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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Fatigue Caused by Repeated Pressurization Cycles
6
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Fuselage Pressurization Cycles
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
WFD Leading to Aircraft Retirement
travelpulse.com
iata.org
Fatigue Cracks
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 8
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 9
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Critical Crack Length
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
14 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Minimize Probability of Cracks Occurring Before Inspection
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
Probability of crack growth beyond critical length
Critical Crack Length
Time of Inspection
Distribution of the crack length
Cra
ck L
engt
h
Time
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Distribution of the Crack Length
15 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Minimize Crack Growth Beyond Critical Length
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
Time
Probability of crack growth beyond critical length
Critical Crack 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
16 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Early Crack Detection Can Minimize Corrective Maintenance
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
Time
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Stochastic Crack Growth Model
17 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
ntl.bts.gov
Representative Regions Require Different Inspection Techniques
VISUAL INSPECTION RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT ON BENCHMARK INSPECTIONS FAA Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center
22
Context: Current Fuselage Inspection Process Current Visual Inspection Process
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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)
VISUAL INSPECTION RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT ON BENCHMARK INSPECTIONS FAA Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center
12 Inspectors 38.5 ft section 737 - 4 sections
23
Context: Stakeholder Analysis Interactions, Tensions and Gap
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Context: Problem and Need
24 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
26
Concept of Operations: Operational Scenario Levels of Human Involvement
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Automated inspection has substantial benefits
30
Concept of Operations: Operational Scenario Non-Contact Delivery Method
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Potential Implementation of Synthetic Aperture Imaging Technology
Track
Imaging Device
Output = 3D image
31
Concept of Operations: Design Alternatives Synthetic Aperture Imaging Devices (SAID)
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
http://spie.org
Produces high resolution 3-dimensional images
32
Concept of Operations: Design Alternatives Laser Ultrasonic
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
35
Concept of Operations: Design Requirements
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
38
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Model Boundaries and Simulation Inputs/Outputs
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
40
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Visual Inspection By Airframe Region
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Initialization
Process
Statistics Gathering
Inspection
41
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Initialization: Design Alternatives
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
43
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Statistics Gathering
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
44
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Distributions At a Glance
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
VISUAL INSPECTION RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT ON BENCHMARK INSPECTIONS FAA Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center
45
Method of Analysis Design of Experiments Input Alternatives
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
(112.5,262.5) UNIF(135,315) NA NA NA NA NA NA
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
(162.5,437.5) UNIF(195,525) NA NA NA NA NA NA
Left Forward Cargo Compartment
UNIF(54.5, 146) UNIF
(137.5,362.5) UNIF(165,435) NA NA NA NA NA NA
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)
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 50
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
52
Sensitivity Analysis
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Implementability (Training & TRL)
Performance (Speed & Accuracy)
Safety
Decision insensitive to change in weight
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 53
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 54
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 55
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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%.
58 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
59
Determining Half-Width
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Limitations of Delivery Method Based on Region of Aircraft
Delivery methods grouped by technology limitations
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 61
Commercial Aircraft MRO: Total Market Size & Growth
IATA.org
bga-aeroweb.com
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 62
Market Capture
Cost Analysis
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Arena Total Time
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
67 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
• 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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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)
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Hourly Rate: $43.50/hr
73
Project Plan: Budget/Performance Earned Value Weeks 1-38
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
74
Project Plan: Budget/Performance Earned Value Weeks 1-11
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
75
Project Plan: Budget/Performance CPI/SPI Weeks 1-11
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
77
Future Work
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
• Determine attributes of design alternatives • Complete design of experiment • Sensitivity analysis • Quantify requirements • Utility - cost analysis • Conclusions
Now
February 2016