Airbus Composites - Damage Tolerance Methodolgy - Fualdes

Chicago, IL
FAA Workshop for Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance

July 19-21, 2006
Prepared by Emilie MORTEAU, Chantal FUALDES
Presented by
Chantal FUALDES
Airbus
Head of Composite stress analysis
Composite Senior Expert
Composites @ Airbus
Damage Tolerance
Methodology
Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1
Main principles in Damage tolerance methodology
AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
REGULATION
IN-SERVICE
INEXPERIENCE
ANALYSIS-ANALYSIS
TEST RESULTS
BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH
FATIGUE
& DAMAGE
TOLERANCE
EVALUATIONS
July 2006
Page 2
CONTENT
1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Damage Detectability
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
Manufacturing defects
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 3
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 4
1- AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy
DT Philosophy to answer to requirement and means of compliance
July 2006
Page 5
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 6
1.1- Damage detectability

Damage
detectability
Damage metric
BVID definition
Large VID
definition
Supporting tests
and analysis
Relaxation
behaviour
July 2006
Page 7

Has to be revisited for composite
fuselage application for consistency
with impact sources (ground handling)
(CWB, Keel Beam, aileron, spoiler, HTP, VTP, LGD, etc)
Damage metric
Airbus composite parts

relevant impacts for DT analysis are from maintenance i.e. tool drop,
removable panel drop, and in a smaller extent from operation by runway
debris (LGD),
4Shape of damage can be simulated by low impactor diameter (diameter
generally used for composite test and DT substantiation is from 6 to 25mm), and
4Resulting damages have similar diameter, mainly the dent depth (and crack
length for edges), and depend on the impact energy
4For
For transverse impact, the damage

metric used for detectability is the
dent depth
For edge impact, the damage metric
used for detectability is the dent
depth and/or cracks length
July 2006
Page 8

BVID definition
The minimum impact damage surely detectable by scheduled
inspection
4Dent
depth criterion as a damage metric is widely used for composites.

(It is acceptable to use additional criteria (not just dent depth) when
establishing the limit of detectability, if this is justified by appropriate testing)
4It corresponds to a probability of detection of 90% with an interval of
confidence of 95%.
4It provides a reasonable level of robustness for the structure design
the aim is to sustain UL with BVID
Two values for the BVID criterion are established dependent on the
visual inspection type : DET and GVI
July 2006
Page 9

Large VID definition
is technology and structure dependant
4Damage
size associated to walk-around is considered on a case-by-case
basis
Typically penetration
Example for a
sandwich structure
July 2006
Page 10

Supporting tests and analysis and in-service survey
DET Inspection
Detection of damages on different composite panels (size: from 100*100mm to 0.8m, painted or not, glossy or mat,
white, grey, blue or green paint, primer)
Duration of inspection : not limited
Distance of inspection : 50 cm
Lighting condition : available lighting+grazing light (if required)
Several impactor diameter : 6mm and 16mm
A total of 902 inspections
FOR BVID
TRANSVERSE IMPACT
GVI Inspection
Inspection on large panel (8m*1.2 m)
Two configurations : horizontal or vertical panels
Distance of inspection : 1m
Duration of inspection : 30sec/panel
Artificial lighting representative of Natural daylight
Several impacts on painted panel: from 0.3mm deep to perforation
Several impactor diameter : from 6 to 120mm
A total of 240 inspections
July 2006
Page 11

Results of inspection were statistically
processed using a search for maximum
plausibility type approach.
The analytical POD function used is the
Log Normal cumulative distribution
dj
Pdet ( d > d j ) =
1
e
2 .
(log d m )2
log d j m
d (log d ) =
1 y2
e dy
2
d : dent depth
m = Log ( a50 / 95)
Log (a 99 / 95) Log (a 50 / 95)
=
2.33
BVID
July 2006
Page 12

Example for GVI inspection
Cumulative curve of dent depth
Pourcentage of damages with dent

less than d
120,00%
100,00%
80,00%
60,00%
40,00%
20,00%
0,00%
Airbus
BVID
0,00 0,50 1,00
1,50
2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50
(GVI)
Dent depth (mm)
Survey in
European airline
85% of collected
impact damages
(dent) (around
1000 damage
records) detected
through GVI
inspection (A, C
check, daily,
weekly, etc) are
below Airbus
established
detectability
threshold
Airbus BVID(GVI) is consistent with Airline survey findings

July 2006
Page 13

Relaxation behaviour
The relaxation is the phenomenon that leads to damages that become
less detectable over time: a damage being detectable at time of impact,
can become undetectable after an interval of inspection due to
mechanical, thermal cycling, wet and ambient ageing and temperature.
18J impact+WA70/95%HR
1500h and fatigue (r=10
c/c) at 20
Influent parameters were studied, the

wet ageing until saturation covers all
environmental and mechanical effects
during the aircraft life.
For tests, impact inflicted to the
structure takes into account the
relaxation of the dent under
environmental conditions.
c/c) at -40
0,90
Dent depth evolution (mm)
Material A
0,80
0,60
c/c) at 20
0,50
c/c) at -40
0,40
1500h and fatigue (r=-1 t/c)
at 20
0,30
0,20
c/c) at 20
0,10
0,00
After impact After 20 mn
After 48H
After WA
Before
fatigue
After
After fatigue
110cycles
0,6Fr
Event
at 20
Hot/wet
ageing
0,70
July 2006
c/c) at -40
at 20
Page 14
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 15
1.2- Impact threat
Impact threat
Impact threat
definition
Typical impact
threat
Supporting data
and analysis
July 2006
Page 16
1.2- Impact threat

Impact threat definition
The impact threat is the mathematical description of impact severities
associated to their probability of occurrence. It is supported by extensive
survey of in-service incidents.
5
p j ( E E j ) = 10
Ref: Effect of low velocity impact damage on
primary aircraft structures the certification issue;
Aug 1999, J. Rouchon
Pj (E 30 J ) = 10 / fh
Ej
15
with x=3, giving
Pj ( E 90 J ) = 10 9 / fh
Typical impact threat
External part
Typical impact threat:
35J 10-5 /FH (static cut-off)
90J 10-9 /FH (damage tolerance cut-off)
HTP root/Rear fuselage skin
140J 10-5 /FH (static cut-off)
Doorway zones
132,5J 10-5 /FH (static cut-off)
238,5J 10-9 /FH (damage tolerance cut-off)
Note : for some structures where a low impact threat can be anticipated (eg x >2,7), then the energy
associated to a realistic event could be low.
July 2006
Page 17
1.2- Impact threat

Supporting data and analysis
4A
survey on wing impact damage, covering the whole Airbus types,

totalling 18,740,000 flight hours and 9,800,000 flight cycles
4A similar survey extended the data to the fuselage, covering A320 family,
totalling 1,140,000 flight hours
4A similar survey covering the whole aircraft covering A320 family,
totalling 500,000 flight hours
4And another source of data was a survey, totalling 10,330,000 flight hours
Extensive survey available from which the current impact threat is

derived.
Impact threat parameters have a solid foundation, new in-service data,
additional applications (A380 for example) and associated in-service
history should lead to future updates with a more complete understanding
of damage threats.
July 2006
Page 18
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 19
1.3- Large Damage

Large Damage Capability, LDC: not realistic damage
Design precautions to protect against the unknown.
Design precautions
4
Fail Safe demonstration on main joint areas: hinged structures,

high load introduction (disconnection of one load path)
In addition, for each typical technology / design, arbitrary typical

damages are assumed for LDC assessment, such as:
Stringer disbond analysis for co-bonded technology

Missing fasteners at load introduction area
Large hole in typical area
July 2006
Page 20
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 21
1.4- Hail
Hailstorms data is based on meteorological survey defining:

4
Size of hailstones :
4
4
Standard hailstorm,
Rare hailstorm,
Extremely rare hailstorm,
(Dia 10mm) for a P of 50% of hailstorms

(Dia 25mm) for a P of 5% of hailstorms
(Dia 50mm) for a P of 0.1% of hailstorms.
Concentration per unit area: number of hailstones impacting a surface

based on the size of the storm.
Velocities for the energy of hails impact on ground and flight conditions.
Structure Damage tolerance approach , 2 points are considered:

4
Unloaded Structure, hail on ground for commercial aspect
Showers of Dia 10 and 50 mm ( 33m/s; 32 Joules)
Loaded structure, hail in flight considered in damage tolerance analysis

(Energy, loading, risk analysis)
Tests determine the structure behaviour
July 2006
Page 22
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 23
1.5- Manufacturing defects

Allowable manufacturing defects accounted for in
the static demonstration
Size and type
Inherent to manufacturing process
4 Established through quality assurance plan
4 Quantified for each sizing criteria
Manufacturing defects included in the building block

demonstration from coupon to full scale test
July 2006
Page 24
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 25
1.6- No-growth / fatigue

Means of compliance AMC25-603
4
6.2.1 Structural details, elements, and subcomponents of critical structural

areas should be tested under repeated loads to define the sensitivity of the
structure to damage growth. This testing can form the basis for validating a nogrowth approach to the damage tolerance requirements.[]
6.2.3 The evaluation should demonstrate that the residual strength of the
structure is equal to or greater than the strength required for the specified
design loads For the no-growth concept, residual strength testing should be
performed after repeated load cycling.
Tests performed for compliance

4 No initiation of damages checked defining good design practices
4 Critical Non detectable damage/defects under repeated loads
during one DSG
4 Critical detectable damage under repeated loads during at least one
interval of inspection
4 A residual test after cycling to validate required design loads
July 2006
Page 26
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 27
2- Test Pyramid
BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH
Verify analysis methods

Verify FEM predicted stress/strain distribution
FULL SCALE
Verify predicted failure modes
COMPONENT
Allowable validation against coupon and smaller
specimen
SUBCOMPONENT
At detail level, B values are determined if test

results are used in the analysis. (1 or more typical
feature per specimen)
ELEMENT
Statistical treatment: large and small populations
B value
DETAILS
COUPONS
In general 1 typical feature per specimen (hole,lay

up, impact damage)
Determine environmental effects (moisture,
thermal)
July 2006
Page 28
2- Test Pyramid for Damage tolerance

Coupons & details tests
Purpose
4
4
4
Assess laminate design value (CAI, TAI, ShAI & failure criterion
including environmental conditions)
hundred of specimens
Statistical treatment to obtain design values based on MIL-HDBK-17
CAI or TAI specimens after impact
ShAI specimen after

failure
July 2006
Page 29

Element tests
Purpose
4
4
Verify strength of critical design details (hole edge impact, top stringer
impact, ply drop off with impact, etc)
Obtain design values for these critical designs (Statistical treatment
based on small sample law)
Tenths of specimens
Top stringer impacted after

compression failure
Compression specimen with impact in the

hole radius
July 2006
Page 30

Sub-Component tests
Purpose
4
4
Verify design concept

Validate method
(analytical, complex
loading, etc)
Validate fatigue
behaviour
Few specimens
Stiffened panel with stringer

edge impact loading with
combined
compression/pressure
July 2006
Page 31

Component & Full-scale tests
Purpose
4
4
4
Validate the stress GFEM analysis

Prove the behaviour of the structure
Show compliance with Regulations. For instance
Limit load strength without detrimental deformations

Ultimate load strength (with BVID damages and allowable manufacturing defects in
critical location)
Fatigue and damage tolerance requirements (no generation of new damages and no
growth of damages) with BVID, manufacturing defect, VID and large damage in critical
location
Validate in-service repair solutions
Example of full
scale test
July 2006
Page 32
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 33
3- Analysis
The damage tolerance method

4 Dent depth versus impact energy
4 Damage size versus impact energy
4 Residual strength versus damage size
4 Failure criterion
Relies on coupons&detail tests of the test pyramid
And is enhanced at higher level of the test pyramid
Parameters accounted for
4 Material differences
4 Laminate thickness
4 Lay-up and stacking sequence
4 Hot/wet
4 Support condition for impact
4 Net section for residual
4 Scatter (B-value)
4 etc
July 2006
Page 34
3- Analysis
Dent depth prediction example
d = f (E, Mat, th, boundary.conditions)

+ Relationship between Dent depth after relaxation and dent depth just after impact
Material 2: thickness effect
Qualification test results QI(4mm) AR/RT

2,5
4,5
test points 4mm

prediction 4mm
test point 4,5mm
prediction 4,5mm
test points 5mm
prediction 5mm
prediction material 1
Test points Material 1
dent depth after impact (mm)
Dent depth after impact (mm)
3,5
3
2,5
1,5
1,5
0,5
0,5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Energy (J)
70
10
20
30
40
50
Impact energy (J)
July 2006
Page 35
60
70
3- Analysis
Delaminated area prediction example
Sd = f (E, Mat, th, boundary.conditions, lay up)

Qualification test results QI(4mm) AR/RT
1600
Delaminated area (mm)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Energy (J)
July 2006
Page 36
3- Analysis
Compression after impact prediction example
EpsCAI = f (Sd , Mat , th, conditioni ng , lay up )

Test results AR/RT
8000
Material 1 prediction QI 4mm thick
Loss of strain in compression
7000
Material 1 Test points QI 4mm thick

Material 2 prediction oriented lay-up 8mm thick
6000
Material 2 Test points oriented lay-up 8mm thick
5000
4000
3000
2000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Delaminated area (mm)

July 2006
Page 37
CONTENT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact threat
Large Damage
Hail
No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
July 2006
Page 38
4- Key messages
Airbus Damage tolerance methodology relies on
Mature design practices
Extensive tests to support analysis
Robust impact survey based on in-service experience
Airlines cooperation, by rigorous inspections reporting ,

enables Airbus to design more durable and damage

tolerant Composite Structures
Impact threat understanding
Detectability assessment
July 2006
Page 39
AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and

proprietary document.
This document and all information contained herein is the sole
property of AIRBUS S.A.S.. No intellectual property rights are
granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of
its content. This document shall not be reproduced or
disclosed to a third party without the express written consent
of AIRBUS S.A.S. This document and its content shall not be
used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied.
The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They
are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed
in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these
statements are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to
explain the basis thereof.
AIRBUS, its logo, A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321,

A330, A340, A350, A380, A400M are registered trademarks.
July 2006
Page 40

Airbus Composites - Damage Tolerance Methodolgy - Fualdes

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Airbus Composites - Damage Tolerance Methodolgy - Fualdes

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Chicago, IL

FAA Workshop for Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance

Main principles in Damage tolerance methodology

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1- AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

DT Philosophy to answer to requirement and means of compliance

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.1- Damage detectability

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.1- Damage detectability

Airbus composite parts

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

For transverse impact, the damage

1.1- Damage detectability

depth criterion as a damage metric is widely used for composites.

the aim is to sustain UL with BVID

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.1- Damage detectability

size associated to walk-around is considered on a case-by-case

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.1- Damage detectability

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.1- Damage detectability

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

1.1- Damage detectability

Pourcentage of damages with dent

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Airbus BVID(GVI) is consistent with Airline survey findings

1.1- Damage detectability

Influent parameters were studied, the

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.2- Impact threat

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.2- Impact threat

with x=3, giving

Typical impact threat

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.2- Impact threat

survey on wing impact damage, covering the whole Airbus types,

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Extensive survey available from which the current impact threat is

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1

1.3- Large Damage

AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.

Fail Safe demonstration on main joint areas: hinged structures,

In addition, for each typical technology / design, arbitrary typical

Stringer disbond analysis for co-bonded technology