Fatigue Life Assessment

Aircraft sections are subjected to both static and dynamic load test. Using two identical
sections, one is subjected to the static test, and the other to the dynamic test. During the
static test, the component is briefly subject to a very high load. During flight operations,
such extreme forces are exerted during thunder storms, gusting winds, and heavy landings.
Static tests generally extend from several days to two weeks. Apart from the maximum load,
how the load is spread across the entire section is studied.
Dynamic load tests assess the consequences of normal strain during flight operations. In this
instance, the load is not necessarily extreme, but it is exerted for a longer period of time.
The fatigue factors affecting the aircraft section are assessed. These tests last much longer
than static tests; typically, one to two years, because the load for a period that is double the
anticipated life of the section has to be maintained. In the case of the A380 commercial
airliner, the test duration must be equivalent to the duration of 40,000 to 60,000 flights.
The aim of these tests is to identify specific locations on specific components that require
extra attention during inspections. Knowing which points are vulnerable, aircraft inspectors
can keep a closer eye on them. Each test is rounded off with a detailed report, specifying
which tests were conducted, what damage occurred, and, if so, details of the damage in
question. The aviation authorities use these reports in deciding whether to award an
airworthiness certificate to a specific aircraft type.

Manufacturers of 4,198 airline transport aircraft will be required to set new life limits for
their products under new rules to be issued by the US FAA on 15 November 2010.
As part of the widespread fatigue damage (WFD) final rule, airframes of US-registered
transport aircraft with take-off weight of 34,019kg (75,000lb) or more will have between 18
and 60 months to determine the number of flight cycles or hours that each type can
accumulate before showing the effects of the problem.
"Once manufacturers establish these limits, operators of affected aircraft must incorporate
them into their maintenance programs within 30 to 72 months, depending on the model of
aircraft," says the FAA. "After the limit is in the maintenance program, operators cannot fly
the aircraft beyond that point unless the FAA approves an extension of the limit."
All new aircraft certified under Part 25 air transport certification rules will be required to
have the limits.
The FAA defines WFD as "the simultaneous presence of cracks at multiple structural
locations that are of sufficient size and density that the structure will no longer meet the
residual strength requirements of Part 25".
WFD gained prominence in 1988 when an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 lost a 5.5m (18ft) -long
section of its upper fuselage at 24,000ft, killing one flight attendant.
The FAA published a preliminary rule on the topic in 2006 based on recommendations made
by an aviation rulemaking advisory committee (ARAC). Unlike the preliminary rule, the final
rule does not require certificate holders to evaluate WFD associated with most repairs,
alterations and modifications to the baseline aircraft structure, except for cases where
modifications were mandated by airworthiness directives (ADs).
"We've addressed the problem of aging aircraft with numerous targeted regulations and
100 airworthiness directives over the years," says FAA administrator Randy Babbitt. "This
rule is a comprehensive solution to ensure the structural safety of today's airliners and the
airplanes of tomorrow."
In terms of benefits, the FAA estimates it will save $4.8 million over the next 20 years by not
having to issue ADs to address individual cases of WFD as they are found.
Other benefits not considered in the financial analysis include accidents avoided and a
"longer economic life" for the aircraft.
The agency estimates that the new rule will cause one airplane from today's fleet to be
retired because of its reaching its WFD life limit in the 20-year analysis period.
"The retirement of this one airplane will result in costs of approximately $3.8 million, with a
present value of approximately $3.6 million," says the agency, adding that cost impacts to
manufacturers to implement the rule were "found to be minimal".

Estimation of Aircraft Structural Fatigue Life Using the Crack Severity Index
Methodology
In this work, fatigue test results under different random spectra have been used to validate
the crack severity index methodology in which only the normal load factor and aircraft gross
weight were considered as the load.
The original crack severity index methodology was developed to quantify the relative
severity in terms of crack growth potential using the tress spectra recorded at the wing root.
The crack severity index values have been used to determine the flight mission severity
through interpolation between known flaw growth curves of reference usages. This
interpolated flaw growth curve enables aircraft users to predict the cumulative fatigue crack
growth damage based on individual aircraft activity and provides a useful guide for
scheduling future inspection and maintenance activities.
To validate the crack severity index methodology based on normal load factor and aircraft
gross weight data instead of stress spectra, experimental fatigue lives were obtained for the
stresses represented by normal load factor and aircraft gross weight spectra of different
random loads. Then, the differences in fatigue life as severity measurements were
compared with the crack severity index values.
A good correlation was obtained, which validated the crack severity index methodology. The
test results were also used to tune a simulation equation for crack growth. The good
correlation between the crack severity index values and fatigue test or crack growth
simulation results suggests a simple way of predicting the structural fatigue life from crack
severity index values.

If an aeroplane was overstressed and it resulted in permanent deformation, then it is

possible that the damage is visible. Unfortunately fatigue damage is not visible until it
results in cracks. In high stressed components like the wing spar the damage may progress
from a small crack to a failed wing rather suddenly. This kind of damage is usually impossible
to detect without a very thorough inspection of the component in the right stage (small
crack developed but not completely failed). The time from visible crack to failed wing can be
only a few cycles, depending on the load factors. This has happened on some metal
(aluminium) airplanes which unexpectedly lost a wing. They were usually subjected to
higher than normal load cycles (lots of time flying low level through turbulence or
aerobatics) for much of their life. Composite or wood airplanes are much less affected by
fatigue. The only way to determine fatigue damage is by monitoring the load cycles, which
as far as I know only the military does. Very few small aeroplanes have been fatigue tested
and have a known life.