ENGINEERING REPORT No.

: 10000112161/000/00
Subject : Date : August 23, 2017
Ref : *)
Attention : TER, TEA, MQE, MLE
Prepared by : Dito Wijanarko Digitally
B737-800 Second Occurrences of Outboard signed by
Flap Disbond Life Data Analysis Dito
Wijanarko
Checked by : Agus Prasetyo Digitally signed
by Agus
Prasetyo /
532213
Date: 2017.09.14
15:12:05 +07'00'
Iss. Auth. : Arif Sugianto
Digitally signed by Arif Sugianto
Date: 2017.09.14 16:39:03
+07'00'

Distribution : TER, TEA, MQE, MLE

*) Reference :
/a/ SRI Evaluation Sheet No. 24079: “DISBOND ON OUTBOARD AFT FLAP” BY Surya Aditya Ch. Dated on
29 August 2017.

I. BACKGROUND EVENT
As quoted from reference /a/:

//QUOTE START
High occurrence of disbond on flap lower surface was observed on Garuda Indonesia B737-800 fleet
during mid-year peak season of 2017, from May to July 2017. The disbond phenomena appear on 4
locations – outboard aft flap, outboard main flap, inboard main flap, and inboard aft flap – with detail as
follow; 28 cases on outboard aft flap, 2 cases on inboard main flap, 1 case on outboard main flap, and 1
case inboard aft flap.
//QUOTE END

As a follow up from mentioned SRI Evaluation, it is needed to analyze and predict the time of second
occurrence to determine repetitive inspection interval for repaired flap. Life data analysis will be utilized
to answer mentioned points.

II. DESCRIPTION
Life Data Analysis is a prediction analysis about the life of all products in the population by fitting a
statistical distribution to life data from a representative sample of units (1). The probability density function
(pdf) is a mathematical function that describes the distribution. Product life can be measured in hours,
miles, cycles, or any other metric that applies to the period of successful operation of a particular product.
Since time is a common measure of life, life data points are often called “Time-To-Failure”. It can be used
to estimate important life characteristics of the product such as reliability or probability of failure at a
specific time, the mean life and the failure rate.

III. ANALYSIS
These are the detailed information of flap disbond second occurrences across B737-800 fleet. To further
complement the data, flap which not failed after 2 nd replacement will also be mentioned in the same
following table:

Table 1: Flap Disbond 2nd Occurrences and Survived Flap After 1st Time Failed Data

Reg Pos Inst. Date Last Meas. Remarks PN SN FH FC Note

failed 2nd
PK-GMF LH 3-Nov-15 1-Jan-17 113A3700-23 3262 3332 2133 ex PK-GMJ
time
failed 2nd
PK-GNA LH 6-May-16 24-Aug-16 113A3700-25 1306-32 587
time 889

Form MZ-3-01.1 (2-11) Page 1 of 7

 ENGINEERING REPORT No. : 10000112161/000/00
failed 2nd
PK-GMS RH 20-Aug-15 11-Jan-17 113A3700-26 3862 3779 2401
time
failed 2nd
PK-GML LH 7-Dec-15 12-Jan-17 113A3700-23 3189 3044 2020
time
failed 2nd
PK-GFR LH 18-Aug-15 21-Feb-17 113A3700-25 4029 4090 2736 ex PK-GMW
time
failed 2nd
PK-GMO LH 29-Mar-16 21-Feb-17 113A3700-25 3772 2600 1714 ex PK-GFQ
time
failed 2nd
PK-GFC LH 21-Nov-15 13-Jun-17 113A3700-25 3182 4214 2900 ex PK-GMG
time
failed 2nd
PK-GMD LH 4-Sep-15 13-Jun-17 113A3700-23 3103 5007 3159
time
failed 2nd
PK-GFM RH 20-Dec-16 17-Jun-17 113A3700-26 3801 1368 903 ex PK-GFR
time
failed 2nd
PK-GFF LH 6-May-16 19-Jun-17 113A3700-25 S1308-32 3152 2140 ex PK-GNA
time
failed 2nd
PK-GFD LH 8-Apr-16 20-Jun-17 113A3700-25 3336 3307 2229
time
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFH LH 30-May-16 21-Jun-17 after 3286 2218
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
failed 2nd
PK-GFN RH 11-Apr-17 22-Jun-17 113A3700-26 S1308-30 516 343 ex PK-GNA
time
failed 2nd
PK-GFD RH 12-May-16 25-Jun-17 113A3700-26 3371 3074 2164
time
failed 2nd
PK-GMN LH 25-Mar-16 27-Jun-17 113A3700-25 3305 3493 2286
time
failed 2nd
PK-GML RH 7-Dec-15 14-Jul-17 113A3700-24 3196 4379 3008
time
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFN LH 29-Mar-17 19-Jul-17 after 851 557
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
failed 2nd
PK-GMH LH 4-Feb-16 22-Jul-17 113A3700-23 3227 4231 2765
time
failed 2nd
PK-GMH RH 6-Feb-16 22-Jul-17 113A3700-24 3220 4231 2765
time
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFI LH 19-Jun-17 22-Jul-17 after 354 231
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFD LH 25-Jun-17 23-Jul-17 after 525 397
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFO LH 21-Jun-17 25-Jul-17 after 329 236
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFP RH 26-Sep-16 26-Jul-17 after 2288 1560
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFJ LH 18-Jun-17 27-Jul-17 after 378 241
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
failed 2nd
PK-GFR RH 21-Feb-17 4-Aug-17 874
time 113A3700-26 3526 1315
failed 2nd
PK-GMS LH 20-Aug-15 7-Aug-17 5623 3630
time 113A3700-25 3862
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFH RH 30-May-16 31-Jul-17 after 337 224
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE

Form MZ-3-01.1 (2-11) Page 2 of 7

 ENGINEERING REPORT No. : 10000112161/000/00
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFX LH 12-Apr-17 31-Jul-17 after 866 563
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GFY RH 29-May-16 31-Jul-17 after 3265 2232
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GMC RH 11-Aug-16 31-Jul-17 after 2717 1732
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GMJ LH 7-Nov-15 31-Jul-17 after 4763 3237
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GMR LH 6-Jun-17 31-Jul-17 after 456 309
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GMX LH 29-Feb-16 31-Jul-17 after 4131 2656
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GNA RH 11-Apr-17 31-Jul-17 after 926 623
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE
S/N is
not failed
P/N is NOT NOT
PK-GND LH 8-Jul-17 31-Jul-17 after 235 143
AVAILABLE AVAILAB
replacement
LE

To further illustrate table above, a histogram is then compiled :

2nd Flap Disbond 2nd Flap Disbond

9 8 16 14
8 7 14
7 12
Frequency

Frequency

6 10
5 4
8
4 5
3 6
2 4
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0

A/C Age Range (FH) A/C Age Range (FC))

Figure 1: 2nd Flap Disbond Occurrence Histogram

Form MZ-3-01.1 (2-11) Page 3 of 7

 ENGINEERING REPORT No. : 10000112161/000/00

Survived Flap After 1st Disbond Survived Flap After 1st Disbond
7 6 8 7
6 7
5 6
4
Frequency

Frequency
5
4
4 3
3 2 3 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0

A/C Age Range (FH) A/C Age Range (FC))

Figure 2: Survived Flap (Until 04 August 2017) After 1st Disbond Histogram

Survived flap disbond here means that until the end of analysis (04 August 2017) no disbond were occurred
on these repaired flaps after first disbond occurrence.

Since there are two different measurement unit, we need to make sure that both analysis should not
contradict each other (e.g.: analysis with FH data conclude that this component is in the wear out zone,
while analysis with FC data conclude the opposite). A simple Pearson Correlation Analysis can be utilized
in this case (2) (using Microsoft Excel Analysis ToolPak):

The following are correlation analysis result:

Table 2: Corrrelation Analysis Result

FH Data FC Data
FH Data 1 0.996859
FC Data 0.996859 1

Which means that both FH and FC data are highly correlated.

Based on above mentioned data, we will then conduct Life Data Analysis. In this case, Weibull distribution
is used, since it has great flexibility for various type of components and failure mode. Both failure and
suspension (components which survived) data will be utilized, since suspension data could alter
distribution parameter (3) (in turn, will affect analysis outcome).

The following are Life Data Analysis setting, and result:

Table 3: Life Data Analysis Result

2nd Occurrence Data

FH Data FC Data
Distribution: 2-Parameter Weibull

Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation

CB Method: Fisher-Matrix
Ranking: Median Rank
Beta 2.726896 2.760467
Eta (Hr / Cyc) 4027.373566 2662.085426
LK Value -169.391363 -161.458656
Rho - -
Fail \ Susp 19 \ 16

We will breakdown Life Data Analysis in three part: Reliability, Failure Rate, and last part is Optimal
Scheduled Maintenance analysis
Form MZ-3-01.1 (2-11) Page 4 of 7
 ENGINEERING REPORT No. : 10000112161/000/00

a) Reliability Analysis
Figure 3 and figure 4 depict relation between reliability and time to failure:

Figure 3: Reliability vs. FH for 2nd Disbond Figure 4: Relaibility vs. FC for 2nd Disbond

Figure 5: PDF Curve over FH for 2nd Disbond Figure 6: PDF Curve over FC for 2nd Disbond

Seeing Figure 5 and Figure 6, most of the second disbond occurrence are predicted within 2000 –
6000 FH, or 1200 – 3600 FC after the outboard flap assy is repaired. The results fits quite well with
actual data (as shown in Table 1. Therefore, we can proceed to next steps.

b) Failure Rate
Scheduled maintenance only fits for a system / component which failure rate is increasing: the
system / component is in wear-out zone (4). That way, scheduled maintenance can restore the
component / system condition to a better reliability level.

At a glance, we can confirm that both FH and FC data yield β values >> 1, which marks an increasing
failure rate. To further illustrate, the following are failure rate over time for flap disbond second
occurrence (FH and FC data):

Form MZ-3-01.1 (2-11) Page 5 of 7

 ENGINEERING REPORT No. : 10000112161/000/00

Figure 7: Failure Rate vs. FH for 2nd Disbond Figure 8: Failure Rate vs. FC for 2nd Disbond

Therefore, we can proceed to next and final step, which is optimizing scheduled inspection and
maintenance.

c) Optimizing Scheduled Inspection and Maintenance

Unfortunately, no delay caused with this case, nor this cases causes a significant impact for
operational. Therefore optimal scheduled inspection could not be determined for this case.

But for further consideration by any responsible unit, following table could be used:

Table 4: Required Reliability vs. Elapsed FH / FC

Required Lower Elapsed Upper Lower Elapsed Upper

Reliability Bound FH Flight Hours Bound FH Bound FC Flight Cycle Bound FC
99.00% 486.18 745.40 1142.83 328.95 502.92 768.89
90.00% 1401.63 1764.50 2221.30 937.70 1178.09 1480.11
85.00% 1698.89 2068.46 2518.42 1134.23 1378.37 1675.06
80.00% 1952.78 2323.47 2764.52 1301.79 1546.11 1836.30
75.00% 2180.59 2550.33 2982.76 1451.91 1695.15 1979.14
70.00% 2391.11 2759.51 3184.68 1590.48 1832.44 2111.21
65.00% 2589.58 2957.32 3377.28 1720.96 1962.14 2237.11
60.00% 2779.50 3148.04 3565.45 1845.69 2087.09 2360.07
58.87% 2821.52 3190.51 3607.77 1873.26 2114.91 2387.72
58.70% 2827.81 3196.89 3614.14 1877.39 2119.08 2391.88
55.00% 2963.46 3334.96 3753.04 1966.36 2209.47 2482.63
51.33% 3095.92 3471.37 3892.35 2053.18 2298.72 2573.62
51.15% 3102.38 3478.06 3899.24 2057.41 2303.10 2578.12
50.00% 3143.56 3520.87 3943.46 2084.38 2331.09 2607.01
45.00% 3321.75 3708.39 4140.04 2201.02 2453.70 2735.40
43.20% 3385.81 3776.82 4212.99 2242.92 2498.42 2783.04
43.00% 3392.94 3784.47 4221.18 2247.57 2503.42 2788.39
40.00% 3500.03 3900.31 4346.36 2317.58 2579.10 2870.13
35.00% 3680.71 4099.83 4566.67 2435.57 2709.39 3013.99
30.00% 3866.75 4311.07 4806.46 2556.93 2847.25 3170.54
25.00% 4062.31 4539.86 5073.56 2684.36 2996.47 3344.87
20.00% 4273.84 4795.27 5380.31 2822.05 3162.94 3545.01
15.00% 4512.64 5093.36 5748.80 2977.33 3357.10 3785.30
10.00% 4802.42 5468.30 6226.52 3165.57 3601.12 4096.59
5.00% 5213.14 6022.32 6957.09 3432.06 3961.31 4572.18

Form MZ-3-01.1 (2-11) Page 6 of 7

 ENGINEERING REPORT No. : 10000112161/000/00
Using MTTF formula for Weibull distribution (5),

1
𝑇̅ = 𝛾 + 𝜂 ∙ Γ ( + 1)
𝛽

Where in this case (2-Parameter Weibull Distribution) γ is 0, and

1
Γ ( + 1)
𝛽

Is the gamma function evaluated at the value of:

1
( + 1)
𝛽

we can obtain the Mean Time to Failure (MTTF) (or in this case, Mean Time until 2 nd Disbond will be
occurred):

Table 5: MTTF (Mean Time Until 2nd Disbond Occurrences)

Lower Normal Upper

Bound Value Bound
MTTF (Flight
Hours) 3202.73 3582.70 4007.75
MTTF (Flight
Cycle) 2120.90 2369.20 2646.57

Which for highlighted value (lower bound: earliest predicted MTTF value), the reliability according to
Table 4 is around 50% to 45% (50% to 55% certainty that disbond will occurred).

IV. CONCLUSION
1. Fitted with Weibull distribution, 2nd occurrences of flap disbond in B737-800 data series has β >> 1
(increasing failure rate: this component is in wear-out zone), which suitable for preventive
maintenance.
2. Scheduled inspection / maintenance interval could not be determined, since there aren’t any
significant unscheduled cost impacted with this case.
3. For further consideration, required reliability table and MTTF values are displayed in this paper, which
following action are to be determined in accordance with related department. In this case, our
recommendation is not exceeding MTTF value highlighted in table 5.

V. RECOMMENDATION
1. TEA-4, TER-2, MLE, and MQE: please conduct further evaluation regarding repetitive inspection interval
for repaired flap.

VI. WORK LITERATURE & REFERENCE

1. ReliaSoft Corporation, Life Data Analysis Reference. ReliaSoft Corporation, 2017, p. 1.
2. Benesty J., Chen J., Huang Y., Cohen I. (2009) Pearson Correlation Coefficient. In: Noise Reduction in
Speech Processing. Springer Topics in Signal Processing, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2018, p. 37
– 38.
3. Antonitsin, Alexey Pavlovich, Statistical Methods in Reliability Testing. Simon Fraser University, 2009, p.
12.
4. Moubray, John, Reliability Centered Maintenance (Second Edition). Industrial Press Inc., 1997, p. 133.
5. ReliaSoft Corporation, Life Data Analysis Reference. ReliaSoft Corporation, 2017, p. 104.

Form MZ-3-01.1 (2-11) Page 7 of 7