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