Structural health monitoring in aviation: a comprehensive review and future directions for machine learning
Source abstract
Abstract
Aircraft structures are exposed to a variety of operational and environmental loads that can cause structural deformation and fractures. Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) has emerged as a promising solution for in-situ monitoring of structural components. This article presents a state-of-the-art review of SHM in aviation, current regulations, data acquisition sensors and equipment, and damage detection and identification methods. The article discusses in detail the regulations SHM specific to both civil and military aviation. A comprehensive review of conventional electrical resistance sensors, fiber optic, piezoelectric sensors and smart materials used for SHM monitoring in aircraft structures is then presented. The pros and cons of each data acquisition approach were discussed individually. The damage detection and identification section begins by describing the traditional knowledge-based methods that are combined with expert knowledge and theory, then focuses on the applicability in aircraft SHM systems of spectral or frequency domain models. The last part investigates the new paradigm, machine learning and deep learning methods such as CNN and LSTM on different types of aircraft structures through the existing literature. Furthermore, it covers an emerging approach called physics-informed neural networks (PINN), which combines physics and machine learning, and explore its potential for SHM applications.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Mechanical Engineering Department, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey
TUSAS, Turkish Aerospace Kahramankazan, Ankara, Turkey
Funding
The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. IATA. Airline Cost Management Group (ACMG) 2015 report. 2015 [cited 2021 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/3b5a413027704ce08976fe1890fb43e2/acmg_highlights.pdf
2. 10.1016/0142-1123(81)90018-910.1016/0142-1123(81)90018-9 ↗
3. 10.1007/978-981-10-2143-5_1610.1007/978-981-10-2143-5_16 ↗
4. Guemes A. Shm technologies and applications in aircraft structures. Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on NDT in Aerospace; Singapore; 2013. vol 1315.
5. Safarian P. Fatigue and damage tolerance requirements of civil avia- tion, lesson 01—introduction, winter 2014. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington; 2013.
6. 25.571-1d - damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure.
7. Grandt AF Jr. Fundamentals of structural integrity: damage tolerant design and nondestructive evaluation. New York, United States of America: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
8. 10.1007/978-1-4684-9084-8_810.1007/978-1-4684-9084-8_8 ↗
9. 10.1784/insi.2014.57.1.1810.1784/insi.2014.57.1.18 ↗
10. 10.1016/S0924-4247(02)00195-410.1016/S0924-4247(02)00195-4 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2008.10.00510.1016/j.ndteint.2008.10.005 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2021.10247810.1016/j.ndteint.2021.102478 ↗
13. 10.1243/09544100JAERO40410.1243/09544100JAERO404 ↗
14. Urbah A, Banov M, Doroshko S, et al. Non-destructive in- spection of aircraft landing gear during residual strength testing. Ultragarsas/Ultrasound. 2009;64(1):43–45.
15. 10.1080/10589759.2015.101825410.1080/10589759.2015.1018254 ↗
16. 10.1080/09349847.2011.55654310.1080/09349847.2011.556543 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2003.10.00910.1016/j.ndteint.2003.10.009 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.infrared.2003.07.00210.1016/j.infrared.2003.07.002 ↗
19. NING Ning. Ndt and shm in aircraft structure maintenance.
20. Steinweg DM Hornung M Bauhaus Luftfahrt eV W. Methods evaluating the impact of structural health monitoring on air- craft lifecycle costs. Deutsche Gesellschaft fu¨r Luft-und Raumfahrt-Lilienthal-Oberth eV. 2019.
21. Legal Information Institute. [cited 2022 Mar 4]. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/43.9
22. FAA. Federal aviation administration regulations web based training.
23. Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG-3) howpublished. [cited 2022 Mar 4]. Available from: http://web.archive.org/web/20210304063937/https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/maintenance_steering_group-3_(msg-3)
24. Koˇstial R, Janhuba L, Hlinka J. Intelligent scheduled mainte nance methodology for general aviation structures based on msg-3 and multiple-criteria decision making analysis. Eng Mech. 2017;2017:498–501.
25. SAE International. Perspectives on integrating structural health monitoring systems into fixed-wing military aircraft. 2013. Available from: https://www.sae.org/standards/content/arp6461/
26. Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP).
27. Burchill M Watters KC. Probabilistic life analysis of an f-111 wing based on teardown data. 2004.
28. 10.1088/0964-1726/10/3/31110.1088/0964-1726/10/3/311 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.05.01410.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.05.014 ↗
30. Azzam H and McFeat J. MASAAG paper 123 - development validation verification and certification of structural health monitoring systems for military aircraft. 2015 [cited 2021 Nov 15]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/528815/MASAAG_Paper_123.pdf
31. Ward AP, Parisht HE. The choice of fail safe and safe life fa- tigue. Safety and Failure of Components: A conference organized by the applied mechanics and manufacture and management groups in association with the nuclear energy and steam plant groups and the automobile division of the institution of mechanical engineers [held at the University of Sussex, Brighton]; 1969 Sep 3rd-5th; Brighton, UK. Institution of Mechanical Engineers; 1970. vol 184. p. 238.
32. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.05210.1016/j.compstruct.2019.03.052 ↗
33. 10.2514/6.2003-278410.2514/6.2003-2784 ↗
34. 10.3182/20060829-4-CN-2909.0024110.3182/20060829-4-CN-2909.00241 ↗
35. 10.1109/DASC.1992.28211310.1109/DASC.1992.282113 ↗
36. 10.3390/s1711267710.3390/s17112677 ↗
37. 10.1109/JSEN.2015.250926110.1109/JSEN.2015.2509261 ↗
38. 10.3390/aerospace703002710.3390/aerospace7030027 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.cryogenics.2010.07.00510.1016/j.cryogenics.2010.07.005 ↗
40. HBM. Adhesives bonding material for strain gauges. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.hbm.com/en/4625/strain-gauge-adhesives-bonding-material/
41. 10.1016/S1270-9638(01)01140-310.1016/S1270-9638(01)01140-3 ↗
42. Winkel FT Spiekhout DJ. Rnlaf/f-16 loads and usage monitor- ing/management program. 2002.
43. Waldock A, Hunt S, Kelsey G. Rapidly building a parametric model to estimate the structural fatigue of a fast jet. EWSHM-7th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring; La Cité, Nantes, France; 2014.
44. Molent L. A unified approach to fatigue usage monitoring of fighter aircraft based on f/a-18 experience. Proc ICAS. 1998;98:1–11.
45. Burd J. ASIP Conference - operational service life evaluation for the United States forest service P-3 aircraft. 2007.
46. de Jonge JB. Load experience variability of fighter aircraft. 1989.
47. 10.1046/j.1460-2695.2000.00330.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.2000.00330.x ↗
48. Artur K Zielin´ski W Piotr R et al. In flight load determi- nation in critical structure elements based on operational load monitoring system.
49. Leski MA, Klimaszewski S, Dragan CK, et al. Aircraft structural integrity program of polish su-22 “fitter” aircraft. 2006 USAF ASIP Conference; San Antonio. ASIP; 2006.
50. Kurnyta A Reymer P Dziendzikowski M-L et al. Ageing fighter–bomber aircraft durability tests and operational load monitoring to support life extension program.
51. Tariq U. Review of different methods to study and investigate air- craft structure failure under dynamic loading. J Aeronaut Aerosp Eng. 2021;10(9):1–11.
52. Boller C, Staszewski WJ. Aircraft structural health and usage monitoring. In: Staszewski WJ, Boller C, Tomlinson G. R. editors. Health Monitoring of Aerospace Structures: Smart Sensor Technologies and Signal Processing; West Sussex, England; 2004:29–73.
53. Pawlik M, Stockton K. T-45 structural fatigue life track- ing system. USAF ASIP Conference; Greenville, SC: Aircraft Struc- tural Integrity Program Conference; 2007.
54. Hunt SR, Hebden IG. Eurofighter 2000: an integrated approach to structural health and usage monitoring. The NATO Reasearch and Technology Organisation Meeting; Citeseer; 1998, vol 7.
55. Hebden IG Crowley AM Black W. Overview of the f-35 structural prognostics and health management system.
56. Fallon T. ASIP Conference - structural prognostics and health management; Palm Springs, CA, USA; 2007.
57. Gianchandani YB, Tabata O, Zappe HP. Compre- hensive microsystems. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008.
58. Wilson JS. Sensor technology handbook. Massachusetts, USA: Elsevier; 2004.
59. 10.1016/B978-0-12-800774-7.00002-710.1016/B978-0-12-800774-7.00002-7 ↗
60. Senturia SD. Microsystem design. New York NY, USA: Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
61. 10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2003)16:3(108)10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2003)16:3(108) ↗
62. 10.1177/147592171770790310.1177/1475921717707903 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.11.01210.1016/j.compstruct.2006.11.012 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11197310.1016/j.compstruct.2020.111973 ↗
65. 10.1088/0960-1317/27/1/01501410.1088/0960-1317/27/1/015014 ↗
66. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.10534810.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105348 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.prostr.2020.01.04610.1016/j.prostr.2020.01.046 ↗
68. Gorman MR. Acoustic emission. In: Boller C, Chang F, Fujino Y, editors. Encyclopedia of Structural Health Monitoring. West Sussex, England; 2009. p. 90–112.
69. Wevers M, Lambrighs K. Applications of acoustic emis- sion for shm: a review. In: Boller C, Chang F, Fujino Y, editors. Encyclopedia of Structural Health Monitoring. West Sussex, England; 2009. p. 223–235.
70. 10.1177/147592172093906410.1177/1475921720939064 ↗
71. 10.1016/j.matdes.2011.01.01010.1016/j.matdes.2011.01.010 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.10618910.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106189 ↗
73. 10.1115/1.404127110.1115/1.4041271 ↗
74. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10575310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105753 ↗
75. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.07.02410.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.07.024 ↗
76. 10.1109/JLT.0082.92191510.1109/JLT.0082.921915 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.01810.1016/j.engstruct.2004.05.018 ↗
78. 10.3390/s12070860110.3390/s120708601 ↗
79. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.11305710.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113057 ↗
80. 10.3390/s1608116410.3390/s16081164 ↗
81. 10.1109/LPT.2011.212445210.1109/LPT.2011.2124452 ↗
82. 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.10360410.1016/j.autcon.2021.103604 ↗
83. 10.3390/s1804107210.3390/s18041072 ↗
84. 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.00310.1016/j.procs.2015.12.003 ↗
85. 10.3390/s1908186210.3390/s19081862 ↗
86. 10.5772/6627610.5772/66276 ↗
87. 10.3390/photonics807026510.3390/photonics8070265 ↗
88. 10.1364/JOSAB.16.00052310.1364/JOSAB.16.000523 ↗
89. 10.1063/1.220481810.1063/1.2204818 ↗
90. 10.1088/1361-6501/aaf90510.1088/1361-6501/aaf905 ↗
91. 10.3390/s1801027310.3390/s18010273 ↗
92. 10.1016/j.compstruc.2007.01.04010.1016/j.compstruc.2007.01.040 ↗
93. 10.1177/00219983930270170110.1177/002199839302701701 ↗
94. 10.1016/j.yofte.2006.03.00410.1016/j.yofte.2006.03.004 ↗
95. 10.1109/LPT.2007.89436110.1109/LPT.2007.894361 ↗
96. Inaudi D, Grosso AD. Fiber optic sensors for structural control. Proceedings 14th World Conference Earthquake Engineering; Beijing, China; 2008.
97. 10.1109/SENSORS43011.2019.895670510.1109/SENSORS43011.2019.8956705 ↗
98. 10.1016/j.tust.2008.08.00510.1016/j.tust.2008.08.005 ↗
99. 10.3390/s11040368710.3390/s110403687 ↗
100. Bockenheimer C, Speckmann H, Team I. Validation, verification and implementation of shm at airbus. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring (IWSHM 2013); Stanford, CA , USA: Stanford University; 2013. p. 10–12.