DAMAGE TOLERANCE

CERTIFICATION OF
COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
Historical Background
 Many major fatigue failures in 1950s on both military and
commercial aircraft.

 Initiation of Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP)

by USAF in 1958.

 ASIP- Safe Life method involved analysis and testing to

four times the anticipated service life.

 Commercially, Fail Safe method was introduced in early

1960s
 However, Safe-Life method did not prevent fatigue
cracking within service life, even though the aircraft were
tested to four lifetimes to support one service life.

 KC 135 Safe life 13000h : 14 cases of unstable cracking

in lower wing skins b/w 1800 & 5000h. Lower wing
surfaces were reskinned at 8500h

 F5 Safe life 4000h: Fatigue failure of the lower wing skin

root region at 1900h caused loss of aircraft

 F-111 Safe Life 4000h: Fatigue failure of center wing box

at 105 h caused loss of aircraft
 Studies performed by AirForce Flight Dynamics Lab. in
late 1960s indicated that more than 56% of all in service
fatigue problems were caused by pre-existing material
and fabrication quality deficiencies.

 Investigations culminated in a complete change in design

criteria for USAF aircraft as well as for the commercial
large transport industry.

 Proposed amendments were precipitated by significant

developments in state of art and in industry practice
regarding fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation of
commercial aircraft.
 Joint efforts by industry and governments led to the release
of FAA Advisory Circular 91-56 in May 1981.

 Contains advisory material related to aging aircraft

problem.

 Requires evaluation of the structure using modern fracture

technology and supplemental inspection document.

 Similar to Airworthiness Notice 89 i.e continued safe

operation of aircraft beyond intended life can be ensured
by continuing inspection program that is supplemental to
the basic maintenance program
Structural Design Philosophies
 Damage Tolerance – attribute of structure that permits it
to retain its required residual strength for a period of use
after the structure has sustained specific levels of
fatigue, corrosion or accidental or discrete source
damage.

 Specific levels of damage refers to the damage between

the levels of in-service detectability and critical load limit.

 Principal Structural Element (PSE)- element that

contributes significantly to carrying flight, ground and
pressurization loads and whose failure, if remained
undetected could lead to loss of A/C
Structural Design Philosophies
 Fail Safe – attribute of the structure that permits
it to retain its required residual strength for a
period of use after the failure or partial failure of
PSE, prior to repair

 Safe life of structure – number of events (e.g

flights, landing or flight hours) during which there
is low probability that the strength will degrade
below its designed ultimate value due to fatigue
cracking.
General Requirements
 An evaluation of structure under typical load and
environmental spectra must show that catastrophic
failure due to fatigue, corrosion or accidental damage will
be avoided throughout the operational life of the aircraft.

 Must result in inspection and maintenance procedures

for each PSE.

 Must show that the structure is damage tolerant for

fatigue, corrosion or accidental or discrete source
damage unless it can be shown that damage tolerance is
impractical.
 Philosophy of Damage Tolerance
Evaluation
 Because of large number of areas to be considered in the
damage tolerance evaluation, a high degree of reliance
must be placed on analysis.

 To test every PSE for damage tolerance characteristics

would be economically unfeasible.

 Thus, evaluation is considered to be an analytical

evaluation.

 Sufficient testing must be performed to ensure that

analysis methods are not un conservative.
 Philosophy of Damage Tolerance
Evaluation
 Fracture mechanics is the primary tool used in damage
tolerance evaluation.

 Each manufacturer must provide a separate report

describing the analytical methodology used in the
evaluation.

 Some manufacturers have evaluated as many as 500

elements while others have considered less than 100.

 Depends how each manufacturer interprets the extent of

each PSE.
Flyable Crack Philosophy
 Incorrect interpretation – Damage tolerance evaluation is a
means to allow continued safe operation in the presence of
known cracking.

 Provides an inspection program for an A/C that is not expected

to crack under normal circumstances but may crack in service
due to inadvertent circumstances.

 Cracks found in primary structure must be repaired before

further flight.

 Only exception-engineering evaluation showing that the

strength of structure will never be degraded below ultimate
strength during flight with known cracking.
Damage Tolerance Evaluation
Tasks
 Define Aircraft utilization
 Develop load factor spectra at the aircraft center of gravity
 Select critical locations for evaluation
 Develop stress spectra for each location
 Establish the environment for each location
 Develop crack growth rate (da/dN) data for each location
 Validate basic crack growth analysis methods
 Obtain fracture toughness data for each material and geometry
 Determine the extent of damage for each location at limit load
 Validate residual strength analysis methods
 Determine the structural category for each location
 Produce a crack growth curve for each location
 Convene meetings between airline operators, manufacturers and
authorities
 Collectively decide on inspection methods, thresholds and
frequencies consistent with operational economics
Aircraft Utilization
 Account for the different flight types expected in service,
the flight lengths in terms of hours, and the percentage
of time spent flying each flight type.

 May include long vs short flights, cargo vs passenger

flights, low altitude vs high altitude flights and the
percentage of time spent in training.

 Important to consider the distribution of time spent at

each gross weight, speed and altitude.

 No. of different flight types considered may vary from

about 25 for complex military A/C to as low as five or six
for commercial transport A/C
Aircraft Utilization
 Structural elements involved in damage tolerance
evaluation must also be considered.

 For example, low level flying is extremely severe on

lower wing surface crack growth life.

 In case of longitudinal cracking in fuselage, the internal

cabin pressure is important loading condition.

 For circumferential cracking on the crown of the fuselage

skin, primary loading would most likely be fuselage
downbending due to inertial loads.
Load Factor Spectra at the Aircraft
Center of Gravity
 Usually developed in the form of data about cumulative
frequency of occurrence of incremental load factor.

 Obtained from flight histories for similar aircraft, these data

are developed for taxi, maneuver, gust and landing impact.

 Spectra may be simplified by eliminating loads that are not

damaging, that produce stresses below endurance limit for
crack initiation.

 Considerable care must be taken when eliminating cycles;

otherwise crack growth life will be unconservatively affected.
Critical Locations for Evaluations
 Locations of high stress concentrations particularly those
at which a number of surfaces intersect each other,
creating a feather edge that is prone to accidental
damage.

 Locations of high spectrum severity-not only areas of

high stress but also areas where a large number of
cycles may occur during every flight.For example flap
support structure that is subjected to aerodynamic
buffeting loads that may occur thousand times per flight.

 Locations where stresses would be high in secondary

members after failure of a primary member.
Critical Locations for Evaluations
 Locations where crack propagation rates are high and
fracture toughness values are low

 Locations of likely fatigue damage and crack propagation

paths, particularly when the crack path might be affected
by multiple site damage

 Initial number of areas considered is approximately 150

for the complete aircraft but during the course of
evaluation this maybe reduced to 90 PSEs for which
crack growth and residual strength results are
documented
PSE Stress Spectra Development
 Done by converting the load factor spectra at the aircraft
center of gravity using stress transfer functions.

 These transfer functions are required for each segment of

the flight profile.

 Load factor exceedance data are converted to stress

exceedance data for each PSE, then into flight by flight
stress spectra for use in a crack growth computer program
like LICAFF.

 In order to ensure inclusion of all cycles that contribute to

crack growth damage, a stress range truncation study must
be performed for each aircraft type.
PSE Environment
 Low temperatures can considerably reduce the residual
strength of cracked structures.

 Increased humidity and moisture usually increase crack

growth. Salt content in atmosphere can also increase
crack growth rates particularly for aircraft taking off and
landing over the ocean through mist and fog.

 Sump tank water containing chlorides can subject lower

wing surface elements to increased crack growth rates.

 Temperatures higher than room temperatures result in

higher crack growth rates therefore components
surrounding engine installation should receive careful
attention.
PSE Environment
 Corrosive environments: Care should be taken when
developing crack growth rate data in a corrosive
environment.

 This is true in very low ∆K region at low stress ratios

such as zero.

 Crack tip blunting due to corrosion can reduce crack

growth rates and create misleading results.

 Effect of corrosive atmosphere is more pronounced at

high stress ratios and care should be taken to account
for this effect.
Crack Growth Rate Data
 Primary material property required for crack growth rate
analysis is crack growth rate (da/dN) versus the crack tip
stress-intensity factor range (∆K)

 da/dN plotted against ∆K is a straight line on log-log

paper
Crack Growth Rate Data
 Stress intensity factor range on a cycle is defined as ∆K=
Kmax- Kmin where Kmax and Kmin are the maximum and
minimum applied stress-intensity factors, respectively

 Crack tip stress intensity is defined as

K = σ(πa)1/2β
Where σ = applied gross stress
a = crack size
β = effect of geometry

 Essential to develop data for da/dN versus ∆K by testing

for each material, product form, and heat treatment
considered in damage tolerance evaluation
Crack Growth Rate Data
 Data should be generated for the specific environment
that the PSE will be subjected to in service.

 Loading direction and crack orientation, relative to the

material grain direction, should also be considered.

 Mostly a FORTRAN computer program generates a

polynomial fit to the crack growth data. The polynomial is
mathematically differentiated to provide da/dN data. Use
of this program will also help reduce apparent scatter
data.

 Simplest form to represent da/dN versus ∆K is via Paris

equation  da/dN = C(∆K)n where C is y intercept and n
is the slope of the line.
Crack Growth Rate Data
 Paris equation was modified by Walker to account for the
stress ratio(R)
da/dN = C[∆K/(1 - R)1-m)n

 Many manufacturers represent da/dN data in tabular

form and input the data for each R-ratio into a computer
which performs logarithmic interpolation between each
data point and each R- ratio. This procedure has been
proven to give the most accurate results.
Fracture Toughness Data
 Should be obtained for the full range of thickness used.

 Necessary because the critical stress intensity factor

varies with material thickness, from the higher plane-
stress values in thin materials through a mixed mode
region to the lower plane strain value in thicker parts.

 As material thickness is reduced, a greater portion of the

fracture surface will be plane stress fracture.

 Determination of Plane stress fracture is difficult since it

is influenced by panel width effects, crack buckling and
slow stable tearing.
PSE Limiting Residual Strength
 Important to determine the maximum extent of
damage that each PSE can tolerate at the limit
load conditions specified in FAR.

 This damage extent is considered the limit for

crack growth calculations and an inspection
program must be established to detect the
damage before these proportions are reached.
Discrete Source Damage
 Term used for specific accidental damage that cannot be
inflicted without the pilot’s knowledge

 The aircraft must be capable of successfully completing a flight

during which structural damage is likely to occur as a result of :
 Impact with 4 lb bird at cruise velocity (Vc) at sea level or at
0.85 Vc at 8000ft. whichever is greater.
 Uncontained fan blade impact
 Uncontained engine failure
 Uncontained high energy rotating machinery failure

 Immediately obvious damage from discrete sources should be

determined and the remaining structure should be shown to
have static strength for the maximum loads expected during
the completion of flight
Discrete Source Damage
Discrete Source Damage
 Pressure cabin is designed
to sustain a full two bay skin
crack with a broken frame if
there is tendency for skin
fast fracture within two bays
at the applied principal
stress resulting from skin
hoop tension and fuselage
downbending shear
stresses.

 This is usually easy to

achieve in a fuselage with
crack stopper straps.
Discrete Source Damage
 Applied principal stress is
given by AD

 Skin fast fracture will occur

at B, and damage will be
arrested at C

 If crack stopper straps are

not used and the peak of
residual strength curve is at
E, fast fracture at B will not
be arrested, and there will
be fuselage explosive
decompression failure.
Residual Strength Analysis
Validation
 Although non linear analysis is necessary for some
configurations, linear elastic fracture mechanics has
been used with a high degree of success to calculate
residual strength in the presence of fatigue damage for
complex structures.

 Methods used are

 Lumped parameter FE analysis
 Energy release rate FE analysis
 Cracked element FE analysis
 Displacement compatibility analysis
Residual Strength Analysis
Validation
 Types of structures to be
considered for residual strength
analysis validation

 Lower wing surface stiffened

components
 Horizontal Stabilizer upper surface
stiffened components
 Fuselage stiffened components
subjected to pressure for
longitudinal cracks
 Fuselage stiffened components for
circumferential cracks
 Any other principal structure for
which analysis is considered
unreliable
Two Bay Skin Crack Criterion
 Fatigue critical location in a
fuselage skin at the first fastener
in a circumferential frame shear
clip cutout.
 Cutout,which allows axial
stiffeners to pass through the
frame, creates a stress
concentration in the skin
aggravated by increased skin
stress due to frame bending at
some locations.
 Fatigue cracks here will
propagate into both adjacent
skin bays creating two bay skin
crack scenario.
 In addition discrete source
damage can create potential for
stiffening element failure in
addition to two bay skin damage
Two Bay Skin Crack Criterion
 Fatigue critical location in the
fuselage in the axial stiffeners
at a circumferential frame
connection
 Radial loading due to internal
cabin pressure causes stiffener
bending (M) and concentrated
load transfer (P) from stiffener
into the frame.
 Combination of these loads
creates high local stresses in
the stiffener, creating a
potential for stiffener fatigue
cracking
 After failure of stiffener, the skin
becomes overloaded at the
skin to stiffener rivets on each
side of the stiffener crack
 This creates potential for skin
crack to propagate into two
adjacent bays
Two Bay Skin Crack Criterion
 Potential cracking of a lower
wing surface stiffener at fuel
transfer holes or at rib
attachment fastener holes.

 After stiffener failure, the

fastener holes on each side of
the stiffener crack become
highly loaded, causing skin
stress concentration and
potential skin cracking.

 The skin cracking can

propagate into both adjacent
bays, creating the potential for
a two bay skin crack with a
broken central stiffener
Two Bay Skin Crack Criterion
 Shows residual strength curve for
a two bay skin crack with a broken
central stiffener at limit load in a
lower wing surface.
 Assume that the wing has been
designed such that the limit gross
stress is 33.5 ksi.
 Allowable stress for two bay
condition is given by A on skin
fracture curve.
 Any skin fast fracture below this
point will be arrested and fast
fracture at stress levels above this
point will cause failure.
 If limit load is applied during a
particular flight, a skin fast fracture
at B will be arrested at C.
 This damage would be considered
detectable by walk around
inspection and would most likely
be found.
Structural Categories
 Aircraft structures can be divided into five major categories:

 Safe-life where flaws can become critical at limit load before they
are readily detectable in service
 Single-load path,damage tolerant-allowed by regulations provided
that a reasonable inspection threshold and frequency can be
established economically feasible for airline operator
 Multiple-load path, externally inspectable –structure designed such
that a reasonable safe period for inspection is feasible, will be
externally inspectable
 Multiple loadpath, not inspectable for less than load path failure – a
crack in primary member may not be readily inspectable without
disassembly,however structure may be easily inspectable for
complete failure of primary member.Inspection frequency based on
the remaining life of secondary member
 Multiple load path,inspectable for less than load path failure-primary
member is inspectable and crack growth in primary followed by
growth in secondary member decide the inspection frequency
Crack Growth Curve

 A crack growth curve must be provided for each

PSE
Inspection Frequency Philosophy
 Frequency of inspection is
based on crack growth life,
starting with a crack size that
has a high probability of being
detected using the specified
inspection methodology and
ending with the extent of
damage at limit load.
 Inspection cost is influenced by
the inspection interval as well
as by the choice of method.
 NDI may be expensive but the
interval is long.
 Frequent visual inspection is
safer than NDI at extended
intervals.
NDI Techniques
 NDI techniques such as
industrial radiography using X-
rays or gamma rays, ultrasonic
testing, liquid penetrant testing
or via eddy current and flux
leakage.

 In a proper structure or weld,

these tests would indicate a
lack of cracks in the
radiograph, show clear
passage of sound through the
weld and back, or indicate a
clear surface without penetrant
captured in cracks
1. Section of material with a surface-
breaking crack that is not visible to the
naked eye.
2. Penetrant is applied to the surface.
3. Excess penetrant is removed.
4. Developer is applied, rendering the
crack visible
Full Scale Fatigue Testing
 To determine the locations of ‘hot spots’ where early
fatigue cracking might occur and to determine the point
in the life at which widespread, multiple site fatigue
cracking may occur.

 Some manufacturers perform residual strength testing at

the termination of full scale fatigue testing by introducing
saw cuts in critical locations.
Teardown Inspection Philosophy
 After full scale fatigue testing, it is advisable to conduct
teardown inspection of selected areas of structure that
may be susceptible to multiple site damage (MSD)

 Involves cutting out sections of the structure through

fastener holes, and fractographically examining the
fracture surfaces to determine if any sign of MSD has
occurred

 Extremely small cracks, even of less than detectable

size, can substantially reduce the residual strength
capability for which the aircraft was designed and
certified.
Widespread Fatigue Damage
 Point in the aircraft life when MSD and multiple element
damage (MSE) have degraded the originally certified residual
strength capability below the regulatory level of limit load.

 Critical damage size can be influenced by surrounding

structure.If the structure is young, it is unlikely that MSD is
present to the extent it would effect the lead crack residual
strength.

 If the structure is operating beyond the life substantiated by

fatigue testing, there is strong possibility that MSD may affect
lead crack residual strength.
 Widespread Fatigue Damage
 Loss in crack residual strength
appears to be a function of
structural geometry.

 Figures show result of FE

analysis for two bay
longitudinal skin crack with
broken central frame.

 In both figures, residual

strength is given by A

 The only difference is the use

of the crack stopper strap
where considerable MSD is
tolerable and residual strength
is above the required stress.
Repairs and Modifications
 Any repairs or modification to an airframe structure has
the potential to degrade the fatigue life and damage
tolerance capability.

 Inspection threshold frequencies can be drastically

affected by changes in structural geometry due to repairs
and modifications.

 Therefore, each repair or modification should be

evaluated for damage tolerance and new inspection
thresholds and frequencies should be established.
THE END