Value-focused thinking model to evaluate SHM system alternatives from military end user requirements point of view

• Autorzy: Klimaszewski, S.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The article describes Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) model developed in order to evaluate various alternatives for implementation of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) system on a military aircraft. Four SHM system alternatives are considered based on: visual inspection (current approach), piezoelectric (PZT) sensors, Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensors and Comparative Vacuum Monitoring (CVM) sensors. A numerical example is shown to illustrate the model capability. Sensitivity analyses are performed on values such as Cost, Performance, Aircraft Availability and Technology Readiness Level in order to examine influence of these values on overall value of structural state of awareness provided by particular SHM system alternative.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

structural health monitoring; requirements; value-focused thinking; value system hierarchy; sensitivity analyses

• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Instytutu Technicznego Wojsk Lotniczych
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: nr 39
• Strony: 21--32
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 12 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Klimaszewski, S.

• Air Force Institute of Technology

Bibliografia

• 1. Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), MIL-STD-1530C, Department of Defense, 1 November 2005.
• 2. ARP6461, Guidelines for Implementation of Structural Health Monitoring on Fixed Wing Aircraft, SAE International, September 2013.
• 3. Barker M., Schroeder J., Gürbüz F.: Assessing Structural Health Monitoring Alternatives Utilizing a Value Focused Thinking Model, Department of The Air Force Air University, Air Force Institute Of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, AFIT/GSE/ENV/09-M04, March 2009.
• 4. Brausch J., Steffes G.: Demonstration, Qualification, and Airworthiness Certification of Structural Damage Sensing (SDS) Systems for Air Force Application, Air Force Research Laboratory report AFRL-RX-WP-TM-2013-0062, April 2013.
• 5. Department of Defense Handbook. Airworthiness Certification Criteria, MIL-HDBK-516B w/Change 1, 29 February 2008.
• 6. European Defence Agency, Military Airworthiness Authorities (MAWA) Forum, European Military Airworthiness Certification Criteria (EMACC). EMACC Handbook. Ed. 2.0, 24 January 2013.
• 7. Graddy M., Using Decision Analysis to Select Facility Maintenance Management Information Systems, Department of The Air Force Air University, Air Force Institute Of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, AFIT/GEM/ENV/10-M04, March 2010.
• 8. Keeney R.L.: Value Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
• 9. Kirkwood C.W.: Strategic Decision Making: Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Spreadsheets. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1997.
• 10. Lindgren E.A., Stargel D.: USAF Perspective on Foundational Challenges for Enhanced Damage Sensing, 6th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring & 1st European Conference of the Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) Society, July 3-6, 2012, Dresden, Germany.
• 11. Perez I., DiUlio M., Maley S., Phan N., Structural Health Management in the NAVY, 2009 International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (IWSHM 2009), http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA522795.
• 12. Shoviak M.J.: Decision Analysis Methodology to Evaluate Integrated Solid Waste Management Alternatives For A Remote Alaskan Air Station, Department of The Air Force Air University, Air Force Institute Of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, AFIT/GEE/ENV/01M-20, March 2001.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1515/afit-2016-0014