P7731 Asip 2014

Concept of Operations
for Corrosion
Environment Sensors
(aka Corrosion Sensors)
2 December 2014
Eric Lindgren, John Brausch*, Charles Buynak,

David Forsyth#, and Tom Mills**
Material State Awareness Supportability Branch
*Materials Integrity Branch
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate
Air Force Research Laboratory
#Texas
Research Institute/Austin
Integrity  Service  Excellence **Analytical Processes/Engineered Solutions
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Case Number 88ABW-2014-5398 1
Acknowledgments
• AFRL Corrosion IPT

– Dr. Doug Dudis, Lead
– AFRL/RXS and RXC Team and Contractors
– AF Corrosion Prevention and Control Office
• Mr. Ed Hermes (AFRL/RXS Technical Director)
• And many others….
Outline
• Motivation: Cost of Corrosion

• Background: Corrosion Environment Sensors
– Considerations, History, Current Status
• Concept of Operations
• Challenges to Realize ConOps
– Representative Case Study
• Perspective on Opportunities
• Transition Considerations
Photograph by author DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Case Number 88ABW-2014-5398 3
Corrosion and ASIP*
*David Robertson, “Developing an AF Long Term Corrosion Prevention and Control Strategic Plan,” ASIP 2012:
http://www.meetingdata.utcdayton.com/agenda/asip/2012/proceedings/presentations/P6280.pdf
Cost of Corrosion*
*David Robertson, “Developing an AF Long Term Corrosion Prevention and Control Strategic Plan,” ASIP 2012:
Nucleation of the Concept
• Corrosion impacts sustainment
– Periodically highlighted as item of interest
• Hypothesis: corrosion management would benefit
from more data
– Evolve from a “find and fix” approach
• On-board sensors provide more data
– Environment severity one of many drivers for corrosion
Representative
intergranular and
exfoliation corrosion
typical of wing skins*
*Lepine, et. al., “Correlating Corrosion Characterization Metrics to Nondestructive Inspections of a 2024-T3 Fuselage Lap Splice,” Proceedings of
the 2002 ASIP Conference
On-board Sensing
Two classes of sensors:
Damage detection (e.g. cracks and corrosion)
• Permanent sensors based on NDE methods*
• aka Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) Active damage detection
sensor**
Environmental sensing systems

• Measure parameters of environment
• Commonly referred to as “corrosion sensors”
• Do NOT directly detect corrosion
Environmental sensing
Focus of this presentation sensor***
*M.M. Derriso, “Industrial Age NDE to Information Age SHM,” presented at 9 th International Workshop on SHM, Stanford CA 2013
**Lin, at. al., “Smart Layer and Smart Suitcase for Structural Health Monitoring Applications,” www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA442244, 2005
***W.H. Abbott, “Implementation of Inaccessible Corrosion Sensors on Military Aircraft,” http://afcpo.com/images/1040_-1100_AF_Corr_Mgr_Abbott_309.pdf(1995 patent)
Environment Sensing:
Classes and History
• Classes of Sensors:
– Witness coupons (sacrificial): direct, galvanic
– Environment parameters: humidity, temperature, chemistry,
time of wetness
– Corrosivity potential: electrical impedance spectroscopy
(EIS), linear polarization resistance (LPR), magnetometer Representative
Environment Sensor*
• Truncated history
– Significant resources expended on development, demonstration,
proof-of-principle, and flight tests
• Efforts date back to 1973, ramp up starts in 1992 (V.S. Agarwala)
• ~1500 Battelle sensor flown on military aircraft as of 2010***
– Capability not validated, therefore TRL<5
– Definition of how sensing systems provide actionable information
has not been established to date
Representative
*Friedersdorf, et. al., “Smart Sensor Network for Aircraft Corrosion Monitoring,” “www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA532651, 2010 LPR Sensor**
**D. Brown, et.al., “Real-Time Corrosion Monitoring of Aircraft Structures with Prognostic Applications,”
https://www.phmsociety.org/sites/phmsociety.org/files/phm_submission/2012/phmc_12_018.pdf
***”A Decade of Corrosion Monitoring in the World’s Operating Environments – A Summary of Results” https://www.corrdefense.org/Academia%20Government
%20and%201ndustry/A%20Decade%20of%20Corrosion%20Mon itori ng. pdf
Options for Actionable Data
Concept of Operations:
• ASIP-based: Safety
– Used to help ensure acceptable structural risk
• Planning: cost and availability
– Maintenance planning / scheduling
• Ad hoc: temporary evaluations
– Trials and/or evaluate effect of modifications
Metrics of capability validation are very different

as a function of application
Challenge of Corrosion Monitoring
KC-135 “Flyswatter” Fitting*

• Reported three types of corrosion in multiple locations:
– Pitting, Intergranular, Exfoliation
What parameter(s) is/are critical?

*Picture from Forsyth, D..S., “Development and Use of Standard Environmental Exposure Spectra for Validation of Health Monitoring, ASIP 2008, available at:
Questions to Consider
• What parameters must the sensors measure, what
information is transmitted and how is it interpreted?
• How is the sensor information correlated to
quantifiable data such as environmental conditions,
coatings degradation, or structural damage?
• How is a decision threshold established and what
actions are required once the threshold has been
exceeded?
• Does the new information enable proactive, cost
effective corrosion mitigation?
In other words….
• What is the quality of data?
• How does it correlate to condition?
• When is action needed?
• What is value of the information/action?
Success will come with answers

to these questions…
ASIP-based Applications
• Environment sensing analogous to Loads
Monitoring/NDI systems Customer
• Requires predictive models for corrosion

– High fidelity/precision (e.g. coatings)
– Metrics provide inputs to safety assessments
• Requires higher level of fidelity
– Sensitivity calibration / self-diagnosis
• Must correlate to condition
• Must detect corrosion before it affects safety
• Must ensure structure within acceptable safety risk
• Should enable cost/time savings for maintenance
Most challenging, but potential for very large pay-off
Planning/Maintenance Applications
• Must enable maintenance (MX) cost/time savings: Customers
– E.g. modify wash cycles, corrosion prevention compound

reapplication, basing changes, tailor/focus pre-induction
inspections (PII), MX staging for severe aircraft
• Information to assist in diagnosing condition
• Performance could be augmented with models
– Fidelity could be less than ASIP-based scenario
– Simplistic decision models is an option
– Need low sensor failure rates / false calls to be economical
• Must infer corrosion is present before it causes
significant repair costs / aircraft unavailability
Significant value can be realized
Ad-hoc Applications
• Test, evaluation, and engineering experiments
Customer
• Possible outcomes include:
– Collect data for model development
– Construct metrics of data fidelity
– Correlate sensor data to corrosion condition
– Establish sensitivity to different types of corrosion
– Determine what diagnostics are possible
– Evaluate potential cost/time savings for maintenance
– Assess reliability/durability for time of test
• Many flight experiments completed in multiple countries
– Builds experience and uncovers technical gaps
Multiple on-aircraft experiments executed…

Summary of Challenges
• Significance of data:
– Data provided by a sensor
• Translating sensor system output to damage presence information
• Metrics of capability for performance of sensor system
– Convert the data (information) into action
• Criteria to initiate additional “invasive” inspections
• Criteria to influence maintenance actions
• Address other factors that affect sensor output (i.e. false calls)
– Ensure data are relevant
• Value proposition / business case analysis
• Validation process*
– Determine reproducibility / accuracy of sensor output
• Qualification process*
– Define requirements for sensor system certification
• MIL STD 810G alone is not sufficient
*Brausch and Steffes, “Demonstration, Qualification, and Airworthiness Certification of Structural Damage Sensing (SDS) Systems
for Air Force Applications, ” AFRL-RX-WP-TM-2013-0062
Variability Affecting Corrosion
• Sensor data to determining damage presence
• Variables include:
– Geometry / boundaries
– Manufacturing
– Operational history
• Modifications
• Maintenance Representative wing skin corrosion*
• Repairs
– Aging (sensors and/or aircraft)
– Corrosion type: pitting, intergranular, exfoliation, crevice…
– Environmental variables: temperature, humidity, sampling rate…
Impact on sensor capability needs to be evaluated

*Forsyth, D.S., et.al. “Data Fusion for Quantitative Nondestructive Inspection of Corrosion Damage in Aircraft Wing Structures, proceedings of the Aging Aircraft Conference 2003
Representative Case Study:
Planning/Maintenance
Sum of (ESI at Location x Time at Location)

= Corrosion Cost
Hypothesis:
• Combine time at location with Environmental Severity Index (ESI)
as a data driven model to determine which aircraft have more
corrosion than others to guide PII and Depot scheduling
– Correlate with Maintenance Man Hours (MMH) for corrosion as the
metric of corrosion severity
Representative Case Study
• Issue 1: Sensor Accuracy / “calibration” (data quality)
• 7075-T6 model
correlates with
Relative Severity Damage
Relative Severity Damage

copper-based
Sensor sensor Sensor
• Copper model
does not
Model Model
correlate with
copper-based
sensor
Representative Aircraft Representative Aircraft
• Issue 2: Is this the right data to use? • Issue 4: Possible ESI value discrepancies
(correlate to condition) (data quality)
– MMH is maintenance, not engineering, data – Two published sources based on same data*
– However, it is best data readily available to us – Multiple locations have different values of ESI
• Issue 3: Errors in time-at-location data – Some, but not all, discrepancies addressable by
sample management and/or data entry errors
(correlate to condition) – Limited time/funds to collect ESI: additional
– Remedied through additional data analysis work is required
*www.corrdefense.org and Abbott, W., “A Decade of Corrosion Monitoring in the World’s Military Operating Environments: A Summary of Results,
http://corrdefense.nace.org/CorrDefense_Spring_2008/DoD_3.asp
Current Status for
Representative Case Study
ESI (Location) x Time at Location = Corrosion Cost
Discrepancies limit effectiveness MX vs. Eng Data:

Additional work required Additional analysis required
Inaccurate Data:
Has been/can be addressed
Path forward:
• ESI discrepancies: addressed with additional data and improved
atmospheric-based models for corrosion severity
– Need to determine if good enough for this application
• Other data shortfalls addressed with re-analysis and verification
Even for this relatively simple case,

it is not as easy as it looks…
R&D Opportunities
• Determine how sensing system output provides
actionable information
– Decades of flight experiments/demonstrations have not
addressed this challenge, so alternative approaches are needed
• Address modeling challenges for each scenario
– Integrate noise, environment parameters, protective systems
– Simple laboratory testing is not sufficient
– Baseline data (e.g. ESI) needs to be augmented
• Define how to validate capability
– Performance as a function of time
– Leverage available resources
• Establish qualification process
– Durability and Life Cycle Costs
Significant challenges remain to be addressed
Consideration for Transition
Reviewing USAF Requirements for damage detection:
• For damage tolerance structures (i.e. ASIP-based)*
– Probability of Detection curve for application
– Expected false-positive call rate and sensor system failure rates
– Determined service life if using an on-board system
• Planning and Ad-hoc scenarios could have more flexibility
– Magnitude of flexibility determined by application
• Qualification for integration are needed for all scenarios
*Based on C.A. Babish IV “Requirements Associated With

Transition of ISHM into USAF Aircraft,” ISHM Conference, 2009
Review: Questions to Consider
• What is the quality of data?
• How does it correlate to condition?
• When is action needed?
• What is value of the information/action?
Success will come with answers

to these questions…
Review form Last Year:
Current State: TRLs*
• Damage (i.e. cracks and corrosion) detection only
Where Sensing is Deterministic Non-deterministic Deterministic Non-Deterministic
Performed Surface Breaking Surface Breaking Buried Buried
Depot Available Available Limited Limited

TRL = 9 TRL = 9 TRL = AD* TRL= AD*
Field Available Available Limited Not Available
TRL = 9 TRL = 9 TRL = AD* TRL = 4
On-board** Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available
TRL = 4 TRL = 4 TRL = 4 TRL = 3
* AD = application dependent, TRL ranges from 5 to 9
**On-board includes damage detection and environment sensing (i.e. corrosion environment)
• Primary hurdle for TRL progress of on-board systems is validation

• Environmental Sensors beneficial for coatings testing
– Value for aircraft integrity/maintenance needs to be determined
• Sensor-based damage characterization: Not Available for any
approach, currently at a TRL of 3/4
*Lindgren, et.al., “State of Nondestructive Evaluation and Structural Health Monitoring,” ASIP 2013:
Summary
Environment sensing systems for corrosion management:
• Three ConOps exist: ASIP-based (far-term), MX Planning
(mid-term), and Ad-hoc (near-term)
– Requires determination of how data will be used
• Requirements for transition depend on ConOps
– Validation (e.g. capability, false calls) will be different, but aspects of
qualification (e.g. durability and integration) could be same
– Future programs planned to develop these processes
• Value to end-user must be quantified
• If done properly, could impact aircraft safety, availability,
and cost of corrosion
Thank you! Questions?
Photograph by author DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Case Number 88ABW-2014-5398 26

P7731 Asip 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P7731 Asip 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P7731 Asip 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concept of Operations

Eric Lindgren, John Brausch*, Charles Buynak,

• AFRL Corrosion IPT

• Motivation: Cost of Corrosion

Environmental sensing systems

Metrics of capability validation are very different

KC-135 “Flyswatter” Fitting*

What parameter(s) is/are critical?

Success will come with answers

• Requires predictive models for corrosion

– E.g. modify wash cycles, corrosion prevention compound

Multiple on-aircraft experiments executed…

Impact on sensor capability needs to be evaluated

Sum of (ESI at Location x Time at Location)

Relative Severity Damage

Discrepancies limit effectiveness MX vs. Eng Data:

Even for this relatively simple case,

Significant challenges remain to be addressed

*Based on C.A. Babish IV “Requirements Associated With

Success will come with answers

Depot Available Available Limited Limited

• Primary hurdle for TRL progress of on-board systems is validation

You might also like