rlane@alionscience.com
http :// ammtiac.alionscience.com

Prsrt Std

US Postage 

Paid

Utica, NY

Permit No. 566

AMMTIAC

201 Mill Street

Rome, NY 13440-6916

Inquiry Line/Ask the Experts

315.339.7090

Free Subscription

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/subscribe/

Please update 

and verify your 

subscription information 

at:

http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/certify