None.
None.
The technologies herein relate to system and methods for automated detection of damage and structural failure, for automated estimation of the real usage of the vehicle's structural components, for remote assessment of structural damage, repair and management of applicable maintenance information, and more particularly to computer-based sensing technology, systems and methods for structural management and monitoring, and customization of maintenance programs of vehicles in service.
Seeking safety improvement and reduction of maintenance cost and human error, efforts are underway to develop automatic Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) systems capable of inspecting and detecting damage and operational loads in real time without need for human interference. New SHM technologies will lead to early detection of damages that usually in the past were identified only through scheduled inspections. Besides that, OLM (Operational Loads Monitoring) systems will provide the real operational loads, which often were previously unmonitored.
The following detailed description of exemplary non-limiting illustrative embodiments is to be read in conjunction with the drawings of which:
Computer processor 108 uses software (see
Computer processor 108 may communicate alerts, reports, or other information (
The example non-limiting embodiment of
Additionally, the vehicles such as aircraft 102 are susceptible to corrosion, fatigue and accidental damage, which can be induced by service loads, environmental conditions or accidental impacts. These structural damages can be detected during scheduled maintenance (
The example non-limiting embodiment of
The IVHM is a more comprehensive concept that refers to a collection of data relevant to the present and future performance of a vehicle system. The analysis of these data can be used to support operational decisions. The HUMS is related to data collection and analysis techniques to help ensure the availability, reliability and safety of vehicles. By analyzing the vehicle data, the HUMS technology, processes, methods and systems can determine the real condition of the structures, and propose maintenance actions before or later than the regularly scheduled ones (
Operational loads monitoring (OLM) (
Equipment to monitor the vertical and normal accelerations in a vehicle are known. By means of these accelerations measurements, it is possible to estimate the fatigue loads and provide data related to the remaining structural life (
Structural integrity monitoring can be done by indirect methods, such as OLM or using direct methods such as damage detection systems. Past efforts have been made to investigate damage detection systems applied to structural components of vehicles. Several studies of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) application provide analysis showing a significant reduction in the life-cycle costs.
Several dynamic based diagnostic methods have been proposed or are currently being developed for structural health monitoring. Such approaches include for example vibration based methods and wave propagation methods. Other technologies under development include fiber optics and mechanical sensors. Other SHM sensing technologies include Comparative Vacuum Monitoring, Lamb Waves, Fiber Bragg Gratings, Acoustic Emission, Electro Mechanical Impedance, and others. A Structural Health Monitoring System (SHM) in the example non-limiting embodiment may thus comprise a plurality of transducers, including a plurality of pairs of actuators and sensors; a generator device configured to excite at least one of said sensors to produce ultrasonic guided waves; and a signal processor device configured to receive the signals reflected from damage identification.
Example non-limiting SHM systems can be applied in various ways including for example (1) detection in discrete periods of time; and (2) monitoring in a continuous structural verification.
Besides OLM and SHM methods, example non-limiting technology herein provides for the integration of the Static, Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Analyses systems (FDTA) (
Another example non-limiting feature relates to structural damage and repair management (iSRM). Such feature can for example be provided by a web application system capable of storing and managing the damage and repair information as described in the US20130166458, incorporated herein by reference. This system performs structural analyses including, when applicable, static analysis, fatigue analysis and damage tolerance analysis (FDTA).
Maintainability is a characteristic of design, material and installation that allows the achievement of minimum maintenance expenditures for customers. A feature of maintainability is to reduce downtime (improving availability of the vehicle), minimize delays (improving dispatchability), reduce maintenance manpower and costs and guarantee maintenance with safety.
An example Maintenance Program is the mean that an operator of vehicles uses to guarantee the maintainability. It typically contains the minimum requirements for scheduled maintenance to ensure the safe continuous utilization of vehicles. It is used to comply with personnel safety aspects, standardization of maintenance rules, accessibility aspects and interchangeability of parts.
The example Maintenance Program also includes tasks to guarantee the safety for unscheduled maintenance damages such as accidental, environmental, corrosion, battle damages, etc., and provides inspection intervals that the operator of the vehicle must comply with.
The example non-limiting embodiment herein accomplishes fleet monitoring, management and maintenance program optimization by reducing:
One example non-limiting implementation comprises an integrated system and method for assessing the condition, use and integrity of a structural platform or a plurality of platforms performing a structural health management. This integrated system comprises in one example non-limiting embodiment:
a) Damage detection systems (herein called “SHM”) with methods to detect damages in structures (
b) Operational loads monitoring systems (herein called “OLM”) with capabilities to evaluate the real operation conditions (
c) Static, fatigue and damage tolerance analyses systems (herein called “FDTA”) that are able to determine new appropriate inspection intervals for customized maintenance program (
d) Structural damages and repairs management systems (herein called “iSRM”) that provide substantiation reports of a structural damage and repairs assessment (
e) Warning Analyzer System (herein called “WAS”) with methods to generate warnings for severe flights and/or severe operations (
In example non-limiting implementations, such systems are independent, but integrated, exchanging information. Example complex integration between these systems generate innovative products enabling better structural health management of a vehicle.
Other non-limiting features and advantages of the
One example non-limiting embodiment compares results of maintenance intervals calculated from the loads and the damage scenarios available in the database (3 of
In this example non-limiting embodiment, the operator of the vehicle 102 is able to determine if the vehicle is operating in a more severe pattern than the design loads (possibly reducing the maintenance interval) or less severe pattern (possibly extending the maintenance interval). (
Many vehicle manufacturers follow damage tolerant designs, so it is mandatory for them to develop a maintenance plan related to actions required to maintain or improve the maintainability and reliability provided in the vehicle's design to its structures, systems, subsystems, and components throughout the vehicle's operational life.
The definition of the maintenance intervals of inspections depends on several factors including: geometry, material, stress concentrators, load history, and other factors.
The determination of the load history depends on the experience of the manufacturer (results of tests on coupons, results of tests on real environments). Using calculation methodologies, the manufacturer is able to estimate the loads that shall be used to design the vehicle. (
Fatigue loads reflect expected usage of the aircraft, which are often judiciously pondered. Usually this is reduced to a mix of somewhat arbitrary short, medium and long range missions. Each of these involves operational conditions which directly influence both the fatigue performance and crack growth rate of the structure. Later on, the design usage assumption is preferably confirmed by monitoring the vehicle fleet in operation.
Operational Loads Monitoring (OLM) system (2 of
Integrated Systems to Generate Warnings for Severe Flight Missions and Severe Operation (See
Example non-limiting embodiments are directed to usage of the actual loads that are applied on the vehicle during its service life and measured through the Operational Loads Monitoring system (OLM) 2 in order to generate warnings for severe flights and/or severe operations (
Once actual loads are generated by the OLM system 2, the example non-limiting embodiment sends the information to a database 20 for storage (
The Warning Analyzer System 22 will determine if there is a severe flight and/or severe operation based on the trend analysis of the damage tolerance curves using the results of the FDTA database 20. In one example non-limiting embodiment, the warning is generated only when the two following conditions are true:
1) The trend of FDTA System 4 results using actual loads (OLM) overcomes the project specification; and
2) The rate of the last data points results of the FDTA System 4 using actual loads (OLM) are greater than the rate of project specification;
The Warning Analyzer System (WAS) 22 will evaluate the conditions described above and verify it against the project specification limits for each aircraft section (wings, fuselage and empennage), whereas, each section has its own limits, operations envelops and project limits. Each sub-division of the aircraft section is analyzed by the WAS 22 in order to evaluate the trends for all monitored aircraft components (
Often, severe usage of a vehicle (server flight, severe operations, etc.) is reported by the conductor (pilot, driver, etc.). These reports are often subject to the sensitivity, experience and subjectivity of the conductor, leading to a subjective analysis that is not correct in all cases. The example non-limiting Warning Analyzer System (WAS) 22 determines an occurrence of a severe event, and consequently a warning, based on analytical analysis, minimizing the human factors and increasing the safety of the vehicle.
Integrated Systems to Provide Substantiation Reports of a Structural Damage Assessment (See
A further example non-limiting embodiment evaluates the effect of damages and repairs on the structural integrity in order to ensure safe operation of the vehicle.
According to such damage severity, the vehicle may be returned to service without repair. This kind of allowable damage should have no significant effect on the strength or fatigue life of the structure, which must still be capable of fulfilling its design function. Depending on its severity, some damage may be allowed only for a specific period, herein called “allowable damage period”, in which the vehicle can operate with damage prior to the repair installation. For more severe damage, the vehicle shall promptly be removed from operation for repair.
Once the damage is detected during the vehicle operation by means of the conventional inspection methods or through SHM systems 24, the maintenance technical team can perform a prompt damage assessment, determining the damage severity and the applicable maintenance actions (
Using the iSRM system graphic 24 interface via Web, Local Network and/or Local Computer 112, 114, a maintenance technical team can for example characterize the damage detected in the structure supplying damage information such as dimensions, damage type, location, affected areas, and the like.
The example non-limiting iSRM system 26 assesses the damage based on damage information supplied by the user and the structural properties from the selected part in the 3D model, and suggests an appropriate damage disposition. This automated analysis results in an allowable damage, temporary allowable damage, temporary repair, permanent repair or contact manufacturer for specific disposition.
Based on engineering criteria and structural analysis, the example non-limiting iSRM system 26 performs a specific assessment for the detected damage considering several parameters such as damage type, geometry and dimensions of affected areas, material parameters, real operational loads, and the like (
In order to comply with the applicable regulatory agency requirements and to substantiate the structural damage and repair, the example non-limiting embodiment performs several structural analyses including, when applicable, static analysis, fatigue analysis and damage tolerance analysis (FDTA system 4;
When applicable, based on several failure criteria (tensile, compression, buckling and post-buckling, crippling, durability, or the like), the example non-limiting embodiment performs a specific static analysis or/and fatigue analysis in order to evaluate the behavior of the damaged or repaired structure under static and cyclic loading (load spectrum).
Besides the repair or rework procedure, the example non-limiting embodiment system provides, when applicable, the allowable damage period and the new inspection intervals for damage and repair location (arrow from block 64 to block 56). In order to determine these periods and intervals, during the damage tolerance analysis, a specific crack propagation analysis or damage growth analysis will be performed automatically by the system.
As shown in
After completing the automated structural analysis, the example non-limiting embodiment iSRM system 26 generates a structural analysis substantiation report containing information of the accomplished analyses and submits it for human review, evaluation and approval (
In the example non-limiting embodiments, integrated systems will be responsible for storage and management of the vehicle damage and repair information.
While the invention has been described in connection with what is presently considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited to the disclosed embodiments, but on the contrary, is intended to cover various modifications and equivalent arrangements included within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
20030191564 | Haugse | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20130055816 | Masson | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130166458 | Wallner et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160340058 A1 | Nov 2016 | US |