AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Y

14-17 July 2003, Dayton, Ohio

AIAA 2003-2785

DESIGNING THE AIRPLANE STRUCTURE FOR HIGH DURABILITY

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

Grigory .I. Nesterenko

TsAGI, Zhukovsky Moscow Region, 140180,
Russia
Abstract
The development of damage tolerance and fatigue
Regulations in Russia is shown. The methods to
provide long service goals are listed. Fail-safe and
damage tolerance criteria are described. Improvements
in fatigue and crack resistance performance are
illustrated. Increase of service life due to the advance
technology of primary structure elements joints is
demonstrated. Stress values for modern aircraft
structure are presented. Specifications of two structure
types, integral stiffened and riveted, are given. Scopes
of fatigue certification tests for new and aging airplanes
are presented. The results of experiments performed to
prove meeting the criteria of fatigue, crack growth time
and residual strength of wing and fuselage structures
are described. The developed method of analysis for
residual strength of stiffened panels with use of
R-curves is illustrated. The results of analysis of crack
growth time based on a linear model as well as on crack
growth retardation model are presented. The results of
analytical-experimental
research
are
presented
regarding the following: residual strength of a structure
with widespread fatigue damage (WFD), degradation of
fatigue and damage tolerance performance of aging
aircraft structures, corrosion. The possibility to provide
high durability is proved by more than 40 years of
service life of airplane-leaders in Russia.
Introduction
The task to guarantee simultaneously reliability, long
durability, minimum weight and cost effectiveness of
transport airplanes is one of the most important
problems in the contemporary aircraft building.
The 50-year experience of creation and operating
transport category airplanes in the USSR and Russia
showed that to achieve long durability the design
should be driven by three principles simultaneously1.
Regular longitudinal joints of wing panels and fuselage
joints must be designed meeting the safe-life principle.
In the rest of airframe primary structure elements, the
fail-safe and damage tolerance principles must be met
simultaneously. Up to now, comprehensive data on
fatigue, fail-safe and damage tolerance performance of
airframes have been obtained in testing specimens,
panels, and full-scale structures, the data being
generalized in the present paper. The results of

analytical-experimental research performed in TsAGI

together with Antonov, Ilyushin, Tupolev and Yakovlev
Design Bureaus have also been generalized.
Improvement of Airworthiness Requirements
Aircraft structural properties and reliability of operation
depend on existing Airworthiness requirements.
Requirements to safe-life, fail-safe and damage
tolerance for civil aircraft in the USSR and Russia are
presented in Table 1. In 1950-1970th only the safe-life
concept was used to provide safety of long aircraft
operation2. In 1976 the operational damage tolerance
concept was introduced as an equitable alongside with
safe-life. In the USSR and Russia practice the
operational damage tolerance principle includes both
damage tolerance itself and fail-safe principle. In 1994
Russian Aviation Regulations for Transport Category
Airplanes (P 25.571) have been introduced, in which
the principle of operational damage tolerance is set as
the main one. According to the Regulations,
recommendations for designers were developed to
provide damage tolerance1,3 and fatigue strength4,5 of
aircraft structures.
Design service goals of airplanes in the USSR and
Russia were provided on the basis of these
recommendations (Fig.1).
The main recommended criteria for providing
operational damage tolerance at the stage of design
development are shown in Figs. 2-41,3. Much attention
was paid to provide operational damage tolerance of
structures with regard to WFD. Fail-safe requirements
for a wing in the case of WFD1 are presented in Fig. 5.
With this damage, the wing structure must retain its
strength at limit loads. To check probability of multisite cracks, fatigue certification testing must cover at
least three design goals1. It should be noted that in
TsAGI classification, multiple site damage (MSD),
multiple element damage (MED), and widespread
fatigue damage (WFD) are united within a single term
multiple site cracks. Multiple-site cracks are divided
into two types: multiple site cracks in a single element
(panel), and multiple site cracks in a structural crosssection which consists of several elements1.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2003 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

Improved Material Properties

One of the main activities to achieve long fatigue life of
structures is to improve fatigue and crack resistance
performance of aluminum alloys, which are the main
materials in modern aircraft structures. These materials
do have significant reserves for such an improvement.
Aluminum alloys 1163T (Al-Cu) were developed and
implemented in Soviet aviation industry in 1980th to
replace D16T. Hot rolled plates and extruded panels of
these new alloys have much longer fatigue life and
higher fracture toughness than older D16T ones
(Fig. 6). It should be noted that these new alloys have
greater scattering of fatigue life among specimens from
different melts. Fig. 6 depicts values for the best melts
of 1163T, the values being the guideline for perfecting
metallurgical technology.
Higher Fatigue Resistance of Joints
Design development with regard to long fatigue life
includes, as one of the most important tasks, rational
design of structural elements and parts that makes stress
concentration as minimum as possible. Fatigue quality
of structural elements is associated with a coefficient of
fatigue strength KF5, which is similar to stress intensity
factor Keff. The structures are divided into the following
categories against KF value: KF < 3 good structures;
KF = 3 4 - satisfactory structures; KF > 4
unsatisfactory structures
Fatigue performance of joints is driven by factors of
structural design and manufacture technology. New
types of rivets and riveting processes were developed to
increase fatigue resistance of riveted joints6.
Substantially higher fatigue performance in these joints
is achieved by means of greater tightness due to plastic
deformation. Increase of fatigue life of pressurized
fuselage longitudinal lap joints by means of these
advanced rivets is shown in Fig. 7 as an example.
Two Types of Structures: Integrally Stiffened and
Riveted
Two design schools were formed in the Soviet Union.
One of them develops riveted structures; another one
deals with integrally stiffened (monolithic) structures
made of extruded panels (Table 2). Opponents of
integrally stiffened structures say that riveted ones have
better fail-safe and damage tolerance performance due
to dividing load carrying elements. They say that
integrally stiffened structures made of extruded panels
have lower corrosion resistance. Vise versa, opponents
of rivets believe that much less number of holes is a
great advantage of integrally stiffened structures since
holes are stress concentrators and sites of crack
initiation. Their analyses show that integrally stiffened
structures have lower weight compared to riveted ones.
For example, extruded panels with special tips for

transversal joints are used in AN-124 wing (Fig. 8), the

tips substantially decreasing wing weight and providing
easy inspection of wing transversal joints. Some issues
of damage tolerance and fail-safe of integrally stiffened
panels are studied in7. Comparison of damage tolerance
and fail-safe characteristics of integrally stiffened and
riveted structures has been performed in8. The results
from these references show that fatigue and crack
resistance performance of hot rolled plates used in
riveted structures and that of extruded panels used in
integrally stiffened structures are close to each other
(Fig. 6). The 40-year experience of operating airplane
structures made of integrally stiffened panels (Fig. 1,
Table 2) confirms the possibility to provide protection
against corrosion for extruded panels.
Full Scale Certification Tests
In the Airworthiness requirements for civil airplanes
(NLGS) in the USSR, results of full-scale fatigue and
damage tolerance/fail-safe laboratory tests were
regarded as the data of great importance. None of the
aircraft types avoided full scale fatigue tests covering at
least 3 design service goals (fatigue factor of safety).
Meantime, for each aircraft type, several prototypes
were tested, including those after some time of
operation (Table 3). NDI methods for principal
structural elements were advanced in these tests.
Teardown inspections and subsequent flaw detections
were performed to find small fatigue cracks. Methods
of fatigue and damage tolerance analysis were updated
on the basis of these results.
Stresses in Contemporary Structures
Appropriate examination was performed, and stress
levels in contemporary wide-body structures were
determined (Table 4) to develop recommendations to
provide safe life, fail-safe, and damage tolerance, as
well as to set requirements to aluminum alloys
properties. The wide-body aircraft structures are the
most stressed ones compared to other types of
structures. Thus, improvement of aluminum alloys is
driven mostly by the requirements to materials for
wide-body planes. Stress values under ultimate static
loads and equivalent stresses eq , *eq are presented in
Table 4. Equivalent skin stress eq equals maximum
cyclic stress under the factor of cycle asymmetry R=0.
Damage accumulated during one cycle of eq equals
the damage over all the cycles during a standard flight.
Values of eq depend on skin tensile loading. Value of
*
eq is the sum of eq and (the latter caused by

loads carried by fasteners (rivets, bolts)). Fatigue

equivalent stresses were determined by means of
techniques from 5,9 using Palmgren-Miner linear

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

hypothesis of damage accumulation. Crack growth

equivalent stresses take into account the effects of crack
growth retardation and were determined in a dedicated
experiment. Equivalent stresses in a wide-body wing
structure have been determined for 7 to 8 hours flight
duration.
Meeting Safe Life Requirements
Safe life of aircraft structures is limited in most cases
by fatigue in wing lower panel longitudinal joints and
fuselage skin longitudinal lap joints, where hard to
control multi-site cracks occur. Therefore, service goal
of these longitudinal joints, and accordingly service
goal of the whole airplane is defined using safe-life
concept. Fatigue in longitudinal joints depends on
fatigue properties of materials and joint manufacture
technology. Full-scale experimental data on fatigue in
wing lower panel longitudinal joints (Fig. 9) and
fuselage skin longitudinal lap joints (Fig.10) have been
generalized to determine aircraft service goals.
Different aircraft types are marked in Figs. 9 and 10
with different point markers. Experimental points with
arrows mean that no cracks occurred during given life
time. The data on Boeing, McDonnel Douglas and
Airbus Industrie planes are presented based on
examining10-16. Russian aircraft structures presented in
Figs. 9&10 are made of D16T. Minimum values of
fatigue life vs. equivalent stress *eq are determined
approximately regarding lower boundary of
experimental data. When making this minimum value
estimation the following was taken into account: each
experimental point was obtained from full scale tests of
the structure with thousands of similar stress
concentrators. One should also keep in mind that
minimum fatigue life values for a structure made of
advanced 1163T alloys will exceed those in Figs. 9&10
because of higher fatigue strength of 1163T as
compared to D16T (Fig. 6). The data in Figs. 9&10
result in the following: service goals not less than
20000 flight for the wing and 30000 flights for the
fuselage are provided under prescribed stress values in
D-16T structures (Table 4).
Meeting Fail-Safe Requirements
Meeting fail-safe requirements means that a structure
with standardized flaws (Figs.2&3) retains static
strength at limit stress lim equal to 67% of ultimate
stress ult. A fuselage structure with longitudinal cracks
must retain static strength at stress of 1.1 pr/t.
Experimental data on residual strength of large panels
and full scale structures (Figs. 11-13) were generalized
to investigate conditions of meeting these requirements.
The residual strength of riveted and integrally stiffened
wing and fuselage D16T structures with a two-bay
crack under the broken stringer is 220-240 MPa. The

residual strength of stiffened D16T structures is limited

by strength of stringer material. Thus, allowable level
of ultimate stress ult in these structures with regard to
fail-safe concept must not exceed 330-360 MPa.
Extruded stringers of D16T are mainly used in wings
and fuselages of Russian airplanes. To achieve residual
strength at ultimate stresses 380 MPa and more,
stringers of high strength alloy B95 (7000 series)
should be used. Residual strength of the pressurized
fuselage with a longitudinal two-bay crack under the
broken frame depends on skin failure criteria. Residual
strength of fuselages at circumferential stress 115 MPa
(Table 1) is provided in the following cases (Fig.13):
stoppers are installed under the frame, critical
stress intensity factor in the skin material

is Kapp = 135 MPa m .

no stoppers, but improved skin material with
Kapp = 175 MPa

m is used.

Meeting Damage Tolerance Requirements

When meeting damage tolerance requirements, visual
inspections with intervals of 6000-7000 flights
(approximately once per year) are regarded as the main
means for crack monitoring. It is expected that skin
cracks 50 mm long under the stiffener (stringer, frame)
are reliably detected in these inspections. Starting from
this initial length, a crack must not exceed two-bay
length over the inspection interval. Scatter factor of 2 is
assumed. Test data on crack growth time in full-scale
structures have been generalized to investigate the
possibility to meet these requirements (Figs. 14-16). It
is concluded from these data that the formulated
requirements are met for D16T structures of wing and
fuselage (Table 4). There are reserves to increase
frequency of inspections by 2-3 times.
Improved Methods of Residual Strength Analysis
Linear fracture mechanics methods are used today for
residual strength analysis. Most residual strength
analyses of stiffened structures do not take into account
stable additional growth of the skin crack under static
loading. Neglecting this growth decreases analysis
accuracy. Sometimes this neglecting causes uncertainty,
i.e. which particular element skin or stringer - is a
critical one with respect to residual strength.
A method of residual strength analysis of stiffened
structures with a two-bay skin crack under the broken
stringer was developed in TsAGI on the basis of
R-curves for skin material17 to specify the conditions of
meeting fail-safe requirements. The method was
checked by comparison of experimental and analytical
values for residual strength of integrally stiffened and
riveted wing and fuselage panels. The accuracy of
residual strength analysis is 1-5%. Principles of the

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

method are illustrated by analysis of residual strength of

IL-86 fuselage with a two-bay skin crack under the
broken stringer (Fig. 17).

Improved Analysis of Crack Growth Rate

Accurate evaluation of the structural damage tolerance
may be performed only when all the information about
alternating load spectra is available, and interaction of
loads is taken into account in crack growth rate
analysis. Spectra of load factor increments for different
aircraft types were examined in TsAGI, and typical
loading program for heavy transport airplane wing was
developed18 to solve the above problem. Analyticalexperimental studies of skin crack growth rate in upper
and lower wing surface of wide-body airplane were
conducted using this program (Fig. 18)19. Effects of
crack growth retardation and acceleration on the basis
of modified Willenborg model20 were taken into
account in the analysis.

The reseach results presented in Fig. 18 show the

following. Crack growth time values in the lower wing
surface calculated on the basis of linear hypothesis
(without taking into account interaction between loads
of different amplitudes) will be conservative. Inspection
intervals based on these values will be economically
disadvantageous. Crack growth time calculated on the
basis of linear hypothesis for the upper wing surface, is
several times higher than test values. Therefore
crack growth time analysis should be performed with
the aid of appropriate retardation/acceleration models.
Reliable Operation of Aging Airplanes
Safe operation of aging (long operated) airplanes is one
of the most important problems in contemporary
aviation. By the present time, airplanes of many types
in Russia have worked out their design goals assigned
at the period of their designing. Since it is impossible to
replace them with newer ones, it is necessary to
elongate service goals of old machines beyond design
values (Fig 19). Safety of aging aircraft is provided by:
Analytical-experimental studies of damage
tolerance and fail-safe;
Fatigue testing of structures taken after long
operation;
Elongation of service goal for each individual
airplane.
Service goal of each individual airplane is elongated
every 1 or 2 years on the basis of special permissions
(conclusions) approved by three organizations:
design/manufacturing company, TsAGI, and State
Research Institute of Civil Aviation (GosNIIGA).
Three main scientific problems are solved while
providing safe operation of aging aircraft:

damage tolerance/fail-safe of structures with

multi site fatigue cracks;
degradation of crack resistance and fatigue
strength performance during long operation;
initiation and growth time of corrosion damages.

These results are also taken into account in designing of

new aircraft for high durability. The experience of
solving the above problems is described below.
Research on Widespread Fatigue Damage
Studies related to the problem of widespread fatigue
damage (WFD), which may grow from multi site
damage (MSD) or multi element damage (MED),
started in the USSR in 1972 after the accident of
AN-10A passenger aircraft. Generalized results of this
work are presented in17, 21-23. Tests results were used to
define approximate criteria of residual strength for
structures with MSD, and a method for analysis of
residual strength of built-up structures with WFD has
been developed (Fig. 20)17. Operation of Russian
airplanes with MSD is not allowed today. Design of
new airplane structures is managed to exclude any
probability of WFD occurrence in operation.
Research on Degradation of Crack Resistance and
Fatigue Strength Performance
Fatigue tests of long operated aircraft were performed
in the USSR and are now performed in Russia. Stageby-stage extension of service goal is made with regard
to these test results24. Fatigue test results of airplanes
taken from operation are compared with those for new
airplanes tested under the same test program.
Comparison of fatigue life of principal structural
elements of new airplanes and those taken from
operation22 is presented in Fig. 21. The comparison
shows that structural fatigue strength decreases in the
course of operation. The effect is the most significant
for the elements loaded with static tensile stress on the
ground.
In 1999 an experiment in crack growth rate was
performed on specimens cut out from long operated
AN-12 fuselage skin and from long operated IL-18
wing skin. Skin material was D16T. Similar specimens
were cut out from sheets taken from storehouse.
Specimens from AN-12 fuselage skin were 1.2 mm
thick; those from IL-18 wing skin were 5 mm thick.
Crack growth rate was measured on the specimens in
their initial state, and after heat treatment for re-aging
(described in25). Temperature of heat treatment was
400C. Thin sheets from AN-12 did not demonstrate
significant difference in crack growth time between
specimens in the initial state and after treatment. Crack
growth times for AN-12 skin and storehouse specimens
are close to each other. Crack growth time for IL-18

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

skin specimens is much less than for storehouse sheets.

Heat treatment greatly increased crack growth time for
IL-18 skin specimens, but it did not affect that for
storehouse specimens (Fig. 22). This witnesses the
degradation of crack growth rate properties in thicker
wing skin specimens.

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

It should be noted that D16T alloy contains much more

traces of Si and Fe than improved material of higher
purity 1163T. The issue on fatigue and crack resistance
performance degradation is arguable and requires
further investigation.
Prevention of Corrosion Damage
Aluminum alloys, which are the main structural
material in contemporary aircraft structures, must have
good corrosion resistance. No cracks due to stress
corrosion or intergranular corrosion during long
operation should occur in these alloys. Therefore
corrosion-resistant alloy B95ochT2 (Al-Zn) and
weldable corrosion-resistant alloy AD37 (Al-Mg) were
developed26. Alongside with new alloys development,
appropriate methods of structure protection against
corrosion are also created.
The problem of safe operation with corrosion damages
is being solved on the basis of experience. Residual
structure strength is determined by analysis, in which
corrosion damage is replaced with equivalent fatigue
crack. For the case of corrosion damage, it is
recommended to provide rated residual strength with
standardized damages (Figs. 2&3) in the areas where
corrosion damage is probable.
Corrosion damage growth time is determined by
analysis using the data from operation corrosion
damage sizes detected and calendar operation time of
the airplane where these damages have been detected.
Some special TsAGI-developed techniques of
mathematical statistics27 is used for this purpose.
Fig. 23 shows the example of corrosion damage
examination in IL-86 fuselage skin.
Up to now service goals of 40 years have been achieved
by transport airplanes in Russia based on the above
principles of safe structure operation (Figs. 1&19).
Extending service goals up to 50 years has been
planned for some airplane types.
Conclusions
The system to guarantee safe operation of civil
transport aircraft has been formed for 45 years in the
USSR and Russia and also included foreign experience.
The system has proved its efficiency. Reliable operation
of aging airplanes with service goal up to 40-50 years is

provided, and new aircraft are designed for high

durability on the basis of this system. The high
durability of aircraft structure with minimum weight is
ensured by the following:
Improvement of Airworthiness Regulations in
fatigue and damage tolerance.
Design development of structures with regard to
safe life, fail-safe and damage tolerance
simultaneously.
Design for maximum accessibility to principal
structural elements for visual inspections.
Improvement of fatigue and crack resistance
performance of structural materials.
Increase of fatigue strength by means of
improving the structure and joint assembly
technology.
Refining alternating load spectra.
Improvement of crack growth rate and residual
strength analysis for substantiation of allowable
stresses.
Proof of fatigue and damage tolerance analysis
by full scale certification tests with the loads
most close to actual operational spectra of
alternating loads.
Design of structures to exclude widespread
fatigue damage probability during aircraft long
operation.
Use of structural materials not susceptible to
degradation of properties in the course of long
operation.
Use of corrosion-resistant materials and reliable
protection of structures against corrosion.

1.

2.

3.

4.

References
Nesterenko, G.I. Damage tolerance of aircraft
structures,
Inter-University
Scientific
Proceedings, Issue 2, Kiev Institute of Civil
Aviation Engineers (KIIGA), Kiev, 1976, pp. 6070 (in Russian).
Raikher, V.L., Dubinsky, V.S., Nesterenko, G.I.
and Stuchalkin, Yu.A. The features of aircraft
structure fatigue resistance certification and
airworthiness maintenance in contemporary
conditions, Test Facilities and Aircraft
Certification
International
Symposium,
Zhukovsky, Russia, August 22-25, 1995, pp.
233-245.
Nesterenko, G.I., Selikhov, A.F., Using damage
tolerance & fail-safe approach in design of widebody airplanes, Aircraft Structure Strength,
Moscow, Mashinostroenye 1982, pp. 151-189
(in Russian).
Selikhov, A.F. Major tasks and specific features
of ensuring the strength of wide-body passenger

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

5.

6.

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

airplanes, Aircraft Structure Strength, Moscow,

Mashinostroenye , 1982, pp. 7-45 (in Russian).
Vorobyev, A.Z., Leibov, V.G., Olkin, B.I.,
Stebenev, V.N., Achievivg higher service goals
of wide-body airplanes, Aircraft Structure
Strength, Moscow, Mashinostroenye, 1982,
pp.122-151 (in Russian).
Stebenev, V.N., Komarov, V.I., Gorshkov, S.V.,
Manyukov, V.I., Damage tolerance of structures
with rivets of new types, Proceedings of
Scientific Conference on Durability and Fatigue
of Aviation Structures, TsAGI, 1978, pp. 115118 (in Russian).
Vovnyanko, A.G., Semenets, A.I., Residual
strength of built-up integrally stiffened structures
made of extruded panels of D16chT and its
modifications,
Physiko-Chimicheskaya
Mechanica Materialov, 1983, N2, Lvov, the
Ukraine, pp.88-92 (in Russian).
Nesterenko, Grigory I. Damage tolerance of
integrally stiffened and riveted stiffened
structures, Proceedings of the 20th Symposium
of the international Committee on Aeronautical
Fatigue, 14-16 July, 1999, Bellevue, WA, USA,
Volume II, pp. 873-894.
Vorobyev, A.Z., Olkin, B.I., Stebenev, V.N.,
Rodchenko, T.S., Fatigue strength of structural
elements, Moscow, Mashinostroenye, 1990,
240 pp. (in Russian).
Swift, T. The application of fracture mechanics
in the development of the DC-10 fuselage,
AGARD-AG-176, V.5, 1974, pp.227-287.
Swift, T. Design of redundant structures,
AGARD-LS-97, 1978, pp.9.1 9.23.
Goranson, Ulf G. Damage tolerance. Facts and
fiction. 14th Plantema Memorial Lecture
Presented at the 17th Symposium of ICAF,
Stockholm, Sweden, June 9, 1993, 53p.
Fowler, Kevin, R., and Watanabe, Roy T.
Development of jet transport airframe test
spectra, Boeing Commercial Airplanes,
Seattle, WA, USA, May 1989, 16 p.
Gkgl, O. Crack free and cracked life of the
pressurized cabin of the A300B. Calculation ,
tests and design measurements to improve
damage tolerance, Aeronautical Journal, 1979,
V.83, No 817, pp. 1-15.
Spencer, M.M. The 747 fatigue and fail-safe test
program, The American Society of Civil
Engineers, National Structural Engineering
Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 9-13/IV, 1973.
Boeing Structural Design and Technology
Improvements. Airliner, Boeing, April-June
1996.
Nesterenko, Grigory I., Nesterenko Boris G.,
Residual strength analysis of the stiffened

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

structures with WFD, MSD and single crack,

Proceedings of the 6th Joined FAA/DoD/NASA
Conference on Aging Aircraft. San Francisco,
CA, USA, September 16-19, 2002, CD-ROM
Proceedings.
Basov, V.N., Nesterenko G.I., Strizhius V.Ye.,
Standardized program of heavy transport wing
loading, Trudy TsAGI, Issue 2642, Moscow,
2001, pp.26-34 (in Russian).
Nesterenko, B.G. Analytically-experimental
study of damage tolerance of aircraft structures,
Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of
Aeronautical Sciences ICAS 2002, Toronto,
Canada, 8 to 13 September, 2002, CD-ROM
Proceedings.
Gallagher, J.P., Miedlar, P.C., Cross, C.W., Papp
M.L. Cracks 93 system users manual,
University of Dayton Research Institute, UDRTR-93-107, 1993.
Nesterenko, G.I. Multiple site fatigue damages
of aircraft structures, AGARD Conference
Proceedings 568 (AGARD-CP-568) Widespread
Fatigue Damage in Military Aircraft. Rotterdam,
the Netherlands, 10-11 May 1995, pp.11-111-8.
Nesterenko, G.I. Fatigue and damage tolerance
of aging aircraft structures, Proceedings of the
FAA-NASA Symposium on the Continued
Airworthiness of Aircraft Structures. Atlanta,
GA, August 28-30, 1996, pp. 279-300.
Nesterenko, G.I. Fatigue and damage tolerance
of aging aircraft structures, Proceedings of the
19th Symposium of the International Committee
on Aeronautical Fatigue. June 18-20, 1997,
Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 731-742.
Dubinsky, V.S., Nesterenko, G.I., Raikher, V.L.,
Stuchalkin, Yu.A. Continued airworthiness of
aircraft structures certified for fatigue, Trudy
TsAGI, Issue 2631, Moscow, 1998, pp.73-75 (in
Russian).
Schmidt, Hans-Jrgen Damage tolerance
philosophy, methods and experiments applied to
modern aircraft large transport aircraft structure
for compliance with applicable FAA/JAA
regulations, Ph.D. Thesis. A.A. Blagonravov
Institute of Machine Studies of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2002.
Fridlyander, I.N., Aluminum alloys in flying
vehicles in 19702000 and 20012015, Journal
Metallovedenie i Termicheskaya Obrabotka
Metallov (Metal Studies and Metal Heat
Treatment), N16, 2001, Moscow (in Russian).
Senik, V.Ya., Examination of fatigue crack
growth in aircraft structural elements based on
operation data, Trudy TsAGI, Issue 1671,
Moscow, 1975, pp.17-27 (in Russian).

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

Table 1. Fatigue and damage tolerance requirements for the USSR and Russian passenger airframes
Civil aircraft airworthiness requirements
(NLGS)
NLGS-1
NLGS-2
NLGS-2
Amendment 2 to part 4

Publication date

Service life ensuring concept

1967
1974

NLGS-3

1984

Aviation regulations AP-25

1994

Methods of compliance assessment AP-25

MOC25.571 (advisory circular)

1996

Safe life
Safe life
Safe life or fail-safe and damage tolerance
simultaneously
Safe life or fail-safe and damage tolerance
simultaneously
Fail-safe and damage tolerance
simultaneously
Fail-safe and damage tolerance
simultaneously

Riveted

1976

Table 2. Stiffened wing structures

Integrally stiffened

AN-10, AN-12,
TU-104, TU-134, TU-154, TU-204,
IL-18, IL-96,
YAK-40, YAK-42

Combined (center wing integrally

stiffened, outer wing riveted)

AN-22, AN-124, AN-225,

IL-62, IL-76, IL-86

AN-24, AN-26, AN-30, AN-32,

AN-70, AN-72, AN-74, AN-140

Table 3. Fatigue and damage tolerance test volumes for aircraft structures
Aircraft
AN-10
AN-12
AN-22
AN-24
AN-124
IL-18
IL-62
IL-76
IL-86
IL-96
TU-104
TU-114
TU-124
TU-134
TU-144
TU-154
TU-204
YAK-40
YAK-42

Full-scale
aircraft
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
1
2

New structures
Wing

Fuselage

3
1
2
2

5
1
2

Structures after operation

Full-scale
Wing
Fuselage
aircraft
2
2
4
2

1
2
1
1
1

2
1

1
1

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2
1
1

Table 4. Stresses in the structures of wide body airplanes

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

170

190

490

245

Fatigue

132

145

Fatigue
360

130

Crack
growth

Crack
growth

Crack
growth

130

60

110

2005

Hoop stresses
Pr/t, MPa

Fatigue

Equivalent longitudinal tensile stresses

eq, MPa

Ultimate longitudinal tensile stresses

ult , MPa

Ultimate tensile
stresses
ultTENS, MPa

Equivalent stresses,
R=0

*eq, MPa

Fatigue

Ultimate compressive stresses

ult COMP, MPa

*eq, MPa

Fatigue

Fuselage

eq, MPa

380

Upper wing surface

Equivalent stresses,
R=0

eq, MPa

Ultimate tensile
stresses, ult, MPa

Lower wing surface

Years

105

TU-334
AN- 140

2000
Fatigue & crack resistance under random load spectra

1995

TU-204
IL -114

Aging aircraft service life

Software to calculate fatigue and damage tolerance 1990
Degradation of material properties
Acoustic strength testing 1985

AN-32

Service life of mechanisms 1980

Multi-channel systems of quasi-random loading
Requirements to material fatigue & crack resistance
Physical methods of fatigue study 1975
Designing for service life
Composite materials, crack resistance
Non-destructive inspection methods 1970
Structural damage tolerance
Analytical life estimates

IL-86
AN-74

AN-124

YaK-42
IL-76

TU-154

IL-62
YaK-40
TU-144

AN-26

TU-134

1965

TU-124
AN-24

1960

AN-12
Probabilistic methods of service life evaluation
Fatigue tests of full-scale structures
Fatigue under vibration loads
Fatigue under repeated-static load

IL -96

1955

TU-114
IL-18
AN-10
TU-104

Service life, flight hours

1950
0

25000

Figure 1. Research in design goal enhancement for civil aircraft

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

50000

75000

Simultaneous initiation of one crack per panel;

crack length underneath broken stringer is equal to two
bay length

b
L=2b

1/3H

L=2b

Spar cap broken; spar web crack length =1/3 of web

height; skin crack is equal to one bay length.
Spar web broken

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

L=b

One panel broken

Figure 2. Standardized wing damages

L=2b2=350-400 mm
b2

Transverse skin crack length = two bay lengths; stringer

broken.
Longitudinal skin crack length = two bay lengths frame
broken.

b1

L=2b1=1000 mm

L=150 mm
Cutout-initiated crack 150 mm long; skin and edge shape
damaged.
Skin crack in pressure bulkhead.

L=500-1000 mm

Figure 3. Standardized fuselage damages

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2, mm

Lstand

external in-service
inspection
non-destructive
inspection at factory

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

2575
non-inspected
elements

5
0,5

0,1service life
0,25service life

, flights

service life
Figure 4. Requirements to crack growth time

a) The case of wide spread fatigue damage of wing panel

b) The case of wide spread fatigue damage of the wing cross section

Figure 5. Example of regulated damages of wing structure for the case of wide spread

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Fuselage

Sheet D16ATV
t= 1,5 mm7

c) Fracture tougness

Sheet 1163ATV6
t= 1,5 mm
5

Sheet D16ATV
4
t= 5,0 mm
Extruded panel3
D16 t=5,0 mm
Extruded panel2
1163 t=5,0 mm
Plate 11631
t= 5,0 mm

Wing

gross
max
= 133 P ,

R = 0 ,01 f = 2 3 Hz

100

200

100

300

200

400

300

500

400

600

500
600
N103, cycles

a) Fatigue

Common material

Fuselage

Sheet D16ATV
t= 1,5 mm7

Improved material

Sheet 1163ATV6
t= 1,5 mm

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

Common material
Improved material

Wing

Sheet D16ATV
t= 5,0 mm4
Extruded panel
3
D16 t=8,0 mm
Extruded panel2
1163 t= 8,0 mm
Plate 11631
t= 8,0 mm

K = 31 P
m,
R = 0 ,01
f = 2 3 Hz
0

da
10 3 ,
dN

6
mm
cycle

b) Crack growth rate

Sheet D16ATV
8
t= 1,5 mm

Fuselage

7
Sheet 1163ATV
t= 1,5 mm
6

Wing

5
Sheet D16ATV
t= 5,0 mm
4
Extruded panel
D16 t=8,0 mm
3
Extruded panel
1163 t= 8,0 mm
2
Plate 1163
1
t= 8,0 mm

20

20

40

40

60

60

Common material
Improved material

80

80

100

100

120

120

140

160

180

140 160 180

K app , P m

200

200

c) Fracture tougness

Figure 6. Fatigue and crack resistance of common and improved Al-alloys

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Sheet D16V

Fracture

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

Fracture

Pr
t

50000

Figure 7.

=110P , R = 0.

100000

150000

N, 200000
cycles

Effect of joint assembly technology on fatigue resistance in

longitudinal lap joints of fuselage skin

AN-124, integrally stiffened extruded panels

IL-96-300, riveted panels

Panel joint

Figure 8. Wing lower panel layouts

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Panel joint

*eq , MPa
YAK-42

B-747
AN-124
AN-22

IL-76M

IL-62

Extruded panel
D16 chT
K t netto = 2.6

d
1
=
W
6
W

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

IL-96

Service goal TS.G. Tmin

Service goal TS.G. Tmin

IL-86

B-767 B-777
AN-24

TU-204

TU-154

Tmin

10

IL-86

10

T, flights
Figure 9. Fatigue of the longitudinal panel joints of the lower wing surface. Full-scale structure tests
Pr/t, MPa
140
B-747-100SR

120

B-747-400

IL-76

100

IL-86

IL-96
A-300B

B-737

d
w

YAK-42
TU-134
TU-124

Service goal TS.G. Tmin

IL-18

60

Tmin

AN-24

Figure 10.

IL-86

TU-104

40

TU-154

TU-114
IL-62
TU-204

80

Extruded panel
D16 chT
K t netto = 2.6

YAK-40
10

8 10

8
4
6
T, pressurizations

Fatigue of the longitudinal skin joints of the pressurized fuselages. Full-scale structure tests
13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

, P
300

b=130 mm

1, 2
280

t=8 mm

2a

260

D16chT material. Fstr / Fskin=0.9-1.0

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

240

D16chT material,

Fstr / Fskin = 0.9 1.0

220

3, 4

b=130 mm

200

t=8 mm

2a
180
0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2
b

Figure 11. Residual strength of integrally stiffened and riveted wing panels made of improved alloys

P
D16chT material, b=130 mm,
ttot =3.2 mm, Fstr / Fskin = 0.25

6, 7

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
5
1

2
7

4
3

D16chT material, b=130 mm,

ttot =2.2 mm, Fstr / Fskin = 0.35

Figure 12. Residual strength of integrally stiffened and riveted fuselage panels

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 = Pr/t, MPa
140
compound
frame with stopper

120
100

compound
frame

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

80
60

single-element
frame

40
unstiffened
cylinder

20

2a

0
0

250

Figure 13.

500

750

1 000

2a0, mm

Skin D16ATV,
Frame D16T ,

KAPP = 135 MPa

TU = 460 MPa

Residual strength of the pressurized fuselage having longitudinal crack in skin under the broken frame

2a, mm
400

eq = 130 MPa;

D16chT alloy ;

da/dN =0.0025 mm/cycle for K = 31 MPa m ;

Fstr/Fskin=0.9-1.0

300

200

100

0
0

1 000

2 000

3 000

T, flights

4 000

Figure 14. Crack growth duration in the skin under the broken stringer in the lower wing surface
15
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2a, mm
700

Pr/t = 110 MPa; skin D16ATV alloy

600

da /dN = 0.002 mm/cycle for K=31 MPa m

500
400

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

300

2a

200
100
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

T, flights
Figure 15. Longitudinal crack growth duration in the fuselage skin

2a, mm
300

eq = 110 MPa; skin D16ATV alloy

da/dN = 0.002 for K = 31 MPa m
200

100

0
0

1000

2000

T, flights

3000

Figure 16. Transversal crack growth duration in the skin under the broken stringer in the fuselage

16
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

K, MPa m
200

K = a eff C

=265MPa

180
160

220
140

180

120
100

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

80

KR-curve

60

Material D16AT, Fstr/Fskin = 0.35

b=170 mm; tskin=2.2 mm

40
20
0
250

300

350

400

450

500

2aeff , mm

, MPa
320

TU

str

400

280

240

1 2 =220 MPa experimental data

on wide body airplane IL-86 panel test

12
Analsis
200

160

R - curve
120
250

300

350

400

450

500

2aeff , mm

Figure 17. Residual strength analysis of stiffened structures using R-curves for skin material

17
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Modified Willenborg model analysis

80

Linear model analysis

Crack length 2a , mm

0.4

40

0
-0.2

20

Test results
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000
40000
N, flights

a) Lower wing surface, 2324-T39 alloy

0.2

80

Test results
Crack length 2a, mm

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

60

Modified Willenborg
model analysis

60

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

40

Linear model
analysis
20

0
0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000
N, flights

b) Upper wing surface, 7075-T77 alloy

Figure 18. Crack growth rate analysis in wide-body aircraft wing under typical loading spectrum

18
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Service goal (life time) of leader-aircraft/Design goal

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

flight

Flight hours

Years

2,5

1,5

0,5

YAK-40

IL-62

TU-134

TU-154B

AN-12

AN-24

Figure 19. Ensuring service goal of long operated civil aircraft

Wing cross section of the airplane AN-10A # 11222

Wing cross section of the airplane AN-10A # 11202

rear spar

front panel
str. 8

str. 1

str. 4

Pfrac/P0
1.0

Stringers #8,#7,#6,#5 broken

0.8
0.6

#11222
Stringers #4,#3,#2,#1 broken

0.4
0.2
0

Fdam/F0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 20. Comparison of the analytical and test values of the residual strength
of the AN-10A airplane wing with widespread fatigue damages (WFD)

19
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

G
1
G =

N oper + N

N0 - new structure life;

Noper operational lifetime;
N life after operation

N0

0,8
0,6
0,4

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

0,2
0

New
structures

Figure 21.

AN-24
wing

TU-134A
wing

TU-104
body

AN-12
wing

YAK-40
wing

IL-18
wing

IL-62
wing

Relative fatigue strength of aircraft structures before (light plus dark zones) and after
(dark zones) service

2, mm

80

Store-house sheet after

heat treatment

IL-18
wing skin

70
IL-18 wing skin
after heat treatment

60
50

Store-house sheet

40

D16ATB, max =133 MPa,

R=0.01, f=1 Hz

30
0
Figure 22.

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

N, cycles

Effect of heat treatment (annealing) on crack growth rates in old (being operated) and
new (from store-house) wing skin sheets

20
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY on January 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2003-2785

Corrosion depth, mm

1,8
1,6
1,4
probability p=0.001

1,2

p=0.5

p=0.05

1
0,8
0,6

21

0,4
0,2
0
4

10

11

12

13

14

Service life, year

Figure 23. Corrosion damage growth rate analysis in IL-86 fuselage skin

21
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics