BASELINE UT MEASUREMENTS FOR ARMOR INSPECTION
Some prototype armor panels are fabricated from several layers of dissimilar material bonded together. These may include ceramics, graphite composites, fiberglass composites and rubber. The ultrasonic properties of these layers influence inspections for armor defects. In this paper we describe measurements of ultrasonic velocity, attenuation, sound beam distortion and signal fluctuations for the individual layers comprising one armor prototype. We then discuss how knowledge of these properties can be used when choosing an optimum frequency for an ultrasonic pitch/catch immersion inspection. In our case an effective inspection frequency near 1.5 MHz affords: (1) adequate strength of through‐transmitted signals in unflawed armor; (2) adequate lateral resolution for detecting small disbonds at interfaces; and (3) low levels of UT signal fluctuations due to the natural inhomogeneity of certain armor layers. The utility of this approach is demonstrated using armor panels containing artificial disbonds at selected interfaces.Some prototype armor panels are fabricated from several layers of dissimilar material bonded together. These may include ceramics, graphite composites, fiberglass composites and rubber. The ultrasonic properties of these layers influence inspections for armor defects. In this paper we describe measurements of ultrasonic velocity, attenuation, sound beam distortion and signal fluctuations for the individual layers comprising one armor prototype. We then discuss how knowledge of these properties can be used when choosing an optimum frequency for an ultrasonic pitch/catch immersion inspection. In our case an effective inspection frequency near 1.5 MHz affords: (1) adequate strength of through‐transmitted signals in unflawed armor; (2) adequate lateral resolution for detecting small disbonds at interfaces; and (3) low levels of UT signal fluctuations due to the natural inhomogeneity of certain armor layers. The utility of this approach is demonstrated using armor panels containing artificial disbonds at selec...
Non-contact measurement and characterisation of armour ceramics
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6 LIST OF FIGURES 15 LIST OF TABLES 18 LIST OF ACRONYMS 19 LIST OF VARIABLES 21 CHAPTER
Looking for regional words in late seventeenth-century England: Bishop White Kennett and his glossary to Parochial Antiquities (1695) 1
The analysis of regional dialects in the Early Modern period has commonly been disregarded in favour of an ample scholarly interest in the ‘authorised’ version of English which came to be eventually established as a standard. The history of regional ‘Englishes’ at this time still remains to a very great extent in oblivion, owing mainly to an apparent dearth of direct textual evidence which might provide trustworthy data. Research in this field has been for the most part focused on phonological, orthographical and morphological traits by virtue of the rather more abundant information that dialect testimonies yield about them. Regional lexical diversity has, on the contrary, deserved no special attention as uncertainty arises with regard to what was provincially restricted and what was not. This paper endeavours to offer additional data to the gloomy lexical setting of Early Modern regional English. It is our aim to give a descriptive account of the dialect words collated by Bishop White Kennett’s glossary to Parochial Antiquities (1695). This underutilised specimen does actually widen the information furnished by other well known canonical word-lists and provides concrete geographical data that might contribute to bridging the gaps still existing in the history of lexical provincialisms at the time.