11 10 09li

Past Experiences and Future Trends for Composite Aircraft Structure
11/10/09 Montana State University Seminar Main M i points i t Historical perspectives on composite usage Critical C iti l design, d i manufacturing f t i and d repair i issues (including service damage considerations) Service experiences
AA587 transport accident investigation
FAA
Larry Ilcewicz
CS&TA, Composites
Barriers to expanded p use

Scaling critical to product development
FAA composite initiatives

Background B k d & technical t h i l highlights hi hli ht
Career challenges in composites
FAA
Main Points
Composite airframe applications are increasing Design and manufacturing integration is essential during composite product development and certification Structural details and service damage g drive design g Some service durability problems for minimum gage structures Composites used in empennage main torque box structures h have h had d a good d maintenance i t and d safety f t history hi t Advanced composite manufacturing, maintenance and structures technologies continue to evolve Resource dilution and a desire to be more efficient is driving industry to standardize and work together Ongoing FAA initiatives support industry advances Challenging career opportunities will be available
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 2
FAA
New Airframe Structures Technologies
Until the 1930s, wood was the primary material used in aircraft construction. It was plentiful
and cheap, had large bulk and strength for its weight, and could easily be worked into any desired shape
Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA
. Skilled Skill d carpenters, t cabinet bi t makers, k and d seamstresses t used d their th i talents t l t to t help h l transform t f experimental i t l aircraft i ft shops h into major manufacturing centers. The first planes they built were of a mixed construction that combined wood, fabric, steel and small amounts of aluminum for reinforcement. Manufactures used ash and spruce for the wings which were usually built around two I-shaped spars, and braced either by internal cables or by forming the leading-edge surface surface with ply. Seamstresses applied the final touches, covering wings with linen, cotton, or sometimes silk. After World War I, builders made the transition for the biplane configuration to monoplanes and other aerodynamic refinements. Among the many structural improvements of this time were the monocoque fuselage and better metals.
transition to all-metal construction was gradual, in large part because of f the h hi high h costs of f new tooling li and d related l d retraining i i of f personnel. l
FAA
Composite Benefits Driving the Initial Applications

Weight reduction red ction Improvements in fatigue resistance Corrosion prevention Other Oth benefits b fit noted t d in i some programs
Potential fabrication cost advantages for parts with complex shapes Performance advantages (e.g., damage tolerance)
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar
FAA
Major Composite Components on Boeing Airplanes

707 747 737 727 737 300 737-300 767 757 777
Carbon fiber
Surface area
Fiberglass
Fiberglass and hybrids

90 2000
5
1950
60
70
80
FAA
Composite Structural Weight in Commercial Transport and Military Applications

Boeing Commercial 60% % Advanced Structural Composites Airbus Commercial McDonnell Douglas Commercial 50% U S Defense U.S. Future Commercial Applications
RAH-66 Wing+Tail
787 Wing+Tail+Fuselage *
A/FX
40%
30%
B2 V-22 A-6 Rewing F-22 F-18E/F YF-22 A320
A380 *
20%
A321 A330 F-18A 777 10% A310 A300 A340 MD-87 C-17A MD-82 757 MD-83 MD-90 MD-11 F-15A F-16A 767 737
0% 1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
FAA
U.S. Development & Certification Basis

Advanced composite transport airframe structures were derived from NASA Prototype & military applications pp from the 1970/1980s Boeing 777 Empennage Certified in 1995
*
*P Prototype aircraft i f application li i (5 shipsets)
V-22 Osprey Wing & fuselage development B-2 Bomber 60 foot wing box
7
FAA
Implementation of Composites in Small Airplane and Rotorcraft Applications

C Composite e Usage, % Structur ral Weight t
100
Windecker Eagle
Gyroflug y g Speed Canard
Slingsby T67M Grob G-115
Israviation ST-50 Grob/E-Systems Egrett
80 60 40
S-76
Dornier Seastar Avtek 400 Lear Fan 2100
Beech Starship
20 0
65 70 75
Military Aircraft and Commercial Transport Application 80 85 90 95

8
Year of First Flight

FAA
Lancair and Cirrus Aircraft (Certified in 1998)
Most primary structure uses composite materials l
Cirrus Design Corp. SR20
Extensive use of adhesive bonding

PAC USA L Lancair i LC40 LC40-550FG 550FG
FAA
Other Small All-Composite All-Composite Aircraft
Scaled Technology Works Proteus
Morrow Boomerang
SNA Seawind
Adams Aircraft
10
FAA
Pressurized Business Jets Using Composites in Fuselage and other Primary Structure
Raytheon Premier I
Raytheon Horizon
AASI Jetcruzer 500

Visionaire Corp. VA10 (Vantage)
FAA
Composites in Advanced Rotorcraft, Including Dynamic Components of Rotor Structure

Sikorsky S92 Rotorcraft
12
FAA
Existing State-of-the-Art in Composite Aircraft Structures
13
FAA
Critical Issues for Composite Designs

Integration g of structural design g detail with repeatable manufacturing processes
Material and process control
Design details details, manufacturing flaws and service damage, which cause local stress concentration
Strength, St th fatigue f ti & damage d tolerance t l Dependency on tests Scaling issues
Environmental effects
Temperature Moisture content
Maintenance inspection and repair

FAA
Manufacturing Factors Critical to Structural Properties Properties*

Continuous control of key process steps
Most raw materials are perishable and require environmental controls (storage and use) Must eliminate contamination threats in lay-up and bonding process steps Reproducibility of lay-up and bagging process steps Systematic control of part cure/consolidation Many M potential t ti l sources of f defects d f t in i machining, hi i handling and assembly of cured composites a g of o manufacturing a u actu g technicians tec c a s Training
* Taken from the MIDO Course on Composites for the Aviation Safety Inspector
FAA
Some Structural Design Details Causing L l Stress Local St Concentration C t ti and d Redistribution R di t ib ti
Bolted joints Doors and windows System provisions (penetrations and attachments) Access and drain holes Attachment tabs Stringer terminations (run-outs) Bonded attachments Pl drop-offs Ply d ff
Example design details given above can lead to static strength or durability problems if not accounted for with sufficient tests and analysis in structural development
Structural Design Detail Leading to Failure

FAA
C Case study: d JVX, JVX V-22 V 22 O Osprey f full ll scale l wing i test box b
Premature failure of the forty five foot-long foot long wing box structure, with upper surface compression cracking occurring in the central bay region during development tests.
Ref: R f Composite C Failure F l Analysis A l Handbook, H db k Volume Vl II - Technical T h l Handbook, Part 3 - Case Histories, DOT/FAA/CT-91/23, Feb. 1992
FAA
Allowed Strength for a Composite Design must Account for Defects and Damage
Stress
Base material property (defect free) ( )
Design value (including representative defects*)

p Clearly visible damage * Non-visible impacts Porosity (Detectable in service) Cut fibers Delaminations etc. t
Strain
FAA
General Structural Design Load and Damage Considerations

Ultimate Design Load Level
1.5 Factor of Safety
Limit
~ Maximum load per lifetime Continued safe flight
Allowable Damage Limit
Critical Damage Threshold
(ADL) ( )
(CDT)
Increasing Damage Severity

FAA
Key Composite Behavior

Relatively flat S-N curves & large scatter for repeated load cases
Relatively high repeated loads needed for growth Load enhancement factors used to show reliability
Environmental effects require careful consideration Relatively large manufacturing defects and impact damage are considered in design criteria Compression & shear residual strength are affected b damage by d ( i i l for (critical f many structures) ) Similar tensile residual strength behavior to metals
(e g strength versus toughness trades) (e.g.,
Limited service experiences yield unknowns

FAA
Categories of Damage & Defect Considerations for Primary Composite Aircraft Structures
Category Examples
(not inclusive of all damage types)
BVID, minor environmental degradation, scratches, gouges and allowable mfg. defects that must retain ultimate load for the specified life defects/mistakes, major local heat or environmental degradation that must retain limit load until found Damage obvious to operations in a walk-around inspection or due to loss of form/fit/function that must retain limit load until found by operations Damage i D in fli flight ht from f events t that th t are obvious b i to t pilot il t (rotor burst, bird-strike, lightning, exploding gear tires, severe in-flight hail) Damage occurring due to rare service events or to an extent beyond that considered in design, which must be reported by operations for immediate action
21
Category 1: Allowable damage that may

go undetected by scheduled or directed field i inspection ti (or ( allowable ll bl manufacturing f i defects) d f ) or directed field inspection @ specified intervals ( (repair p scenario) )
Category 2: Damage detected by scheduled VID (ranging small to large), deep gouges, mfg.
Category 3: Obvious damage detected

within a few flights by operations focal (repair scenario)
C Category 4 4: Discrete source damage

known by pilot to limit flight maneuvers (repair scenario)
Category g y 5: Severe damage g created by y

anomalous ground or flight events (repair scenario)
Categories of Damage
Category 1: Allowable damage
that may y go g undetected by y scheduled or directed field inspection
(or allowable manufacturing defects)
X-sec of f BVID at Design Skin Impact Site Load
Level Ultimate
FAA
Category 2: Damage detected

by y scheduled or directed field f inspection at specified intervals (repair scenario)
Category g y1 Exterior Skin Damage Category 2

Limit
~ Maximum load per lifetime
X-sec of BVID I Impact t at t Flange Fl to Skin Transition

Interior Blade stringer Damage

Continued safe flight
(ADL)
(CDT)
Increasing Damage Severity

Categories g of Damage g
FAA Category 3: Obvious damage
Category 4: Discrete source

damage known by pilot to limit flight maneuvers (repair scenario)
detected within a few flights by operations focal (repair scenario)

Ultimate Design Load Level
Category 3 Limit Category 4 ~ Maximum load

per lifetime Continued safe flight
Accidental Damage to Lower Fuselage
Rotor Disk Cut Through the Aircraft Fuselage Belly and Wing Center Section to Reach Opposite pp Engine g
(ADL)
(CDT)
Increasing Damage Severity Lost Bonded Repair Patch
Severe Rudder Lightning Damage

23
FAA
Categories of Damage
Category 5: Severe damage created by anomalous
ground or flight events (repair scenario)
Birdstrike (flock)
Maintenance J ki I Jacking Incident id t Propeller Mishap
Birdstrike (big bird)
24
FAA
Boeing 737 Composite Horizontal Development and Certification

Developed and certified under NASA Aircraft Energy Efficiency, ACEE, program (1977-1982)
NASA ACEE 737 Horizontal Stabilizer Structural Arrangement
Building Block Approach
Taken from: Structural Teardown Inspection of an Advanced Composite Stabilizer for Boeing 737 Aircraft," D. Hoffman, J. Kollgaard and Matthew Miller, 8th Joint FAA/DoD/NASA Aging Aircraft Conference, January, 2005. Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 25
FAA
Service Experiences for Boeing 737 Composite Horizontal Stabilizer
Five shipsets entered service in 1984 Structural inspection program that included detailed visual inspection, with some pulse pulse-echo echo ultrasound in specific areas to collect fleet data g service-induced damage g events to main Four significant torque box structure as of 2001 technical paper:
(1+2) De-icer impact damage to upper surface skins (3) Fan F blade bl d penetration t ti of f lower l surface f skin ki (4) Severe impact damage to front spar web and upper & lower chord radii
Taken T k from: f Composite Empennage Primar Primary Structure Str ct re Service Ser ice Experience," E perience " G. G Mabson, Mabson A. Fawcett and G. Oakes, CANCOM Conference, Montreal, Canada, August 2001. Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 26
FAA
B737 Horizontal Stabilizer Teardown Inspection
Inspections found little deterioration due to wear, fatigue, or Factory Ultrasonic Scans of Skin Panels environmental factors Production NDI results indicated that todays factory standard is advanced beyond that of early 1980s 1980s Vintage Todays 3.5 MHz
High levels of porosity are evident in much of the composite structure
1 MHz ATTU
60 50
Thin Film Pulse Echo
Residual Strength After Service

Control (1980 t (1980s tests) t) Shipset 5 (lower skin) Shipset 5 (upper skin) Shipset 4 (lower skin) Shipset 4 (upper skin)
Mechanical tests of coupons and elements cut from B737 stabilizers had residual strength equivalent to those obtained more than 20 years ago
Tensile 40 Strength 30 (Ksi) 20

10 0 Region 2 Region 3
Skin Panel Locations
27
FAA
History of Composite Service Problems

Composites used in fragile, thin-gaged control surfaces and secondary structures pose some problems for airlines
Prone to damage from impact and environmental exposures (has not proved to be a safety issue, instead it has been an economic burden) In many cases, the problems can be traced to bad design details
Lack of industry standardization and training for maintenance
Dents and Punctures on Boeing 757 Inboard Aft Flap (thin skin of composite sandwich)
Example of Hail Damage from 1999 Sydney Storm
Dents on Boeing 777 Aft Flap (thin skin metal bonded sandwich)
28
FAA
Environmental Durability Problems from Early Use of Aramid/Epoxy Materials
Transverse Matrix Cracking (TVM) of aramid/epoxy sandwich facesheets yielded a path for water ingression into honeycomb core
Boeing 767 Aircraft Developed in 1980s
29
FAA
Recovery of AA587 Vertical Fin from Jamaica Bay, Bay New York
30
FAA
Fuselage Attachment Structure at the AA587 A id t Site Accident Sit in i Belle B ll Harbor, H b New N York Y k
Left center attach point with portion of vertical stabilizer Left rear attach point with portion of vertical stabilizer p
Right rear attach point

FAA
Two Main Branches of the Fault Tree Being Studied for the AA587 Accident
V ti l Fin Vertical Fi Failure F il
Vertical Fin Capability p y Less Than Expected Structural design Manufacturing quality Material degradation Service S i event and d maintenance
Vertical Fin Loads Greater Than Expected Upset condition (e.g., wake k vortex/turbulence) t /t b l ) Rudder problems Loss of flight stability and control Pilot input
32
FAA
Barriers to Expanded Application
33
FAA
Consider Six Stages of Material Development and Application

6 Field 6. Fi ld Support S
Where the ball is often dropped between developers p and users
5. Production Technology 4. Product Definition Readiness and Certification 3. Large-Scale Development Production d Application
An expanding workforce is needed for applications
2. Concept Development 1 Initial 1. I i i l Concept C
Representative Development Application

34
FAA
Definitions of Scaling Types
Efforts to apply information at one scale l of f study t d to t predict di t the th behavior b h i at a larger, more complete level
References for charts 43 through 47
a) Composite Technology Development for Commercial Airframe Structures, L.B. Ilcewicz Chapter 6 Ilcewicz, 6.08 08 from Comprehensive Composites Volume 6,, published by Elsevier Science LTD, 2000 b) Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures, L.B. Ilcewicz, D.J. Hoffman, and A.J. Fawcett, Chapter 6.07 from Comprehensive Composites Volume 6,, published by Elsevier Science LTD, 2000
Efforts to verify a technology basis, which links design components, factory process cells, maintenance procedures, p , and cost evaluations
35
FAA
Examples of Size Scaling

Example: p Fuselage g Damage g Tolerance Process development Tooling trials Material & p process control
Manufacturing
Structures
Design criteria, requirements and objectives Building g block tests & analysis y for internal loads, including the effects of environment
Maintenance
Inspection p procedure development p p Repair process development Repair building block tests & analysis
Manufacturing, g, structures and maintenance methods & procedures

FAA
Examples of Product Scaling

Example: p Braided/RTM Fuselage g Frames Direct operating costs (acquisition, fuel, maintenance) Performance (range, payload, speed) Market (# aircraft, timing, external factors)
Product Viability
Factory Definition
Floor space and process flow Q Quantity i of f equipment i and d tools l Quality and process controls Staffing needs
Certification
Design, manufacturing, and maintenance definition/documentation Design, g , manufacturing, g, and maintenance verification (material qualification, mfg. conformity and structural substantiation)
FAA
Product Value Assessment of New Technology

Composite p technology gy is of interest in new aircraft products p of all types because it can help decrease total direct operating costs (DOC) in 3 key areas (see example below from transport aircraft)
(1) Potential for lower manufacturing g costs
Typical Components of Total DOC

Fuel 25%
Ownership 50%
Flight Crew 14%
Life-cycle cost related to structural weight i h savings i
Components of Ownership
Avionics 11% Systems 8% Interiors Other 2% 9%
Airframe Insurance Engine 1% Maint. Maintenance 6% 4%
(3) Proven weight savings i reduce fuel costs
Airframe 51%
Engines 19%
Life-cycle cost related to structural reliability, inspectability, and repairability
(2) Potential for lower maintenance costs
Total DOC savings on the order of 5 to 8% appear possible with composites applied to both transport wing and fuselage
FAA
Reduced Cycle Time to Market is Equally Important to Increased Product Value

Unless U l new composites it technology t h l becomes b as assessable to the engineering community as metals, Total DOC benefits are lost
Total DOC Breakout
Fuel 25%
Total DOC 2.5% g Savings

2.0%
Ownership 50%
Flight Crew 14%
Total Unit 5.0% Cost Savings

4.0% 3.0% 2.0%
Insurance Engine 1% Maint. 4%
Airframe Maint. 6%
1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0 0% 0.0% 0 5 10 15 20

*Assumes recurring and non-recurring costs are both 50% of total unit cost. Rate of return = 13%
1.0% 0 0% 0.0%
Development Cycle Time Saved (months)
3.0%
6.0%
Lack of composite standardization and engineering resource dilution pose serious safety & certification issues and limit aircraft ai c aft product p oduct applications
39
Ongoing FAA Composite Safety and Certification Initiatives

FAA
Actively working with industry since 1999
Safety management (airworthiness) Task Groups initiated within composite industry standards organizations
(CMH-17, CACRC)
Composite Technical Thrust Areas

FAA
Advancements depend on close integration between areas Material Control Control, Standardization Damage Tolerance and and Shared Databases Maintenance Practices Critical defects (impact & mfg.) Progress to Date Structural Substantiation
Advances in analysis & test building blocks Statistical significance Environmental effects g integration g Manufacturing
AC 20-107B (9/09) 2 other Advisory Circulars
6 Policy Memos p 11 Workshops 3 Training Initiatives 2 Technical Documents CMH-17 Updates SAE CACRC Standard ~50 FAA R&D Reports
Bonded B d d structure t t & repair i issues i Fatigue & damage considerations Life assessment (tests & analyses) Accelerated testing Structural tear-down tear down aging studies NDI damage metrics Equivalent levels of safety Training standards
Bonded Joint Technical Issues
Advanced Material F Forms and dP Processes
Flammability & Crashworthiness

Support to cabin safety research groups
41
Significant progress, which has relevance to all aircraft products, has been gained to date
FAA
FAA Approach to Composite Safety and Certification Initiatives

Evolving g Mature
Rules & General G id Guidance FARs Policy Statements Advisory Circulars
Certification and Service History
Focused RE&D
Time
Internal Policies Industry Interface
Training g( (Workshops, p, Courses, Videos) Detailed B k Background d Public Documents and (various forms of technology transfer) Standards (e.g., CMH-17,
SAE AMS, Contractor Reports)
New Technology gy Considerations
42
Important Teammates
FAA
Partnerships with industry have been essential,

e.g., e g CMH-17, CMH 17 SAE P P-17, 17 CACRC, CACRC ASTM, ASTM SAMPE, SAMPE AGATE, AGATE SATS, RITA, SAS/IAB/AACE
Training T i i Databases Standardization Engineering g gg guidelines
NASA research and other support

Significant g research support pp since 1970/1980s AA587, A300-600 accident investigation
NASA
DOD and DARPA research

NCAMP support tt to material t i l standardization t d di ti
EASA and other foreign research/standardization

FAA
FAA Joint Advanced Materials and Structures (JAMS) Centers of Excellence

New FAA JAMS Centers of Excellence to provide research and training in support of expanding composite applications
Wichita State University
Northwestern University Purdue University Tuskegee University University of California at Los Angeles University y of California at San Diego g University of Delaware
University of Washington
Edmonds Community College Oregon State University Washington State University
University of Utah
Florida International University y
44
Past Milestones for Composite Safety & Certification Policy, Guidance & Training
FAA
Material & Process Control and Shared Databases Bonded Joints & Structures Other CS&CI Initiatives
Composite Structural Development Workshop CS&CI 7-Year Plan FAA/Industry Bonded Structures Workshop I NTSB/Airbus/NASA/FAA FAA/EASA/Boeing/Airbus AA Flt587 Accident Investigation (A300 Secondary DT & Maintenance WG Composite Vertical Fin) Structures Policy
Start Bonded Draft Composite ASTM Workshop p for Structures Initiatives Composite Fracture Maintenance Training Modules, FAA Technical AGATE Shared Document & Workshop II CMH-17 Database Workshop Prepreg M&P Spec. Revision F FAA Bonded Advisory Circular Static Strength Substantiation Structures Policy y Policy and Workshop NTSB/FAA/WSU Initial material qualification Composite Cert. SH Nimbus Accident Roadmap Tech. Doc. and equivalency policy TSB/NTSB/FAA/Airbus FAA/NASA/Industry Investigation Rudder Investigation Structures Workshop Update material Initiated sandwich FAA/Industry Prepreg qualification and FAA/Industry Composite damage tolerance studies equivalency i l policy li M&P & Spec. S Workshop kh UCSB Peel Ply Research Maintenance Training Workshop I FAA/Industry LRM Policy on material selection TTCP Bonded Structures New Rule & AC for FAA/Industry Bonded M&P Spec. Workshop Structures Workshop II Certification Document Rotorcraft Fatigue & DT guideline (T rule) Italian Industry Shared Database Workshop
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
45
Recent Milestones for Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Initiatives

FAA
FAA/NRC Workshop (5/04) Composite Maintenance Overview FAA Seattle Workshop (11/04) Initiate Composite Maintenance Training (CMT) JAMS CMT Develop. (11/04-7/05) Draft Course Objectives/Modules FAA/Industry CMT Workshop (9/05) Detailed CMT Review Airbus/Boeing FAA/EASA Composite Presentations, recaps and breakout session summaries at: Damage Tolerance & Maintenance WG http://www.niar.wichita.edu/niarworkshops/ Toulouse (9/05) Seattle (3/06) JAMS CMT Develop. Develop (7/06 (7/06-6/07) 6/07) SAE CACRC Course Standard FAA/EASA/Industry Damage Tolerance & Maintenance Workshops Chi Chicago (7/06)
Amsterdam A t d (5/07)
FAA/EASA/TCCA WG Draft CMH-17 Certification and Compliance Chapter, V3C3 (9/07) Ongoing g g CMH-17 Revision G Developments p (2005-2007) ( )
2004
2005
2006
2007
46
Future milestones for Composite Safety & Certification Guidance and Training
FAA
Release CMH-17 Revision G
Advances in statistics, test methods and data reduction protocol Major Volume 3 re-organization New Volume 6 (Sandwich) New certification & compliance chapter New crashworthiness chapter N safety New f t management t chapter h t Updates to damage tolerance & maintenance
Implement Composite Maintenance Awareness Course High g Energy gy Blunt Impact p Awareness Release AC 20-107B (Composite Aircraft Structure) NCAMP shared databases and specifications (CMH-17, SAE AMS) New CACRC Airworthiness TG Initiatives (major repair)
FAA/Industry education initiatives

Composite damage tolerance guidance Crashworthiness rule & guidance
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
47
FAA
Career Challenges in Composites
Numerous challenges in design/manufacturing integration require multiple engineering skills and teamwork Skills to advance manufacturing methods (i.e., tooling, process modeling, automation, quality controls, equipment design) Business/eng. skills to overcome economic issues, which limit applications (design cost and business case analyses) Skills to combine analysis methods, databases and engineering tools to evaluate the effects of damage and defects Skills to advance maintenance procedures (i.e., repair and NDI) Research and teaching skills with close links to applications (applied R&D, distance learning and continuous education) Willingness to lead or support a team, depending on the project

11 10 09li

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

11 10 09li

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Past Experiences and Future Trends for Composite Aircraft Structure

Barriers to expanded p use

FAA composite initiatives

Career challenges in composites

New Airframe Structures Technologies

Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA

Composite Benefits Driving the Initial Applications

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Major Composite Components on Boeing Airplanes

Fiberglass and hybrids

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Composite Structural Weight in Commercial Transport and Military Applications

B2 V-22 A-6 Rewing F-22 F-18E/F YF-22 A320

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

U.S. Development & Certification Basis

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Implementation of Composites in Small Airplane and Rotorcraft Applications

Gyroflug y g Speed Canard

Slingsby T67M Grob G-115

Israviation ST-50 Grob/E-Systems Egrett

Dornier Seastar Avtek 400 Lear Fan 2100

Military Aircraft and Commercial Transport Application 80 85 90 95

Year of First Flight

Lancair and Cirrus Aircraft (Certified in 1998)

Most primary structure uses composite materials l

Cirrus Design Corp. SR20

Extensive use of adhesive bonding

Other Small All-Composite All-Composite Aircraft

Scaled Technology Works Proteus

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

AASI Jetcruzer 500

Composites in Advanced Rotorcraft, Including Dynamic Components of Rotor Structure

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Existing State-of-the-Art in Composite Aircraft Structures

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Critical Issues for Composite Designs

Maintenance inspection and repair

Manufacturing Factors Critical to Structural Properties Properties*

Structural Design Detail Leading to Failure

Base material property (defect free) ( )

Design value (including representative defects*)

General Structural Design Load and Damage Considerations

Allowable Damage Limit

Critical Damage Threshold

Increasing Damage Severity

Key Composite Behavior

Limited service experiences yield unknowns

Category 1: Allowable damage that may

Category 3: Obvious damage detected

C Category 4 4: Discrete source damage

Category g y 5: Severe damage g created by y

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Category 2: Damage detected

Category g y1 Exterior Skin Damage Category 2

X-sec of BVID I Impact t at t Flange Fl to Skin Transition

Interior Blade stringer Damage

Continued safe flight

Increasing Damage Severity

Category 4: Discrete source

detected within a few flights by operations focal (repair scenario)

Category 3 Limit Category 4 ~ Maximum load

Accidental Damage to Lower Fuselage

Allowable Damage Limit