NASA / CR-2000-209848

Health Monitoring System Technology

Assessments - Cost Benefits Analysis

Renee M. Kent and Dennis A. Murphy

ARINC, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland

January 2000
The NASA STI Program Office ... in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated

to the advancement of aeronautics and space

science. The NASA Scientific and Technical

Information (STI) Program Office plays a key

part in helping NASA maintain this important

role.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by

Langley Research Center, the lead center for

NASA's scientific and technical information.

The NASA STI Program Office provides

access to the NASA STI Database, the largest

collection of aeronautical and space science

STI in the world. The Program Office is also

NASA's institutional mechanism for

disseminating the results of its research and

development activities. These results are

published by NASA in the NASA STI Report

Series, which includes the following report

types:

TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports

of completed research or a major

significant phase of research that

present the results of NASA programs

and include extensive data or theoretical

analysis. Includes compilations of

significant scientific and technical data

and information deemed to be of

continuing reference value. NASA

counterpart of peer-reviewed formal

professional papers, but having less

stringent limitations on manuscript

length and extent of graphic

presentations.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM.

Scientific and technical findings that are

preliminary or of specialized interest,

e.g., quick release reports, working

papers, and bibliographies that contain

minimal annotation. Does not contain

extensive analysis.

CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and

technical findings by NASA-sponsored

contractors and grantees.

CONFERENCE PUBLICATION.

Collected papers from scientific and

technical conferences, symposia,

seminars, or other meetings sponsored

or co-sponsored by NASA.

SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

technical, or historical information from

NASA programs, projects, and missions,

often concerned with subjects having

substantial public interest.

TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign

scientific and technical material

pertinent to NASA's mission.

Specialized services that complement the

STI Program Office's diverse offerings

include creating custom thesauri, building

customized databases, organizing and

publishing research results ... even

providing videos.

For more information about the NASA STI

Program Office, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI Program Home

Page at http'//www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to

help@sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI

Help Desk at (301) 621-0134

• Phone the NASA STI Help Desk at (301)

621-0390

Write to:

NASA STI Help Desk

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information

7121 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320
NASA / CR-2000-209848

Health Monitoring System Technology

Assessments - Cost Benefits Analysis

Renee M. Kent and Dennis A. Murphy

ARINC, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, Virginia 23681-2199

Prepared for Langley Research Center

under Purchase Order L69620D

January 2000
Available from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

7121 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076-1320

(301) 621-0390

National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161-2171

(703) 605-6000
ABSTRACT

The subject of sensor-based structural health monitoring is very diverse and encompasses

a wide range of activities including initiatives and innovations involving the development

of advanced sensor, signal processing, data analysis, and actuation and control

technologies. In addition, it embraces the consideration of the availability of low-cost,

high-quality contributing technologies, computational utilities, and hardware and

software resources that enable the operational realization of robust health monitoring

technologies.

The evolution of these dynamic and robust technologies has been the result of the

disciplined application of systems engineering practices and techniques. It has been

stimulated and facilitated by a focused appreciation within the civil, aerospace, and

mechanical engineering communities of the tremendous capabilities associated with

advanced materials, sensing and instrumentation technologies, micromechanics, process

control and actuation, and data and signal processing. However, operational

implementation of the technology requires that the technology base be economically

viable, as well.

This report presents a detailed analysis of the cost benefit and other logistics and

operational considerations associated with the implementation and utilization of sensorbased technologies for use in aerospace structure health monitoring. The scope of this

report has been tailored to provide an assessment of the economic impact, from an enduser perspective, of implementing health monitoring technologies on three critical

structures. Specifically, it focuses on evaluating the cost benefit impact of maintaining

and supporting these structures with and without health monitoring capability.
ABBREVATIONS AND ACRONYM

AC

AD

ALI

ASHMS

CASA

CBA

CER

CES

CMR

DoD

ED

FAA

FD

LASHM

LCC

LCCM

LDT

LLM

Mct

MDT

MEMs

MFHBM

MTBF

MTBM

MTSM

MTTR

NDE/I

NLT

O&D

O&M

O&S

Acquisition Cost

Airworthiness Directive

Airworthiness limitation instructions

Aircraft Structural Health Monitoring System

Cost Analysis Strategy Assessment

Cost Benefit Analysis

Cost Estimating Relationship

Cost Element Structure

Certification Maintenance Requirement

Department of Defense

Environmental Deterioration

Federal Aviation Administration

Fatigue Damage

Life Cycle Aircraft Structure Health Management

Life-cycle Cost

LCC Model

Logistics Down Time

Life Limits Management

Mean Corrective Time

Mean Downtime

Microelectromechanical Systems

Mean Flight Hours Between Maintenance

Mean Time Between Failure

Mean Time Between Maintenance

Mean Time for Scheduled Maintenance

Mean Time To Repair

Non-destructive Evaluation and Inspection

Not-later-than

Operations and Destination

Operations and Maintenance

Operations and Support
ABBREVATIONS AND ACRONYM (continued)

PSE

PZT

R&D

R&M

RDT&E

ROI

SE

SSI

T&E

TAT

TE

TRACE

Principal Structural Elements

Piezoelectric

Research and Development

Reliability and Maintainability

Return on Investment

Support Equipment

Structurally Significant Items

Test and Evaluation

Turnaround Time

Test Equipment

Total Resource and Cost Evaluation
CONTENTS

Page

SECTION ONE:

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ........................................................................ 1-1

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 1-1

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................... 1-1

SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 1-2

CONCEPTUAL APPROACH .......................................................................................... 1-3

DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................. 1-3

REPORT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1-5

SECTION TWO: OVERVIEW OF AN AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING

SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 OPERATIONAL NEED ................................................................................................... 2-1

SECTION THREE: THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPROACH ................................................... 3-1

3.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 HYPOTHESIS .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.3 LIFE-CYCLE COST (LCC) ANALYSIS PROCESS ...................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 Development of LCC Analysis Approach .......................................................... 3-3

3.3.1.1

3.3.1.2

3.3.1.3

3.3.1.4

3.3.1.5

Reference System and Alternative Systems ...................................... 3-3

Key Issues and Considerations ......................................................... 3-3

Ground Rules and Assumptions ........................................................ 3-5

Cost Element Structure (CES) .......................................................... 3-6

The LCC Model ................................................................................ 3-6

3.3.2 Customer Concurrence And Coordination .......................................................... 3-9

3.3.3 Life Cycle Cost Estimation ................................................................................. 3-9

3.3.3.1 Methodology ..................................................................................... 3-9

3.3.3.2 Data Collection And Analysis ........................................................ 3-10

SECTION FOUR: GROUNDRULES AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................ 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE CBA APPROACH ..................... 4-1

4.2.1

4.2.2

4.2.3

Conceptual Approach ......................................................................................... 4-1

Model Selection .................................................................................................. 4-2

Data Collection and Validation .......................................................................... 4-2

4.3 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO ASHMHS ........................... 4-3

4.4 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE CONCEPT ... 4-5

...

nl
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

4.4.1 Unscheduled Maintenance .................................................................................. 4-5

4.4.2 Scheduled Maintenance ...................................................................................... 4-5

4.5 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO R&M .................................. 4-8

4.6 COST FORMULATION .................................................................................................. 4-9

SECTION FIVE: COST ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 COST DRIVERS .............................................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 LCC ESTIMATING ......................................................................................................... 5-3

5.3 ROI ESTIMATING ............................................................................................................... 5-4

SECTION SIX: CBA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 EXPECTED LSC SAVINGS ........................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 EXPECTED RETURN ON INVESTMENT .................................................................... 6-1

6.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .......................................................................................... 6-2

SECTION SEVEN: BENEFITS FROM A NON-ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE .................................... 7-1

7.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 7-1

7.1 ON-CONDITION MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICS STREAMLINING ................. 7-1

7.2 ENGINEERING BENEFITS ............................................................................................ 7-3

7.3 TECHNOLOGY INSERTION ......................................................................................... 7-5

7.3.1 Calibration .......................................................................................................... 7-5

7.3.2 Utilization and Operation ................................................................................... 7-6

7.4 LIFE-CYCLE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 7-7

7.4.1 Life-cycle Aircraft Structural Health Management (LASHM) ........................... 7-7

7.4.2 Life Limits Management (LLM) ........................................................................ 7-8

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

SECTION EIGHT:

MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY USING SENSOR-BASED STRUCTURAL

HEALTH MONITORING ................................................................................................ 7-9

FLIGHT CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................... 7-12

MAINTENANCE CERTIFICATION ............................................................................ 7-12

OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY AND SUPPORTABILITY ....................................... 7-13

AVAILABILITY AND REVENUE ............................................................................... 7-14

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 8-1

iv
SECTION ONE

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.1 BACKGROUND

Recent initiatives by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are

focused on identifying and evaluating aircraft structural health monitoring system

(ASHMS) technologies intended to enhance the operational safety of commercial aircraft

by providing:

• Real-time or near real-time characterization of structural condition and integrity.

• Improved processes and procedures for aircraft life-cycle management and

maintenance.

• Feedback of real-time dynamic flight information related to aircraft structural

integrity for the opportunity for flight control and recovery.

• Capabilities for reading, translating, processing, and analyzing data generated by

embedded sensor, instrumentation, and control systems.

However, in order for the ASHMS to be operationally viable, it must also be cost

effective. This means that economic factors must be appropriately balanced against the

technical, operational, and support benefits that may be associated with the use of the

advanced ASHMS technology. The key is to answer the question:

"Are the expected benefits worth the initial and recurring investments?"

This report presents the framework for answering that question.

1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the ASHMS Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) is to perform an objective and

disciplined analysis, in terms of cost and other measures, of the impact for large

commercial air carriers of endowing existing aircraft structures with state-of-the-art

ASHMS technologies. This analysis can then be used to:

Identify economic, engineering, operational, and logistics considerations that are

critical for effective decision-making relative to technology development,

insertion, and migration opportunities.

1-1
* Provide a decision basis for balancing the relevant investment cost against these

considerations.

* Identify where cost savings and positive return on investment can be realized.

• Encourage and facilitate up-front user input and involvement in planning and

implementation.

• Minimize the impact, cost, and risk of future implementation and integration.

• Capitalize on cost-effective technology insertion and process enhancement

opportunities.

To this end, the CBA addresses the hypothesis that sufficient economic, engineering,

operational, and logistics benefits may be realized by introducing sensor-based ASHMS

technologies into selected aircraft structures to make the proposed initiative costeffective. Specifically, this study addresses:

• The return on investment (ROI) relative to estimated development, acquisition,

integration, and certification cost of the ASHMS.

• The relevant expected life-cycle cost (LCC) of providing logistics support for

aircraft structures without an ASHMS and with an ASHMS.

Other qualitative (i.e., noneconomic) benefits and considerations (e.g., safety,

operational capability, environmental impact, and opportunities for life extension,

maintenance streamlining, and technology insertion) that may influence decisions

regarding the development and implementation of ASHMS.

1.3 SCOPE

Extensive research and analysis are required to determine the benefits associated with

developing and implementing a viable ASHMS capability. Consequently, in order to

contain the scope and cost of the study, this analysis is limited to assessing the life-cycle

cost and benefits, and logistics support cost and benefits of only three structural

components. These components are the vertical stabilizer, a trailing edge structure (e.g.

flap or aileron), and the engine mount. (Note that any impact on operational revenue to

the commercial air carriers is considered to be outside the scope of the current CBA).

1-2
1.4 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH

The fundamental conceptual approach for performing this CBA consists of two parts.

First, we compare the estimated LCC of maintaining and supporting airframe structures

without an ASHMS capability (commonly called the logistics support cost) to the

estimated LCC of maintaining and supporting these structures after an ASHMS has been

incorporated. The difference between the logistics support cost of these alternatives

provides the economic basis for characterizing the estimated cost benefits. Then, the

second part of the approach involves identifying other factors and considerations that may

influence the decision whether to incorporate ASHMS, from a non-economic basis. At

the top-level, the overall approach includes:

• Estimating relevant cost for the reference and alternative systems (i.e., the

structural components without and with an ASHMS)

• Assessing LCC difference between alternative and reference systems

• Determining return on investment and the associated break-even point.

• Assessing qualitative considerations

1.5 DEFINITIONS

The following definitions were used in performing and documenting this ASHMS CBA.

Reference system - an existing system with an equivalent or similar use to a

proposed alternative system against which it is compared. For example, in this CBA,

the reference systems are the existing structural components of interest.

Alternative system - a system that has a use equivalent or similar to the reference but

includes any proposed technology upgrades. For example, in this case, the alternative

systems are the same structural components as the reference systems but having

ASHMS capability.

Relevant cost - a cost element that impacts a decision that is based on economic

factors. For this CBA, the relevant cost elements are those cost drivers for which

significant differences exist between a reference system and the corresponding

alternative system. These cost elements will have the greatest impact on the

economic considerations associated with the implementation of an ASHMS.

Life-cycle cost (LCC) - the total cost associated with the acquisition and ownership of

the system over its full life, from design conception until its operational retirement

and disposal. LCC is made up of research, development, test, and evaluation

(RDT&E) cost, acquisition cost, operations and support (O&S) cost; and disposal

1-3
cost. Typically, over a system's life, O&S cost exceeds both development and initial

investment cost. Since for the purposes of this study, we are only considering relevant

cost, LCC is used in this document refer to the LCC associated with maintenance and

support that are expected to change as a result of acquiring, implementing, and using

ASHMS.

Research, development, test, and evaluation cost(RDT&E): the cost associated with

the research and development (R&D) and test and evaluation (T&E) of system

hardware and software. Specifically, it includes the cost for performing conceptual

research; technical feasibility studies and trade-off analyses; engineering design,

assessment, simulation, and modeling; prototype development, fabrication, and test;

system test and evaluation; and preparation of engineering data and associated

technical documentation.

Acquisition cost (AC): also referred to as investment cost, this is the total nonrecurring and recurring cost associated with producing, procuring, and deploying

system hardware and software, system-specific SE and test equipment (TE); initial

training; technical data; software development; facilities construction and

modification; inventory introduction; warranties; and contractor support. For the

purposes of this CBA, the AC of interest refers to the acquisition of ASHMS.

Operations and support cost (O&S): the cost associated with operating, maintaining,

and supporting a fielded system. This cost includes maintenance labor, consumable

and repairable materials, support equipment (SE) maintenance, facilities, and other

sustaining and recurring investment. O&S cost is incurred both in preparation for and

after a system's fielding; it continues through the end of the system's useful life.

Disposal cost. the cost associated with deactivating, retiring, demilitarizing, or

disposing of a system at the end of its useful life, minus any salvage value. Since this

cost typically represents only a small fraction of a system's LCC, it is usually

excluded from most LCC analyses, as they were in this study.

Logistics support cost (LSC) - the total recurring cost associated with maintaining

and supporting the reference or alternative system over the system's life cycle. Since

for the purposes of this CBA, we will be considering only relevant cost, the LSC

referred to in this document describes relevant LSC.

Return on investment (ROI) - the total LCC savings realized relative to the

acquisition cost and resulting from of the initial investment. For this CBA, the ROI is

computed by subtracting the AC of ASHMS from the LCC savings, if any, resulting

from implementing an ASHMS. The ROI annualized over the life-cycle of the

aircraft is the annual ROI

• Annual Percentage Rate of ROl- the annual ROI relative to the AC. Annual

percentage rate of ROI is computed by dividing the annual ROI by the AC.

1-4
Break-even point- the time required to recoup the initial investment made for

acquiring and implementing the alternative technology. Break-even point is

computed by dividing the total acquisition cost by the annual return on investment

(annualized over the life cycle of the aircraft).

1.6 REPORT OVERVIEW

A brief background of the technology basis for an ASHMS is provided in Section 2. The

detailed CBA approach is described in Section 3. As part of Section 3, we have provided

some tutorial information about general cost analysis approaches as well as the

application to this study, in particular. This is primarily for any readers who may not be

intimately familiar with CBAs. Section 4 describes the groundrules and assumptions

used in performing the CBA. The cost analysis and results are provided in Sections 5 and

6, respectively. Other engineering, operational, and logistics considerations, including

several additional benefits associated with the use of an ASHMS, are discussed in Section

7. In Section 8, we present the overall CBA conclusions.

1-5
SECTION TWO

BACKGROUND FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL HEALTH MONITORING

2.1 OVERVIEW

ASHMS technologies, composed of a network of sensors, and data interpretation and

management equipment, are configured to read and translate information regarding the

structural integrity of airframes. The emergence of highly reliable sensor, signal

processing, and data analysis technologies offers the technical feasibility of integrating

such advanced sensor-based ASHMS networks within airframe structural systems. Such

structures can offer economically viable life-cycle benefits due to the potential for

improving operational capability, reducing maintenance downtime and resources

consumption, increasing safety, and enhancing component durability, reliability,

reparability, and survivability. These benefits are achievable because of the technological

opportunities associated with dynamic in-service monitoring of parameters such as

internal and external strain, pressure, temperature, fracture, degradation, and fatigue

dynamics of aerospace structures and components.

2.2 OPERATIONAL NEED

The performance and behavior characteristics of airframe structures can be affected by

degradation resulting from sustained use within flight envelopes, as well as from

exposure to severe environmental conditions or damage resulting, for example, from

impact, loading, abrasion, operator abuse, or neglect. These factors for primary loadbearing structures can have serious consequences relative to safety, cost, and operational

capability. Consequently, the timely and accurate detection, characterization, and

monitoring of structural cracking, corrosion, delamination, material degradation, and

other flaws, defects, or damage are a major concern in the operational environment.

Fail-safe structural design and engineering techniques are used to mitigate the safety risk

from the presence of specific inherent defects and flaws within most structural

components so that the likelihood of inherent defects and flaws leading to catastrophic

failure is reduced. However, degradation of and damage to structural components do

occur during operational utilization and, if left uncorrected, can propagate and increase

the risk of a catastrophic structural failure. Consequently, acquiring insight into the

nature, extent, and distribution of defects, flaws, damage, and degradation incurred in a

structure is critical to:

* Facilitating structural integrity management for the component for ensuring

flightworthiness and improved safety.

2-1
,, Preservingor extending,asappropriate,thecomponent'sservicelife.

,, Understandingandoptimizingthecomponent'sperformance.

Currently,theprimaryemphasisfor structural"healthmonitoring"is onusingtraditional

nondestructiveevaluationandinspection(NDE/I) methodsfor detectingand

characterizingtheinitiation andprogressionof structuraldefects,flaws,damage,and

degradation.In short,arigorousscheduleof periodicNDE/I andrepairactionsis directed

bytheaircraftmanufacturerthroughpublishedServicesBulletins(SBs),andby the

FederalAviation Administration(FAA) throughtheissuanceofAirworthinessDirectives

(ADs). TheseSBsandADs areguidedby indicationsandreportsof structuralanomalies

thatareconsideredto besafetyrisksif left uncorrected.The successfulutilization of

thesemethodsfor structuralapplicationsdemandsthatreliable,efficient,andcosteffectiveNDE/I techniques,procedures,andequipmentbeused.

However,currentNDE/I methodologiesareoftentime-consumingandexpensive;thisis

becausetheyusuallyinvolvetheuseof complex(andcostly)NDE/I supportequipmentor

partialdisassemblyof thestructure.In addition,thereliability of thesemethodologies

depend,to agreatextent,uponthetypeandconditionof supportequipmentused,the

techniquesandenvironmentunderwhich thisequipmentis used,andthecapabilitiesand

experienceof theinspectorsandtechnicians.Consequently,therehasbeenincreased

interestin recentyearsin investigatingtheeconomic,engineering,operational,and

logisticsbenefitsassociatedwith integratingaircraftstructuralhealthmonitoringsystem

(ASHMS)technologiesinto advancedaerospacestructures.

2-2
SECTION THREE

THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPROACH

3.1 BACKGROUND

The CBA analysis approach used by ARINC is based on proven systems engineering and

LCC analysis principles. It focuses on utilizing capabilities and methodologies that allow

realism with the flexibility and adaptability to deal with:

• ASHMS technologies that may not be fully mature (from an engineering or

implementation perspective).

• Limitations in data availability, reliability, or completeness.

• Uncertainty and variability relative to operational and logistics concepts, policies,

practices, and procedures used by the air carriers.

3.2 HYPOTHESIS

As previously discussed, ARINC's focus in accomplishing this CBA was to address the

hypothesis that sufficient economic, engineering, operational, and logistics benefits may

be realized by introducing sensor-based ASHMS technologies into selected aircraft

structures to make the proposed initiative cost effective from a return on investment

perspective. Although this hypothesis states that the overall LCC will decrease with an

ASHMS system, it should be noted that individual cost elements may either increase

(e.g., technical data, facilities, and engineering changes) or decrease (e.g., maintenance

labor and materials) over time, thereby impacting the magnitude and timing of the ROI.

For example:

Initially, direct repair cost for the structural components with ASHMS may

increase because of the added complexity of the structures with embedded

ASHMS components.

Eventually, labor and material cost associated with structural repairs should

decrease, because repairs are expected to be less extensive, complex, and costly

due to early defect and degradation detection.

• Eventually, maintenance support cost (e.g., support equipment and NDE/NDI) are

expected to decrease because of a greater reliance on less costly on-condition or

3-1
condition-basedmaintenance(asdiscussedin Section7.0)asopposedto periodic

(scheduled)teardownandinspection.

Costassociatedwith structuralcomponentcondemnationactionsmaydecrease

becauseuncorrecteddefectsor degradationrequiringsuchactionwill begreatly

reduced.

In additionto anydirectLCC benefits,implementationof anoperationallyviable

ASHMSmay:

Increaseaircraftoperationalavailability,with the opportunityfor increased

revenue(whichit is outsidethe scopeof this studyto project). This improvement

will bedrivenby suchthingsas:

- Thereducedmeandowntime(MDT) associatedwith thedecreased

dependenceonscheduledmaintenance.

- Decreasedcomponentmeantimeto repair(MTTR).

- Fasteraircraftmaintenanceturn-around-time(TAT).

,, Reduceaccidentrates.

,, Provideopportunitiesfor maintenancestreamliningandaircraftlife extension.

3.3 LIFE-CYCLE COST (LCC) ANALYSIS PROCESS

The LCC analysis process used by ARINC in performing the CBA involved four

fundamental activities:

,, Development of the LCC analysis approach

,, Achievement of customer (NASA Langley Research Center [LaRC]) and user (the

commercial air carriers) concurrence with the approach

,, Preparation of the LSC estimates

,, Presentation of the results

We will start by describing the development of the LCC analysis approach. Then, the

next subsection of the report will describe how ARINC developed the LCC analysis

approach and obtained concurrence from representatives from NASA and several

commercial air carriers. In subsequent subsections, we present the steps we took to

prepare the LCC estimates (reference and alternative systems), including the selection of

3-2
the cost estimating methodology and detailed data collection and analysis. In Section 4,

we present the detailed Groundrules and Assumptions for this analysis. In Section 5, we

present a discussion of the cost analysis, and in Section 6, the results are described.

Finally, Section7 provides a non-economic perspective of factors and other considerations

that might impact the implementation and utilization of the ASHMS technology.

3.3.1 Development of LCC Analysis Approach

In the development of the LCC analysis approach for this CBA, ARINC followed a

disciplined systems engineering methodology that involved the use of five basic steps:

• Select the reference and alternative systems

• Identify key issues and concerns

• Develop the ground rules and assumptions for the analysis

• Define the cost element structure (CES)

• Select the appropriate model for the analysis

3.3.1.1 Reference System and Alternative Systems

The reference system(s) chosen for this CBA were aircraft structural components that

provide either a load-bearing or critical flight control function (or both). These were the

trailing edge structure and the vertical stabilizer. In addition, the engine mount was

chosen as a reference system due to an expressed interest in that structure on the part of

the air carrier community. The alternative system(s) to be considered for this CBA are

the same structural components chosen for the reference system, but with an ASHMS

capability incorporated.

Since each reference system is, as is typical, an existing operational system with an

equivalent or similar mission relative to the alternative system, available historical data,

from sources such as maintenance data collection systems and current operational

databases, could be used to calculate the relevant LCC of the reference system. However,

for each alternative system, historical data do not exist since ASHMS is yet to be

implemented. Therefore, the expected nonrecurring and recurring cost were estimated for

developing, acquiring and integrating the ASHMS capability, as well as the expected

relevant life-cycle LSC for the system(s). Again, relevant cost, in this case, are those that

are deemed likely to increase or decrease with the implementation of the ASHMS.

3.3.1.2 Key Issues and Considerations

The key issue in performing any CBA is whether sufficient reliability and maintainability

(R&M), operational utilization, and LSC input data for the reference and alternative

3-3
structuralsystemscanbeacquiredfor performinganaccurate,realistic,andcomplete

LCC analysiswith reasonableconfidence.Lackof sufficientLSCandR&M datawould

adverselyinfluencethecertaintyandintegrity of theCBA analysisand,thereby,the

suitabilityandusefulnessof theresults.

To resolvethispotentialproblem,wedevelopedananalysisapproachthatfacilitatedthe

useof analogousaircraftsystemdata,costestimatingrelationships(CERs),andcommon

economic,operations,andlogisticsfactors,asnecessary,to supplementor accommodate

for datavoidsandshortfalls.Thisapproachresultedin thederivationof anorder-ofmagnitudecostfactorbaselinethatconstitutedarealisticandreasonablegeneric

representationof theexpectedoperationalogisticssupportenvironmentfor most

commercialanddefenseaerospaceapplications.

In additionto our concernsaboutobtainingR&M andLSCdatafor thereferencesystem,

wewerealsoconcernedaboutdevelopingrealisticprojectionsfor thenonrecurringand

recurringinvestmentcostsassociatedwith thedevelopment,acquisition,andsupportof

viableASHMStechnologysolutions. To resolvethis concern,weusedengineering

estimatesforthesecoststo augmenthosecasesin whichadequatecostdatacouldnotbe

providedby thecustomer,vendors,ortheusers.In orderto developsuchengineering

estimates,we obtainedinputbothfrom theliterature,anddiscussionswith researchers,

engineers,andotherexpertscurrentlyworkingin thefield of sensorandhealth

monitoringsystemdevelopment,onthefactorsthatcontributeto thecostelement.Then,

themedianof thesevalueswasusedto build upthebaselineengineeringestimatefor that

costelement.As wouldbeexpectedfor estimatingthecostsassociatedwith emerging

technologies,thesevalueswereexpectedto berealisticbutto havealargeruncertainty

thanthosefor which"hard data"couldbeobtained.Therefore,weboundedthe

engineeringestimateswith upperandlowervaluesthatwererepresentativeof expected

rangesin theAC of the sensors.Basedonouranalysis,wedeterminedacceptable

boundedrangesto be50%belowtheAC baselineto 200%abovetheAC baseline.This

rangenot only allowsfor uncertaintyin thebaselineestimatebut alsoallowsusto

accountfor variability in theAC dueto variationin thearchitectureof theASHMS.

To alleviatetheimpactthatuseof input datafrom analogoussystemsdata,CERS,and

engineeringestimatescouldhaveonthereliability of theCBA output,particularlyfor the

alternativesystem(s),ouranalysisapproachincorporatesanapproachin whichweshow

thefunctionalrelationshipsbetweenLSCandselectedR&M costfactors(calledcost

drivers). Specifically,thesecostdriversarevariedoveraboundedrangeof hypothetical

valuesfor thepurposeof assessingthesensitivityof LSCasafunctionof eachcost

driver. In thisway,theuncertaintyof theresultsis mitigated,amoreaccurateportrayalof

theexpectedLSCvariability isprovided,andareasonablerepresentationof theexpected

returnoninvestmentcanbederived.Furthermore,asactualR&M andLSCdataare

acquiredby thecustomer,theinformationfrom this CBA canbeobjectivelyusedasa

toolto forecastthecosteffectivenessandbenefitof futureinvestmentdecisions.

3-4
Another issue was uncertainty with respect to the programmatic implementation of the

long-term maintenance approach by the commercial airline user(s) with and without

ASHMS capability. In other words, the precise logistics and maintenance plan must be in

accordance with FAA directives but still varies from airline to airline. With respect to

implementation of an ASHMS, certain airlines may elect to accommodate new

maintenance practices differently than others. Further, one of the key opportunities for

savings to be realized from an ASHMS is derived from the elimination, reduction, or

streamlining of logistics support activities (associated with both scheduled maintenance

and unscheduled maintenance) that are not necessary relative to structural integrity,

maintenance condition, functional capability, or flightworthiness considerations.

Therefore, in order for the air carriers to realize these savings, they must incorporate a

maintenance program into their process that allows such reduction or streamlining.

We resolved this issue for the purpose of this CBA by assuming commonality between

the airlines in terms of implementation, as well as no delay by individual airlines for

steady-state implementation of enhanced ASHMS technologies. In addition, we

mitigated variability by using composite data from several air carriers and other data

sources. For example, since our research indicates that scheduled maintenance is being

accomplished for most aircraft structures on an opportune basis coincident with

scheduled maintenance requirements associated with other non-structural systems, we

tailored our related cost parameters, CERs, and estimating methodologies accordingly.

3.3.1.3 Ground Rules and Assumptions

A fundamental prerequisite for performing an LCC analysis is a detailed definition of the

ground rules and assumptions that will be used in conducting the analysis. The ground

rules include a description of the relevant operations, maintenance, support, and logistics

policies, considerations, and factors. The assumptions help bound the LCC estimates by

defining the conceptual and technical scope of the analysis. Generally, the ground rules

and assumptions should be clearly and succinctly described early in the analysis process.

This permits their effective use in ensuring a consistent and reasonable focus for the

analysis approach.

Whenever possible, the CBA ground rules and assumptions should be mutually

reinforcing and consistent with the computational methodologies and algorithms for

estimating the LCC of the reference and alternative systems.

The groundrules and assumptions that were used in performing this CBA fall under the

following topics:

• Definitions (as previously described)

• Conceptual and technical approach

• Technology insertion

3-5
• Maintenanceconcept

* Reliability and maintainability (R&M)

• Cost formulation

• Model selection

A detailed listing and description of the groundrules and assumptions that were used in

performing this CBA are provided in Section 4.

3.3.1.4 Cost Element Structure (CES)

The CES establishes a standard architecture and vocabulary for identifying, defining, and

classifying the relevant cost associated with the LCC estimates for the reference and

alternative systems. The CES selected for accomplishing an LCC estimate should always

be carefully validated to ensure that all relevant cost has been appropriately identified and

aggregated in a manner consistent with the approach, ground rules and assumptions, and

model selected for performing the LCC estimate.

The CES that was developed for use in this CBA is shown in Appendix A to this

document. Although the major cost categories and elements remained stable, the CES

was tailored as the analysis matured (e.g., adding new or additional cost elements, or

eliminating or changing current cost elements) in order to enhance the accuracy, realism,

and completeness of the analysis relative to the CBA requirements as stipulated by the

NASA LaRC.

The final CES shown in Appendix A is consistent with the technical approach selected

for the CBA; logically aggregates the major relevant cost associated with the intended

development, operational, and logistics support environments; and is compatible with the

model selected for performing the LCC analyses. In summary, if a given cost element

was considered to impact a change in the LCC associated with maintaining and

supporting the aircraft, then that element and its cost were identified and included in the

CES.

3.3.1.5 The LCC Model

LCC analyses usually are accomplished using an appropriate computer model to

derive the reference and alternative baseline LCC estimates. Once these estimates have

been validated, the model can then be used to perform the appropriate risk, sensitivity,

and data comparison analyses needed for assessing the relative merits (benefits and

consequences) associated with each.

3-6
TheLCC model(LCCM) isbasicallyasimplified economicrepresentationof thereal

world. It providestheanalyticalstructurefrom whichthecostestimateis made.An

LCCM typically developscostprojectionsfor thethreemajorphasesof a system's

servicelife: theRDT&E phase,theacquisitionphase,andtheoperationandsupport

phase.Within eachof thesephases,annualcostarecalculatedandaggregatedfor each

costcategory.

3.3.1.5.1 Types of LCC Models

Generally, most LCCMs fall into one of three types (each of which can be seen to use one

or more of the LCC basic estimating methods described later in this section):

Parametric models. A parametric model estimates cost using a set of complex

mathematical or statistical equations that relate cost to system parameters such as

design, performance, or operating characteristics, or the environment. These

models are typically used during the very early stages of a program when costrelated historical data are limited or non-existent.

Accounting models. An accounting model uses a set of relatively simple

equations to calculate and aggregate cost elements using direct data inputs and

cost factors. Accounting models attempt to represent what actually happens in the

real world using a structured set of basic accounting relationships to quantify all

the relevant variable factors associated with each cost element.

Simulation models. These models typically use probabilistic computer

simulations to assess the LCC impacts of a system's operational and performance

characteristics, basing and deployment concepts, operations and maintenance

plans, and provisioning and support requirements. Although very accurate, the

large amount of data required to generate the simulation normally limits the use of

such models to the later stages of a program, when sufficient amount of detailed

data are available.

3.3.1.5.2 Selection of LCCM

In order to limit the scope and cost of this study, ARINC elected to base our analysis on

the Cost Analysis Strategy Assessment (CASA) model 1, a commercially available

engineering-based accounting model that allowed the flexibility to be tailored for this

application. The equations used in CASA for quantifying the relevant cost elements are

based upon generally accepted CERs that use detailed programmatic, technical,

engineering, operations, and logistics data. Cost are computed and aggregated for each

relevant cost element, and then these cost elements are consolidated into the major cost

categories in "building-up" to a total program LCC projection. A more complete

overview of the CASA model and its capabilities is found in Appendix B.

1 Originally developed for the U.S. Defense Systems Management College by Honeywell

3-7
Though the CASA model required tailoring for application to this study, we used it as a

baseline over several other candidate models because of its flexibility, adaptability,

precision, and ease-of-use in estimating the relevant cost elements associated with

advanced technology aerospace systems. For example, the logical structure of CASA

closely follows the LCC analysis processes and CESs commonly used by cost analysts.

Furthermore, CASA conveniently incorporates various cost analysis and sensitivity

assessment tools into one integrated model and it effectively met the following criteria

that are usually considered in the selection of an appropriate LCCM:

• Consistency with CES. The model is consistent with the CES that applies to the

analysis.

Data Consistency. The data requirements of the model are consistent with the

expected or actual quality and availability of data for the reference and alternative

systems. Also, data used by the model should be derived from the most reliable

and credible data sources.

Flexibility. The model is flexible and adaptable enough to accommodate various

analysis requirements and approaches, ground rules and assumptions, types and

levels of data, and estimating methodologies and evaluation criteria.

• Simplicity. Since complexity in itself does not lend additional credibility to a

model or its results, we preferred a model which was easily used.

Usefulness. The model is applicable to standard management and decisionmaking activities and the modeling methodology is sensitive to changes in

relevant design, procurement, and operational factors.

Completeness. The LCCM adequately and correctly addresses all relevant cost

elements that have been identified in the CES. Also, the LCCM is capable of

reflecting the various policy considerations and decision parameters that impact

the estimate.

Validity. The computational methodologies of the LCCM are sound and realistic

relative to the system's programmatic, operational, logistics, and environmental

characteristics. Furthermore, the CASA LCCM has been shown to provide

accurate results that are reproducible, auditable, and traceable.

Because of the uncertainty and risk relative to the maturity, fidelity, and integrity of the

data to be used in this CBA, the unique CBA application environment, and the highlyspecialized emergent technologies involved, ARINC did tailor the estimating algorithms

and equations offered by the CASA model. Instead of focusing on projecting discrete

point estimates for the reference and alternative systems, ARINC expressed CBA results

in terms of the projected cost differences and benefits expressed as bounded ranges.

3-8
3.3.2 Customer And User Coordination

We believe that a successful cost analysis is facilitated by a continuous liaison between

the cost analysis team, the customer, and any end users of the proposed technology. The

purpose is to ensure that these "stakeholders" understand and accept the objectives,

approach, and scope of the analysis. Therefore, specific topics, including the

characteristics and specifications of the reference and alternative systems, the operations

and support concepts, the ground rules and assumptions for performing the analysis, the

relevant cost drivers, the cost to be included and excluded in the CES, the data sources,

the estimating methodologies and cost models to be used, significant sensitivity and

trade-off issues, and documentation, were each discussed at length with representatives

from NASA LaRC and several of the commercial airlines.

In addition, ARINC provided NASA with regular status updates that apprised NASA of

the progress and success of the CBA effort relative to the stipulated objectives, schedule

milestones, and cost goals, as well as notifying them of the problems and issues

encountered, mitigating and corrective actions taken, and preliminary results-to-date.

3.3.3 Life-Cycle Cost Estimation

3.3.3.1 Methodology

Though there are many methods for estimating the LCC of a reference system and its

alternative, the techniques selected depend upon the maturity and stability of the program,

and the accuracy, credibility, and completeness of the data that are available for input to

the LCCM. In this case, as previously discussed, our cost estimating methodologies must

be flexible enough to deal with emerging (yet to be implemented) technologies for which

complete historical cost and R&M data do not exist, and with variability relative to

intended operational implementation of ASHMS by the air carriers. Therefore, in an

effort to most realistically estimate expected cost for the reference system and its

alternative, ARINC has elected to use a mix of parametric, analogy, and engineering

estimation techniques. (The CASA LCCM provides this ability.) These are briefly

described as follows:

Parametric estimation. Parametric estimation uses CERs to project cost. A CER is a

mathematical or statistical equation that relates one or more characteristics of a

system to one or more cost elements. Parametric estimating is especially useful in the

early phases of a program when little historical data is available to support the

estimate.

Analogy estimation. Analogy estimation uses current and historical data about an

existing similar system to estimate the cost of the proposed system alternative(s). For

the estimate to be accurate, the existing analogous system should be similar in design

and use to the proposed alternative system.

3-9
Engineeringestimation.Thistechniqueinvolvesusingadetailed"build-up"

approachin whichthesystemis decomposedintomanylowerlevelcomponents,each

of whichis costedseparately.Theindividual componentcostsarethenconsolidated

intotheengineeringestimate.

3.3.3.2 Data Collection And Analysis

Three types of data are generally required for most LCCMs: programmatic data,

technical data, and cost data. These data must be provided for both the reference system

and proposed alternative system. Programmatic data are facts or assumptions about the

system deployment and utilization, operational and logistics concepts, and support

requirements. Technical data include the engineering specifications, operational

characteristics, and performance capabilities of the system, with a primary focus on

defining the R&M attributes of the system. Cost data are facts or assumptions about the

dollar value of the resource requirements and consumption rates of the proposed and

reference systems. Typically the focus is on manpower, equipment, and materials cost.

ARINC's original intent was to use information provided by NASA, the air carriers, other

Government agencies (e.g., the Deparmaents of Transportation and Labor, the FAA, and

the NTSB), and manufacturers as the primary source of data for the CASA model.

Consequently, ARINC established direct communications with these agencies for the

purpose of acquiring the data necessary for accomplishing the CBA. These

communications were instrumental in providing the programmatic, technical,

engineering, operations, and logistics data necessary for accomplishing the CBA.

However, in those instances where these data were not available or the data provided to

ARINC were perceived as being incomplete, historical data from existing analogous

aerospace systems were used, as appropriate. As appropriate, these data were:

Obtained from consultation with reputable industry technical experts; researchers

and scientists; operations and logistics managers, technicians, and support

personnel; academicians; and financial consultants.

* Derived from appropriate engineering CERs.

Obtained from available commercial or government data sources (e.g.,

Departments of Transportation and Labor publications, reports, and data

summaries).

• Synthesized from analyses of existing analogous aerospace systems employed by

the Department of Defense (DoD) and commercial air carriers.

As this information was acquired, ARINC verified and validated (V&V) this information

and then entered it into the appropriate data models necessary for executing the LCCM.

3-10
In addition, ARINC conducted an extensive research effort to acquire the knowledge

necessary for performing the CBA and validating the output results. At the same time,

ARINC supplemented this information with data acquired from our other independent

research efforts. For instance, ARINC has compiled a significant "knowledge base" of

aircraft engineering, R&M, and cost data that we have obtained from our work with

numerous industry, academic, and government research, acquisition, and logistics

agencies. The results of this effort were used in the tailoring the CASA process and data

models, accomplishing V&V of CASA data inputs, describing the relevant operational

and logistics considerations, assessing and interpreting CASA outputs, and performing

the desired sensitivity analyses.

In addition, ARINC has tentatively identified the top-level functional requirements that

are relevant for achieving a viable ASHMS and is correlating these requirements with

existing and projected capabilities for the purpose of bounding the expected development,

acquisition, and support cost.

3-11
SECTION FOUR

GROUNDRULES AND ASSUMPTIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

A successful CBA requires a detailed and comprehensive description of the ground rules

and assumptions that document the scope and limitations of the study. This section

describes these ground rules and assumptions.

4.2 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE CBA APPROACH

The following ground rules and assumptions that are related to the conceptual approach,

model selection, and data collection and validation were used by ARINC in performing

this CBA.

4.2.1 Conceptual Approach

The CBA focuses on the impact and benefits to large commercial air carriers of

implementing and utilizing ASHMS for selected airframe components. The

impact to General Aviation is considered to be outside the scope of this study.

The CBA focuses on estimating only relevant LCC and LSC differences between

the reference system(s) and the respective alternative system(s). As previously

defined, relevant cost are those economic factors that impact the decision-making

process for possible implementation of ASHMS. LCC, AC, and LSC will be

computed in terms of composite dollar values (in which data from several sources

is combined and integrated). This facilitates using a more flexible baseline for

estimating the LCC, AC, LSC, and ROI.

The CBA does not present cost results as discrete point estimates for the LCC,

AC, LSC, or ROI associated with the reference and alternative system(s). Rather,

a domain or range of expected LCC, AC, LSC, and ROI was computed for both

the reference and alternative systems. Using a domain of expected cost allows the

upper and lower limits for this cost to be estimated as thresholds bounding the

expected results. It also facilitates comparing the reference and alternative

systems in terms of how cost vary as a function of the relevant cost drivers.

• LCC, AC, LSC, and ROI expected cost domains are estimated at the aircraft fleet

level for each aircraft class (composite make/model), rather than at the individual

4-1
aircraftorcomponentlevel,for thereferenceandalternativesystems.Separate

estimateswerenot developedfor individual aircraftor structuralcomponentsdue

to thelimited availability,reliability, integrity,andcompletenessof R&M,

operationalutilization,andlogisticssupportdata.

4.2.2 Model Selection

Selectionof theLCCM to beusedforthis CBA wasbasedonthefollowing criteria:

• Compatibilitywith provenCBA methods

• Consistency with:

- Cost element structure (CES)

- Process and data models

- Cost estimating relationships (CERs)

- Sensitivity analysis methods

- Flexibility, adaptability, and ease-of-use

Other critical selection and tailoring issues that were considered in the selection of the

LCCM included:

• Emerging technologies to be used for the ASHMS

• Data availability, reliability, and completeness

• Programmatic uncertainty and risk

4.2.3 Data Collection and Validation

• This CBA focuses on three pre-selected principal structural elements. These are the

vertical stabilizer, the trailing edge structure, and the engine mount.

• All of the required cost and R&M data either exist and can be obtained, or can be

derived or estimated on the basis of appropriate CERs, consultation with reputable

experts in the field of interest, or data from analogous sources.

• Cost and R&M data for analogous systems can be used for the purpose of data

validation.

4-2
• Cost and R&M data from aging systems will be treated separately from that of newer

aircraft.

Note that the construct of these ground rules and assumptions intentionally allows some

flexibility in the approach for performing the CBA, so that ARINC could develop generic

cost factors and data baselines for estimating those cost elements for which NASA or the

end users could not provide data. Although this approach may result in the use of data

that differ in magnitude from cost actuals, it does not significantly diminish the relevance

or usefulness of the cost analysis for its intended purpose. Using this modified approach,

a viable and credible CBA was accomplished that provides NASA with critical

comparative information regarding the potential order-of-magnitude economic impacts of

acquiring and implementing viable ASHMS solutions for aircraft systems.

4.3 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO ASHMHS

The following ASHMS ground rules and assumptions were made in performing this

CBA:

Emerging technology opportunities and operational trends favor replacing

conventional off-line NDE/NDI techniques (e.g., eddy current, ultrasonic, and xray) and localized "indirect" sensing capabilities (that require using complex

correlation routines based on a priori knowledge of behavior) with sophisticated,

yet affordable sensing technologies that are capable of:

- Direct macroscopic sensing

Distributed multifunctional sensing. Multifunctional sensing refers to sensing

in which more than one attribute can be measured by a single sensor, or

multiple functions (e.g., sensing and actuation) can be performed with a single

sensor.

• Existing aircraft structures will be retrofit for integration of an ASHMS capability.

• The ASHMS will be optimally configured to accurately detect, characterize, and

track the integrity and condition of the selected aircraft structures.

• Structures with embedded ASHMS components are treated as integrated

components.

An "all or none" implementation perspective is used for the integration of the

technology alternatives. In other words, either all aircraft in the fleet will possess

the ASHMS capability, or no aircraft will possess the capability.

4-3
Accurate in-situ sensing of critical condition attributes and material properties is

performed using ASHMS. The critical condition attributes may include

- Physical

- Chemical

- Thermomechanical

- Morphological

The optimal technological configuration is an integrated, distributed network of

multifunctional sensors, signal processing, and data analysis components, with

sensor distribution predicated on the area of coverage and complexity of the

component. For the purposes of this analysis, the baseline ASHMS includes 100

sensor elements for the trailing edge structure; 150 sensor elements for the engine

mount; and 200 sensor elements for the vertical stabilizer. It is further assumed

that sensor selection is primarily driven by performance-based operational

requirements.

Any loss of functionality of individual sensors (such as due to malfunction or

damage) within ASHMS will not impact the statistical reliability of ASHMS to

report the condition or integrity of the component.

Sensor technologies that are viable as candidates for an ASHMS technology

include:

- Ultrasonics

• Acoustic emission - damage and degradation

• Fiber ultrasonics - fiber/matrix interface, mechanical, and mircrostructural

properties

• Piezoelectric (PZT) - mechanical properties

- Fiber optic sensors - physiochemical properties (e.g., strain, temperature,

corrosion, and cracking)

- Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS)- micro-thermomechanical

properties

- Remotely queried (e.g., wireless) sensors

Data collection occurs inflight but detailed data analysis for life-cycle

maintenance management may initially be ground based. Data download for

analysis occurs at one Depot location.

4-4
• TheASHMSis implementationready,operationallyreliable,flight worthy,

survivablein theoperationalenvironment,anduserfriendly.

4.4 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE MAINTENANCE

CONCEPT

The following maintenance concept assumptions were made in performing this CBA:

• Earlier detection and repair of damage, defects, and degradation may result in

maintenance streamlining and cost saving opportunities.

• Maintenance (unscheduled and scheduled) will be performed at major depot

facilities (one per user).

• Most corrective maintenance can be performed on an "on-condition" basis using

ASHMS.

• ASHMS component maintenance will be performed opportunistically during

maintenance of the host structure(s)

4.4.1 Unscheduled Maintenance

• Unscheduled corrective maintenance is currently performed when damage,

defects, or degradation are discovered and reported as the result of :

- Pre- and post-flight inspections by aircrew and support personnel

- Service checks (e.g., each day, not later than (NLT) every 7 days)

- "A-checks" (e.g., NLT every 250 hours)

- "B-checks (e.g., NLT every 6 months or 480 hours, whichever occurs first)

• Calibration, repairs, and overhauls are accomplished in accordance with structure

repair manuals (OEM) and service bulletins (FAA)

4.4.2 Scheduled Maintenance

• Scheduled maintenance is accomplished in accordance with specified check and

inspection schedules, including:

4-5
- Operationalchecks- inspectionsor examinationsto determinegeneral

conditionandto assessfunctionalityandsuitabilityfor intendedpurpose(no

quantitativestandards)

- Inspections- comprehensiveexaminationsof conditionandfunctionality

againstprescribedstandardsandspecifications

- Benchchecks- functionalorvisualchecksin-shopagainstprescribed

standardsandspecificationsto assesserviceabilityanddeterminetheneedfor

adjustment,calibration,repair,or overhaul

• Maintenanceintervalsarederivedto complywith FAA CertificationMaintenance

Requirements(CMRs)

- Typescertificatesareonly valid whenCMRsareperformedatthespecified

time (FAA AdvisoryCircularsAC25.1309-1A,120-17A,121-1A)

- Meansof ensuringthedetectionof latentdefectsthatwouldremain

undetecteduntil subsequentfailureresultedin ahazardousevent

• Scheduledmaintenanceinspectionintervalsarespecifiedfor:

- Accidentdamage(AD)

- Environmentaldeterioration(ED)

- Fatiguedamage(FD)

- Airworthinesslimitationinstructions(ALIs)

• Scheduledmaintenanceintervalsaredocumentedin:

- Structuralandzonalinspectionspecifications

- Airworthinesslimitation instructionsanddirectives

- Engineeringandroutinemaintenancespecifications

• Thefocusof scheduledmaintenanceis onperformingdetailedinspectionsand

checksof:

- Structurallysignificantitems(SSIs)- structuresthatsignificantlyaffect safety

andreliability orhaveadirectoperationaloreconomicimpact

4-6
- Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) - structures whose failure, if undetected,

could lead to loss of aircraft. Candidate PSEs include:

• Wing boxes and tees

• Skin panels

• Pressure bulkheads

• Skin splices

• Spars

• Engine mounts

• Wing structures, stabilizers, and control surfaces

- Safe-life structures - structures that withstand repeated variable loads without

detectable cracks or degradation (e.g., landing gear components)

The protocols for scheduled maintenance inspections and checks are:

- Time-phased to ensure 100% fleet coverage over specified schedule w/o

impacting operations

- Not-later-than (NLT) a specified number of flight hours, days, or months for

both initial and repeat inspections and checks. For example, representative

intervals for many SSIs and PSEs are:

• Flight Hours:

Service:

A-Check:

B-Check:

C-Check:

Daily / 7 days

150-400 hours

400-1000 hours

3000-5000 hours

• Calendar Days/Months:

Service: Daily / 7 days

A-Check: 30-90 days

B-Check: 90-180 days

C-Check: 24-30 months

Based upon 100% sampling or statistical sampling methods.

4-7
* Scheduled maintenance requirements and frequency can be reduced using

ASHMS (e.g., "C-check" intervals may be increased)

4.5 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS RELATED TO R&M

• Aircraft structures do not usually fail catastrophically.

• Aircraft structure designs are fail-safe under standard conditions.

• Aircraft structures are susceptible to damage and degradation that can be

extensive, yet hidden, and therefore difficult to detect or characterize. This

damage and degradation can be the result of:

- Corrosion, fatigue cracking, or combined failure modes

- Damage suffered during ground-based maintenance, operations, handling, and

movement.

- Impact with ground vehicles, equipment, or other aircraft

- Bird strikes

- Lightning strikes

- Exceeding operational limits or service safety envelopes

• Uncorrected damage, defects, flaws, and deterioration can adversely change

structural performance, functionality, condition, and integrity.

• Use of an ASHMS will allow structural health and condition (e.g., damage,

defects, and degradation) to be:

- Detected dynamically in-flight

- Detected without teardown or use of ground-based NDE/NDI

- Corrected before airworthiness is compromised (e.g., barely visible damage

[BVD])

• The embedment of an ASHMS will not significantly degrade the performance,

behavior, or inherent reliability of the component.

• Use of an ASHMS will improve resource availability and reduce maintenance

downtime.

4-8
• Non-critical sensor failures or malfunctions will not be repaired.

• R&M inputs will be based on a mature system, steady state, and non-degraded

condition frame of reference.

• Detailed R&M data analysis and management will be ground-based.

4.6 GROUNDRULES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR COST FORMULATION

The CASA LCCM was used to generate the expected cost domains for each

relevant cost element. LCCM equations and algorithms are described in

Appendix C.

• Sensitivity algorithms were used to assess the sensitivity of the cost drivers to

relevant cost factors.

• LCC results are not expressed as discrete dollar-value point-estimates.

• LCC results are expressed as estimated ranges in base year differential dollars

(LCC savings), not absolute dollars.

• The data inputs for the LCCM were derived as composite projections that are

globally representative of real-world actuals.

• A total fleet frame of reference by aircraft class was used.

RDT&E cost of ASHMS is passed through to the air carrier in the AC of

ASHMS. Therefore, RDT&E cost of ASHMS is not explicitly estimated for the

purpose of this study.

• Sunk cost (cost that are not recoverable or have little or no foreseeable impact on

the use of the ASHMS technologies) are not addressed.

• Impact of the ASHMS implementation and utilization on operating revenue is

considered outside to be the scope of this CBA.

The LCCM process and data models were tailored to accommodate specialized

operational applications and logistics support concepts; data availability,

reliability, and completeness; and "real-world" conditions.

• The consideration of the influences of carrier-unique aircraft utilization and

logistics support policies, operations and destination (O&D) profiles, and

4-9
operatingcost(e.g.,liability, legal,fuel consumptionandinsurancecost)onLCC

areconsideredto beoutsidethecurrentscopeof this CBA.

4-10
SECTION FIVE

COST ANALYSIS

5.1 COST DRIVERS

Based on our preliminary research, the CASA model indicated that the following R&M

and cost factors were most likely to influence the cost differentials between the reference

structural systems and their alternative ASHMS systems:

• Mean time between maintenance (MTBM) for both scheduled and unscheduled

maintenance

• Mean time to repair (MTTR) for unscheduled maintenance

• Mean time for scheduled maintenance (MTSM)

• Retest OK (RTOK) rate (Inability to find a reported fault during subsequent bench

test)

• Support equipment utilization factor

• Support equipment total unit cost

• Material cost per repair

Consequently, ARINC analyzed the impacts of changes in each of these factors on

changes in R&M and LCC that might result from implementation of an ASHMS

technology. This was accomplished by independently varying each of the relevant cost

drivers, over a specified range of variability (0 to 50 percent improvement), to assess the

sensitivity of life-cycle LSC to these drivers. The expected LSC savings domains were

then computed by subtracting the respective alternative system LSC for each specified

sensitivity value from the corresponding LSC for the reference system. The results of this

sensitivity analysis served as the primary computational frame of reference for projecting

the LCC domains and differentials between the reference and alternative systems.

The fundamental objective of the sensitivity analysis was to provide insight into the

impact that individual cost or R&M factors have on the LCC savings and ROI that might

be realized with implementation of ASHMS for the structural components under

investigation. However, it should be noted that since ASHMS has not yet been

functionally integrated into operation, any quantification of the impact on the R&M

5-1
factorswouldbeatheoreticalprojection. While otherstudieshaveattemptedto predict

theimpactanASHMS mighthaveonmaintenancerequirements[1], wefelt thatthemost

comprehensiveanalysisfor NASA wouldbeprovidedby showingthevariability overthe

previouslyspecifiedprobableworst-caseto best-caserange(i.e.,0to 50percent

improvementin thosecostfactors).In thisway,asNASA considersvariousindependent

technologycandidatesfor ASHMS, andtheimpactonthemaintenancerequirementsis

betterdefined,theresultsof thisanalysiscanbeusedasabasisfor projectionof LCC

savings.

Note: Most costmodelsusecomponentmeantime betweenfailures(MTBF) datafor

computingtheLCC for unscheduledmaintenance.However,ourresearchindicatesthat

mostmaintenanceperformedonaircraftstructuresisnot theresultof componentfailures

causedby latentdesigndeficiencies,engineeringdefects,or fabrication,materials,and

workmanshipimperfections.Rather,maintenanceonthesestructuresis primarily

performeddueto suchfactorsas:

,, Operationallyinduceddegradationsuchascorrosion,fatiguecracking,and

combinatorialmodes

Damagecausedby groundhandlingaccidents(e.g.,surfacepunctureandgouging,

damagedueto impactwith equipment,tools,vehicles,orpersonnel;surface

indentation,andleadingedgeandcornerdamagedueto impact)

* Fastener over-torque or wear

• Foreign object damage

,, Bird and lightning strikes

,, Other accidents caused by the man-machine-environment interface

Consequently, ARINC decided to use MTBM (expressed computationally as mean flight

hours between maintenance actions), instead of MTBF, as the primary indicator of the

expected unscheduled and scheduled maintenance intervals for structural components.

This allows a more realistic and accurate modeling of the LCC impacts associated with

implementing ASHMS, since this technology can provide a viable means of detecting and

diagnosing the types of aircraft structure damage that would most likely result in the

generation of a maintenance action.

5-2
5.2 LCC ESTIMATING

A separate LCC estimate and data analysis was performed for each structural component

by aircraft class as follows:

Trailing edge for aged aircraft (i.e., in service greater than 20 years)

3-engine aged aircraft, e.g., DC-10, B-727

4-engine aged aircraft, e.g., B-707, B-747

2-engine aged aircraft, e.g., DC-9

Trailing edge for current generation aircraft (i.e., in service less than 20 years)

3-engine aircraft, e.g., MD-11

2-engine aircraft, e.g., A-300 and A-310.

Vertical stabilizer spar for

3-engine aged aircraft,

4-engine aged aircraft,

2-engine aged aircraft,

aged aircraft

e.g., DC-10, B-727

e.g., B-707, B-747

e.g., DC-9

Vertical stabilizer spar for current generation aircraft

3-engine aircraft, e.g., MD-11

2-engine aircraft, e.g., A-300 and A-310.

Engine mount for aged aircraft

3-engine aged aircraft, e.g., DC-10, B-727

4-engine aged aircraft, e.g., B-707, B-747

2-engine aged aircraft, e.g., DC-9

Engine mount for current generation aircraft

3-engine aircraft, e.g., MD-11

2-engine aircraft, e.g., A-300 and A-310.

In addition, for the purpose of this CBA, we studied several aged DoD aircraft, including

the KC-10, KC-135, C-9, and C-5, because these systems have structurally analogous

commercial counterparts, but are much older. Since we suspect that the age of the aircraft

will significantly influence the amount of structural maintenance required, and therefore

the utility and benefit of an on-condition or condition-based maintenance approach using

ASHMS, we used the results of this analysis to project maintenance requirements for the

commercial airframe counterparts as these systems continue to age.

For each structural system selected for study, ARINC used the cost and R&M factor data

provided in Appendix D as inputs to the tailored CASA LCCM to establish the initial

life-cycle LSC baselines for the reference systems. As discussed in the previous section,

these input data were derived to be representative of real world conditions from research,

5-3
operations and maintenance (O&M), engineering, and marketing data obtained from

commercial air carriers, industrial, government, and academic sources. (For reasons of

protection of confidentiality and company- proprietary or -sensitive data, actual O&M

data obtained from commercial sources are not provided in this document and were not

directly used as inputs. Rather, composite data integrated from multiple sources were

used, as previously discussed. )

The LSC baseline estimates derived from the input of these data into the LCCM served as

the primary frame of reference for performing the LCC sensitivity analysis for estimating

the expected LSC cost domains for the reference and alternative systems. Specifically,

the computed LSC baseline results constituted the life-cycle LSC reference baseline for

the current technology base (i.e., without ASHMS) for each structural component under

study in the CBA. In order to provide insight into the relevance of each cost element in

the CES, the LSC results are broken out, in graphical format, to show the projected lifecycle LSC for each cost element. These results for the reference system LSC baselines for

the candidate systems studied in this CBA are presented and discussed in Section 6.0.

ARINC then applied the sensitivity factors provided in Appendix E to the relevant R&M

and cost factors used as inputs for computing the LSC baselines for the alternative

systems as a function of the expected change in R&M resultant from the implementation

of an ASHMS. The results were then used to construct the expected LSC cost domains of

the alternative systems as a function of variability in these cost drivers. This approach

facilitates a disciplined and structured consideration of the question, "What happens to

LSC if the selected input cost factor is changed in accordance with the specified

sensitivity factors and all other cost factors remain constant?" The results of this analysis

were then synthesized into tables and graphs that depict the sensitivities of LSC to the key

R&M and cost factors.

For each candidate structural system, ARINC then used the projected investment cost for

implementing and utilizing ASHMS on existing airframe structures, provided in

Appendix F, as inputs to the LCCM to establish the AC baseline for the alternative

systems. Again, as discussed in the previous section, these input data were derived to be

representative of real world conditions using research data obtained from air carrier,

commercial, government, and academic sources. The results are presented in the

following section.

5.3 Return on Investment and Break-Even Point Estimating

ARINC estimated LSC separately for the reference and alternative systems in this CBA to

facilitate the computation of ROI and to provide NASA insight into the impact that

implementation of an ASHMS would have on the overall cost associated with

maintenance and support of an aircraft fleet equipped with an ASHMS capability.

ARINC computed the ROI by calculating the LSC savings (in base year dollars)

associated with each ASHMS alternative less the expected investment cost (i.e., AC

5-4
including RDT&E, integration, and initial support cost). ARINC then used this

information to compute the annual rate of return on investment for each specified

alternative for each candidate system over a 20-year life-cycle of the aircraft. In order to

provide a metric by which the alternatives could be compared, we then computed the

annual percentage rate (APR) of ROI to provide insight into the average percentage of the

initial investment that would be recouped annually. This APR was determined by divided

the annual ROI by the AC of the ASHMS. In each case, this series of computations were

made for the AC predicated on the baseline ASHMS architecture (i.e., having the number

of sensors as previously defined, for each structure), then for the upper AC bound

(baseline +200%) and the lower AC bound (baseline - 50%) to project the impact to ROI

as a function of the variations in the AC of ASHMS alternatives.

At the request of NASA LaRC and the suggestion of the air carriers, and in order to

provide a purer basis for comparison of the economic feasibility of implementing and

utilizing ASHMS over the expected life cycle, ARINC computed the break-even point

(BEP). The BEP was determined by dividing the expected investment cost by the rate of

ROI. This provides the period of time required to recoup the initial investment in

ASHMS.

5-5
SECTION SIX

CBA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The following section documents the results of the quantification of projected cost benefit

associated with the development, integration, and implementation of a viable ASHMS

into the candidate structure systems for commercial air carriers.

6.2 EXPECTED LSC SAVINGS

As previously discussed, ARINC used our tailored CASA sensitivity algorithms to

generate the expected life-cycle LSC cost domains for the reference and alternative

systems for each candidate system studied. The results of this analysis were then

synthesized into the cost savings graphs shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-15 that depict the

sensitivity of life-cycle LSC to the key R&M and cost factors identified in Section 5.0.

(Figures 1-1 through 1-15 are provided at the end of Section 6). These graphs can be

interpreted to show the effect that changes in a particular cost driver (from 0 to 50%) will

have on the overall life-cycle LSC savings for each cost element. Therefore, these graphs

show quantitatively which cost drivers will most influence the potential savings

associated with implementation of an ASHMS.

For example, our analysis of these results indicated that cost due to maintenance

frequency drivers (i.e., number of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance actions) were

the dominant cost drivers in impacting LSC differential between the reference and

alternative systems of the candidate structures. Therefore, the expected life-cycle LSC

domains expressed as a function of the variance in scheduled and unscheduled

maintenance actions were plotted as graphs. These graphical data provide focused insight

into the strong correlation that exists between maintenance requirements (expressed in

terms of generated maintenance actions) and LSC. These graphs are shown in Figures 2-

1 through 2-15. (Figures 1-1 through 1-15 are provided at the end of Section 6.)

6.3 EXPECTED RETURN ON INVESTMENT

The expected ROI for the ASHMS alternative systems were computed as a function of the

expected changes in LSC savings, if any, less the expected acquisition cost (i.e., the

investment cost associated with developing, procuring, and integrating the ASHMS). The

results of these computations are portrayed in the ROI graphs provided in Figures 3-1

through 3-15 and 4-1 through 4-15. These charts can be used to forecast the costeffectivity and benefit by providing a measure of the amount of time it will take to

recover the initial investment associated with ASHMS implementation and utilization.

6-1
This measure is described by the annual percentage rate (APR) of return on investment

and BEP, for each ASHMS alternative.

Although the APR of ROI and BEP are functionally dependent upon the improvement

that the implementation of ASHMS has on the maintenance requirement, it is also

important to note that for a given R&M improvement, the APR of ROI and BEP are

significantly different for aged versus current generation (i.e., newer) aircraft systems.

Table 1 provides a direct comparison of these factors for the structural components of

three-engine aircraft considered in this study for a given R&M improvement (i.e.,

reduction in maintenance requirements) of 35%. (Note that for this comparison, we have

selected 35% improvement in maintenance because our research and experience indicate

that this is a reasonable and realistic expectation for the improvement that ASHMS would

provide.)

Table 1: Comparison of ROI and BEP for 35% Reduction in Maintenance

Requirements

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisi! iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Trailing Edge Structure

(100 sensors/structure)

Vertical Stabilizer

2-engine turbojet

2-engine turbojet (aging)

3-engine turbojet

3-engine turbojet (aging)

4-engine turboiet (a_in_)

2-engine turbojet

(200 sensors/structure) 2-engine turbojet (aging)

3-engine turbojet

3-engine turbojet (aging)

Engine Mount

(150 sensors/structure)

4-engine turbojet (aging)

2-engine turbojet

2-engine turbojet (aging)

3-engine turbojet

3-engine turbojet (aging)

4-engine turbojet (aging)

2.5 40.0

2.3 43.5

2.8 35.7

2.4 41.7

2.3 43.5

6.2 16.1

5.9 16.9

7.0 14.3

6.0 16.7

6.0 16.7

2.7 37.0

2.5 40.0

2.8 35.7

2.5 40.0

1.9 52.6

6.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

In general, the results corroborate an intuitive notion: that the more maintenance that is

required for a given structural component, the greater the likely LCC savings that would

6-2
be incurred by the implementation and utilization of the ASHMS. Specifically, we found

that:

If the expected maintenance requirements for structural components (in terms of

maintenance actions, turnaround time, and support cost) can be reduced as the

result of implementing an ASHMS capability, the expected life-cycle LSC savings

for the ASHMS alternative relative to the reference system will increase - with the

alternative system becoming increasingly more cost-effective as maintenance

requirements decrease from the reference.

As the expected maintenance requirements for structural components (in terms of

maintenance actions, turnaround time, and cost) are reduced as the result of

implementing an ASHMS capability, the expected ROI for implementing the

ASHMS alternative will increase - with the alternative system becoming

increasingly more cost-effective as maintenance requirements decrease from the

reference.

For both the engine mount and trailing edge structure, an improvement (reduction)

in maintenance requirements of 30% or greater results in a BEP of less than 3

years for both aged and current generation aircraft systems. The vertical

stabilizer, which is a larger structure requiring a significantly larger number of

sensors, requires a substantially longer period of time to recover the AC of the

ASHMS. As a general rule, this would also be true for more complex structures

and large structures, both of which would presumably requires more sensors for

adequate coverage.

In general, for aged aircraft, where the maintenance requirements for structural

components are high, there is a greater opportunity for realizing increased LSC

savings, higher APR of ROI, and improved BEPs if ASHMS implementation

results in significant and immediate reductions in maintenance requirements can

be facilitated. Furthermore, for aged aircraft, even if only modest reductions in

maintenance requirements can be achieved (e.g., 20 to 30 percent reductions in

maintenance requirements), significant LSC savings can still be realized.

If scheduled maintenance intervals (i.e., MTBM) for structural components can be

substantially increased with implementation of ASHMS, the expected life-cycle

LSC savings and ROI will increase significantly. Our analysis indicates that, in

most cases, a realistic 30 to 40 percent improvement will result in cost savings

and BEP (i.e., recovery of investment) in less than three years for the engine

mount and trailing edge structure.

If the average infrastructure cost and turnaround time (e.g., MTSM) for

performing scheduled maintenance (e.g., labor and material cost, component

teardown, support equipment maintenance, NDE/NDI utilization, and rework) can

be substantially reduced with implementation of ASHMS, the expected life-cycle

6-3
savings and ROI will increase significantly. Again, in most cases, a 30 to 40

percent improvement will result in cost savings such that the BEP will be less

than two years, on average.

As the number of components on which ASHMS is used increases (for a given

aircraft), the rate of ROI increases with a corresponding decrease in BEP. This

can be observed by the less than 2 year BEP for the engine mount on the 4-engine

aircraft relative to the 3- and 2-engine variants. This can be principally attributed

to the economies of scale and compounding effects.

Throughout this discussion, we have focused on a 30-40% improvement in maintenance

(reduction in maintenance requirements) as a baseline for discussion of LCC savings,

ROI, and BEP. As previously stated, we believe that this projection is operationally

realistic for most state-of-the-art and emerging sensor systems, based upon our experience

as well as the experiences of individuals in the field. However, it should be noted that

respected professionals in the "Smart Structures" community have projected a slightly

more optimistic impact on reduction in maintenance requirements. Specifically,

researchers at Stanford University have reported that the implementation of an ASHMS

type technology may result in maintenance improvements of up to 45%. In this case,

which we might call a best-case scenario based on the information we have to date, the

expected BEP would be within less than two years.

6-4
I-- ._ ._

w=I E

_-_8

ee_ .

r- _B

8_

W

....I

(,9(,9(,9

III

(,9(,9(,9

<<<

E E c

EEE

o-o-o

rrrr_

o o o

t_ t_ t_

._c ._c ._c

t_ t_ t_

._c ._c ._c

ccc

.9.9 .£

rrrr_

cJ_ cJ_ _

ooo

mOO

II

<<

c c

EE

m m

o o

m

m

.__._c

(,9.__._c

_rrcc

=<<

J

oo oo oo oo oo

o o o o o

d oo oo oo oo

o o o o o

(s_ea_ O_ : alO_O a1!3 '6661. : _eaA ases)

($) OS7 alO_O-a_!7

\

%

%

%

%

%

.=.

r_

r_
£-

,'_ tJ

o.E

z_o

0 --

0 _ '

nO '-

_ _'N

"O .Q

_ ,,, ,.

_-=

W

..I

_9 _9 _9

III

E E E

EEE

rr rr rr

o o o

t_ t_ t_

._c ._c ._c

t_ t_ t_

._c ._c ._c

ccc

._o ._o ._o

rr rr rr

> > >

<<<

ooo

NI3D

_9_9

II

EE

rrrr

o o

.__ .__

.__ .__

69OO

O_

_rrrr

=<<

etnN

oo

O

O

oo

O

oo

%

_ _a eL

-o%_.

,................................ _ ..... j e NN&

_ _. o _,_'_o

oo°°

(sJea_ O_ = alO_O el!'1 '666l = JeaA ases) }^

($) OS-I elO_O-e_t!-I

\0

kO
(/)

>-

/

,<

Z

,<

>-

IW

m E

8=g

N-_a

8 _

-J

W

-J

0

W

-J

TTT _

(,9(,9(,9

<<<

o-o-E_

E E E

,E_,E_,E_

,0_,0_,0_ ) "

_ _ _ ) o_ _, _,_

> >> _0/

ooo

_e3Lo ,_ ,%_

%%

_,%%%

II

<< -o % %

EE _ -0 __ _

_o_J _J %%.%%

.-.- _o%%%, (9, ._ O.

__ ................ i_i_i_i_i_i_i_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii - ®,_-_,_ _

°°. _ %.%%%

%-_ %%

m,%_

% ,%

=

E-.

.=.

=

=

=

[/]

[/]

=

<

=

[/]

[/]

5

=

t--
o _ _

(sJeeA 0;_ = el0A0 el!'] '6661- = JeeA ese8)

($) OS-I elOAO-e_4-1

\

°o_.%

%% %%

o i_,%

_.&%.%

J ® %,&& __

ooo- ooo- %_%&_

o o %&&% %

. . %%_%

Z %% %

%%%

& ,%

%-,

.=.

.=.

r_

.<

r_

i
090909

III

090909

EE_

EEE

rr rr rr

o oo

_ Et_ EEt_ t_

_ E EE

Z ._E ._E ._E

4_ E E E

._o._o._o

mmm

_. ! rrrrrr

> >>

<<<

ooo

N EIN

ai w "E

TT

<<

W EE

O 5 5

9 EE

O O

II C C

•..1 C C

NN

._c ._c

t_ t_

_ cc

TOO

_mm 0

_mm d

_oo _

NEIN

oo oo oo oo oo _

o o o o o

d d d d d

o o o o o

o °o o °o o

(sJea_ O_ = alO_O aJ!l '666L = JeaA ases)

($) OSq elOAO-e_!q

\

%

%

%

%

_J

J_

t-

=

_J

=

=

=

=

o

N

r_

=

=

i

=
J

oo oo oo oo oo oo

o o o o o o

oo oo oo oo oo o_

o o o o o

(sJeaf OZ = a13f3 a;!-I '666; = JeaA ase8)

($) OS-I alO_O-at!-I

"3

¢

¢

_J

_J

_J
r_

>..

,,--I

,,¢

Z_

I--_

,,=,=

>-

W

U.

....I

(,9(,9(,9

III

090909

<<<

E E E

EEE

o o o

E E E

E E E

._C ._C ._C

._c ._c ._c

tEE

.9.9.9

_6 _6 _6

> > >

ooo

_u3

mDN

(,9(,9

II

0909

<<

E E

EE

o o

E E

E E

._C ._C

(,9 ._E ._E

_ E E

TOO

m C,I "_-

I

J

I

o oo oo oo oo

_ O O O O

0 0 0 0

o

(sJee_ OZ = eF)_) el!'1 '6661- = JeeA eseS)

($) OS-I elO_O-el-!-I

\

%

\

%

L,

:=

.=.

L,

:=

:=

L,

L,

L,

:=
O_

>-

Z_

I--_

_=

0 _--

0 ._ '

o=

...=_

d_

>-

o,

LU

LL

O3O3

II

O3O3

<<

c c

EE

o-o

rrrr

o o

(,9 .__ .__

_ c c

Too

n-nrgoo

_IEIN

J

!

@ @ @ @ @

o o o o o

O o @ O

(s_eaA O_ = alOAO a;!-I '666_ = _eaA ases)

($) OS-I al_A_-at!-I

%

%

.=.

.=.

_J

!
g

c%

g

o

\

, %

_% %%

<%% oo

Q x>

h\

°%%%

%%\%

Oo&% %_

g g g o. v,, %_,,'_..

o o g >._%.%_

%% %'_

%. %

(saee_ O_ : elO_O el!3 '666 k : aeeA _es) _0.

($) 0S7 elO_O-e_!7 %

_J

"3

_J

.=.

_J

PC

¢J

_J

>

_J

_J

_7
0909_

III

0909_

<<<

E E c

EEE

r_ r_ rr

o o c

E E c

E E c

__ ,E ,E ,E

o o c

n:j n:j _

_ _ r_ r_ rr cJ_ cJ_ _

¢_ <<<

-- BO_

..J

/

_J _ cc

EE

_ _-c

_ r_rr

-- o c

.-1 c c

c c

._c ._c

_9 .__ ._c

_- o c

_rrcc

m od "_"

_IClB

J

o oo oo oo oo oo o

o o o o o

oo oo oo o_ oo oo

o o o _ o o

(sJeaf OZ = alOfO aJ!-I '666 J = JeaA ases)

($) OS-I alO_O-at!-I

\

,%%

,%%, %

°0%%

%%%

%%%%,

•_ _

%

¢

_J

"3

_J

¢

¢

_J

Pq

i

i

¢J

_J

i

¢

¢

_J

_J

_J
090909

III

090909

<<<

E E E

EEE

_ o o o

-- E E E

E E E

._c ._c ._c

<<<

o°_ __ -°°

_'"E

•_ TTO9O9

c c

-- EE

m m

O, ee

o o

-- c c

c c

NN

._c ._c

co ._c ._c

_ c c

TOO

m c,l "_-

N I:1 _1

J

oo oo oo oo oo oo _

o o o o o o

oo oo oo _ oo

o o o o o o

°o o °o o _ o

(sJee_ OZ = eF)_) el!'1 '6661- = JBeA eseS)

($) OS-I elO_O-el-!-I

\

%

\

%

L,

:=

.=.

:=

.=.

,L;

L,

:=
o °o °o °o °o °o

oo o o o o o

o_ g g g g g

o_ °o o °o o °o

|

\

\

_%% z.. _

;% %__%

%_%%,

,% _o%

__o "o. %

_%. %.%

;_.% %

,,%_, %

_ o,..% o®

,%

%,¢ s.%

_., _- _, o _, o

. ®, __ %. -_. %

oo° %_ _%-%

- %%_%

N%'%

,% ® _.

(s._a_ 0_ : alO_O a:l.!"l '6661. : ._aA as_8)

($) OS-I alO_O-a_.!-I

%

i

r,#3

r_

r,#3

Ai
u)

i

E

0J

III

<< << <_

c c c

EEE

_-_-c

o o c

c c c

c c c

.E .E ._c

.E .E ._c

ccc

._o ._o ._c

o o c

n:_ n:_ n2

ooc

NOel

II

m c

EE

m _-

o-c

rr_

o

m c

m

m c

.E ._=

m

09 .E ._c

_ c c

I o c

o n:_ n2

_n'm

OOm

J

o o o o o

°o- °o- °o- °o- °oo o o o o

o °o o °o o

(sJeer 0_ = elofo ej!-] '666 L= JeeA eses)

($) OS'I elO_O-et!'l

\

.=.

I_

.=.

4

I_

I_

_9

Jl

I_

Jl

_9

_9

I_
@

\

=

=

=

=

r_

=

<

r_

=

=
III

090909

EEE

"5 "5 "5

Z o-o-_

ccc

ccc

_ ccc

I- _ _ _

._c ._c ._c

ZLLI 8 ._o===._o._c

mmm

_:_ ooo

m .c "N

I-.

_J _

c c

_. EE

_ 5 5

c c

c c

.c_ .c_

c9 .c_ .c_

_cc

zoo

_om 8

N

I%: :,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:

_:,_ ,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,:,

oo oo oo oo oo _

o o o o o

oo oo oo oo oo

o o o o o

oo oo oo oo oo

(sJeeA O_ = eloAo eJ!l '666L = JeeA eses)

($) 0S7 elOAO-et!7

\

\

%

.=.

.=.

¢

uC

¢

=

.=.

N

r_

¢

¢
_o

Ei

zr_

F-uJ

r_ o_ O _"

rJ'-- O o_ Q. f-

(3

F-

(PO/

ILl /

(3

>-

ILl

M. /

oooo

0J 0J

IlllI

JiIIiIII

(sJea_ 0_= alO_Oa#N '666L= JeaA ass8)

(INS) OS1 alO_O-a_!l

to

L_

J

28

,,=, Z

_o

P"Z

oo

0 "_ --

CJa _-

,,, (D m wZZW

_zawaw

o -r

coI

o

oo

o

.=. o

_4

0

0-I
-r<zoiO<

uJO

,,z,8_

=__ ,_

_oE o=_

__&

i

,,z, ,_= 8 =_ 0i

l.- i

(.9 0

._I

LU

._I 0

o,

LU

IJ. i

._I

lIIHlJIIIIIlII

00000

LO0 LO0 LO

OJ OJ

(sJea_ 0_= al_ a:l.!"l'666L= JRaA ase8)

(INS)OS-I el0_0ie_!-I

Jt11r

o_O

L_

o_O

(/) z

__9

iii oz

,<z

LU

I-- Z<ZZ9

I--

g.-, 00

0

c/? z

F- o<

LU0Z<Z

LU

F-- Z<

LU

.J

LU

"ro

cozI

c/? zo<

u.i oz<z

u.i z<

121

u.i

_J

121

LU

"ro

c/?I

======

.e==0<===0N

dl
U) £

=, i

=oZ

z___

o

=_

8?

o

Q.

Q.

U)

U) 0

U) 0/

LM/0

>-

o,

LM

M. /

J

000

0 o_ cO

/

0

o_0

LO

o_0

03

C'4

o_0

o_0

0

coz0

I-o

LLI 077

LLI

Z7

121 '_ t.U Z 121

,_ t.U Z "I- W 0 Z Z

-=1

LI.I

LI.I

121

LI.I

_J

121

LU

"1- oI

¢¢¢¢¢

_J¢

r_

dl
0

6_

o_

0

LO

o_

0

_r

z

0

c0 <

UJ

0

z

<

z

LU

Z

Z

Z

0

O4

W

0

0
=o

Z

o

i

=_

=_ 8 ?

0

Q.

Q.

U)

U)

0

U)

0

/

LM

/

0

>-

o,

LM

M.

/

0 0 0

0 L_ 0

CO O4 O4

t

1

1

0 0

L_ 0

(sJea_ O_ = alo_O a_!7 '666L = JeaA ases)

(INS) OS-I alO_Oiat!-I

1

1

l

1

t

/

1

t

o_

0

LO

t

!

o

o

,,=,

z

9

P- z

_;y o

re <_

w

o_ 0

z

z

w

I.-

z

o

w

.J

o

w

0 7-

I

0

0 0

L_ _-

_-

¢

0

..e

¢

¢

_J

0

r_

dl
(/)

"1-

(/) <

(/) Zo0<

uJ0Z<Z

LUN

Eo

__.N,

o?

Q. ql

Q. O

I-- o

.J

u.I

.JO

u.I

.J

0

CO

_-

00

CO

_-

1!1

j -,

O9 Z

b- O<OZ<

U.I

zz

m< m, < t.u Z -1- w O _ mO

e4_ b- _ o

u.i

__oZ<z

t "'

b-

_z<

121

U.I

_J

121

_O

o9

P,I P,I _-

(sJee_ Og= elO_O etrl '666L= Jee_ eses)

(INS) OS1 alO_O-at!l

.=.

"3=====

.:.=N=

.<==

.:.

r_=

e-I=

k¢3
=o

z _¢

o=

_o _

,,z,_=-_i

I..

u)

u)

o

u)

O

/

I,LI

/

o

>-

o,

I,LI

U.

/

0 0 0 0

L_ 0 L_ 0

O4 O4

J

t

1

I

t

1

J

l

l

1

1

(sJea_ 0_ = alo_O a_!-I '666L = JeaA ases)

(INS) 0S1 elOAO-e_N

o_

t oIt')

J

r

o

o

,,=,

z

_o 00

P- z

_y o

rr <f

ILl

o_ o

z

z

iii

Iz

o

iii

J

ow

o -1-

I

0

0 0

L_ _-

_-

0

..e

0

_q
.=

_o_

0 Io.E

O,0o

"_._c

_-,o,

"o ..Q

_ ,,,=2 ,-

.'-

0=, i- ¢_1

U)

U)

0

I--

U)

(3

0

._1

LU

._1

0

>.

LU

IJ.

._1

0 0 0 0

0 _ 0

O4 O4

i

l

1

i

l

t

I

l

(SJee_ O_ = elO_O eJ.n '6661. = JeeA esee)

(INS) OS-I elOAO-e,q-I

o_

l oLO

r

5

z

5

LLI

--I

a

LU

0 I

09

I

0

0 0

I._ _-

_-

0

ra_

=

_q

=
=oZoo =_ o ? o

a.

a. o0/

uJ/o

>-

o,

uJ

LL/

o

oJ

ooo

oJ

o

04o

LO

04o

cozoo

<_

LUozz

co .i z I- 0 z

04 r-<

i. iii o .J z a z .i

i. i

io z coz z

I-- co o z

040_o--

e,lW F04 wozz

u.i z

121

U.I

.._1

"1

121

04w

o "r _ 0

coI

04o

.e¢

dl¢¢¢¢

dl
0

6_

o_

0

LO

o_

0

GO

Z

0

c0 <

LU

0

z

<

z

LU

Z

Z

Z

0

O4

W

0

0
oo

?

o

O.

O.

U_

U_ O

pU_o/

uJ/O

>-

uJ

LL/

00

CO

_-

0

O4

_-

1J11

t!tlt!tl 0 0 0 0 I._ 0

O4

(sJee_ 0_= elO_O eJ-!l '666L= JRGA esee)

(INS)OS1 elO_O-et!l

O

LOt1

O

o_O

LO

2

<o5

z

g -- _ W o_

LI.I Zz

LI.I

b- Z

121

LI.I

...1

121

_w

0 "-r _ 0

(/) I

0

0===0

r_=

dl=

o
.=

o oE

i- 03

,¢: c

8 =_

0 0 0 0 0

0

a.

a.

o

I0

_1

ILl

--I

o

o

ILl

--I

i

1

0

0

t

1

J

1

(SJBG_ O_ = elO_O aJ-!l '6661. = JBGA esee)

(INS) OS-I elOAO-e,q-I

0

LO

o_

0

LO

5

z

z

<

121

LI.I

...1

121

_ w

o I

_ o

o9

I

0

0

0

r_

=

dl
o_-oo

i-,= o==,,

r_

r_

0

(.9

0

--I

LU

--I

o

>-

o

LI.

--I

o o o o

i_ o i_ o

o4 o4

/

I o

1

o

Z

LLI

d

l

I

t

l

I

sJee_ O_ = elO_O e_.!"l '6661. = JeeA ese_])

(INS) 0S1 alO_O-aJ!l

o_

o

o_

o

o o

r7

w

I

0

I

0

,4
U)

U)

U) Z

_oO

LUOZZ

LU2 %.?

13.

U)

U) OO

LUO

>- O

U.

OO00

O_ cO

/

tlt1lllII

,J1ll 0 0 0 0

0

sJee_ 0;_= el0_0 e_N '666L= JeeA eses)

(INS)OS1 alol_o-a;N I1Illl1II

i,

O

C_

O

O

O

zO

I-o

iii ozz

iii z

z-

rI.U W "J 0 D z 121 z -r w o

I-- co z z z_ z o ___ a o

i1_ LUZZ

LU

b-

_z

121

I.U

...1

121

LU

"r0i

.e0

.<0

r_

dl
B

°i

o ==

a.

0_

0_

O

O

UJ

O

>-

O

u.

i

O

O

LO

l

l

t

l

0

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

_- o9 O4

sJee_ 0_ = alO_O a_!l '666L = JeaA ase_])

(INS) 0S1 alo_o-al!l

l

l

J

t

O

O

o_

O

LO

2

z

o_

E3

UJ

E3

o_ ,,,

o I

co

I

0

0

0

r_

dl
c,_ 8

£SB ,_

,_8_ z

v___,

8_,, <, < © >-

od_

_> | I _ w -N

_-Z

c)<

o__

m, m,

S___ | i

r_o

k¢3
8

c::,_

8

c::,.

8

_ gr _3e__

8

8

8d

8 8 8

8 8 8

,:=,. ,:=,. _,.

8 S 8

,[sJ_t[ 0;_=;)13,_3 o_-I '666 I.=J6o._.oseB)

8

8

e=,

8d

o

9

C_

s

>

<

_a _- -_

°°_ o

0 _a Lu

.-I 0 z

.--I --

I-- (-_ z

-- ,,', Lu

_<<I.- Lu

6

w

z _- z

0 _ _ I

Z 0 us I

0 _F-- '

_D -- (8 i

Z (,9 _1_ I

0 _ qE

,m_ _ LU I

_ i--- el. el.

"_ ' Z Z

_<

.e

.e

r_
|

£

8

>

__8_

0

z &

0 _ ,-i

C_ r...O 1:4

_-- w

, >

--J _ w

| $

_ w "N

© ca _8"_

z ca iz: iz:

© _ .< .<

N- @ w w

z z

i- z z

< 0 _ _

2_ 2_ _:_<<

| 1

=

.=.

=

=

=

r_

=

=

0

=

=

=
t

1

I

$

888888

888888

888888

d_

B

_Co8z

1:=.

OD

r..,9,

_© ;,-

_ "3w

!I

!I

w_

Z I--Z "_

O r...g Z I.LI UJ

r..,9O I_1 :D

8_GG O D _C

<

zz

r_,3 i-- i:1. i_.

'_:,ZZ

112 112 | |

.=.

.=.

r_!
O_

UJ

0

OC

?

-r

0

o

0

o

o8 8 8 8 8 8

_'_ _'_ _L _L

8 8 8 8

o_ o_ o_ o_

$ B $ $

_ s s

(sJU( O;_=OI:3KO oJN '66G_=Je._..3seg)

8

o_

o

c_

S

>

__8_s,

o

0 --J __

, )-

! I

! I

8

Z F- Z

S (4

z _ _ _

w _

;,- >-

_s_5

_= ' Z Z

_<<

S _ _u._ I12 I12

.e

¢

¢

=

.e

N

¢

r_

¢

¢

¢

=
IJJ

-,ff 0

,r-

:>?

,ID 000

,t- OU

8

c::,_ 8

c:,. 8

8

c::,_ 8

c:,.

c_

88888

88888

c:,. c:,. c:,. c:,. c:,. 8 _ 8 _ 8 i _-_} s_h_!_'_S :}$1 / (anlq) _V

88

5£8

_z>

0_

8_5 _ © ;,- _ "3 w | $ ! i o L8 _8"_ z c.o _

_

__@ww

69 P- a_ D_

2_ 2_ _:_<<| I

¢¢=

.:. N¢

r_¢¢¢=!

O
8 8 8 8 ==,' 8

B $ $ $ E,' B

_L o_ o_ _L _L _L

B $ $ 8_ $ B

S S s s

(:_J_ O_=Ol:ao'_ Oal '666 £=JeO.x.o:_eg)

£

S

_z

>

__8_s,

o

___ _)

, )-

! I

! I

8

0 r...9

60 0 i_1 ::D

S @

z _ _ _

LU _

;,- >-

_s_B

_= ' Z Z

_<<

S _ _u._ 112 112

.e

dl

_m_

_m_

_m_

r_

_m_
8 8 8 8 8 8

$ $ B $ $ $

(sJ_ OZ=alO,'_, _'M1 '6661.=JeaA_,seg)

qC

o

8

>

__8_s,

z _

_- (¢? ,

p- L_

Re

, >

_ _ Z

.._ k- m

Z _- Z

© 0'I _

_s_

_ __ , ,

o s ,,<,,<,

C_ qC :-- :'-

C_ I-- Z Z

C8 _- CL CL

_: ' Z Z

_ m, m,

_<<

| i

.=.

.=.

¢

dl

¢

¢

r_

¢

¢

¢

=

i
8

,:=,.

8

CL

8

8 8 8 8

,:=,. _,. _,. ,:=,.

8 8 8 8

CL o_ o_ CL

8 8 8 8

(_JK ID_=;aI:)£.L_ ;aJ+_l +666 I.=JggA;a_gS)

(u_a._) s_u!r_e S DS-I / (anlq) :D'q

8

8

_L

£

8

>

F,,_

__8_

0

z &

0 _ ,-i

C_ r...O 1:4

_-- w

, >

| $

! 9

_ w "N

© ca _8"_

z ca iz: iz:

© _ .< .<

N- @ w w

z z

i- z z

< 0 _ _

2_ 2_ _:_<<

| 1

dl

r_
sa_ A

/

8

c,_

8

c,.

8

8

c,_

8

c,.

8

8 8 8

o_ o_ _,_

8 8 8

o. o. _,.

8 $ 8

8

8

£

8

>

__8_

z _

0 _ .._

F-- w

, >

| $

_ w "N

i: ,- z _

© ca _8-_

z ca _ _

N-- @ w w

z

60 i- Q_ __

2_ 2_

_<<

| 1

.=.

.=.

dl

r_
t

8

c,

8

8

8

c,

8

8

8 8 8 8

c, o o o

8 8 8 8

_,_ c,_ c,_ c,_

8 8 8 8

(_J,'E O_=Ol_,E._ o_3 _666[.=Je_go_eS)

8

c,

8

B

2

8

z

0 _

r..,O ,

r_n

_ © ;,-

..j 0 _

_N >

_ "3 W

! I

! I

w _

Z I-- Z "_

0 r...g

Z I.LI UJ

r..,9 0 I_1 :_

8_

N- @ _ w

_>> s z

r_,3 i- i:1. i_.

112 112

| |

r_

k¢3
.=

Sz

_ w _,

_ =

--I 0 Z

__u_ _

4_

" _ ">' a

°_ b9 _

_9 0 r_

SE_ z _a

(a i- _.

' Z Z .t-,

LU LU

_NN

i--- _ m m
EZ_

8

8

8

8 8 8 8

8 8 8 8

8 _ 8

(sJ_ OZ=_,IM,_, _'M-I '6661.=Je_,A_,seg)

8

8

_L

£

S

>

__8_

0

z

__ CO ,

p- L_ R8

, >

_- Z

0 0'I _

_s_

_ __ , ,

o s ,,<,,<,

z m, m,

_<<

| i

.=.

=

.=.

¢

G

=

=

¢

=

¢

r_

¢

¢

¢

I-

=

=
/

8 8

F_

£

S

>

_8_

(.9 ©

z

__ lO ,

lO (0

_-- LU

Re

, >

_- Z

0 0'I _

_ __ , ,

L)

o s ,,<,,<,

E8 i-- o_ o_

_ m, m,

_<<

| i

.e

.e

4

r_

0
Q_

LLI

E

0

"1

,r-

?

...eCO

8

c::,_

c::,_

(_)

o_

8 8 8 8 8

_,_ o_ o_ o_ o_

(sJ,_ O;_=_,10u_,o_'1 '666 [.=JI_OAOSI_g)

(_a#_iI s_ e!_ S 3S"_ / (anlq) DV

£

S

>

_8_

z &

0 _ d

_- (¢? ,

_-- L_

Re

, >

| 8

_- Z

© 0'I _

_s_

_ __ , ,

o s ,,<,,<,

z z

< o 8 _

E8 _- o_ cJ_

_: ' Z Z

_ m, m,

_<<

| i

0

r_

0


cY_g

__o

>_2 E

"1-

¢y

¢-E

:3

¢-

¢- <

I

I:I

/

.e

r_04

k¢3
r_

e- ....

[1 -.=7.

_ III Q2 i

._ m nL_

0-3 ILl -- --

_ N N

_ iii iii

_ 0_ 0_

_- o o

I..-- z z

© o

o <_5

_ mm

--, N N

_ O9 U?

0_ o

.e

=

i

i

=

=

=

kq
E

2

03

"1"

r_

tll

,u

I1.

3

tll

tll

(._,.%) _u_e,sksa^el

ao lur_.a_ jo a_.e,_ eSe_,uasJed lel_guV

I

I

II II

Q_

I-- 1--

O0

0 0

_7 Z

O0

I-- I--

f.O f.O

T T

B

(SNV3A} _u!ed _aae;_#&18

14"3

t,,,#

elZ

O3

:3

O'

III

III

_z.S

v_ r_

_ uJ

__ o

m rY

N N

_..I _

III Ill

[3_ Q_

n Q.

F- FO9 f.O

O O

O O

Z Z

O O

c_ c_

N N

O O

< <

U') O9

"1- "lCO f._

< <

__ o

kU rY

nn OZ

!1

Z

C'4 Z

L_

=

.e

=

=

=

.e

=

=

=

=

=

kq
(d_/_!J_ua_u_seAul

uo _Jl_,a_ jo a_j a_ua_Jad j_l_u_IV

C:] _:L] C:3 C:: _ C:: eLY

©

_- ('0 ('q

zy

w,_

u_ GO

o

u_ _

v_ c_j

EL_ 0

III rr

03 Ft

| |

_.J _.J

or or

UJ UJ

D _

k- kCO G9

0 0

0 (..5

0 0

CO G9

0 0

CO G9

n- nCO G9

0_ o

UJ or

nn r-_

=

.=.

=

.=.

=

r_

=

=

k¢3

k¢3
LUm

¢.- 0

Q_E?

___ l_

E

0_3EE

I•

_.i_

Oi

O

_2

_2

I I I I • I

_r3

m

m

rv

CO

_ =__

=_ ' ,

__o

m n.

_"00

--<<

III [__

_ rn _12

==

dl====

r_====

_z=

kq

10_

iiio

f.i

t-?E

_>_-

_>_ 2 E ._

"1"

t-3E

t- I I I I ©

iii

iiii

IIIIIIIIIJIIIIII

===

dl=====

I.=4=

k¢3
I

IIIIII

oo

.._1 .._1

nn I:_ < <

CO O0

"1- "_-

CO CO < < n o

LLI I:_

nn n"

.=. ===4=

,5
2

n,,

ee"

em

8_

oo

_8

co c_ m [32 | |

III III

cl cl

U? U? o o

(D (D O O

U? U?

(..5 (..5 < <

CO CO N N T T < <

4- _:z

a_o

III O2

col el-

!!

r_==
0_

iiioc?

8

_c_-_

2E

eeO_

r"

©

¢

.e¢

dl¢

.e¢¢¢

r_¢¢¢
_t

B !i0

4.

rq

'9,
mmm mC0C?

_-

I-" "-- --

i

7>_.__

-_

2E_

"r?

e-E

O_

"-,t

e"

e- <

.=.

.=. 4

r_ 4
I

II

©

m

o8

_s

co c_ m rY © o

c_ c_ o o

(..50

<<

CO f._

"1- "_-

CO f.O < <

,',©

III n"r'

nn-n

a

r_====
SECTION SEVEN

BENEFITS FROM A NON-ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

7.0 INTRODUCTION

This section focuses on the measures of merit relative to logistics streamlining,

engineering and technology benefits, safety and performance, impacts on future

generation systems, and other operational and logistics considerations related to the

effective use of ASHMS technologies. While these factors can and do influence

economic feasibility, it is the intent of this section to identify these considerations

primarily on a non-economic level.

7.1 ON-CONDITION MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICS STREAMLINING

Structural health monitoring is an enabling technology that drives the primary and most

obvious benefit: the opportunity for enhanced safety through on-condition maintenance

and streamlining logistics support for advanced aerospace structures. In these scenarios,

the periodicity of maintenance actions, including inspections and repairs, are determined

by ASHMS-indicated breaches in structural integrity safety limits. In this way, more

comprehensive vehicle health and life cycle management are afforded. This, in turn,

enhances the operational availability and reliability of the aircraft and the fleet, and

provides a direct opportunity for accident reduction and safety improvement.

If ASHMS technologies are effectively deployed, they can provide in-time (real-time or

near real-time) indications of compromised structural integrity prior to life-limiting

failure or fatigue. This can lead to earlier diagnosis and repair of affected components

that might otherwise fail during flight. Obviously, this has cost savings implications in

terms of the reduced extent of repair required, reduced necessity for component

replacement (as opposed to repair), and reduced operational downtime. However, it also

has the potential for enhancing overall user acceptance of the aircraft relative to its

enhanced safety record and reliability. For example, ASHMS may indicate a breach in

the integrity of a component (such as a critical wing member) that could cause a

degradation in structural performance (such as early onset of wing flutter) to occur.

Ignorance of this condition can lead to premature component failure, while early

awareness of the condition can facilitate timely correction, control, or mitigation of the

defect or flaw. In summary, fewer component and aircraft failures are associated with

fewer accidents, reduced loss of systems, and reduced loss of human lives and property.

In the strictest sense, relative to operational and logistical considerations, there are a

number of additional perspectives from which these benefits can be analyzed, including:

7-1
Reduced scheduled maintenance requirements. If scheduled (and sometimes

unnecessary) maintenance, including inspection and repair activities, can be

reduced or eliminated, the required supporting infrastructure (i.e., NDE/I

equipment, repair equipment, manpower, and materials) may be reduced.

Operational Performance. In addition to providing the capability of detecting and

assessing life-limiting conditions, ASHMS technologies can enable near real-time

feedback of the performance of structures in relation to approved design

specifications and operational criteria. For example, an ASHMS database can be

used to maintain an engineering description of both the initial system performance

and any degradation that may occur in that performance over the life of the

component, as related to the structural usage and condition parameters measured

by the sensors. Maintenance actions may then be enabled, not only when the

system requires repair, but also when the system performance is outside

acceptable specifications. Essentially, the ASHMS provides the opportunity for

relating measurable control parameters to system performance for improved

performance-driven life cycle management of the aircraft and the fleet.

Environmental Considerations. The harmful effects that aircraft maintenance

actions have on the environment have been clearly demonstrated. Each time an

aircraft undergoes a maintenance action, chemical agents required for the

performance of the maintenance produce potentially harmful effects on the

environment. For example, the chemicals required for stripping paint from the

aircraft can contribute to air and water pollution and may have deleterious health,

even carcinogenic, side effects on humans exposed to the agents. In addition,

waste products generated by the use of these agents must be treated for proper use

and disposal. While there are efforts currently underway to replace such

chemicals with less hazardous agents and to refine maintenance practices to

minimize human exposure and establish acceptable disposal processes, the best

way to mitigate the risks associated with the use of these agent is to minimize or

eliminate their use. Consequently, reducing the number of maintenance actions

translates into significant reductions in the use of environmentally harmful agents.

In this way, on-condition maintenance approaches that capitalize on the use

ASHMS technologies offer the potential for significantly enhancing

environmental friendliness.

Resource Availability. A comparative example may aid in illustrating these

considerations.

In a scheduled maintenance scenario, each aircraft is pulled from service after

a specified number of operational flying hours or calendar days/months. The

aircraft then remains out of service while it undergoes destructive and

nondestructive inspections, which currently may include variations on

ultrasonics, x-ray, optical, and audio interrogation techniques. In these cases,

even the most "non-intrusive" inspections generally require some level of

7-2
paint stripping, component removal, part removal or disassembly, component

fixturing for scanning, scan plan generation, scan plan execution, and

subsequent data analysis. (NDE/I technologies often do not provide real-time

results.) A rigorous analysis might include a 100% inspection of all structural

components. This process is required just to detect the presence or absence of

damage or degradation to the component. The size of the fleet drives the flux

of the aircraft as they go through the scheduled procedure: the larger the fleet,

the more aircraft that are down for periodic maintenance at any one time, and

the more supporting infrastructure (equipment, facilities, personnel, and

material) that is required. Once an indication of damage or degradation is

found, a maintenance technician makes a manual determination of the extent

of the damage and its anticipated impact on the structural integrity or

functional performance of the component. If repair is required (in some cases

the extent of damage may not be sufficient to warrant repair), the structure is

further torn down for inspection and repair or replacement, as required.

In an on-condition maintenance scenario, the above process occurs only when

a maintenance condition is indicated and validated by the ASHMS. Therefore,

the aircraft is only removed from service when the requirement for

maintenance is specifically justified. It is anticipated that the sensor system

will determine the presence of incipient damage and degradation so that the

time that the aircraft remains out of service will be significantly less than

described above. In addition, the need for supporting infrastructure is reduced

since not every aircraft must undergo rigorous inspection procedures every

time it is brought in for maintenance.

7.2 ENGINEERING BENEFITS

There are also engineering benefits associated with the capabilities of next generation

ASHMS technologies. For example, the development of an historical maintenance record

for aircraft structural components (using data generated by ASHMS), as a function of

operational utilization, structural integrity, internal condition, and performance, can give

valuable insight into:

Validation of the design and engineering test models. The historical record of

component structural health will provide critical data that may be fed back to

design, engineering, and test organizations for analysis, verification, and

validation. These empirical data provide unique insight into the dynamics and

functional evolution of these structures that, in turn, can be used in association

with the design models for evaluation, update, and enhancement of system

performance specifications and limits criteria.

* Actual response of the component under operational conditions. It has been

shown that, even in rigorous component level laboratory testing, it is often

7-3
difficult, if not impossible, to duplicate the conditions that a structural component

experiences during operation. The result is that laboratory testing is often not

sufficient to determine the structural state of a component and the impact that

operational conditions (e.g., environmental extremes and thermomechanical

loading) have on the integrity and performance of the component. Consequently,

ASHMS historical data are critical to understanding and controlling the

fundamental mechanical behavior, performance, and condition of a component

under actual operating conditions.

Improvement in the design of future models. ASHMS data, especially as related

to flight conditions and performance, can be fed back to on-going design activities

for improving the engineering models for next-generation systems. For example,

functional relationships between actual performance data and desired performance

parameters can provide critical insight into isolating specificities for design

improvements in future systems.

Forensic analysis of structural anomalies. Even with the use of an ASHMS, some

structural failures and malfunctions may still occur. An ASHMS can be designed

to be robust enough so as to reduce the occurrence of these failures; but, when

failures do occur, it is critical to have a historical record of the structural usage,

condition, and operational parameters which led to the failure. Careful analysis of

these data can lead to a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental

mechanisms of failure for control and remediation in the future. In this context,

the ASHMS system would provide engineering data analogous to the flight and

voice data recorder information currently used in the forensic investigation of

field failures.

Technology extension for in-process analysis of structural anomalies.

Manufactured structural components often suffer from microstructural anomalies

due to variability in the (1) raw materials used for manufacture, and (2) processes

and equipment used in raw materials preparation and end-product fabrication,

finishing, and shaping. Consequently, an additional benefit of an ASHMS system

is the opportunity for extension of the sensor technology basis for application

within the manufacturing process, ff new structural components are manufactured

with sensors in place for eventual health monitoring, the sensors could also be

used to optimize and streamline the manufacturing process to achieve:

- Improved design performance

On-line interrogation and resolution of those material variations and

microstructural anomalies which may contribute to downstream structural

performance degradation

- Decreased process design times

7-4
- Improvedproductivityandyield

- Reducedprocesscyclestimes

Preliminaryresearchhasindicatedthatsuchaugmentationto themanufacturing

processcansignificantlyreducelife-cyclecostandsimultaneouslyenhancethe

operationalcapability(e.g.,performance,reliability, durability,andsupportability)

of theendproduct. In fact,thetechnologicalfeasibilityexistsfor multifunctional

sensorsthatactasdiscriminatorsfor processoptimizationduringmanufacturing

and,later,assensorsfor structuralhealthmonitoringandconditioninterrogation

duringoperation.

7.3 TECHNOLOGY INSERTION CONSIDERATIONS

There are a number of technology insertion considerations that must be adequately

addressed in order to effectively develop, deploy, and implement any sensor-based system

for ASHMS. Furthermore, it should be noted that the feasibility and viability of ASHMS,

relative to the benefits described above, are functionally dependent upon the user's

operational utilization and support concepts, life-cycle structural integrity management

policies and criteria, support resource allocation practices, and data management

philosophy.

Certain ASHMS design and operational factors (e.g., sensor selectivity and sensitivity,

calibration drift, and reliability and durability under various cyclic stress and

environmental conditions) may influence the accuracy, precision, and repeatability of the

ASHMS. While a fundamental understanding and control of these factors is critical for

the successful implementation and utilization of an ASHMS, it is likely that several

strategies may be used, individually or collectively, to mitigate the adverse influences that

each of these factors may have on the fidelity and integrity of the ASHMS data. These

strategies for sensor utilization and operation are described in the following sections.

7.3.1 Calibration

Data accuracy, precision, and integrity must be appropriately addressed to achieve desired

system operational capability. Coherent and repeatable calibration procedures for the

ASHMS can be incorporated to ensure the integrity and continuity of the sensor data over

time. This, in turn, facilitates a more representative description and characterization of

the health and condition of primary structural elements relative to actual operational

conditions.

Calibration can be considered a multivariate process that allows independent elements of

the system to be calibrated in ways directly related to system performance. Key

considerations include:

7-5
System-level calibration is intended to ensure sensitivity, selectivity, continuity,

and repeatability of each sensor to an acceptable system standard that is traceable

and reproducible. This calibration is independent of geometrical considerations

for normalization of the sensor output response for equivalent measurement over

the short-term and long-term.

Component-level calibration is intended to compensate the raw measurements for

specific structural and geometrical configurations. This calibration is performed

via a series of structurally and geometrically specific calibration curves from

representative structural data.

Internal calibration is intended to verify the functional integrity of the ASHMS

unit and should be automatically incorporated into the fundamental design of the

system. Specifically, given an input signal, the ASHMS should verify the

integrity and fidelity of the imported signal data and the functional accuracy of the

data processing function.

7.3.2 Utilization and Operation

Practical constraints on volume, weight, sensor response time, and capacity drive the size

and configuration of the ASHMS. Specifically, this means that the type, number,

location, and distribution of individual sensor elements are practically limited. Sensor

configuration, in turn, directly influences the performance capabilities of the sensor

network and the system's statistical probability of detection (POD) in terms of being able

to accurately identify and characterize structural damage, degradation, flaws, and defects.

A number of feasible technical solutions and operational approaches can be considered

for achieving an ASHMS capability. However, regardless of the approach selected, it is

imperative that the ASHMS design and configuration (e.g., selection of sensor type,

number, and location) conform with the user's operations and support concepts, life-cycle

structural integrity management philosophy, and host system capabilities.

ASHMS data set sizing limitations are a direct function of the number and type of sensors

used, the sampling domain and rate for each sensor, the flight duration, and on-board data

capacity and memory storage requirements. In other words, the sensor configurations

used and the sampling profile can be tailored to accommodate relevant life cycle

management criteria. In any event, however, it is critical that the sensors be placed at

critical locations that will realistically and adequately provide indications of damage or

structural degradation, as appropriate.

As the integrated structures undergo repair, in order to maintain the same level of internal

interrogation (i.e., statistically identical POD), maintenance must be incorporated which

allows for sensor repair, replacement, or alternatively, off-equipment inspection.

7-6
7.4 LIFE-CYCLE MANAGEMENT

Once the structural usage data has been acquired and collated, one must ask the question,

"How will the data be used to make decisions regarding maintenance actions?" There are

fundamentally two approaches that can be used to address this question: Life-cycle

Aircraft Structural Health Management (LASHM) and Life Limits Management (LLM).

7.4.1 Life-cycle Aircraft Structural Health Management (LASHM)

LASHM involves analyzing, recording, and reporting data regarding the operational

condition of a structural system in order to support decisions related to the operation and

maintenance of the system. It includes the process of correlating acquired sensor data

with operational and environmental conditions so as to develop a rational basis for fault

diagnosis and condition analysis.

Technologies that may be used to support this approach can be divided into two basic

categories: on-board (in-flight) sensory surveillance using an ASHMS technology

platform, and ground-based NDE/I. From both a technical and operational perspective,

on-board ASHMS is generally more desirable than ground-based NDE/I due to the

operational need for dynamically assessing internal structural conditions during actual

flight operations. Furthermore, embedded sensors are likely to yield a more

comprehensive, realistic, and continuous measure of the structural integrity of the

component over time.

With the use of increasingly more complex advanced material systems and aerospace

structure designs, the focus for aircraft structural health management must go beyond the

past emphasis on the instrumentation and avionics subsystems, into a robust, dynamic,

and real-time assessment of structural integrity as related to damage or degradation. It is

likely, however, that the health management philosophy for each of these conditions will

be treated differently. Keeping in mind that the need exists to accommodate the data

capacity, volume, weight, and TAT constraints for the aircraft, there are three primary

management philosophies that might be employed for accomplishing aircraft structural

maintenance.

Conventional Philosophy. No data is acquired from an ASHMS platform.

Assessment of the structural damage is made off-equipment using ground-based

NDE/I equipment. This methodology does not give a dynamic measure of the

structural usage or condition of the aircraft component, but may yield information

related to structural damage when the extent of the damage is within the

detectable range of the NDE/I equipment. It should be noted that effective

implementation of this philosophy is predicated on the assumption that the NDE/I

equipment is capable of detecting large area damage and degradation that exists

within aerospace structures. In fact, as aircraft systems age, new structural

integrity issues arise, and the state of the art for NDE/I often needs to be advanced

to accommodate these issues.

7-7
On-Condition Maintenance Philosophy. The on-condition maintenance

philosophy is a performance-driven approach that is designed to facilitate dynamic

detection, characterization, and mitigation of incipient structural damage and

degradation (e.g., cracking, pitting, erosion, abrasion, punctures, disbonding,

delamination, and impact damage) that adversely compromises aircraft

performance or flightworthiness. ASHMS sensors are selected and located such

that an assessment of the structural integrity of critical aircraft components is

made during flight. In this scenario, a limited number of sensors are placed at

critical locations to generate nearly continuous measurement of structural

condition and damage in these locations during flight. This allows an historical

record of the sensor readings, as correlated to inflight data recorder information,

to be made. However, since the total number of sensors is limited, there is less

than 100% interrogation coverage and structural damage to the aircraft may only

be detected if its effect on the sensor measurement parameter is within the sensor

sensitivity, dynamic range, and region of interest. In this case, since 100%

coverage is not enabled, NDE/I activities are likely to be reduced, but not

completely eliminated. (Although effective employment of an on-condition

maintenance philosophy can nearly eliminate the reliance on ground-based NDE/I,

the limited continuity of the ASHMS data stream will not enable a continuous

historical record of structural usage and condition, as related to flight behavior and

performance.)

7.4.2 Life Limits Management (LLM)

LLM is a fundamental maintenance concept predicated on assuring that an aircraft is

totally flightworthy; i.e., capable of performing its intended operational mission without

fault or failure. The LLM process is not unique to systems containing an ASHMS type

platform. On the contrary, a coherent LLM process is utilized for every system that

requires maintenance. The ASHMS platform does, however, afford the opportunity to

accomplish LLM faster and more reliably, with reduced dependence on human input.

Reliable LLM requires an unbiased analysis, usually employing both theoretical and

empirical modeling, of the expected behavior and performance of a structure under its

intended operating environment. These parameters are initially determined during the

research and development phase of a design program. The expected performance of a

structure is modeled and tested under well-defined conditions and parameters, using

specified engineering procedures and operational factors (e.g., anticipated stress profiles,

thermomechanical fatigue, and environmental variations). This yields information that

describes the factor limits on the material structure relative to specific failure modes.

Also during the R&D phases, analyses are performed that describe and model the relevant

fracture and failure mechanisms.

The aforementioned engineering testing and analysis usually provide the initial input used

to determine the allowable limits that a given structure can safely withstand under

7-8
specified operational conditions. However, during the life of the component, the

allowable limits may change due to a number of factors, including:

• Changes in the engineering knowledge base used to develop the initial limits data.

• Effects of structural damage or degradation on the physical and functional

integrity of the component that are not accounted for in the fail-safe design.

• Changes in the complexity and severity of the intended environmental and

operational conditions.

• Effects of operational anomalies, environmental disturbances, or integrity

perturbations that are not accounted for in the fail-safe design.

As previously mentioned, the LLM process does not require an ASHMS platform. In the

absence of such a platform, the LLM process occurs in a static environment. The design,

engineering, and test data is used to estimate the scheduled maintenance interval (i.e., the

number of operational hours after which the structure should be removed from service)

for periodic (i.e., scheduled) depot maintenance (PDM). However, secondary damage,

faults, and failures may be induced during PDM or as the result of primary component

failure. Consequently, the periodicity of the PDM may then be altered based on the

lessons learned (e.g. predominating failures, failure modes, and presence of damage)

during the PDM inspection and repair processes.

With the aid of an ASHMS platform, the LLM process occurs in a dynamic environment.

The life limits information initially developed from design, engineering, and test data is

continually updated as parametric analyses of the measured structural performance during

flight is correlated and reconciled with the predicted structural performance. During the

life cycle of the component, the analysis of actual versus expected performance can yield

enhancements to the acceptable limits under which the system may perform. In addition,

the acceptable limits derived during LLM can be updated to incorporate variations that

are a function of inherent structural variability in terms of operational and environmental

conditions, material properties, microstructural anomalies, and other systemic factors.

This means that, with ASHMS, the LLM process is robust (the effect of actual

performance conditions are measured and considered), dynamic (limits information may

be updated nearly continually), and flexible (unintended variability is accounted for).

ASHMS information can further extend LLM to allow automated control and recovery

actions, in cases where safety of the flight is deemed by ASHMS to be in jeopardy.

7.5 MAINTENANCE PHILOSOPHY AND REPAIR STRATEGIES USING

ASHMS

The operational use of ASHMS may offer unique opportunities for optimally refining the

maintenance philosophy for maintaining aerospace structures. Moreover, the benefits that

7-9
can be afforded by ASHMS are functionally dependent upon the maintenance philosophy

that the airlines use. For example, some air carriers may elect to perform maintenance at

their own operating location or at a depot. In this case, the ASHMS information could be

used to analyze failure mechanisms and track structural anomalies throughout the life

cycle of the aircraft. On the other hand, some air carriers may choose to have

maintenance performed at off-site locations (for example, maintenance cost have driven

several airlines to subcontract maintenance to domestic or overseas facilities). In this

case, ASHMS information is less likely to be used for in-depth mechanistic analysis but

solely as an identifier for likely regions of interest for repair.

Regardless of the maintenance philosophy selected or repair strategy implemented, it

should also be noted that it may be necessary to repair or replace defective or failed

components of the sensing system (e.g., the sensors or optical fibers) that generate the

data input for ASHMS. With this in mind, it is important to consider the impact of

repairs on the reliability of the sensing network, as input to the ASHMS. This can be

accommodated in a number of ways.

Replacement of Defective Sensor Components. For structural components that

will be removed and replaced when maintenance is required, it is anticipated that

the replacement components will contain new (replacement) sensing components

such that configuration control is maintained (i.e., sensor type, location, size, and

region of interrogation are the same for the replacement component as for the

original component). This suggests that quality control and acceptance testing

will be performed on the component (including its sensors) prior to use. Further,

if the sensor system undergoes a system-level and component-level calibration to

ensure that each sensor is properly referenced to the specified reference standards,

additional calibration adjustments and compensations for replacement

components and sensor variability may need to be made. For example, if, for a

given component type, the microstructure of the replacement structural

component in the vicinity of a fiber optic sensor is different than it was in the

original component, it is likely that the sensor output response will change. In this

case, the data provided to the ASHMS will reflect microstructural variations as

well as erroneous indications of structural condition. While it is important to

account for these anomalies at the microstructural level, independent analysis of

each component may provide a baseline against which to standardize future

performance.

Direct Repair of Defective Sensor Components. Maintenance approaches may

require direct repair of the sensor components during or after repair of a damaged

module or component. While there are several mechanisms for direct repair of

these components (e.g., fusion splicing for optical fibers), there is little research

available on the impact that maintenance actions might have on the output

response of the component. An additional effort to analyze the effect of this type

of repair process, with the user's support, may be beneficial to help assess the

impact on the ASHMS.

7-10
Redundant Backup for Defective Sensor Components. In order to accommodate

component failures in the ASHMS system without necessitating direct repair of

the defective components, it is possible to incorporate, during the initial

component manufacture, redundant system components located in the critical

regions of the component. The type, configuration, and calibration of the

components in the redundant system must be identical to those of the primary

system. In the event there is a failure of a primary system component, one of the

redundant components could be easily enabled. However, several issues must be

considered if this design strategy is implemented. For example:

Adjacency effects (e.g., how does the presence of another sensor element

within the region of interest influence the output response of the enabled

sensor?) must be considered if the effective regions of interrogation are in

close proximity. In this case, interference caused by close proximity of

adjacent sensors may influence the data input to the ASHMS system.

However, if the adjacent sensors are appropriately protected or calibrated to

accommodate the proximity effects, signal misinterpretation may be avoided.

The redundant sensor design strategy also impacts cost. Although the cost

benefits, tradeoffs, and impacts must be examined in detail for any given

application, it is intuitive that the implementation of redundant sensors

represents an obvious cost driver that must be considered.

Disablement of Non-functioning Sensor Components. Since the ASHMS design

requires appropriate data allocation to the database relative to the functionality of

each sensor, it is possible to incorporate procedures by which specific defective

components embedded within a critical region are automatically designated "nonfunctional" upon failure or malfunction. This information would then be loaded

into the ASHMS database. While this approach has merit from a cost and

resource management perspective, the primary impact, in terms of functional

degradation of the ASHMS, lies in the reduced statistical confidence provided by

the surviving (i.e., remaining usable) component suite. For example, reducing the

number of active ASHMS sensor elements may adversely impact the confidence

with which structural condition may be assessed and may (depending on the

algorithms used for analysis) even provide misleading or erroneous results.

Furthermore, current limitations in the practical size of most embedded sensor

arrays is driven, in part, by the operational data capacity of the ASHMS. While

the size of the sensor suite does still allow for some robustness, the cost-effective

number of sensors does not allow complete component coverage, i.e., the sensors

will not interrogate some regions. Consequently, further reducing the number of

sensors below an acceptable reliability threshold may significantly impact the

capability of the ASHMS.

7-11
7.6 FLIGHT CERTIFICATION

Prior to integration, implementation, and use of an ASHMS, it must undergo a rigorous

process for acceptance by the FAA. This testing includes, but is not limited to design

reviews and acceptance, loads analysis, stress analysis, and flight testing. Though it is

beyond the scope of this work to comprehensively address the details of the certification

process, it is a complex process which requires significant cooperation with the FAA.

The details of the process used for flight certification vary depending upon the

complexity and design of the ASHMS. For example, if the ASHMS is intended to

control or otherwise impact flight operations, such as displaying health information to the

aircrew inflight, a much more rigorous certification test is required.

7.7 MAINTENANCE CERTIFICATION

In general terms, maintenance certification is that process used to assure a system is

capable of safely and reliably performing its intended function. For an aircraft system the

goal is to assure continued flight-worthiness of the system. A distinction must be made

between design certification, which is a part of the research and development process,

versus maintenance certification, which occurs continually from flight to flight. Design

certification involves development of systems to a degree that subsequent assemblies can

be manufactured and operated without having to undergo the same degree of test or

scrutiny. (The rigorous testing used for design certification of aircraft systems is intended

to drive development efforts to achieve designs capable of extended reuse with no major

failures between uses.) Maintenance certification involves processes that assure an

aircraft system is ready and suitable for operational use.

An example of the second type of certification is the tracking and analysis of allowable

operating constraints, performance and fatigue limits, and stress envelopes (hereinafter

called life limits) for specific structural components. This analytical effort can be used to

determine when components can remain in-service versus when these components should

be removed for refurbishment, repair, or replacement based upon reported flight data

relative to the life limits criteria. The purpose is to accumulate an adequate experience

and knowledge base for determining and validating allowable life limits for components.

In addition, low and high cycle life limits can be determined by monitoring and

evaluating component operations and maintenance histories, including fleet leader

components. This would provide a higher degree of safety and performance margin in the

hardware, thereby contributing to greater reliability, availability, and useful service life.

For example, maintenance certification for many aircraft systems currently involves the

use of ground-based NDE/I for assessing and verifying structural integrity and suitability

for operational use. Although ground-based NDE/I equipment can indicate an abnormal

degradation or deterioration of structural integrity or the presence of damage, failure, or

defect conditions, these systems are not capable of determining the absolute source of a

problem within the context of the operational and environmental conditions to which the

7-12
aircraft have been subjected. Furthermore, these ground-based systems require

manpower intensive methods, controlled facilities, and the use of expensive ancillary

support and diagnostic equipment. In addition, ground-based evaluation and examination

techniques typically involve significant intrusion (because of the need for direct access to

structural components), the installation and use of ancillary support equipment and access

kits, component teardown and disassembly, the purge of hazardous materials from fluid

storage compartments, and component reassembly, testing, and verification.

Alternatively, on-board ASHMS systems, with an emphasis on supplemental groundbased data analysis, information feedback and reporting, and non-intrusive verification of

systems integrity and function, could greatly reduce the technical risks, resource

infrastructure, and cost associated with the use ground-based NDE/I systems.

Furthermore, the use of ASHMS greatly minimizes the requirements for intrusive

maintenance operations, expensive NDE/I equipment, and manpower intensive

procedures, and inherently helps improve TAT, reduce MDT, and increase availability,

readiness, and reusability.

7.8 OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY AND SUPPORTABILITY

Operational reliability and supportability are related. Generally speaking, operational

reliability increases as component redundancy and complexity increases - even in those

cases where there is little or no change in the mean time between failure (i.e., inherent

reliability). However, supportability is usually degraded by the use of additional parts

and increasing design complexity. This is because increased redundancy and complexity

typically results in the increased potential for component failure. This, in turn, can lead to

more unscheduled maintenance (thereby lowering MTBM and increasing O&S cost) and

higher incidences of system intrusion (which in turn can increases the rate of induced

failures, thereby further lowering MTBM). Thus, while a technically complex design

approach may assure higher operational reliability for an aircraft system, this complexity

can, in turn, result in significantly higher life-cycle cost due to the increased requirements

for maintenance and related logistics support. (The reverse can also be true.)

This has important implications for aircraft design and maintenance certification. To be

optimally effective, an aircraft fleet has to be reasonably free of operating and logistics

constraints. This requires a high degree of demonstrated reliability. Consequently, a

rigorous maintenance certification process based on the capabilities of ASHMS, is an

affordable solution alternative for achieving this goal. This is because the aircraft fleet

can be more accurately and responsively certified as flightworthy and capable of

operating free of most constraints - irrespective of the predicted reliability or the

experience base used to forecast this reliability.

Achieving increased operational reliability using the capabilities of an integrated ASHMS

system offers two significant benefits. First, individual component or subsystem

reliability is enhanced through the use of a more refined and structured maintenance

7-13
certification process that is driven by the operational structural integrity information

generated with ASHMS. Second, using ASHMS to achieve higher levels of

demonstrated reliability offer opportunities for reducing system complexity while still

assuring high mission reliability. Complexity, if reduced, means both a simpler and more

integrated design with fewer and less complex components. In turn, simpler and more

integrated designs manifest a much greater probability of operating for a longer period of

time with fewer failures.

This is not to say that redundancy should be eliminated for critical systems. Disciplined

and effective ASHMS-based maintenance certification procedures alone will not

significantly change or impact the added complexity and redundancy that critical

functions require. Rather, non-critical redundancy is reduced as a result of minimizing

non-critical functional complexity. Although redundancy for criticality is still needed,

there is a significant reduction in the number of components and subsystems that require

this increased complexity. This does not affect mission reliability except to enhance it.

Again, simplicity contributes to higher mission reliability through fewer opportunities for

failure.

7.9 AVAILABILITY AND REVENUE

ASHMS offers the opportunity to significantly improve availability by reducing

maintenance TAT and aircraft MDT. Though it is not quantitatively addressed in this

study, it is important to note that the availability of an aircraft (i.e., the expected fraction

of time that an aircraft will be ready to perform satisfactorily in an operating

environment) is directly related to the revenue that a commercial air carrier can generate.

This will likely significantly influence an airlines' financial capacity to implement an

ASHMS capability. To adequately appreciate the significance of this statement, it is

imperative to understand the that availability is inversely dependent upon the time

required to maintain and support the system. In other words, as maintenance and support

downtime increases, a system's availability decreases. Conversely, it can be stated that,

for given levels of reliability, system availability can best be increased by decreasing

maintenance and support downtime.

The critical consideration to keep in mind is this: For any of these alternatives, the

challenge is to determine at what point the required investment exceeds the return

on investment. For example, increasing support resources may not be a viable or

desirable alternative if the resource expenditure is too great relative to the realized

increase in availability (and associated increase in revenue).

The addition of an on-board ASHMS to an aircraft system may arguably be considered an

addition of functional complexity, which would seem to contradict the goal of increasing

system simplicity, affordability, reliability, and supportability. This assumption,

however, overlooks the high reliability and capability associated with state-of-the-art

ASHMS technologies and the inherent cost benefit through increased revenue and

7-14
reduced support requirements of enhancing in-flight diagnostic and prognostic

capabilities.

7-15
7-16
SECTION EIGHT

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In order for the integration of an advanced health monitoring system to be operationally

effective, it must satisfactorily exhibit both operational benefits, such as safety

improvement, and economic benefits. This study was performed to assess whether viable

economic benefits could be realized from the introduction of health monitoring capability

in selected aircraft structures. We also discussed other factors and benefits that might be

realized with implementation of health monitoring. This study indicates that a significant

reduction in the life cycle cost associated with maintaining and supporting structures

could result in an operationally realistic return on investment. Specifically, if a 30-40%

reduction in maintenance requirements is realized due to implementation and use of a

health monitoring system, our analysis indicates that the time to recover the cost of the

initial investment for both the engine mount and the trailing edge structure will be 2-3

years. However, due to the significantly larger area of the vertical stabilizer, the time to

recover the investment associated with a health monitoring capability having a larger

number of sensors, was determined to be 6-7 years.

Based on this analysis, we would recommend that the structures onto which a health

monitoring capability is implemented be carefully selected such that economic viability

could be realized. Both the engine mount and the trailing edge structure may be suitable

candidates for health monitoring. However, since this study was limited to only three

structures and only to the analysis of the life cycle cost associated with logistics and

maintenance, it is recommended that further detailed cost analyses be performed to

identify additional candidate structures for health monitoring. Ideally, subsequent

analyses should include both logistics support cost and operating cost (such as the impact

on operating revenue).

In addition, in order to fully realize the potential benefit of the health monitoring

capability, it is imperative that the new capability be functionally integrated with revised

maintenance processes, concepts, and procedures that would enable the use of health

monitoring information, in a way that is commensurate with airline and FAA practices.

To this end, we further recommend that a detailed analysis of the integration alternatives

that would enable the new health monitoring capability be performed.

8-1
APPENDIX A

COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE

A-1
NASA L _ MONITORINGSYS

LOGYASSESS T

STRUCTURES MFE-C YCLE COS T BENEFIT ANAL YSIS MODEL

COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE (CES)

ACQUISTI O N COST E LEME NTS

PRODUCTION AND INSTALLATION START-UP

COMPONENT ACQUISITION COST

COMPONENT INSTALLATION COST

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION

PACKAGING, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION

INITIAL TRAINING

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION

INITIAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION

INVENTORY INTRODUCTION

WARRANTY

CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

MISCELLANEOUS

LOGISTICS SUPPORT COS ELEME NTS

UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE LABOR COST

SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE LABOR COST

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE COST

TRAINING COST

UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE PARTS/MATERIALS COST

SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE PARTS/MATERIALS COST

UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE CONSUMABLES COST

SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE CONSUMABLES COST

SPARES REPLENISHMENT COST

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION REVISIONS COST

TRANSPORTATION COST

FACILITIES COST

ITEM MANAGEMENT COST

SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE COST

ENGINEERING CHANGES COST

WARRANTY COST

CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT COST

MISCELLANEOUS LOGISTICS SUPPORT COSTS

A-2
APPENDIX B

CASA MODEL OVERVIEW

B-1
APPENDIX B

CASA MODEL OVERVIEW

1.1 Background

The CASA model was derived from Honeywell's Total Resource and Cost Evaluation

(TRACE) family of Logistics and Life-Cycle Cost Models. The TRACE family consists

of several versions that range in complexity from TRACE 1 (least complex) to TRACE 5.

CASA was actually formed from TRACE 2, but many of the features of TRACE 4 and 5

have since been added.

The economic scope of CASA covers the entire life cycle of a system, from its initial

RDT&E costs to those associated with continuing recurring support and other related

expenses incurred after the system is delivered. Basically, CASA works by using data

entered by the user to calculate projected costs, evaluate sensitivities, compare

alternatives, assess risk levels, and determine the probability of meeting LCC target

values. CASA also offers a variety of analysis options and allows the user to tailor data

inputs to assess the effects of these changes on the resultant LCC. At any point in the

analysis, inputs may be saved and calculations may be made to that point for later

evaluation. CASA can be used for a number of tasks, such as:

• LCC Estimates

• Logistics Trade Analyses

• Repair Level Analyses

• Production Rate and Quantity Analyses

• Warranty Analyses

• Spares Provisioning

• Resource Projections (e.g. manpower and support equipment)

• Risk and Uncertainty Analyses

• Cost Driver Sensitivity Analyses

• Reliability Growth Analyses

• Operational Availability Analyses

• Spares Optimization

B-2
Although not all of these functions were used in this CBA, they were available if such

analysis were requested or required. If additional information on CASA is desired, the

reader is referred to the CASA Users Manual for a detailed description of the capabilities

listed above and their operation.

1.2 Capabilities

The CASA LCCM follows the classic approach of LCC estimating by aggregating and

indenturing costs under the major categories of RDT&E costs, acquisition costs, and

operations and support (O&S) costs. In addition, sensitivity and risk analyses can be

quickly and accurately performed using CASA. Overall CASA cost estimating

capabilities in each of these categories are described in the following subparagraphs.

• RDT&E: CASA computes several RDT&E cost subcategories, including costs for

the following:

- System/Project Management

- System Test and Evaluation

- Training

- Data

- Demonstration and Validation

- Research and Development

- Software

- Other

• Acquisition Costs: CASA includes costs from the following subcategories when

summing annual totals to determine the total acquisition cost:

- Production Tooling and Test Equipment

- Production Start-up

- System Acquisition

- System Shipping and Storage Containers

B-3
- Pre-Production Engineering

- Pre-Production Units Refurbished

- Installation

- Support Equipment

- Hardware Spares

- Spares Reusable Containers

- Technical Data

- Initial Training

- Training Devices

- New or Modified Facilities

- Initial Item Management

- Initial Software Development

- Miscellaneous Acquisition

- Warranty

O&S Costs: The total O&S costs are the costs of operation, maintenance, and support

of systems and SE at all applicable maintenance levels over the life of the system.

CASA begins by estimating costs in the following subcategories over the classic

three levels of maintenance (depot, intermediate, and organizational):

Operation Labor

Repair Labor

Support Equipment Maintenance

Recurring Training

Repair Parts and Materials

Repair Consumables

B-4
- Condemnation Spares Replenishment

- Technical Data Revisions

- Transportation

- Recurring Facilities

- Recurring Item Management

- Software Maintenance

- Contractor Services

- Engineering Changes

- Miscellaneous Operation and Support

- Recurring Warranty

In addition, CASA offers the user the flexibility to tailor data inputs to estimate

the O&S costs associated with alternative maintenance concepts and multiechelon levels of repair. Results for spares, SE, and manpower quantities are

based on the maximum number of operating aircraft systems, while forecast

maintenance actions are based on the average number. Further refinements in the

calculations are possible by requesting output in constant, inflated, or inflated and

discounted dollars.

Sensitivity Analysis: The CASA Sensitivity Model provides a useful extension to the

capabilities of the CASA LCCM. It performs sensitivity and multi-sensitivity

analysis on several different input parameters, including relevant operational, R&M

factors, and logistics support factors. This capability allows the user to measure the

impact of changes in any of these key parameters on LCC and operational availability.

Each parameter can be independently varied over a user-selected range of possible

values, and the program will generate tables and graphs of the results. Five different

sensitivity runs may be executed at one time for each input parameter.

B-5
APPENDIX C

LIFE-CYCLE COST MODEL EQUATIONS AND ALGORITHMS

c-1
NASAAIR FTSTRUGTURALHEALTH

NI RING SYS (AS

TEC LOGYASSES T

LIFE-CYCLECOSTB TANALYSISMODEL

GENERAL INPUT DATA PROGRAMMATIC

COS T FA CTO R '=NAM E

INITIAL YEAR OF STUDY: The first year that the study is to address. The default value

is 1999. YRSTUDY

LIFE-CYCLE BASIS IN YEARS: The total number of years for which costs are to be

somputed. The default value is 20 years. LCBASIS

FISCAL YEAR OF DOLLAR VALUES (BASE YEAR $): The base fiscal year in which all

dollar amounts are to be expressed. The default value is 1999. BY

&VERAGE NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT PER YEAR: The average number

3f authorized aircraft expected to be in operational use per year. AVGSYS

&VERAGE NUMBER OF OPERATING LOCATIONS WITH MAINTENANCE

CAPABILITY PER YEAR LAVGLOC

&VERAGE NUMBER OF ORGANIC OPERATIONAL DEPOTS PER YEAR DAVGLOC

&VERAGE NUMBER OF CONTRACTOR MAINTENANCE FACILITIES PER YEAR CAVGLOC

&VERAGE FLYING HOURS PER YEAR PER AIRCRAFT: The average expected flying

hours per year for an aircraft in operational use. SOH

MAINTENANCE SUPPORT INPUT DATA

COSTFACTOR INAME

&VERAGE HOURLY MAINTENANCE LABOR RATE (MLR) - BASE YEAR $: The

average hourly labor rate (in base year dollars per hour) for aircraft maintenance

3ersonnel. In addition to the direct labor rate, Include in this hourly labor rate the

allocated costs associated with G&A, overhead, and other indirect costs. MLR

&VERAGE HOURLY SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE LABOR RATE (SWLR) - BASE

YEAR $. The average hourly labor rate (in base year dollars per hour) for software

development and maintenance personnel. In addition to the direct labor rate, Include in

this hourly labor rate the allocated costs associated with G&A, overhead, and other

indirect costs. SWLR

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION (%) FACTOR (SEUF). SEUF is the average

estimated percentage of time that the support equipment will be utilized relative to the

average time that the SE is available for use. SEUF cannot be greater than 100% nor

less than 0%. The default value is 100%. SEUF

SPARES CONFIDENCE LEVEL (SCF). SCF is the probability of meeting all spares

demands within the expected maintenance turnaround time. SCF is expressed as a

3roportional percentage less than or equal to 100%. (For example, an input of 90

implies that there is 90% confidence that a spare demand can be satisfied within the

expected maintenance turnaround time.) The default value is 100%. SCF

C-2
EARNED HOUR RATIO (EHR). EHR is the conversion factor for translating mean time

to repair (expressed in manhours) into average total labor elapsed time. EHR must be

greater than or equal to zero. The default value is 100%.

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (SE) AVERAGE TOTAL UNIT COST (SCST) - BASE YEAR $.

SCST is the average unit cost (in base year dollars) of all support equipment resources

used at each maintenance location.

SE MAINTENANCE COST FACTOR (SEMANT). SEMANT is used to approximate the

annual cost of maintaining and supporting the SE at each level of maintenance.

SEMANT is expressed as a percentage of the SCST. SE maintenance costs are

somputed using the following equation by multiplying the SEMANT into the SCST in

accordance with the following equation: SEMANT x SCST. The default value is 20%

EHR

SCST

SEMANT

RE EIABI LIT¥ AND M AI NTAINABI EITY (R& M)I NPUT DATA

COSTFACTOR '=NAME

ITEM REPLACEMENT COST FACTOR. The cost factor used to estimate the

replacement cost of an item. The cost factor is expressed as a percentage of the total

annual maintenance costs (both unscheduled and scheduled) per maintenance action for

the item. The default value is 200% COST

ITEM QUANTITY PER AIRCRAFT: The number of items in each aircraft system QPA

ITEM WEIGHT (in pounds) WT

MEAN TIME BETWEEN UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIONS (MTBUMA): The

average time in flight hours between unscheduled maintenance actions to correct (i.e.,

repair) item failures, defects, and malfunctions. MTBUMA

UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIONS PER YEAR (UMA): UMA is the average

number of unscheduled maintenance actions per year for the item. UMA is automatically

salculated by multiplying the AVERAGE NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT PER

YEAR by the AVERAGE FLYING HOURS PER YEAR PER AIRCRAFT and dividing by

the MEAN TIME BETWEEN UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIONS for the item.

Expressed as an equation: UMA = (AVSYS * SOH)/MTBUMA.

MEAN TIME (in manhours) TO REPAIR (MTTR) FOR UNSCHEDULED

MAINTENANCE: MTTR is the average time, in total manhours, required to accomplish

unscheduled maintenance (e.g., repair a failure or malfunction, accomplish an item

3verhaul, or recalibrate an item) on an item per unscheduled maintenance action. MTTR

includes all on-equipment and off-equipment repair time, including item preparation,

roubleshooting and testing, removal and replacement of parts, repair and calibration,

3verhaul and refurbishment, functional checks, etc.

SCHEDULED AIRWORTHINESS CHECK FREQUENCIES AND INSPECTION

INTERVALS. The required schedule interval, expressed in flight hours or months,

3etween major checks and inspections for determining the airworthiness of an item.

These schedule intervals are computed using structural inspection program

specifications established by the air carrier. These specifications are normally based on

manufacturer, FAA, and Maintenance Review Board (MRB) criteria, standards, and

specifications. For intervals expressed in months, the input factor should be entered as

an integer value less than 120 (i.e., ten years as an upper limit). For intervals expressed

in flight hours, the input factor should be entered as an integer value greater than 120.

Major checks (e._l., "C-Checks")

Accident damage (AD) structural inspections

UMA

MTTR

CCHECK

ADSI

Environmental deterioration (ED) structural inspections EDSI

Fatigue damage (FD) structural inspections FDSI

C-3
Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALl) inspections

SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIONS PER YEAR (SMA): SMA is the average

number of scheduled maintenance actions per year for the item for each type of

scheduled check or inspection. SMA is automatically computed for each inspection or

sheck category by dividing the check interval basis (hours or months) into the utilization

3asis (flight hours per year or aircraft). For example, for checks computed on a flight

hour basis, the equation is expressed in the following form:

SMA = (AVSYS * SOH)/(CCHECK or ADSI or EDSI or FDSI or ALISI in flight hours)

ALISI

Major operational checks (e.g., "C-Checks") CCSMA

Accident damage (AD) structural inspections ADSMA

Environmental deterioration (ED) structural inspections EDSMA

Fati_lue dama_le (FD) structural inspections

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALl)inspections

MEAN TIME (in manhours) FOR SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE (MTSM): MTSM is the

average time, in manhours, required to accomplish scheduled maintenance on an item

for each category of check or inspection. MTSM includes all on-equipment and offequipment maintenance time needed to perform scheduled maintenance, including item

3reparation, NDE/NDI, troubleshooting and testing, diagnosis and prognosis, removal

and replacement of parts, repair and calibration, overhaul and refurbishment, functional

shecks and tests, etc. MTSM does not include maintenance or supply delays.

FDSMA

ALISMA

Major operational checks (e.g., "C-Checks") CCMTSM

Accident dama_le (AD) structural inspections ADMTSM

Environmental deterioration (ED) structural inspections EDMTSM

Fati_lue dama_le (FD) structural inspections

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALl) inspections

NOT REPARABLE THIS STATION (NRTS) RATE: NRTS is the expected percentage of

time an item must be shipped to a specialized maintenance facility (e.g., contractor or

manufacturer) for repairs, overhaul, or calibration. The default value is 1%.

CONDEMNATION RATE (COND): COND is the expected percentage of time an item

sannot be repaired and is subsequently condemned for disposal or salvage. The default

value is 1%.

RETEST OK (RTOK) RATE. RTOK is the percentage of time an item is removed from

service for maintenance and subsequently checks serviceable during condition

assessment. A serviceable condition is usually designated as "Retest OK (RTOK)" when

diagnostics and testing cannot confirm the existence of a condition requiring corrective

(i.e., repair) maintenance. The default value is 1%

PROPORTIONALITY FACTOR FOR RTOK LABOR (PLRTOK): The average proportion

3f MTTR expended on items that RTOK, expressed as a percentage. The default value

is 5%.

&VERAGE MATERIAL COST PER REPAIR (MCPR): The average material cost

required to accomplish unscheduled maintenance (i.e., repair a failure or malfunction) on

an item.

&VERAGE MATERIAL COST PER SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTION (SMMCPA):

The average material cost required to accomplish scheduled maintenance on an item.

FDMTSM

ALIMTSM

NRTS

COND

RTOK

PLRTOK

MCPR

SMMCPA

C-4
CONSUMABLE MATERIALS REPAIR COST FACTOR. The average cost of

sonsumables (e.g., cleaners, swabs, solders, solvents, alcohol, etc) required to

accomplish unscheduled maintenance (i.e., repair a failure or malfunction) of an item per

unscheduled maintenance action, expressed as a percentage of MCPR. The default

value is 5%.

CONSUMABLE MATERIALS SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE COST FACTOR. The

average cost of consumables (e.g., cleaners, swabs, solders, solvents, alcohol, etc)

required to accomplish scheduled maintenance (i.e., repair a failure or malfunction) of an

item per scheduled maintenance action, expressed as a percentage of SMMCPA. The

default value is 5%

CONSUM

SMCONS

T RANSPO R TATION IN PUT DATA

COSTFACTOR '=NAME

TRANSPORTATION COST (BASE YEAR $) FOR SHIPPING THE ITEM TO THE

REPAIR FACILITY (TPCOS). The average cost (in base year dollars) to transport an

item between the removal location and the repair facility. This includes the costs

associated with packaging, handling, storing, and shipping the item. TPCOST

TRANSPORTATION COST (BASE YEAR $) FOR SHIPPING A NRTS ITEM A

SPECIALIZED REPAIR FACILITY (TPCOSN). The average cost (in base year dollars)

to transport an item that is NRTS to a specialized repair facility. This includes the costs

associated with packaging, handling, storing, and shipping the item. TPCOSN

T RAININGI N P U DATA

COSTFACTOR INAME

&SSIGNED MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL: The average number of structures

maintenance personnel assigned to each maintenance facility. NOM

PERSONNEL TURNOVER RATE: The average annual turnover rate of maintenance

3ersonnel. TOR

TRAINING HOURS REQUIRED FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL: The average

number of hours to properly train a new maintenance person. TRHRS

&VERAGE ANNUAL TRAINING HOURS REQUIRED FOR REQUALIFICATION AND

CONTINUATION TRAINING OF MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL: The average number

3f hours per year to provide requalification and continuation training for a maintenance

3erson. CTRHRS

TRAINING DEVELOPMENT/PRESENTATION COST (BASE YEAR $): The average

sost per training hour for personnel, materials, travel, and other resources (in base year

dollars) for developing, maintaining, and presenting training. TRCOST

TECHNICAL D ATAR EVI S IONI N P U DATA

COSTFACTOR =NAME

AVERAGE TECHNICAL DATA REVISION PAGES PER YEAR: The average number of

3ages of technical data that will be revised each year for all maintenance facilities. QTYRPG

&VERAGE REVISION COST PER PAGE: The average cost per page (in base year

dollars) to develop and publish revision and change pages for technical data used at the

maintenance facilities. CSTRPG

SO FTW A R E MAINTEN A NCEI N P U DAT A

COSTFACTOR =NAME

MEAN TIME (in manhours) FOR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE (MTSWM) The average

annual manhours required to accomplish software maintenance at all maintenance

facilities. MTSWM

C-5
RECU R RIN G FACIEITI ESIN PUT DAT A

COSTFACTOR =NAME

AVERAGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOOTPRINT (in square feet): The average

number of floor square feet for each maintenance facility. SQFT

AVERAGE RECURRING FACILITY COST (BASE YEAR $) PER SQUARE FOOT PER

YEAR: The average annual cost per square foot (in base year dollars) for recurring

Facilities maintenance. CSTSQFT

IT EM MANAG E M E NTIN PUT DATA

8OSTFACTOR =NAME

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SPARE, REPAIR PART, AND OTHER MAINTENANCE

STOCK ITEM TYPES MANAGED IN THE INVENTORY SYSTEM: The average number

3f of different types of spares, repair parts, and other maintenance stock items that are

stocked in the inventory system at the maintenance facilities for use in the maintenance

3f aircraft structures. QTYSP

AVERAGE ANNUAL INVENTORY MANAGEMENT COST (BASE YEARS): The average

annual cost (in base year dollars) to maintain a spare, repair part, or maintenance stock

item type in the inventory management system. IMCOST

AVERAGE QUANTITY OF SPARES, REPAIR PARTS, AND OTHER MAINTENANCE

STOCK ITEMS THAT ARE STOCKED IN THE INVENTORY: The average quantity of

spares, repair parts, and other maintenance stocks items that are stocked in the physical

inventory at all maintenance facilities for use in the maintenance of aircraft structures.

AVERAGE ANNUAL STOCKAGE COST (BASE YEARS) PER STOCKED ITEM: The

average annual cost (in base year dollars) to stock a spare, repair, or other maintenance

stock item in the inventory at the maintenance facilities.

QTYS

CSTSL

E NGIN EE RING C HA NG ESINP UT DATA

COSTFACTOR INAME

AVERAGE ENGINEERING CHANGES IMPLEMENTED PER YEAR: The average

number of engineering changes processed, evaluated, and implemented per year. NYECP

AVERAGE COST (BASE YEAR $) FOR PROCESSING AND IMPLEMENTING

ENGINEERING CHANGES: The average cost (in base year dollars) to process,

analyze, and implement an engineering change. This includes the costs associated with

engineering analysis, change proposal engineering evaluation and verification, change

3roposal administrative and contractual processing, retrofit kit development, and retrofit

3ersonnel, equipment, material, and related resource utilization. ECPCST

WAR RANT¥1 N PUT DATA

COSTFACTOR =NAME

AVERAGE WARRANTY ACTIONS PER YEAR: The average number of warranty

actions (e.g., warranty returns or warranty maintenance) per year for items that are

warranted. WA

YEARS OF WARRANTY COVERAGE: The number of years of remaining warranty

soverage. WAYRS

AVERAGE COST PER WARRANTY ACTION (BASE YEAR $): The average cost (in

3ase year dollars) per warranty action. This includes the cost for sustaining,

implementing, administering, and enforcing the warranty. CSTWA

C-6
W AR RANTY IN PUT DAT A

COST FACTOR .NAME

AVERAGE WARRANTY ACTIONS PER YEAR: The average number of warranty

actions (e.g., warranty returns or warranty maintenance) per year for items that are

warranted. WA

YEARS OF WARRANTY COVERAGE: The number of years of remaining warranty

coverage. WAYRS

AVERAGE COST PER WARRANTY ACTION (BASE YEAR $) The average cost (in

base year dollars) per warranty action. This includes the cost for sustaining,

implementing, administering, and enforcing the warranty. CSTWA

CO NTRAC TO RE OG ISTICS S UPPO RTINP UT DATA

COST FACTOR .NAME

AVERAGE CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT MANHOURS PER YEAR: The

average number of contractor logistics support manhours required for maintenance

support per year. CLSMH

AVERAGE CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT COST PER MANHOUR (BASE

YEAR $): The average cost (in base year dollars) per manhour for obtaining contractor

logistics support services. CLSCOST

MISCELLANEOUS LOGISTICS SUPPORT INPUT DATA

COST FACTOR .NAME

AVERAGE MISCELLANEOUS LOGISTICS SUPPORT COSTS PER YEAR (BASE

YEAR $): The average miscellaneous costs in base year dollars for logistics support

required per year. MISCLSC

C-7
NASA AIRCRA FT S L

LTH MONI SYS

 C OLOG¥

ASSES T

MFE-CYCLECOSTB TANALYSIS

MODEL

ACQUISITION COST INPUT DATA

CO ST FACTOR INAME

NUMBER OF STRUCTURE: The total number of structures to have

a health monitoring system (HMS) capability installed. Unless

3therwise specified, the default value will be the number of average

3perational aircraft per year times the quantity per aircraft. NHSS

PROCURED HMS COMPONENT QUANTITY: The total quantity of

aach HMS component to be procured for each structure. For sensors

to be installed on a host structure, the procured quantity would be

aqual to the number of components per structure. For components

installed on a per aircraft basis, for example the demodulator/signal

3rocessor and on-board data processor, enter the quantity per

aircraft. For other components, enter a value that is equal to the

intended or expected procurement quantity.

Sensors per host system SPCQ

Demodulator/Signal Processor DPCQ

On-board Data Processors per host system PPCQ

Data Transfer Unit (laptop or equivalent). The default value is the

number of operating locations with maintenance facilities plus the

number of organic depot facilities plus the number of contractor

maintenance facilities. (Assumes one per facility.) DTUPCQ

Remote Client Computers (remote clients to centralized server

computer). The default value is the number of operating locations

with maintenance facilities plus the number of organic depot

facilities plus the number of contractor maintenance facilities.

Centralized Server Computer (server to Remote client computers).

The default value is the number of organic depots.

Distributed LAN/WAN communications equipment and resources.

The default value is the number of local operating locations with

maintenance facilities plus the number of organic depots plus the

number of contractor maintenance facilities.

Software Development Hardware, Software, and Tools. The default

value is the number of local operating locations with maintenance

facilities plus the number of organic depots plus the number of

contractor maintenance facilities.

CCPCQ

SCPCQ

LWPCQ

SDPCQ

C-8
COMPONENT AVERAGE UNIT ACQUISITION COST (BASE YEAR

$): The average unit cost (non-recurring) per procured component

system in base year dollars associated with acquiring or developing

each major technology component of the health monitoring system.

Sensors SUAC

Demodulator/Signal Processor DUAC

On-board Data Processor PUAC

Data Transfer Unit (laptop or equivalent) DTUUAC

Remote Client Computers (remote clients to centralized server

computer) CCUAC

Centralized Server Computer (server to Remote client computers) SCUAC

Distributed LAN/WAN LWUAC

Software Development Hardware, Software, and Tools SDUAC

PRODUCTION AND INSTALLATION START-UP (PISU) - BASE

YEAR $: The average per unit non-recurring start-up cost (in base

year dollars) associated with producing and installing the HMS

components. This cost factor includes the costs associated with

engineering analysis; generation of engineering drawings and data;

engineering reviews and qualification testing; process and production

engineering; and tooling, support equipment, facilities, and utilities

development, modification, refurbishment, and retrofit. The cost is

computed as a percentage of the average unit acquisition cost of

each component using the PISU input factor. The default value for

PISU is 5%. PISU

Software Development Hardware, Software, and Tools

Sensors SPISU

Demodulator/Signal Processor DPISU

On-board Data Processor PPISU

Data Transfer Unit (laptop or equivalent) DTUPISU

Remote Client Computers (remote clients to centralized server

computer) CCPISU

Centralized Server Computer (server to Remote client computers) SCPISU

Distributed LAN/WAN LWPISU

SDPISU

COMPONENT AVERAGE UNIT INSTALLATION COST (BASE

YEAR $): The average unit cost (non-recurring) per procured

component system in base year dollars associated with installing,

integrating, calibrating, testing, and certifying each major technology

component of the health monitoring system. This cost factor includes

the non-recurring average unit cost in base year dollars associated

with the modification or retrofit of the host system required for the

installation of each major technology component of the health

monitoring system. It does NOT include the costs associated with

3roduction and installation start-up. The cost is computed as a

3ercentage of the average unit acquisition cost of each component

using the UIC input factor. The default value for PISU is 50%. CUIC

Sensors SUIC

Demodulator/Signal Processor DUIC

On-board Data Processor PUIC

Data Transfer Unit (laptop or equivalent) DTUUIC

C-9
RemoteClientComputers(remoteclientsto centralizedserver

computer) CCUIC

CentralizedServerComputer(serverto Remoteclientcomputers)SCUIC

DistributedLAN/WAN LWUIC

SoftwareDevelopment Hardware,Software,andTools SDUIC

NEWSUPPORTEQUIPMENTACQUISITIONCOST(BASEYEAR

$): Theaveragetotalacquisitioncost(non-recurring) fornewsupport

_quipmentrequiredateachmaintenancefacility.

MACK.AGING, HANULING,_5IUHAGI-,ANUIHAN_SHUHIAIION

(PHS&T)COST(BASEYEAR$) FOREACHLEVELOF

MAINTENANCE: TheaverageperunitPHS&Tcost(non-recurring)

associated with supporting the production, delivery, and installation of

HMS components into their host structures. The cost is computed as

a percentage of the average unit acquisition cost of each component

using the PHST input factor. The default value for PHST is 5%.

SECOST

Software Development Hardware, Software, and Tools

INITIAL TRAINING HOURS REQUIRED FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED

PERSONNEL AT EACH LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE: The average

number of hours required to provide initial (i.e., non-recurring)

3rientation and qualification training to each maintenance person

assigned at each level of maintenance.

INITIAL TRAINING DEVELOPMENT/PRESENTATION COST PER

TRAINING HOUR (BASE YEAR $): The average non-recurring cost

3er training hour (in base year dollars) for developing, maintaining,

and presenting initial orientation and qualification training courses to

maintenance personnel. This cost factor includes the costs

associated with personnel (instructor), materials, training devices,

travel, and other training resources.

PHST

Sensors SPHST

Demodulator/Signal Processor DPHST

On-board Processor PPHST

Data Transfer Unit (laptop or equivalent) DTUPHS-r

Remote Client Computers (remote clients to centralized server

computer) CCPHST

Centralized Server Computer (server to Remote client computers) SCPHST

Distributed LAN/WAN LWPHST

SDPHST

AVERAGE PAGES OF NEW TECHNICAL DATA TO BE INITIALLY

PRODUCED, GENERATED, OR PROCURED: The average number

3f pages of technical data to be initially (i.e., non-recurring) produced,

generated, or procured for use at each maintenance facility.

AVERAGE NON-RECURRING COST PER PAGE FOR

PRODUCING NEW TECHNICAL DATA. The average non-recurring

sost per page (in base year dollars) to develop and publish technical

data to be used at the maintenance facilities. This cost factor

includes the cost to print, collate, bind, punch holes, or otherwise

3repare as a finished document the new technical data to be initially

3rovided to each maintenance facility.

ITRGHRS

ITCOST

QTYIPG

CSTIPG

C-]0
INITIALSOFTWAREDEVELOPMENTCOST:Thetotalaverage

initialcost(i.e.,non-recurring) fordevelopingnewsoftwarerequired

fortheproduction,installation,operation,andsupportof eachHMS

somponent.Onlyenteraninputifthiscostisnotincludedintheunit

acquisitioncostforeachHMScomponent

Sensors SSDC

Demodulator/Signal Processor DSDC

On-boardProcessor PSDC

DataTransferUnit(laptoporequivalent) DTUSDC

RemoteClientComputers(remoteclientstocentralizedserver

computer) CCSDC

CentralizedServerComputer(serverto Remoteclientcomputers) SCSDC

DistributedLAN/WAN LWSDC

SoftwareDevelopment Hardware,Software,andTools SDSDC

AVERAGEFLOORFOOTPRINT(insquarefeet)OFNEWFACILITY

SONSTRUCTIONREQUIRED:Theaveragenumberofsquarefeet

associatedwithnewfacilityconstructionforeachmaintenancefacility.

AVERAGENON-RECURRINGNEWFACILITYCONSTRUCTION

SOST(BASEYEAR$) PERSQUAREFOOT: Theaveragenonrecurringcostpersquarefoot(inbaseyeardollars)fornewfacilities

sonstructionatthemaintenancefacilities.

AVERAGEFOOTPRINT(insquarefeet)OFFACILITY

MODIFICATION, RENOVATION, ORREFURBISHMENT

SONSTRUCTIONTheaveragenumberofsquarefeetassociated

_vithfacilitymodification,renovation, orrefurbishment constructionfor

aachmaintenancefacility.

AVERAGENON-RECURRINGFACILITY

MODIFICATION,RENOVATION, ANDREFURBISHMENTCOST

BASEYEAR$)PERSQUAREFOOT: Theaveragenon-recurring

sostpersquarefoot(inbaseyeardollars)forfacilitiesmodification,

renovation, andrefurbishment athemaintenancefacilitiesforeach

levelofmaintenance.

NUMBEROFNEWITEMSTOBEINTRODUCEDINTOTHE

INVENTORYMANAGEMENTSYSTEM:Theaveragenumberof

newinventoryitems(e.g.,spare,repairparts,andothermaintenance

items)tobeintroducedintotheinventorysystemasaresultofthe

introductionofthenewHMScapability.

NON-RECURRINGITEMINVENTORYINTRODUCTIONCOST

BASEYEARS):Thetotalnon-recurringaveragecost(inbaseyear

dollars)to introducenewinventoryitems(e.g.,spare,repairparts,

andothermaintenanceitems)intotheinventorymanagement

system.

NCSQFT

CSSQFT

MRSQFT

MRCSQFT

IIIINTRO

IIICST

C-11
NON-RECURRING WARRANTY PROCUREMENT COST: The

average per unit non-recurring cost for developing, negotiating, and

sontractually implementing required component, subsystem, and

system warranties associated with acquiring or developing each

major technology component of the health monitoring system. The

sost is computed as a percentage of the average unit acquisition cost

3f each component using the WPC input factor. The default value for

WPC is 5%. WPC

Software Development Hardware, Software, and Tools

NON-RECURRING CONTRACTOR SUPPORT COST: The total non

recurring cost for obtaining contractor support services needed for

acquiring or developing the health monitoring system.

MISCELLANEOUS ACQUISITION COSTS: The total non-recurring

miscellaneous costs associated with acquiring or developing the

health monitoring system. These costs include all relevant costs not

directly allocated to the above cost categories.

Sensors SWPC

Demodulator/Signal Processor DWPC

On-board Processor PWPC

Data Transfer Unit (laptop or equivalent) DTUWPC

Remote Client Computers (remote clients to centralized server

computer) CCWPC

Centralized Server Computer (server to Remote client computers) SCWPC

Distributed LAN/WAN LWWPC

SDWPC

ACSC

MAC

C-12
iiiiiiiiiii ooo

iz

no

o

00o

ii ii ?o

w

ii ii ioE Ew

÷o

ii ÷0owazwozzw

_c

_c

ii 0

_Jwmz0

_Jw

_Jw

_5
Ziii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii _iii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii _iii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii -iii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii _"

O_

GO GO

II II

COG')

>->-

o°_o

_<><>o

_0bbP

(Zl

zasm

D_h

_ -

_0_Cl

II II II

8

?

13..

O

O

II

_ o

D_ b N P P_ _o

__ Go _ <

_ DD

II II II II II II II II II

O

o

13..

O

b

<

O

GO

II

0

(D

u)

"O

(D

c

o

-_g _

O

D9

E

o

o

c o

.__ o

-o

>

_ z

g_5 _

O121 _

O

o

Z

O

O

Z

0 co

o

a9

i/)

'o

a9

c

(9

0

-_g _

_o o_

_g _E

-_- 58

-_ NE

(Zl tin"

o.

E

o

o

c

-d

E

no

>

v

o.

E

o

o

N

C

o
GO

-AO>o+oO

-AO><

c] coco

>->-

coco+o

D=_ ooo- ---_ o0o0o0 o_7-

II II II II II II II II II _ ° _ o

8)

dm_d

o_o____

oooo

o_, co

II II

8)E0o

c-

-0

8)E

8)

n-o>

8)

vE

8_

8)

CO_

On

00

0_

Ca

coI

0_

C]

CO

II

_900

-0

t-O

"OT

cQ. O>

121 O

k¢3 0
OO

h-I

C_

n-+_

5

_.q

-->O+OO

_J>

CI+OO

_J>

_J

_9m

O

LO _O

II II II II II II II II

O

II II II

O><

(D+

(DO><+

(DO>e

LLOO

nLLO

n-+

LLOO

O

r---

"b

O rr O Z Z --

II II

m

V- mv

II

Oo

OO

a_& 0a

0

<_ bPP

_ _oo

II II II II II II

0

c'_

z_ _'o o:5

oa_

>_ o_

cO

ZEo

-oo

.__.co

.__.oZ

-_ I--0

,IDc

0 "6 o oE

o__

o ._o

%zz

_oo

_= -r V-=

_<,'__oz

• ILl _ E

o

60

_z

(,'3

(,'3

(,'3

_o

(,'3

-Ocoo

(,'3

-_g_

e._ if)

__ __8

-_ NE

ClnEooc

-dE

n-o>EoO

"oNCO
o

II II II

0000

LO

0.1

0

_900

-0

t-O

"0m

_

_0

5_zo ¢_ 0 uJ

n co0
APPENDIX D

LOGISTICS SUPPORT COST FACTORS

D-1
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

INITIAL YEAR OF STUDY: The first year that the study is to address. The

default value is 1999. YRSTUDY

LIFE-CYCLE BASIS IN YEARS: The total number of years for which costs are to

be computed. The default value is 20 years. LCBASlS

FISCAL YEAR OF DOLLAR VALUES (BASE YEAR $): The base fiscal year in

which all dollar amounts are to be expressed. The default value is 1999. BY

AVERAGE NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT PER YEAR: The average

number of authorized aircraft expected to be in operational use per year.

AVERAGE NUMBER OF OPERATING LOCATIONS WITH MAINTENANCE

CAPABILITY PER YEAR

AVERAGE NUMBER OF ORGANIC OPERATIONAL DEPOTS PER YEAR

AVERAGE NUMBER OF CONTRACTOR MAINTENANCE FACILITIES PER

YEAR

AVERAGE FLYING HOURS PER YEAR PER AIRCRAFT: The average

expected flying hours per year for an aircraft in operational use.

AVGSYS

LAVG LOC

DAVGLOC

CAVG LO C

SOH

]3-2
MAINTENANCE SUPPORT INPUT DATA

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

COST FACTOR !NAME iVALUE

AVERAGE HOURLY LABOR RATE (BASE YEAR $) AT EACH LEVEL OF

MAINTENANCE (MLR): The average hourly labor rate (in base year dollars per

hour) of the aircraft maintenance personnel at each level of maintenance. In

addition to the direct labor rate, Include in this hourly labor rate the allocated

costs associated with G&A, overhead, and other indirect costs. MLR

AVERAGE SOFTWARE HOURLY LABOR RATE (BASE YEAR $) AT EACH

LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE (SWLR). The average hourly labor rate (in base

year dollars per hour) of the software development/maintenance personnel at

each level of maintenance. In addition to the direct labor rate, Include in this

hourly labor rate the allocated costs associated with G&A, overhead, and other

indirect costs. SWLR

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION FACTOR (SEUF) AT EACH LEVEL OF

MAINTENANCE. SEUF is the average estimated percentage of time that the

support equipment will be utilized relative to the average time that the SE is

available for use. SEUF cannot be greater than 100% nor less than 0%. The

default value is 100%. SEUF i00%

SPARES CONFIDENCE LEVEL (SCF) AT EACH LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE.

SCF is the probability of meeting all spares demands within the expected

maintenance turnaround time. SCF is expressed as a proportional percentage

less than or equal to 100%. (For example, an input of 90 implies that there is

90% confidence that a spare demand can be satisfied within the expected

maintenance turnaround time.) The default value is 100%. SCF i00%

Operating locations w/maintenance capability LSCF i00%

Organic operational depots DSCF t00%

Contractor maintenance facilities CSCF

EARNED HOUR RATIO (EHR) AT EACH LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE. EHR is

the conversion factor for translating mean time to repair (expressed in manhours)

into average total labor elapsed time. EHR must be greater than or equal to zero.

The default value is 100%.

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT (SE) AVERAGE TOTAL UNIT COST (SCST) AT EACH

LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE (BASE YEAR $). SCST is the average unit cost (in

base year dollars) of all support equipment resources used at each location for

each level of maintenance. SCST

SE MAINTENANCE COST FACTOR (SEMANT). SEMANT is used to

approximate the annual cost of maintaining and supporting the SE at each level

of maintenance. SEMANT is expressed as a percentage of the SCST. This

factor usually has a value between 3% and 10%. SE maintenance costs are

computed using the following equation by multiplying the SEMANT into the SCST

in accordance with the following equation: SEMANT x SCST. The default value

is 10%

EHR

SEMANT

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiO0i%

[)-3
TR ANSPO RT ATIO N INPUT DATA

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii...............................

TRANSPORTATION COST (BASE YEAR $) FOR SHIPPING THE ITEM TO ................................

THE REPAIR FACILITY (TPCOS). The average cost (in base year dollars) to

transport an item between the removal location and the repair facility. This

includes the costs associated with packaging, handling, storing, and shipping the

item.

TRANSPORTATION COST (BASE YEAR $) FOR SHIPPING A NRTS ITEM TO

THE REPAIR FACILITY (TPCOSN). The average cost (in base year dollars) to

transport an item that is NRTS to the repair facility. This includes the costs

associated with packaging, handling, storing, and shipping the item.

TPCOST

TPCOSN

.................................. $_

.................................. $_

RECURRING TRAINING INPUT DATA

ASSIGNED MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL: The average number of structures ................................

maintenance personnel assigned to each maintenance facility. NOM ............................................_i_i_

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

PERSONNEL TURNOVER RATE: The average annual turnover rate of

maintenance personnel. TOR ....................... _

TRAINING HOURS REQUIRED FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL: The ................................

average number of hours to properly train a new maintenance person. TRHRS ............................................:@_

AVERAGE ANNUAL TRAINING HOURS REQUIRED FOR CONTINUATION

TRAINING OF MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL: The average number of hours

per year to provide continuation training for a qualified maintenance person. CTRHRS ............................................¢8

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TRAINING DEVELOPMENT/PRESENTATION COST (BASE YEAR $): The

average cost per year for personnel, materials, travel, and other resources (in

base year dollars) for developing, maintaining, and presenting recurring training

courses per class hour. TRCOST .................................. $_

D-4
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

..........................

COST FACTO R, NAME iVALUE

AVERAGE TECHNICAL DATA REVISION PAGES PER YEAR: The average ................................

number of pages of technical data that will be revised each year for all

maintenance facilities. QTYRPG ...................... _i_8

illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllli

AVERAGE REVISION COST PER PAGE: The average cost per page (in base iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

year dollars) to develop and publish revision and change pages for technical iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

documents used at the maintenance facilities. CSTRPG iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_

SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE INPUT DATA

COST FACTO R =NAME iVALUE

MEAN TIME (in manhours) FOR SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE (MTSWM): The

average time, in manhours, per month required to accomplish software

maintenance at all maintenance facilities. MTSWM 14625

R ECU RRING FACILITIES INPUT DATA

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..........................

COST FACTOR, NAME IVAEUE

AVERAGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOOTPRINT (in square feet) The

average number of floor square feet for each maintenance facility. SQFT iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS_8

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

AVERAGE RECURRING FACILITY COST (BASE YEAR $) PER SQUARE

FOOT PER YEAR: The average annual cost per square foot (in base year

dollars) per year for recurring facilities maintenance. CSTSQFT ........................................ i_

D-5
ITEM MANAGEMENT INPUT DATA

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..........................

COST FACTO R, NAME iVALUE

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SPARE, REPAIR PART, AND OTHER MAINTENANCE

STOCK ITEM TYPES MANAGED IN THE INVENTORY SYSTEM: The average

number of of different types of spares, repair parts, and other maintenance stock

items that are stocked in the inventory system at the maintenance facilities for

use in the maintenance of aircraft structures. QTYSP i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

AVERAGE ANNUAL INVENTORY MANAGEMENT COST (BASE YEARS): The

average annual cost (in base year dollars) to maintain a spare, repair part, or

maintenance stock item type in the inventory management system. IMCOST ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,$_

AVERAGE QUANTITY OF SPARES, REPAIR PARTS, AND OTHER

MAINTENANCE STOCK ITEMS THAT ARE STOCKED IN THE INVENTORY:

The average quantity of spares, repair parts, and other maintenance stocks items

that are stocked in the physical inventory at all maintenance facilities for use in

the maintenance of aircraft structures. QTYS ................................... t_i_8

AVERAGE ANNUAL STOCKAGE COST (BASE YEARS) PER STOCKED ITEM: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

The average annual cost (in base year dollars)to stock a spare, repair, or other iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

maintenance stock item in the inventory at the maintenance facilities. CSTSL iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ _

COST FACTOR, NAME IVALUE

AVP_HAL_P_ P_NL_INP_P_HINL_UPIANL_P__5IMHLP_MP_NI P_U HP_H YP_AH: I ne

average number of engineering changes processed, evaluated, and implemented

per year. NYECP ........................... _.

AVERAGE COST (BASE YEAR $) FOR PROCESSING AND IMPLEMENTING

ENGINEERING CHANGES: The average cost (in base year dollars) to process,

analyze, and implement an engineering change. This includes the costs

associated with engineering analysis, change proposal engineering evaluation

and verification, change proposal administrative and contractual processing,

retrofit kit development, and retrofit personnel, equipment, material, and related

resource utilization. ECPCST

]3-6
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

..........................

COST FACTO R, NAME iVALUE

AVERAGE CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT MANHOURS PER YEAR:

The average number of contractor logistics support manhours required for

maintenance support per year. CLSMH .......................................... t_i_6_

AVERAGE CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT COST PER MANHOUR

(BASE YEAR $) FOR EACH MAINTENANCE LEVEL: The average cost (in base

year dollars) per manhour for obtaining contractor logistics support services. CLSCOST

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ST

]3-7
APPENDIX E

SENSITIVITY FACTORS

E-1
NASAAIRCRAFTSTRUC LHEALTH

 NIFO SVS (AS

OLOG Y ASSESSMENT

LIFE- CYCLE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODEL

LOGISTICS SU PPORT COST (ESC)S ENSITIVITY

FACTORS (used to approximate hypothetical

of the endowment of the item wit ha health

LSC S ENSITIVITYF ACTO R i NAM E. V AEUE

UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIONS (UMA). Used to varythe value of

the unscheduled maintenance actions (UMA) cost factor for the purpose of

measuring the impact of changes in this parameter. The value of the sensitivity

factor is expressed as a percentage change in the baseline values of UMA

entered in the R&M Input worksheet. Up to five sensitivity values can be entered.

SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIONS (SMA). Used to vary the value of the

scheduled maintenance actions (SMA) cost factor for the purpose of measuring

the impact of changes in this parameter. The value of the sensitivity factor is

expressed as a percentage change in the baseline values of SMA entered in the

R&M Input worksheet. Up to five sensitivity values can be entered.

MEAN TIME TO REPAIR FOR UNSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE (MTTR): Used

to vary the value of the MTTR cost factor for the purpose of measuring the impact

of changes in this parameter. The value of the sensitivity factor is expressed as a

percentage change in the baseline values of MTTR entered in the R&M Input

worksheet. Up to five sensitivity values can be entered.

SFUMA1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig0%

SFUMA2 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFUMA3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiT0%

SFUMA4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii60%

SFUMA5

SFSMA1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig0%

SFSMA2 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFSMA3 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFSMA4 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFSMA5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSO%

SFMTTR1 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFMTTR2 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFMTTR3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS0%

SFMTTR4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS0%

SFMTTR5 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

E-2
MEANTIMEFORSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE (MTSM): Usedtovarythe

valueoftheMTSMcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact of

changesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asa

percentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofMTSMenteredintheR&MInput

worksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

SFMTSM1 50%

SFMTSM2 50%

SFMTSM3 50%

SFMTSM4 50%

SFMTSM5 50%

RETESTOK(RTOK) RATE.UsedtovarythevalueoftheRTOKcostfactorfor

thepurposeofmeasuring theimpact ofchangesinthisparameter. Thevalueof

thesensitivity factorisexpressed asapercentage changeinthebaselinevalues

ofRTOKenteredintheR&MInputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescan beentered.

SUPPORTEQUIPMENT UTILIZATION FACTOR(SEUF).Usedtovarythe

valueoftheSEUFcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact of

changesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asa

percentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofSEUFenteredintheMaintenance

Support Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

SUPPORTEQUIPMENT (SE)AVERAGETOTALUNITCOST(SCST). Usedto

varythevalueoftheSCSTcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact of

changesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asa

percentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofSCSTenteredintheMaintenance

Support Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

AVERAGEMATERIAL COSTPERREPAIR(MCPR). Usedtovarythevalueof

theMCPRcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact ofchangesinthis

)arameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asapercentage

changeinthebaselinevaluesofMCPRenteredintheR&MInputworksheet. Up

tofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

SFRTOK1 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFRTOK2 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFRTOK3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iiO0%

SFRTOK4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iiO0%

SFRTOK5 100%

SFSEUF1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii90%

SFSEUF2 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFSEUF3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii75%

SFSEUF4 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFSEUF5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii25%

SFSCST1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii90%

SFSCST2 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFSCST3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii75%

SFSCST4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS0%

SFSCST5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii25%

SFMCPR1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS0%

SFMCPR2 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFMCPR3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii50%

SFMCPR4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiS0%

E-3
AVERAGEMATERIAL COSTPERSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTION

(SMMCPA). UsedtovarythevalueoftheSMMCPAcostfactorforthepurpose

ofmeasuring theimpact ofchangesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthe

sensitivity factorisexpressed asapercentage changeinthebaselinevaluesof

SMMCPAenteredintheR&MInputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescan beentered.

AVERAGEMAINTENANCE FACILITYFOOTPRINT insquarefet(SQFT):

UsedtovarythevalueoftheSQFTcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring the

impact ofchangesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factoris

expressed asapercentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofSQFTenteredinthe

Facilities Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

MEANTIME(inmanhours) FORSOFTWARE MAINTENANCE (MTSWM): Used

tovarythevalueoftheMTSWMcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring the

impact ofchangesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factoris

expressed asapercentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofMTSWMenteredin

theSoftwareMaintenance Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbe

entered.

AVERAGENUMBEROFSPARE, REPAIRPART, ANDOTHERMAINTENANCE

STOCKITEMTYPESMANAGEDINTHEINVENTORY SYSTEM: Usedtovary

thevalueoftheQTYSPcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact of

changesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asa

percentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofQTYSPenteredintheSoftware

Maintenance Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

SFMCPR5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFSMMCPA1_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFSMMCPA2iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFSMMCPA3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFSMMCPA4i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFSMMCPA5

SFSQFT1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFSQFT2 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFSQFT3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFSQFT4

SFSQFT5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ii20%

SFMTSWM1 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFMTSWM2 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i

SFMTSWM3 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFMTSWM4 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFMTSWM5

SFQTYSP1 120%

SFQTYSP2 120%

SFQTYSP3 120%

SFQTYSP4 _20%

SFQTYSP5 _20%

E-4
AVERAGEQUANTITYOFSPARES, REPAIRPARTS, ANDOTHER

MAINTENANCE STOCKITEMSTHATARESTOCKEDINTHEINVENTORY:

UsedtovarythevalueoftheQTYScostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring the

impact ofchangesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factoris

expressed asapercentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofQTYSenteredinthe

SoftwareMaintenance Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbe

entered.

AVERAGETECHNICAL DATAREVISIONPAGESPERYEAR:Usedtovarythe

valueoftheQTYRPGcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact of

changesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asa

percentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofQTYRPGenteredintheSoftware

Maintenance Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

TRAININGHOURSREQUIREDFORNEWLYASSIGNEDPERSONNEL AT

EACHLEVELOFMAINTENANCE: UsedtovarythevalueoftheTRHRScost

factorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact ofchangesinthisparameter. The

valueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asapercentage changeinthebaseline

valuesofTRHRSenteredintheSoftwareMaintenance Inputworksheet. Upto

fivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

AVERAGEANNUALTRAININGHOURSREQUIRED FORCONTINUATION

TRAININGOFMAINTENANCE PERSONNEL: Usedtovarythevalueofthe

CTRHRScostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact ofchangesinthis

)arameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asapercentage

changeinthebaselinevaluesofCTRHRSenteredintheSoftwareMaintenance

Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

AVERAGECONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORTMANHOURS PERYEAR:

UsedtovarythevalueoftheCLSMHcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring the

impact ofchangesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factoris

expressed asapercentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofCLSMHenteredin

theSoftwareMaintenance Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbe

entered.

SFQTYS1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFQTYS2 _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFQTYS3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFQTYS4 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFQTYS5 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFQTYRPG1iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFQTYRPG2iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFQTYRPG3iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFQTYRPG4iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFQTYRPG5

SFTRHRS1 120%

SFTRHRS2 120%

SFTRHRS3 120%

SFTRHRS4 _20%

SFTRHRS5 _20%

SFCTRHRS1i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFCTRHRS2_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFCTRHRS3

SFCTRHRS4_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFCTRHRS5iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFCLSMH1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

E,-5
AVERAGEENGINEERING CHANGESIMPLEMENTED PERYEAR:Usedto

varythevalueoftheNYECPcostfactorforthepurposeofmeasuring theimpact

ofchangesinthisparameter. Thevalueofthesensitivity factorisexpressed asa

percentage changeinthebaselinevaluesofNYECPenteredintheSoftware

Maintenance Inputworksheet. Uptofivesensitivity valuescanbeentered.

SFCLSMH2 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFCLSMH3 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFCLSMH4 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

SFCLSMH5 i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_

SFNYECP1 _20%

SFNYECP2 120°/o

SFNYECP3 120°/o

SFNYECP4 120%

SFNYECP5 _20%

£,-6
APPENDIX F

ASHMS ACQUISITION COST

F-1
_¢

u_ "_ _

_=_

_ ,

_,__

D'_ ?

I--

cc

w

o_

o_

F0

0

z

0

F0

0

<

0

[]

cc

w

0

_9

0

0

z

0

_9

0

0

<

0

[]

w

z

w

_9

<

00

_9

0

0

z

0

_9

0

0

<

0

[]

8

o

8

o

\

\\

\

o\

% _

%

_ %

f_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_ :_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i _oo _o %>_

_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii__iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii _'%o _, _ _'o_.

%, % _"

o8 o8 o8 o8 o'%%%%0

d _ d

(666 _ = Je_A _ses) VO_o0_>[3 ,

,4.

($) tsoo uo!t!s!nbov StNHSV letOl
oE

_o

5"R==

Fo

Fcc

w

o_

o_

F0

0

Z

_o

O

O

<

O

[]

nW

O

_9

O

O

z

_o

O

O

<

O

[]

w

z

w

_9

<

o3

_9

O

O

z

_o

O

O

<

O

[]

!

m_m

mNNNNN

liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Emmmm

NNNNNNNNNNNNN

_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

L_ 0 L_ 0 L_

O4 O4 _-

0

(666L = JeaA ases)

($) tsoo uo!t!s!nbov StNHSV leto/

\

\\

\

o\

%

%

%

\ %

%
_.=oE

(I) 0 _

,_ |

I-"

cc

w

o_

o_

F0

0

z

0

F0

0

<

0

[]

nW

0

o9

0

0

z

0

o9

0

0

<

0

[]

w

z

w

o9

<

o3

o9

0

0

z

0

o9

0

0

<

0

[]

8

8

o

\

% °

\\

%

% %

% % _ _ %

% \ %,

\

i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil -'_,_ "__ "'_ _e,. °

vO x/4_ " _-

° ° ° ° ° ° ° %_%o

o_ _ _'%,_

A.

(666[ : JeaA ases) VO_'o'o_

($) :_soo uo!:Hs!nbov SIRHSV le:_ol 0_'o"

U_
2

E

E_

_ __

_'_ ?

i--

ecc

w

o_

o_

F0

0

z

0

F0

0

<

0

[]

nW

0

_9

0

0

z

0

_9

0

0

<

0

[]

w

z

w

_9

<

ffl

_9

0

0

z

0

0

0

<

0

[]

oo

8

\

\\

%

_ %

\

mmm _ -_o

_iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii °'_'o "_. _,

%

%

(666 _ = _eeA _eS) "_'00_

($) lSO0 uo!l!s!nbov SI_HSV lelOl %_,

_7
cc

w

(3-

(3-

F--

0

0

Z

0

F0

0

0

rr

0

8_,-_

I.- _-

o ,_ ,

w

z

w

GO

(33

IGO

O

O

z

O

IGO

D

O

O

O

I--

[]

mll

liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 _ _ 0 _

0,1 0,1 _9-

(666L = JeaA ase8)

($) lSOO uo!l!s!nbov SINHSV lelo/

\\

\

% %

% %. % %,

V_
_o E

(I) 0 _

_._ I-"

cc

w

o_

o_

F0

0

Z

0

F0

0

<

0

[]

nW

0

_9

0

0

z

0

_9

0

0

<

0

[]

w

z

w

_9

<

ffl

_9

0

0

z

0

_9

0

0

<

0

[]

8

8

o

\

\\

\

o\

% _

%

_ %

D_

8

8

o

(666 L = JeeA _se_)

($) _SO0 uo!_!s!nbov SI/_HSV le_Ol

\

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii _%o _o %'h

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii _'%o _. _ _o_.

%. % _"

oooooo,%%%%0
£

ooo, °

<,_=_

o._ ?

i-_

t-

£E

LU

O_

O_

03

0

0

Z

o

03

0

0

<

d

0

[]

oz

w

O

03

O

O

z

_o

O

O

<

O

[]

w

_z

d

w

03

<

03

O

O

z

O

03

O

O

<

d

<

6

[]

!

mNNNNNJNN

mNNNNN

mill/

mlNNNN NNNN

_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii _iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

oo oo oo oo oo

o o o o o

o o o o o

N o _ d N _ _ N N

(6661. = Jeer eses)

($) _soo uo!_!s!nbov SMI-ISV le_Ol

%

\ \

%

%. %_%

\ %

% %

% \

% % % % % %. % \ \

% _, _1 \ \

% %
£E

LU

0_

0_

0

0

Z

_o

0

0

<

m

oo _

E [] E

(Jr) "-- G)

50J5_= ,,=,

0 (/) , 0

... o

0

p o<

0

[]

uJ

_z

uJ

if)

<

£D

O3

0

0

Z

_o

0

0

<

0

[]

\

m\

%

o

o

o

o

o

o

(Xl

% %

\

\ \

\ \

(6661. = J_A ase_]) _Qm

($) _soo uo!_!s!nbov SINHSV le_oj.
8

E=o

U3 0 •

d

w

o

o

z

o

o

o

<

d

<

o

[]

w

O

03

O

O

z

_O

O

O

<

<

O

[]

w

_z

d

w

03

<

03

O

O

z

_O

O

O

<

d

<

O

[]

%

l\

\

%

_INNNm

W

B INNN INNNI INNI NNE INNNI

NNNNNNNN

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

g g g g g g g

o o o o o o

g g g g g g

o o o o o o

o" o" o" o" o" o"

(666l = _eeA eses)

($) _SO0 uo!_!s!nbov SI_II-ISV le_Ol

% m % %

\

% %

% %

% %

%

4,_ %.

% %.

% %

% % %

o % % %

% % %

%.. %%

% %
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMBNO.0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and

Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188),

Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

January 2000 Contractor Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Health Monitoring System Technology Assessments - Cost Benefits

Analysis PO L69620D

6. AUTHOR(S)

Renee M. Kent and Dennis A. Murphy

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

ARINC, Inc.

2551 Riva Road

Annapolis, MD 21401

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

WU 728-30-10-02

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NASA/CR-2000-209848

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Langley Technical Monitor: Eric G. Cooper

This report was prepared for Langley Research Center under GSA contract GS-35F-4825G.

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited

Subject Category 03 Distribution: Standard

Availability: NASA CASI (301) 621-0390

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The subject of sensor-based structural health monitoring is very diverse and encompasses a wide range of

activities including initiatives and innovations involving the development of advanced sensor, signal processing,

data analysis, and actuation and control technologies. In addition, it embraces the consideration of the

availability of low-cost, high-quality contributing technologies, computational utilities, and hardware and

software resources that enable the operational realization of robust health monitoring technologies.

This report presents a detailed analysis of the cost benefit and other logistics and operational considerations

associated with the implementation and utilization of sensor-based technologies for use in aerospace structure

health monitoring. The scope of this volume is to assess the economic impact, from an end-user perspective,

implementation health monitoring technologies on three structures. It specifically focuses on evaluating the

impact on maintaining and supporting these structures with and without health monitoring capability.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Aircraft structure health monitoring; Condition monitoring; Damage

identification; Aviation safety; Cost benefit analysis

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

171

16. PRICE CODE

A08

20. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

UL

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z-39-18

298-102