design of a system for aircraft fuselage inspection...widespread fatigue damage design of a system...
TRANSCRIPT
Faculty Advisor Dr. Lance Sherry
Sponsor Integrity Applications Incorporated
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
aerospacetestinginternational.com
After
Computer Aided Detection
Manual Inspection Automated Inspection
Fatigue Damage
mechanicsupport.blogspot.com
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
Project Plan
3
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Aircraft Age Statistics
Min: 5.1 years Mean: 10.6 years Max: 24.9 years airsafe.com
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Average Aircraft Age Continues to Increase
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
5
iata.org travelpulse.com
Widespread fatigue damage (WFD) is age-related structural fatigue cracking
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Widespread Fatigue Damage
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
WFD Leading to Aircraft Retirement
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection 6
Southwest Airlines flight accidents: • Flight 812
• Fuselage skin approximately 60” x 8” had fractured above the left wing causing rapid depressurization
• Flight 2294 • Fuselage skin had fatigue cracking and
fracture of 18” x 12” flap causing rapid depressurization
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAB1302.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090714X83900&key=1
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 7
Southwest Airlines flight accidents: • Flight 812
• Fuselage skin approximately 60” x 8” had fractured above the left wing causing rapid depressurization
• Flight 2294 • Fuselage skin had fatigue cracking and
fracture of 18” x 12” flap causing rapid depressurization
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAB1302.aspx
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090714X83900&key=1
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
Factors that contribute to aircraft deterioration include: • Inflight vibrations • Number of takeoffs and landings • Fuselage pressurization cycles
30,000 ft. (4.38 psi)
8
newsweek.com
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Deterioration
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Fatigue Caused by Repeated Pressurization Cycles
9
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
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
10
Time to Complete Inspection Type Time Between Inspections Number of Man Hours Required
Context: Aging Aircraft & Preventative Maintenance Scheduled Aircraft Maintenance Programs
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Maintenance Intervals, A Delicate Balance of Risk and Cost
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Median Crack Growth Curve
11 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Minimize Number of Cracks Occurring Before Inspection
Earliest Expected Cracking
Latest Expected Cracking
Time of Inspection
Critical Crack Length
Cra
ck L
engt
h
Time
Median crack growth curve
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Distribution of Time to Critical Crack Length
12 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Time of Inspection
Critical Crack Length
Probability of cracks occurring BEFORE scheduled Maintenance
Minimize Probability of Cracks Occurring Before Inspection
Cra
ck L
engt
h
Time
Distribution of Time to Critical Crack Length
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Distribution of the Crack Length
13 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Probability of crack growth beyond critical length
Critical Crack Length
Time of Inspection
Minimize Crack Growth Beyond Critical Length
Distribution of the crack length
Cra
ck L
engt
h
Time
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Stochastic Crack Growth Model
14 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
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
Early Crack Detection Can Minimize Corrective Maintenance
Distribution of Time to Critical Crack Length
Distribution of the crack length
Median crack growth curve
Cra
ck L
engt
h
Time
Yang JN, Manning SD (1990) Stochastic Crack Growth Analysis Methodologies For Metallic Structures
Context: Aging Aircraft & Maintenance Stochastic Crack Growth Model
15 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
16
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)
17
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
18
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
19
Context: Current Fuselage Inspection Process Representative Regions of Aircraft
FAA Aging Aircraft NDI Validation Center Report
JC 501 Midsection Floor
JC 502 Main Landing Gear Support
JC 503 Midsection Crown (Internal)
JC 504 Galley Doors (Internal)
JC 505 Rear Bilge (External)
JC 506 Left Forward Upper Lobe
JC 507 Left Forward Cargo Compartment
JC 508/509 Upper and Lower Rear Bulkhead Y-Ring
JC 510 Nose Wheel Well Forward Bulkhead
JC 511 Lap-Splice Panels
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
ntl.bts.gov
Representative Regions Require Different Inspection Techniques
20
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
21
Context: Stakeholder Analysis Interactions, Tensions and Gap
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Context: Problem and Need
22 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 Capabilities
Problem
Need
Current Inspection Process
Improved Inspection Process
Time
Cost
Quality
Win-Win: New Technology Introduced to Inspection Process
23
Agenda
Context Concept of Operations
• Operational Scenario • Design Alternatives • System and Design Requirements • Automated Inspection System IDEF.0
Method of Analysis Project Plan
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
24
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 2 - Enhanced
ntl.bts.gov aviationpros.com aviationpros.com
3 - Autonomous
25
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
Synthetic Aperture Imaging Device
26
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
27
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
28
Context: System Requirements Mission & Functional Requirements
Mission and Functional Requirements
M.1 The system shall reduce the airframe maintenance cost per flight hour of an aircraft by 5%
F.1. The system shall cost no more than $X to operate annually
F.2. The system shall accrue no more than $X in Type 1 errors annually
F.3. The system shall require an initial investment of no more than $X
F.4. The system shall process captured images at a rate of X m2 per Y seconds
M.2 The system shall detect cracks in the airframe of aircraft both visible, and not visible, by a human
inspector
F.1. The system shall detect cracks with a volume exceeding X mm3
F.2. The system shall have a Type 2 error rate of no more than X%
F.3. The system shall distinguish between cracks and pre-built parts of the aircraft
F.4. The system shall capture an image of the airframe of the aircraft of dimensions X meters by Y meters
without repositioning
M.3 The system shall reduce the variance of the airframe inspection process by X labor-hours
F.1. The system shall maintain the upper bound of a complete visual inspection at no more than X labor-
hours
F.2. The system shall reduce the variance of the visual inspection process by X labor-hours
M.4 The system shall allow aircraft to meet Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness standards
Context: System Requirements
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
29
Non-Functional Requirements
Maintainability
1. The system shall produce traceable error codes upon malfunction.
2. The system shall allow the replacement of individual parts.
Reliability
1. The system shall experience no more than X system failures per month.
2. The system shall require no more than X hours of preventative maintenance per month.
Usability
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
30
Concept of Operations: Design Requirements
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Design Requirements
Enhanced Visual (Handheld)
D.1 The system shall weigh no more than X lbs.
D.2 The system shall accurately scan from a distance of up to X m.
Robotic Automated Inspection System
D.1 The system shall inspect at a rate of X cm3/s.
D.2 The system shall support autonomous function.
D.3 The system shall accept initial input from an operator.
D.4 The system shall utilize integrated software.
D.5 The system shall store the location of airframe problem areas.
31
Concept of Operations: Automated Inspection System IDEF.0
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
32
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
Project Plan
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
33
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
34
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
35
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Visual Inspection By Airframe Region
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Initialization
Process
Statistics
36
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Initialization
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Assignments
Manual / Automated (binary)
Process Restrictions (binary)
Process Distributions (minutes)
Crack Detection Rate (%)
Type 1 Error Rate (%)
Type 2 Error Rate (%)
37
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Process
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
38
Method of Analysis: Stochastic Simulation Statistics
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
39
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
40
Method of Analysis Design of Experiments
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Run Internal /
External
Technology Delivery Method
Type One Error Rate
Type Two Error Rate
Inspection Time
Cost of Inspection
1 Internal Human -- % % Hours Dollars
External Human --
2 Internal Human --
External Thermographic Crawler
3 Internal Synthetic Aperture Handheld
External Thermographic Crawler
…
Inputs Outputs
41
Simulation Preliminary Results Sample Output (Time per Process)
Section Minutes Half-Width
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
42
As-Is Simulation Preliminary Results Validation (Expected vs Simulation)
Section Actual (mins) Simulated (mins) Diff (mins) % err
1 122 116.47 -5.53 -4.53
2 28 27.83 -0.17 -0.61
3 75 75.38 0.38 0.51
4 68 67.71 -0.29 -0.43
5 37 36.1 -0.9 -2.43
6 104 105.64 1.64 1.58
7 95 100.23 5.23 5.51
8 35 34.68 -0.32 -0.91
9 16 15.2 -0.8 -5.00
10 48 49.56 1.56 3.25
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Actual Total (mins) Sim Total (mins) Diff (mins) % err
628 628.81 0.81 <0.1%
Sim Half Width (mins)
6.18
43
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
44
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
45
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
46
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
47
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
48
Project Plan: Budget/Performance Earned Value Weeks 1-38
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
49
Project Plan: Budget/Performance Earned Value Weeks 1-11
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
50
Project Plan: Budget/Performance CPI/SPI Weeks 1-11
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
51
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
52 Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
53
Utility Hierarchy
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Utility
Time (-) Quality
Type 1 Error Rate (-)
Type 2 Error Rate (-)
(+) – Higher is better (-) – Lower is better
Non-Functional
Maintainability (+)
Reliability (+)
54
IDEF0 Analyze Data
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
Arena Total Time
Design of a System for Aircraft Fuselage Inspection
55
56
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
57
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
Handheld Scanner carried by inspector
Enhanced Synthetic Aperture