AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Y

14-17 July 2003, Dayton, Ohio

AIAA 2003-2784

DAMAGE TOLERANT DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

OF CURRENT AND FUTURE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE
Hans-Jrgen Schmidt
Head of Metal Design Principles and Head of Fatigue and Damage Tolerance, Airbus, Hamburg, Germany

Bianka Schmidt-Brandecker
Metal Design Principles and Fatigue and Damage Tolerance, Airbus, Hamburg, Germany

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

Abstract
The primary objective for the aerospace industry
is to offer products that not only meet the operating criteria in terms of payloads and range but
also significantly reduce the direct operating
costs of their customers, the airlines. The structure of the present civil transport aircraft is designed considering the current and forthcoming
airworthiness regulations, the customers requirements and manufacturing aspects.
This paper outlines the implications of the current airworthiness regulations for fatigue and
damage tolerance (FAR 25.571 Amendment 2596 and advisory circular AC25.571-1C), with
respect to structural design, analysis and maintenance requirements. This includes structure
potentially susceptible to widespread fatigue
damage.
During the last years significant improvements
have been achieved for fuselage structures by
using new design principles, advanced materials
and improved manufacturing processes. The
application of these new technologies for future
fuselage structures requires a new interpretation
of the airworthiness regulations, which were
originally defined for monolithic metallic materials and conventionally assembled structure (e.g.
by riveting or bonding). Furthermore the application of the new materials and manufacturing
processes requires also further development of
the analysis methods to comply with the regulations. Examples of design features using the
new technologies as well as the new aspects of
the analysis methods are presented.
Introduction
The continued growth in air traffic has placed an
increasing demand on the aerospace industry to
manufacture aircraft at lower cost, whilst ensuring the products are efficient to operate, friendly
to the environment and ensure that the required
level of safety is maintained. Four key airframe
drivers are identified which include the following
primary objectives:
1. Development:
Low weight structure
Low non-recurring costs

High performance aircraft

Reduced design times
2. Manufacturing
Low recurring costs
Short flow time
Reduced impact on environment
3. Operation
Increased safety and reliability
Reduced inspections and improved reparability
Low operating costs
Low environmental impact (emissions and
noise)
Increased operational capacity and passenger comfort
4. Disposal
Possibilities of recycling
Low environmental impact
To fulfill these targets and to comply with the
latest airworthiness regulations and recommendations, the application of the advanced damage
tolerance philosophy, methods and data is essential. The existing analysis and experimental
methods as well as the newest research results
have to be taken into account.
Structural criteria and requirements
The major structural design criteria considered
during the design development phase are listed
in Table 1. These criteria comprise the basic
static strength, durability and the damage tolerance aspects, as introduced in 1978 into the
regulations as well as the additional major requirements (e.g. discrete source damage, sonic
fatigue, wind milling, etc.). The forthcoming regulations must be considered too, which require a
certain structural damage capability (SDC) to
provide an additional design margin to the aircraft. Furthermore other airworthiness and economic aspects as corrosion resistance, reparability and inspectability need also to be considered. Designing for these criteria will provide a
structure, which will meet the certification requirements and the customers expectations.
Figure 1 shows in principle the damage types to
be considered during the damage tolerance
evaluation. The basic assumption for all damage
tolerance assessments is the local damage sce-

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2003 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

nario, i.e. a damage in one or more elements of

a principal structural element (PSE) at a single
site, which is not influenced by damages in adjacent locations. Furthermore multiple site damage
(MSD) and/or multiple element damage (MED)
have to be considered in structure susceptible to
these types of damages. MSD is characterized
by the simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks
in the same structural element and MED occurs
simultaneously in similar adjacent structural
elements. MSD or MED may lead to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD), which is reached when

the structure will no longer meet its damage

tolerance requirements, i.e. sufficient residual
strength under limit load condition. The structural
damage capability (SDC) will be required by the
forthcoming regulations. It is the characteristic of
the structure which permits it to retain sufficient
static load capability in the presence of damage
equivalent to the complete failure of a load path
or partial failure of the load path between damage containment features, i.e. a one- bay-crackcriterion. A more detailed interpretation of the
regulations and requirements is given by Swift 1.

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

Table 1: Structural design criteria

Design Criteria
Static strength
Deformation
Durability

Residual strength
Crack growth
Structural damage
capability
Discrete source
damage
Sonic fatigue
Further considerations

Requirements
Undamaged structure must sustain the loads
Deformation of undamaged structure may not interfere with safe operation
Damage tolerant structure must meet service life
requirements
Safe life components must remain crack free in
service
Damaged structure must sustain loads without
catastrophic failure
Damage tolerant structure must meet defined inspection program
Damage tolerant structure must have structural
damage capability
Airplane with damaged structure must be able to
complete flight successfully or certain risk level to
be meet
Sonic fatigue cracks leading to catastrophic failure
must be improbable
Corrosion resistance, repairability, inspectability,
wind milling, etc.

Loads
Ultimate loads
Limit loads
Operational loads

Limit loads
Operational loads
Limit loads
Discrete
source
damage loads
get home loads
Operational loads

strength capability. These results are the necessary for the definition of the structural inspection
program.
Current aircraft design and analysis

Figure 1: Damage types (examples)

For all locations susceptible to either local damage (LD) or widespread fatigue damage (WFD),
see Figure 2, fatigue and damage tolerance
evaluations are required. These evaluations
include the assessment of the fatigue life (durability), the crack growth between detectable and
critical size and the determination of the residual

During the initial design phase of new aircraft

types the application of new materials and production methods is considered to reduce the
production costs and the structural weight as
well as to comply with the new regulations. The
fuselage skins of all Airbus aircraft certified up to
2001 were made of 2024T3, T42 or T351. The
stringer material was 2024T3 in the upper shell
and 7075T73 in the lower shell, which is mainly
designed by compression loads.
The first step to apply new materials for the fuselage skin was made for the derivatives of the
A340, i.e. for the A340-500 and 600, which are
stretched versions of the basic A340-300 and
which have been certified in 2002.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

the lower shell where the skin-stringer connection is welded to reduce the production costs,
see Figure 5. Consequently a weldable material
has to be chosen which is 6013 or 6056 for the
skin and 6110A or 6056 for the stringers.

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

Figure 2: Local damage versus MSD/MED

The dimensioning design case for the upper
fuselage shells is the crack growth behavior
between a damage detectable by general surveillance inspection (walk around, A-, B- or Ccheck) and the critical crack length under limit
load. To meet the weight target for the A340500/-600 new materials were selected in many
areas, see Figure 3.
Figure 4: Built-up structure

Figure 3: Material distribution at Airbus

A340-600 fuselage
For the forward and rear fuselage the material
2524T3 has been selected for the skin in the
upper shell, which allows to increase the allowable longitudinal skin stresses by approximately
15 percent. For the side and lower shells the
basic 2024 material is kept except in a small
area forward and aft of the center section where
7475T761 was selected due to static reasons.
For improvement of the static strength stringers
of high strength material 7349T7 were selected
for the whole fuselage circumference with a few
exceptions.
To date pressurized fuselages of commercial
transport airplanes generally consist of a built-up
structure where the skin-to-stringer connection
may be riveted or bonded. The other connections such as skin-clip (shear ties) and clipframes are riveted, see Figure 4. The materials
used are in general the aluminum 2000 series
(2024, 2524) for all elements. In specific areas
7000 series alloys (7475, 7075, 7349) are used
to increase the static strength and/or the residual
strength. The new derivative of the Airbus single
aisle family, the A318 contains some panels in

Figure 5: Integral (welded) structure

Evaluation of structure
The fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation as
required by the FAR/JAR regulation must be
performed by analysis supported by test evidence, i.e. structural tests are performed for
certification purposes to validate analysis methods and design allowables and finally to proof
the structure. Figure 6 shows as an example the
full scale fatigue test of the center fuselage and
wing of the A340-600. Furthermore tests are
conducted for development purposes and to
ensure that the in-service airplanes meet or exceed customers requirements and expectations.
Development tests are accomplished to characterize the performance of new materials, validate
new design and manufacturing procedures and

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

demonstrate improved durability, safety and

maintainability of the structure.

Figure 6: A340-600 full scale fatigue test

center fuselage and wing
The analysis of the structure is performed to
justify a sufficient fatigue life of the structure as
well as an adequate damage tolerance behavior,
which results in the definition of an appropriate
inspection program. The traditional fatigue life
calculation using the MINER rule is still widely
used by the major manufacturers of civil transport aircraft. However, many investigations have
shown that the application of the MINER rule
may lead either to un-conservative results or an
under-prediction of the real fatigue life. Therefore several improvements have been implemented in the fatigue life calculation by the different manufacturers leading to appropriate results.
The objective of the damage tolerance evaluation is to provide an inspection program for each
principle structural element (PSE) such that
cracking, initiated by fatigue, accidental damage
or corrosion, will not propagate to catastrophic
failure prior to detection. The damage tolerance
analysis consists of fatigue crack growth and
residual strength analysis. The general approach
makes use of a basis stress intensity parameter
K, which is a measure of the stress singularity at
the tip of a crack in an infinitely wide panel. This
stress situation is generally characterized by a
stress intensity factor. In addition, correction
factors are used for modifying the influence of
the geometry. The crack growth periods are
generally determined using the Forman law.
Furthermore a residual strength analysis is performed to determine the critical crack length
under limit loads, which limits the crack growth
period for determining the inspection interval.
A new aspect of the damage tolerance analysis
was introduced by the Amendment 25-96 requiring the demonstration that widespread fatigue

damage (WFD) will not occur within the design

service goal (DSG) of the aircraft. There is a
general agreement throughout the literature that
MSD and its subsequent phenomenon WFD
largely depend on probabilistic effects. These
effects can be derived from parameters which
influence the development of MSD and WFD
and which themselves show a probabilistic character. The major parameters are the initial design of a structural part, the loading (e.g. high
tension, high induced bending or high load transfer), the manufacturing process, the material
properties and to a certain degree the environment. These parameters obviously have a great
influence on the fatigue life (MSD behavior) of a
structure. Therefore, any approach to assess
MSD has to consider the probabilistic nature of
these parameters.
In the Airbus approach this is done by means of
a Monte-Carlo simulation. The analysis model
itself consists of two parts, a probabilistic and a
deterministic part. Within the probabilistic algorithm the initial damage scenario is determined,
while the subsequent steps, such as damage
accumulation, crack growth and residual
strength are calculated in a deterministic approach. The process is performed for a predefined number of simulations.
The AAWG report 2 has defined the general
evaluation process for structure susceptible to
WFD for monolithic aluminum. It is recommended to commence the so-called WFD
inspections at 33 percent of the average time to
WFD occurrence. Considering the limited
reliability of these inspections to find small
multiple cracks particularly in hidden areas, it is
required to modify, retire or repair the structure
at 50 percent of the average time to WFD occurrence. The threshold for WFD inspections is
defined as Inspection Start Point (ISP) and the
time to repair as Structure Modification Point
(SMP).

Figure 7: In-service actions for structure

susceptible to WFD
The results of the WFD analysis have to be assessed regarding the repercussions on the aging
fleet. An example for service actions as the re-

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

sult of the WFD analysis is given in Figure 7.

This example shows typical values that can be
expected for monitoring periods in fuselage type
structure.
Advanced technologies and materials

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

The aircraft industry, as one of the most innovative industries, is always obliged to introduce
new materials and technologies. The aim of this
introduction is the reduction of the manufacturing
costs, the aircraft weight and the direct operating
costs (DOCs) as well as the compliance with the
more stringent future airworthiness regulations.
An additional challenge exists for the development of very large transport aircraft, e.g. Airbus
A380. In theory, when the size of an aircraft is
increased by a certain factor, its volume and its
weight increase with the factor to the third
power. This exponential increase means that
weight problems of very large transport aircraft
are quite significant. By improving the configuration of these aircraft types, the effect of this law
can be reduced. Furthermore new materials and
technologies play a major role for very large
aircraft.
The following chapter describes key technologies to achieve the goals mentioned above, and
their application to date and/or in future. Figure 8
shows the distribution of the skin material at the
Airbus A380-800.

fuselage panels dimensioned by damage tolerance behavior. The material provides several
improvements such as low density, high durability, slow crack growth, high residual strength,
high corrosion resistance and high fire resistance.
GLARE is a hybrid material built-up from alternating layers of aluminum sheets (thickness
between 0.2 and 0.5 mm, mainly made from
2024T3) and glass fiber reinforced adhesive
unidirectional layers (FM94-S2-Glass, thickness
0.125 mm). Figure 9 shows the general definition of GLARE and Table 2 contains the eight
standard GLARE types.

Figure 9: Definition of GLARE

Table 2: GLARE types
Fiber
adhesive
layer
(mm)

Fiber/
adhesive
layer
build-up

Al alloy

GLARE 1

0.25

0/0

7475T761

GLARE 2A

0.25

0/0

2024T3

GLARE 2B

0.25

90/90

2024T3

GLARE 3

0.25

0/90

2024T3

Fiber metal laminate GLARE

GLARE 4A

0.375

0/90/0

2024T3

Fiber metal laminates (FML) were developed at

Delft University of Technology as a family of new
hybrid materials consisting of bonded thin metal
sheets and fiber/adhesive layers. The laminated
structure provides materials with excellent fatigue, impact and damage tolerance characteristics at low density. The trademarks are ARALL
and GLARE. The prepregs act as barriers
against corrosion and the laminate has an inherent high burn-through resistance as well as good
damping and insulation properties.

GLARE 4B

0.375

90/0/90

2024T3

GLARE 5

0.50

0/90/90/0

2024T3

GLARE 6

0.25

+45/-45

2024T3

Figure 8: Material distribution at Airbus A380

GLARE provides an attractive weight saving

potential of approximately 10 to 20 percent for

Standard
GLARE
types

GLARE offers an excellent crack growth behavior for both crack types, i.e. for the so-called
through cracks and part-through cracks. This
superior behavior is the result of the presence of
fibers in the laminate, which do not fail due to
fatigue. This enables load transfer over the crack
through the fibers, thus reducing the crack tip
opening, the stress intensity factor and finally the
crack growth rate. Figure 10 shows the crack

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

bridging of the fibers and the resulting effect on

the crack growth curves. The GLARE 2 type
specimen was loaded in fiber direction,
GLARE 3 includes fibers in both directions, parallel and perpendicular to the load direction. Due
to less fiber content perpendicular to the crack
GLARE 3 shows a slightly worse crack growth
behavior compared to GLARE 2.

crack growth period between detectable and

critical MSD damage:
ISPAl = NWFD Al / 3
SMPAl = NWFD Al / 2
IWFD Al = NWFD Al / 2

ISPGl = NWFD Gl / jISP Gl

SMPGl = NWFD Gl / jSMP Gl
IWFD Gl = NWFD Gl / jI Gl

Figure 11: Damage tolerance philosophy for

WFD in Al and GLARE structure
The scatter factors jISP Gl, jSMP Gl and the crack
growth factor jI Gl will be defined by relevant research programs. However, the probability of
failure at SMPGL should not exceed the probability of failure at SMPAL, i.e. approximately 510-2.
Figure 10: Crack growth behavior in GLARE
Most current regulations and advisory circulars
were established when the aircraft structure was
made of monolithic aluminum. Therefore the
present interpretation of the damage tolerance
requirements has to be adapted to the specific
characteristics of GLARE material without
changing the overall goals regarding a safe operation up to the end of the service life. Table 3
contains the comparison of the characteristics
between the conventional aluminum and the
GLARE structure. Summarizing Table 3 the
GLARE material provides a short crack initiation time, but superior crack growth behavior and
excellent residual strength properties in case of
fatigue cracks, i.e. when the fibers are intact.
Figure 11 shows the application of the damage
tolerance philosophy for structure made of
GLARE and monolithic aluminum and susceptible to WFD. The curves Al and Gl indicate the
typical crack growth and residual strength behavior of monolithic and GLARE structure.
As explained above the Inspection Start Point
(ISP) and the Structural Modification Point
(SMP) are defined by applying factors 3 and 2,
respectively, on the WFD average behavior. For
the inspection interval a factor 2 is used on the

Since fatigue initiation affects mainly the aluminum layers in GLARE, the fatigue initiation
process is similar to that of monolithic aluminum.
Therefore a similar stress level in the aluminum
will lead to the same time to crack initiation. The
fatigue initiation in GLARE is calculated in the
same way as for monolithic aluminum, i.e. using
the actual stresses in the aluminum layer at the
critical location. The actual stresses in the aluminum layers in GLARE consist of stresses due
to the curing process, stresses due to external
loads and stresses due to temperature deviating
from the ambient conditions.
The actual stresses in the aluminum layers due
to external loads are affected by the different
stiffness of the GLARE components. Due to the
lower stiffness of the fibers, the stresses in the
aluminum layers will therefore be higher than the
applied stresses.
The total stresses in the aluminum layers are
obtained by superposition of the curing stresses,
the stresses due to external load and the
stresses from operational temperatures (not
described here), see Figure 12. The total stress
and the relevant SN curve allow to estimate the
fatigue initiation life in the aluminum layers.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 3: Monolithic Aluminum structure versus GLARE structure

Aluminum structure

GLARE structure

Fatigue and damage tolerance

Long crack free life

Shorter crack free life

Moderate growth of short and small cracks

Faster growth of short and small cracks

Significant growth of long cracks

Slow growth of long cracks

Significant reduction of residual strength in the Small reduction of residual strength in the
presence of multiple site damage (MSD)
presence of multiple site damage (MSD)

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

Rapid reduction of residual strength with in- Small reduction of residual strength with increasing fatigue crack length (intact fibers)
creasing fatigue crack length
Significant reduction of residual strength for the Similar reduction of residual strength for the
so-called two bay crack caused by foreign
so-called two bay crack
object damage
Corrosion (heavy corrosion assumed)
Significant strength reduction

Limited strength reduction (corrosion is limited

to surface layer)

Possibility of crack initiation followed by signifi- Shorter crack initiation time followed by slow
cant crack growth (through the thickness crack- crack growth in the surface layer (part- through
cracking)
ing)

Figure 13 illustrates the crack growth behavior of

a part-through crack. The crack starts in the
surface layer from the notch. Then cracks are
initiated in the subsequent layers.

Figure 12: Stress cycle in Aluminum layers at

room temperature (example)
Since fatigue crack growth occurs in the Aluminum layers only, metal methods, i.e. linear fracture fracture mechanics may be used to determine the crack growth behavior. Different crack
cases require different stress intensity solutions.
Surface cracks, for example, may be analyzed
according to Homann 3 using the Paris equation
and the following stress intensity solution:

K max =
with:
L =
=
=
F =
tm =

4 L 2

F max t m
2 LT n
material constant
correction factor for loading direction
correction factor for the number of Al
layers
finite width correction
metal layer thickness

Figure 13: Part-through crack in GLARE

Since GLARE has a low crack initiation life,
early cracking is expected during full scale fatigue test. Consequently future aircraft with
GLARE structure will fly with small undetected
cracks in the Al layers of the GLARE up to the
end of the service life. In contrast to monolithic
aluminum structure these cracks are acceptable
due to the superior crack growth and residual
strength behavior of the GLARE material.
The requirement of the airworthiness authorities
about flyable crack length allows the operation
of an aircraft with known cracks only, if ultimate
load capability exists up to repair. This philosophy is to be applied also to GLARE, i.e. ultimate load capability must exist at the end of the
full scale fatigue test, minimum after demonstra-

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

tion of two life times. The procedure shown in

Figure 14 has to be applied.

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

Figure 14: Procedure for justification of GLARE

Laser beam welding

the lower and side shells of the Airbus A318

using 6013 and 6056 for skin to stringer welding.
Furthermore lower and side shells of the A380800 will be welded (skin-stringer joint). However,
to date an application of the welded structure in
all areas of the pressurized fuselage is not appropriate due to the limited residual strength
capability of the integral structure. In the welded
areas of the A318 the operational tension
stresses (in stringer direction) are rather low,
since the lower and side shells are dimensioned
mainly by compression.
Figure 16 shows the fatigue behavior or the
welded structure transverse to the weld line. The
welded joint shows fatigue lives comparable to a
Kt = 3.6 specimen. The actual aircraft stress
level is significantly below these SN- curves.

Laser beam welding (LBW) is one of the most

promising welding technologies for aerospace
application. The major motivation of the application of LBW is the reduction of the production
costs and a slight weight reduction. The LBW
technology is most suitable for welding of Tjoints, e.g. skin-to-stringer or skin-to-clip joints.
Weldable aluminium alloys such as 6013 and
6056 have to be used for the time being. Figure
15 shows an Airbus LBW pilot plant and the
LBW tool.

Figure 16: Fatigue behavior (transverse) of laser

beam welded skin stringer joint
The crack growth of longitudinal cracks in the
weld line is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 15: Overview of LBW technology

One of the first applications of LBW on primary
structure of a commercial transport airplane are

Figure 17: Behavior of cracks in weld line

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

If the crack turns into the base material, the behavior is the same as for the base material. If the
crack remains in the weld line, the crack growth
is faster for stress intensity factors of K >
28 MPam.

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

Friction stir welding

The second promising welding technology is the
friction stir welding (FSW), which is based on
patents developed by the The Welding Institute
(TWI) in UK. The process consists of a rotating
tool producing frictional heat so that plasticized
material in kneaded under pressure and therefore leading to a tight connection of the sheets.
FSW allows joining of non weldable alloys, e.g.
2000 and 7000 series aluminum alloys. Furthermore different materials may be joined, e.g.
different Al alloys. For series production FSW is
today applied in non-aircraft industry. Examples
for application are ship and train manufacturing
as well as aerospace industry (rocket production). In the aircraft industry first applications of
FSW are envisaged for fuselage longitudinal
joints, wing spanwise joints, wing spars made of
dissimilar alloys and extruded panels, e.g. in
center wing box.
Figure 18 shows the excellent fatigue behavior
of FSW joints compared to a riveted joint. The
lap joint shown in this figure is an optimized riveted joint with additional doublers in the rivet
area and three rivet rows.

Reduction of fasteners with

- reduced manufacturing costs
- deletion of sealing (less weight, less costs)
- no fatigue cracking initiated at fastener
holes (no MSD)
Material utilization by
- reduced by to fly ratio
Optimization of performance by
- welding of non weldable alloys and dissimilar alloys
Process automation

Figure 19: Allowable stresses for riveted and

FSW joints
On the other hand the FSW process causes
additional features, which need to be considered, e.g. residual stresses generated by the
contraction of the cooling weld nugget which is
impeded by the material on both sides of the
weld. These residual stresses influence both,
fatigue and crack growth performances.

Figure 18: Fatigue behavior of FSW joints

Figure 19 contains the allowable stresses for a
three-rivet-row lap joint (same as in Figure 18)
and a FSW joint compared with the behavior of
the baseline material. The allowable maximum
fatigue stress (far field stress) is 54 percent
lower for the riveted lap joint compared to the
FSW joint. These figures are valid for specimens
with a mean fatigue life of 250 000 cycles.
The application of FSW to joints instead of riveting offers several advantages:

Figure 20: Crack growth analysis of FSW joints

They depend from the size and process parameters. Dalle Donne and Raimbeaux 4 proposed a
fracture mechanics approach based on a crack
closure model with the superposition of external
load and internal stresses (Krs), which can be
used to predict the crack growth rate. The crack
opening stress (Kopen) is calculated from empirical relationships. The da/dn Keff approach

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

results in the suppression of the R-ratio effect

and the residual strength effect, see Figure 20.
Structural health monitoring

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

The primary objective for the aerospace industry

is to offer products that not only meet the operating criteria in terms of payloads and range but
also significantly reduce the direct operating
costs of their customers, the airlines. Advanced
structural health monitoring systems may significantly support these goals. Table 4 gives an
overview of the repercussions of a health monitoring system on the structural behavior.
Table 4: Benefits for structural health monitoring
Structural criterion
Repercussions
Static strength
No improvement possible
Fatigue strength
No improvement possible
(durability)
Airworthiness
Improvements possible,
but current structure
meets airworthiness requirements
Crack growth
Improvements in case of
periods
longer cracks due to
modified crack scenarios
Structural damage
Improvements in case of
capability
fatigue cracks due to
modified crack scenarios,
no improvements possible for impact damage
due to accidental damage scenario

SHM system could be installed to monitor these

areas. The SHM application can be very beneficial, especially for structural locations which are
difficult to inspect using conventional inspection
methods and/or where access to the structure
location is difficult.
The major benefit from SHM systems may be
gained, if considered during the design of new
aircraft. As one of the first possible applications
the monitoring of internal stiffeners in wing or
fuselage panels is investigated. The effects of a
health monitoring system on the inspection requirements this type of airframe structure is described in Figure 21 showing an aircraft wing or
fuselage skin stiffened by stringers. In many
cases the conventional inspection system does
not require internal inspections of the stringers.
For these cases it is assumed that the stringer
contains the so-called primary flaw and the skin
the secondary flaw (shorter than the primary).
The stringer fails after a certain number of
flights, then the loads are redistributed into the
skin which increases the crack growth rate in the
skin. The inspection interval is based on the
crack growth period between the detectable and
the critical crack length in the skin divided by an
appropriate scatter factor. In case of health
monitoring of the stringer a failure of the stringer
has not to be assumed (i.e. the stringer is intact),
which reduces the crack growth rate in the skin
significantly.

Several fields of application of structural health

monitoring (SHM) systems are under investigation:

Application in laboratory and full scale tests

Monitoring of specific areas of in-service
aircraft
Consideration of SHM during the design
phase of new aircraft

These applications are briefly discussed in the

following. Application of SHM systems in test
specimens will mainly be performed to gain experience with such systems. The condition of the
structure is well known due to extensive inspections of the specimens, therefore the SHM results may be verified. Furthermore the use is
possible in a short term approach, since no
qualification process is necessary.
In flying aircraft, there are known hot-spot areas
which are sensitive to fatigue and/or stress corrosion or corrosion fatigue problems. A suitable

Figure 21: Effect of SHM on inspections

The benefits due to health monitoring are discussed in Figure 22. One of the major parameters determining the inspection interval is the
operational stress in the structure. The figure
shows in principle the interval versus a reference
value of the operational stress (e.g. the onceper-flight stress) for a structural element for the
conventional inspection system and a monitored
structure. Benefit can be taken of the structural
health monitoring: Firstly the stress level is kept
constant. Consequently the inspection interval
may be increased which would lead to a reduc-

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2784

tion of the maintenance costs. This results in

relatively small savings for the operators, since
also the new inspection intervals have to be
fitted into the scheduled maintenance program,
which depends mainly on the requirements for
corrosion inspections and systems. Secondly a
constant inspection interval suitable for the operators is assumed, which allows an increase of
the operational stresses for monitored structures. Increased allowable operational stresses
lead to a reduction of the structural weight in
those aircraft areas, which are dimensioned by
crack growth. The overall weight saving for the
aircraft is significantly higher than the weight
saving in the monitored areas due to the socalled snowball effect. This leads to significant
reductions of production costs as well as maintenance costs, which improves the efficiency for
both the manufacturers and the operators.

Conclusions
This paper summarizes the major structural criteria and requirements as well as analysis aspects to be considered during development,
design, certification and operation of civil transport aircraft. During the past few years the development of modern transport aircraft has made
several important improvements to cope with the
increased expectations of the customers. Advanced materials and technologies allow significant reductions in aircraft weight, production
costs and operating costs. These new technologies and materials are partly introduced in the
new Airbus aircraft A318 and A380. Further advanced developments are planned for future
application. The current and forthcoming certification requirements are fully applied to the current and the advanced structures.
References
1. Swift, T., Fail-safe design requirements and
features, regulatory requirements. Presented
at the International Air & Space Symposium
and Exhibition The Next 100 Years, Dayton, USA, 2003

Figure 22: Design and maintenance benefits of

SHM
When applying health monitoring systems one
specific aspect has to be taken into account. It
has to be assumed that is not feasible for the
operator to repair the structure immediately after
detection of damage by the health monitoring
system. An immediate grounding of the aircraft
would lead to significant costs, which may not be
balanced by the benefits gained from the system. Therefore in case of a finding operation has
to be continued with a known crack for a certain
time. According to the regulations the structure
must be able to sustain the design ultimate loads
in case of a known crack, i.e. the structure
should have the same capability as an intact
structure. Therefore the time to repair has to be
based on the crack growth period between the
detected crack length and the critical crack
length under ultimate load. It should be the goal
that this period divided by an appropriate scatter
factor is at least one so-called C-check interval,
which is usually a 12 to 18 month period of operation. This requirement has to be taken into
account during the design phase, i.e. during
definition of the allowable operational stress.

2. N.N., Recommendations for Regulatory Action to Prevent Widespread Fatigue Damage

in the Commercial Airplane Fleet, Airworthiness Assurance Working Group Task
Planning Group, final report, revision A,
June 1999
3. Homan, J., Damage Tolerance Analysis in
Glare. TU Delft, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering. Presented during an internal Airbus
meeting, 2002
4. Dalle Donne, C. and Raimbeaux, G., Residual stress effects on fatigue crack propagation in friction stir welds. German Aerospace
Center, Institute for material Research, Cologne, Germany.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics