Upload
braulio-hite
View
258
Download
7
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Manual Inspection Enhanced Inspection Design of an Enhanced FOD Inspection System for the
Aircraft Production Process
Manual Inspection
Enhanced Inspection
Foreign Object Debris (FOD)
By: Justin Amoyal, Roman Garber, Marwan Karama, Meba Kassahun & Anoosha Koohi
2
Agenda
• Context• Fighter Jet Production Overview• FOD Overview• Current FOD Prevention Process
• Stakeholder Analysis & CONOPS• Approach & System Alternatives• Methods & Models• Project Management• Future Steps
3
Fighter Jet Introduction
Flyaway cost is one measure of the cost of an aircraft. It values the aircraft at its marginal cost, including only the cost of production and production tools essential for building a single unit. It excludes prior costs such as research and development (treating these as sunk costs), supplementary costs such as support equipment, or future costs such as spares and maintenance
F-117
F-35
F-22_______
_______
4
Case Model – Lockheed Martin F-35
5
6
F-35 Production Flow
7
FOD Overview
Foreign Object Debris (FOD): A substance, debris or article alien to a vehicle or system which would potentially cause damage.• According to Boeing, FOD costs the aerospace industry $4 Billion/year
Classification ExamplesPanstock Washer, Bolt, Screw, Pin
Consumables Rag, Cap, Bag, Bottle
Personal Items Pens, Key, Change, Paper
Tools/Shop Aids Wrench, Socket, Hammer
Perishables/Expendables
Clamps, Drill Bits, Apex Tips
Trash Plastic Wrap, Used Tape
Manufacturing Debris Metal Shavings, Rivet Tails
Environmental Rocks/Pebbles, Insects
8
FOD Affect on Current Fighter Jet Production Process
FOD Arrival RateExponential[.183]
9
Current FOD Prevention Technique
10
F35 Production with Manual FOD Inspection
0
1
2
3
4
5
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
p(Search Sucess)
Num
ber
of In
spec
tors
11
Agenda
• Context• Stakeholder Analysis & CONOPS
• Stakeholder Analysis• Gap & Problem• Mission Requirements
• Approach & System Alternatives• Methods & Models• Project Management• Future Steps
12
Class Title Example Objectives
Primary
1. Production Line Personnel2. FOD Inspectors3. FOD Associations4. FOD Inspection Training Personnel
1a. Mechanic/Engineer involved in inspecting/detecting FOD1b. Mechanic/Engineer involved in FOD related rework and repair2a. Personnel Scanning for FOD2b. Personnel documenting instance's of FOD3a. National Aerospace FOD Prevention Inc.4a. Personnel responsible for FOD certification/training
1a. Limit FOD inputted1a.Detect any FOD present1b. Remove FOD present1b. Repair Aircraft Component2a. Detect FOD2b. Document FOD occurrence3a. Standardize terms & methods for the prevention of FOD to A/C4a. Teach FOD prevention to employees
Secondar
y
1. Aircraft Production Corporation2. Aircraft Customers3. Aircraft Pilots
1a. Lockheed Martin2a. 3 US Government Branches2b. International F35 Customers 3a. Marine Pilot
1a. Eliminate FOD present during Customer Delivery1a. Limit rework and repair time1a.Produce A/C as efficiently/quick as possible2a/2b. Pilot Safety2a/2b. Advanced AC capabilities2a/2b. AC delivery in timely manner3a. Complete mission safely3a. Test A/C capabilities
Tertiary
1. Aircraft Production Stockholders2. Insurance Companies 3. US Government4. Foreign Governments
1a. Employees of LMCO with stock & citizens with stock in LMCO2a. FOD related personnel insurance companies 3a. Department of Defense (DOD) – those in charge of government spending/budgets4a. Foreign Government contract/budget officials
1a. Maximize Profit2a. Insure/protect those who may be threatened/affected by FOD3a. Lowest price for most capable A/C4a. Most safety with the least amount of FOD
13
Stakeholder Wins & Tensions
14
Problem & Need
15
Number of Aircraft Produced
Cum
ulati
ve C
ost R
elat
ed to
FO
D
GAP
Manual In-spection
Improved Sys-tem
Gap Analysis Non-Linear relationship between the time to detect FOD and
the costs associated Fighter Jet Production is growing, yet FOD Inspection
techniques have remained Manual FOD damage is estimated to cost the Aerospace Industry $4
billion a year
Years
Com
plex
ity
16
Enhanced Inspection System Requirements
MR # Requirement DescriptionMR.1.0 System shall have a 98% FOD detection rate in all portions of the AircraftMR.2.0 System shall support a production rate of 1 plane/dayMR.3.0 On-site support shall be provided for 2 weeks per installation location during initial
operational phase of equipment. MR.4.0 Supplier shall provide 1 week of operator training for 10 operatorsMR.5.0 System shall have an ROI of 25% based on LM data sample acquired before the
integration of the system and data sample acquired approximately 12 months after system integration
MR.6.0 System shall reduce FOD inspection times by 50% based on LM data sample acquired before the integration of the system and data sample acquired approximately 12 months after system integration.
MR.7.0 Supplier shall develop an integration plan for incorporation of the equipment into the F-35 production plan. Plan shall be approved by LM 30 days prior to installation.
17
Agenda• Context• Stakeholder Analysis & CONOPS• Approach & System Alternatives
• Implementation & Design Alternatives• Functional Breakdown• Allocated Architecture
– Imaging Component– Analysis Component
• X-Ray System Alternatives
• Methods & Models• Project Management• Future Steps
Design Alternatives & Implementation
1. Manual/Visual Inspection2. X-Ray imaging & Differential imaging software• Automated system with multi-layer view• Automated FOD Identification Software
18
19
F35 Production with Enhanced FOD Inspection
20
External Systems Diagram
21
Functional Architecture
22
Current Problem & Need for a Solution
23
Backscatter X-Rays Both x-ray source and x-ray
detectors apparatus are located on one side of the object
Transmission X-Rays Passes an X-Ray beam
through an object to a detector on the far side
Backscatter & Transmission X-rays
24
X-ray System X-raySystem
Source Penetration Power (in steel)
Power Requirement
Scanning Speed
Dimensions Start Up Time Radiation Dose
Linear Rail Backscatter 6.3 mm 250-600 watts
0.185(m^2/s) x 20 min x
Robotic Arm Backscatter 6.3 mm 250-600watts
0.185(m^2/s) x 20 min x
Gantry Transmission- Optional Backscatter
400 mm 380-480 9.6(m^2/s) Length 36.5mWidth 3.0mHeight 5.0m
15 min 5 mR
Z-Portal Backscatter 300 mm 480 x Width 8.9m Height 6.3m
15 min 5 mR
MobileSarch Backscatter and Transmission
300 mm x 9.6(m^2/s) Width 2.5mHeight 4.1m
30 min 2 mR
Z-Backscatter Van
Backscatter x x 7.2(m^2/s) Length 7.96Width2.6mHeight 2.9m
x 10 mSv
X-ray Alternatives
25
Alternatives Per Sub-Assembly
26
Differential Imaging
Differential Imaging provides the operator with a means of assistance in identifying the FOD items after the Aircraft Components have been scanned and the images are being compared.
27
Try to identify these two object?
Aircraft Sub-Assembly
Center Fuselage
28
Aircraft Sub-Assembly
Center Fuselage
29
Agenda• Context• Stakeholder Analysis & CONOPS• Approach & System Alternatives• Methods & Models
• Design Of Experiments• System Models
– Inspection Time Model– Inspection Reliability Model
• The Simulation– Simulation Inputs & Outputs– Variables– Assumptions– Flow Diagram
• Business Model
• Project Management• Future Steps
30
Design of Experiments• Generate accurate representation of the F35 production process by
gathering data
• Create Instantiated architectures for the system by deciding which X-Ray alternatives are viable for each Aircraft Sub-Assembly
• Instantiated architectures will be compared based on cost, rework hours, production time per Aircraft
InstantiatedArchitecture
Aircraft Sub-Assembly
Total Time Per Aircraft
Rework & Repair Hours
Station Utilization
Total Cost(Installation + Rework & Repair Costs)
X Ray Alternative
Forward Fuselage
Time ValueTime Value
and $ Value
Time Value and
$ Value$ Value
X Ray Alternative
Center Fuselage
X Ray Alternative
Wing Structure
X Ray Alternative
Aft Fuselage
X RayAlternative
Complete Aircraft
31
Model Interaction
32
X-ray Inspection Time Model
Scan Time per Sub-Assembly:
• Scan Speed of X-Ray Alternative (V)
• Surface Area of Sub-Assembly (A)
• Image Analysis Time (X)
+ X
Device Start Up
Time
Total Time
Per Alternative
Total Inspection
Time
33
Probability of Detection
34
Probability of Detection Variables
Absorption coefficient (μ)
• Quantity that characterizes how easily a material can be penetrated by a beam of x-ray.
• Density ( ρ )Steel>Titanium>Aluminum • X-ray energy• Material
Density μ
Energy μ
Half Value Layer(HVL)
• 50% of x-ray radiation is absorbed
P = μ HVL
HVL P
Inspected component thickness
• Forward Fuselage
• AFT fuselage• Center
fuselage• Wing modulus
Thickness HVL
Thickness Penetration
35
Aircraft Sub-Assembly
Material (Highest Density)
Thickness (inch)
Center Fuselage
Steel 4’’
X-Ray Machine
Power (Watt)
Gantry 300
Probability of Detection Example
36
The Simulation Tool• Discrete Event Simulation• Configurable Design
– User can add/remove stations, change mean process time per station or even change FOD rate per station
– User inputs # of shifts to run the simulation for– User may input # of workers as well as hourly rate per worker
37
Simulation Variables• Probability of Detection & Inspection Time per Alternative
derived from physical models• Inverse CDF method for Random Number generation• Station Process Times
– Under the assumption of Flow-To-Tact manufacturing all stations take an equal amount of time to process each part
– Triangular Distribution with min = 4 hours, max = 8 hours, & mode = 6 hours
• FOD Arrival Rate– Exponential Distribution with λ = 0.183/hour
• FOD Rework Time – Weibull Distribution with α= 0.262 and β= 0.221
38
Simulation VariablesVariable Random Number Generator
Using Inverse CDF MethodDistribution Graph
Station Process TimesTriangular Distribution (4,6,8)
FOD Arrival Rate
Exponential Distribution (0.183)
FOD Rework Time
Weibull Distribution (0.262, 0.221)
39
Model Assumptions
• There are 18 total Assembly stations– Process Time, determined by Random number generator– Chance to leave FOD (Exp)
• FOD Inspection modeled as Bernoulli Distribution based on Probability of Detection Model – With p = Probability of detection
– Each Station has a chance to detect FOD (By Eye)
• If FOD is detected, rework time is determined by Random number generator (WEIB)
40
Simulation Flow Diagram
41
Analysis of Results (Decision Analysis)
1. Research Decision Analysis
42
2. Physical Model Decision Analysis
43
3. Simulation Output Decision Analysis
44
Agenda• Context• Stakeholder Analysis & CONOPS• Approach & System Alternatives• Methods & Models• Project Management
• Work Breakdown Structure• Timeline & Critical Path• Risk Management• Project Budget & Performance Indices
• Future Steps
45
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
46
Project Timeline & Critical Path
47
Critical Tasks Foreseeable Risks Mitigation Routes
1.Define Requirements
2. Times for Production Stages
3. Times for FOD Inspection
4.Retrieve Costs of Different X-RAY System Alternatives
5. Establishing Distributions of discrete events
1a. Receiving definitive feedback from Lockheed Martin 1b. Verification of specific requirements from lack of quantitative data.
2a. Data not received from LMCO in sufficient time
3a. Data not received from LMCO in sufficient time
4. Failure to receive data from X-RAY vendors.
5a. Dependent upon receiving data in a timely fashion
1a: Define requirements based on the capabilities of the system with correlation to the goals and objectives of Lockheed Martin1b. Use “dummy variables” in simulation and verify requirements based on output
2a. Ask for average times per stage from Lockheed Martin and apply a random number generator as a multiplier to obtain multiple data points
3a. Ask for average FOD inspection times per stages or position 3aa. Establish a percentage of time per shift spent searching and apply this to the simulation
4a. Estimate costs from available research
5a: Establishing “dummy variables” will enable our team to run multiple simulations, graph the output and establish these distributions5aa. Obtaining these averages from Lockheed Martin and applying a random number generator as a multiplier will create multiple data points which can then be run through the simulation and graphed to find the various distributions.
48
49
50
51
Agenda
• Context• Stakeholder Analysis & CONOPS• Approach & System Alternatives• Methods & Models• Project Management• Future Steps
52
Plans for the near future
• Results • Modeling False Alarms• Analysis of Results• ROI Analysis• Sensitivity Analysis• Tying together GUI with Java code• Conclusions and Recommendations
53
Questions?
54
Bibliography
• 1. American Science and Technology, “Z BACKSCATTER VAN,” AS&E, Massachusetts, USA, Tech. Report. ZBVDATA_080307, 2007.
• 2. American Science and Technology, “MOBILESEARCH HE,” AS&E, Massachusetts, USA, Tech. Report. MSHEDATA_012711, 2011.
• 3. American Science and Technology, “Omniview Gantry High-Performance Inspection System,” AS&E, Massachusetts, USA, Tech. Report. OVDATA_101711, 2011.
• 4. American Science and Technology, “Z PORTAL,” AS&E, Massachusetts, USA, Tech. Report. ZPORTALDATA_052510, 2010.
• 5. Batchel, B. 2014. “Foreign Object Debris and Damage Prevention” [Online] Available: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_01/textonly/s01txt.html
• 6. Callerame, , "X-Ray Back scatter Imaging: Photography Through Barriers". Retrieved September, 2014 Available: http://www.icdd.com
• 7.”CTOL SWBS Manufacturing Sequence Flow” 2011. [Online] Availablhttp://information2share.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/ctol-swbs-manufacturing-sequence-flow/
• 8. Garber, M , Diagnostic imaging and differential diagnosis in 2 case reports , J Orthop Sports • Phys Ther. , vol 35 , no , p.745 – 754• 9. Gemini® 7555". Retrieved September , 2014 Available:
http://as-e.com/products-solutions/parcel-inspection/gemini-6040 • 10. Fessle, C J, , "Physics of Projection Radiography ". RetrievedSeptember , 2014 Available:
http://web.eecs.umich.edu."Backscatter Radiography". RetrievedSeptember , 2014 Available: http://www.nucsafe.com
• 11. FOREIGN OBJECT DAMAGE PREVENTION. [Online]. Available: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/scm/terms/fod/fod.pdf
• 12. FOD PREVENTION GUIDELINE [Online]. Available: http://www.nafpi.com/ nafpiguideline.pdf
55
Bibliography
• Butler, Amy. "F-35 Deal Targets Unit Cost Below $100 Million." Aviation Week. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
• F35.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.• "BAE Systems completes 150th aircraft for F35 fighter programme".• King, Samuel Jr. "First F-35 arrives at Eglin." U.S. Air Force, 15 July 2011. Retrieved: 20 July
2011.• Pae, Peter. "Stealth fighters fly off the radar". Los Angeles Times, 23 April 2008. Retrieved 27
April 2008.• "Iraq Accepts First Lockheed Martin F-16 Aircraft · Lockheed Martin". Retrieved 13
September 2014.• Davies and Dildy 2007, p. 249• "Iraq Accepts First Lockheed Martin F-16 Aircraft · Lockheed Martin". Retrieved 13
September 2014.• "McDonnell Douglas F-15 Streak Eagle fact sheet".National Museum of the United States Air
Force. Retrieved 24 September 2010.• "Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Request." Cost of war, 15 February
2011. Retrieved: 31 August 2013.
56
Fighter Jet Slide References
• Butler, Amy. "F-35 Deal Targets Unit Cost Below $100 Million." Aviation Week. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
• F35.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.• "BAE Systems completes 150th aircraft for F35 fighter programme".• King, Samuel Jr. "First F-35 arrives at Eglin." U.S. Air Force, 15 July 2011. Retrieved: 20 July
2011.• Pae, Peter. "Stealth fighters fly off the radar". Los Angeles Times, 23 April 2008. Retrieved 27
April 2008.• "Iraq Accepts First Lockheed Martin F-16 Aircraft · Lockheed Martin". Retrieved 13
September 2014.• Davies and Dildy 2007, p. 249• "Iraq Accepts First Lockheed Martin F-16 Aircraft · Lockheed Martin". Retrieved 13
September 2014.• "McDonnell Douglas F-15 Streak Eagle fact sheet".National Museum of the United States Air
Force. Retrieved 24 September 2010.• "Analysis of the Fiscal Year 2012 Pentagon Spending Request." Cost of war, 15 February
2011. Retrieved: 31 August 2013.
57
BACK UPS
58
Inspection Probability Of Detection Model
59
60
WBS 1.1
61
WBS 1.2
62
WBS 1.3
63
WBS 1.4
64
WBS 1.5
65
WBS 1.6
Differential Imaging Requirements
66
DIR # Requirement Definition
DIR.1.O Supplier shall provide LM the capability to customize the Differential Imaging Software.
DIR.2.0 A site license for all software required for LM to customize the system Differential Imaging Software shall be submitted for approval 6 months prior to installation on LM intranet assets.
DIR.3.0 Installation on LM intranet assets will occur 90 days prior to installation.
DIR.4.0 Two training courses to educate LM employees in the customization of the Differential Imaging Software.
DIR.5.0 Each class shall be for 10 or less lM employees and conducted immediately after the training at the LM Fort Worth Facility.
DIR.6.0 Differential Imaging software shall support the use of multiple algorithms to detect images
67
X-Ray Safety Requirements
o Radiation Exposure Limits o Personnel Monitoringo Exposure Recordso Posting Notices
o Inspectionso X-Ray Exams of Pregnant or
Potentially Pregnant Womeno Pregnant Authorized Users
• XR.2.0 - Radiation workers shall not receive a dose in 1 calendar quarter over the following limits: o Deep Dose Equivalent 1250 millirem (mrem)o Lens Dose Equivalent 3,750 mremo Shallow Dose Equivalent (skin) 12,500 mremo Shallow Dose Equivalent (extremities) 12,500 mrem
• XR.1.0 – System occupational exposure shall be in accordance with OSHA requirements. Supplier shall provide an X-Ray Exposure Protection Plan that addresses the following areas.
• XR.1.1 - The Plan shall be approved by LM 90 days prior to installation.
Approach & System Alternatives