Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Emilio Matricciani
DSTO-TN-0819
ABSTRACT
The United States Navy (USN), the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), the Canadian Forces
(CF) and the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) with support from Lockheed Martin
Aeronautical Systems undertook the P-3C Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP). Five Full
Scale Fatigue Tests (FSFT) were conducted between 2000 and 2004. Post testing analysis for
the USA was conducted by Lockheed Martin and DSTO conducted test interpretation for the
RAAF. This report provides the means of conducting Fatigue Life and Crack Growth analysis
at a Fatigue Critical Area (FCA) not analysed during P-3C SLAP test interpretation activities.
Chief Air Vehicles Division
RELEASE LIMITATION
Distribution additional to the initial list is limited to Australian Department of Defence and Defence
Force personnel and others engaged in defence activities in Australia. Others inquiring must be referred
to Chief, Air Vehicles Division.
Published by
The document and the information it contains must be handled in accordance with security,
delimitation is only with the specific approval of the Releasing Authority as given in the
Secondary Distribution statement.
The officer in possession of this document is responsible for its safe custody. When no longer
required DSTO Reports should be returned to the DSTO Library, (Reports Section), Edinburgh
SA.
Procedure for Developing Fatigue Life and Crack
Growth Curves for a non P-3C Service Life
Assessment Program Fatigue Critical Area
Executive Summary
The United States Navy (USN) contracted Lockheed Martin (L-M) to undertake the
P-3C Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP) including a Full Scale Fatigue Test
(FSFT) of the wing and fuselage, separate tests of the empennage (structurally
modified) and the landing gear. The other SLAP partners, including the Royal
Australian Air Force (RAAF), the Canadian Forces (CF) and the Royal Netherlands
Navy (RNLN) also contributed work share. The program of tests, teardowns and
analysis was conducted between 2000 and 2004.
As well as leading the Australian contribution, DSTO was also tasked by the RAAF to
conduct test interpretation of all the P-3C SLAP tests to the RAAF P-3C fleet usage. All
tests were conducted using the load sequences representative of USN fleet usage.
DSTO conducted the RAAF test interpretation process by considering all of the Fatigue
Critical Areas (FCA) chosen by Lockheed Martin in their test interpretation of the FSFT
results for the USN. It is anticipated that there will be additional FCAs that will arise
from in-service usage that could not be replicated during Full Scale Fatigue Testing.
This report outlines a process whereby a new FCA can be analysed in an identical
manner as that conducted by DSTO in their P-3C SLAP test interpretation process.
This capability will benefit the RAAF and Australian Defence Industry when the RAAF
transitions the daily fatigue management aspects to Australian Industry.
Authors
Emilio Matricciani
Air Vehicles Division
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 45
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... 46
8. REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 47
1. Introduction
The United States Navy (USN) originally contracted Lockheed-Martin (L-M) to undertake
the P-3C Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP), which included a Full Scale Fatigue
Test of the wing and fuselage and separate tests of the empennage (structurally modified)
and the landing gear. The other SLAP partners (including the Canadian Forces, the Royal
Australian Air Force and the Royal Netherlands Navy) also contributed work share, with
Australia undertaking a flight loads test program, an empennage fatigue test (original
structure) and a teardown of an in-service wing. The program of tests, teardowns and
analysis was conducted between 2000 and 2004.
As well as leading the Australian technical contribution to the program, DSTO was also
tasked by the RAAF to conduct test interpretation of all the SLAP tests to the RAAF P-3C
fleet usage as all tests were conducted using load sequences representative of USN fleet
usage. Using load spectra developed from analysis of RAAF usage, the test interpretation
process analysed and translated the raw test results from wing/fuselage, landing gear and
both empennage fatigue tests into results that are relevant to RAAF P-3C operations. This
work was reported in DSTO-TR-1929 (Reference 1) and DSTO-TR-1856 (Reference 2).
The DSTO test interpretation considered all of the Fatigue Critical Areas (FCAs) chosen by
Lockheed Martin in their test interpretation of FSFT results for the USN. The FCAs were
selected by Lockheed Martin as locations that have limited fatigue life as identified by
analysis, P-3 related tests (airframe or component level), P-3 in-service cracking and
Electra 188 in-service cracking. Additional FCAs were identified by both L-M and DSTO
as a result of the SLAP FSFTs and these were also covered in the P-3C SLAP analysis.
There will undoubtedly be additional problem areas that will arise from in-service usage
that could not be generated during the FSFT due to limitations in load application during
full scale fatigue testing. This document outlines a process whereby a new Fatigue Critical
Area can be analysed in an identical manner as that conducted by DSTO in their P-3C
SLAP test interpretation process. The complete process consists of generating Stress-to-
Load Ratios (SLR) for the new FCA from the P-3C SLAP Finite Element Models (FEMs),
uploading these SLRs to the P-3C SLAP Loads Database Interface and Spectra Sequencing
Tool (DBI/SST) to generate the stress sequence at the FCA for the required fleet mission
usage and criteria, and finally to perform Fatigue Life (FAMS) and Crack Growth analysis
(FASTRAN) at the new FCA.
1
DSTO-TN-0819
Second and Third Digits are dependent on the first digit as follows:
• If the first digit identifies the wing then the second digit identifies the spanwise
location (0 - most inboard, 9 - most outboard) and the third digit identifies the
chordwise location (0 - most forward, 9 - most aft).
• If the first digit identifies the Nacelle, then the second digit identifies which nacelle
(1 - most outboard left, 4 - most outboard right) and the third digit identifies a
detail.
• If the first digit identifies the Fuselage then the second digit identifies the forward
and aft location (0 - most forward , 9 - most aft) and the third digit identifies the
vertical location (0 - lowest, 9 - highest).
2
DSTO-TN-0819
3
DSTO-TN-0819
F.S. 335.00 F.S. 568.00 F.S. 695.00 F.S. 806.00 F.S. 1117.00
4
Table 2: DSTO P-3C SLAP Wing/Fuselage/Landing Gear Fatigue Critical Areas
FCA ID DESCRIPTION FCA ID DESCRIPTION
Centre Wing Analysis Locations -FTG-1 OW Lower Panel 1 at Uplock Fitting at WS 193
125 -CUT-1 CW Lower Panel Cutout at BL 0.0 353 -PH-4 OW Lwr Panels 1 & 2 Under Drag Angle at WS 176
163 -WH-1 CW Lower Panel 3 Weep Hole at BL 49 -PSS-6 OW Lower Panel 3 - 2/3 Splice at WS 184
-CHF-1 CW Front Spar Lower Cap H-flange at BL 58 -PSS-1 OW Lower Panel 3 - 3/4 Splice at WS 157
170
-CVF-2 CW Front Spar Lower Cap V-flange at BL 52 355 -PDN-2 OW Lower Panel 4 Nacelle Supt DNH at WS 162
223 -PSS-1 CW Upper Panel 2 - 2/3 Splice at BL 0.0 -PSS-3 OW Lower Panel 4 - 3/4 Splice at WS 169
Outer Wing Lower Surface Analysis Locations -RIS-1 OW Lower Panel 7 Intercostal Riser at WS 196
357
-CSS-1 OW FS Lower Cap - Cap/Panel Splice at WS 72 -CF-4 OW Rear Spar Lower Cap - Cap/Panel at WS 181
301 -FTG-3 OW Forward Lower Corner Fitting at Barrel Nut Hole at WS 66 358 -(4) OW Lower Panel 7 at Jack Pad Repair
-WEB-4 OW FS Lower Web - Cap/Web Splice at WS 72 -WEB-1 OW FS Lower Web - Cap/Web Splice at WS 216
305 -PSS-1 OW Lower Panel 3 - 3/4 Splice at WS 83 -CDN-2 OW FS Lower Cap - Cap/Panel DNH at WS 218
361
315 -PSS-3 OW Lower Panel 3 - 2/3 Splice at WS 103 -PDN-3 OW Lwr Panel DNHs at Nac Fillet Fair at WS 217
-WEB-1 OW FS Lower Web - Cap/Web Splice at WS 101 -PSS-4 OW Lower Panel 1 - Cap/Panel Splice at WS 220
331 -CLE-2 -CF-
OW FS Lower Cap Flanges at WS 101/WS 134 -PBR-3 OW Lower Panel 3 - MLG Electrical Bracket Aft Hole at WS 205
3
365
-CDN-2 OW FS Lower Cap - Cap/Panel DNH at WS 156 -PDN-6 OW Lwr Panel 3 DNH at Nac Skate Ang at WS 215
351
-WEB-5 OW FS Lower Web - Cap/Web Splice at WS 162 -PDN-7 OW Lower Panel 4 Nacelle Supt DNH at WS 213
-PDN-1 OW Lwr Panel DNHs at Nac Fillet Fair at WS 160 -PDN-2 OW Lwr Panel 6 Close-out Blkh’d DNHs at WS 197
352 368
-PSS-2 OW Lower Panel 1 - Cap/Panel DNH at WS 156 -CF-3 OW Rear Spar Lower Cap Aft Flange at WS 210
371 -PSS-3 OW Lower Panel 1 - Cap/Panel Splice at WS 283 Engine Nacelle Analysis Locations
-PSS-2 OW Lower Panel 3 - 2/3 Splice at WS 281 611 -SP-1 Outboard Nacelle - Lower Splice Plate
375
-PRO-3 OW Lwr Panel 6 - 6/7 Splice Runout at WS 251 612 -LON-1 Outboard Nacelle - Inboard Upper Longeron
-PSS-1 OW Lower Panel 1 - Cap/Panel Splice at WS 342 613 -LON-1 Outboard Nacelle - Outboard Upper Longeron
381
-PDN-2 OW Lwr Panel DNHs at Nac Fillet Fair at WS 335 621 -SP-1 Inboard Nacelle - Lower Splice Plate
385 -PSS-1 OW Lower Panel 3 - 2/3 Splice at WS 334 622 -LON-1 Inboard Nacelle - Inboard Upper Longeron
Outer Wing Upper Surface Analysis Locations 623 -LON-1 Inboard Nacelle - Outboard Upper Longeron
401 -CF-1 OW Front Spar Upper Cap at WS 65 Fuselage Analysis Locations
434 -(2) OW Upper Panel 4 - 4/5 Splice at WS 101 711 -LON-1 Cockpit Underfloor Longeron at FS 260 & BL 40
445 -(3) OW Upper Panel 7 - 6/7 Splice at WS 169 743 -FLR-1 Fuselage Underfloor Beam at Cutout at FS 515
461 -WEB-1 OW FS Upper Web - Cap/Web Splice at WS 209 749 -SS-1 Fuselage Upp Crown Circum Skin Splice at FS 571
472 -PSS-1 OW Upper Panel 1 - 1/2 Splice at WS 245
795 -(2) Fuselage Pressure Bulkhead Forward Circum Angle at FS 1117
485 -CUT-1 OW Upper Panel 3 Door Cutout WS 328
Main Landing Gear Analysis Locations Nose Landing Gear Analysis Locations
500 MLG Axle 900 NLG Axle
550 MLG Drag Strut 950 NLG Drag Strut
571 MLG Side Strut 971 NLG Side Strut
586 MLG Cylinder 981 NLG Cylinder
591 MLG Piston Tube 991 NLG Piston Tube
DSTO-TN-0819
5
DSTO-TN-0819
The P-3C SLAP empennage FCAs as analysed by DSTO (Reference 2) are presented in
Table 3 and Figure 5. The empennage FCAs all lie in the root structure of the horizontal
and vertical stabiliser and adjacent fuselage frame locations.
6
DSTO-TN-0819
3. Tools Required
3.1.1 Overview
Throughout the P-3C Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP) P-3C Finite Element
Models (FEM) were used to generate the test load sequence and to conduct detailed
analysis of the structure. The Lockheed Martin enhanced P-3C FEM consisted of a global
loads model for the entire aircraft, a global loads model for the empennage (including the
transition structure) as well as various detailed local models. Each model was modified or
created by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (L-M) and were assigned a specific number, as
detailed in Table 4. This section gives a basic overview of the Lockheed Martin P-3C
FEM’s, more detailed information can be found in Reference 2.
Table 4: Lockheed Martin Finite Element Model Numbering System and Model Descriptions
FE Model
Description
Number
N5713 This is a detailed model of the left inboard nacelle upper longeron.
This is a detailed model of the horizontal stabiliser panel (test article configuration). It should be
N5715
noted that this component test was not performed.
This is the global model of the P-3, and therefore is not a detailed (fastener level) model like the
other FE models. This airframe level FEM was only correlated to the quick look P-3 Strain Survey
N5721
cases to check the stiffness of the model. There are a few sub-categories to this model, which
relate to the location and type of loading applied to the model.
This is a detailed model of the left front spar at WS167 (test article configuration). This test was
N5722
performed by the CF.
This is a detailed model of the left front spar at BL65 (test article configuration). This test was
N5724
performed by both L-M and the CF.
This is a detailed model of the P-3 main landing gear test article. This model was used in the
N5725
development of the MLG test rig; hence, there should be no requirement to run this model.
This is a model of the P-3 empennage. This model is a loads level model like that of N5721, but
N5727
only contains structure pertinent to the empennage test articles.
The P-3C SLAP FEM development effort started with L-M refining the P-3 FEM furnished
from the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) in April 1992. Details of the
refinements made by L-M are documented in Reference 5. Reference 5 is the L-M Contract
Data Requirements List (CDRL) documentation produced during Phase I of the P-3C
SLAP. As a part of Phases II and III, this CDRL document (A003), was revised and
amended. The subsequent documents produced by L-M during these Phases are given a
separate reference, (Reference 7, 8 and 9).
7
DSTO-TN-0819
For the N5721 FEM there are three sub-models, which vary according to the applied
loading system. These three sub-models named by L-M are design loads (desloads), jack
loads (jackloads), and Multiple Reference Stations (mrs).
This model was used by L-M to obtain the critical crack length utilised in their crack
growth analyses. It should be noted that the loads applied in this model are correct at
BL65, but the wing distribution is non-representative. Additionally, the torsion FE results
have been reported by L-M as incorrect. Panel point loading is the loading mechanism of
this model.
8
DSTO-TN-0819
3.1.3.2 Jackloads
The Jackloads are the P-3C N5721 loads that were applied at the hydraulic jack locations
on the FSFT article and were used to generate the wing/fuselage FSFT sequence. The
Jackloads include the FSFT loads for 18 and 40 degrees flap extended. Note that these
were the only two flap settings used during full scale fatigue testing and a retracted flap
setting corresponds to the 18 degrees extension (ie negligible difference between 0 and 18
degrees flap extension).
The fatigue life of a structural location (load station) on the P-3C airframe is determined by
assembling the stress spectra, for every significant load case in the operational life of the
aircraft, which is then input into the fatigue life program. To save computer power and
time, L-M calculated Stress-to-loads (SLR) ratios for each FCA. SLRs are calculated by
applying unit loads at defined load system panel point load stations to the FEM one by
one and extracting the resulting stresses (both axial and shear) at the element representing
the FCA. For each load case in the intended sequence the resulting stresses are obtained
by multiplying the SLR matrix by the matrix of actual loads at each load station to obtain a
stress superposition. L-M groups the load stations for convenience into groups called
“ensembles”, where an ensemble contains all load system points that are expected to
contribute to the stress of an FCA. The L-M P-3C SLAP loads stations and ensembles are
documented in Reference 11 , the development of the SLRs is reported in Reference 10 and
the L-M derived P-3C SLAP SLRs are contained in Reference 12. The N5721 FEM element
numbers for L-M FCA’s where SLR’s were derived for the Phase IIC loads are presented in
Table 5. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the location of the lower and upper wing Fatigue
Critical Areas respectively. An example stepping through the process of generating SLR’s
at a given FCA, using the P-3C SLAP N5721 FEM, was obtained from Reference 6 and is
presented in Appendix A.
The magnitude of SLRs for various locations throughout the structure were calculated by
L-M from stress analysis results obtained from the FEM model of the aircraft. These can
be found in Reference 12. However, it should be noted that because the SLRs are derived
9
DSTO-TN-0819
from the FEM, they are based solely upon theoretical stress calculations. Because the
accuracy of these SLRs is highly dependent on the fidelity of the FEM at the locations of
interest, they will not include any local stress concentration effects. This means that to
generate stress sequences at a local level, often stress modification factors are required
when a crack growth program such as FASTRAN is executed.
385
315 163
4433139 365
375 125
355
305
387
4433144
358
368
357
Lower Surface Elements 4418347
WS WS WS WS WS WS BL
WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS BL BL BL
179 167 155 137 119 65 00
329 311 293 275 257 239 221 209 197 101 83 48 31 14
223
485 434
4131108
472
4123907
465
445
4113914
409
Upper Surface Elements 4110117
10
DSTO-TN-0819
125 -CUT-1 CW Lower Surface Panel 4 Access Door Cutout 616 0 4400040
163 -WH-1 CW Lower Surface Weep Hole Crack on Lower Panel #3 603 49 4404839
170 -CHF-1 CW Front Spar Cap Lower Cap Horizontal Flange 571 49.7 4404835
301 -CSS-1 OW Front Spar Cap Lower Cap/Panel Splice 571 72.4 4406535
305 -PSS-1 OW Lower Surface Panel 3 - 3/4 Splice 614 83 4406542
315 -PSS-1 OW Lower Surface Panel 3 - 2/3 Splice 600 119 4411939
331 -CLE-2 OW Front Spar Cap LE Attachment 571 134 4410135
OW Lower Front Beam and
351 -CDN-2 Cap/Panel Splice DNH 571 156 4416135
Surface
11
DSTO-TN-0819
The P3 SLAP Loads Database Interface & Spectra Sequencing Tool (DBI/SST) was created
to provide a generic external loads/stress database interface and stress sequencing tool
(Figure 9). This includes the ability to extract loads and stresses using a web based
graphical user interface (GUI), perform stress calculations based on user defined (or
selected from an existing list) stress-to-load ratios (SLRs), contains a load and stress
interpolation routine, and the ability to generate spectra based on user defined mission
definition files (MDFs), mission mix files (MMFs) and input criteria files (ICFs). The
DBI/SST was designed and tested using the P-3C SLAP Phase IIB loads system database
as developed and delivered by Lockheed Martin, Marietta, Georgia, USA. The DBI/SST
has been further refined using the final P-3 SLAP Phase IIC loads system database as
delivered by Lockheed Martin to DSTO on the 13th December 2004. Further details
regarding the DBI/SST can be found in Reference 13 & 14.
File Outputs
Sequence of loads SST Fatigue
or stresses in format Spectra Sequencing
for CI or CG tools Tool Application
Figure 9 P-3C SLAP Loads Database and DBI/SST Overview Flow Chart
12
DSTO-TN-0819
stress approach where the critical location stresses and strains (i.e. local stress and strains)
have a significant plastic component, and it also tracks continuous changes in the local
mean and residual stresses resulting from the applied load history.
In order to calculate fatigue damage, FAMS converts the input external loads file into local
stresses and strains at the critical location of interest first, and then calculates the exact
variation of these local stresses and strains to each change of external loading following
the stress strain data (FAMS material database) specific to the relevant material. FAMS
then rainflow counts the resulting local strain history and then calculates and accumulates
damage caused by each strain cycle extracted by rainflow count. FAMS uses the Morrow’s
equation to convert strain cycles with non-zero mean stresses into equivalent fully
reversed strain cycles. A more thorough description of FAMS is provided in References 15
and 16.
All sequences analysed by FAMS for the DSTO P-3 SLAP test interpretation are in a flight-
by-flight format. Each of the FSFT sequences represents 15,000 SFH spectra. The RAAF
sequences represent approximately 15,000 SFHRS 1 of the average RAAF usage spectrum.
Under cyclic loading metallic materials behave differently than under monotonic loading
in that the application of many cycles of repeated stresses into the plastic domain produces
progressive changes in the material stress-strain behaviour. These changes are dependant
upon the temper and condition of the metal alloy as well as on the magnitude and number
of cycles of applied stress. FAMS contains a material database with cyclic stress-strain
data for 7075, 2024, etc. All FAMS analyses performed for the P-3C SLAP test
interpretation will utilise the material data for aluminium 7075-T651 provided in material
file 1 (“flmat1.dat”), which have been obtained from SAR-79-4, a 1979 Northrop Grumman
Report prepared for the USN. However, DSTO has refined the 7075-T651 data by
adjusting the curve fitting of the data at the extremities. Accordingly, all DSTO P-3 SLAP
test interpretation will utilise the D7075-T651 within flmat1.dat. More information on the
refined material curve fit can be found in Reference 2.
FAMS uses the local strain approach that assumes the local or surface strain controls the
fatigue life, hence the fatigue life at the FCAs is a function of its notch factor KN. The more
accurately KN can be determined the better the fatigue life prediction. The notch factor KN
is a function of the local structure/geometry, repeated component loading and material
properties.
1The actual number of RAAF SFHRS varies due to specified time requirements of ground events
such as taxi.
13
DSTO-TN-0819
The original P-3C KNs were either derived analytically or from P-3 related tests (airframe
or component level), P-3C in-service cracking and Electra 188 in-service cracking as
documented in Reference 22. However, the L-M derived KNs from the P-3C SLAP
presented in the test interpretation reports for the USN (References 3 and 4) were
determined using three methods:
1. 0.01” Defect Method (KN-01”) - based on test hours needed to reach a 0.01” defect
with the FSFT stress spectra,
2. Slope-Intercept Method (KN-ICG) - based on a significant change in the slope of the
crack growth rate for a given FCA,
3. Hybrid Method (KN-HY) based on crack initiation occurring later than a 0.01 flaw,
and later than the flaw associated with the rapid change in crack growth rates.
Details of these respective methods are described in CDRL U003 – Volume 1 (Reference 3).
The demonstrated KNs used for interpretation of the RAAF AP-3C and P-3C sequences are
based on a test demonstrated crack initiation of 0.05”. In the event that a given FCA did
not have a defect at the end of test, a 0.05” flaw was assumed to be present at the end of
the test. More information on this method can be obtained from Appendix B.
Based on the maximum spectrum stress and the user specified KN value, FAMS outputs
the number of times the spectrum file must be applied before the cumulative damage
matrix exceeds one. This result is easily converted to flight hours, based on the duration of
the spectrum. By applying the analysis at different KN values, a KN life curve is generated
for that particular spectrum.
The calculated life from FAMS corresponds to the KN value multiplied by any Stress
Multiplication Factors (SMF) specified by the user in the input file. Using the same
spectrum file, FAMS will calculate an identical life for a KN value of 3.0 as a KN value of 1.5
and a SMF of 2.0. This negates the requirement to include the spectrum stress factor
applicable for each location, allowing the use of the same graph for the same FCA region.
Consequently, for all fatigue-life graphs the KN value is only presented, (Stress Factor =
1.0) unless otherwise specified.
The version of FAMS obtained through P-3C SLAP is called FAMS-Bailey. However, since
this software was originally developed for fighter aircraft, which have manoeuvre
dominated spectra, it was decided to modify how FAMS analyses materials based on data
obtained through the P-3C SLAP. Accordingly, the following summarises the
modifications implemented to the version of FAMS-Bailey used by the DSTO P-3C SLAP
test interpretation:
• Addition of seven equivalent strain equations, including Smith-Watson-Topper,
modified F18, Loopin, Modified Loopin, Walker, LM-aero Mod#1 and LM-aero
Mod#2. (Note however, all DSTO test interpretation work used the Morrow
Equation);
• Ability to process DBI/SST generated spectrum file;
14
DSTO-TN-0819
These modifications to FAMS-Bailey have been supported by various P-3C SLAP related
coupon tests as documented in Reference 1.
FASTRAN is a crack growth analysis program developed by J.C. Newman for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). FASTRAN is based upon a plasticity-
induced fatigue-crack closure model and is used to calculate the stress level at which the
crack tip becomes fully open during cyclic loading. FASTRAN version 3.8e was chosen by
L-M to be used for DTA because version 3.8e allows the user to input local stress intensity
factor solutions, also known as beta (β) solutions, for more accurate crack growth
modelling. FASTRAN is fully documented in References 17 and 18, while Reference 12
details the P-3C SLAP reasoning for using FASTRAN to conduct DTA.
All sequences analysed by FASTRAN during the DSTO P-3C SLAP test interpretation
represent 15,000 SFHRS of an approximate 85th percentile usage spectrum. The RAAF
sequences represent approximately 15,000 SFHRS 2 of the average RAAF usage spectrum.
Based on the RAAF P-3C SLAP Test Interpretation Methodology presented in Reference 1,
the initial flaw sized used for all DSTO FASTRAN analyses for the determination of
inspection intervals and thresholds was 0.05”. However, the initial crack size for
FASTRAN analyses will nominally be 0.005”, unless otherwise stated. This was done to
ensure that the crack closure modelling in FASTRAN had time to stabilise before the crack
size of interest is reached. When a FASTRAN run begins at 0.05” the initial crack growth
rate is more rapid than if the FASTRAN run begins at 0.005”. This is depicted in Figure 10.
2The actual number of RAAF SFHRS varies due to specified time requirements of ground events
such as taxi.
15
DSTO-TN-0819
0.15
Half-Crack Length (in)
0.10
ai = 0.05"
Shifted
ai = 0.05"
0.05
ai = 0.005"
0.00
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Total Flying Hours
Figure 10: FASTRAN Characteristics for different Equivalent Initial Flaw Sizes.
The material properties, in terms of da/dN and fracture toughness, used in the FASTRAN
analysis are obtained from historical L-M Aero-Marietta airframe programs, and are
described in Reference 5.
Unless otherwise specified, all the FASTRAN analyses for the Empennage FCAs will
utilise the material properties file for 7075-T6 extrusion aluminium alloy, which are:
Young’s Modulus 10,300 ksi
Poisson’s Ratio 0.00
Yield Strength 72 ksi
Ultimate Strength 85 ksi
1/2
Fracture Toughness 3 50 ksi-in
The geometric correction factors (β solutions) for each FCA were generally provided by L-
M in CDRL A009 Volume 2 and CDRL U003 Volume 2 (References 5 and 19). However, in
the event that DSTO decided to analyse a location or a configuration not considered by L-
M, the β solutions for that location were developed at DSTO.
The crack growth analyses generally addresses cracks emanating from holes in
mechanically fastened joints. A description of the L-M β solution methodology for stress-
intensity calculations is provided in Section 4.5 of Reference 12. The L-M COMBI program,
is the primary method for establishing β factors. The β factors are developed assuming the
3 Sometimes larger values are used in order to extend crack growth duration, as per L-M analysis
16
DSTO-TN-0819
crack to be a single quarter-circular crack emanating from the edge of a loaded fastener
hole whereby the fastener fills the hole (i.e., maintains contact with the hole wall.) This
approach is used unless the blueprint specifies that a clearance fit hole is required. The
crack (and corresponding β factors) is assumed to remain a quarter-circle shape until its
radius equals the part thickness at which point it becomes a through-the-thickness crack.
The crack shape for continuing damage from the opposite side of the hole is treated
likewise except the hole is considered an open hole due to the severed edge ligament.
The purpose of FASTRAN is to generate the crack growth curve for a particular FCA
location. The information presented above is input into the FASTRAN program and the
cumulative crack size, the number of cycles applied and the total duration in terms of
flight hours are obtained. Reference 20 provides further information on FASTRAN output
data.
Each FASTRAN input spectrum corresponds to the particular FCA region and not
specifically to the location being analysed. Because FASTRAN is extremely sensitive to
slight differences in the spectrum file, stress factors are required to ensure that the stress
analysed corresponds to the stress at the analysis location. The stress factors generated by
L-M in Reference 3 and 5 were obtained from detailed FEM, stress calculations and strain
gauge data from the P-3C SLAP FSFT article.
The stress factors identified for FASTRAN are not the same as the FAMS stress factors.
While FASTRAN is highly sensitive to the spectrum, FAMS is not due to the rainflow
counting 4 and the combined KN and stress factor output. Consequently, there is no
correlation performed between the FAMS and FASTRAN stress factors.
In order to match the FASTRAN crack growth curve with the fractographic data for the
FSFT spectra, it is possible to manipulate the input data in three ways. For the wing
fuselage interpretation, L-M typically manipulated the FASTRAN crack growth curve by
altering a combination of the stress factor, the β solution and the initial crack size. The
stress factor was used to adjust the slope, (ignoring retardation effects), the β solution
altered the shape and the initial crack size translated the FASTRAN crack growth curve.
The version of FASTRAN obtained through P-3C SLAP and used by L-M in their test
interpretation activities was FASTRAN 3.8e. Although there have been modifications to
the codes for this version of FASTRAN, DSTO used FASTRAN version 3.8e as received
from L-M. However, the DSTO developed FASTRAN graphical user interface, CGAP, was
4 When performing a strain life analysis using a code such as FAMS, as per convention, the
spectrum is subjected to a cycle counting method such as rainflow.
17
DSTO-TN-0819
used for all DSTO P-3C crack growth analysis. Additional information on CGAP can be
obtained in Reference 2.
P-3C SLAP has generated data and analytical tools with the intent of enabling a P-3C
operator to safely maximise the fatigue life of the airframe. P-3C SLAP has also conducted
various coupon and component test programs to ensure the accuracy of the analytical
tools developed through P-3C SLAP. Details of the coupon and component test programs
performed in support of the P-3C SLAP can be found in Reference 1.
The effectiveness of the tools used for test interpretation is dependent upon verifying and
validating (V&V) that the tools provide accurate results. The steps taken to V&V the tools
used for the DSTO fatigue life and crack growth analysis activities is described in
References 1 and 2.
18
DSTO-TN-0819
4.1 Overview
The process of generating fatigue life & crack growth curves for a new FCA is a three step
process (Figure 11) when utilising data and tools from P-3C SLAP.
1. The first step involves selecting a P-3C FEM element at the new location and
extracting Stress to Load Ratios (SLR) for a unit load case, and then uploading the
SLR’s into the P-3C SLAP loads database using the Database Interface and Spectra
Sequencing Tool (DBI/SST).
2. The second step (Processes 3 and 3a from Figure 11) uses the DBI/SST to generate
stress sequences for the newly uploaded SLR’s or for existing FCA’s (ie FCA’s
developed during P-3C SLAP). The DBI/SST allows the user to add or change
aircraft usage or criteria inputs and generate new stress sequences. It is advisable
that a comparison of the newly generated stress sequence (process 3a of Figure 11)
be conducted with an existing known/validated P-3C SLAP FCA stress sequence
to ensure the new results are reasonable.
3. The third step (Processes 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Figure 11) allows the user to conduct
fatigue life and crack growth analysis and produce fatigue life and crack growth
curves. Additional tools and methods are required to obtain the Neuber notch
concentration factor for fatigue life analysis and ‘Beta’ factor solution for crack
growth analysis. The results can then be plotted using a simple spreadsheet
application such as Microsoft Excel.
Sequence Generation
3. DBI/SST – Generate Stress Sequence
- DBI/SST Input Files (Mission Mix, Profiles, etc.)
-Generate FAMS/FASTRAN output Stress Sequences
(-Ref C & D)
Figure 11 Process required for the development of new fatigue life and crack growth curves at a non
P-3C SLAP Fatigue Critical Location (FCA)
19
DSTO-TN-0819
The first step in developing fatigue life and crack growth curves at a new non-P-3C SLAP
generated FCA is to select the appropriate FEM element, identify the FEM ensembles for
the selected element, and then apply the necessary load case to extract the Stress-to-Load
Ratio’s (SLR) at the selected element. Some post processing of the NASTRAN output file
is required to get the results in the correct DBI/SST format. These steps are highlighted in
Process number 1 in the flow chart in Figure 12. The second step is to then upload the
newly generated Stress to Load Ratios into the P-3C SLAP loads database using the
DBI/SST. This step is highlighted as Process number 2 in the flow chart in Figure 12.
Figure 12 Process required for Stress to Load Ratio Generation utilising P-3C SLAP Finite Element
Model
Reference 2, Section 5.5.3, outlines the process of generating Stress-to-Load Ratios (SLR) of
a given element using the P-3C SLAP L-M P-3C Finite Element Model (FEM). A more
detailed example of this process is provided in Appendix D of Reference 2, including the
steps required to upload the newly generated SLR ratio into the P-3C SLAP loads Database
using the DBI/SST Version 2.2.3. Note that the process is identical for the latest version of
the DBI/SST Version 2.3.2, dated April 2006.
The required skills or knowledge base to conduct this first step is intimate knowledge of
PATRAN/NASTRAN FEM software, L-M P-3C SLAP FEM and the appropriate
constraints, ensembles, load cases, etc required to execute the L-M P-3C SLAP FEM.
Reference 1 in conjunction with P-3C SLAP CDRL’s A003 (Finite Element Modelling and
Internal Loads Report: Volumes I to III, Reference 7 to 9) provide the necessary
information.
20
DSTO-TN-0819
be conducted with an existing known/validated USN P-3C SLAP FCA stress sequence to
ensure the new results are reasonable.
Sequence Generation
Figure 13 Process required for Stress Sequence Generation utilising P-3C SLAP Loads Database
Interface and Spectra Sequencing Tool (DBI/SST)
The DBI/SST also allows the user to change the aircraft usage, mission mix or criteria to
generate new stress sequences, and allows the user to generate stress sequences with the
newly uploaded SLR’s. If the user has no previous experience of executing the DBI/SST,
Reference 13 provides a very good guide to the layout and functionality of the DBI/SST,
including basic instructions on how to extract loads/stresses at Points-In-The-Sky (PITS)
and instructions on how to generate a stress spectrum. DSTO Technical Report DSTO-TR-
1704 (Reference 21) provides RAAF P-3C and AP-3C mission mix, usage and criteria files
(ie DBI/SST input files) along with the USN P-3C 50th percentile, USN P-3C 85th percentile
and the Full Scale Fatigue Test (FSFT) DBI/SST input files. The latest RAAF AP-3C
DBI/SST input files are provided for reference in Appendix C (DBI/SST Version 2.3.2
Build 20060413).
21
DSTO-TN-0819
Figure 14 Process required for Fatigue Life/Crack Growth Analysis utilising stress sequences
generated using P-3C SLAP Loads Database Interface and Spectra Sequencing Tool (DBI/SST)
To generate a crack growth curve, in addition to the DBI/SST generated stress sequence at
the new FCA, the material data, critical crack size and the crack geometry, the Beta factor
solution is required (Process 6a from Figure 14). During the P-3C SLAP test interpretation
L-M generated the Beta Factor Solutions for all wing and fuselage FCA’s using their
proprietary software COMBI. This software is not available to the FMS community,
therefore DSTO utilised commercially available software such as GEOFAC and AFGROW
to generate Beta Solutions at new FCA locations. DSTO also generated some Beta
Solutions directly from detailed FEMs during test interpretation of the DSTO P-3C
Empennage FSFT (Reference 2, Appendix B). Section 3.6 of Reference 6 provides two
examples, using GEOFAC and AFGROW, to calculate Beta Factor Solutions. Reference 6
also provides instructions on how to run FASTRAN once all the necessary input files are
obtained.
22
DSTO-TN-0819
5.1.1 DSTO Test Interpretation Analysis Locations at FCA353 Outer Wing Lower
Surface at WS 188
Cracking was observed during the W/F FSFT in the outer wing lower surface (lower front
spar cap, web and panels 1 to 3) in the region of the inboard engine nacelle. L-M identified
this region, nominally between WS 179 and WS 197, as FCA353. A number of L-M details
(represented as “-” numbers) and DSTO details (represented as “( )” numbers) were
defined and are provided in Figure 15.
Dash* Description of Detail
-1 Panel 1 uplock fitting at WS 193 (LW)
-2 Panel 1 uplock fitting at WS 193 (RW)
-3 Lower spar cap flange at WS 188
-4 Panels 1 & 2 under drag angle at WS 176
-5 Panel 2 under drag angle at WS 176
-6 Panel 3 – 2/3 splice at WS 184
(7) Inboard drag angle at WS 179
(8) Panels 1, 2 & 3 under otbd drag angle
(9) Bracket at WS 192
(11) Panel 2 – 2/3 splice at WS 188
(12) Lower front spar web at WS 188
(13) Panel 1 –1/2 splice at WS 175
(15) Panel 2 riser
FCA353-(9)
FCA353-CF-3 FCA353-FTG-1
FCA353-(12) FCA353-FTG-2
WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS
137.0 155.0 167.0 179.0 197.0 207.9 221.0 239.0
FCA353-PSS-6
FCA353-(13) FCA353-(11)
1
FCA353-(15)
FCA353-PH-4 2
FCA353-PH-5 FCA353-(8)
FCA353-(7) 3
23
DSTO-TN-0819
A new FCA has been selected that was not analysed during P-3C SLAP, however it has
arisen from cracking on the full scale fatigue test article. The location was labelled by
DSTO as Structural Management Area SMA 353-12 during the development of the DSTO
Structural Management Plan (SMP), of which SMA 353-12 is defined as the outer wing
front spar lower web – cap/web splice from Wing Station (WS) 179 to WS 197. The other
more significant defects associated with the remaining details were analysed as part of the
DSTO Test Interpretation analysis and can be found in DSTO-TR-1929 and L-M P-3C SLAP
CDRL’s A009 (P-3C SLAP FSFT Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Analysis Report) and U003
(P-3C SLAP FSFT Test Failure Analysis Report), and FLMP CDRL A0AC (USN Fleet Outer
Wing Teardown Inspection Report), as part of L-M’s analysis of the USN fleet. The
Structural Management Areas (SMA) differ from Fatigue Critical Areas (FCA) in that they
cover a region and not a specific fatigue critical feature of the structure, as is the case for
FCAs. For the following analysis FCA353-12 is assumed to be located at the largest crack
finding (1.196”) location on the RW at WS188. DSTO reviewed the location during the
SMP, but this location was not analysed during DSTO test interpretation as it was not
deemed as severe as some of the other web cracks. DSTO applied the analysis for FCA361-
WEB-1 & -5 (outer wing front spar lower web – cap/web at WS 216 for -1 and WS 226 for -
5 locations) to this location during the SMP. Figure 16 shows the location of the existing
SLR element for FCA 353 (element number 4418837) which lies on lower wing panel #2.
As FCA353-12 is located on the front spar and not near lower wing panel #2, the new
element chosen to generate the Stress to Load Ratio (SLR) for FCA 353-12 is P-3C SLAP
N5721 FEM element number 4418835, as shown in Figure 16. It is important to note that
the blue grids in Figure 16 represent the L-M FEM, the red squares/rectangles represent
FE model elements selected to represent FCA’s, the green square represents the new FE
model element selected for FCA 353 and the black seven digit numbers represent the L-M
FE model element numbers for the FCA label the number is closest to.
Element #4418835
4433935 4418837 351
381 353 331
371 361 352 301 170
WS WS WS WS
WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS BL BL BL BL
197 179 167 65
329 311 293 275 257 239 221 209 155 137 119 101 83 48 31 14 00
385
315 163
4433139 365
375 125
355
305
387
4433144
358
368
357
Lower Surface Elements 4418347
24
DSTO-TN-0819
The following steps required to extract SLR’s from the P-3C SLAP N5721 FEM were
obtained from Reference 2. The 200-series ensembles are used to extract the lower wing
surface SLR’s. If these steps are followed a SLR file can be generated that can be imported
successfully into the DBI/SST.
1. Identify the FCA and its corresponding element number. If unsure of the element
number, refer to Reference 4. For FCA353-12 the element number is 4418835.
2. Identify the appropriate ensemble number required for analysis (200-series for RH
wing which is the convention for all PhaseIIC wing SLRs). For FCA353-12 ensemble
202 contains element number 4418835.
3. Copy FE model files for MRS appropriate ensemble to computer with NASTRAN.
4. Open the “ensemble_20#-##.dat” file and perform the following steps.
a. Remove data file information not required.
b. Ensure that the appropriate element number is included in the output set.
c. Check all INCLUDE statements and ensure that all load paths are correct and that
all included files exist, (Note: Check the date/version of the data files. File
slr_rbe_v0707.bdf is the latest version of the SLR_rbe file, but currently is only called
for in the 200 series ensemble files.)
d. Alter ELSTRESS(SORT2) = 1 to ELSTRESS(PUNCH,PRINT,SORT2) = 1 NB.
ELSTRESS is equivalent to STRESS. This will ensure that the element stresses for
the elements defined under set1 are printed to the pch file and the f06 file.
5. Run the data file through NASTRAN
6. Copy the output pch file to a working directory.
7. Run the program SLR_pch_Sorter and obtain the output in the appropriate format.
The current version of this program (Version 1.20) is capable of outputting the
results as axial stresses for BAR elements and the axial stresses in the x and y
directions as well as the shear for QUAD4 elements. It should be noted that the
output value for the QUAD4 elements is the average of the upper and lower fibres
(Z1 and Z2). The source code for SLR_pch_Sorter is provided in Section A.3 of
Appendix A.
8. If this SLR is to be entered into the DBI/SST, then the output should contain both
the axial stress (x-direction) and the shear stress. Appendix A contains a worked
example of generating a new stress sequence, based on the FE model generated
SLR.
25
DSTO-TN-0819
The resultant extracted SLR’s for FCA353-12 FEM element number 4418835, in a modified
format for documentation purposes, is presented in Appendix D. An extract of the correct
format ready for upload to the DBI/SST, is presented in Table 6. Column one represents
the Degree Of Freedom (DOF), column two represents the axial stress ratio and column
three is the shear stress ratio.
To upload the extracted SLRs to the DBI/SST the following steps are required: log into the
DBI/SST, which then takes you to the Main Page and then select “Calculate/store stresses
for new FCA” under DBI Tasks (Figure 17). Select the new SLR file to be uploaded;
ensuring that Analysis type is selected as “All Analysis” and Inertia Configuration is set to
USN. Once all of these steps have been performed click on the “Upload” button
(Figure 18).
26
DSTO-TN-0819
27
DSTO-TN-0819
After the user has selected the SLR file to upload, the DBI/SST performs all of the
necessary actions (ie creates a new FCA location and stores the new stresses in the
appropriate stress tables in the P-3C SLAP loads database). It is important to note that this
process is very time consuming and should be run overnight. The user can enquire about
the status of the upload by selecting the “Check stress calc status” button (Figure 19),
resulting in a screen appearing that will display the percentage completion.
28
DSTO-TN-0819
Once the stresses have been stored for the new FCA, the user can then generate a spectrum
of loads or stresses using this new FCA. To do this the user must select “Generate
loads/stress spectra: Generate” button (Figure 20) on the “Main Menu” page.
The Spectra Sequencing Tool (SST) screen then appears and the user can then select the
“Search” button under Define Master Control Point (MCP), stress (preset station), as
shown in Figure 21.
29
DSTO-TN-0819
The user can then select the newly created FCA (Figure 22), and in conjunction with the
appropriate DBI/SST input files, the stress spectra at the new FCA can be generated. Note
that the DBI/SST requires four input files that are the Mission Mix File (MMF) which lists
the number of each mission type in the spectra and whether the spectra generation process
is random or semi-random, the Mission Definition File (MDF) which provides the segment
information for each mission (includes altitude, segment duration, air speed and criteria
source), the Input Criteria File (ICF) which provides the mission criteria and the Stepping
Control File (SCF) that allows the user to clip or truncate the spectrum and control the
fidelity of the spectrum generation process. Further detail regarding the DBI/SST input
files can be found in References 13 and 21. The latest version of RAAF AP-3C DBI/SST
input files are provided in Appendix C.
30
DSTO-TN-0819
Data Removed
Once the appropriate FCA has been selected, the user selects the “Continue” button at the
bottom of the screen, which returns the user to the SST Setup Page. The user then imports
the four DBI/SST input files, selects the running options (DSTO recommends that all of
the running options be selected) and selects the output file formats (crack initiation output
file format required is Bailey-FAMS and crack growth output file format required is
FASTRAN). The user then selects the “Submit” button at the bottom of the screen to
commence the spectrum generation.
To validate that the newly created DSTO FCA 353 is producing realistic stresses at the
outer wing lower front spar web – cap/web splice at WS179 to 197, the stress exceedences
for the newly generated FCA 353-12 were plotted and compared against the existing
FCA353 stresses. Reference 19 (Appendix C) provides the wing surface stress plots for the
most critical wing up bending Residual Strength Test case, which is designate PLA135 by
Lockheed Martin (L-M). Under this maximum wing up bending design limit load case the
maximum axial stress experienced at L-M original FCA 353 (FEM element number
4418837, lower panel 3 see Figure 16) is 30.8 ksi and the maximum axial stress at the new
31
DSTO-TN-0819
DSTO FCA353-12 location (FEM element number 4418835, lower panel 1 5) is 26.4 ksi.
Therefore the axial stresses at the lower front spar are lower than the stresses at the lower
crown of the wing. Figure 23 presents the stress exceedence chart for the L-M generated
SLR’s and the DSTO generated SLR’s for the two different FCA 353 chordwise locations.
The DSTO chosen FCA 353 location experiences lower magnitude stresses (Figure 23) than
the L-M FCA 353 location as was shown to be the case with the maximum wing up
bending design limit load case.
FCA 353: Outer Wing Lower Front Spar web - Cap/Web Splice WS179 - 197
RAAF AP-3C Stress Exceedence Chart
10000000
100000
Exceedences/15,000 Hrs
10000
1000
100
10
0.1
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Stress (psi)
Figure 23 Stress Exceedence chart for Outer Wing Lower Front Spar Web –Cap/Web Splice for
RAAF AP-3C 15,000 Hour Spectrum
Another DSTO recommended validation step is to compare the stress exceedence curves
for each available spectrum at the FCA location. This provides a basic comparison of each
spectrum characteristic (ie maximum and minimum stress levels, magnitude of ground
events, mean stress for each spectra, etc.). Figure 24 provides the stress exceedence plots
for the three main spectra being considered for this analysis: USN FSFT, RAAF P-3C and
RAAF AP-3C 15,000 SFHR spectra. The FSFT sequence corresponds to the stresses applied
to the FSFT by L-M, adjusted to FCA353 region using the global FEM. This FSFT sequence
was post-processed at DSTO using the program reformat_P5627 (Reference 1 & 6). The
RAAF sequences for FCA353, (P-3C and AP-3C), were generated using the DBI/SST.
5 Note that L-M have used the lower panel axial stresses to calculate the far field stresses sequence
for fatigue analysis at the lower web locations. The local stress risers at a FCA are then accounted
for in the FAMS (Crack Initiation) and FASTRAN (Crack Growth) analyses.
32
DSTO-TN-0819
10,000
1,000
100
10
0
-20,000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Stress (psi)
Max σ Min σ
Spectrum SLR R ratio
(psi) (psi)
FSFT 353R 26,928 -10,759 -0.40
RAAF AP-3C 353R 21,420 -15,000 -0.70
RAAF P-3C 353R 21,291 -15,000 -0.70
RAAF AP-3C 353RDSTO 18527 -15,000 -0.81
RAAF P-3C 353RDSTO 18567 -15,000 -0.81
5.3.3 Stress Sequence Generation for Fatigue Life and Crack Growth Analysis
To accurately analyse the lower front spar web – cap/web splice at WS 179, a detailed
FEM is required to generate the correct Beta Factor solution. This task lies outside the
original scope of this investigation, of which the main task was to create a procedure on
how to analyse a FCA that had not previously been analysed during P-3C SLAP. To
simplify the process the Beta Factor solution for a web crack at FCA361-WEB-1 will be
33
DSTO-TN-0819
assumed to be appropriate for this location (FCA 353-12) and will be used in all of the
remaining calculations.
6 Stress Factor = 1
5.5
Kn
4.5
3.5
2.5
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
SFHRS
Figure 25 FAMS curves for P-3C FSFT and RAAF FCA 353 Spectra
To calculate the actual Crack Initiation (CI) life for the Fatigue Critical Area (FCA) in
question, the reference notch concentration factor (Kn) is required. The methodologies
used to calculated Kn can be varied, however DSTO has created a methodology based
upon the “test demonstrated” Kn’s during the P-3C SLAP FSFT interpretation work
(Appendix B and Reference 1). The Kn’s are pegged to the FSFT results if there was a
crack during testing, otherwise a 0.050” flaw was assumed to be present at the end of the
test.
34
DSTO-TN-0819
5.4.1 Kn Derivation
35
DSTO-TN-0819
crack (Finding 1277), which emanated down from the lower Dome nut hole Satellite rivet
hole which was elongated (ie non round hole). All of the defects on the RW web were
detected at the same time during a major inspection.
36
DSTO-TN-0819
WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS
65.0 83.0 101.0 119.0 137.0 155.0 167.0 179.0 197.0 207.9 221.0 239.0 257.0 275.0
37
DSTO-TN-0819
38
DSTO-TN-0819
The analysis of FCA353-12 was first modelled as a single corner crack that emanated from
a fastener hole in the web at WS 188 growing toward the EOP and then growing up the
web. The configuration of the area of web, spar cap and lower panel surrounding this
fastener hole in the web is illustrated in Figure 30.
RWS RWS
197.0 RWS
188.0 179.0 RWS
167.0 RWS
155.0
The analysis methodology for this location involves growing a crack from the web fastener
hole to the Edge of the Part (EOP), and then growing the crack up from the web fastener
hole. The first crack growth solution is the common solution for a crack growing from a
hole to the edge of the part; however the second phase of crack growth is more
complicated because as the crack grows towards the centre of the web the bending
moment drops off. This solution requires the generation of a detailed FEM which is
outside the scope of this investigation. Therefore the Beta Solutions that Lockheed Martin
(L-M) derived for FCA361-WEB-1 will be used for this location.
The crack growth curve obtained from pegging the FCA361-WEB-1 spectrum to the
FCA353-12 largest FSFT crack is presented in Figure 31. The P-3C SLAP FSFT crack
growth curve for FCA 361-WEB-1 is pegged to the FCA 353-12 largest FSFT finding of
1.196” at 21,215 SFHRS in Figure 31, by shifting the original curve to the right. Regressing
the “pegged” curve back to 0.050” provides the FSFT crack initiation time of 15,175 SFHRS.
39
DSTO-TN-0819
FSFT FCA 353 Largest Crack FCA 361 Pegged to 353 FSFT Failure
3.0
FSFT FSFT
2.5 Pegged to
Failure
Crack Length, a (in)
2.0
FCA353 Largest
Crack 1.196"
1.5
ai = 0.005"
1.0
SF =1.319
acrit = 3.0" *
0.5
0.0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000
Total Flying Hours
The resultant KN-TD for this crack initiation time can now be determined from Figure 32,
which can then be read across to provide the RAAF P-3C and AP-3C equivalent crack
initiation times. The resulting KN-TD for the 0.05” flaw size is presented in Table 10.
6 Stress Factor = 1
5.5
KN-TD(0.05) = 4.82
Kn
4.5
3.5
2.5
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
SFHRS
40
DSTO-TN-0819
Now that the fatigue life of FCA353-12 has been determined, the crack growth lives for the
three spectra at FCA353-12 require calculation.
L-M modelled the crack growth for FCA361-WEB-1 in two phases, the first being the crack
growth from the hole to the EOP. The second phase of crack growth analysed the
continuing crack growth through the web. The L-M information associated with
generating the Phase 1 β solution for this location is presented in Figure 33. The stress
factor at this web location utilised by DSTO in this analysis is 1.319, which is the same
factor used by L-M as documented in CDRL A009 (see Table 4.5-1).
D=.188 t = .083
σFF
UP
Pf
.41
INBD
a
Crack,a
Crack,
The geometric configuration of the Phase 2 β solution from CDRL A009 is illustrated in
Figure 34. For the Phase 2 analysis at this location, L-M took into consideration the
restraining effect of the overlapping plate in generating the β solution.
41
DSTO-TN-0819
Web t = .094
a
D = .188
The crack growth curves obtained for the FSFT spectrum for FCA361-WEB-1 and the
RAAF FCA353 spectra using FCA361-WEB-1 Beta solutions are presented in Figure 35.
L-M conservatively terminated the crack growth plot in Figure 35 at a web crack length of
4.0”. L-M concluded that although the limit load web critical crack length is longer than
4.0” it is a concern that cracking of the spar cap could develop during the long web crack
growth interval. DSTO selected a termination crack length of 3.0” due to the observed
retardation of the AP-3C spectrum above 3.0” (Reference 1). DSTO concluded that there is
a deficiency in the FASTRAN prediction at the larger crack lengths and a 3.0” flaw would
be sufficient for fleet aircraft failure identification. The FASTRAN crack growth
retardation effects can been seen via the bump in the RAAF P-3C spectrum in Figure 35 at
9,000 AFHRS, which is due to a large load present in the spectrum.
42
DSTO-TN-0819
FCA353-12: Outer Wing Lower Front Web @ WS188 Using FCA361-WEB-1 CG Betas
3.0
FSFT 361-WEB-1
2.5
RAAF P-3C
353-12
2.0
Crack Length (in)
RAAF AP-3C
353-12
1.5
ai = 0.005"
1.0
SF =1.319
acrit = 3.0" *
0.5
0.0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Total Flying Hours
The crack growth durations relevant to test interpretation of the above crack growth
curves are summarised in Table 11.
ai = 0.005”
acrit (DLL) = 3.00” (CDRL A009) 6
Stress Factor = 1.319
CG Life
CI Life (Hinit- Δa = 0.05 to Total Life Safe Life TL/3
Spectrum
0.05) (AFHRS) acrit (DLL) tinit+tCG (AFHRS) (AFHRS)
(AFHRS)
FSFT 15,175 9467 24,642 8,214
RAAF P-3C 20,400 7,797 28,197 9,399
RAAF AP-3C 28,300 9,039 37,339 12,446
43
DSTO-TN-0819
The structure at this location is classified as Multi-Load-Path and Fail Safe (MLP/F-S) to
80% Design Limit Load (DLL). Based on the analysis results above there may already be
cracks in the web at FCA353-12 on some RAAF P-3C aircraft. The USN fleet inspection
results indicate that web cracks can be expected around 10,000 AFHRS. The example
provided in this document in analysing a FCA not previously covered by the USN P-3C
SLAP or DSTO Test Interpretation process was selected to outline the method. Due to
some of the assumptions made during the process (ie crack growth Beta solution for
FCA361-WEB-1 used instead of determining correct Beta solution for FCA353-12) it is not
recommended that the final results be used to assign inspection thresholds and re-
occurring inspection intervals for this location on RAAF P-3C fleet aircraft. This solution
could be considered to be more conservative than what would be obtained at the WS188
location (FCA353-12) as the web is thicker and the stresses are lower, as there are no
additional stresses being introduced as occurs through the nacelle attachment plates at
WS188.
44
DSTO-TN-0819
6. Conclusions
The complete process of analysing a non-P-3C SLAP derived Fatigue Critical Area (FCA)
has been discussed in this report. The complete process consists of generating Stress-to-
Load Ratios (SLR) for the new FCA from the P-3C SLAP Finite Element Global Model
(N5721), uploading these SLRs to the P-3C SLAP Loads Database Interface and Spectra
Sequencing Tool (DBI/SST) to generate the FCA stress sequence and finally to perform
Fatigue Life (FAMS) and crack growth (FASTRAN) analysis at the new FCA.
The process follows the RAAF accepted DSTO Test Interpretation Methodology, which
can subsequently be used by Australian Defence Industry to conduct Damage Tolerance
Analysis of P-3C Orion Fatigue Critical Areas.
45
DSTO-TN-0819
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the DSTO P-3C SLAP Team members who have all
contributed to the DSTO Test Interpretation Process and ultimately assisted in the creation
of this report.
46
DSTO-TN-0819
8. References
47
DSTO-TN-0819
14. Requirements Document, Loads Database Interface & Spectra Sequencing Tool
(DBI/SST), Copyright 2002-2006 Technical Data Analysis, Document Number
TDA-DBI-02-001, DBI/SST Version 2.3.2, Published April 2006.
15. Technical Data Analysis Inc., Fatigue Analysis of Metallic Structures (FAMS),
Methodology Report for P-3 IAT, Technical Report TDA-TR-01102, March 2002.
16. Fatigue Analysis of Metallic Structures (FAMS), Computer Program
Documentation, No Reference data Available.
17. J.C. Newman, Jr., FASTRAN II – A Fatigue Crack Growth Structural Analysis
Program, NASA Technical Memorandum, February 1992 (Revised Copy).
18. J.C. Newman, Jr., Fatigue-Life Prediction Methodology Using a Crack-Closure
Model, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, October 1995, Vol.117.
19. CDRL U003, P-3C FSFT Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Analysis, Volume 2 – Crack
Regression Analysis, November 2004, P-3C Service Life Assessment Program Phase
II/III, Y.S. Kwon & E.J. Ferko, Lockheed Martin Corporation, LG04ER0112.
20. DSTO-DP-1062, P-3C Service Life Assessment Program User’s Guide to using
FAMS and FASTRAN, M. Phillips, August 2005.
21. DSTO-TR-1704, “Development of RAAF P-3C Fatigue Sequences for the P-3C SLAP
Test Interpretation – Part 1 & 2”, E. Matricciani and P. Jackson, April 2005.
22. CDRL A004, Phase I – P-3C Fatigue Test Analysis, Fatigue Analysis – Final Report,
D. J. Cannington, Lockheed Martin, LG98ER0125, June 1998.
23. Aerostructures Technologies, RAAF P-3C Fleet Configuration Review Volume I –
Wing Configuration, ER-P3-57-075, A. Harper, 25 October 1999.
24. Aerostructures Technologies, RAAF P-3C Configuration Review Volume II –
Fuselage Configuration, ER-P3-53-076, A. Harper, 25 October 1999.
48
DSTO-TN-0819
49
DSTO-TN-0819
Step 2. The second step is to copy the appropriate ensemble data files (all four flap
setting data files) to a working directory from which NASTRAN can be run, in addition to
the *.bdf files associated with model N5721 and the mrs directory. The following files were
saved to jayted (DSTO UNIX computer containing NASTRAN) under the following
directories:
Table A-1 Directory structure and files required for FCA301 SLR analysis
/ensemble_201/..
ensemble_201-00.dat ensemble_201-18.dat
ensemble_201-10.dat ensemble_201-40.dat
/Data/..
aileron_left.bdf flap18.bdf nac4.bdf
aileron_right.bdf flap40.bdf qec1.bdf
cords.bdf flap_left.bdf qec2.bdf
elevator.bdf flap_right.bdf qec3.bdf
empennage_door.bdf fuselage_frameprops.bdf qec4.bdf
empennage_frames.bdf fuselage_frames_020603.bdf rbe3_flap18_051601.bdf
empennage_grids.bdf fuselage_misc2_020603.bdf rudder.bdf
empennage_misc.bdf fuselage_skin2_020603.bdf snormspc.bdf
empennage_props.bdf fuselage_stringerprops.bdf unit_cabin_pressure_022603.fcards
empennage_skin.bdf fuselage_stringers3_020603.bdf vstab.bdf
empennage_stringers.bdf grids_020603.bdf wing_center.bdf
engine1.bdf hstab.bdf wing_edges_left.bdf
engine2.bdf landing_gear2.bdf wing_edges_props.bdf
engine3.bdf matls2.bdf wing_edges_right.bdf
engine4.bdf nac1.bdf wing_outer_left2.bdf
flap00.bdf nac2.bdf wing_outer_right2.bdf
flap10.bdf nac3.bdf wing_props3.bdf
/Data/mrs/..
engine1.bdf loadcases_ens101-00.casecc slr_rbe_v0307.bdf
engine2.bdf sic_points_release7.bdf slr_rbe_v0707.bdf
engine3.bdf sic_rbe3_040405.bdf slr_unit_forces.bdf
engine4.bdf slr_points.bdf
It is recommended that the *.bdf files be kept in a directory that is separate from the *.dat
files that are to be run. This keeps the storage of files neater and allows access to the files
for future analyses using other ensembles. It should be noted that files sic_rbe3_040405.bdf
and file slr_rbe_v0707.bdf are updated files that were sent to DSTO by Keith Thomas (L-M)
in 2005. These files contain minor modifications, but are not necessarily identified in the
ensemble data file. Both these files are stored in the /Data/mrs/ directory.
Step 3. The third step is to amend the data files that are to be run for the analysis, (all
four data files for wing ensembles). The information that pertains to the scratch command
is to be commented out, as shown in Table A-2.
TIME 100
50
DSTO-TN-0819
The following steps required to extract SLR’s from the P-3C SLAP N5721 FEM were
obtained from Reference 2. The 200-series ensembles are used to extract out the lower
wing surface SLR’s. If these steps are followed a SLR file can be generated that can be
imported successfully into the DBI/SST.
1. Identify the FCA and its corresponding element number. If unsure of the element
number, refer to Reference 4.
2. Identify the appropriate ensemble number required for analysis (200-series for RH
wing which is the convention for all PhaseIIC wing SLRs).
3. Copy FE model files for MRS appropriate ensemble to computer with NASTRAN.
4. Open the “ensemble_20#-##.dat” file and perform the following steps.
a. Remove data file information not required.
b. Ensure that the appropriate element number is included in the output set.
c. Check all INCLUDE statements and ensure that all load paths are correct and that
all included files exist, (Note: Check the date/version of the data files. File
slr_rbe_v0707.bdf is the latest version of the SLR_rbe file, but currently is only called
for in the 200 series ensemble files.)
d. Alter ELSTRESS(SORT2) = 1 to ELSTRESS(PUNCH,PRINT,SORT2) = 1 NB.
ELSTRESS is equivalent to STRESS. This will ensure that the element stresses for
the elements defined under set1 are printed to the pch file and the f06 file.
5. Run the data file through NASTRAN
6. Copy the output pch file to a working directory.
7. Run the program SLR_pch_Sorter and obtain the output in the appropriate format.
The current version of this program (Version 1.20) is capable of outputting the
results as axial stresses for BAR elements and the axial stresses in the x and y
directions as well as the shear for QUAD4 elements. It should be noted that the
output value for the QUAD4 elements is the average of the upper and lower fibres
(Z1 and Z2). The source code for SLR_pch_Sorter is provided in Section A.3 of
Appendix A.
8. If this SLR is to be entered into the DBI/SST, then the output should contain both
the axial stress (x-direction) and the shear stress.
51
DSTO-TN-0819
$ NASTRAN SYSTEM(210)=1
$ NASTRAN BUFFSIZE=16385
NASTRAN Q4TAPER=0.70
$ NASTRAN SCR300=1
ID N5721B,P3C $
APP DISP
SOL 101
$ TIME 1000
DIAG 8
CEND
TITLE = N5721-v0307 P-3C Airframe FEM STRESS/Load Ratios
SUBTITLE = Applied Unit Loads, Ensemble 201,FLAPS AT 0 DEG.
$ MAXLINES = 5000000
$
ECHO = NONE
$
MPC = 1
SPC = 1
$
SET 1=4106505,4406551,4106521,4400040,4404839,4404835,4406535,
4406542,4706505,4706536,4082421,4411939,4410135,4110109,
4100005,4100009,4110117,4110111
SET 2 = 4607237,4607239,4607241,4607243
ELFORCE = 2
STRESS(SORT2,PUNCH,PRINT) = 1
$
$------------------------------------------------------------------
$-- SUBCASE STRUCTURE FOR ENSEMBLE 201
$------------------------------------------------------------------
$
INCLUDE 'ens201.casecc'
$
BEGIN BULK
$--- SPC - RIGID BODY CONSTRAINT ON CENTER WING ---
$PC1 1 123 300035
$PC1 1 2 300060
$PC1 1 3 306560 406560
$--- SPC - RIGID BODY CONSTRAINT ON FUSELAGE ---
SPC1 7003 123456 28701 THRU 28706
SPC1 7003 123456 28801 THRU 28872
SPC1 7003 123456 28880 28874 28879 28885 28888
SPC1 7003 123456 28891 28980 29086 29087 29093 29094
SPC1 7003 123456 111700 THRU 111713
SPC1 7003 123456 111715 THRU 111725
SPC1 7003 123456 111727 THRU 111746
SPC1 7003 123456 111748 THRU 111758
SPC1 7003 123456 111760 THRU 111772
SPC1 7003 123456 111774 THRU 111799
INCLUDE '../data/mrs/sic_points_release7.bdf'
INCLUDE '../data/mrs/sic_rbe3_040405.bdf'
$---------------------------------------------------------
$--- ADD SLR FILES ---
INCLUDE '../data/mrs/slr_rbe_v0707.bdf'
INCLUDE '../data/mrs/slr_points.bdf'
INCLUDE '../data/mrs/slr_unit_forces.bdf'
$
$ARAM,POST,-1
PARAM,AUTOSPC,NO
PARAM,SNORM,15.0
PARAM,OMAXR,16384
PARAM,EPPRT,1.E-6
PARAM,MAXRATIO,1.E8
PARAM,GRDPNT,571
$
52
DSTO-TN-0819
It should be noted that PUNCH,PRINT has been added to the command STRESS(SORT2)=1
so that the output results will be printed to the *.pch file.
53
DSTO-TN-0819
Step 4. Once the necessary changes have been made to all the ensemble *.dat files, each
file is analysed using NASTRAN. Once each file has been solved, the usual FE model
checks of EPSILON values and any error reports should be made.
Step 5. The calculated SLRs are printed to the *.pch files according to the unit loading
of each applicable DOF, (each ensemble DOF is documented in Reference 11). The
program SLR_pch_Sorter (Version 1.20) will read in the *.pch file and extract the
appropriate stresses for each DOF. Consequently, in order to run the program
SLR_pch_Sorter, the resulting *.pch files should be copied form jayted to a working
directory where SLR_pch_Sorter can be run. Ensure that if the analysis was for a wing
ensemble, all four flap setting punch files are copied. Table A-4 contains an extract of a
typical *.pch file.
The program SLR_pch_Sorter relies on direct text input by the user. A copy of the
FORTRAN source code for SLR_pch_Sorter (Version 1.20) is provided in Section A.3, and
can also be located in the //P3/bin/ directory on Erebus (DSTO Network Linux Computer). An
example of the SLR_pch_Sorter input requirements is illustrated in Table A-5. It should be
noted that if the SLRs are to be imported to the DBI/SST, it is recommended that the
axial_x and the shear_xy format be used for QUAD4 elements (option 3 in second menu).
Use of the other formats may result in a generated stress sequence that is significantly
different to the desired stress sequence.
54
DSTO-TN-0819
$ SLR_pch_Sorter
__________________________________________
| |
| SLR_pch_Sorter Version 1.20 |
| |
| Written By: M. Phillips (3 Oct 2005) |
|__________________________________________|
Do you wish to analyse all four wing pch output files? [y/n]: y
Please specify the punch file extension minus designation of flap settings:
(i.e. "ensemble_201"): ensemble_201
ensemble_201-00.pch
ensemble_201-10.pch
ensemble_201-18.pch
ensemble_201-40.pch
Please enter the specific finite element number to analyse (i.e. 4406535):
4406535
Please specify the Stress ID you wish to write to the output to file
(limit = 8 characters): 301_DSTO
Does the element already exist in the DBI/SST [y/n]: y
The output file specified in Table A-5 was FCA301_generated.slr. An extract of this output
file is shown in Table A-6. This file can now be imported into the DBI/SST; however, the
®
file should be opened and saved using Wordpad or converted to Windows format prior
to attempting to upload this file to the DBI/SST.
55
DSTO-TN-0819
56
DSTO-TN-0819
To upload the new SLR data file to the DBI/SST, the following steps should be performed.
Start the DBI/SST and go to the Calculate Stresses page. Select the file that is to be
uploaded and then press the “upload” button. These steps are shown in Figure A-2 to
Figure A-4.
57
DSTO-TN-0819
Once the user has selected the upload option, the DBI/SST will upload the SLR data to the
appropriate database locations. It should be noted that this process will take quite a while
to perform and may be required to be uploaded overnight. The status of the upload can be
seen by selecting the “Check stress calc status” button, as shown in Figure A-5. A sample
of the status information shown by the DBI/SST is presented in Figure A-6.
58
DSTO-TN-0819
Once the SLR data file is uploaded, the spectrum information can be generated for this
new FCA location. The generation of the FCA stress sequences utilise the data files that
are provided in Appendix I of Reference 21. This document should be consulted for
further information on stress sequence generation. The latest RAAF AP-3C DBI/SST input
files are also provided in Appendix C.
59
DSTO-TN-0819
c ___________________________________________
c | |
c | This program converts a NASTRAN *.pch |
c | file into a format that can be used |
c | by Excel for SLR generation. |
c |___________________________________________|
implicit none
character all_four
character(60) input_file ! string input file name is saved to
character(70) Input_00, Input_10, Input_18, Input_40
character(10) element_type1, element_type2
character(10) element_type3, element_type4
character element_exist
integer outputI(2000,2)
double precision outputD(2000,3)
character(10) element_type
character*60 output_file ! string output file name is saved to
character*10 text,text1,text2,text3
character check, answer
character*80 stress_description ! Description of SLR file
character*8 Stress_ID
do i=1,2000
outputI(i,1) = 0
outputI(i,2) = 0
outputD(i,1) = 0d0
outputD(i,2) = 0d0
outputD(i,3) = 0d0
enddo
write(*,*)
write(*,*)' __________________________________________'
write(*,*)' | |'
write(*,*)' | SLR_pch_Sorter Version 1.20 |'
write(*,*)' | |'
write(*,*)' | Written By: M. Phillips (3 Oct 2005) |'
write(*,*)' |__________________________________________|'
write(*,*)
write(*,*)
write(*,*)' This program converts a *.pch file into the format'
write(*,*)' of component stresses per element and load case.'
write(*,*)
60
DSTO-TN-0819
if(all_four.eq.'y'.or.all_four.eq.'Y')then
write(*,*)
40 write(*,*)'Please specify the punch file extension'
+ //' minus designation of flap settings: '
write(*,'(a,$)')' (i.e. "ensemble_201"): '
read(*,*) input_file
write(*,*) Input_00
write(*,*) Input_10
write(*,*) Input_18
write(*,*) Input_40
else
write(*,*)
write(*,'(a,$)')' Please specify the punch file name: '
read(*,*) input_file
open(unit=10, status='old', file=input_file,iostat=file_check)
61
DSTO-TN-0819
41 write(*,*)' '
write(*,'(a,$)')
+ ' Please specify the filename of the output file: '
read(*,*) output_file
open(unit=11, status='new', file=output_file, iostat=file_check)
c ************************************
c determine output file options
c ************************************
write(*,*)' '
write(*,*)' Output File Data Options:'
write(*,*)' _______________________________'
write(*,*)' | |'
write(*,*)' | 1. BAR elements only |'
write(*,*)' | 2. QUAD4 elements only |'
write(*,*)' | 3. BAR and QUAD4 elements |'
write(*,*)' | 4. Specific Element Number |'
write(*,*)' |_______________________________|'
50 write(*,*)
write(*,'(a,$)')' Please specify elements to be printed in'
+ //' output file [1,2,3,4]: '
read(*,*) menu
if(menu.gt.4.or.menu.lt.1)then
write(*,*)' Incorrect menu number:'
goto 50
endif
if(menu.eq.4)then
write(*,*)
write(*,*)'Please enter the specific finite element '
+ //' number to analyse (i.e. 4406535):'
write(*,'(a,$)')' '
read(*,*) Element_No
endif
if(menu.ne.1)then
write(*,*)' '
write(*,*)' Output file QUAD4 stress option:'
write(*,*)' ___________________________________________'
write(*,*)' | |'
write(*,*)' | 1. Axial X (DBI/SST Format) |'
write(*,*)' | 2. Axial Y (DBI/SST Format) |'
write(*,*)' | 3. Axial X and Shear (DBI/SST Format) |'
write(*,*)' | 4. Axial Y and Shear (DBI/SST Format) |'
write(*,*)' | 5. Shear XY (DBI/SST Format) |'
write(*,*)' | 6. Axial and Shear (NO Format) |'
write(*,*)' |___________________________________________|'
55 write(*,*)
write(*,'(a,$)')' Please specify the format of the QUAD4'
+ //' element output [1 to 6]: '
read(*,*) menu_2
if(menu_2.gt.6.or.menu_2.lt.1)then
write(*,*)' Incorrect menu number:'
goto 55
endif
endif
62
DSTO-TN-0819
c ************************************
c read data from input file
c ************************************
60 if(all_four.eq.'y'.or.all_four.eq.'Y')then
call read_pch_file(100, element_type1, element1, eof1)
call read_pch_file(110, element_type2, element2, eof2)
call read_pch_file(118, element_type3, element3, eof3)
call read_pch_file(140, element_type4, element4, eof4)
if(element_type1.ne.element_type2)then
write(*,*)'ERROR1'
goto 99
elseif(element_type2.ne.element_type3)then
write(*,*)'ERROR2'
goto 99
elseif(element_type3.ne.element_type4)then
write(*,*)'ERROR3'
goto 99
elseif(element1.ne.element2)then
write(*,*)'ERROR4'
goto 99
elseif(element2.ne.element3)then
write(*,*)'ERROR5'
goto 99
elseif(element3.ne.element4)then
write(*,*)'ERROR6'
goto 99
endif
element_type = element_type1
element = element1
else
call read_pch_file(10, element_type, element, eof1)
endif
63
DSTO-TN-0819
if(menu.ne.4)then
if(element_type.eq.'BAR'.and.menu.ne.2)then
write(11,20) element, element_type
write(11,*) 'DOF, Stress X'
elseif(element_type.eq.'QUAD4'.and.menu.ne.1)then
write(11,20) element, element_type
write(11,*) 'DOF, Stress X, Stress Y, Shear XY'
endif
elseif(menu_2.eq.6)then
if(element_type.eq.'BAR'.and.menu.ne.2)then
write(11,20) element, element_type
write(11,*) 'DOF, Stress X'
elseif(element_type.eq.'QUAD4'.and.menu.ne.1)then
write(11,20) element, element_type
write(11,*) 'DOF, Stress X, Stress Y, Shear XY'
endif
endif
if(element_type.eq.'BAR')then
if(all_four.eq.'y'.or.all_four.eq.'Y')then
call bars(100, outputI, outputD, eof1)
call bars(110, outputI, outputD, eof2)
call bars(118, outputI, outputD, eof3)
call bars(140, outputI, outputD, eof4)
if(eof1.eq.1)then
if(eof2.ne.1.or.eof3.ne.1.or.eof4.ne.1)then
write(*,*)'End of file error - BAR element!'
endif
endif
else
call bars(10, outputI(2000,2), outputD(2000,3), eof1)
endif
if(menu.ne.2)then
if(menu.eq.4.and.element.eq.Element_No)then
do i=1,2000
if(outputI(i,1).eq.1)then
write(11,21) outputI(i,2), outputD(i,1)
endif
enddo
elseif(menu.eq.4.and.element.ne.Element_No)then
c Nothing is printed
else
do i=1,2000
if(outputI(i,1).eq.1)then
write(11,21) outputI(i,2), outputD(i,1)
endif
enddo
endif
do i=1,2000
outputI(i,1) = 0
outputI(i,2) = 0
outputD(i,1) = 0d0
outputD(i,2) = 0d0
outputD(i,3) = 0d0
enddo
endif
elseif(element_type.eq.'QUAD4')then
if(all_four.eq.'y'.or.all_four.eq.'Y')then
call quad4(100, outputI, outputD, eof1)
call quad4(110, outputI, outputD, eof2)
call quad4(118, outputI, outputD, eof3)
call quad4(140, outputI, outputD, eof4)
64
DSTO-TN-0819
if(menu.ne.1)then
if(menu.eq.4.and.element.eq.Element_No)then
do i=1,2000
if(outputI(i,1).eq.1)then
if(menu_2.eq.1)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,1),0d0
elseif(menu_2.eq.2)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,2),0d0
elseif(menu_2.eq.3)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,1),
+ outputD(i,3)
elseif(menu_2.eq.4)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,2),
+ outputD(i,3)
elseif(menu_2.eq.5)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),0d0,outputD(i,3)
else
write(11,23) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,1),
+ outputD(i,2), outputD(i,3)
endif
endif
enddo
elseif(menu.eq.4.and.element.ne.Element_No)then
c Nothing is printed
else
do i=1,2000
if(outputI(i,1).eq.1)then
if(menu_2.eq.1)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,1),0d0
elseif(menu_2.eq.2)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,2),0d0
elseif(menu_2.eq.3)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,1),
+ outputD(i,3)
elseif(menu_2.eq.4)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,2),
+ outputD(i,3)
elseif(menu_2.eq.5)then
write(11,22) outputI(i,2),0d0,outputD(i,3)
else
write(11,23) outputI(i,2),outputD(i,1),
+ outputD(i,2), outputD(i,3)
endif
endif
enddo
endif
do i=1,2000
outputI(i,1) = 0
outputI(i,2) = 0
outputD(i,1) = 0d0
outputD(i,2) = 0d0
outputD(i,3) = 0d0
enddo
endif
endif
if(eof1.eq.1)then
goto 99
else
goto 60
endif
19 format(a80)
20 format(2x, i8, ',', a8)
21 format(2x, i8, 2x, e14.6)
22 format(2x, i8, 2x, e14.6, 2x, e14.6)
23 format(2x, i8, ',', e14.6, ',', e14.6, ',', e14.6)
65
DSTO-TN-0819
stop
end
c Input variables
integer read_file
c Returned variables
character(10) element_type
integer eof, element
c Other Variables
character(10) text,text1,text2,text3
80 eof = 0
read(read_file,*,end=97)text
if(text.eq.'$TITLE')then
do i=1,4
read(read_file,*)text
enddo
else
goto 80
endif
read(read_file,*)text,text1,text2,text3,element_type
read(read_file,*)text,text1,text2,element
goto 98
97 eof = 1
98 return
end
c Input variables
integer read_file
integer outputI(2000,2)
double precision outputD(2000,3)
character check
character*10 text
eof = 0
80 read(read_file,*,end=82) subcase, SA1, SA2, SA3
read(read_file,*) text, SA4, average_x, SA_max
read(read_file,*) text, SA_min, MS_A, SB1
read(read_file,*) text, SB2, SB3, SB4
read(read_file,*) text, SB_max, SB_min, MS_B
outputI(subcase,1) = 1
outputI(subcase,2) = subcase
outputD(subcase,1) = average_x
read(read_file,'(a)',end=81) check
backspace(read_file)
66
DSTO-TN-0819
goto 82
81 eof = 1
82 return
end
c Input variables
integer read_file
integer outputI(2000,2)
double precision outputD(2000,3)
character check
character*10 text
eof = 0
85 read(read_file,*) subcase, fiber1, stress_x1, stress_y1
read(read_file,*) text, shear_xy1, angle1, max_principal1
read(read_file,*) text, min_principal1, von_mises1, fiber2
read(read_file,*) text, stress_x2, stress_y2, shear_xy2
read(read_file,*) text, angle2, max_principal2, min_principal2
read(read_file,*) text, von_mises2
average_x = (stress_x1+stress_x2)/2
average_y = (stress_y1+stress_y2)/2
average_xy = (shear_xy1+shear_xy2)/2
outputI(subcase,1) = 1
outputI(subcase,2) = subcase
outputD(subcase,1) = average_x
outputD(subcase,2) = average_y
outputD(subcase,3) = average_xy
read(read_file,'(a)',end=86) check
backspace(read_file)
if(check.ne.'$')then
goto 85
endif
goto 87
86 eof = 1
87 return
end
67
DSTO-TN-0819
68
DSTO-TN-0819
B.1. Introduction
A test interpretation methodology for the RAAF P-3C fleet has been developed to ensure
that the results from the P-3 SLAP will enable the RAAF to continue to maintain the
airworthiness (safety) and durability (economics or cost of ownership) of their P-3C
airframes. To achieve this, a balance must be struck between airworthiness (determine
critical length of crack that must be found during inspections) and durability (inspect so
that only smaller cheaper repairs are required at longest possible inspection thresholds).
The test interpretation process must also ensure that Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD)
does not occur as it can cause accelerated loss of residual strength and an increased
probability that not all cracking has been found.
The P-3 SLAP generated data was used to define component safe lives (non-inspection
period), inspection thresholds and intervals and other limits such as the onset of WFD.
The P-3 SLAP generated data includes a description of all fatigue cracking sites, crack
orientations, and an estimation of the criticality of each, the definition of the point of ‘crack
initiation’ as well as total fatigue life, crack growth curves and the definition of critical
crack lengths. The crack initiation and total fatigue lives are required in order to generate
the safe life or inspection-free service lives and the crack growth data is required so that
the total crack growth life and the period in which the crack is inspectable can be
determined. The ‘basic’ steps for RAAF interpretation for the management of the RAAF P-
3 fleet are:
a. Generation of fatigue crack data from the fatigue tests and supporting analyses,
taking into account any ‘overtesting’ or ‘undertesting’ resulting from deficiencies in
the testing process
b. Convert the cracking data to that under the RAAF characteristic usage, and
c. Generate fleet management requirements and options using accepted certification
requirements and standards.
The RAAF test interpretation methodology must also incorporate individual aircraft
tracking (IAT) of fatigue using the same methodology as test interpretation. More details
of the RAAF Test Interpretation Methodology can be found in Reference 1.
The P-3 aircraft structural design originated as the Lockheed Electra, designed and
certified against the Civil Air Regulations CAR 4b (the predecessor of Federal
Airworthiness Regulations FAR 25). The structure was designed to a fail-safe philosophy,
with only limited components such as landing gear designed to a safe life. Although no
fatigue testing was carried out on the Electra structure, residual strength tests were
conducted. Upon development of the P-3, the USN required a FSFT. Accordingly, a FSFT
was conducted in the early 1960’s on the centre and outer wings of the P-3A. From the test
results a safe life (non-inspection) period was established, with L-M also providing limited
crack growth information for management of the aircraft post safe life. The original test
69
DSTO-TN-0819
results are the basis of the RAAF pre-SLAP fatigue damage tracking systems although, as
no failures occurred on the lower wing, the current critical locations on the lower wing
have been chosen analytically.
FAR 25.571 states that a damage tolerance evaluation must be conducted on each part of
the structure that could contribute to a catastrophic failure. Based on the damage
tolerance evaluation, inspections must be established to prevent the residual strength of
the structure to reduce below limit load. Fatigue tests must be used to establish that WFD
will not occur within the design service goal of the aircraft, and the supporting AC25.571-
1C states that a test factor of 2 is needed to conclude with confidence that WFD will not
occur. The factor of 2 is a minimum and requires that the test loading is realistic, the
structural configuration is correct and the post-test teardown is exhaustive. AC25.571-1C
states that inspection thresholds for multiple load path structure can be established by
fatigue test plus analysis with appropriate scatter factors, or by crack growth using
‘appropriate initial manufacturing damage’. The definition of the damage state that can
exist at the inspection threshold is not explicitly stated. The residual strength capability
must be no less than DLL, but can also be defined as an ‘obvious partial failure’ such as
detectable skin cracks, severance of an interior frame element, or detectable failure of a
spar cap or web. By contrast, the inspection threshold for single load path structure, or for
multiple load path structure for which partial failure cannot be detected prior to failure of
the remaining structure, must be based on “maximum probable size of manufacturing or
service induced damage”, i.e. a ‘rogue’ flaw. If application of a damage tolerance
approach to a particular structure is impractical (for example for the undercarriage) then
analysis supported by test can be used to generate a safe life. AC25.571-1C states that a
minimum life factor is 3, but notes that many aspects of how representative the test is may
increase this basic factor.
The basis of the approach taken for the DSTO RAAF P-3 test interpretation is thus defined
as; that which will meet the requirements of FAR 25.571 and the guidance of AC 25.571-
1C, with consultation to other industry practices for help with some of the more detailed
aspects of the test interpretation process that are not explicit in the –1C such as safe life
70
DSTO-TN-0819
factor adjustments and initial flaw sizes. Fatigue life (to crack initiation), crack growth life
(from initiation to critical) and total life (crack initiation plus crack growth) are determined
by analysis, supported by the test results, for each FCA and any other additional analysis
location deemed significant for test interpretation. This information is then used to
determine the threshold for inspections and the recurring inspection interval.
For RAAF interpretation, a test demonstrated ‘crack initiation’ life is defined as the time to
reach a crack size of 0.050 inches. This size is essentially a compromise between the ‘small
crack’ threshold size of, say, 0.010 inches and the minimum detectable crack size aNDI that
will be used to determine inspection intervals. Such a size is not so large that the slower
crack growth in the more severe spectra will bias the setting of the time to crack initiation.
The value of 0.050 inches is smaller than the value of 0.12 inches selected by Lockheed as
their nominal aNDI, being from a Eddy Current Surface Scan (ECSS) procedure around a
filled fastener hole. However 0.050 inches represents the aNDI value for a Bolt Hole Eddy
Current (BHEC) procedure, another common procedure for the P-3 in the past, and most
probably in the future. The 0.050 inch value will also be consistent with the aNDI value
used in the damage tolerance phase of the analysis.
FAR 25.571-1C requires that the number of test specimens be considered. An accepted
approach is that a wing tip-to-tip test provides two results for each location that is
represented twice on the aircraft. The life factors require adjustment but the mean test life
must also be defined. Again, an accepted approach is that the mean test life is the log
mean of the port and starboard failures. For P-3 SLAP wing/fuselage test, symmetric
loading was applied. The RH wing was original structure, and the LH wing structure had
71
DSTO-TN-0819
undergone SRP. Results from the test showed that the different build standards are not a
significant feature, therefore left and right hand results could be averaged (after taking
into account pre-test usage) unless there is a known difference in structural configuration
or repair state. Similar symmetry could be applied to the two empennage tests (in the
Lockheed test the Horizontal Stabiliser (H-Stab) was new and in the DSTO test it was a
retired component, whilst the Vertical Stabiliser (V-Stab) is symmetrical by virtue of
symmetry of loading). Some build quality variation related issues have come to light, for
example dome nut hole edge distances on the front spar, and the H-Stab rear spar failure
location Kt. Where these variations were found, separate analysis was required. Given
the concern expressed about build quality and the possibility of corrosion initiated
cracking, the Lockheed approach of taking the earliest crack from either LH or RH sides is
used as opposed to the mean life approach. One aspect that will need to be considered for
each wing location is the accuracy placed upon the determination of pre-test usage. The
following criteria was therefore used to calculate the mean crack initiation and total lives
for each symmetric location:
a. Symmetric locations on wing, fuselage, tailplane and fin were assessed to provide
separate life estimates,
b. Evident build quality differences as well as RAAF/test article structural
configuration differences were assessed and lives and analysis locations adjusted
as necessary,
c. The uncertainty of the RH wing, fuselage and empennage pre-test usage was
considered and a conservative estimation (in terms of reduced life) used if needed,
d. The earlier life for symmetrical failures was used as the test life,
e. L-M pre-determined FCA locations that did not generate a failure shall were given
a mean crack initiation life determined from the end of test life.
For each analysed location, a key assessment is to determine if the configuration of that
location on the FSFT article corresponds to that of the RAAF fleet. This assessment
requires examination of the P-3 drawings and drilling down each assembly to the
appropriate part number. This assessment of the structural configuration difference was
performed and documented by Aerostructures in 1999 (see Reference 23 and 24). DSTO
did not perform an independent assessment of the structural configuration, but utilised
these references solely, unless additional fleet data was known. In each case, the source of
information has been referenced. It should be noted that the extent of the assessment of
the structural configuration is limited to the information presented in these reports and the
caveats mentioned at the start of each report.
72
DSTO-TN-0819
Factor (BSF) required for a safe-life is 3.0 and the following issues need to be considered
and the factor adjusted if required:
73
DSTO-TN-0819
AC25.571-1C states that detection of damage before it becomes critical is the ultimate
control in ensuring the damage tolerance characteristics of the structure, and that
operational experience and practicability of the inspections need to be taken into account.
Apart from this, no process guidance is given, so for determination of inspection intervals,
the JSSG 2006 guidance of a factor of 2 on the crack growth period between aNDI and acrit
was used. The aNDI value was set for the specific technique and is a value that is regarded
as giving a Probability of Detection (POD) of over 90% with 95% confidence.
For the situation described in subparagraph a above, the likely flaw sizes or Equivalent
Initial Flaw (EIF) for “appropriate initial manufacturing damage” has recently been
explored by L-M. L-M investigated the use of aEIF =0.002 or 0.003 as an alternative to 0.005
as is more routinely done in DTAs. FASTRAN over predicted the test lives of some FCAs
and under predicted others. The current FCA analysis gives aEIF values varying between
0.0006 inches and 0.005 inches. The results were even more problematic when different
spectra from the FMS countries were investigated, suggesting that, as it currently stands,
FASTRAN is less able to predict fatigue durations based on growth from very small flaws
than the alternative strain-life or stress-life approaches. The basic analysis therefore used
the alternate option of an appropriate scatter factor on the results of the SLAP testing. The
safety criterion is the application of a factor of 3.0 to the calculated total life to determine a
‘safe-life’ or ‘non-inspection period’. As a significant portion of the total life is spent in
crack growth, this criterion can lead to relatively large (but still safe) cracks in the
structure. Therefore, in addition to the safety criteria, an economic based inspection
threshold was also calculated based on the likely detection of small cracks that can be
easily repaired. To provide for a sufficient but not overly conservative (and costly)
threshold for inspection of fleet aircraft, a factor of two (based on one in 40 probability
with S.D. = 0.11) was applied to the test demonstrated life at crack sizes of 0.05 inches and
0.12 inches, ie relating to the aNDI values of the two most common likely inspection
methods, BHEC and ECSS.
For the situation described in subparagraph b above, the JSSG 2006/Mil-Spec-83444 rogue
flaw of 0.050 inches was used.
74
DSTO-TN-0819
Step 1. Definition of Locations to be Analysed. Each failure recorded during each SLAP
fatigue test and during teardown was assessed for criticality. All primary
structure locations were further evaluated. Secondary structure failures were
discarded unless they were considered “maintenance significant” and worthy of
being included in the structural integrity management documents (maintenance
and inspection requirements) for the aircraft, or, where the secondary failure will
lead to an accelerated primary structure failure. All previously defined FCA
locations were retained for evaluation. Structural configuration differences
between the test articles and the RAAF fleet were checked and any build quality
issues resulting from test failures or fleet results taken into account.
Step 2. Calculation of Crack Initiation, Crack Growth and Total Life. For each FCA
location, generate a FAMS Kn versus life curve and a FASTRAN crack growth
curve. Critical crack length, acrit, is determined based on failure of the first
primary element, modified if required by multi-site damage requirements. The
FAMS based crack initiation life is defined (as discussed previously) as equating to
a crack length of 0.05 inches. For locations which did not crack or fail on a test, or if
the detected crack size at the end of the test was less than 0.05 inches, the end of
test time is taken as the time at which a crack of 0.05 inches exists. For locations
which did crack or fail on a test, and where the crack size exceeded 0.05 inches, the
FASTRAN crack growth curve was used to determine the time the crack would
have taken to grow from 0.05 inches to the size at the end of the test. This
information was then used to determine the test time at which a crack of 0.05
inches would have existed. A test demonstrated Kn (KnTD) was then determined by
reading off the Kn versus life curve to find the Kn value which corresponds to the
test demonstrated life (at 0.05 inches). The crack growth life is based on the
FASTRAN analysis from 0.05 inches to critical. The total life is the sum of the crack
initiation and growth lives.
Step 3. Calculation of Unfactored Inspection threshold and intervals. For each analysis
location, generate the crack growth periods from ainit = 0.050 inches and 0.12 inches
out to acrit. Although not to be used in the basic interpretation, generate the crack
growth period from a = 0.005 to a=0.05 inches for use in alternative methods.
Step 4. Generate the RAAF average usage stress spectra for each analysis location and
produce a FAMS Kn versus life curve and a FASTRAN crack growth curve.
Determine the unfactored crack initiation life using the test demonstrated KnTD
obtained from Step 2. Calculate total life. Calculated the unfactored inspection
intervals from ainit = 0.050 inches and 0.12 inches.
75
DSTO-TN-0819
Step 5. For each analysis location, apply the test factors described above to generate test
demonstrated safe lives, inspection thresholds (both the safety criteria and the
economic criteria) and inspection intervals. Use the above information to
determine a list of critical locations in priority order.
Step 6. For each analysis location, review the RAAF in-service airworthiness management
options available (safety by inspection or safety by retirement) and make
recommendations. Include assessments of the impact of widespread fatigue
damage. Modify the inspection intervals based on a review of the NDI techniques
that will be used in the RAAF fleet to take account of any variation in aNDI that may
be necessary due to alternative techniques or location specific issues. Make
recommendations on the overall structural durability and economic life limits from
a review of the overall structural cracking on each major component (wing,
fuselage, tailplane, fin, main landing gear and nose landing gear).
FASTRAN
For multi load path structure
calibration by fracto
Hthreshold = Total Life / 3
and/or coupons
Total Life FCA163-2 FASTRAN Analysis
DSTO FASTRAN USN Fracto
CGAP
0.50
0.45
0.35
Half-Crack Length (in)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.00
20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000
Total Flying Hours
76
DSTO-TN-0819
KnTD
RAAF Average
FSFT
Hours
Hinit FSFT Hinit RAAF average
Recurring Inspection Interval
acrit
Crack
length a
or 2a
aNDI
RAAF Inspection interval x 2
Hours
77
DSTO-TN-0819
78
DSTO-TN-0819
# *********************************************************
MMF_01 "RAAF AP-3C 15,000 Hour mission mix; ref = Aerostructures"
1 0 (runOption initialSeeding)
cross-randomize
Mission_01 30
Mission_02 38
Mission_03 25
Mission_04 27
Mission_05 82
Mission_06 86
Mission_07 26
Mission_08 91
Mission_09 44
Mission_10 13
Mission_11 19
Mission_12 8
Mission_13 1
Mission_14 17
Mission_15 53
Mission_16 10
Mission_17 87
Mission_18 2
Mission_19 36
Mission_20 2
Mission_21 15
Mission_22 4
Mission_23 1
Mission_24 1
Mission_25 81
Mission_26 81
Mission_27 48
Mission_28 278
Mission_29 20
Mission_30 398
79
DSTO-TN-0819
Mission_31 8
Mission_32 159
Mission_33 1
Mission_34 111
Mission_35 302
Mission_36 202
Mission_37 265
Mission_38 9
EOR
EOF
# Sample option 3 (to "use," remove text given above and uncomment):
# "mission," "flight," "buffet," "landing," "taxi," "braking," "turning," pivot severities
# Mission_01 A E A D A C B
# Mission_03 B E B D B C B
# Mission_01 C E C D B C A
# Mission_03 D D D C B C B
# Mission_01 D D D D B C B
# Mission_01 E C D C B B B
# Mission_01 E B D B B B B
# Mission_03 E A C A B A B
# EOF
# *********************************************************
# General comments:
# #NAME? impact duration must = 1
# #NAME? flight segments must contain airspeed and altitude
# #NAME? must = "'mach'," "'vcas'," "'veas'," or 'vtas'
#
# *********************************************************
# Mission format:
# name airspeedUnits description
# segment segName loadSrc criteriaSrc durationMin grossWt fuelWt intStrWt extStrWt foam airspd
altitude
# *********************************************************
# *********************************************************
80
DSTO-TN-0819
81
DSTO-TN-0819
82
DSTO-TN-0819
83
DSTO-TN-0819
84
DSTO-TN-0819
85
DSTO-TN-0819
86
DSTO-TN-0819
87
DSTO-TN-0819
88
DSTO-TN-0819
89
DSTO-TN-0819
90
DSTO-TN-0819
91
DSTO-TN-0819
92
DSTO-TN-0819
93
DSTO-TN-0819
94
DSTO-TN-0819
95
DSTO-TN-0819
96
DSTO-TN-0819
97
DSTO-TN-0819
98
DSTO-TN-0819
99
DSTO-TN-0819
100
DSTO-TN-0819
101
DSTO-TN-0819
102
DSTO-TN-0819
103
DSTO-TN-0819
104
DSTO-TN-0819
105
DSTO-TN-0819
106
DSTO-TN-0819
107
DSTO-TN-0819
108
DSTO-TN-0819
109
DSTO-TN-0819
Mission_33 mach RAAF Mission profile #1C & 6; ref = Aerostructures ER-P3-ASM199
1 LT-TURN 91 191 0.12 115100 42400 1160a 0 N
2 RT-TURN 91 1911 0.12 115100 42400 1160a 0 N
3 TAXI 72 171 5 115100 42400 1160a 0 N
4 TAKEOFF 72 172 0.513 115100 42400 1160a 0 N
5 ABRUPTMNVR 66 0 1 115100 42400 1160a 0 N 90
6 CLIMBOUT 10 156.256.301.401 1 115054.2 42354.2 1160a 0 N 0.251 250
7 CLIMB 20 156.256.301.401 0.6 114980.8 42280.8 1160a 0 N 0.342
1500
8 CLIMB 20 156.256.301.401 0.9 114912.1 42212.1 1160a 0 N 0.356
3750
9 CLIMB 20 156.256.301.401 1.38281 114807.5 42107.5 1160a 0 N 0.374
6500
10 CRUISE 20 156.256.301.401 35 113139.9 40439.9 1160a 0 N 0.445
8000
11 DESCENT 20 156.256.301.401 2.30769 111430 38730 1160a 0 N 0.424
6500
12 DESCENT 20 156.256.301.401 1.92308 111236.1 38536.1 1160a 0 N 0.404
3750
13 DESCENT 20 156.256.301.401 1.15385 111095 38395 1160a 0 N 0.39
1750
110
DSTO-TN-0819
111
DSTO-TN-0819
112
DSTO-TN-0819
113
DSTO-TN-0819
# "38 SLEPII Miss08 P-3 Air Demonstration, 2.7 Hrs, ONE LNDS "
114
DSTO-TN-0819
115
DSTO-TN-0819
116
DSTO-TN-0819
1.95 45
2.35 0
2.65 0
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Asymmetric manoeuvre (Nz exceedences)
# ID Type perXMinutes description
# nz exceedneces
257 asym 30.0 216840 "Total RAAF Mission 7, asymm man. = 1/10th Nz exc curve (w/ assoc. roll rate), ref = Aerostructures"
0.05 0
0.45 0
0.75 918.62
1.25 2522.82
1.55 117.75
1.95 4.5
2.35 0
2.65 0
EOR
# *********************************************************
# *********************************************************
# Symmetric manoeuvre (Nz exceedences)
# ID Type perXMinutes description
# nz exceedneces
158 symm 900000 "Total RAAF Mission 8, ref = Aerostructures"
0.05 0
0.45 0
0.75 0
1.25 713471
1.55 208272
1.95 55758
2.35 23505
2.65 14702
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Asymmetric manoeuvre (Nz exceedences)
# ID Type perXMinutes description
# nz exceedneces
258 asym 30.0 900000 "Total RAAF Mission 8, asymm man. = 1/10th Nz exc curve (w/ assoc. roll rate), ref = Aerostructures"
0.05 0
0.45 0
0.75 0
1.25 71347.1
1.55 20827.2
1.95 5575.8
2.35 2350.5
2.65 1470.2
EOR
# *********************************************************
# *********************************************************
# *********************************************************
# Vertical gust (P's and b's v. altitude)
# ID type description
# altitude p1 p2 b1 b2 scaleOfTurbulence
301 vg "Vertical gust P's and b's; ref = MIL-A-8861(B) & CDRL A004"
0 1 0.005 2.5100 5.04 500
1000 1.000 0.0050 2.51 5.04 500
1001 0.42 0.0033 3.02 5.94 1750
2500 0.42 0.0033 3.02 5.94 1750
2501 0.3 0.0020 3.42 8.17 2500
5000 0.3 0.0020 3.42 8.17 2500
5001 0.15 0.00095 3.59 9.22 2500
10000 0.15 0.00095 3.59 9.22 2500
10001 0.062 0.00028 3.27 10.52 2500
20000 0.062 0.00028 3.27 10.52 2500
20001 0.025 0.00011 3.15 11.88 2500
30000 0.025 0.00011 3.15 11.88 2500
30001 0.011 0.000095 2.93 9.84 2500
40000 0.011 0.000095 2.93 9.84 2500
40001 0.0046 0.000115 3.28 8.81 2500
50000 0.0046 0.000115 3.28 8.81 2500
50001 0.002 0.000078 3.82 7.04 2500
60000 0.002 0.000078 3.82 7.04 2500
61000 0.00088 0.000057 2.93 4.33 2500
70000 0.00088 0.000057 2.93 4.33 2500
71000 0.00038 0.000044 2.80 1.80 2500
80000 0.00038 0.000044 2.80 1.80 2500
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Lateral gust (P's and b's v. altitude)
# ID type description
# altitude p1 p2 b1 b2 scaleOfTurbulence
401 lg "lateral gust P's and b's; ref = MIL-A-8861(B) & CDRL A004"
0 1 0.0050 2.51 5.04 500
1000 1 0.0050 2.51 5.04 500
1001 0.42 0.0033 3.02 5.94 1750
2500 0.42 0.0033 3.02 5.94 1750
2501 0.3 0.0020 3.42 8.17 2500
5000 0.3 0.0020 3.42 8.17 2500
5001 0.15 0.00095 3.59 9.22 2500
10000 0.15 0.00095 3.59 9.22 2500
10001 0.062 0.00028 3.27 10.52 2500
20000 0.062 0.00028 3.27 10.52 2500
117
DSTO-TN-0819
# *********************************************************
# Note that Buffet is not currently used/called up in RAAF MDF
# Buffet
# ID type nz perXBuffetSegments description
# occMode1 occMode2 occMode3 occMode4
161 buffet 2.0 1 "Sample buffet occurrences of modes 1-4; ref = CDRL A004"
5.0 5.0 10.0 0
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Taxi (runway roughness RMS, ground speed schedule)
# ID type description
# p1 p2 b1 b2 groundSpeed percentOfSegmentDuration(decimal)
171 taxi "Pre-flight/post-flight Taxi; ref = RAAF FLTP criteria, speeds & durations"
8.3713 0.0 0.8973 1.0 10.0 1.00
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Takeoff (runway roughness RMS, ground speed schedule)
# ID type description
# p1 p2 b1 b2 groundSpeed percentOfSegmentDuration(decimal)
172 takeoff "Takeoff; ref = RAAF FLTP criteria, speeds & durations"
6.2684 0.0 0.9049 1.0 30.0 0.47
7.1770 0.0 1.0312 1.0 85.0 0.39
7.1653 0.0 0.5918 1.0 118.0 0.14
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Rollout (runway roughness RMS, ground speed schedule)
# ID type description
# p1 p2 b1 b2 groundSpeed percentOfSegmentDuration(decimal)
175 rollout "Rollout; ref = RAAF FLTP criteria, speeds & durations"
4.0850 0.0 1.0616 1.0 90.0 0.18
3.6018 0.0 1.7185 1.0 60.0 0.42
3.8881 0.0 2.4584 1.0 20.0 0.40
EOR
# *********************************************************
# TAG-RO (runway roughness RMS, ground speed schedule)
# Revised August 2006
# ID type description
# p1 p2 b1 b2 groundSpeed percentOfSegmentDuration(decimal)
176 rollout "TAG rollout; ref = RAAF FLTP criteria, speeds & durations"
4.1393 0.0 1.6862 1.0 100.0 1.00
EOR
# *********************************************************
# TAG-TO (runway roughness RMS, ground speed schedule)
# Revised August 2006
# ID type description
# p1 p2 b1 b2 groundSpeed percentOfSegmentDuration(decimal)
177 takeoff "TAG takeoff; ref = RAAF FLTP criteria, speeds & durations"
7.5596 0.0 0.8778 1.0 100.0 1.00
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Landing impact (sink speed occurrences w/ assoc. mvar code (a-h))
# ID type perXLandings description
# sinkSpeed mvarCode occurrences
182 landing 986 "RAAF FLTP landing impact sink speed occurrences w/ assoc. mvar code; ref = RAAF FLTP"
1 a 30
2 b 113
3 c 232
4 d 264
5 a 195
6 b 95
7 a 57
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Turning (Ny occurrences)
# ID type perXTurningSegments description
# ny occurrences
191 turning 5 "RAAF FLTP Left turning Ny occurrences; ref = RAAF FLTP"
-0.20 0.25
-0.15 2.75
-0.10 17.95
-0.05 3.2
0.05 0
118
DSTO-TN-0819
0.10 0
0.15 0
0.20 0
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Turning (Ny occurrences)
# ID type perXTurningSegments description
# ny occurrences
1911 turning 5 "RAAF FLTP Right turning Ny occurrences; ref = RAAF FLTP"
-0.20 0
-0.15 0
-0.10 0
-0.05 0
0.05 3.2
0.10 17.95
0.15 2.75
0.20 0.25
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Braking (mu occurrences)
# ID type perXBrakingSegments description
# mu occurrences
192 braking 1 "Hard braking mu occurrences; ref = CDRL A004"
0.4 2.0
0.2 0.0
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Braking (mu occurrences)
# ID type perXBrakingSegments description
# mu occurrences
1922 braking 1 "Soft/Medium braking mu occurrences; ref = CDRL A004"
0.4 0.0
0.2 5.0
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Pivot (torque occurrences)
# ID type perXPivotSegments description
# torque occurrences
193 pivot 10 "Sample pivot torque occurrences; ref = RAAF Pilot Review"
0 0.0
0 0.0
EOR
# *********************************************************
# Nz levels -- units = 'g'.
# These terms are used to define the boundaries of the Nz exceedance
# curve(s) used in the analysis. The analysis curve(s) will cover from
# negNzHighTruncationLevel to negNzLowTruncationLevel on the (-) Nz side,
# and from negNzHighTruncationLevel to posNzHighTruncationLevel on the
# (+) Nz side. The curve(s) will be partitioned into nPartitionsManeuver
# steps -- each for the (-) and (+) Nz sides (nPartitionsManeuver is defined
# below). Additionally, the Nz exceedance curve(s) used in the analysis
# may be clipped both on the (-) and (+) Nz sides.
negNzHighTruncationLevel = 0.0
negNzLowTruncationLevel = 0.75
posNzLowTruncationLevel = 1.25
posNzHighTruncationLevel = 2.65
negNzClippingLevel = 0.0
posNzClippingLevel = 2.65
# *********************************************************
# Vertical, lateral gust velocity levels -- units = 'ft/sec'.
# These terms are used to define the boundaries of the PSD gust velocity exceedance
# curve(s) used in the analysis. The vertical gust analysis curve(s) will cover from
# vgustVelLowTruncationLevel to vgustVelHighTruncationLevel (PSD exceedance
# curves are symmetric about zero; these curves will then be repeated to
# cover (-) gust velocities). Similar curves are developed for lateral gust.
# The curve(s) will be partitioned into nPartitionsGust steps --
# each for the (-) and (+) sides (nPartitionsGust is defined
# below). Additionally, the gust exceedance curve(s) used in the analysis
# may be clipped.
119
DSTO-TN-0819
vgustMinGustVelocityFPS = 10.0
vgustMaxGustVelocityFPS = 100.0
vgustGustVelocityClippingLevelFPS = 65.0
lgustMinGustVelocityFPS = 10.0
lgustMaxGustVelocityFPS = 100.0
lgustGustVelocityClippingLevelFPS = 65.0
# *********************************************************
# Taxi/takeoff and rollout delta (incremental) Nz -- units = 'g'
# These terms are used to define the boundaries of the PSD taxi exceedance
# curve(s) used in the analysis. The analysis curve(s) will cover from
# (1.0 + taxiMinIncNzAppliedAtCG) to (1.0 + taxiMaxIncNzAppliedAtCG) (PSD exceedance
# curves are symmetric about zero; these curves will then be repeated to
# cover the (-) side). Similar values exist for rollout segments.
# The curve(s) will be partitioned into nPartitionsTaxi steps --
# each for the (-) and (+) sides (nPartitionsTaxi is defined
# below). Additionally, the taxi exceedance curve(s) used in the analysis
# may be clipped.
# *********************************************************
# Load or stress Master Control Point (MCP) truncation and clipping levels.
# These terms are used to define optional load or stress truncation and clipping
# levels for the MCP. Load levels are given in lb, stress levels are given in psi.
# Bending Moments
# mcpTruncationLevel = 100000
# mcpTensileClippingLevel = 30000000
# mcpCompressiveClippingLevel = -30000000
# Stress Levels
mcpTruncationLevel = 1000
mcpTensileClippingLevel = 40000
mcpCompressiveClippingLevel = -40000
# *********************************************************
# Percentage of 'A' severities per mission; range = 0.000001 to 100.0 (%, decimals allowed).
# If = 0 (or blank), default value of 1 'A' severity is used (v. 2.3.0).
maxSeverityPercentage = 1
# *********************************************************
# These terms define the # of severities (for each load source) to be used to spread
# the mission occurrences across differing severities within the spectrum.
# See the Requirements Document for more detailed information.
# Note: for landing impact, the user may not explicitly define the # of severities.
nSeveritiesFlight = 5
nSeveritiesBuffet = 5
nSeveritiesTaxi = 5
nSeveritiesBraking = 2
nSeveritiesTurning = 3
nSeveritiesPivot = 2
# *********************************************************
# Number of exceedance/occurrence curve partitions (see notes above).
# Note: for landing impact, the user may not explicitly define the # of partitions;
# the values given in the ICF are used.
# Note: for buffet, the user may not explicitly define the # of partitions;
# the values given in the ICF are used.
# Note: for braking/turning/pivot the user may not explicitly define the # of
# partitions; the values given in the ICF are used.
# nPartitionsManeuver = 10
# nPartitionsGust = 6
# nPartitionsTaxi = 10
nPartitionsManeuver = 20
nPartitionsGust = 20
nPartitionsTaxi = 10
# *********************************************************
# Number of final loads/stress exceedance curve partitions; min value = 2, max value = 50 (V. 2.0.5).
nPartitionsTotalExceedanceCurve = 50
# *********************************************************
# Number of landing cycles to be included in FSTMD sequence:
nLandingCycles = 2
# *********************************************************
# Stress Increment settings
flightStressIncrementMeanAxial = 1.0
flightStressIncrementMeanShear = 1.0
120
DSTO-TN-0819
flightStressIncrementStressPerPosGAxial = 1.0
flightStressIncrementStressPerNegGAxial = 1.0
flightStressIncrementStressPerPosGShear = 1.0
flightStressIncrementStressPerNegGShear = 1.0
taxiTakeoffStressIncrementMeanAxial = 1.0
taxiTakeoffStressIncrementMeanShear = 1.0
taxiTakeoffStressIncrementRMSAxial = 1.0
taxiTakeoffStressIncrementRMSShear = 1.0
rolloutStressIncrementMeanAxial = 1.0
rolloutStressIncrementMeanShear = 1.0
rolloutStressIncrementRMSAxial = 1.0
rolloutStressIncrementRMSShear = 1.0
vgustStressIncrementRMSAxial = 1.0
vgustStressIncrementRMSShear = 1.0
lgustStressIncrementRMSAxial = 1.0
lgustStressIncrementRMSShear = 1.0
121
DSTO-TN-0819
122
DSTO-TN-0819
123
DSTO-TN-0819
124
DSTO-TN-0819
125
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Procedure for Developing Fatigue Life & Crack Growth Curves for a non-P-3C Service Life
Assessment Program Fatigue Critical Area
Emilio Matricciani
AUSTRALIA
Task Sponsor
DGTA 1 Printed
S&T Program
SPARES 3 Printed + 2 CD
6a. DSTO NUMBER 6b. AR NUMBER 6c. TYPE OF REPORT 7. DOCUMENT DATE
DSTO-TN-0819 AR-014-185 Technical Note May 2008
8. FILE NUMBER 9. TASK NUMBER 10. TASK SPONSOR 11. NO. OF PAGES 12. NO. OF REFERENCES
2007/1064217/1 AIR 07/049 DGTA 126 24
To be reviewed three years after date of publication Chief, Air Vehicles Division
Distribution additional to the initial list is limited to Australian Department of Defence and Defence Force personnel and others engaged in defence
activities in Australia. Others inquiring must be referred to Chief, Air Vehicles Division.
OVERSEAS ENQUIRIES OUTSIDE STATED LIMITATIONS SHOULD BE REFERRED THROUGH DOCUMENT EXCHANGE, PO BOX 1500, EDINBURGH, SA 5111
16. DELIBERATE ANNOUNCEMENT
Australian Department of Defence and Defence Force personnel and others engaged in defence activities in Australia.
19. ABSTRACT
The United States Navy (USN), the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), the Canadian Forces (CF) and the Royal
Netherlands Navy (RNLN) with support from Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems undertook the P-3C Service Life
Assessment Program (SLAP). Five Full Scale Fatigue Tests (FSFT) were conducted between 2000 and 2004. Post testing
analysis for the USA was conducted by Lockheed Martin and DSTO conducted test interpretation for the RAAF. This
report provides the means of conducting Fatigue Life and Crack Growth analysis at a Fatigue Critical Area (FCA) not
analysed during P-3C SLAP test interpretation activities.