design of a system for aircraft fuselage inspection · design of a system for aircraft fuselage...

Faculty Advisor Dr. Lance Sherry, Bahram Yousefi

Sponsor Integrity Applications Incorporated

Tim Hawes

Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection Rui Filipe Fernandes Kevin Keller Jeffrey Robbins

Reduce Inspection Time + Improve Crack Detection + Reduce Maintenance Cost

jchadwickco.com

Before

Crack

gasolinealleyantiques.com

Manual Inspection

Fatigue Damage

mechanicsupport.blogspot.com

After

Computer Aided Detection

Automated Inspection

Track

Imaging Device

Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 2

Agenda

Context • Aging Aircraft & Maintenance • Current Fuselage Inspection Process • Stakeholder Analysis • Problem and Need

Concept Of Operations Method of Analysis

3

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance U.S. Domestic Fleet Statistics

airsafe.com

Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection

Average Aircraft Age Continues to Increase

Min: 5.1 years Mean: 10.6 years Max: 24.9 years

4

iata.org

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Increasing Average Age


Rank Carrier Average Age

4 US Airways 14.7

5 Southwest 14.6

6 United 13.7

International Air Transport Association Bloomberg

Domestic Carriers among the oldest fleets

bloomberg.com

Factors that contribute to aircraft deterioration include: 1) Inflight vibrations 2) Number of takeoffs and landings Fuselage pressurization cycle 30,000 ft. (4.38 psi)

5

newsweek.com

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Deterioration Due to Pressurization Cycles


Fatigue Caused by Repeated Pressurization Cycles

6

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Fuselage Pressurization Cycles


Stress From Change in Pressure Leads to Structural Fatigue

engineeringtoolbox.com

Pressure Difference

7

Widespread fatigue damage (WFD) is an age-related structural fault

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Widespread Fatigue Damage


WFD Leading to Aircraft Retirement

travelpulse.com

iata.org

Fatigue Cracks


lessonslearned.faa.gov

April 28, 1988, Boeing 737-200 Missing fuselage section caused by failure of lap joint at stringer S-10L

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Aloha Airlines Flight 243

Improved Maintenance Required

lessonslearned.faa.gov


ntsb.gov

April 1, 2011, Boeing 737-300

Emergency Airworthiness Directive AD 2011-08-51

136 Aircraft Inspected:

4 Found With Cracks Around 1 Rivet 1 Found With Cracks Around 2 Rivets

40,000 – 45,000 Total Cycles

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Southwest Airlines Flight 812

Preventative Maintenance Failed to Detect Indicators of Fatigue

10

Fuselage Accident Report

Jan 10, 1954 BOAC Flight 781

March 5, 1967 Lake Central Flight 527

Aug 22, 1981 Far Eastern Air Transport Flight 103

Aug 12, 1985 Japan Airlines Flight 123

April 4, 1988 Aloha Airlines Flight 243

July 6, 1996 Delta Airlines Flight 1288

May 25, 2002 China Airlines Flight 611

July 13, 2009 Southwest Airlines Flight 2294

April 1, 2011 Southwest Airlines Flight 812


Fuselage Maintenance is required to ensure airworthiness

Fines for not meeting Airworthiness directives: 2015: SkyWest Airlines: $1.23 million 2014: Southwest Airlines: $12 million 2010: American Airlines: $24.2 million

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Fuselage Related Accidents

ntsb.gov

11

Context: Current Fuselage Inspection Process Government Sponsored Research Facility:

Address Problems and Evaluate Emerging NDI methods


Better inspection methods continue to evolve as technology improves

Airworthiness Assurance NDI Validation Center at Sandia National Laboratories (AANC)

B737-200 Visual Inspection Test Bed

• 1988 Aviation Safety Act • Opened in 1991

Benchmark inspection techniques Data used for baseline simulation

ntsb.gov

A 125 flight hours

or 200–300 cycles 20–50 man-hours Overnight

B Approximately every 6 months 120–150 man-hours 1-3 Days

C Approximately every

20–24 months Up to 6,000 man-hours 1–2 weeks

D Approximately every 6 years Up to 50,000 man-hours 2 Months

faa.gov

12

Time to Complete Inspection Type Time Between Inspections Number of Man Hours Required

Context: Aging Aircraft & Preventative Maintenance Address Problems with Scheduled Aircraft Maintenance


Maintenance Intervals, A Delicate Balance of Risk and Cost

Fuselage inspection occurs here

Earliest Expected Cracking

Latest Expected Cracking

Time of Inspection

Critical Crack Length

Cra

ck L

engt

h

Time

Median crack growth curve

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Median Crack Growth Curve

13 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection

Minimize Number of Cracks Occurring Before Inspection

Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures

Crack length grows faster over time

Time of Inspection


Probability of cracks occurring BEFORE scheduled Maintenance

Cra

ck L

engt

h

Time

Distribution of Time to Critical Crack Length

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Distribution of Time to Critical Crack Length


Minimize Probability of Cracks Occurring Before Inspection


Probability of crack growth beyond critical length


Time of Inspection

Distribution of the crack length

Cra

ck L

engt

h

Time

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Distribution of the Crack Length


Minimize Crack Growth Beyond Critical Length


Time

Probability of crack growth beyond critical length


Time of Inspection

Probability of cracks occurring BEFORE scheduled Maintenance

Earliest Expected Cracking

Latest Expected Cracking

Distribution of Time to Critical Crack Length

Distribution of the crack length

Median crack growth curve

Cra

ck L

engt

h

Time

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Stochastic Crack Growth Model


Early Crack Detection Can Minimize Corrective Maintenance


Time

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Stochastic Crack Growth Model


The inspection schedule is chosen such that the probability of crack to grow beyond the critical crack size is less than 1 in 10,000,000

Taghipour, S., Banjevic, D., Jardine, A. K. S., “Periodic inspection optimization model for a complex repairable system”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol 95, 2010, Pg 944-952


18

When it finds an unsafe condition exists in the product and the condition is likely

to exist or develop in other products of the same type design

When Does FAA Issue Airworthiness Directives?

Context: Aging Aircraft & Corrective Maintenance Airworthiness Directive (AD)

Airworthiness Directives are legally enforceable regulations issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accordance with 14 CFR part 39 to correct an unsafe condition in a product

faa.gov


Corrective Maintenance is Disruptive to Airlines and Results in Unplanned Revenue Loss

Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

19

faa.gov


Inspection Process Governed by Title 14 (CFR)

Changes in maintenance procedure is regulated by the FAA

20

Context: Current Fuselage Inspection Process Visual Inspection Process

• Job Cards Used For Every Component

• Many Human Factors/Prone to Errors

• 41.8% detected • 14.1% type 1 error (Misdiagnosed) • 43.7% type 2 error (Missed Detection)

• Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI)

methods used to assess marked regions


Inspection Process Begins with Visual Inspection

VISUAL INSPECTION RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT ON BENCHMARK INSPECTIONS FAA Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center

21

Context: Current Fuselage Inspection Process Representative Regions of Aircraft

FAA Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center Report

JC 501 Midsection Floor Manual/Enhanced

JC 502 Main Landing Gear Support Manual/Enhanced

JC 503 Midsection Crown (Internal) Manual/Enhanced

JC 504 Galley Doors (Internal) Manual/Enhanced

JC 505 Rear Bilge (External) Manual/Enhanced

JC 506 Left Forward Upper Lobe Manual/Enhanced

JC 507 Left Forward Cargo Compartment Manual/Enhanced

JC 508/509 Upper and Lower Rear Bulkhead Y-Ring Manual/Enhanced

JC 510 Nose Wheel Well Forward Bulkhead Manual/Enhanced

JC 701 Lap-Splice Panels Manual/Enhanced/Automated


ntl.bts.gov

Representative Regions Require Different Inspection Techniques


22

Context: Current Fuselage Inspection Process Current Visual Inspection Process


Inspection Process Modeled In Simulation

95704520

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Shape 5.008

Scale 9.652

N 12

Inspection Time (Minutes)

Fre

qu

en

cy

Gamma

Inspection Time of Lap-Splice Panels (Minutes)


12 Inspectors 38.5 ft section 737 - 4 sections

23

Context: Stakeholder Analysis Interactions, Tensions and Gap


Context: Problem and Need


Issues Consequences

Heavy D Check Inspection Process Requires up to 2 months to Complete

Aircraft maintenance/repair 12-15% of total airline annual expenditures

In 2013, 3.5 million flight cycles logged over 2,660 aircraft

Average $2,652 per flight cycle Amounts to $9.4 billion total

43.7% Type 2 Error (Missed Detection)

11 Airworthiness Directives Issued to Address Fuselage Cracking

Solutions Benefits

Reduce Time Required for Inspections

Decreased Inspection Costs

Early Detection of Structural Fatigue

Improved Scheduling of Preventive Maintenance / Minimize Corrective Maintenance Required

Reduce Human Error Improved Crack Detection

Problem

Need

Current Inspection Process

Improved Inspection Process

Time

Cost

Quality

Win-Win: New Technology Introduced to Inspection Process

25

Agenda

Context Concept of Operations

• Operational Scenario • Design Alternatives • System and Design Requirements • Automated Inspection System IDEF.0

Method of Analysis


26

Concept of Operations: Operational Scenario Levels of Human Involvement


Inspection Method

ConOps Introduces New Technology to Inspection Process

1 – Manual (BASELINE)

2 – Manual/Enhanced

ntl.bts.gov aviationpros.com aviationpros.com

3 – Autonomous, Contact & Non-Contact

27

Concept of Operations: Operational Scenario Inspection Methods with Delivery System Alternatives


Non-Contact

Handheld Robotic Crawler Track

Visual Thermographic

Eddy Current Eddy Current

Ultrasonic

Laser

Ultrasonic

Synthetc

Aperture

Contact

Contact

Non-Contact

Insp

ect

ion

Me

tho

ds

Synthetic

Aperture

X

X

Limitations of Delivery Method Based on Region of Aircraft

28

Concept of Operations: Operational Scenario NDI Technologies and Alternatives


Delivery Method Description Level of Human Involvement

Applicable Technology

Properties/ Characteristics

Handheld Scanner carried by inspector

Enhanced Eddy Current Ultrasonic Synthetic Aperture

Can access all portions of the fuselage both exterior and interior

Robotic Crawler Travels along outside of aircraft, scans designated areas.

Autonomous Thermographic Ultrasonic Eddy Current

For main fuselage, not good for tight corners

Non-Contact Autonomous Imaging Device

Utilizes track to move around.

Autonomous Synthetic Aperture Laser Ultrasonic

Capable of capturing all sections of the fuselage as well as the areas the robotic crawler cannot reach I.e. where the wings meet the fuselage

29

Inspection Method

Time Cost Quality

Visual Visual Inspection time Documentation time

Hourly wage of inspectors Training Cost Cost of Human Errors

Limited by human eyesight Prone to human error Human decision making only

Enhanced Visual

Increased Inspection Time Imaging Time Evaluation Time Documentation Time

Hourly wage of inspectors Training/certification Maintenance Cost Cost of Human Errors

Improved by computer

aided decision making Interpretation/ Evaluation of data prone to human errors

Automated Faster Inspection Time

Imaging Time

Software Processing

Time

Acquisition/Development Cost Installation Cost Training Cost Maintenance Cost

Software for image

processing reduces

errors and eliminates

dependence on human

decision making

PRO CON

Concept of Operations: Design Alternatives Benefits by Category


Automated inspection has substantial benefits

30

Concept of Operations: Operational Scenario Non-Contact Delivery Method


Potential Implementation of Synthetic Aperture Imaging Technology

Track

Imaging Device

Output = 3D image

31

Concept of Operations: Design Alternatives Synthetic Aperture Imaging Devices (SAID)


http://spie.org

Produces high resolution 3-dimensional images

32

Concept of Operations: Design Alternatives Laser Ultrasonic


http://www.mdpi.com/

Aircraft

Surface

Laser Ultrasonics also identify sub-surface faults

33

Mission and Functional Requirements

MR.1 The system shall prevent airframe maintenance cost from exceeding a yearly growth of 1.15%

FR.1.1 The system shall cost no more than $25K to operate annually

FR.1.2 The system shall accrue no more than $5000 in Type 1 errors annually

FR.1.3 The system shall require an initial investment of no more than $2M

FR.1.4 The system shall process captured images at a rate of 12.5 m2 per 8 seconds

MR.2 The system shall detect cracks in the airframe of aircraft both visible, and not visible, by a human inspector

FR.2.1 The system shall detect cracks with an area exceeding 0.5 mm2

FR.2.2 The system shall have a Type 2 error rate of no more than 0.01%

FR.2.3 The system shall distinguish between cracks and pre-built parts of the aircraft

FR.2.4 The system shall capture an image of the airframe of the aircraft of dimensions 12.5 m2 without repositioning

FR.2.5 The system shall have sub-millimeter resolution

MR.3 The system shall meet size, weight and power consumption levels for hand-held or track mounted delivery

systems.

FR.3.1 The system shall include an image capture unit no more than 1000 cm3 in size

FR.3.2 The system shall include an image capture unit with a weight no more than 2.3 kg

FR.3.3 The system shall operate on 110 or 220 volts power supply

MR.4 The system shall meet Federal Aviation Administration CFR14 standards

Context: System Requirements


34

Non-Functional Requirements

NFR.1 Maintainability

NFR.1.1 The system shall produce traceable error codes upon malfunction.

NFR.1.2 The system shall allow the replacement of individual parts.

NFR.2 Reliability

NFR.2.1 The system shall experience no more than 1 system failure per month.

NFR.2.2 The system shall require no more than 4 hours of preventative maintenance per

week.

NFR.3 Usability

NFR.3.1 The system shall require no more than 40 hours of training for technician

certification.

Context: Non-Functional Requirements


35

Concept of Operations: Design Requirements


Design Requirements

D.1 Enhanced Visual (Handheld)

D.1.1 The system shall weigh no more than 5 lbs.

D.1.2 The system shall accurately scan from a distance of up to 1 m.

D.2 Robotic Automated Inspection System

D.2.1 The system shall inspect at a rate of 2 cm2/s.

D.2.2 The system shall support autonomous function.

D.2.3 The system shall accept initial input from an operator.

D.2.4 The system shall utilize integrated software.

D.2.5 The system shall store the location of airframe problem areas.

36

Concept of Operations: Automated Inspection System IDEF.0


Crack Locations

37

Agenda

Context Operational Concept/Approach Method of Analysis

• Stochastic Simulation • Model Boundaries & Simulation Inputs/Outputs • Simulation Requirements • Simulation of Visual Inspection By Airframe Region • Case Study Variables & Assumptions • Validation

• Design of Experiments • Simulation Sensitivity of Parameters


38

Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Model Boundaries and Simulation Inputs/Outputs


Inputs Outputs

• What design alternatives are utilized • Where design alternative are utilized

• Overall time for inspection • Time per section • Cracks detected per section • Type 1 errors per section • Type 2 errors per section

Aircraft Maintenance

Simulation

Uninspected aircraft

Inspected aircraft

• Time per inspection • Inspection & Section

• Cost per inspection • Labor hours • Implementing alt.

• Quality per inspection • Type 1 & 2 errors

Manual • Human • Handheld

Automated • Visual or thermal • Track or crawler

39

Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Simulation Requirements

Simulation Requirements

The simulation shall break down the aircraft into ten sections, each having its own queue

The simulation shall support multiple inspectors processing multiple sections

The simulation shall assign a set number of cracks to each section of the aircraft

The simulation shall terminate upon the inspection of all ten sections of the aircraft

The simulation shall collect statistics on total time required for inspection

The simulation shall collect statistics on total time to complete each section

The simulation shall collect statistics on cracks detected per section

The simulation shall collect statistics on crack type one errors

Mark a crack where one would not register with an NDT

The simulation shall collect statistics on crack type two errors

Fail to mark a crack that exists


40

Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Visual Inspection By Airframe Region


Initialization

Process

Statistics Gathering

Inspection

41

Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Initialization: Design Alternatives


Assignments

Manual / Automated (binary)

Process Restrictions (binary)

Process Distributions (minutes)

Crack Detection Rate (95%)

Type 1 Error Rate (4%)

Type 2 Error Rate (1%)

42

Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Inspection Process


43

Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Statistics Gathering


44

Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Distributions At a Glance



45

Method of Analysis Design of Experiments Input Alternatives


Technology Human Operated Delivery Autonomous Delivery

Human Inspector 1 Visual (Manual) N/A

Eddy Current 2 Handheld 3 Autonomous Crawler

Ultrasonic 4 Handheld 5 Autonomous Crawler

Thermographic N/A 6 Autonomous Crawler

Synthetic Aperture 7 Handheld 8 Autonomous Non-Contact

Laser-Ultrasonic N/A 9 Autonomous Non-Contact

46

Method of Analysis Design of Experiments Input Parameters


Time Dist Handheld Crawler Track/Robotic Arm Drone

Job Card Human Inspector Ultrasonic Eddy Current Thermo Ultrasonic Eddy Current SAID Laser Ultra Sonic SAID

Midsection Floor 55 + 160 *

BETA(0.713, 1.2) UNIF

(137.5,537.5) UNIF(165,645) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Main Landing Gear Support

TRIA(9.5, 28.8, 45.5) UNIF

(25,112.5) UNIF(30,135) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Midsection Crown Internal

49.5 + GAMM(24.9, 1.04) UNIF

(125,287.5) UNIF(150,345) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Galley Doors Internal NORM(67.9, 14.4) UNIF


Rear Bilge External 19.5 + WEIB(18.8, 1.93) UNIF(50,125) UNIF(60,150) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Left Forward Upper Lobe 65 + EXPO(38.8) UNIF


Left Forward Cargo Compartment

UNIF(54.5, 146) UNIF


Upper and Lower Rear Bulkhead

UNIF(19.5, 50.5) UNIF(50,125) UNIF(60,150) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nose Wheel Well Forward Bulkhead

UNIF(9.5, 20.5) UNIF(25,62.5) UNIF(30,75) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Lap Splice Panels 14.5 + 81 *

BETA(0.961, 1.34) UNIF(33,77) UNIF(45,285)

UNIF (54,98)

UNIF (85,120)

UNIF(60,100) UNIF(3,6) UNIF(3.2,9.625) UNIF(3,5)

Technology Type 1 Type 2 Detection

Human Inspector 0.145 0.437 0.418

Synthetic Aperture 0.01 0.01 0.95

Thermographic 0.01 0.01 0.95

Ultrasonic 0.01 0.01 0.95

Laser Ultrasonic 0.01 0.01 0.95

47

Simulation Results: Visual Inspection Validation (Expected vs Simulation)


Job Card Section

Actual Minutes

Simulated Minutes

Delta (minutes)

Percent Error Half-Width

JC 501 122 116.47 -5.53 -4.53 < 3.87

JC 502 28 27.8320 -0.17 -0.61 < 0.68

JC 503 75 75.3827 0.38 0.51 < 2.21

JC 504 68 67.7120 -0.29 -0.43 < 1.25

JC 505 37 36.1017 -0.9 -2.43 < 0.74

JC 506 104 105.64 1.64 1.58 < 3.38

JC 507 95 100.23 5.23 5.51 < 2.34

JC 508/509 35 34.6759 -0.32 -0.91 < 0.80

JC 510 16 15.2035 -0.8 -5.00 < 0.28

JC 701 48 49.5638 1.56 3.25 < 1.98

Total 628 628.81 0.81 < 0.1% 6.18

48

Simulation Results


Technology JC501 JC502 JC503 JC504 JC505 JC506 JC507 JC508/9 JC510 JC701

Visual 116.47 3.87

27.83 0.68

75.38 2.21

67.71 1.25

36.10 0.74

105.64 3.38

100.23 2.34

34.68 0.80

15.2 0.28

49.56 1.98

Eddy Current Handheld 406.91 12.84

82.38 2.83

249.52 5.27

226.45 4.96

103.89 2.41

360.00 8.62

298.58 7.00

105.06 2.47

50.55 1.15

163.90 6.50

Ultrasonic Handheld 392.56 23.21

83.41 5.61

249.82 9.69

232.75 8.88

105.89 4.67

375.14 16.2

295.48 13.06

104.43 5.01

49.59 2.11

165.32 12.83

Mean time (minutes)

Half-width (minutes)

Technology JC701

Visual 49.56 1.98

Thermographic Crawler 76.42 2.34

Eddy Current Crawler 103.78 1.71

Ultrasonic Crawler 79.65 2.00

SAID noncontact 4.50 0.15

Laser Ultrasonic noncontact

6.28 0.34

49

Simulation Results



Utility Hierarchy

Human Inspector

Thermo Crawler

SAID NonContact Laser Ultrasonic

NonContact

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

500 700 900 1,100 1,300 1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100

Uti

lity

Cost (in thousand $)

Thousands

Utility vs Cost Over 10 years

51

Trade Space Analysis


52

Sensitivity Analysis


Implementability (Training & TRL)

Performance (Speed & Accuracy)

Safety

Decision insensitive to change in weight


Business Case Model & Sales Profile

AnnualHeavyChecks

PerLocation $savingsinlabor/yr AdditionalPlanes/yr AdditionalRevenue

25 $16,787.48 18.83 $618,813.73

47 $31,656.38 35.51 $1,166,905.89

75 $50,362.43 56.49 $1,856,441.19

100 $67,149.90 75.32 $2,475,254.93

126 $84,608.88 94.90 $3,118,821.21

Unit price: $1.75M

Revenue stream: installation and operation per facility

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

25 47 75 100 126

AnnualRevenue($)

Millions

AnnualTypeDInspections

IncreaseinMRORevenue

Additional

Baseline

0

50

100

150

200

250

25 47 75 100 126

AircraftInspected

AnnualTypeDInspections

IncreaseinNumberofInspectedAircraft

Additional

Baseline


Startup Costs, Operational Costs and Management Team

Project Management Business Plan – Schedule Client Meetings – Research Coordinator for vendor contracts Engineering (Product Development) Hardware Development Team Software Development Team FAA Testing and Approval On-site testing team FAA Chief Scientific and Technical Advisors (CSTA)

Operational Cost (Annual)

Maintenance $21,704

Operator $9,405

Training $1,800

Startup Cost

Equipment $1,750,000

Total per Hangar: $1,750,000 + $32,909/year


Breakeven for Small MRO Facility

BreakevenYear3,$1,848,727.00

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

$Do

llars

Years

BreakevenforSmallsizedMROFacility

(25Annual"D-Checks")

SmallFacilityAdditionalRevenue LaserUltrasonicSystem

56

Return on Investment & Breakeven Value for Customers


Annual Type D Inspections

ROI per Year

25 34.97%

47 67.04%

75 107.4%

100 143.61%

126 181.28%

y=-59.89ln(x)+79.688R²=0.94797

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50TypeDInspections(perYear)

Break-even(Years)

Break-evenPointvsNumberofLaserUltrasonicTypeDInspectionsperYear


57

Conclusion & Recommendation

Automated imaging technology

• Improves inspection time by 30%, • Reduces costs by at least 10%, and • Improves quality with a 95% detection rate.

Recommendation: MRO companies acquire and implement automated non-contact imaging technology as an inspection method for the exterior of aircraft to increase their annual revenue by up to 26.3%.

59

Determining Half-Width


𝑛 = 𝑛0𝐻0

2

𝐻2

𝑛 = 2502.672

1.982

𝑛 = 455

60

Concept of Operations: Design Alternatives Exterior vs. Interior Surfaces

Exterior Surfaces Interior surfaces

Human Visual Human Visual

Human Remote Visual

Human Enhanced Visual Human Enhanced Visual

Robotic Crawler*

Non-Contact Automated Scan*

* Utilizes Image Processing Software


Limitations of Delivery Method Based on Region of Aircraft

Delivery methods grouped by technology limitations


Commercial Aircraft MRO: Total Market Size & Growth

IATA.org

bga-aeroweb.com


Market Capture

Cost Analysis


63

Cost per Item Cost per year Life Cycle (10 yrs)

Inspector 0 56,588 565,880

Handheld Ultrasonic 7,000 56,588 600,880

Handheld Eddy Current 9,000 56,588 610,880

Thermo Crawler 750,000 11,704 867,037

Ultrasonic Crawler 750,000 11,704 867,037

Eddy Current Crawler 750,000 11,704 867,037

SAID NonContact 1,200,000 16,204 1,362,037

Laser Ultrasonic NonContact 1,750,000 21,704 1,967,037

SAID Drone 65,000 4,854 113,537

64

IDEF0 Analyze Data


Arena Total Time


65

66

Technology Description Contact Non-Contact

Thermographic Imaging

Heats area 1-2 degrees, algorithm determines if problematic

Contact

Synthetic Aperture Imaging

Captures 2-D images at different angles to create a 3-D image

Non-Contact

Concept of Operations: Design Alternatives Design Alternatives


Delivery Method

Description Level of Human Involvement

Applicable Technology

Robotic Crawler Travels along outside of aircraft, scans designated areas.

Autonomous Synthetic Aperture, Thermographic

Robotic Arm Utilizes track to move around.

Autonomous Synthetic Aperture, Laser Ultrasonic

Handheld Scanner carried by inspector

Enhanced Synthetic Aperture

Context: Maintenance Costs


• Cracks not visible to human eye tested with • Eddy Current • Ultrasonic

• Cost per flight cycle average: $2,652 • Aircraft Maintenance & Repair takes 12-15% of budget • As aging of aircrafts increases, maintenance costs increase

http://www.qualitydigest.com/dec03/articles/01_article.shtml

68

Agenda

Context Operational Concept/Approach Method of Analysis Project Plan

• WBS/Schedule • Critical Path/Project Risks • Budget/Performance


Project Plan: Work Breakdown Schedule

69

Aircraft Inspection

Project

1.1

Management

1.1.1 Timesheets

1.1.2 Acc.Summary

1.1.3

Email Communication

s

1.1.4

Sponsor Meetings

1.1.5 Meetings with

Professors

1.1.6 Individual Meetings

1.1.7

Team Meetings

1.1.8

WBS Upkeep

1.2 Research

1.2.1

Lead Initial Research

1.2.2 Kick-off

Presenation Research

1.2.3 Team Research

1.3

CONOPS

1.3.1 Context Analysis

1.3.2 Stakeholder

Analysis

1.3.3 Problem

Statement

1.3.4 Need Statement

1.3.5 Operational

Concept

1.3.6 System

Boundary

1.3.7 System

Objectives

1.3.8 Statement of

Work

1.3.9 Budget

1.3.10 Project Risks

1.4

Originating Requirements

1.4.1 Stakeholders Requirements

1.4.2 Performance Requirements

1.4.3 Application

Requirements

1.4.4 Analysis of

Requirements

1.4.5 Qualify the

qualification system

1.4.6 Obtain Approval

of Syst. Documentation

1.4.7 Functional

Requirements

1.4.8 Design

Requirements

1.5 Design

Alternatives

1.5.1 Develop Design

Alternatives

1.6 Analysis

1.6.1 Initial

Simulation Analysis

1.6.2 Sensitivity Analysis

1.7 Test

1.7.1 Verification and

Validation

1.8 Design

1.8.1 Initial Design of

Experiment

1.8.2 Refine DoE

1.9 Simulation

1.9.1 Simulation

Requirements

1.9.2 Simulation

Design

1.9.3 Simulation

Programming

1.10 Testing

Simulation De-bugging

1.11 Presentations

1.11.1 Brief 1

1.11.2 Brief 2

1.11.3 Brief 3

1.11.4 Brief 4

1.11.5 Faculty

Presentation

1.11.6 Final Fall

Presentation

1.12 Documentation

1.12.1 Preliminary Project Plan

1.12.2 Proposal

1.13 Competitions

1.13.1 Conference

Paper

1.13.2 Poster

1.13.3 UVA

1.13.4 West Point


1.1 Management 1.2 Research 1.3 CONOPS 1.4 Originating Requirements 1.5 Design Alternatives 1.6 Analysis 1.7 Test (V/V) 1.8 Design 1.9 Simulation 1.10 Testing (Simulation) 1.11 Competitions

70

Project Plan: Critical Path

Critical Path 1.4 Originating Requirements 1.5 Design Alternatives 1.6 Analysis 1.7 Test 1.8 Design 1.9 Simulation 1.10 Testing


71

Project Plan: Project Risks

Critical Tasks Foreseeable Risk Mitigation Routes

Acquire technology specifications

from Sponsor

Sponsor does not share information Alter design to trade off analysis of

crack inspection methods

Acquire data on inspection tasks Data is not available/accessible Use reasonable estimates based on

available data

Quantify requirements Data is not available/accessible Use reasonable estimates based on

available data

Sensitivity Analysis Data does not correspond to industry

practices

Ensure simulation is built correctly,

may need further development


72

Project Plan: Budget/Performance

31-Aug 7-Sep 14-Sep 21-Sep 28-Sep 5-Oct 12-Oct 19-Oct

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Management $6,100.17 $913.40 $1,130.87 $1,652.81 $598.06 $543.69 $304.47 $521.94 $434.95

2 Research $3,958.05 $608.93 $565.44 $565.44 $521.94 $391.46 $478.45 $565.44 $260.97

3 CONOPS $1,652.81 $0.00 $0.00 $260.97 $391.46 $652.43 $173.98 $0.00 $173.98

4 Originating Requirements $391.46 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $304.47 $0.00 $43.50 $43.50

5 Design Alternatives $217.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $130.49 $86.99 $0.00

6 Analysis $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

7 Test $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

8 Design $565.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $521.94 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43.50

9 Simulation $1,261.36 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $217.48 $217.48 $347.96 $391.46 $86.99

10 Testing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

11 Presentations $3,349.12 $86.99 $86.99 $1,000.39 $391.46 $565.44 $521.94 $217.48 $478.45

12 Documantation $826.41 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $826.41

13 Competitions $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Budgeted Hours 2,125 40 50 60 60 60 60 60 80

Total Budgeted Cost $92,426.88 $1,739.80 $2,174.75 $2,609.70 $2,609.70 $2,609.70 $2,609.70 $2,609.70 $3,479.60

Cumulative Planned Value (PV) $1,739.80 $3,914.55 $6,524.25 $9,133.95 $11,743.65 $14,353.35 $16,963.05 $20,442.65

Planned Value (PV) or Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS)

WBS Task Name TBC

-$518.68 -$1,075.78 -$463.95 $466.03 $1,672.74 $2,065.16 $1,808.75 $2,674.24

-649.16 -1597.72 -115.99 846.61 2118.56 1858.56 819.24 553.86

0.68 0.68 0.93 1.05 1.14 1.15 1.11 1.15

0.63 0.59 0.98 1.09 1.18 1.13 1.05 1.03

$136,382.63 $135,343.48 $99,118.41 $88,111.11 $81,273.83 $80,653.05 $83,025.53 $80,654.84

Project Performance Metrics

Cost Variance (CV = EV - AC)

Schedule Variance (SV = EV - PV)

Cost Performance Index (CPI = EV/AC)

Schedule Performance Index (SPI = EV/PV)

Estimated Cost at Completion (EAC)


Hourly Rate: $43.50/hr

73

Project Plan: Budget/Performance Earned Value Weeks 1-38


74

Project Plan: Budget/Performance Earned Value Weeks 1-11


75

Project Plan: Budget/Performance CPI/SPI Weeks 1-11


76

Project Plan: Budget/Performance

Occupation 2012 Median Pay

Aerospace-Engineers $49.07/hr

Industrial-Engineers $37.92/hr

United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook

Average: $43.50/hr

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/aerospace-engineers.htm http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/industrial-engineers.htm


77

Future Work


• Determine attributes of design alternatives • Complete design of experiment • Sensitivity analysis • Quantify requirements • Utility - cost analysis • Conclusions

Now

February 2016

design of a system for aircraft fuselage inspection · design of a system for aircraft fuselage...

Documents