STUDY ON MATERIAL SELECTION OF FUSELAGE SKIN

Fuselage
The fuselage is the main structure or body of the fixed-wing aircraft. It provides space
for cargo, controls, accessories, passengers, and other equipment. In single-engine
aircraft, the fuselage houses the powerplant. In multiengine aircraft, the engines may
be either in the fuselage, attached to the fuselage, or suspended from the wing
structure.
There are two general types of fuselage construction: truss and monocoque.
Truss Type
A truss is a rigid framework made up of members, such as beams, struts, and bars to
resist deformation by applied loads. The truss-framed fuselage is generally covered
with fabric.

Figure1. A truss-type fuselage.

Monocoque Type
The monocoque (single shell) fuselage relies largely on the strength of the skin or
covering to carry the primary loads.
The design may be divided into two classes:
1. Monocoque
2. Semimonocoque
Different portions of the same fuselage may belong to either of the two classes, but
most modern aircraft are considered to be of semimonocoque type construction. The
true monocoque construction uses formers, frame assemblies, and bulkheads to give
shape to the fuselage. [Figure 2] The heaviest of these structural members are located
at intervals to carry concentrated loads and at points where fittings are used to attach
other units such as wings, powerplants, and stabilizers. Since no other bracing

members are present, the skin must carry the primary stresses and keep the fuselage
rigid. Thus, the biggest problem involved in monocoque construction is maintaining
enough strength while keeping the weight within allowable limits.

Figure2. An airframe using monocoque construction.

Semimonocoque Type
To overcome the strength/weight problem of monocoque construction, a modification
called semimonocoque construction was developed. It also consists of frame
assemblies, bulkheads, and formers as used in the monocoque design but,
additionally, the skin is reinforced by longitudinal members called longerons.
Longerons usually extend across several frame members and help the skin support
primary bending loads. Stringers are also used in the semimonocoque fuselage. These
longitudinal members are typically more numerous and lighter in weight than the
longerons. Stringers have some rigidity but are chiefly used for giving shape and for
attachment of the skin. Stringers and longerons together prevent tension and
compression from bending the fuselage. [Figure 3]

Figure3. The most common airframe construction is semimonocoque.

To summarize, in semimonocoque fuselages, the strong, heavy longerons hold the

bulkheads and formers, and these, in turn, hold the stringers, braces, web members,
etc. All are designed to be attached together and to the skin to achieve the full strength
benefits of semimonocoque design. It is important to recognize that the metal skin or
covering carries part of the load. The fuselage skin thickness can vary with the load
carried and the stresses sustained at a particular location.
Functions of Fuselage Skin
1. It transmits the aerodynamic forces to the longitudinal and transverse
supporting members by plate and membrane action
2. It develops shearing stresses which react to the applied torsional moments and
shear forces.
3. It acts with the longitudinal members in resisting the applied bending and axial
loads.
4. It acts with longitudinal in resisting the axial load with the transverse members
in reacting the hoop or circumferential load when the structure is pressurized.
5. In addition to these, it provides an aerodynamic surface and cover for the
contents of the vehicle.
Property Requirements for Fuselage
The fuselage is a semi-monocoque structure made up of skin to carry cabin pressure
(tension) and shear loads, longitudinal stringers or longerons to carry the longitudinal
tension and compression loads, circumferential frames to maintain the fuselage shape
and redistribute loads into the skin, and bulkheads to carry concentrated loads.
The fuselage can be divided into three areas: crown, sides and bottom.

Predominant loads during flight are tension in the crown, shear in the sides
and compression in the bottom. These loads are caused by bending of the

fuselage due to loading of the wings during flight and by cabin pressure.
Taxiing causes compression in the top and tension in the bottom, however
these stresses are less than the in-flight stresses.

Strength, Young's modulus, fatigue initiation, fatigue crack growth, fracture toughness
and corrosion are all important, but fracture toughness is often the limiting design
consideration.

Figure4. Property requirement for jetliner

Drivers for Materials Selection of aircraft fuselage skin

There are many drivers and parameters involved in the development and selection of
materials for aircraft. They include, but are not limited to, low structural weight,
safety factors, cost, availability, manufacturability, reliability and maintainability.
Trends in Aluminum Alloy Product Development for Aircraft Fuselage Skin
During 1903-1930s: As mentioned previously, from 1903 to 1930 minimum weight
was the major criteria for materials selection for aircraft and all other considerations
were secondary.
During 1930-1960s: From about 1930 through the 1960s, improved performance
was the goal and reduced weight was a principal contributor. Materials development
for aircraft continued to focus on aluminium and there was considerable improvement
in the strength/weight ratios of sheet metal alloys as well as the development of other
product forms, e.g. extrusions, forgings and thick plate. Experiments wit h different
levels of the alloying elements led to an alloy now known as 2014 which developed
higher properties than 2017 after artificial aging. Other experiments led to the
development of 2024-T3 which attained a higher yield strength than 2017-T4 by
modest amounts of cold deformation followed by natural aging and significantly
higher ductility than 2014-T6.

During 1960-1980s: The growth of linear elastic fracture mechanics analyses in the
1960s revealed the need for improvements in the combination of strength and fracture
toughness of aluminum alloys. The critical crack length and fatigue crack growth
characteristics of 2024-T3 provided adequate safety and economical inspection
intervals, but the low yield strength caused a weight penalty. In contrast, its low
fracture toughness and inferior fatigue crack growth resistance prevented the high
strength of 7075-T6 from being considered for fracture critical applications where
loads were tension dominated.
After 1980s: The two major passenger aircraft manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing)
have recently introduced aircraft, e.g. the Boeing 777 and the Airbus A340, which
utilized evolutionary improvements of older materials.
a) The advanced materials on the Boeing 777 include a number of improved
aluminum and titanium alloys and polymer matrix composites as well as
laminates and lightweight sealants. Some examples of the aluminum alloys are
shown in Fig.5, and include 7150-T77 that has higher strength and damage
tolerance when compared with 7050- T76, alloy 7055-T77 that has higher
strength than 7150-T6 along with similar fracture toughness and fatigue crack
growth resistance and alloy 2524-T3 that has approximately 1520%
improvement in fracture toughness and twice the fatigue crack growth
resistance when compared with 2024-T3. The improved properties of 2524,
compared with 2024 were obtained using the principles described in the
previous paragraph. The higher toughness and greater resistance to fatigue
crack growth of 2524-T3 helped in the elimination of tear straps in a weightefficient manner on the Boeing 777.
b) The 6XXX alloys are weldable and cheaper than 2XXX alloys, however, Curich 6XXX, e.g. 6013-T6 and 6056-T6 are also susceptible to intergranular
corrosion. This susceptibility is associated with the formation of precipitate
free zones at grain boundaries, which are developed during artificial aging, are
depleted in Si and Cu and are anodic with respect to the grains [10]. A new
temper has been developed, designated T78 that has a controlled degree of
overaging that desensitizes 6056 to intergranular corrosion, keeping the yield
strength at an acceptable level with respect to the T6 temper. Other
experimental tempers have been developed that prevent intergranular
corrosion without any loss in strength [11]. An alternative to changing alloys

to facilitate joining, is the use of a relatively new joining method known as

friction stir welding (FSW). In this method, the alloys are not melted, but
instead are joined in the solid state by mechanical working. In a sense, they
simply are kneaded together with a rotating tool. The use of FSW creates the
opportunity to join a wide range of Al alloys that cannot be fusion welded.

Figure5. Plot showing the improvements in strength-toughness combinations of some newer

Aluminum alloys
Table1. Material composition in commercial aircraft

The need for advanced materials

Determining the best material to use for a particular application is not straightforward.
It will depend on many factors including customer requirements (eg performance,
cost, safety), design requirements (eg strength, temperature capability, density) and
material technology prospects (eg materials/processes currently and potentially
available). For aerospace applications, the large number of safety requirements such
as the protection against bird, ballistic and lightening strike and containment of events
like fire and fan blade off, makes finding an appropriate material particularly
challenging. Materials with high specific strength (strength per unit of weight) have
long been popular with the aerospace industry, as components made from such

materials provide the required strength with less weight, thereby reducing fuel burn
and operating cost.
Developing materials with these desired characteristics (improved specific strength,
high temperature capability, adaptive properties, etc) whilst satisfying other customer
and design requirements, is extremely difficult. As a result, manufacturers are moving
well beyond traditional materials investigating more innovative and exotic
alternatives like composites, advanced metal alloys, ceramics, nanomaterials and
smart materials. These materials and the efforts underway to develop them are
discussed here.
Composites
Composites are materials made from two or more components that have significantly
different physical or chemical properties which remain distinct (on a macroscopic
level) within the finished structure. The advantage of composite materials is that the
properties they exhibit are different to simply the sum of the properties of the
constituent materials. Composites consist of reinforcement and matrix material. The
reinforcement, which generally takes the form of fibres, has high tensile strength but
is susceptible to breakage. In contrast, the matrix which surrounds and supports the
reinforcement has a relatively low tensile strength but is extremely tough. When
combined, the matrix and the reinforcement, counteract each others weaknesses to
produce a material that is stronger, stiffer and more damage resistant than either
material alone.
There are several benefits associated with using composites in aircraft. One clear
advantage is their high specific strength. For example, carbon fibre is stronger and
stiffer than aluminium, titanium or steel at a fraction of the weight. A further benefit is
that this strength can be tailored in any direction. By varying the orientation of the
fibres, the strength of a composite material in any direction can be varied in
accordance with the applied loads. This is clearly a very useful property for aerospace
applications where components are subject to many different forces but need to avoid
being thicker or heavier than required.
However, the real benefit of composites comes not from their high specific strength
but their ability to resist fatigue (damage which occurs when a material is subject to
cyclic loading) and corrosion, and to withstand temperature extremes. Such attributes
can enable reduced maintenance costs as airframe inspections /maintenance activities
do not need to be as frequent or extensive as for metallic aircraft. Boeings

environmental performance group estimates that the period of time between

maintenance activities for composite planes could be twice that required for
aluminium aircraft. However, significant work is required to demonstrate to the
relevant authorities that changes to current inspection regimes routines are acceptable
from a safety perspective. Another appealing property of composites is their
manufacturability; large, complex shapes can be accurately cast from composite
materials. This means the properties of the part can be tailored precisely to the
application and, as there is no cutting and shaping of sheets from bulk material, there
is a significant reduction in the waste generated. Furthermore, as larger, more
integrated parts can be produced using the composite casting process, part/fastener
count and assembly time is reduced. A further benefit is the increased passenger
comfort that a composite aircraft body can offer. The high fatigue strength of
composites means that a composite fuselage can withstand a higher pressure
differential between the cabin and the outside air than an aircraft with a metallic body.
As a result, cabin pressure can be increased to a level closer to that experienced at sea
level. Furthermore, the good corrosion resistance of composites means that an
increase in cabin humidity levels is possible with a composite aircraft body. These
two attributes, increased pressure and humidity, result in a significant reduction in the
passenger discomfort and fatigue associated with the low pressure, dry air, normally
experienced in aircraft cabins.
One of the challenges associated with composite design is the lack of design data and
tools. As metals are isotropic (ie exhibit same properties in all directions) and have
been well characterized through extensive testing, to understand how a metal will
perform in a certain conditions, a designer can consult a materials handbook
(specifying an alloy and heat treatment), they do not need to conduct expensive
materials testing. However, for a designer working with composites there are no such
equivalent tools. This is due to a number of factors including engineers limited design
experience with composite materials, the huge variability between composite
materials and the much closer relationship between the shape of the component and
loading conditions it is being designed for. Small changes in fibre orientation and
fibre/matrix ratio can significantly alter the materials load path and failure mode. As
a result, aerospace designers normally need to test both the composite part and the
materials used in its construction. Although the U.S Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) is administering a Composites Materials Handbook known as CMH-17 to

duplicate the guidance available to metals manufacturers, this database is still under
development and is by no means comprehensive.
Another challenge is that composites response to damage, particularly due to direct
impact, is significantly different to metals and thus a different approach is required.
Although understanding in this area is still developing, it is believed that with careful
choice of materials and tailoring for the required function, composites can offer
enhanced damage tolerance and improved safety.
However, detection and repair of damage remains difficult for composites. Whilst
certain events, like being dropped during manufacture or minor collisions with ground
servicing vehicles in service, would leave visible denting in a metallic component, the
surface damage for a composite could be minimal despite significant disbonding
within the structure. Identification of such damage requires specialised techniques and
equipment (eg ultrasonic or X ray crack sensing) and therefore may be difficult to
undertake at repair and overhaul bases. Furthermore, as the appropriate repair
technique varies significantly from component to component, there are few materials
or methods of composite repair that can be applied universally.
Another challenge composites must address is lightning strike protection (LSP).
Certification requirements specify that aircraft must be protected against the
potentially catastrophic effects of lightning strike. However composite structures are
either not conductive at all or significantly less conductive than metals. As a result, in
the event of lightning strike, up to 200, 000 amps of electricity will seek the path of
least resistance to the nearest metal component, burning through the composite
laminate and vaporizing metallic cables, hinges, fasteners, etc. in the process. In order
to prevent this, LSP strategies must be undertaken for composite structures. These can
include bonding aluminium or copper mesh to the exterior surface or one layer down,
or as done more recently, incorporating prepreg metal meshes in fibre layups. Finding
a way to safely and efficiently recycle composites is another challenge facing the
industry. Much effort has already been spent developing ways of separating the
reinforcement from the matrix whilst preserving the integrity of the fibres, with some
promising progress made by UK companies.
However, the biggest drawback associated with composites is their high cost. The
high equipment, labour, quality control and post-production testing costs together
with the investment required to understand composite material properties and failure
modes, means that the weight savings they offer do not always offset the costs

incurred with this material choice. However, with the use of certain processes and
technologies (eg infusion technologies, the introduction of high tow count fabrics and
component integration) composites can be cost competitive or even lower cost than
their metallic equivalents. Furthermore, as manufacturers improve production
efficiency, this technology matures and the industry acquires more experience with it,
there will inevitably be further opportunities for cost reduction.
Nevertheless, composites have been enthusiastically embraced by the aerospace
industry, with aircraft manufacturers progressively increasing the amount of
composite material used in the airframe and in aircraft systems.

Figure7. Composites in the Airframe and Primary Structure of Boeing 787

References
Progress in structural materials for aerospace systems, J.C. Williams, E.A.
Starke, Jr. / Acta Materialia 51 (2003) 57755799
SBAC Aviation and Environment Briefing Papers, SBAC, Advanced
Aircraft Materials 2002.
Application of modern aluminum alloys to aircraft, E.A. Starke, Jr and J. T.
Staley, Pro 9. Aerospace Sci. Vol. 32, pp. 131-172~ 1996
Challenges for research and development of new aluminum alloys, D.
Vojtch, ISSN 0543-5846.