Inspection interval optimization for aircraft composite structures with dent and delamination damage

doi:10.23919/JSEE.2021.000022

Abstract

Abstract:

The optimization of inspection intervals for composite structures has been proposed, but only one damage type, dent damage, has been addressed so far. The present study focuses on the two main damage types of dent and delamination, and a model for optimizing the inspection interval of composite structures is proposed to minimize the total maintenance cost on the premise that the probability of structure failure will not exceed the acceptable level. In order to analyze the damage characteristics and the residual strength of the composite structure, the frequency, energy, size, and depth of the damage are studied, and the situation of missing detection during the inspection is considered. The structural residual strength and total maintenance cost are quantified corresponding to different inspection intervals. The proposed optimization method relieves the constraints in previous simulation methods, and is more consistent with the actual situation. Finally, the outer wing of aircraft is taken as an example, and with the historical cases and experimental data, the optimization method is verified. The optimal inspection interval is shorter than the actually implemented inspection interval, and the corresponding maintenance cost is reduced by 23.3%. The result shows the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed optimization method.

Key words: civil aircraft, composite structure, accidental impact damage, failure probability, inspection interval

Jing CAI, Dingqiang DAI. Inspection interval optimization for aircraft composite structures with dent and delamination damage[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2021, 32(1): 252-260.

Figures/Tables 17

Fig 1

Table 1

Table 2

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Fig 5

Table 3

Fig 6

Fig 7

Fig 8

Table 4

Fig 9

Fig 10

Fig 11

Fig 12

References 29

1	HOSSEIN T, ANDER B, RICHARD B, et al Successes and challenges in non-destructive testing of aircraft composite structures. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2020, 33 (3): 771- 791. doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2019.09.017
2	ZHAO S, ZHANG P. Study on maintenance interval control of heat exchanger in aircraft systems based on MSG-3 philosophy. Proc. of the 31st China Control and Decision Conference, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/CCDC.2019.8833075.
3	LIU S J, ZHONG R C, YAN Z Q. Analysis and research on MSG-3 of modern civil aircraft composite material structure. China High-Tech Enterprises, 2016, 9: 7−9. (in Chinese)
4	Airworthiness standards: transport category airplane. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 2015.
5	ZHENG X L. Composite structure design and certification of the civil aircraft. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press, 2011. (in Chinese).
6	CAI J, LI X, CHEN X Joint optimization of maintenance inspection and spare provisioning for aircraft deteriorating parts. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2017, 28 (6): 1133- 1140. doi: 10.21629/JSEE.2017.06.11
7	CAI Y S Research on the differences of damage rating between metal & composite civil aircraft structure. Aeronautical Science & Technology, 2016, 27 (8): 21- 26.
8	SUN X S. Civil aircraft structural strength stiffness design and verification guide. Beijing: Aviation Industry Press, 2012. (in Chinese)
9	ALDERLIESTEN R C, HOMAN J J Fatigue and damage tolerance issues of Glare in aircraft structures. International Journal of Fatigue, 2006, 28 (10): 1116- 1123. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.02.015
10	CHENG X Q, WU X R Methods for improving damage tolerance of composite laminates after low velocity impact and their influence factors. Polymer Materials Science & Engineering, 2002, 18 (3): 20- 25.
11	HUANG F Study on the compression after impact behavior of two composite materials. Science Technology and Engineering, 2015, 15 (7): 158- 160.
12	CHEN X, REN H, BIL C Inspection intervals optimization for aircraft composite structures considering dent damage. Journal of Aircraft, 2014, 51 (1): 303- 309. doi: 10.2514/1.C032377
13	LIN K Y, STYUART A V Probabilistic approach to damage tolerance design of aircraft composite structures. Journal of Aircraft, 2007, 44 (4): 1309- 1317. doi: 10.2514/1.26913
14	CHEN X. Scheduled maintenance optimization of aircraft structures considering uncertainty and structural health monitoring. Melbourne, Australia: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, 2014.
15	USHAKOV A, STEWART A, MISHULIN I, et al Probabilistic design of damage tolerant composite aircraft structures. Washington DC: Office of Aviation Research, 2002.
16	USHAKOV A, STEWART A, MISHULIN I, et al. Probabilistic design of damage tolerant composite aircraft structures, DOT/FAA/AR-01/55. Washington DC: Office of Aviation Research, 2002.
17	MIL-HDBK-17-3F. Composite materials handbook, volume 3: polymer matrix composites materials usage, design, and analysis, Department of Defense. 2002.
18	KAN H P. Enhanced reliability prediction methodology for impact damaged composite structures, DOT/FAA/AR-97/79. Washington DC: Office of Aviation Research, 1998.
19	JIA X S, CHENG Z H The development trend of reliability centered maintenance (RCM). Journal of Ordnance Engineering College, 2016, 14 (4): 29- 32.
20	ZHANG L. Numerical analysis and experimental study on propagation behavior of laminated composite plates with embedded delamination. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2012. (in Chinese)
21	U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. Composite aircraft structure, AC 120-107B. 2009.
22	XIAO S S. Probabilistic assessment methodology of impact damage tolerance for composite aircraft structures. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2013. (in Chinese)
23	XIAO S S, CHEN P H, SHEN W, et al Experimental study and analysis on probability of detection for impact damage of composite structures. Acta Materiae Compositae Sinica, 2013, 30 (4): 231- 237.
24	SHAO C J. Research on the method to determine the inspection interval and evaluate the repair tolerance of composite structure. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2018. (in Chinese)
25	HUANG C K, LIN K Y. A method for reliability assessment of aircraft structures subject to accidental damage. Proc. of the 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structure, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference, 2016. DOI: 10.2514/6.2005-1830.
26	REN H L, Simulation of failure process and residual strength of composite laminates with low velocity impact damage under compressive load. Xi ’an: Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2001. (in Chinese)
27	European Aviation Safety Agency. Certification specifications and acceptable means of compliance for large aeroplanes, CS 25. 2012.
28	REN H, CHEN X, CHEN Y. Inspection interval optimization for aircraft composite structures considering dent damage. Reliability Based Aircraft Maintenance Optimization and Applications, 2017, 51(1): 133–152.
29	CHEN X, REN H, BIL C, et al Repair tolerance analysis for composite structures using probabilistic methodologies. Journal of Aircraft, 2014, 51 (6): 1997- 2004. doi: 10.2514/1.C032635

Impact threat	Probability distribution type	Parameter
MCAir	Weibull	α = 1.147, β = 8.11
Low threat	Weibull	α = 1.221, β = 21.96
Medium threat	Weibull	α = 1.192, β = 37.69
High threat	Weibull	α = 1.264, β = 70.10

Impact energy/J	Dent depth/mm	Dent diameter/mm	Delamination area/mm²
5	0.024	3.206	36.5
10	0.075	4.146	149.5
15	0.158	4.07	308.3
20	0.230	4.226	389.2
25	0.258	4.194	437.3
30	0.285	4.384	617.1
35	0.332	4.426	719.5
40	0.548	4.924	841.5
50	1.357	7.866	774.0
60	2.535	9.33	860.5

Impact energy/J	Dent depth/mm	Relative dent depth/%	Residual strength/MPa	Relative residual strength/%
5	0.024	0.53	441.1	98.02
10	0.075	1.64	372.6	82.80
15	0.158	3.46	325.4	72.31
20	0.230	5.04	303.2	67.37
25	0.258	5.66	289.5	64.33
30	0.285	6.25	280.5	62.33
35	0.332	7.28	250.5	55.67
40	0.548	12.02	234.3	52.07
50	1.357	29.76	213.6	47.47
60	2.535	55.59	195.9	43.53

Maintenance cost type		Value
Inspection cost $ {C}_{i} $		100
Repair cost $ {C}_{r} $	$ {C}_{b} $	600
	$ {C}_{1} $	100
	$ {C}_{2} $	0.6
Replacement cost $ {C}_{rp} $		4 000