Aging Aircraft 2003 MMPDS Presentation

Development of MMPDS Handbook
Aircraft Design Allowables

September 10, 2003
7th Joint DoD/FAA/NASA Conference on
Aging Aircraft, New Orleans, LA
by
Richard C. Rice and Randall J. Goode

Structural Integrity Projects Office
Battelle; Columbus, OH
John G. Bakuckas, Jr.

Federal Aviation Administration
William J. Hughes Technical Center
Atlantic City International Airport, NJ
Steven R. Thompson
U. S. Air Force Research Laboratory
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH
Equipment Development
and Mechanical Systems
aeromat-2001-pmp.ppt
10/13/2003
Presentation Outline
Acknowledgements
MIL-HDBK-5 Historical Milestones and Background
Transition from MIL-HDBK-5 to MMPDS
Design Allowables Terminology
Current MMPDS Design Allowable Applications and Issues
Impact of Skewed Mechanical Properties

Reconciling S-Basis and A- and B-Basis Properties
Worldwide Coordination of Aircraft Design Allowables
Statistically-Based Fastener Design Allowables
Statistical Treatment of Notch Effects on Fatigue Allowables
Statistically-Based Crack Propagation Design Limits
Summary of MMPDS Activities and Issues
10/13/2003
Acknowledgements Government
Federal Aviation Administration
Dr. John Bakuckas, FAA Technical Center, AAR-431
Mr. Robert Eastin, FAA, National Resource Specialist
Mr. Jon Hjelm, FAA, Airframe Certification Engineer
Air Force
Mr. Steve Thompson, AFRL/MLSC
Mr. Neal Ontko, AFRL/MLSC
Army
Walter Roy, APG
10/13/2003
Acknowledgements Industry
MMPDS Industrial Steering Group (ISG)
Mr. Steve Fantle, Boeing (Chair)
Mr. Pete Brouwer, Alcoa (Vice Chair)
The aircraft metallic material suppliers and users that have
participated in the ISG since its inception in 1997:

- Alcoa
- Cessna
- Lockheed
- Pechiney
- Bell Helicopter
- Corus Aluminum
- McCook
- Textron Aero Fasteners
- Boeing
- Howmet
- Northrop Grumman
- Universal Alloy
The many dedicated contributors, reviewers, and users of
MMPDS (formerly MIL-HDBK-5) throughout the world
10/13/2003
MIL-HDBK-5 Historical Milestones

1937 First published as ANC-5 (Army-Navy-Commerce,
Handbook 5)
1954 Battelle began coordination of the Handbook under
contract with the Air Force
1956 Converted from ANC-5 to MIL-HDBK-5
1971 Incorporated detailed guidelines for statistical analysis
of data
1985 Incorporated Weibull analysis methods to account for
skewed strength distributions
1988 Completed replacement of all constant-life fatigue
diagrams with statistically based equivalent stress plots
10/13/2003

1997
Substantial reductions in Air Force funding available for Handbook

coordination announced
Battelle, in collaboration with AF and FAA, set up Industrial Steering
Group (ISG) to help support Government Steering Group (GSG) and
ongoing Handbook coordination
1999
Initial version of Handbook numeric databases released to ISG/GSG

members
2000
All Air Force funding for Handbook coordination lost

After a brief hiatus FAA picked up transitional funding through AF
contract
Initial, internet-accessible version of Handbook design allowables
software released to ISG/GSG members
10/13/2003

2002
FAA established new technical coordination contract with Battelle to

continue longstanding AF legacy of MIL-HDBK-5 technical
coordination support
FAA changed name of Handbook to Metallic Material Properties
Development and Standardization (MMPDS) Handbook
2003
Final version of MIL-HDBK-5 published, Revision J

First version of MMPDS published, Revision 01
Public version of ISG website established mmpds.org
2004
First major revision of MMPDS-01 to be published
MIL-HDBK-5J will be designated non-current
10/13/2003
MMPDS Design Allowables Terminology
10/13/2003
MMPDS Design Allowables Terminology

A- and B-Basis design values are statistically based and, by
definition, must meet or exceed specific requirements
Primary Structure: A-Basis >= 99% exceedance, 95% confidence

Secondary Structure: B-Basis >= 90% exceedance, 95% confidence
By comparison, S-Basis design values do not have reliable
statistical significance
Generally calculated to approximate an A-Basis value to cover early

production
A-Basis Value in MMPDS are defined as lower of

T99 (99% exceedance, 95% confidence)
S-basis Value
10/13/2003
Handling of Skewed Mechanical Property

Distributions Key Issue
Relative Frequency of Occurrence
500
Skew ness = -1.00
Skew ness = -0.60
Skew ness = -0.20
Normal
Skew ness = 0.20
Skew ness = 0.60
Skew ness = 1.00
450
400
350
300
Mode = 100
Std. Dev. = 5.0
250
200
150
100
Critical zone for design allowable calculations
50
0
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Normalized Strength
110
115
120
10/13/2003
10
Observed Skewness in Actual Metallic Material

Receiving Inspection Data
In 1980s MIL-HDBK-5 coordination group examined 57
metallic material tensile and yield strength data sets.

Sample sizes ranging from 25 to over 8000 observations.
Results revealed sample skewness levels ranging from as low
as -1.0 to as high as 1.0.
Only 26% of these data sets displayed insignificant skewness.
Remaining 74% of data sets were significantly skewed with
either a long lower tail (negative skewness) or a long upper tail
(positive skewness).
Note: Possible effect of secondary variables, such as thickness
on the material properties, was eliminated before performing
these calculations.
10/13/2003
11
Use of Normal Statistics on Skewed Properties can

Lead to Significant Errors in A-Basis Properties
Estimated Conservatism in Design Allowable
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
Sample Size
n = 20
n = 30
n = 50
n = 100
n = 300
n = 1000
0.00%
-2.00%
-4.00%
-6.00%
-1.00 -0.80 -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20
True Skewness
0.40 0.60
0.80 1.00
10/13/2003
12
Additional Observations Regarding Effects of

Skewness on Minimum Mechanical Properties
Ability to accurately quantify skewness in mechanical
properties is low with small samples (< 30 observations)

Influence of skewness on accuracy of B-basis properties is
about one-half that for A-basis properties
Recent adoption of Pearson Type III procedures in MMPDS to
account for skewness has simplified calculations compared
with older 3-parameter Weibull procedure
Pearson calculation depends only on sample size, mean, standard

deviation, and skewness
Use of 2-parameter Weibull does not allow accurate
representation of skewness in most metallic materials

10/13/2003
13
Reconciling S-Basis and A- and B-Basis

Design Allowable Properties
All materials included in MMPDS must be covered by a public
specification to ensure requirements for production of the

material do not change over time.
As a result, most materials in the Handbook are covered by
Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS) published by the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).
However, the S-basis value defined in a public specification
for an aerospace material does not have a known statistical
significance.
The specification limit typically represents a lot-release
strength level, above which a supplier may sell the material to
a user.
10/13/2003
14

As a result it has been standard practice within MIL-HDBK-5
for many years to define an A-basis design allowable as the

lowest of either the statistical T99 value or the S-basis value.
This sometimes has led to a situation where the A-basis value
shown in the Handbook has fallen well below the statistically
computed T99 value.
However, in these same situations the estimated B-basis
design allowable has not been downgraded, creating an
artificially large statistical difference between the published Aand B-basis values.
This approach has led to two possible scenarios, neither of
which is particularly desirable.
10/13/2003
15

Scenario # 1: Material properties remain constant over time
Effect # 1: The airframe designer must use an artificially low
A-basis value in non-redundant primary structure, which

translates into excess weight in the aircraft.
Scenario # 2: The disparity between the A- and S-basis
values allows degradation over time in actual T99 values from

the old T99 value to the S-basis value.
Effect # 2: The true T90 value would likely decrease (and not
be documented in the Handbook), leading to unconservative
design allowables for redundant primary structure.
10/13/2003
16

Increased, close collaboration between MMPDS and
SAE/AMS coordination groups has been very helpful

SAE/AMS has agreed to pursue updated
specifications in situations where A-basis value is
shown to fall well above S-basis value
Bob Steffen at Raytheon has provided key link from AMS

to MMPDS coordination groups
Jana Jackson at Battelle has provided key link from
MMPDS to AMS coordination groups
10/13/2003
17
Worldwide Coordination of Aircraft Design

Allowables
There are only two widely accessible, approved sources of
design allowable properties for aircraft and aerospace

materials
MMPDS (formerly known as MIL-HDBK-5) and

ESDU 00932.
The first of these is the de facto standard in the United States,
while the second is the de facto standard in Europe and Great

Britain.
Recent examinations of these two documents have shown
significant differences in the guidelines for collecting and
analyzing strength data for computation of design allowable
properties.
10/13/2003
18
Worldwide Coordination of Aircraft Design

Allowables
In the short-term, the problem is limited because
representatives of both coordination groups have found only a

few cases where design allowables are published in both
documents for identical alloys, tempers, and product forms.
In the long-term, both groups have agreed to increase their
interaction to eventually resolve or reconcile differences in
approaches between the two documents.
In recent years, worldwide coordination of MMPDS has also
been enhanced with participants from Japan, Russia,
Canada, and South America.
10/13/2003
19
Statistically-Based Fastener Design

Allowables
Design properties for fasteners in MMPDS (formerly
MIL-HDBK-5) have traditionally been estimated

ultimate and yield strength design values, with no
statistical basis
In 2002 MMPDS coordination group approved a new
statistical procedure for determination of B-basis
design allowables for fastener yield and ultimate
strength
In 2003 focus has moved to approval of a sunset
clause, which will require periodic (~ every 7 year)
validation of MMPDS fastener allowables
10/13/2003
20

Allowables
B-basis lower-limit design curves will be based on the
following regression equation:

P
D2
where
P
D
t
ln
Ai
t
t
= A0 + A1 + A2 ln
D
D
=
=
=
=
=
test load,
fastener diameter
sheet thickness
natural logarithm
regression coefficients
10/13/2003
21

Allowables
4.50
4.00
Aluminum xxxxxxx Flush

Shear Head Solid Rivets
in Clad 2024-T3 Sheet
3.50
Py / D2, x 10-4
3.00
2.50
2.00
Individual Data
1.50
Group Averages
1.00
New Average
Old Average
0.50
0.00
0.00
T90 Allowable
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
t/D
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
10/13/2003
22
Development of Statistically-Based Crack

Propagation Design Limits
Crack growth data in MMPDS are currently represented by
visually best fit mean curves that have no quantified statistical

significance.
It has been recognized for a number of years that it would be
advantageous within MMPDS to identify mean and upperbound crack growth trends through quantitative procedures:
To account for effects of stress ratio

Represent variability about mean trends and in sufficient detail, that
individual organizations could construct their own statistically based
design limits
A similar statistical approach was adopted in MMPDS for load and
strain control fatigue data over 15 years ago.
10/13/2003
23

For example, an inverse hyperbolic tangent model was proposed over
30 years ago by Collipriest.
m 2
da
K
K
K
1
R
log[
/
(
(
)
)
c o
max
1
log
= C1 + C2 tanh
dN
K
K
log(
/
)
o
c
where Ko
Kc
Kmax
R
m
=
=
=
=
=
C1, and C2
lower asymptote,
upper asymptote,
maximum stress intensity,
stress ratio (stress ratios less than zero set to 0),
optimized exponent between 0 and 1 (to account
for stress ratio effects, and
regression coefficients.
10/13/2003
24

1.0E-03
1.0E-04
da/dN, inches/cycle
Example: Ti-6Al-4V Castings

> 40 Specimens
> 4400 da/dN Measurements
Effectively Consolidates Crack
Growth Data for Stress Ratios
from 0.50 to 0.80
Accounts for Upper and Lower
Limit Effects
Includes Approx. +/- 2 Sigma
Limits on Mean Curve
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
Lab Air, Base, R = 0.10

Regression Mean
+/- 2 Sigma Bounds
Lab Air, Base, R = -0.50
1.0E-07
1.0E-08
1
10
100
Effective Stress Intensity Range, ksi-in
1,000
0.50
10/13/2003
25
Prediction of Notch Effects on Fatigue Life

Equivalent stress procedures in MMPDS allow quantitative
definition of mean trends and statistical variability.

However, comprehensive procedures have not been available to
consolidate load-control fatigue data generated on unnotched and
notched specimen geometries.
Therefore, separate analyses and data presentations have been
made for unnotched data and each available notch concentration.
This has limited the usefulness of the information for actual notch
concentrations different from those in the Handbook.
In a few cases it has also led to inconsistencies where longer
fatigue lives have been predicted for more severe notch
concentrations.
10/13/2003
26

Recent analytical efforts to improve interpretation and
statistical representation of notch effects on fatigue life have

produced promising results, as will be shown for 2024-T3
sheet.
The approach accounts for crack initiation, Ni, and crack
growth, Np, cycles in total life, Nf
Ni/Nf ratios near unity for unnotched specimens

Ni/Nf ratios below 0.01 for some sharp notches
Predicted cycles to crack initiation (or nucleation) based on a
local strain analysis at the notch tip

Neuber analysis used to estimate local stresses and strains
from nominal stress conditions via cyclic stress-strain curve
10/13/2003
27
Equivalent Strain, in./in.
0.100
0.010
2024-T3 Sheet, Load Control Fatigue

Kt = 1.00
Kt = 1.50
Kt = 2.00
Kt = 4.00
Kt = 5.00
Mean
+/- 3 Sigma
0.001
1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Estimated Crack Initiation Cycles
10/13/2003
28

1.E+08
2024-T3 Sheet, Load Control Fatigue
Predicted Total Life
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
Kt = 1.00
Kt = 1.50
Kt = 2.00
Kt = 4.00
Kt = 5.00
Mean
+/- 3 Sigma
1.E+01
1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Actual Total Life
10/13/2003
29
Near-Term MMPDS Issues and Priorities

Maintain government oversight/approval of Handbook content
while encouraging even broader industry involvement

Avoid duplication of effort between government organizations
responsible for establishing design allowables and maintaining safe
and reliable aircraft
Deliver cost effective and reliable aircraft material design properties
and analysis tools for large and small aircraft material suppliers,
builders and certifiers
Tighten integration and validation of paper and electronic sources
of Handbook design allowable data
Promote electronic submission of certification data
Reconcile metallic material design allowable properties and
analysis methods around the world
10/13/2003
30
Summary of Benefits of Ongoing MMPDS

Coordination
Avoids duplication of effort between material suppliers, users and
certifiers responsible for establishing design allowables and maintaining

safe and reliable aircraft
Promotes use of proven and standardized test methods
Ensures consistency in statistical basis of design allowables used by
different airframers
Ensures consistency in analysis procedures used by material suppliers
and users to develop design properties
Small aircraft material suppliers and users can reduce material testing
burden to build reliable aircraft
ALL material suppliers and users have consistent avenue for building
and maintaining affordable, yet reliable aircraft structures
10/13/2003
31
Thank You for Your Attention!
Questions?
10/13/2003
32

Aging Aircraft 2003 MMPDS Presentation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aging Aircraft 2003 MMPDS Presentation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Development of MMPDS Handbook

Aircraft Design Allowables

Richard C. Rice and Randall J. Goode

John G. Bakuckas, Jr.

Impact of Skewed Mechanical Properties

Summary of MMPDS Activities and Issues

participated in the ISG since its inception in 1997:

The many dedicated contributors, reviewers, and users of

MMPDS (formerly MIL-HDBK-5) throughout the world

MIL-HDBK-5 Historical Milestones

Transition from MIL-HDBK-5 to MMPDS

Substantial reductions in Air Force funding available for Handbook

Initial version of Handbook numeric databases released to ISG/GSG

All Air Force funding for Handbook coordination lost

Transition from MIL-HDBK-5 to MMPDS

FAA established new technical coordination contract with Battelle to

Final version of MIL-HDBK-5 published, Revision J

MMPDS Design Allowables Terminology

MMPDS Design Allowables Terminology

definition, must meet or exceed specific requirements

Primary Structure: A-Basis >= 99% exceedance, 95% confidence

By comparison, S-Basis design values do not have reliable

Generally calculated to approximate an A-Basis value to cover early

A-Basis Value in MMPDS are defined as lower of

Handling of Skewed Mechanical Property

Critical zone for design allowable calculations

Observed Skewness in Actual Metallic Material

metallic material tensile and yield strength data sets.

Use of Normal Statistics on Skewed Properties can

Additional Observations Regarding Effects of

properties is low with small samples (< 30 observations)

Pearson calculation depends only on sample size, mean, standard

Use of 2-parameter Weibull does not allow accurate

representation of skewness in most metallic materials

Reconciling S-Basis and A- and B-Basis

specification to ensure requirements for production of the

Reconciling S-Basis and A- and B-Basis

for many years to define an A-basis design allowable as the

Reconciling S-Basis and A- and B-Basis

A-basis value in non-redundant primary structure, which

Scenario # 2: The disparity between the A- and S-basis

values allows degradation over time in actual T99 values from

Reconciling S-Basis and A- and B-Basis

SAE/AMS coordination groups has been very helpful

Bob Steffen at Raytheon has provided key link from AMS

Worldwide Coordination of Aircraft Design

design allowable properties for aircraft and aerospace

MMPDS (formerly known as MIL-HDBK-5) and

The first of these is the de facto standard in the United States,

while the second is the de facto standard in Europe and Great

Worldwide Coordination of Aircraft Design

representatives of both coordination groups have found only a

Statistically-Based Fastener Design

MIL-HDBK-5) have traditionally been estimated

Statistically-Based Fastener Design

following regression equation:

Statistically-Based Fastener Design

Aluminum xxxxxxx Flush

Development of Statistically-Based Crack

visually best fit mean curves that have no quantified statistical

To account for effects of stress ratio

Development of Statistically-Based Crack

30 years ago by Collipriest.

Development of Statistically-Based Crack