Multisite Damage Assessment Tool

Conference paper
First Online:

Abstract

Composites generally are not damage-tolerant, and impact damage can significantly degrade the compressive strength of a composite laminate. Even when no visible impact damage is observed at the surface (energies below barely visible impact damage (BVID)), matrix cracking and interlaminar failure can occur and the carrying load of the composite laminates might be considerably reduced (de Freitas et al in Compos Struct 42(4):365–373, 1998). The aim of the multisite damage assessment tool is to give quick answers with regard to remaining airworthiness and further investigations after hail strikes and reducing aircraft on ground time. To clarify the remaining airworthiness of an aircraft after multisite damage (MSD), mainly caused by hail strikes, an assessment tool is developed based on physical and virtual testing as well as accuracy factors of structural health monitoring (SHM) information.

Keywords

Composite Laminate Fiber Bragg Grating Residual Strength Structural Health Monitoring Fiber Bragg Grating Sensor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Nomenclature

AOG

Aircraft on ground

AS

Application scenarios

AU

Acousto ultrasonic

BVID

Barely visible impact damage

CVM-TTT

Comparative vacuum monitoring through the thickness

DAT

Damage assessment tool

DET

Detailed inspection

DSG

Design service goal

FBG

Fiber Bragg grating

FEA

Element analysis

FC

Flight cycles

FH

Flight hours

GVI

General visual inspection

LVID

Large visible impact damage

MSD

Multisite damage

MSDAT

Multisite damage assessment tool

NDE

Nondestructive evaluation

NDT

Nondestructive testing

OF

Optical fiber

PZT

Piezoelectric

RF

Reserve factor

SHM

Structural health monitoring

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank all the partners involved for their kind support, especially Mr. Psarras from ICL.

The extraordinary support and dedication to the topic that my students, Mr. Gührs, Mr. Falkenberg, and Mr. Nielen with whom I had the honor and joy to supervise during their theses, showed, filled this work package with life. I would also like to thank Anne Gebert-de Uhlenbrock, who started the work package and built the fundamentals of the work we did.

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development, and demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 284562.

References

  1. 1.
    Quineti Q (2010) Hail threat standardisation, EASA.2008.OP.25Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    MIL-HDBK17-3F (2002) Composite materials handbookGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Air Traffic Organization Operations Planning Office of Aviation R&D (2009) Guidelines for the development of a critical composite maintenance and repair issues awareness course, DOT/FAA/AR-08/54Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Freitas M et al (1998) Failure mechanisms on composite specimens subjected to compression after impact. Compos struct 42(4):365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robinson P, Tchambo H (2012) Validated specification for testing conditionsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yan H, Oskay C, Krishnan A (2010) Compression-after-impact response of woven fiber-reinforced composites. Compos Sci TechnolGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Short GJ et al (2001) The effect of delamination geometry on the compressive failure of composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol 61:2075–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahmet YAPICI, Mehmet METIN (2009) Effect of low velocity impact damage on buckling properties. Engineering 1(3):161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galea SC et al (2010) The effect of multiple impact damage on the residual compressive strength of composite structures. Int J CrashworthinessGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    AIRBUS EDSASM (2010) A350 XWB composite fuselage—damage tolerance sizing process, V53RP0721437_EXPGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ESAC (2010) Damage Tolerance Methodology, X029PR0608046Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SARISTU AS06, (2012), RPR1/CCR2 Review AS06Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    AIRBUS (2010) Training report after immersion in air France (Roissy-CDG), D029ME0605272Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guehrs J (2013) Multi-site damage assessment of CFRP panels—a validated finite element analysis. Master thesis, TUHHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SARISTU (2014) AS07_multi site damage assessment toolGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielen P (2014) Entwicklung einer Methode zur Beurteilung der Schädigungen von CFK-Flugzeugbauteilen bezüglich der Restfestigkeit. Bachelor thesis HAWGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    SARISTU AS04 (2012) RPR1/CCR2 review AS04Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    SARISTU (2014) AS07_SHM_Specification_D71.2_Final2Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    SARISTU (2014) AS07 curved panels: panel design, manufacturing requirements & inspection requirements, ACP1-GA-2011-284562Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    SARISTU (2012) Project periodic report, Grant : 2845562Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    SARISTU AS06 (2012) Sensor concept, ACP1-GA-2011-284562Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    SARISTU (2014) AS07 curved panel testing & analysis, ACP1-GA-2011-284562Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Altran GmbH & Ko KGHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations