12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

NDT.net - June 1999, Vol. 4 No. 6

Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of

NDI
Table of Contents ECNDT H.-J. Schmidt, B. Schmidt-Brandecker, G. Tober
'98 Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus
Session: Aerospace

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction Introduction
Airworthiness requirements and
compliance
The current generation of civil transport aircraft were Design principles and justification methods
designed for at least 20 to 25 years and up to 90 000 flights. Design principle 'safe life'
These design service goals are exceeded by many operators Design principle 'damage tolerant'
of jets and turboprops. Future aircraft types are designed for Example for inspection
Design of modern aircraft structure
at least the same goals, but structure with higher fatigue life Design criteria
(endurance), higher damage tolerance capability and higher Material selection
corrosion resistance are required to minimize the Special NDI application
maintenance costs and to comply with the requirements of Aging aircraft issues and activities
the operator and the enhanced airworthiness regulations. Aging aircraft initiatives
The aging aircraft issue 'Widespread
Non destructive inspections (NDI) are still significant means Fatigue Damage'
to fulfill all the requirements. Further significant applications Repair assessment for aging aircraft
of ND1 are in the frame of another major aviation issue, the Conclusion
aging aircraft issue. Especially the activities regarding References
widespread fatigue damage (WFD) and the assessment of
existing repairs require the application of newly developed and available ND1 methods.

Airworthiness requirements and compliance

Due to several structural damages which occurred during service and under consideration of the
requirements of the US american airforce the airworthiness regulations for civil transport aircraft have been
developed significantly in the past 45 years. Especially the introduction of the fatigue and damage tolerance
requirements mark the major steps. Table 1 shows an overview of the regulations developed in the USA.

Table 1: Development of airworthiness regulations in the USA

1953 - CAR4b: no special regulations regarding fatigue
1956 - CAR4b Amendment 3: regulations regarding 'safe life' and 'fail-safe'.
1962 - CAR4b Amendment
regulations regarding fatigue for landing gears
12:
1966 - FAR25 Amendment 10: sonic fatigue
1978 - FAR25 Amendment 45: introduction of 'damage tolerance' regulations
further airworthiness regulations for aircraft certified prior to amendment
1981 - FAR25 Amendment 54:
45

To guarantee an equivalent standard of regulations in the USA and Europe harmonization meetings were
held between the airworthiness authorities and the manufacturers under the umbrella of the Aviation
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). Furthermore the new aspects regarding widespread fatigue
damage (WFD) were considered. The harmonized forthcoming regulation and advisory circular require: 'An
evaluation of the strength, detailed design, and fabrication must show that a catastrophic failure due to
fatigue, corrosion, or accidental damage, will be avoided throughout the operational life of the airplane.'
and 'The ultimate purpose of the damage tolerance evaluation is the development of a recommended
structural inspection program considering probable damage locations, crack initiation mechanisms, crack
growth time histories and crack detectability.'

The major requirements of the damage tolerance evaluation are:

Widespread fatigue damage assessment

Identification of possible damage locations and extent of damage
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 1/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

Damage tolerance analyses and test

Determination of inspection threshold and intervals

The major differences compared with the current regulations are the requirements that:

Sufficient fullscale testing must be accomplished to ensure that widespread fatigue damage will not
occur within the design service goal of the airplane.
The inspection threshold for certain types of structure has to be established based on crack growth
analysis and/or tests.

The development of the structural inspection program is shown in Fig. 1. For each structural element to be
inspected the following information has to be provided which are comprised in the Maintenance Review
Board (MRB) report:

Inspection threshold: time of first inspection in flights

Inspection interval:
Inspection area:
Inspection method:
period between the repeated inspections in flights
detailed description of the area to be inspected including location and access
information of the method to be used, for ND1 methods the detailed
description of the method is given in a special handbook

Fig 1: Development of structure inspection program

In general the inspection threshold is determined by the fatigue life to crack initiation under consideration
of a relevant scatter factor. For specific structure the threshold is to be based on crack growth analysis.

The inspection interval is determined from the crack growth period between the detectable crack length for
the structural detail and the critical crack length under limit load divided by a scatter factor, see Fig. 2.

http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 2/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

Fig 2: Principle of damage tolerance investigation

The damage tolerance requirements lead to three major tasks for the aircraft manufacturer:

Structural design according to fatigue and damage tolerance requirements

Evaluation of the structure by analysis supported tests
Definition of a structural inspection program

Design principles and justification methods

Due to the complexity of the structural elements, their function and
location, several design principles are used to design a damage tolerant
structure. In addition to this the safe life principle is still applied for
specific cases.

Design principle 'safe life'

The safe life design principle was applied in aircraft design prior to 1960.
According to JAR/FAR 25.57 1 a safe life design is now allowed for the
landing gear and its attachments only.
An example is given in Fig. 3. A structure designed as safe life contains a
single load path only and the inspectable crack length may be in the range
of the critical crack length. Consequently inspection intervals to monitor
the structure cannot be defined. A failure of one of the structural elements
leads to the complete failure of the safe life structure and possibly to
Nose Landing Gear A320
significant consequences for the aircraft.
Fig 3: Design Principle 'safe life'
A fatigue resistant design of safe life structure is based on fatigue life calculations for all structural
elements during the design phase and is justified by full scale fatigue test with the complete safe structure.
The fatigue life calculations are performed using the linear damage accumulation according to Palmgren-
Miner considering relevant load spectra and material (S-N) data. The calculated fatigue life as well as the
achieved test life are divided by relevant scatter factors.

Design principle 'damage tolerant'

The damage tolerance design principle comprises two categories which are 'single load path' and 'multiple
load path' structure.

Fig. 4 shows a single load path design where the justification is based on the following analyses. Fatigue
life calculations are performed to justify the reliability during service and to determine the inspection
threshold. For future projects the inspection threshold has to be based on crack growth analysis according to
the forthcoming regulations. The inspection interval is determined from the crack growth period between
the detectable and the critical crack length divided by a scatter factor. The calculation of the crack growth is
based on the Forman equation or equivalent.

Example:
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 3/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

Fig 4: Design principle 'damage tolerant - single load path'

The 'multiple load path' category is sub-divided into three groups:

multiple load path - externally inspectable only

multiple load path - not inspectable for less than one complete load path failure
multiple load path - inspectable for less than one complete load path failure

Only the latter group is described here, see Fig. 5. For structures 'damage tolerant - multiple load path -
inspectable for less than one complete load path failure' again fatigue life calculations are performed to
show sufficient reliability during service and to determine the inspection threshold, which is derived from
the structural element with the lowest fatigue life. The inspection interval is based on the crack growth
behavior of both load paths were in the primary load path an initial flaw of 1.27 mm is assumed and in the
secondary load path an initial flaw of 0.127 mm. The interval is determined by the crack growth period
between the detectable crack length in the primary load path and the critical crack length in the secondary
load path divided by an appropriate factor. For the crack growth calculations the same method as for single
load path structure is applied.

Example:

Fig 5: Design principle 'damage tolerant - multiple load path -

inspectable for less than one complete load path failure'

The current, and forthcoming, regulations allow both damage tolerance categories, i.e. single load path and
multiple load path. The multiple load path design, however, is highly recommended in the interpretation of
the regulations (advisory circular AC/ACJ 25.571). The recommended multiple load path design leads to
additional safety, but causes, in exceptional cases, significant costs during design and production.

Examples for inspections

The structural inspection program comprises three categories or inspection levels which are:

General visual inspection (GVI):

a visual examination to detect obvious unsatisfactory conditions and discrepancies. The inspections
are performed in frame of the so called zonal inspection program where the complete aircraft, divided
in zones, is inspected in regular time intervals.
Detailed visual inspection (DET):
an intensive visual examination of a specified detail or assembly searching for evidence of
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 4/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

irregularity.
Special detailed inspection (SDET):
an intensive examination of a specific location similar to the detailed inspection but requiring special
techniques, mostly NDI.

Fig. 6 shows the distribution of the inspection levels for the structural significant
items (SSI's) of the major aircraft components using the standard body Airbus
A320400 as an example. Several SSI's comprise more than one inspection task.
Except for the safe life landing gears the 5.percentages of the ND1 tasks are 6
percent for the stabilizer (mainly composite), 11 percent for fuselage and doors, 18 Fig 6: Application of ND1
percent for wing and 19 percent for the pylons. The percentage of ND1 tasks may in structural inspection
be higher for widebody aircraft which have in general higher stress levels in most program of A320-100
of the structural details leading to faster crack propagation and lower critical crack
length. Therefore sometimes an ND1 method is chosen to reach a sufficient
inspection interval.

The external inspections of the upper and side shells of the A320-100 are given in Fig 7: External
Fig. 7. Besides a general visual inspection of the complete shells, special tasks of inspections of upper and
general visual inspections, also covered by the zonal program, are described for the side shells of A320-100
upper panel of the longitudinal lap joints. Detailed inspections are to be performed center fuselage section
of the skin at the circumferential joints in the upper area, the surrounding of cut-
outs in the upper shell, the skin and the window frames and the cut-out comers of the emergency exits. ND1
methods are used for the strap at the circumferential joints (upper area) and, offered as an alternative to a
detailed inspection of externally visible cracks, for the lower panel of the longitudinal lap joint in the upper
shell. In principle these external inspections are typical examples for the fuselage upper and side shells at
standard body and wide-body Airbus aircraft. The only exception are the cut-out comers of the doors where
on widebody aircraft mostly ND1 are applied due to the higher stress level.

Design of modern aircraft structure

Design criteria
During the design of aircraft structures several aspects have to be considered to
reach sufficient static strength as well as sufficient fatigue and damage tolerance
behavior, see Fig. 8. The result of iterative calculations is an optimized design
regarding weight, costs and aircraft performance.

Several aspects of the design of modern aircraft structure are described here using Fig 8: Design of aircraft
the fuselage of the planned Airbus megaliner A3XX as an example, see Fig. 9. structures
This aircraft is to be designed for the following goals:
Design service goal 24 000 flights
Inspections goals Fig 9: Planned Airbus
- general visual (C-check, zonal program) 24 months megaliner A3XX
- threshold for detailed inspections / ND1 12 000 flights
- interval for detailed inspections / ND1 6 000 flights

The design criteria to be met are static strength, residual strength, durability, crack
growth, sonic fatigue strength and the so-called two-bay-crack criterion. This
Fig 10: Two-bay-crack
requires the consideration of corresponding loads as static loads, residual strength criterion
loads, discrete source damage loads, operational loads and sonic fatigue loads.
Furthermore the corrosion resistance, the repairability and the inspectability have to be taken into account.

One of the major criteria which an aircraft has to fulfill to reach the safety standard of the competitors is the
two-bay-crack criterion, see Fig. 10. It has to be shown, that a longitudinal crack in the skin of the
pressurized fuselage with a length of two frame bays above a broken center frame does not lead to a
complete failure of the structure. The load case to be considered is 1.15 of the onerational cabin differential
nressure at cruise altitude without consideration of external loads.

The structure of a pressurized fuselage which fulfills this criterion has to guarantee that neither the crack in
the skin becomes unstable nor that the stiffeners perpendicular to the crack (i.e. the frames) fail statically.
The two-bay-crack criterion is the designing criterion for large areas in the upper and side shells of the

http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 5/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

pressurized fuselage of medium and long range aircraft. These aircraft types have lower design service
goals in flights compared with short range aircraft with the result that the fatigue and damage tolerance
criteria have less influence on the design. To limit the implications on the weight due to the compliance
with the two-bay-crack requirement following precautions are possible:

selection of skin material with high residual strength

selection of frame material with high static strength
limitation of the allowable frame pitch
adaptation of the stress level to the two-bay-crack criterion.

Material selection
During the initial design phase of the Airbus A3XX the application of new materials and production
methods is considered to reduce the production costs and the weight and to comply with the forthcoming
regulations. To substitute the fuselage material of the current Airbus types, i.e. the 8.aluminium alloy 2024,
three different materials are under consideration; these are 2524,60 13 and GLARE, see table 2.

Table 2: Materials for fuselage skin

material data 2024T3 clad 2524T3 clad 6013T4/T unclad GLARE4 (LT/TL) unclad
Rm (in %) 100 100 ~75 190 / 120
Rp0.2 (in %) 100 100 -94 ll0 / 80
blunt notch (in %) 100 100 not tested l43 / 100
young's modulus(tension) (in %) 100 100 ~95 79 / 70
KC (in %) 100 -120 ~115 ~120 / -110
(in %) 100 100 97 87
corrosion resistance basis equal equal / less higher

The materials 2524 and GLARE4 show significantly higher fracture toughness compared with 2024 which
results in significant weight reductions in those areas which are designed by the two-bay-crack criterion.
The disadvantage of both materials is the higher price. For the GLARE4 material this may be (partly)
compensated by a simplified design and production, GLARE4 has additionally advantages with respect to
the static strength, the yield strength and the corrosion resistance. Furthermore GLARE4 shows a very good
bum through behavior which should be taken into account besides the structural aspects. The material 6013
leads to similar structural weights as 2524 considering the slightly lower yield strength which is
approximately compensated by the lower density. 60 13 can be welded which allows to substitute the
bonding or riveting of the stringers to the skin by welding. This new production method is very promising
with respect to the reduction of the production costs.

The different material data allow an increase of the allowable circumferential stresses in the fuselage of the
A3XX for all of the three new materials. An increase of the allowable longitudinal stress in the fuselage is
possible when using 2524T3. Table 3 contains the allowable skin stresses for a the frame pitch of 656 mm.
The allowable stresses in circumferential direction result from the two-bay-crack criterion, the criterion for
the longitudinal stresses is either the crack growth,i.e. the inspection interval, or the two-bay-crack criterion
depending on the ratio of static and fatigue loads.

Table 3: Allowable stresses for fuselage skin

allowable stress in allowable stress in allowable stress in longitudinal
skin material circumferential direction longitudinal direction (crack growth /
direction (residual strength) residual strength)
2024T3 clad 100 % 100 % / 100 %
2524T3 clad 120 % 113 % / 110 %
6013T4/T6
unclad (integral 115 % 104 % / 70 %
stringers)
CLARE4 clad 120 % 120 % / 100 %

The improvements given in table 3 lead to weight reductions in those areas where
the damage tolerance aspects are the dimensioning criteria. Further design cases to
be considered are e.g. the static tension and compression strength and the engine
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 6/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

rotor failure.
Fig. 11 shows the design criteria in the different fuselage areas for an A3XX
depending on the skin material.

Finite element analyses were carried out for two fuselage sections of a length of
5.3 m and 2.7 m (forward and aft of the center section) considering the different Fig 11: Design criteria for
A3XX fuselage sections
design cases and the allowable stresses. The resulting structural weights for the
skin and the stringers were determined, see table 4. If the weight of the frame is taken into account in
addition the total weight reductions are less, e.g. for GLARE4 the weight reduction of the fuselage shell
(skin plus stringers plus frames) is 12 percent instead of 16 percent for the skin and stringers only.

Table 4: Weights of two fuselage sections

cabin differential weight of two fuselage sections skin and stringer only
skin material
pressure (frame pitch 656 mm)
2024T3 clad 605 hPa 100%
2524T3 clad 605 hPa 94%
6013T4/T6 unclad 605 hPa 103%
GLARE4 clad 605 hPa 84%

Special ND1 application

The development of a new production technique such as the laser beam welding (LBW) requires a
comprehensive use of sophisticated inspection methods, especially the ND1 techniques. During the
development of the LBW technique for connection of the stringers to the fuselage skin the following
standard ND1 methods are used:

High frequency ultra sonic test method

Penetration test method
Eddy current test method

The overall target is to provide an online ND1 method for valuation of the welding beam quality, i.e.
methods should be available in the field of production for:

Position of welding gap (pre welding)

Control of process parameters during welding process
Control of welding area (post welding)

Aging aircraft issues and activities

The well known Aloha accident near Hawaii in April 1988 which led to the loss of an upper forward
fuselage segment, resulted in worldwide activities to increase the safety of the aging aircraft fleet. Further
events showed that the damage mechanism which led to the Aloha accident was not a single case and that
the issue of widespread fatigue damage (WFD) was not sufficiently covered by the current regulations.

Aging aircraft initiatives

The Aloha accident prompted considerable aviation community activity related to aging air frames.
Manufacturers, operators and authorities got together to initiate changes to the system for safety
improvement. A number of industry committees were formed and the first was the Air worthiness
Assurance Task Force (AATF) later renamed as the Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (AAWG)
which works under the umbrella of the Aviation Regulatory Advisory Committee (ARAC). Two other
committees were formed which were the Industry Committee on WFD to study this phenomenon, and the
Structural Audit Evaluation Task Group (SAETG) which was charged to develop guidelines to establish the
beginning of WFD.

The FAA organized a number of conferences on aging aircraft and structural integrity which were
supported by NASA. They created centers of excellence by providing funding; two examples are the
Georgia Institute of Technology tasked with the issue of computational mechanics and the Iowa State
University tasked with non destructive evaluation. Furthermore, rule changes were initiated to require full
scale fatigue testing and inspection threshold determination for new aircraft as described in chapter 2.

http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 7/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

Early in all these activities an interim solution was defined for eleven aircraft types which were defined
prior to the introduction of FAR 25.57 1 Amendment 45. These models are: Boeing B707, B727, B737,
B747, Douglas DCS, DC9, DClO, Lockheed LlOll, BAe BAC 111, Fokker F28 and Airbus A300.
For these aircraft types the following activities were defined:

Periodical review of the inservice experience regarding structural damage (review of service
bulletins)
Introduction of a Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP)
Assessment of the fatigue life of structural repairs
Establishment of an Supplement Structural Inspection Program (SSIP) to reach the safety standard
according to FAR 25.57 1 Amendment 45
Assessment of the structure regarding WFD.

The aging aircraft issue 'Widespread Fatigue Damage'

The main issue of the aging aircraft fleet is the occurrence of multiple damages at adjacent locations which
influence each other. Two types of multiple damages are known. The sketch on the upper righthand side of
Fig. 12 shows an example of multiple site damage (MSD), which is characterized by the simultaneous
presence of fatigue cracks in the same structural element. The second type is the multiple element damage
(MED), which is characterized by the simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks in similar adjacent structural
elements. Both, MSD and MED, are a source of WFD which is reached when the MSD or MED cracks are
of sufficient size and density that the structure will not longer meet its damage tolerance requirement.

The effect of MSD is shown in Fig. 12. The lefthand diagram describes the effect
of MSD on a single lead crack used to establish the inspection program. In the
presence of MSD adjacent to the lead crack the critical crack or the residual
strength, respectively, are reduced drastically. The righthand diagram shows the
reduction of the crack growth period due to the reduction of the critical crack
length. Fig 12: Effect of multiple
site damage
Boeing has made investigations about the effect of MSD on the residual strength of
a lead crack which are published in /l/, see Fig. 13. The residual strength load of a
14 inch (356 mm) long lead crack is reduced in the presence of adjacent MSD
cracks of 0.05 inch (1.27 mm) by 30 percent. This demonstrates the dramatic effect
even of small MSD cracks which are uninspectable by state of the art techniques. Fig 13: Effect of MSD on
residual strength of a lead
The Industry Committee on WFD has evaluated the experience of the participating crack
manufacturers based on the results of large component and full scale fatigue tests
as well as in service experience in order to identify the locations potentially susceptible to WED. From this
compilation of data each area was assessed for its susceptible to WFD and was then characterized as either
multiple element and/or multiple site damage. Fourteen areas were identified as potentially susceptible to
WFD:

Fuselage:

Longitudinal skin joints, frames and tear straps (MSD, MED)

Circumferential joints and stringers (MSD, MED)
Fuselage frames (MED)
Aft pressure dome outer ring and dome web splices (MSD, MED)
Other pressure bulkhead attachment to skin-web attachment to stiffener and pressure decks (MSD,
MED)
Stringer to frame attachment (MED)
Window surround structure (MSD, MED)
Over wing fuselage attachments (MED)
Latches and hinges of nonplug doors (MSD, MED)
Skin at runout of large doubler (MSD)

Wing and empennage:

Skin at runout of large doubler (MSD)

Chordwise splices (MSD, MED)
Rib to skin attachments (MSD, MED)
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 8/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

Stringer runout at tank end ribs (MED9 MSD)

Fig 14: Example of area potentially

susceptible to WFD, circumferential joints
and stringers

For each of these fourteen areas a typical design was given and the type and possible location of
MSD/MED was defined. An example is given in Fig. 14 showing circumferential joints and stringers. In
detail the following damage types were defined:

MSD - circumferential joint

without outer doubler:

- splice plate - between and/or at the inner two rivet rows
- skin - forward and aft rivet row of splice plate
- skin - at first fastener of stringer coupling

with outer doubler:

- skin - outer rivet rows
- splice plate/outer doubler - inner rivet rows

MED - stringer/stringer coupling

- stringer - at first fastener of stringer coupling
-stringer coupling - in splice plate area

In August 1997 the FAA has tasked the ARAC to continue the activities on the WFD assessment and to
extend them to all transport category jets and turboprops with maximum gross weights greater than 75000
lbs. The ARAC then chartered a new group in frame of the AAWG called Task Planning Group (TPG) with
the following activities:

(1)

Review capability of analytical methods and their validation relative to the detection of WFD.
Review evidence of WFD occurring in the fleet.
Recommend means of collection of inservice data where data missing.
Determine extent of WFD in fleet.
Extent AAWG 1993 report for all large transport aircraft > 75000 lb GW.

(2)

Establish time standards for the initiation and completion of model specific programs for prediction,
verification and rectification of WFD.
Recommend actions for the authorities, if a program for certain model airplanes is not performed
prior to the time standard.

The AAWG-TPG started their work in autumn 1997 in order to complete it within 18 months. The TPG has
defined eight tasks to fulfill their charter:

Task 1 - Background: Review actions done

Task 2 - Technology issues: Technology readiness and validation
Task 3 - Model specific issues: Establishment of time frame
FAA recourses if OEM fails to voluntary complete WFD
Task 4 - Regulatory issues:
audit
Task 5 - Management of MSD/MED in fleet: Inspection programs, replacement
Task 6 - Aircraft to be considered in
Define aircraft
recommendation:
Task 7 - March ARAC report issues and items: Issues to be presented to ARAC and AAWG response
Task 8 - Final report: Results of tasks 1 to 5

One major item of task 2 deals with the readiness of the ND1 technology. In frame of this subtask four
actions were defined to push the development of the methods needed:
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 9/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

Review of recent developments

Establishment of baseline flaw detection
Determination of flaw size that needs to be detected
Determination of additional research and development needs

Repair assessment for aging aircraft

Continuous airworthiness assessment of existiong repairs was identified as one of the five significant
concerns by the AAWG which formed a Repair Assessment Task Group (RATG) with participation of
operators, manufacturers and authorities. The final draft report of this task group which was issued in
December 1996 has recommended a one time structural repair assessment task for the external fuselage
pressure boundary (skin and bulkhead webs) to assure the continued airworthiness. This recommendation is
again applicable to the eleven aircraft models certified prior to introduction of FAR 25.571 amendment 45.
Consequently guidelines were developed to assess the damage tolerance of existing structural repairs which
may have been designed without using damage tolerance criteria.

Based on the general three stage program, which was Fig 15: Airbus repair
developed in a common effort by the major manufacturers assessment process
and operators for categorization of the repairs, the Airbus
repair assessment process was defined, see Fig. 15. Stage 1
(Data Collection) specifies what should be assessed for
repairs. If a repair is on structure in an area of concern the
analysis continues, otherwise the repair does not require
classification as per this program. Stage 2 (Repair
Categorization) categorizes the repairs regarding
maintenance actions to be applied. The repair
categorization contains several steps which consider the
general conditions of the repair, the quality of the static
design, the proximity to other repairs. Stage 3
(Determination of supplementary maintenance
requirements) contains the definition of the necessary
maintenance program for the repair.

For the Airbus A300 aircraft Repair Assessment

Guidelines(RAG) were developed which allow the
operators to determine the inspection threshold and Fig 16: External skin repair
interval for the category B repairs. Fig. 16 shows a
principle sketch of an external skin repair. In principle four fatigue sensitive locations exist which have to
be assessed:

skin, longitudinal rivet row at doubler run-out

skin, circumferential rivet row at doubler run-out
doubler, longitudinal rivet row adjacent to cut-out
doubler, circumferential rivet row adjacent to cut-out

The determination of the inspection threshold and interval requires the exact
knowledge about the geometry, materials and fastener data to calculate the correct
values for threshold and interval. For dat not known conservative assumptions are
to be made which would lead to a worse threshold and / or interval. If the data are
not available in a repair documentation, they may be taken directly from the Fig 17: Determination of
aircraft. Some of the data may not easil be measured, but NDI methods have to repair parameters
applied. Fig. 17 shows the application of NDI methods to determine the cut-out
size hidden by the repair doubler, the thickness of skin and doubler and the rivet
material.
Fig 18: Inspection of skin
The inspection interval for the repair is based on the crack size detectable by NDI and external repair
means. Fig. 18 contains the NDI procedures for inspection of the skin and the doubler
external repair doubler. All procedures have been qualified and comply with the
defined inspection requirements that the defect size to be detected is determined with a probability of
detection (POD) of 90 percent at a confidence level of 95 percent.

Conclusion
http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 10/11
12/10/2017 Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI

The next aircraft generation has to comply with the forthcoming more stringent regulations, e.g. regarding
widespread fatigue damage and initial flaw concept for threshold determination. Furthermore the general
aviation standard with respect to the two-bay-crack criterion should be reached without special design
precautions, such as crack stoppers, and without disadvantages in weight. Additionally the requirements of
the airlines regarding reduction of the maintenance costs have to be considered, i.e. among others the
inspection intervals have to be increased by decreasing the crack growth. These goals may be reached for
fuselage structures by application of new materials. The development and application of new material is
still under investigation to reach the optimum of material and production costs, weight and maintenance
costs. During the development and certification of an aircraft the NDI plays a major role as shown in this
paper. Further significant applications of NDI are within the frame of the aging aircraft activities where the
detection of MSD and MED is an important item during the assessment of the structure susceptible to
widespread fatigue damage.
The Repair Assessment Guidelines which were developed by Airbus also rely on NDI for determination of
the repair parameters and the inspections of the repair.

References
1. T. Swift: Aging Aircraft From The Viewpoint of FAA, Presentation at Daimler-Benz Aerospace Airbus
GmbH, Hamburg, Germany, September 17, 1997
2. D. Schiller, G. Tober, H.- J. Schmidt: NDT Technology for Fuselage Repair Assessment, Presentation at
ATA NDT FORUM 1995 in Cromwell (Hartford), Connecticut, USA, September 26 - 28, 1995

|Top|

NDT.net
Copyright © NDT.net, info@ndt.net
/DB:Article /SO:ECNDT /AU:Schmidt_H-J /AU:Schmidt-Brandecker /AU:Tober_G /CN:DE /CT:NDT /CT:aerospace /ED:1999-06

http://www.ndt.net/article/ecndt98/aero/001/001.htm 11/11