Aging aircraft must be inspected to detect fatigue cracks that nucleate at unexpected sites. Several sites cannot be accessed through disassembly because of the presence of permanent wiring and tubing or lack of fixtures. Thus, inspections without disassembly must be performed, although the corresponding post-inspection crack states involve higher uncertainties than those pertaining to inspections with disassembly. In estimating the initial crack size distribution for structural risk analyses (SRA), the additional uncertainties in the crack states must be considered. This paper proposes a method to estimate the post-inspection crack size distribution under the fastener head and corresponding initial crack size distribution using the equivalent initial damage size method. The likelihood function, which is used as a filter to pass likely cracks, is constructed using the reliabilities of nondestructive inspection performed by the manufacturer and operator. The proposed method is applied to realize the SRA of splice fitting of F-15K aircraft.
MiedlarPCBerensAPGundersonA, et al. Analysis and support initiative for structural technology (ASIST). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Research Laboratory, 2002.
2.
SmithFRBoehnleinTRHoveyPW, et al. PROF V3.2 PRobability Of Failure – user’s manual. Dayton, OH: University of Dayton Research Institute, 2015.
3.
U.S. Department of Defense. Standard practice aircraft structural integrity program (ASIP). In: MIL-STD-1530D, Change 1., Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2016.
4.
MattosJDChavesCE.Towards a methodology for the practical applications of the EIFS (Equivalent Initial Flaw Size) concept. Latin Am J Solids Struct2013; 10(5): 845–857.
5.
FawazS A.Equivalent initial flaw size testing and analysis. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Air Force Laboratory, 2000.
6.
LinYKYangJN.On statistical moments of fatigue crack propagation. Eng Fract Mech1983; 18(2): 243–256.
7.
YangJNManningSD.Stochastic crack growth analysis methodologies for metallic structures. Eng Fract Mech1990; 37(5): 1105–1124.
8.
YangJNManningSD.A simple second order approximation for stochastic crack growth analysis. Eng Fract Mech1996; 53(5): 677–686.
9.
YangJNDonathRC.Statistical crack propagation in fastener holes under spectrum loading. J Aircr1983; 20(12): 1028–1032.
10.
TorregosaRFHuW.Probabilistic risk analysis of fracture of aircraft structures using a Bayesian approach to update the distribution of the equivalent initial flaw sizes. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct2013; 36(11): 1092–1101.
11.
Boeing. F-15K aircraft structural integrity program support – EIDS distribution parameter report. St. Louis, Missouri: F-15 ASIP Team, 2022, pp.1–16.
12.
JohnsonWS.The history, logic and uses of the equivalent initial flaw size approach to total fatigue life prediction. Procedia Eng2010; 2(1): 47–58.
13.
BerensAHoveyPWSkinnDA.Risk analysis for aging aircraft fleetsDayton, OH: University of Dayton Research Institute, 1991.
14.
LeeYParkJLeeD.Inspection interval optimization of aircraft landing gear component based on risk assessment using equivalent initial flaw size distribution method. Struct Health Monit2022; 21(4): 1396–1406.
15.
LiuYMahadevanS.Probabilistic fatigue life prediction using an equivalent initial flaw size distribution. Int J Fatigue2009; 31(3): 476–487.
16.
LeeDKimNKimMS.Dynamic bayesian network for fatigue-crack-related risk assessment of aerospace bolts. J AIS2022; 19(6): 437–446.
17.
Lifeworks. Lifeworks user’s manual (F-15K Version Revision E). St. Louis, MO: Boeing, 2013, pp.1–414.
18.
Boeing. One-time inspection for fatigue cracks on exterior surface of outboard lower SFD skin and lower AFT skin at XW172.478 and XW206.402 on all F-15K aircraft. St. Louis, MO: The Boeing Company, 2020.
19.
Boeing. One-time inspection of left and right canopy sill longerons for cracks on F-15K aircraft. The Boeing Company: St. Louis, MO, 2020.
20.
ChanHMassereyBFrommeP.Monitoring of hidden fatigue crack growth in multi-layer aircraft structures using high frequency guided waves. Health Monit Struct Biol Syst2015, 9438: 94381Q.
21.
JesenikMBekovićMHamlerA, et al. Searching for hidden cracks and estimations of their depths by using the database. NDT and E Int2017; 86: 44–52.
22.
LeeDLimDKimH, et al. Bayesian method for estimating initial crack size distribution for probabilistic risk analysis of repairable structural details. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct2022; 45: 2356–2370.
23.
U.S. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center. In-service inspection crack size assumptions for metallic structures. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Research Laboratory, 2018.
24.
CruseTA.Reliability-based mechanical design. New york: Marcel Dekker, 1997.
25.
van RavenzwaaijDCasseyPBrownSD. A simple introduction to Markov Chain Monte–Carlo sampling. Psychon Bull Rev2018; 25(1): 143–154.
26.
RookeDPCartwrightDJ. Compendium of stress intensity factors. London: H.M.Stationery, 1976.
LiZGeSLvGZ, et al. Residual strength analysis of stiffened aluminum panels with widespread fatigue damage. Adv Mat Res2008; 33–37: 291–296.
32.
ProppeC.Probabilistic analysis of multi-site damage in aircraft fuselages. Comput Mech2003; 30(4): 323–329.
33.
EastaughGFSimpsonDLStraznickyPV, et al. A Special Uniaxial Coupon Test Specimen for the Simulation of Multiple Site Fatigue Crack Growth and Link-up in Fuselage Skin Splices. The 80th Meeting of the AGARD Structures and Materials Panel, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
34.
LiaoMBombardierYRenaudG, et al. Advanced damage tolerance and risk assessment methodology and tool for aircraft structures containing MSD/MED, 2010.
35.
GumbelEJ.Statistics of extremes. New York, Columbia University Press, 1958.
36.
LeeDKwonK.Comprehensive dynamic Bayesian network model for risk analysis of fatigue-critical structural details. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2023; 229: 108834.
37.
GrootemanFP.An alternative fully stochastic approach to determine the lifetime and inspection scheme of a component SLAP (Stochastic Life APproach). 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Nice, France, September 19-24, 2010. Bonn, Germany: International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences.
38.
Boeing. ROKAF IAT78_Risk_Assessment, 2021.
39.
ZhaoZHaldarA.Bridge fatigue damage evaluation and updating using non-destructive inspections. Eng Fract Mech1996; 53(5): 775–788.
40.
N. O. T. Measurement. Joint service specification guide. The Pentagon Arlington County, VA: The United States Department of Defense, 2006.
41.
LeeDYoonSParkJ, et al. Demonstration of model-assisted probability of detection framework for ultrasonic inspection of cracks in compressor blades. NDT E Int2022; 128: 102618.
