Safety & Economics Trade Study

1

Smart Icing Systems NASA Review, May 18-19, 1999

2-1

Safety & Economics Trade Study

Principal Investigator: Prof. Ken Sivier

GraduateResearch Assistant: Jennifer Bradley

2


2-2

SMART ICING SYSTEMS Research Organization

Core Technologies

Icing-EncounterFlight Simulator

Aerodynamics and

Propulsion

FlightMechanics

Control and Sensor

Integration

HumanFactors

AircraftIcing

Technology

Operate andMonitor IPS

EnvelopeProtection

AdaptiveControl

CharacterizeIcing Effects

IMS Functions

Safety and EconomicsTrade Study

3


2-3


Goal: Establish, through the use of safety and tradestudies, the impact of new IPSs, especially the SIS,on the safety and costs of operation of TBPcommuter aircraft.

4


2-4


Objective: 1) Develop methodologies for evaluatingthe impact of IPSs on the safety and costsof operation of TBP commuter aircraft

2) Establish a baseline for existing IPSs3) Evaluate the impact of new IPSs on safety

and costs4) Evaluate the impact potential of the SIS on

safety and costs

5


2-5


Approach: 1) Examine ATS safety history and study theapplication of the SIS within thatframework

2) Perform economics trade studies focusedon existing and new IPSs, including theSIS

6


2-6

Safety & Economics Waterfall Chart

99 00 01 02

AccidentAnalysis

Regional Jet Study

Federal Fiscal Years

98

Ice ProtectionTrade Study

Effects on DomesticAir Transportation

Safety History

Baseline TBP Study

7


2-7

SAFETY AND ECONOMICS TRADE STUDY

SIS Safety Impact

Smart Icing System Research

Statistical Analysis

of Icing Events Safety History

SIS Application toAccident History

Safety Study

8


2-8

Safety Study

• Aircraft Icing Events– Accidents– Incidents– Mishaps

• Engine Type

• Primary Factors

• Flight Phase

9


2-9

Safety Study (cont.)

• Roselawn, IN Accident Analysis– Accident History– SIS Application

• Conclusions• Recommendations

10


2-10

Types of Events

• Accidents– Person suffers serious injury or death– Aircraft receives substantial damage

• Incidents– Not an accident– An occurrence that could affect the safety of

operations

• Mishaps– An icing encounter that did not warrant an accident

or incident report

11


2-11

Databases

• NTSB Accident/Incident Database– Aircraft Accidents and Incidents - 1983 to present

• FAA Incident Data System

– Aircraft Incidents - 1978 to present

• NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System

– Aircraft Mishaps

– Voluntary Aircraft Reports -1988 to present

12


2-12

Aircraft Icing Events

10390

98

6883

155163 160

177172

133 134

184

115

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Nu

mb

er o

f Ic

ing

Eve

nts

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Year

MishapIncidentAccident

13


2-13

Icing Accident Fatalities

52

33

46

24

61

22

4145 48

67

27

88

3931

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f F

atal

itie

s

14


2-14

Engine Type

• Reciprocating (carburetor)• Reciprocating (fuel injection)• Turboprop• Turbojet• Turbofan• Turboshaft (helicopters)

15


2-15

Aircraft Icing AccidentsEngine Type

Recip (carb), 73.1%

Recip (fuel inj), 22.5%

Turboprop, 3.2%

Turbofan, 0.4%

Turboshaft, 0.4%

Turbojet, 0.4%

16


2-16

Primary Factors

• Flightcrew• Aircraft• Maintenance• Weather• Airport/ATC• Miscellaneous/Other• Unknown

17


2-17

Aircraft Icing AccidentsPrimary Factors

Flightcrew, 46.7%

Airframe-manufacturer,

0.4%

AircraftSystems, 1.4%

Weather, 36.7%

Airport/ATC, 0.6%

Maintenance, 3.3%

Other, 1.0% Unknown, 10.0%

18


2-18

Flight Phases

Preflight/Taxi

Takeoff/Climb

Cruise

Descent

Approach

Landing

Maneuver (not shown)

19


2-19

Aircraft Icing Accidents Flight Phases

Unknown, 1.0%

Preflight/Taxi, 0.2%

Takeoff/Climb, 20.5%

Cruise, 39.2%Descent, 9.0%

Approach, 17.8%

Landing, 1.8%

Maneuvering, 10.5%

20


2-20

American Eagle, Flt. 4184

• October 31, 1994

• Flight from Indianapolis, IN to Chicago, IL

• Avions de Transport Régional, model 72-212 (ATR-72)

• Roselawn, Indiana

• Total aboard: 68

21


2-21

ATR-72 Ice Protection

• Level I– all probe & windshield heating systems

• Level II– activates pneumatic engine intake boots;

electric prop heaters; elevator, rudder, & aileronhorn heat; electric side window heaters

• Level III– activates wing, horizontal & vertical stabilizer

leading edge boots; routinely prop to 86%

22


2-22

ATR-72 Ice Protection

PneumaticAnti/Deicing

Wing LeadingEdges

Horizontal Tail PlaneLeading Edges

Engine AirIntakes

Gas PathDeicer

Ice EvidenceProbe

Electronic IceDetector

Windshields Probes Propellers HornsElectrical Anti-

icing

23


2-23

ATR Time History - 1

Time (CST) Event1455:20 -- Cleared for takeoff

Normal climb to 16,000 ft

1513 -- (Began descent from 16,000 ft to 10,000 ft)-- (FDR – Level III activation)

(FDR – Prop RPM = 86%)1524:39 -- Entered hold at 10,000 ft

-- (FDR – deice off)Flt attendant & Capt conversing – both flight &non-flight related subjects

1533:13 -- Capt – "high deck angle"-- (FDR – AOA = 5 deg)

1533:26 -- Flaps moved to 15 deg-- (FDR – AOA â to 0 deg)

1541:07 -- Caution alert-- (FDR – Level III activation)-- (FDR – Prop increase)

24


2-24

ATR Time History - 2

Time (CST) Event1542:38 -- (Third circuit of hold)1548:34 -- "showing ice"1549:44 -- Capt leaves cockpit1554:13 -- Capt returns1555:42 -- FO – "we still got ice"1556:51 -- (FDR – descent to 8000 ft; autopilot on)1557:22 -- Flap overspeed warning1557:28 -- Flaps going to 0 deg (AOA & pitch á)1557:33 -- (Descent thru 9130 ft)

-- (AOA á thru 5 deg; Ailerons – RWD)1557:34 -- (Ailerons – 13.45 deg RWD)

-- (Autopilot disconnect)-- Autopilot disconnect warning-- Rolls right (AOA & pitch â)

1557:57 -- (Descent thru 1700 ft)-- End of Recording

25


2-25

ATR 72-212 DFDR DataA

merican

Eag

le Flig

ht 4184*

*Freezing D

rizzle: Tow

ards A B

etter K

nowledge and a B

etter Protection, Issue 1,

AT

R, F

rance, 11/05/95

26


2-26

Hinge Moments vs. Angle of Attack

AIAA 99-0092 “Effects of Simulated-Spanwise Ice Shapes on Airfoils:Experimental Investigation” by S. Lee & M.B. Bragg

27


2-27

SIS Modified - 1

Time (CST) Event SIS Action1455:20 -- Cleared for takeoff

Normal climb to 16,000 ft1513 -- (Began descent from 16,000 ft

to 10,000 ft)-- (FDR – Level III activation) ßdetection of ice

ßanti-ice/deice on(FDR – Prop RPM = 86%)ßnotice to pilot

1524:39 -- Entered hold at 10,000 ft-- (FDR – deice off)

ßnotice to pilot á AOAßflap hinge moment ∆ßflt envelope change

Flt attendant & Captconversing – both flight & non-flight related subjects ßnotice to pilot of flt

envelope change

28


2-28

SIS Application - 2

Time (CST) Event SIS Action1533:13 -- Capt – "high deck angle"

-- (FDR – AOA = 5 deg)1533:26 -- Flaps moved to 15 deg

-- (FDR – AOA â to 0 deg)1541:07 -- Caution alert ßanti-ice/deice still on

-- (FDR – Level III activation)-- (FDR – Prop increase)

1542:38 -- (Third circuit of hold)1548:34 -- "showing ice" ßanti-ice/deice still on1549:44 -- Capt leaves cockpit1554:42 -- Capt returns1555:42 -- FO- "we still got ice" ßanti-ice/deice still on1556:51 -- (FDR – descent to 8000 ft)

-- (FDR – autopilot on)1557:22 -- Flap overspeed warning

29


2-29

SIS Application - 3

Time (CST) Event SIS Action1557:28 -- Flaps going to 0 deg ßnotice to pilot á AOA

-- (AOA & pitch á) ßflt envelope changesßautopilot disconnect

warning1557:33 -- (Descent thru 9130 ft)

-- (AOA á 5 deg) ßnotice to pilot á AOA-- (Ailerons – RWD)

1557:34 -- (Ailerons – 13.45 deg RWD)-- Autopilot disconnect ßnotice to pilot á AOA-- Autopilot disconnect warning-- Rolls right

(AOA & pitch â)1557:57 -- (Descent thru 1700 ft)

-- End of Recording

30


2-30

Safety StudySummary and Conclusions

• An average of at least 131 icing encountersa year (1983-1996).

• Primary factors are flightcrew and weather,making up a total of 83% of the accidents.

• Performed accident analyses:– October 31, 1994 -- Roselawn, IN– January 9, 1997 -- Monroe, MI– December 26, 1989 -- Pasco, WA

31


2-31

Safety Study Future Research

• Obtain a better description of SIS.• Analyze accidents using improved SIS model.• Further categorization of accidents by

aircraft type. • Analyze accidents to find the specific action

or lack of action that initiated the event.

32


2-32

SAFETY AND ECONOMICS TRADE STUDY

SISCost Impact

Smart Icing System Research

ACSYNTAnalysis Tool

Baseline Studies &TOC Sensitivity

IPS EconomicsTrade Study

SIS

Projection

IPS Data

TBP Aircraft &

Mission Models

Economics Trade Study

33


2-33

Economics Trade Study

• Analysis Tool• Baseline Aircraft• Mission Profiles• Sensitivity Studies

– Weight Sensitivity– Altitude Sensitivity

• Ice Protection Trade Study• Conclusions• Recommendations

34


2-34

ACSYNT

• AirCraft SYNThesis

• NASA Ames Research Center

• Phoenix Integration, Inc.

• Design Capabilities

• Performance Analysis

• Economic Analysis

35


2-35

Baseline Aircraft

35-passenger 70-passengerAircraft Model Fairchild F-27

(F-27)Scaled Fairchild F-27(F27-70)

Gross Takeoff Weight 34,750 lb 57,840 lbWing Span 95 ft 104 ftAircraft Length 76 ft 112 ftEngine Rolls-Royce Pratt & Whitney - Model Dart 7 Mark 528 PW150A - SFC 0.71 0.43

36


2-36

Mission Profiles

Takeoff Landing

Cruise @ 13,000 ft

Total Range = 107.5 nmi

Loiter @ 13,000 ftfor 10 min

CMI MDW

Mission A

Takeoff Landing

Cruise @ 13,000 ft

Total Range = 277 nmi

CMI DET

Mission B

Mission C

Takeoff Landing

Cruise @ 13,000 ft

Total Range = 277 nmi

CMI DET

Cruise @9,000 ft

37


2-37

Economic Analysis Input

• Annual Aircraft Utilization = 2925 block hr• Aircraft Economic Life = 20 yr• Stage Length = 319 sm• Load Factor = 75%• Fuel Cost = $2.01 per gal

• Crew Cost ≈ $42,000 yr

38


2-38

F-27 Weight Sensitivity

1.575

1.580

1.585

1.590

1.595

1.600

1.605

1.610

1.615

1.620

31,500 32,250 33,000 33,750 34,500 35,250 36,000

Gross Takeoff Weight (lb)

TO

C (

$/A

SM

)

1105

1115

1125

1135

1145

1155

1165

1175

1185

To

tal F

uel

(lb

)

Total FuelTOC

Mission BCruise Altitude = 13,000 ft

Cruise Mach = 0.39

TOC Sensitivity = 0.1 ¢/ASM/100 lb

Fuel Sensitivity = 1.6 lb/100 lb

39


2-39

F27-70 Weight Sensitivity

0.732

0.734

0.736

0.738

0.740

0.742

0.744

0.746

0.748

55,500 56,250 57,000 57,750 58,500 59,250 60,000

Gross Takeoff Weight (lb)

TO

C (

$/A

SM

)

1168

1170

1172

1174

1176

1178

1180

1182

1184

1186

1188

1190

To

tal F

uel

(lb

)

Total FuelTOC

Mission BCruise Altitude = 13,000 ft

Cruise Mach = 0.54

TOC Sensitivity = 0.04 ¢/ASM/100 lb

Fuel Sensitivity = 0.5 lb/100 lb

40


2-40

F-27 Altitude Sensitivity

1.54

1.56

1.58

1.60

1.62

1.64

1.66

1.68

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

Cruise Altitude (ft)

TO

C (

$/A

SM

)

1080

1100

1120

1140

1160

1180

1200

1220

1240

1260

1280

To

tal F

uel

(lb

)

TOCTotal Fuel

Mission BAverage WG = 34,750 lb

Cruise Mach = 0.39

TOC Sensitivity = 0.8 ¢/ASM/1000 ft

Fuel Sensitivity = 12.1 lb/1000 ft

41


2-41

F-27 Altitude Sensitivity

1.52

1.54

1.56

1.58

1.60

1.62

1.64

1.66

1.68

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000


TO

C (

$/A

SM

)

1.50

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

Blo

ck T

ime

(Blo

ck h

r)

TOCBlock Hour


Cruise Mach = 0.39

Time Sensitivity = 0.01 block hr/1000 ft


42


2-42

F27-70 Altitude Sensitivity

0.72

0.73

0.74

0.75

0.76

0.77

0.78

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000


TO

C (

$/A

SM

)

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

To

tal F

uel

(lb

)

TOC

Total Fuel


Cruise Mach = 0.54


Fuel Sensitivity = 19.6 lb/1000 ft

43


2-43

F27-70 Altitude Sensitivity

0.70

0.71

0.72

0.73

0.74

0.75

0.76

0.77

0.78

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000


TO

C (

$/A

SM

)

1.18

1.20

1.22

1.24

1.26

1.28

1.30

1.32

1.34

1.36

1.38

Blo

ck T

ime

(Blo

ck h

r)TOCBlock Hour


Cruise Mach = 0.54


Time Sensitivity = 0.008 block hr/1000 ft

44


2-44

Ice Protection EconomicsTrade Study

Includes• Acquisition estimates• Costs due to Weight• Costs due to Drag• Technology Factors• Complexity Factors

Does Not IncludeCost due to:

• Delays• Airport Diversions• Cancellations• Accidents• Litigation• IPS Energy Usage

45


2-45

Ice Protection Systems & Components

• Magnetostrictive Ice Detector• Heat of Transformation (HOT) Ice Detector• Standard Pneumatic Deicer• Silver Estane Pneumatic Deicer• Small Tube Pneumatic (STP) Deicer• Pneumatic Impulse Ice Protection (PIIP™)• Electrothermal• Electro-mechanical• Smart Icing System (SIS)

46


2-46

SIS Cost Analysis

• Ice Protection System– Standard Pneumatic Deicer

• Avionics• Increased Technology & Complexity

Factors– Deicing System– Avionics

47


2-47

Economic Analysis Input

Tec

hnol

ogy

Fac

tor

Com

pone

ntW

eigh

t (lb

)

Ani

t/Dei

cing

Equ

ipm

ent

Com

plex

ityF

acto

r

Avi

onic

sC

ompl

exity

Fac

tor

Dra

gP

enal

ty( ∆

CD

min)

Control Group 1.0 0 1.0 1.0 -Magnetostrictive IceDetector (2)

1.2 2 1.2 1.2 -

HOT Ice Detector (2) " 4 1.3 " -Standard PneumaticDeicer*

1.3 98 " 1.3 0.0011

Silver EstanePneumatic Deicer*

1.4 98 " " 0.0011

STP Deicer* 1.45 98 " " 0.0011PIIP* " 98 1.4 " -Electro-MechanicalDeicer*

" 331 " " -

Electrothermal* " 59 " " -SIS* 1.6 98 1.5 1.6 0.0011* Protection for wing, horizontal and vertical stabilizers

48


2-48

1.49

1.49

2.31

2.90

3.19

3.19

3.28

3.16

4.94

0.00

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

No Ice Protection

Magnetostrictive Sensor

HOT Sensor

Standard Pneumatic

Silver Estane

STP

PIIP

Electro-mechanical

Electrothermal

SIS

∆∆TOC ($100,000/Yr)

F-27 Ice Protection Trade Study

Mission BBaseline case = $24.8 million/yr

PreliminaryEstimates

49


2-49

2.31

4.77

4.86

2.11

0 1 2 3 4 5

SIS Breakdown

SIS Total

Std Pneum.Breakdown

Std Pneum. Total

∆∆TOC ($100,000/yr)

Technology FactorComponent WeightIP ComplexityAvionics ComplexityAvionics Development

Breakdown of Change in TOC


50


2-50

1.67

1.70

2.72

3.36

3.69

3.60

3.71

3.60

5.53

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

No Ice Protection

Magnetostrictive Sensor

HOT Sensor

Standard Pneumatic

Silver Estane

STP

PIIP

Electro-mechanical

Electrothermal

SIS

∆∆TOC ($100,000/Yr)

0.00

F27-70 Ice Protection Trade Study

Mission BBaseline case = $27.7 million/yr


51


2-51

Economics Trade StudySummary and Conclusions

• Selected the software tool, ACSYNT, for makingIPS economics trade studies

• Developed two TBP commuter aircraft models for the studies

• Established TBP commuter mission models• Evaluated the fuel required and TOC

sensitivities to cruise altitude and TOGW• Found TOC impact of several existing and new

IPSs including the projected SIS

52


2-52

• Calibrate the ACSYNT economics study results using:– Actual aircraft operational costs.– Better acquisition and operational costs for

ice protection systems and components. • Obtain data and include additional icing related

items in total operating costs– Number of delays & cancellations a year– Costs of delays or cancellations– Costs of accidents & incidents

(aircraft, liability, & negative publicity effects)• Perform ice protection trade study for a

regional jet aircraft.

Economics Trade StudyFuture Research

Safety & Economics Trade Study

Documents

Transcript of Safety & Economics Trade Study