This detailed study proposes a structural health monitoring system which enables the identification, localisation, and correct measurement analysis, in relation to the damage and debonding induced by low energy impacts within aircraft composite wing panels. The said system has been envisaged as an offline system which aims to be considered as a valid alternative method in relation to the current first two maintenance approach levels: visual inspection, which is to be followed if necessary by ultrasonic scanning techniques. The architecture includes two different technologies which act at different frequency ranges: high-frequency sensors/actuators piezoceramics and low-frequency distributed fiber optic sensors. Experimental and numerical results on small stiffened panels are illustrated in this study, where technological verification and validation have been assessed within a laboratory-controlled environment. In addition, the potential benefit by utilising such techniques within the design of the aircraft composite structures has also been illustrated; in comparison with the current aircraft composite structures, a higher weight saving and better performing structures is foreseen.
LloydPA. Structural health monitoring systems – benefits and airworthiness issues. Aeronaut J2008; 112: 285–289.
4.
Boller C and Biemans C. Structural health monitoring in aircraft – state of the art, perspectives and benefits in structural health monitoring: current status and perspectives. Stanford, CA, U.S: Technomics Publishing Company, 1997, pp.541–552.
5.
SAE International. Aerospace recommended practise. Guidelines for implementation of structural health monitoring on fixed wing aircraft. 2013. 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001, USA.
6.
Romano F. Design of composite stiffened panels by new design criteria and progressive failure analysis. PhD thesis, Aerospace Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Italy, 2015. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42948607.pdf.
7.
Kassapoglou C. Design and analysis of composite structures with applications to aerospace structures. U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
Romano F, Sorrentino A, Pellone L, et al. New Design Paradigms and Approaches for Aircraft Composite Structures. International Journal of Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design (MMED), Springer International Publishing, 10th October 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41939-018-0034-8. Print ISSN: 2520-8160. Online ISSN: 2520-8179.
10.
RomanoFMercurioU. Potentiality of SHM and PFA for a new design approach of low weight aircraft structures. J Proc Struct Integrity2017; 5C: 721–728.
11.
RoseJ. A baseline and vision of ultrasonic guided wave inspection potential. J Pressure Vessel Technol2002; 124: 273–282.
12.
SuZYeLLuY. Guided Lamb waves for identification of damage in composite structures: a review. J Sound Vibr2006; 295: 753–780.
13.
CiminelloMDe FenzaADiminoI, et al.Skin-spar failure detection of a composite winglet using FBG sensors. Arch Mech Eng2017; 64: 287–300.
14.
De LucaASharif-KhodaeiZAliabadiMH, et al.Lamb wave propagation in impacted CFRP. Proc Eng2016; 167: 109–115.
15.
De LucaAPerfettoDDe FenzaA, et al.Guided Lamb waves in a composite winglet structure: numerical and experimental investigations. J Compos Struct2019; 210: 96–108.
16.
LeeBCStaszewskiWJ. Lamb wave propagation modelling for damage detection: II. Damage monitoring strategy. J Smart Mater Struct2007; 16: 260–274.
17.
StawiarskiAMucAKedzioraP. Damage detection, localization and assessment in multi-layered composite structure with delaminations. Key Eng Mater2013; 542: 193–204.
18.
SuZYeL. Fundamental lamb mode-based delamination detection for CF/EP composite laminates using distributed piezoelectrics. Struct Health Monit2004; 3: 43.
19.
De FenzaASorrentinoAVitielloP. Application of artificial neural networks and probability ellipse methods for damage detection using lamb waves. J Compos Struct2015; 133: 390–403.
20.
WangDYeLLuY, et al.Probability of the presence of damage estimated from an active sensor network in a composite panel of multiple stiffeners. J Compos Sci Technol2009; 66: 2054–2063.
21.
SorrentinoADe FenzaA. Improved elliptical triangulation method for damage detection in composite material structures. J Mech Eng Sci2017; 231: 3011–3023.
22.
Sorrentino A and De Fenza A. Damage detection in complex composite material structures by using elliptical triangulation method. In: Proceedings of 11th IWSHM – international workshop on structural health monitoring, Stanford, California, USA, 12–14 September 2017.
23.
GüemesAFernández-LópezASollerA. Optical fiber distributed sensing-physical principles and applications. Struct Health Monitor J2010; 9(3): 233–245. .
24.
Shapira O, Ben‐Simon U, Bergman A, et al. Structural health monitoring of a UAV fleet using fiber optic distributed strain sensing. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on structural health monitoring, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1–3 September 2015.
25.
Di SanteR. Fibre optic sensors for structural health monitoring of aircraft composite structures: recent advances and applications. J Sensors2015; 15: 18666–18713.
26.
Ciminello M, Concilio A, Galasso B, et al. Skinstringer debonding detection using distributed dispersion index features. Struct Health Monit J 2018; 17(5): 1245–1254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1475921718758980.
27.
Dost EF, Ilcewicz LB, Avery WB, et al. Effect of stacking sequence on impact damage resistance and residual strength for quasi‐isotropic laminates. ASTM STP 1991; 1110, 1991; 476–500.
28.
NaikNKJoglekarMNAryaH, et al.Impact and compression after impact characteristics of plain weave fabric composites: effect of plate thickness. J Adv Compos Mater2004; 12: 261–280.
29.
AbrateS. Impact on composite structures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
KassapoglouC. Compression strength of composite sandwich structures after barely visible impact damage. J Compos Technol and Res1996; 18(4): 274–284. .
33.
KassapoglouCJonasPJAbbottR. Compressive strength of composite sandwich panels after impact damage: an experimental and analytical study. J Compos Technol and Res1988; 10: 65–73.
34.
AktasMBalciogluHEAktasA, et al.Impact and post impact behavior of layer fabric composites. J Compos Struct2012; 94: 2809–2818.
35.
Sanchez-SaezSBarberoENavarroC. Compressive residual strength at low temperatures of composite laminates subjected to low velocity impacts. J Compos Struct2008; 85: 226–232.
36.
HawyesVJCurtisPTSoutisC. Effect of impact damage on the compressive response of composite laminates. J Compos Part A2001; 32: 1263–1270.
AzziVDTsaiSW. Anisotropic strength of composites. Exp Mech1965; 5(9): 283–288. .
39.
HoffmanO. The brittle strength of orthotropic materials. J Compos Mater1967; 1: 200–206.
40.
HahnHTTsaiSW. On the behavior of composite laminates after initial failures. Astronaut Aeronaut1983; 21: 58–62.
41.
ASTM D 7136/D 7136M – 07. Standard test method for measuring the damage resistance of a fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite to a drop-weight impact event.
42.
ASTM D 7137/D 7137M – 07. Standard test method for compressive residual strength properties of damaged polymer matrix composite plates.
SethKSMarkSSSoutisC. Damage detection in composite materials using lamb wave methods. J Smart Mater Struct2002; 11: 269–278.
45.
HeJRanYLiuB, et al.A fatigue crack size evaluation method based on lamb wave simulation and limited experimental data. J Sensors2017; 17: 2097.
46.
BorrelliRFranchittiSDi CaprioF, et al.A numerical procedure for the virtual compression after impact analysis. J Adv Compos Lett2015; 24: 57–67.
47.
BorrelliRDi CaprioFMercurioU, et al.Assessment of progressive failure analysis capabilities of commercial FE codes. Int J Struct Integrity2013; 4: 300–320.
