Airbus Composites - Damage Tolerance Methodolgy - Fualdes PDF

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
IN-SERVICE
IN-
REGULATION
EXPERIENCE
© AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
ANALYSIS--
ANALYSIS
FATIGUE
& DAMAGE
TEST RESULTS – TOLERANCE
EVALUATIONS
BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH
Damage Tolerance Methodology - ESAC - Ref. X029PR0608046 - Issue 1 July 2006 Page 2
CONTENT
1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

1. Damage Detectability
2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
5. Manufacturing defects
6. No-growth / Fatigue
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
1- AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy
DT Philosophy to answer to requirement and means of compliance
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
1.1- Damage detectability
Damage
detectability
•Damage metric
•BVID definition
•Large VID
definition
•Supporting tests
and analysis
•Relaxation
behaviour
Has to be revisited for composite
Damage metric fuselage application for consistency
with impact sources (ground handling)
4For Airbus composite parts (CWB, Keel Beam, aileron, spoiler, HTP, VTP, LGD, etc)
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
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
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
Large VID definition
is technology and structure dependant
4Damage size associated to walk-around is considered on a case-by-case

basis
4 Typically « penetration »
Example for a
sandwich structure
Supporting tests and analysis and in-service survey
DET Inspection
§Detection of damages on different composite panels (size: from 100*100mm to 0.8m², painted or not, glossy or mat,
white, grey, blue or green paint, primer)
§Duration of inspection : not limited
§Distance of inspection : 50 cm
FOR BVID
§Lighting condition : available lighting+grazing light (if required) TRANSVERSE IMPACT
§Several impactor diameter : 6mm and 16mm
§A total of 902 inspections
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
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
log d j −m
dj (log d − m )2 σ
2
1 − 1 − y2
Pdet ( d > d j ) = ∫ 2σ
d (log d ) = ∫
2
e e dy
−∞ 2π .σ −∞ 2π
d : dent depth
m = Log ( a50 / 95)
BVID
Log (a 99 / 95) − Log (a 50 / 95)
σ =
2.33
Example for GVI inspection
Survey in
Cumulative curve of dent depth
European airline
120,00%
85% of collected
Pourcentage of damages with dent
100,00% impact damages

(dent) (around
80,00%
1000 damage
less than d
60,00%
records) detected
through GVI
40,00% inspection (A, C
check, daily,
20,00%
weekly, etc) are

0,00% below Airbus
Airbus BVID
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50
(GVI)
2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 6,50 established
Dent depth (mm) detectability
threshold
Airbus BVID(GVI) is consistent with Airline survey findings

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
Material A 1500h and fatigue (r=10
c/c) at 20°
Influent parameters were studied, the 0,90 18J impact+WA70/95%HR

1500h and fatigue (r=10
c/c) at -40°
wet ageing until saturation covers all Dent depth evolution (mm)
0,80
environmental and mechanical effects 0,70 Hot/wet 1500h and fatigue (r=-1 t/c)
at 20°
0,60 ageing 20J impact+WA70/95%HR

during the aircraft life. 0,50
c/c) at 20°
For tests, impact inflicted to the 0,40 1500h and fatigue (r=10
c/c) at -40°
0,30
structure takes into account the 1500h and fatigue (r=-1 t/c)
at 20°
0,20
relaxation of the dent under 0,10
c/c) at 20°
environmental conditions. 0,00 23J impact+WA70/95%HR
After impact After 20 mn After 48H After WA Before After After fatigue
c/c) at -40°
fatigue 110cycles
0,6Fr 23J impact+WA70/95%HR
1500h and fatigue (r=-1 t/c)
Event at 20°
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
1.2- Impact threat
Impact threat
•Impact threat
definition
•Typical impact
threat
•Supporting data
and analysis
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
Ej
Pj (E ≥ 30 J ) = 10 / fh
− x−
p j ( E ≥ E j ) = 10 15 with x=3, giving
Ref: Effect of low velocity impact damage on
Pj ( E ≥ 90 J ) = 10 −9 / fh
primary aircraft structures – the certification issue;
Aug 1999, J. Rouchon
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.
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.
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
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) …
4 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
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
1.4- Hail
• Hailstorms data is based on meteorological survey defining:
4 Size of hailstones :
– Standard hailstorm, (Dia 10mm) for a P of 50% of hailstorms
– Rare hailstorm, (Dia 25mm) for a P of 5% of hailstorms
– Extremely rare hailstorm, (Dia 50mm) for a P of 0.1% of hailstorms.
4 Concentration per unit area: number of hailstones impacting a surface
based on the size of the storm.
4 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)

4 Loaded structure, hail in flight considered in damage tolerance analysis
(Energy, loading, risk analysis)
– Tests determine the structure behaviour
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
1.5- Manufacturing defects
• Allowable manufacturing defects accounted for in

the static demonstration
Size and type
4 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
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
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 no-
growth approach to the damage tolerance requirements.[…]
4 § 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
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
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 •In general 1 typical feature per specimen (hole,lay
up, impact damage…)
•Determine environmental effects (moisture,
COUPONS thermal…)
2- Test Pyramid for Damage tolerance
Coupons & details tests
• Purpose
4 Assess laminate design value (CAI, TAI, ShAI & failure criterion
including environmental conditions)
4 hundred of specimens
4 Statistical treatment to obtain design values based on MIL-HDBK-17
CAI or TAI specimens after impact
ShAI specimen after

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

compression failure Compression specimen with impact in the
hole radius
Sub-Component tests
• Purpose
4 Verify design concept
4 Validate method
(analytical, complex
loading, etc)
4 Validate fatigue
behaviour
4 Few specimens
Stiffened panel with stringer

edge impact loading with
combined
compression/pressure
Component & Full-scale tests
• Purpose
4 Validate the stress GFEM analysis
4 Prove the behaviour of the structure
4 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
4 Validate in-service repair solutions
Example of full
scale test
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
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
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
Qualification test results QI(4mm) AR/RT Material 2: thickness effect
4,5 2,5
4 test points 4mm

prediction material 1 prediction 4mm
3,5
2 test point 4,5mm
Test points Material 1 prediction 4,5mm
dent depth after impact (mm)

Dent depth after impact (mm)
prediction material 2 test points 5mm

3 prediction 5mm
Test points Material 2
1,5
2,5
2
1
1,5
1 0,5
0,5
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Impact energy (J)
Energy (J)
3- Analysis
Delaminated area prediction example
Sd = f (E, Mat, th, boundary.conditions, lay − up)

Qualification test results QI(4mm) AR/RT
1600
1400
1200
Delaminated area (mm²)
1000
800
600
prediction material 1
400
prediction material 2
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Energy (J)
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

7000
Material 1 Test points QI 4mm thick
Loss of strain in compression
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 (mm²)
CONTENT

2. Impact threat
3. Large Damage
4. Hail
2. Test Pyramid
3. Analysis
4. Key messages
4- Key messages
ü Airbus Damage tolerance methodology relies on
Ø Mature design practices

Ø Extensive tests to support analysis
Ø Robust impact survey based on in-service experience
ü Airlines cooperation, by rigorous inspections reporting ,

enables Airbus to design more durable and damage
tolerant Composite Structures
Ø Impact threat understanding

Ø Detectability assessment
© 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.

Airbus Composites - Damage Tolerance Methodolgy - Fualdes PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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

Airbus Composites - Damage Tolerance Methodolgy - Fualdes PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chicago, IL

FAA Workshop for Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance

Prepared by Emilie MORTEAU, Chantal FUALDES

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

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

For transverse impact, the damage

For edge impact, the damage metric

4Dent depth criterion as a damage metric is widely used for composites.

4Damage size associated to walk-around is considered on a case-by-case

Results of inspection were statistically

The analytical POD function used is the

100,00% impact damages

weekly, etc) are

Airbus BVID(GVI) is consistent with Airline survey findings

Influent parameters were studied, the 0,90 18J impact+WA70/95%HR

0,60 ageing 20J impact+WA70/95%HR

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

140J 10-5 /FH (static cut-off)

4A survey on wing impact damage, covering the whole Airbus types,

Extensive survey available from which the current impact threat is

Impact threat parameters have a solid foundation, new in-service data,

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

• Large Damage Capability, LDC: not realistic damage

4 Fail Safe demonstration on main joint areas: hinged structures,

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

– Stringer disbond analysis for co-bonded technology

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

• 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)

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

• Allowable manufacturing defects accounted for in

• Manufacturing defects included in the building block

demonstration from coupon to full scale test

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

Tests performed for compliance

4 Critical detectable damage under repeated loads during at least one

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

•Verify analysis methods

•Statistical treatment: large and small populations

ShAI specimen after

Top stringer impacted after

Stiffened panel with stringer

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

Parameters accounted for

4 Lay-up and stacking sequence

d = f (E, Mat, th, boundary.conditions)

Qualification test results QI(4mm) AR/RT Material 2: thickness effect

4 test points 4mm

dent depth after impact (mm)

prediction material 2 test points 5mm

Sd = f (E, Mat, th, boundary.conditions, lay − up)

Compression after impact prediction example

EpsCAI = f (Sd , Mat , th, conditioni ng , lay − up )

Material 1 prediction QI 4mm thick

Material 2 prediction oriented lay-up 8mm thick

Delaminated area (mm²)

1. AIRBUS Damage tolerance philosophy

ü Airbus Damage tolerance methodology relies on

Ø Mature design practices

ü Airlines cooperation, by rigorous inspections reporting ,