Kick-off Meeting West Palm Beach, Fl January 17-18, 2002

Transcription

1 Agenda Day 1 Engineering Assessment of FPI Kick-off Meeting West Palm Beach, Fl January 17-18, 2002 DAY 1 Thursday, January 17, :00 Welcome and Intro Broz, Brasche 8:30 Overview and program structure Brasche 10:00 12:00 Recent ETC Results and Discussion LUNCH 1:00 Implications of ETC Results for this program Group discussion 1:30 Sample generation (materials, surface roughness, sample size, crack distribution, need for POD?) 2:00 Engineering studies (objectives, variables of concern, mechanism, philosophy) 5 minutes per org. Identify key issues that should be addressed in the program (1 2 viewgraphs, ed to Brasche by Jan 11) 5:00 ADJOURN Group Dinner Brasche, Larson, Lopez Brasche Lopez Brasche One speaker per organization

2 ETC Overview Lisa Brasche Brian Larson Rick Lopez

3 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

4 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

5 Objectives Determine the effect of chemical cleaning, mechanical cleaning, and drying processes on the detectability of low cycle fatigue cracks in titanium and nickel alloys Establish a quantifiable measure of cleanliness, including the minimum condition to allow effective inspection processing Establish the effect of local etching on detectability and provide guidance on best practices for removal of local surface damage from FOD and other surface anomalies Update existing specifications to reflect the improved processes and provide best practices documents for use by the OEM s and airlines

6 Participants Funded by FAA as part of ETC program COTR Rick Micklos, Coordination Andy Kinney Iowa State University Pratt & Whitney General Electric Aircraft Engines Honeywell Engines & Systems Rolls-Royce minimal funding 30 month effort ending in summer 2002

7 ISU: Lisa Brasche, Brian Larson, Rick Lopez Honeywell: Andy Kinney GEAE: Terry Kessler P&W: Jeff Stevens, Anne D Orvilliers, John Lively Rolls Royce-Allison: Pramod Khandelwal Rolls Royce plc: Bill Griffiths, Keith Griffiths Participants

8 Approach Survey of current practices (airlines & OEMs) Sample fabrication (lcf cracks in Ti and Ni) Develop quantitative characterization measurements (similar to AFML QPL process) Baseline samples at ISU Establish matrix of contaminants and cleaning methods and determine drying study parameters Perform comparison studies at Delta using industry inspection facility Analyze results, prepare final report, and share findings with industry groups for consideration in specification changes

9 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

10 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

11 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

12 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

13 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

14 Sample preparation/characterization ISU March June, 01 Drying studies Delta June 18 22, 01 Comparison of oven drying to flash drying methods Used minimum temperatures from AMS 2647 Cleaning studies Delta October 22 26, 01 Evaluated various cleaning methods for surface applied contaminants Cleaning methods include chemical and mechanical Cleaning studies Delta February 4 8, 02 To evaluate various cleaning methods for baked on contaminates

15 Preliminary Results Sample preparation - ISU Baseline Baseline measurements completed at ISU on Nickel (upper) and Titanium (lower) samples to determine that samples were well-behaved Scatter of three baseline measurements similar to results reported at AANC and WPML Results shown here in order of increasing brightness Titanium Baseline 0 Brightness Nickel Baseline ISU 1 ISU 2 ISU 3 ISU AVG Brightness ISU 1 ISU 2 ISU 3 ISU AVG

16 ISU Baseline Comparison of optical lengths from whitelight photographs to indication lengths from blacklight photos Caution regarding use of indication lengths to comment on optical length Indication length Titanium Nickel Optical length

17 Preparation for Drying Study Compare average of ISU baseline to average Delta baseline measurements to determine trends prior to beginning drying study While some scatter, decision made to proceed Samples sorted into two sets of Ti and two sets of Ni to arrive at range of crack sizes, brightness, and variability Next two pages show results for Ti and Ni in new sets In general, the Ni sample sets were less variable than Ti Better surface finish accomplished on Ni Brightness Brightness Nickel Baseline Comparison Delta 3 Delta 4 Delta Pre-Avg ISU 1 ISU 2 ISU 3 ISU AVG Titanium Baseline Comparison Delta 3 Delta 4 Delta Pre AVG ISU 1 ISU 2 ISU 3 ISU AVG

18 Brightness Group ISU AVG ISU 3 ISU 2 ISU 1 Delta Pre-Avg Delta 4 Delta 3 Nickel Baseline Preliminary Result

19 Brightness Group ISU AVG ISU 3 ISU 2 ISU 1 Delta Pre AVG Delta 4 Delta 3 Titanium Baseline Group Preliminary Results

20 Drying Study Compare Delta baseline (two baseline runs) to ISU baseline Split into two sets for drying studies Repeat each run for flash dry and oven dry (two runs per method) Switch sets and run other drying method (two runs per method) Use minimum parameters from AMS 2647 Repeat baseline on all samples (two baseline runs) Flash dry Ti Set A Flash dry Ni Set A Oven dry Ti Set A Oven dry Ni Set A Baseline Ti Baseline Ni Split into two sets Repeat Baseline Ti Baseline Ni Oven dry Ti Set B Oven dry Ni Set B Flash dry Ti Set B Flash dry Ni Set B

21 Drying study parameters Ultrasonic acetone clean 30 minutes Flash dry Water bath at RT (82F 28C) Flash dry at 150F (66C) Oven dry Oven dry at 225F (107C) for 30 minutes FPI Process Cool to 40C prior to FPI ZL-37 UltraHigh Senstivity Post Emulsifed Spotmeter brightness and digital recording of image

22 Nickel Drying Study - Delta - June Sample number In general oven dry and flash dry results tracked one another for Ni Two samples and deserve closer review Group Group Brightness Flash dry 1 Flash dry 2 Flash dry 3 Flash dry 4 FD Avg Oven dry 1 Oven dry 2 Oven dry 3 Oven dry 4 OD Avg

23 Titanium Drying Study - Delta - June 20-22, Sample number In general oven dry and flash dry results tracked one another for Ti although more variability than with Ni Five samples require a closer review: ,01-041,00-066,00-095, Brightness Flash dry 1 Flash dry 2 Flash dry 3 Flash dry 4 FD Avg Oven dry 1 Oven dry 2 Oven dry 3 Oven dry 4 OD Avg

24 Statistical analysis by Meeker showed no significant difference between the two drying methods Slightly less variability with oven drying Average brightness - Drying Method Comparison of Drying to Baseline OD Ti FD Ti OD Ni FD Ni Average brightness - Delta Baseline

25 Cleaning Studies - matrix of contaminants Part 1 October 2001 Penetrating oil applied over crack Anti-galling compound applied to side of crack RTV compound applied to side of crack High temperature sealant (Ni) applied to side of crack Part 2 February 2002 Soot generated using burner rig at HW Varnish generated using burner rig at HW Oxidation and scale generated using burner rig at HW

26 Cleaning Matrix generated that includes approved cleaning methods for a given contaminate CLEANING METHODS Ti 6-4 Chemical Chemical Mechanical/Chem. Chemical Chemical Mech./Chem. Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Alkaline De-Rust Alkaline De-Rust Ultrasonic Alkaline Gel Steam Plastic Al Oxide Aqueous Al Oxide Al Oxide Wet Glass Shell Blast Solution A Solution B w/alkaline De-Rust Cleaner (Turco w/aqueous Media 320/325 Degreaser 500 Grit 220 Grit Bead ** CONTAMINANTS (P&W 2-3 lb./gal) (GE 12 oz./gal) Solution B 5805) degreaser (Type 2) ** Grit C2a C2b C7a C5 C1 C6 B1 B5 B4 B3 B2 B6 Anti-Galling Comp. (YES) (YES) (YES) NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES Oxidation & Scale YES YES NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES NO Soot YES YES NO (YES) (YES) (YES) YES NO NO NO NO YES RTV Compound NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES Penetrating Oil YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO High Temp Sealant (Nickel base) NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO YES CLEANING METHODS Inconel 718 Chemical Mechanical/Chem. Chemical Chemical Mech./Chem. Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Alkaline De-Rust Ultrasonic Alkaline Gel Steam Plastic Al Oxide Aqueous Al Oxide Al Oxide Wet Glass Shell Blast Solution A w/alkaline De-Rust Cleaner (Turco w/aqueous Media 320/325 Degreaser 500 Grit 220 Grit Bead ** CONTAMINANTS (P&W 2-3 lb./gal) Solution A 5805) degreaser (Type 2) ** Grit C3 C7a C5 C1 C6 B1 B5 B4 B3 B2 B6 Anti-Galling Comp. (YES) (YES) NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES Oxidation YES YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES NO Soot YES YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES Penetrating Oil YES YES NO (YES) (YES) NO NO NO NO NO NO Coke/Varnish YES YES (YES) NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES High Temp Sealant (Nickel base) YES YES NO NO NO YES YES YES YES NO YES

27 Cleaning Studies Part 1 Penetrating Oils C2a Alkaline De-rust Solution A C2b Alkaline De-rust Solution B C1 Aqueous degreaser C6 Steam with aqueous degreaser Anti-Galling Compound C2a and C2b Alkaline De-rust Solutions (A and B) C7a Ultrasonic w/alkaline De-rust Solution B B1 Plastic media blast (at 80 and 40 psi) for 30 sec B6 Shell blast (at 50 psi) for 1 min RTV Compound and High Temperature Sealant B1 Plastic media blast (at 80 and 40 psi) for 30 sec B6 Shell blast (at 50 psi) for 1 min

28 Before After Plastic media Walnut shell

29 Cleaning Studies Part 2 Oxidation and scale C2a Alkaline De-rust Solution A C2b Alkaline De-rust Solution B C7a Ultrasonic w/alkaline De-rust Solution B B2 Wet glass bead B3, B4 and B5 Al Oxide at 220, 320 and 500 grit Soot C2a and C2b Alkaline De-rust Solutions (A and B) C1 Aqueous cleaner C5 Alkaline gel cleaner C6 Steam w/aqueous cleaner B1 Plastic media blast (at 80 and 40 psi) for 30 sec B6 Shell blast (at 50 psi) for 1 min

30 Ti Specimen Multi-Crack? No Thick Optical Length ISU Baseline Delta Baseline Delta Drying Study Delta Baseline ISU Baseline ISU 1 ISU 2 ISU 3 PreBL 3 PreBL 4 Oven 1&3 Oven 2&4 Flash 1&3 Flash 2&4 PostBL 5 PostBL 6 ISU 4 ISU 5 ISU 6 ISU 7 ISU 8 Brightness Length Lots of data!! Spotmeter Brightness (Footlamberts) ISU Baseline Delta Baseline Delta Drying Study Oven Flash Delta Baseline ISU Baseline Titanium Delta Baseline Cleaning Delta Baseline ISU Std Dev Brightness 1.7 Length 0.0 All Std DeBrightnes 5.8 Length 0.0 Delta Std Dev Brightness Length Indication Length (Inches) Brightness Length Experiment Pre-Delta At Delta

31 O AG A - C3 B1 (hi80) O AG D - B1 (hi 80) Inconel Brightness Group 1 Inconel Brightness Group ISU Baseline Delta Delta Drying Baseline Oven Flash Delta Base ISU Baseline Delta Baseline Delta Clean Delta Base ISU Baseline Delta BaselineDelta Drying Oven Flash Delta Base ISU Baseline Delta Baseline Delta Clean Delta Base Spotmeter Brightness (Footlamberts) Indication Length (Inches) Brightness Length Spotmeter Brightness (Footlamberts) Indication Length (Inches) Brightness Length Experiment Experiment AGC-C7b RTV B - C8 + B1 low 40 Titanium Titanium ISU Baseline Delta Baseline Delta Drying Study Oven Flash Delta Baseline ISU Baseline Delta Baseline Cleaning Delta Baseline 0.12 Spotmeter Brightness (Footlamberts) Indication Length (Inches) Brightness Length Spotmeter Brightness (Footlamberts) Indication Length (Inches) Brightness Length Experiment Experiment

32 Changes in brightness from prebaseline to cleaning run and pre baseline to post baseline were made to compare cleaning methods and contaminants in the following slides Better 4 OK 3 Lower 2 Nearly lost or significantly lower 1 Lost 0

33 Prebaseline to Cleaning Comparison Prebaseline to Postbaseline Comparison Titanium Cleaning Run Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score Oil A - C2a Oil B - C2b Oil C - C Oil D - C DCR - C2bc cold DHR - C2b hot OCR - C2b cold OHR - C2b hot Nickel Oil A - C Oil B - C7a Oil C - C Oil D - C DCR - C3 cold DHR - C3 hot OCR - C3 cold OHR - C3 hot Penetrating oils Several samples experienced reduction in brightness after application of penetrating oils and subsequent chemical cleaning Effect appears to be more of an issue with Ti than Ni Repeat studies performed in October indicated that additional consideration is needed Additional effort planned in February

34 Prebaseline to Cleaning Comparison Prebaseline to Postbaseline Comparison Titanium Cleaning Run Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score rank RTV a/hts b - C2a + B RTV A + HTS B + (C2a + B6) + B RTV -B - C RTV -B - C8 +B1 (low 40) RTV C/HTS A - C2a + B1a RTV Only used with Ti Cleaning method appears to be issue as discussed later

35 Prebaseline to Cleaning Comparison Prebaseline to Postbaseline Comparison Titanium Cleaning Run Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score Anti-gallant Use of blast pressures/times warrants additional consideration (see blasting slides) Cleaning methods C2b (alkaline de-rust) and C7a/b (alkaline de-rust with UT) also showed reductions in brightness In most cases, acetone/ut brought samples back to original or better condition Review of optical photographs is needed Additional look at traditional degreasers is needed Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score AG A - C2A + B1 (hi 80) AG-B - C2b AGB - C2b + B6 (shell) AG C - C7b AG-D - B1 (hi 80) AG E - B6 (shell) Nickel AG A - C3 + B1 (hi 80) AG C - C7a AGC - C7a + B6 (shell) AG D - B1 (hi 80) AG E - B6 (shell)

36 Prebaseline to Cleaning Comparison Prebaseline to Postbaseline Comparison Titanium Cleaning Run Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score AGB - C2b + B6 (shell) AG E - B6 (shell) RTV A + HTS B + (C2a + B6) + B Nickel AGC - C7a + B6 (shell) AG E - B6 (shell) Shell blast B6 shell blast 50 psi for 1 min Loss in brightness experienced after shell blast but increase in brightness after subsequent UT/acetone cleaning Effect appears to be more of an issue with Ti than Ni Additional understanding of blast pressure/time may be warranted Optical photographs of cracks after blasting process underway

37 Prebaseline to Cleaning Comparison Prebaseline to Postbaseline Comparison Cleaning Run Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Total weighted score Titanium AG A - C2A + B1 (hi 80) AG-D - B1 (hi 80) RTV C/HTS A - C2a + B1(hi 80) RTV -B - C8 +B1 (low 40) Nickel AG A - C3 + B1 (hi 80) AG D - B1 (hi 80) Plastic media blast B1 hi 80 PBM blast 80 psi for 30 sec B1 lo 40 PBM blast 40 psi for 30 sec Loss of one crack at hi 80; considerable reductions in 6 other samples Effect appears to be more of an issue with Ni than Ti Some improvements in brightness after UT/acetone clean for post baseline Additional understanding of blast pressure/time may be warranted Optical photographs of cracks after blasting process underway

38 Agenda Objective/workplan Brasche Drying, cleaning and etching Sample preparation Larson Characterization methods Larson Optical measurements, BL photos, spotmeter ISU Baseline measurements Lopez Measurements at Delta Lopez Preliminary Results Brasche Drying and Cleaning Studies Conclusions

39 Preliminary Conclusions Statistical analysis of drying data showed no significant differences for the parameters used in the study at Delta Removal of penetrating oils requires repeat studies Initial results of blast pressure and time of PMB and shell blast suggests need for additional study

40 Agenda Day 1 Engineering Assessment of FPI Kick-off Meeting West Palm Beach, Fl January 17-18, 2002 DAY 1 Thursday, January 17, :00 Welcome and Intro Broz, Brasche 8:30 Overview and program structure Brasche 10:00 12:00 Recent ETC Results and Discussion LUNCH 1:00 Implications of ETC Results for this program Group discussion 1:30 Sample generation (materials, surface roughness, sample size, crack distribution, need for POD?) 2:00 Engineering studies (objectives, variables of concern, mechanism, philosophy) 5 minutes per org. Identify key issues that should be addressed in the program (1 2 viewgraphs, ed to Brasche by Jan 11) 5:00 ADJOURN Group Dinner Brasche, Larson, Lopez Brasche Lopez Brasche One speaker per organization