Advertisement

The Significance of In-Service Factors for the Visual Detectability of Impact Damage in Composite Airframe

  • Stanislav DubinskiiEmail author
  • Vitaliy Senik
  • Yuri Feygenbaum
Article

Abstract

The inspection conditions may significantly affect the visual detectability of impact damage in aircraft composite skins. The goal of the present study was to identify the most affecting factors related to standard field control procedures and thus establish reasonable barely visible impact damage threshold in the frameworks of Irkut MC-21 aircraft certification. The probability of surface damage detection as a function of damage size was evaluated in relation to qualification of experts, paint color, viewing distance and surface contamination. The experiments with representative panels were carried out, the empirical detectability data was analyzed by methods of mathematical statistics. Using non-parametric tests the statistical significance of mentioned in-service factors was estimated. The bootstrap method was applied to make empirical data sufficiently representative. The minimum reliably detectable sizes of dents caused by 25 mm indenter for considered inspection conditions were identified. For detailed inspection in case of the clean surface the size of 0.3 mm can be accepted as a relevant criterion, in case of contamination this value can grow up to three times. For general inspection the values of 1 mm for clean and 1.7 mm for contaminated surface can be accepted conservatively. The obtained results were shown to be consistent with the literature and were recommended for use on the stages of design and maintenance.

Keywords

Barely visible impact damage Visual inspection Statistical analysis Damage tolerance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was financed by Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, under Agreement No. RFMEFI62518X0044 (FENIKS).

References

  1. 1.
    Advisory Circular 20-107B, Sept. 2009, Change 1. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horton, R., Whitehead, R.: Damage Tolerance of Composites—Final Report, Rept. AFWAL-TR-87-3030. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kan, H.P., Cordero, R., and Whitehead, R.S.: Advanced Certification Methodology for Composite Structures, Rept. DOT/FAA/AR-96/111, 1997. Naval Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division Department of the Navy, Patuxent River, MDGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tropis, A., Thomas, M., Bounie, J., Lafon, P.: Certification of the composite outer wing of the ATR72. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G 209(4), 327–339 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1243/PIME_PROC_1995_209_307_02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fawcett, A.J., Oaks, G.D.: Boeing Composite Airframe Damage Tolerance and Service Experience, Workshop for Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance, Presentation #2 of Session 1. National Institute for Aviation Research, Chicago, IL (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morteau, E., Fualdes, C.: Composites at Airbus. Damage Tolerance Methodology, Workshop for Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance, Presentation #1 of Session 1. National Institute for Aviation Research, Chicago, IL (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spencer, F.W.: Visual Inspection Research Project Report on Benchmark Inspections. Technical Report No DOT/FAA/AR-96/65. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erhart, D., Ostrom, L.T., Wilhelmsen, C.A.: Visual detectability of dents on a composite aircraft inspection specimen: an initial study. Int. J. Appl. Aviat. Stud. 4(2), 111–122 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baaran, J.: Visual Inspection of Composite Structures, EASA-Research Project/2007/3 Final Report. Braunschweig, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cook, L., Boulic, A., Harris, D., Bellamy, P., Irving, P.E: Reliability of Damage Detection in Advanced Composite Aircraft Structures. CAA Paper 2013/03, West Sussex, UK (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubinskii, S.V., Safonov, A.A.: Composite-friendly approach to certification of advanced materials and fabrication methods used in aviation industry. J. Mach. Manuf. Reliab. 46(5), 501–506 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.3103/s1052618817050041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubinskii, S., Senik, V., Feygenbaum, Y.: Field-survey-based evaluation of realistic and remote wing impact energy levels. J. Aircr. 55(6), 2307–2312 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubinskii, S., Feygenbaum, Y., Senik, V., Metelkin, E.: A study of accidental impact scenarios for composite wing damage tolerance evaluation. Aeronaut. J. (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2018.152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feygenbaum, Y.M., Dubinskiy, S.V.: Reliability of composite skin defect visual detection during in-service inspections. Sci. Bull. GosNII GA 12, 68–80 (2016). (in Russian) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Feygenbaum, Y.M., Metelkin, E.S., Mikolaychuk, Y.A., Senik, V.Y., Dubinskiy, S.V., Gvozdev, S.A., Khlebnikova, I.G.: Experience and principal results of analytical and experimental studies focused on evaluation of composite skin defect visual detection reliability. Sci. Bull. GosNII GA 14, 75–89 (2016). (in Russian) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russian National Standard, Lever-Gearing Measuring Heads. Specifications. GOST 18833-73 Moscow: Standard Publishing House, 1991 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russian National Standard, Stands and Supports for Measuring Heads. Specifications. GOST 10197-62 Moscow: Standard Publishing House, 1986 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seber, G., Lee, A.: Linear Regression Analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fishman, G.S.: Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications. Springer, New York (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright, S.J.: Coordinate descent algorithms. Math. Program. 151(1), 3–34 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-015-0892-3 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawless, J.F.: Statistical Models and Methods for Lifetime Data, 2nd edn, pp. 478–481. Wiley, Hoboken (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Himmelblau, D.M.: Process Analysis by Statistical Methods, p. 69. Wiley, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grishin, A., Diogenov, S., Samoylov, I., Semin, A., Feygenbaum, Y., Halenkov, M.: Tu-204 family on air transportation market: major problems and opportunity of its maintenance. Sci. Bull. MSTU CA 163, 30–40 (2011). (in Russian) Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Senik, V.Y., Khlebnikova, I.G., Fеygenbaum, Y.М., Metelkin, E.S.: Methodology of statistical processing of experimental data to assess the detectability of impact damage of composite material structure by visual inspection Sci. Bull. GosNII GA 14, 19–29 (2016). (in Russian) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Efron, B.: Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 7(1), 1–26 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI)ZhukovskyRussian Federation
  2. 2.The State Scientific Research Institute of Civil Aviation (GosNII GA)MoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations