Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:39:23.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural health monitoring systems – benefits and airworthiness issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

P. A. Lloyd
P. A. Lloyd*
Affiliation:
Defence Science & Technology Laboratory, Porton Down, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the application of advanced structural monitoring systems to aircraft structures. A great deal of research effort has, and is being directed towards technologies that can detect damage and estimate its significance. In this paper the benefits of deploying such systems are discussed and illustrated with quantitative estimates where these are available. It is concluded that significant benefits should accrue from their use, but that a number of outstanding technical issues remain which include the realistic verification of performance and reliability. The impact on aircraft airworthiness is also considered and it is suggested that while no significant new issues emerge, considerable work will need to be done to qualify systems, and that this is unlikely to be worthwhile unless the expected benefits can be assured.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 112 , Issue 1131 , May 2008 , pp. 285 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Staszewski, W.J., Boller, C. and Tomlinson, G.R. (Eds) Health Monitoring of Aerospace Structures: Smart Sensor Technologies and Signal Processing, 2004, J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
2. European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring Google Scholar
3. International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA. http://structure.stanford.edu/workshop/workshop/homepage1.htm Google Scholar
4. Asia-Pacific Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring http://www.materialsaustralia.co.au/SHM2008/ Google Scholar
5. Inman, D.J., Farrar, C.R., Lopes, V. and Steffen, V., Damage Prognosis for Aerospace, Civil & Mechanical Systems, 2005. J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
6. Sohn, H., Farrar, C.R., Hemez, F.M., Shunk, D.D., Stinemates, D. W. and Nadler, B.R., A review of structural health monitoring literature: 1996–2001, 2003, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-13976-MS.Google Scholar
7. Rouchon, J., Fatigue and damage tolerance aspects for composite aircraft structures, 1995, proceedings of Fatigue and Damage Tolerance of Aircraft Structures conference, Delft.Google Scholar
8. Health and usage monitoring systems (HUMS) within the Royal Air Force, AP 100A-01 Leaflet 0324.Google Scholar
9. Integrated health and usage monitoring system guide, 2000, Guide DTec(Air)/STS 2E2a1(GV5).Google Scholar
10. Hunt, S.R. and Hebden, I.G., Validation of the Eurofighter Typhoon structural health and usage monitoring system, Smart Mater Struct, 10, 2001, pp 497–503.Google Scholar
11. Knight, P., Cook, J. and Azzam, H., Intelligent management of helicopter health and usage management data, J Aerospace Eng, 2005, pp 507–524, proceedings of IMechE, 219, Part G.Google Scholar
12. Reed, S.C., Indirect Aircraft Structural Monitoring Using Artificial Neural Networks, 2006, PhD thesis, Sheffield University.Google Scholar
13. Cansdale, R., Analysis of UK military aircraft accidents, 1994. DRA/AS/STD/CR95261/1 (1995).Google Scholar
14. Fatigue safe-life substantiation. defence standard 00-970 design and airworthiness requirements for service aircraft, 1999, Leaflet 35.Google Scholar
15. Boller, C., Ways and options for aircraft structural health management, Smart Mater Struct, 2001, 10, pp 432–440.Google Scholar
16. Brant, C. and Boller, C., Identification of life cycle cost reduction potentials of future self diagnostic structures, 1999, RTO MP-37, RTO AVT specialists meeting on Design for Low Cost Operation and Support, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
17. Bartelds, G., Aircraft structural health monitoring, prospects for smart solutions from a European viewpoint, 1997, NLR TP 97489 L.Google Scholar
18. Kent, R.M. and Murphy, D.A., Health monitoring system technology assessments — cost benefits analysis, 2000, NASA/CR-2000-209848.Google Scholar
19. Exploitation of structural loads/health data for reduced life cycle costs, 1998, NATO RTO Meeting Proceedings, 7 November 1998.Google Scholar
20. Benoff, D., Reliability centred maintenance gives new meaning to the phrase ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’, Business & Commercial Aviation, October 2000.Google Scholar
21. Schmidt, H-J. and Schmidt-Brandecker, B., Structure design and maintenance benefits from structural health monitoring systems, September 2001, pp 80–101, Third International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
22. Telgkamp, J. and Schmidt, H.-J., Benefits by the application of structural health monitoring (SHM) systems on civil transport aircraft, September 2003, pp 285–292, Fourth International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
23. Munns, T.E. and Kent, R.M., Structural health monitoring: degradation mechanisms and system requirements, 7-13 October 2000, 2, 6C2/1-8, Ninth Digital Avionics System Conference, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
24. Kessler, S.S., Certifying a structural health monitoring system: characterizing durability, reliability and longevity, 7-10 November 2005, First International Forum on Integrated Systems Health Engineering & Management in Aerospace, Napa, CA, USA.Google Scholar
25. Beral, B. and Speckmann, H., Structural health monitoring (SHM) for aircraft structures: a challenge for system developers and aircraft manufacturers, 12-29 September 2003, Fourth International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
26. Goggin, P., Huang, J., White, E. and Haugse, E., Challenges for SHM Transition to future aerospace systems, September 2003, Fourth international workshop on structural health monitoring, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
27. Munns, T.E., Beard, R.E., Culp, A.M., Murphy, D.A. and Kent, R.M., Analysis of regulatory guidance for health monitoring, NASA/CR-2000-210643.Google Scholar