Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Jul 30;15(8):18666-713.
doi: 10.3390/s150818666.

Fibre Optic Sensors for Structural Health Monitoring of Aircraft Composite Structures: Recent Advances and Applications

Raffaella Di Sante  1
Affiliations
Review

Fibre Optic Sensors for Structural Health Monitoring of Aircraft Composite Structures: Recent Advances and Applications

Raffaella Di Sante. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

In-service structural health monitoring of composite aircraft structures plays a key role in the assessment of their performance and integrity. In recent years, Fibre Optic Sensors (FOS) have proved to be a potentially excellent technique for real-time in-situ monitoring of these structures due to their numerous advantages, such as immunity to electromagnetic interference, small size, light weight, durability, and high bandwidth, which allows a great number of sensors to operate in the same system, and the possibility to be integrated within the material. However, more effort is still needed to bring the technology to a fully mature readiness level. In this paper, recent research and applications in structural health monitoring of composite aircraft structures using FOS have been critically reviewed, considering both the multi-point and distributed sensing techniques.

Keywords: Brillouin scattering; Rayleigh scattering; aerospace; aircraft; composite materials; fibre Bragg gratings; fibre optic sensors; lamb waves; smart structures; structural health monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Use of composite materials in the Boeing 787 and (b) evolution of the use of composites in Airbus aircraft
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of basic principles and types of fibre optic sensors.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Fibre Bragg Grating’s principle of operation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Schematic classification of FBG interrogation techniques based on scan rate and applications (adapted from [40]).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Typical spectrum of spontaneous light scattering in a fibre.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Basic OFDR network.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Optical fibre section in (a) unidirectional; (b) cross-ply and (c) woven fabric [83].
Figure 8
Figure 8
Teflon tubes (a) [94] and embedded connector (b).
Figure 9
Figure 9
NASA’s Helios wing (a) and its wreckage in the Pacific (b) (courtesy of NASA).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Photos of the wing-like swept plate experiments with three lines of FBG sensors (property of the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center) [116].
Figure 11
Figure 11
Typical scheme of wing box (a); deployment of the optical fibres in the structure (b).
Figure 12
Figure 12
T38 wing model with the embedded FBG sensors [53].
Figure 13
Figure 13
Safe life or damage tolerant areas of the composite patch (a) and SHM system for monitoring composite repair disbond with FBGs (b) (adapted from [11]).
Figure 14
Figure 14
(a) Specimen with composite lap joint and embedded optical fiber; (b) micrograph of an embedded FBG sensor [132].
Figure 15
Figure 15
(a) STFT (left) and FFT (right) computed from the FBG peak wavelength estimation during fatigue tests; (b) corresponding pulsed-phase thermography phase angle image [132].
Figure 16
Figure 16
Bird strike impact probability (a); impact damage in a flap fairing of a cargo B767 caused by bird strike (b).
Figure 17
Figure 17
Full-spectral FBG response after different strike numbers [133].
Figure 18
Figure 18
(a) Composite specimen representing a typical aeronautical construction; (b) FE model of the specimen [140].
Figure 19
Figure 19
Example of advanced grid structure made of CFRP (a) and its application to an aerospace structure (b).
Figure 20
Figure 20
Advanced structural grid (AGS) with SHM system (adapted from [144]).
Figure 21
Figure 21
(a) Intersection of the calculated ellipses; (b) comparison between the actual and predicted damage location [12].
Figure 22
Figure 22
Scheme of the smart composite wing experiment (adapted from [162]).
Figure 23
Figure 23
Photo of the cantilever plate experiment (a); reconstructed deflection shape of the plate (b) [166].
Figure 24
Figure 24
Position of the optical fiber and foil gage in the clamped fan experiment [65].
Figure 25
Figure 25
Optical fibres deployment and damage around the CFRP bolted joint (a); residual strain distribution along the optical fibres after loading (b) [166].
Figure 26
Figure 26
Impact test layout (a); BGS measured in the point closest to the impact location (b) [166].
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Baker A., Dutton S., Kelly D. Composite Materials for Aircraft Structures. AIAA; Reston, VA, USA: 2004.
    1. Advisory Council for Aviation Research and Innovation in Europe. [(accessed on 5 May 2015)]. Available online: http://www.acare4europe.org/
    1. Vision 2020 of ACARE. [(accessed on 5 May 2015)]. Available online: http://www.acare4europe.org/documents/vision-2020.
    1. Diamanti K., Soutis C. Structural health monitoring techniques for aircraft composite structures. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2010;46:342–352. doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.05.001. - DOI
    1. Boller C., Chang F.K., Fujino Y. Encyclopedia of Structural Health Monitoring. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.; Southern Gate, Chichester, UK: 2009.