Upload
voxuyen
View
219
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
12/6/2007 | 1BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company.Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.
Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Health Monitoring for Structural “Hot Spots”: A Systems Approach
Mark DerrisoAdvanced Structures Branch
Air Vehicles Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory
This document does not contain technical data within the definition contained in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), as such is releasable by any
means to any person whether in the U.S. or abroad. The Export Compliance log number for this document is Export Approval # BOE111207-306 (assigned IAW PRO-4527, PRO 3439)
Eric HaugseMaterials and Structures Technology
Phantom WorksBoeing
12/6/2007 | 2
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Presentation Outline
SHM Level Setting
Design Space
Example Applications
Design Framework
Closing Remarks
12/6/2007 | 3
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Structural Health Management (SHM) Evolution
“Structural safety is an evolutionary accomplishment, and attention to design features is key to its achievement. Acquisition and review of service data and other firsthand information from customer airlines is necessary to promote safe and economic operation of the worldwide Boeing fleet…………This paper describes these structural health monitoring approaches”.
U. Goranson, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Key Note Speech, Stanford Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, 1997.
12/6/2007 | 4
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Current State: Schedule-Based Maintenance
Structural Design
Full- Scale Fatigue Testing
Problem Areas Identified
Front SparMain Spar
Rear SparClosure Spar
F-15 Wing
Conduit Hole(hot spot)
Inspection Schedule Constructed
12/6/2007 | 5
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Schedule vs Condition
Schedule-based maintenanceInitially works wellHowever, over time req’ts change
Use vehicle systems longer than plannedUse for different missions than designedNew problem areas identified
Results in decreased availability, increased inspection times, and increased O&S costs
Condition-based maintenanceIncreases availability, increasesreliability, and decreases O&S costswhile maintaining vehicle safety
B-52
KC-135
12/6/2007 | 6
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Health Monitoring for Structural “Hot Spots”: Design Space
Integrated Design Implementation• Reliability Based Design Criteria• Damage Prognostics• Unsupervised Learning• System Integration
Key technology paradigm shift is from scheduled, hands on inspections to in-situ monitoring, condition based maintenance, and design integration.
Mon
itorin
g C
over
age/
Mon
itorin
g D
esig
n C
ost
Maintenance Effort & Cost Based on Condition / Maintenance Effort & Cost Based on Schedule
Monitoring Development• Advanced NDI/ In-situ SHM• Improved POD/ Diagnostics• Virtual (model based) Sensing• Optimized Weight, Volume
Autonomous Local
Monitoring
Inspection Enhancement
Current StateSchedule Based
Maintenance
Broad Area Condition
BasedMaintenance/
Design Feedback•High Sortie Rate•Gate Availability
•Fleet Management•Maintenance Management
12/6/2007 | 7
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Flight demonstration sensor installation
In-service data collectionCoupon and component
testing
Requirements development
with customer
SHM for Bonded Repairs (Mark Derriso, AFRL)
12/6/2007 | 8
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Understanding Requirements from a Systems Implementation Standpoint: Damage Repair Decisions
Allowable Damage Range
DAMAGESIZE
STRUCTURALSTRENGTH
Strength with BVID
BVI
D
Allo
wab
le
dam
age
limit
Ultimate
Tem
p R
epai
r Li
mit
Example failure strain (strength) vs. damage size curve. This will change for location, layup, distance from design details, etc.
STRUCTURALSTRENGTH
TEMP R
EPAIR
Limit(fail safe)
SERVICE TIME
Damageoccurs
Act
ual
dam
age
size
Damage size prediction with error estimate
Temporary repair patches return structure to ultimate load carrying capability
Pristine
Temporary repair limit
Tem
pora
ry
repa
irsPe
rman
ent
repa
irs TEMP REPAIR RANGE
SHM system will provide geometry information
about the damage (e.g., location, area, depth, etc.)
SHM system will provide geometry information
about the damage (e.g., location, area, depth, etc.)
12/6/2007 | 9
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Composite Impact Damage Estimation Where Damage Sizing is a Requirement
Impact
IML
Scattered Image
Volume
A-scan damage outline
Impact
IML
OMLdepth
diameterGoals: Obtain the best prediction of damage delamination area and maximum delamination depth
12/6/2007 | 10
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
5’x7’ Panel
Impact Damage Sizing, Comparison to NDI
10 20 30 40 50 60 7015
20
25
30
35
40
45
12 3 4 5
6
78
10
11 1213 14
15
1617
ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES
Green: C-scan, Blue: A-Scan, Red: SHM
12/6/2007 | 11
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Lap Joint/ Repair Monitoring
Upper skin
Lower skinTear strap
Sealant
Rivets
StringerStringer clip
Upper skin
Lower skinTear strap
Sealant
Rivets
StringerStringer clip
12/6/2007 | 12
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Phased Array approach helps meet requirements and cost targets for a linear application like a lap splice
Phased Array Design to Meet Application Requirements
12/6/2007 | 13
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Prototype Flight Installation for Proof of Concept
Phased Array Design Implementation
12/6/2007 | 14
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Hard Landing Assessment Example
GOALS - Reduce aircraft schedule interrupts by:1. Reducing number of falsely reported hard landings2. Aiding the maintenance process
PHASE 2 APPROACH• Pilot “by feel” initiated inspection• Flight parameters and sensor information
used to predict detailed load information in critical structural areas
• Recommend maintenance action• Aid maintenance procedure
AUTOMATEDLOAD PREDICTION
PHASE 1 APPROACH• Pilot “by feel” initiated inspection• Maintenance page provides flight
parameters at touchdown• Lookup table used to determine
maintenance action
MAINTENANCE PAGE
787 HEAVY/HARD LANDING MAINTENANCE PAGE
DATE XX XXX XXGROSS WEIGHT XXX.XCG XX.X
MAIN GEAR:UTC XX:XX:XX.XPRIOR TO TOUCH DOWN:
CG SINK RATE XXX.XPITCH ANGLE XXX.XCRAB ANGLE XXX.XROLL ATTITUDE XXX.XBODY ROLL RATE XXX.XCG NORM ACCEL XXX.X
TOUCHDOWN:PEAK CG NORM ACCEL XXX.X
787 Maintenance ManualGW < MLW+10K
Sink < 5 Sink <8Pitch Angle <10 <10Crab Angle <5 <3Roll Angle <4 <2Roll Rate <8 <4Initial CG NZ >.9 >.95Peak CG NZ <1.5 <2.0
CURRENT APPROACH• Pilot “by feel” initiated inspection• Limited flight data usage with AMM• Large number of false positives
787 Maintenance ManualGW < MLW
Roll Angle <2Peak CG NZ <1.9
MAINTENANCE MANUAL
INSPECTION
LOADSLOAD
PREDICTIONMODEL
FLIGHTPARAMETERS
SENSORDATA
LOADSLOAD
PREDICTIONMODEL
FLIGHTPARAMETERS
SENSORDATA
LOADPREDICTION
MODEL
FLIGHTPARAMETERS
SENSORDATA
LANDING EVENT
12/6/2007 | 15
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
H.L. Sim: -BS307
N.N
. Pre
dict
ion:
-BS
307
damage indicator location
Sample Hard Landing Trade Results
• Composite plot of predicted versus simulated (i.e., truth) normalized damage indicators.• Adjust threshold to eliminate false negatives, but at a cost of increasing false positives.• Adding physical sensors increases performance to a point.
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
H.L. Sim: -BS307
N.N
. Pre
dict
ion:
-BS
307
falsepositive
falsenegative
normallanding
hardlanding
12/6/2007 | 16
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Load Monitoring for Condition Based Maintenance
Critical Crack Length(Allowable Damage)
Detectable Crack Length
Damage ToleranceDurability
Flights, N
N = Inspection IntervalCra
ck L
engt
h, L
Crack Initiation Crack Propagation
N N N
Damage Detection
PeriodN N
Inspection program
Critical Crack Length(Allowable Damage)
Detectable Crack Length
Damage ToleranceDurability
Flights, N
N = Inspection IntervalCra
ck L
engt
h, L
Crack Initiation Crack Propagation
N N N
Damage Detection
PeriodN N
Inspection program
Operational load data can be used to determine inspection thresholds and intervals based on durability and damage tolerance methods.Approach must show significant maintenance cost improvement overscheduled inspection approach, while maintaining or improving reliability.This is a key component of an overall systems, condition based maintenance approach.
12/6/2007 | 17
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Hot Spot Monitoring and Design Framework (AFRL)
Understand the structure
Develop system level SHM
requirements
Develop candidate SHM system designs
Compare each design to the requirements
Remove the design from
consideration
Structural deign
Develop potential benefits for
applying SHM
Understand available
technologies and methods
Understand the costs of the
SHM systems
Does the design meet the
requirements?
Implement the lowest cost SHM
system design
Yes No
12/6/2007 | 18
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
Closing Comments
Implementation requires clear understanding of benefits and requirements.
Understanding of impact to overall design and design criteria is critical to understanding the implementation time frame.
A design framework that allows SHM systems to be designed in the context of the overall system (structures, systems, support) is critical to implementation success.
12/6/2007 | 19Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
12/6/2007 | 20
Engineering, Operations & Technology | Phantom Works
Copyright © 2006 Boeing. All rights reserved.Use or disclosure of data contained on this page is limited to the restrictions on the title page of this document
SHM End-to-End Flow: Damage Detection Example
SensorsDataAcquisitionHardware
A1
A2
An
VisualInspection
NDE/NDI
Other Data(reports of damage
events, fleet history …)
Data Fusion, Integration& Damage
Determination
StructuralTransformation
(to actual damageand failure mode
of Structure)
Structuralanalysis
InternalLoads
Margins
RepairRequirements
Data Collection & Processing
Sensors Information Processing toDefine Current Structural State
DecisionMaking &
Distribution
PrognosisLoad, environments
for future flightsDamage Progression
(if no repair)Continued Airworthiness
Assurance
A1, A2, An = Multiple algorithms for SHM information processing