Structural Damage Tolerance Concepts and Overview

Structural Damage Tolerance
— Part 1 —
Concepts and Overview
Matthew Miller
Structural Damage Technology
(425) 266-5091
Course Number: 6CV40051
BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-1

01/01/00/SAM
Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-2
01/01/00/SAM
Concepts and Overview Outline
Introduction
Key elements of damage tolerance
Key elements of residual strength
Key elements of crack growth
Key elements of damage detection and maintenance planning
Documentation

01/01/00/SAM
Crack in Pressure Bulkhead

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
Responsibilities of Structures Engineers
Static strength
Verify that the static strength of undamaged structure meets load
requirements
Durability (fatigue)
Verify that structural detail fatigue quality matches the required
quality to meet the Design Service Objective
Damage tolerance
Verify that an economically feasible inspection program can be
implemented to detect fatigue, corrosion, or accidental damage
before the residual strength of the structure falls below the required
fail-safe load level

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
Definitions of Damage Tolerance
Structure is damage tolerant if damage can be detected and

repaired before residual strength falls below the regulatory load
level
Damage tolerance means that the structure has been evaluated to
ensure that should serious fatigue, corrosion or accidental damage
occur within the operating life of the airplane, the remaining
structure can withstand reasonable loads without the failure of
excessive structural deformation until the damage is detected
Damage tolerance is the attribute of the structure than permits it to
retain its required residual strength for a period of use after the
structure has sustained specific levels of fatigue, corrosion,
accidental or discrete source damage

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
Basic Concepts
Safety
Economics
Damage tolerance
Durability • Residual strength
• Fatigue
• Crack growth
• Corrosion prevention
• Damage detection
• Maintenance

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
Durability and Damage Tolerance Analysis Philosophy
Residual
N = Inspection Frequency strength
Crack growth analysis
analysis X
Damage Critical Crack
Detection Length
Crack Length, L
Period (Allowable
Damage)
Detectable N N N N N
Crack Inspection
Length program
Crack Propagation Flights, N

Damage Tolerance
Crack Initiation
Durability
MDSO X FRF
(includes fatigue, corrosion and manufacturing quality)
< 5% of Fleet

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
Damage Tolerance Technology Standards
D6-24958 “Damage Tolerance Methods and Allowables”

(Books 3 & 3A)
Commercial Airplanes standards are based
on 30 years of transport airplane
development and service experience
Comprehensive methods and allowables are
based on traditional aerospace industry
fracture mechanics techniques
Audited and approved by the FAA as
acceptable means to comply with FAR
25.571 requirements

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
Damage Tolerance Methods and Allowables (Book 3)
Purpose
 Aid in the development of a maintenance program to inspect for potential fatigue
damage in a fleet of airplanes
Approach options
 Too simple
 Loss of credibility
 Loss of accuracy
 Too complex
 Excess resources and flow time required
 Excess probability of human error
 Loss of visibility and control by management
 Just right
 Sufficiently accurate
 Easy to use

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
Airplane Safety
Design,
analysis and
manufacturing
• FAA Maintenance
Regulatory
• JAA agencies
and
inspection
• CAA
• CAAC Airlines
• AR
Safety requires diligent performance by all participants

01/01/00/SAM
Structural Loads
Limit load
Highest load encountered by a fleet during its operational life
Ultimate loads
Limit load exceeded by a factor of safety, usually 50%
Operating loads
Loads normally encountered in day to day operations
Regulatory fail-safe loads
Usually limit load or equivalent
Detailed in FAR 25.571 and JAR 25.571

01/01/00/SAM
Key Elements of Damage Tolerance
Damage Tolerance Definition
Structure is damage tolerant if damage can be detected and repaired before
residual strength falls below the regulatory load level
Normal deterioration due to Ultimate load
undetected damage capability required
Structural strength
after damage
Damage detection detection and repair
and restoration
Regulatory load requirement

per FAR 25.571
Normal operating loads
Visual detection period Period of service

NDI
detection
period Maximum allowable
Damage size
undetected damage
Detectable by NDI Visually detectable

01/01/00/SAM
Damage Tolerance Parameters
•Cyclic stress spectrum

•Material
Crack growth •Geometry
resistance •Multiple Site Damage
•Environment
•Load distribution
Allowable
damage
• Access / visibility
•Material • Inspection intervals
•Geometry • Inspection methods
•Fracture toughness • Damage detection period
•Multiple Site Damage • Multiple cracking in the
•Load distribution Inspection
fleet
program
• Damage detection
requirement

01/01/00/SAM
Summary
Safety of flight
1. Residual strength 2. Crack growth 3. Inspection
analysis + analysis + program =
Are additional
3 inspections
Lcritical required?
2 1
Compare Damage
Inspectable crack Tolerance Rating
Lcritical length vs. flights to
critical curve TOTAL DTR
Crack length
Skin crack 3 Based on assumed inspection

program
Chord crack 2 REQUIRED DTR

Based on successful service
1 experience
Chord crack
Flights to critical

01/01/00/SAM
Definitions
Primary structure
That structure which carries flight, ground or pressure loads
Secondary structure
That structure which carries only air or inertial loads generated on or
within the secondary structure
Structural Significant Item (SSI)
Any structural detail, element or assembly judged to be significant
because its failure reduces airplane residual strength or results in
the loss of function
Principal Structural Element (PSE)
Structure that contributes significantly to the carrying of flight,
ground and pressurization loads, and whose failure could result in
catastrophic failure of the airplane (Ref. AC 25.571 - 1b)

01/01/00/SAM
Structural Classification
 S t r u c t


01/01/00/SAM
Obvious Damage!

01/01/00/SAM
Ground Accident

01/01/00/SAM
FAR/JAR 25.571
Certification requirements pre & post Amendment 45

Old FAR 25.571 New FAR 25.571
Analysis
(Pre-1978) (Post-1978)
•Single element or •Multiple active cracks
Residual obvious partial failure
strength
Crack growth •No analysis required •Extensive analysis required

•Related to structural damage
characteristics and past
Inspection •Based on service history
service history
program •FAA air carrier approval
•Initial FAA engineering and air
carrier approval

01/01/00/SAM
FAR/JAR 25.571 Certification Requirements
(Pre - 1978) (Post -1978)
FAIL SAFE DAMAGE TOLERANT SAFE LIFE
• Redundant load path. • Capable of withstanding • Allowable crack size is

• Capable of regulatory loads with partial or very small (undetectable)
withstanding failed element with the presence • Adequate inspections are
regulatory loads with of cracks in adjacent and impractical
a single element attaching structure • Parts are removed from
failed • Able to detect and repair damage service when “safe life”
prior to structural strength loss has been reached
below regulatory load capability
(Amendment 45)

01/01/00/SAM
Principal Damage Sources
Principal Structural Elements
1 Fatigue Environmental Accidental and

damage damage discrete damage
Damage Safe Corrosion Discrete Typical

tolerance life inspection source accidental
Types of Corrosion Types of Types of

inspections prevention plan inspections inspections
Damage detection Environmental Accidental damage

evaluations damage evaluations evaluations
Approved inspection and

maintenance program
1 Fatigue cracking is assumed to have occurred in the most difficult inspection/access

location independent of calculated fatigue life or full scale test results

01/01/00/SAM
Inspection and Maintenance Philosophy
Thresholds are based on:

• Fatigue approach for 727,737,747.
Typically 50% to 75% of DSO
• Initial flaw approach for 737NG, 757,
767, 777 and any new program Supplemental fatigue inspections
Fleet damage rate
Corrosion prevention and control program inspections
Scheduled maintenance check intervals
Fleet actions for WFD
Mandatory SB modifications
Environmental deterioration
and accidental damage Detectable size Repair assessments / inspections
fatigue damage
Detectable
DETECTABLE
fatigue
damage
Design Service
Years of service Objective
01/01/00/SAM
Residual Strength
1. Residual 2. Crack
3. Inspection
strength + growth + =
program
analysis analysis
Safety of flight
1
2
Strength? Flights? Inspections?

01/01/00/SAM
Key Elements of Residual Strength
Residual Strength Parameters
Material
Fracture Toughness
Static behavior
KA
KA Transition behavior
Residual Strength
Thickness Regulatory
Requirement
Geometry
LEFM behavior
Geometry Correction
Factor
Y
Y B
Maximum
allowable
damage
L Crack Length

01/01/00/SAM
Stress Intensity Factor
Stress, σ Stress, σ
3σ kt = ∞
L σ
σ
kt = 3 K = σ πL ⋅ Y ⋅ C
n
Stress concentration factor Stress intensity factor
K is the defining parameter for crack growth and residual

strength predictions
01/01/00/SAM
Fracture Toughness
80 Fracture toughness is a
70
Plane stress function of:
Thickness
60 Mixed mode
71
(plane stress and plane strain) Orientation
50 50
KA (ksi √in)
L- Ext -T77 Alloy, temper & form

T
40 or rusi 511
i en o n Temperature
ta
tio
30 n
KIC
20 Plane strain
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Thickness (in)

01/01/00/SAM
Failure Criterion - Plane Stress Fracture
Engineering approach to fracture assumes failure occurs when K = KA
 KA is the apparent fracture toughness

associated with initial crack length at
L maximum load
 KC is the fracture toughness associated with
σ
actual crack length at maximum load
 Konset , KC and KA are not constants like KIC
 Most practical is KA - constant to first
approximation for given t
σ C B
c
πL o
σ i
C B A : K onset = σi 2
⋅α
A KC
KA
A πL c
Konset B : K C = σc 2
⋅α
πL o
Lo Lc C : K A = σc 2
⋅α
Crack Length, L

01/01/00/SAM
Failure Criterion - Plane Strain Fracture
Failure occurs when K = KIC
 Little or no plasticity involved when brittle failure occurs
 Flat fracture surface
πL c
KIC = σc 2
⋅α
L
σ c
σ c
KIC
Lo Lc
Crack Length, L

01/01/00/SAM
Failure Criterion
1  Applies to all cracks in Titanium and all through
thickness cracks in Aluminum and Steel
 For a single corner crack (e.g., a lug) 0.05 inches or
less, or two corner cracks (e.g., a fastener hole)
0.035 inches or less in Steel (< 240 ksi), use static
strength analysis. For corner cracks of 0.01 Inches
or less in Steel (> 240 ksi), use static strength
analysis
 For corner cracks in Aluminum 0.02 in. < L <
thickness, use a straight line fit between the static
strength at L= 0.02 inches and residual strength for
L=thickness
2 Use typical yield stress; when data is not available use
2.228*”B basis” - 1.228*”A basis” or 1.10*”B basis”
yield stress
3  AN/AG is the Net Area / Gross Area ratio for the
damaged structure
 (I/c)N / (I/c)G is the Net / Gross section modulus ratio
for the damaged structure
 In both the above cases, the Net properties = Gross -
(holes & cracked out) properties
4 The “µ ” is a shape factor for transition failures, µ =
0.63 for all materials

01/01/00/SAM
Failure Criterion - Transition Mode
Edge Cracked Panel Example
Net section yield Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
AN W −L KA L
FRS = FTY = FTY FRS = , Y = 1.99 − 0.41  +...
AG W π ⋅L ⋅ Y ⋅1  W
80
Full static
strength σ
70
Residual strength (ksi)
L=t B
60
LEFM
50 Net section yield
B =0.5 in
40 Crack
W =10 in
Transition L
30 Mat’l 2024-T351 (L-T)
equation
KA = 125 ksi in
20 W FTY = 55 ksi
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
01/01/00/SAM
Cracking Patterns
 Recommended crack configurations
 Based on experience and engineering judgement

01/01/00/SAM
Y Factor
 Geometry correction factor in the stress intensity factor calculation
 Uses the superposition principle to include one or more geometry effects (J factors)

01/01/00/SAM
J and C Factors
J factors account for differences between C factors account for increase in load
structure being analyzed and infinite plate due to cracking of attached structure

01/01/00/SAM
Y and C Factors
∆σ
σ σ σ +∆ σ
L L L
Y = 1.0 Y = Jwidtheffect ≠ 1.0 Y ≠ 1.0

C = 1.0 C = 1.0 C ≠ 1.0
K=σ πL K=σ πL ⋅Y K=σ πL ⋅ Y ⋅C
2 2 2

01/01/00/SAM
Introduction
1. Residual 2. Crack
3. Inspection
strength + growth + program
=
analysis analysis
Safety of flight
1
2
Strength? Flights? Inspections?

01/01/00/SAM
Crack Growth Concepts
Crack Growth Parameters
MATERIAL
Crack length
Lf (critical)
X
M
Li
(detectable)
Flights
Y S
GEOMETRY
FLIGHT STRESS PROFILE
Stress

01/01/00/SAM
Crack Growth Fundamentals
Crack Growth Equation
Boeing Crack Growth M & p = Material crack growth rate

Rate Equation (1979) parameters
Based on P. C. Paris, 1961, Measures relative material resistance
and K. Walker, 1970, equations
to crack growth
p Reflects effect of environment
1 dL  Z ⋅ Kmax 
= 10− 4  
n dN  M 
1.E-03
 (1 − R ) q 0.0 < R < 1.0
da/dN (in/cycle)
1.E-04

1 − 0.1⋅ R − 1.0 < R ≤ 0.0
Z= 1.E-05
 1.1 R ≤ −1.0 p
 0 R ≥ 1.0 1.E-06 1
TEST
COUPON 1.E-07
1 10 M 100
Ζ Kmax (ksi √in)

01/01/00/SAM
Allowable M
Section 5, Book 3
Allowable
M
Finished
Grain
Alloy Temper Form Gage Airplane Environment
Orientation
(inches) W C B F
(wet) (cold) (bilge) (fuel)
2014 T652 Hand Forging T-S .75 21.7 24.9 20.6 22.2
T652 Die Forging T-L .75 21.7 24.9 20.6 22.2
2024 T3 Bare Sheet L-T, T-L .04 - .25 24.8 27.9 23.7 25.1
T4 Bare Sheet L-T, T-L .04 - .06 25.6 28.8 24.5 25.9
T3 Clad Sheet L-T, T-L .04 - .13 26.0 29.2 24.8 26.3
T351 Plate L-T, T-L .10 - .15 26.9 30.2 25.6 27.3
.15 - .35 24.5 27.6 23.3 24.8
.35 - .50 22.6 25.4 21.5 22.9
T3511 Extrusion L-T, T-L .10 - .35 26.3 29.6 25.0 26.7
T851 Plate L-T .37 - 1.0 24.3 27.7 23.4 21.4
T851 Plate T-L .37 - 1.0 20.2 23.1 19.4 17.9
2219 T6 Die Forging L-T - 18.3 20.6 17.4 18.6
2224 T3511 Extrusion L-T, T-L .16 - .31 26.8 30.1 25.5 27.2
2324 T39 Plate L-T .10 - .15 26.9 30.3 25.6 27.3
.15 - .35 25.9 29.2 24.7 26.3
.35 - .50 25.0 28.1 23.8 25.3
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
.
01/01/00/SAM
Integration of Crack Growth Rate Equation
Crack length
Lf (critical)
p
1 dL  Z ⋅ Kmax  X
= 10− 4  
n dN  M 
Kmax = fmax πL ⋅ Y ⋅C
n Lo
∫( )
N, number of cycles
1 −p  Z ⋅ fmax 
∫
πL −4
n ⋅ Y ⋅C dL = 10   dN + C
n  M 
If loading is constant amplitude, the rate equation can be integrated

and solved as follows for the number of cycles:
p Lf −p
 M  1  πL  fmax
N = 104   
∫
⋅ Y ⋅ C  dL
Stress
 Z ⋅ fmax  n L  n  fmin
o
Note: Constant Z and fmax

01/01/00/SAM
If loading is variable amplitude, and the crack growth rate does not depend on
the sequence of varying load cycles, then the life integral can be discretized
as shown:
L NC
10− 4
∫( ) ∑(( Z ⋅ f
1 −p
πL
n ⋅ Y ⋅C dL = NF max i ) )p
n Mp
i =0
Lo
NC = Number of cycles in a flight
NF = Number of flights
Stress
flight Define stress rating, S, as:
(ksi)
1/ p
 NC 
S= 
 ∑
( ( Z ⋅ fmax ) i ) 
p
ground
Time  i =0 
L
∫( )−pdL
10 4 ⋅ Mp 1 πL
NF = n ⋅ Y ⋅C
Lower wing skin stress history for a “typical” flight Sp n
Lo

01/01/00/SAM
Load Sequence Effects on Crack Growth
Overloads produce crack growth retardation, which is caused by

the presence of residual compressive stresses in the yielded
zone ahead of the crack tip
Crack length
N, number of cycles
Source: Broek, D. , Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics,

4th ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1986

01/01/00/SAM
To account for the effects of overload and underload, every stress cycle is
adjusted, similar to the Willenborg model
Define spectrum stress rating, Sspectrum , as:

1/ p
 Ns 
Sspectrum = 
 ∑ ( ( Zeff ⋅ fmax eff ) i ) 
p
 i=0 
Stress
(ksi)
flight NC = Number of cycles in a flight
NF = Number of flights
fmax eff = Effective fmax for cycle i
Time Zeff = Uses effective fmax and fmin for cycle i
ground
L
∫( )−pdL
10 4 ⋅ Mp 1 πL
NF = p n ⋅ Y ⋅g⋅C
Lower wing skin stress history for a “typical” flight
Sspectrum n
Lo

01/01/00/SAM
Interfaced Durability and Damage Tolerance
Analysis Software (IDTAS)
Complex flight operating
stress profiles are
analyzed using IDTAS
Loads and flight segment
spectra are input, and
relative fatigue damage
and crack growth are
calculated

01/01/00/SAM
IDTAS Damage Tolerance Output
IDTAS is the source of the
stress rating, S, for use in
the crack growth equation
Sspectrum /Slinear
Sspectrum

01/01/00/SAM
Damage Detection and
Structural Maintenance Planning
Objective
Maintain acceptable level of structural airworthiness throughout
the operational life of the airplane
Guideline
Airline / manufacturer maintenance program planning document,
MSG-3 (Maintenance Steering Group)
Air Transport Association of America, Oct. 1980 (Rev. 2005.1)
FAA approved as a means of complying with FAR 25.571

01/01/00/SAM
MSG-3 Rating Systems
Rating system provides quantitative means of determining
inspection requirements
Development of rating system is responsibility of manufacturer
Rating systems are based on past practice and manufacturer /
operator experience with similar structure
Ratings address three principal sources of damage
Fatigue
Corrosion
Accidental damage

01/01/00/SAM
Initial inspection program development and documentation
The initial structural maintenance plan for a new model is directed
toward detecting corrosion, stress corrosion and accidental
damage
A feasibility study for fatigue damage detection is made to
determine if a practical program can be constructed
Supplemental inspection program
As the fleet matures, the risk of fatigue cracking increases and the
inspection program is reassessed at 10 to 15 years
If the initial inspection program is inadequate for finding fatigue
cracks in significant structure, additional or supplemental
inspections will be required

01/01/00/SAM
Environmental Deterioration Rating (EDR) System
EDR = Susceptibility Index + Timely Detection Index
Exposure to Adverse Environments
Susceptibility Index
Probable Possible Unlikely
Standard 0 1 2
Environmental Proven /
1 2 3
Protection improved
Special
2 3 4
attention
Sensitivity to Damage Size

Timely Detection Index
High Medium Low
Visibility of the Poor 0 1 2

SSI for inspection
during scheduled Adequate 1 2 3
maintenance
checks Good 2 3 4

01/01/00/SAM
Accidental Damage Rating (ADR) System
ADR = Susceptibility Index + Timely Detection Index
Likelihood of Accidental Damage
Susceptibility Index
Probable Possible Unlikely
Estimated Low 0 1 2
residual
strength after Medium 1 2 3
accidental
damage High 2 3 4
Sensitivity to Damage Growth

Timely Detection Index
High Medium Low
Visibility of the Poor 0 1 2

SSI for inspection
during scheduled Adequate 1 2 3
maintenance
checks Good 2 3 4

01/01/00/SAM
Key Considerations and Responsibilities
for EDR and ADR Evaluations
Rating Application Primary Responsibility
Key Considerations
Category EDR ADR Operator Boeing
Visibility    Visibility for inspection after access
•Relative sensitivity within zone

Sensitivity to
   considered
damage size
•External: multiple element damage
or growth
•Internal: single element damage
Environmental    Comparison with previous protection
protection systems and recent service history
Exposure to  Corrosion experience in same zone

adverse 
environment  Material susceptibility to stress corrosion
and potential for preload
Likelihood of
accidental   Operator experience in the same zone
damage
Strength after
  Likely size of damage relative to critical
accidental
damage size
damage

01/01/00/SAM
Example of EDR/ADR Application
Frequency of Structural Inspections
ATA: Major Zone 300 (Section 48 & Empennage)
Environmental deterioration
rating (EDR) or Accidental External Internal
Damage Rating (ADR)
1
2
P L E 2A
5A
2A
5A
AM
3 3C C
4
5 EX 2C
2C
4C
AGE exploration: 4C interval
6 or greater
with 1/5 or 1/10 of fleet
A-check frequency: 300 flight cycles
C-check frequency: 15 months or 3000 flight cycles, whichever comes first

01/01/00/SAM
Damage Detection Parameters
Probability of
inspecting an Probability of
inspecting detail Probability of
aircraft with crack detection
damage considered
P1 P2 P3
PD
Probability of
detecting damage

01/01/00/SAM
Definition of Inspection methods
Inspection Description for Boeing DTR System Typical

Method (See MSG-3) Applications
Observations from the ground to detect obvious
Walkaround Pre-flight
discrepancies such as fuel leaks (see category 2 structure)
General visual Visual check of exposed area of wing lower surface, lower
A-check
(no MSG-3 credit) fuselage, doors and door cutouts, and landing gear bays
Visual examination of defined internal or external structural
area from a distance considered necessary to carry out an
Surveillance
adequate check. External includes structure visible
(MSG-3 general C-check
through quick-opening access panels or doors. Internal
visual equivalent)
applies to obscured structure requiring removal of fillets
fairings, access panels or doors, etc. for visibility
Detailed Close intensive visual inspections of highly defined
D-check
(MSG-3 detailed structural details or locations searching for evidence of
selected items
equivalent) structural irregularity
Special (see Inspections of specific locations or hidden details using D-check
Book 3 pg. 12-26) specified nondestructive inspection (NDI) procedures. selected items

01/01/00/SAM
Damage Detection Period
Engineering Format Maintenance Planning Format
Critical Critical
Crack Length
Crack Length
Surveillance Surveillance
Detailed Detailed
NDI NDI
Crack Growth Interval, Flight Cycles Damage Detection Period, Flights to Critical

01/01/00/SAM
Maintenance Planning
Determining Probability of Detection Parameters for Inspections
0.99
Need to relate
Probability of Detection
0.1 General Visual Inspection method

Surveillance Probability of detection
0.01
Detailed Crack length
0.001 Audited by the
FAA in 1980
Inspectable Crack Growth Curve
Inspectable Crack Length

0.0001 N N N
0.1 1 10
Inspectable Crack Length (in)
For n inspections of the

first crack
( )
n
PD = 1 − ∏ 1 − P̂Di
i =1
For n inspections on m cracked airplanes Flights
m n
PD = 1 − ∏ ∏ 1 − P̂Dij ( ) Safe damage detection period
j=1 i =1
01/01/00/SAM
Relative Damage Detection Reliability for
Visual Inspections
1
0.1
0.99
0.01
0.95
0.001 0.9
3 5 7 10 30
0.0001
0.1 0.5 1 5 10 30

01/01/00/SAM
Inspectable Crack Length
Actual Crack Growth Curve
Inspection access: Top

X Critical
Crack Length
C
A A
B
NC NA NB
Flights
Inspectable Crack Growth Curves B C

Crack Length
Inspectable
Inspection access: Bottom
NC N A NB Flights

01/01/00/SAM
When do Supplemental Inspections Start?
Current inspection threshold determination

 Based on crack growth from an equivalent manufacturing flaw
 FAA recommended (used for 757 and 767)
 Initial flaw size regardless of material or manufacturing process of
– 0.05” for open holes
– 0.03” for filled holes
– 0.005” for cold worked holes
 Threshold life is crack growth life from initial flaw to critical divided by 2
 FAA mandated 100% inspection after reaching threshold
 Boeing new method (used for 777,
737NG and new models and
derivatives) DFR
 Establish initial flaw sizes based on
fatigue quality of detail
Equivalent Manufacturing
 Crack growth life to detectable or Quality Flaw Size
through thickness
01/01/00/SAM
Documentation for a New Airplane Program
Structural Inspection Planning Data Document (SIPD)

 Description of structure
 Completed EDR/ADR forms
 DTR forms from feasibility study
Maintenance Planning Data Document (MPD)
Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report

01/01/00/SAM
Reported Discrepancies
Discrepancies to be reported
 All cracks and previously unreported occurrences of significant corrosion involving any SSI or
PSE shall be reported promptly to Boeing
Boeing follow-up actions
 All adverse SSI or PSE reports will be reviewed immediately to determine if they are findings
directly applicable to the SSI being addressed.
 If discrepancies are related to fatigue cracking of the SSI, the following actions are to be taken
– Report factual data available on finding, with appropriate priority, to operators and airworthiness authorities
– If required, develop a fleet inspection program to obtain additional data necessary to formulate a service
bulletin
– Prepare and issue a service bulletin addressing recommended structural modifications and inspections
– Revise the Supplemental Inspection Program Document (SIPD) to eliminate this SSI or a portion of the SSI,
and reference the new service bulletin in the safety of flight service bulletin list

01/01/00/SAM
Supplemental Structural Inspection Programs
Methods are based on current practice, accessibility, critical crack length and non-destructive inspection
procedures
707/720 SSIP 727/737/747 SSIP

Assessment of all SSI's Assessment of all SSI's (with
Damage (with and without a history no history of in-service
Tolerance of in-service fatigue fatigue cracking) requiring
Assessment cracking) assuming inspection to ensure timely
cracking may have occurred detection of fatigue damage
Programs augment or modify
existing maintenance plans
Intervals determined by and intervals are based on
Inspection
dividing life (from detectable life (from detectable to
Program to critical) by a scatter factor critical), multiple inspections
and multiple fleet cracking)
All airplanes exceeding the Only candidate fleet

threshold for an SSI are airplanes subject to in the
subject to the requirements inspection program
for that SSI requirements
Airplane Details with known fatigue Details with known fatigue
Effectivity problems have post- problems covered by existing
terminating inspection service bulletins are
requirements with unique reassessed with inspections
thresholds based on service added as needed
data

01/01/00/SAM
Maintenance Planning
Damage Detection Rating System
Need a quantitative measure of the probability of detecting a crack

DTR = Damage Tolerance Rating
Calculated DTR vs. Required DTR
Required
Structure
DTR
Externally visible areas 4
Wings and nacelles Areas not externally visible 6
Number of 50/50
chances of
Primary flap structure 8
detecting damage
Empennage Primary structure 6
Contribution of <50% 6
Fuselage cabin differential
pressure to total
Damage Tolerance Overview
fail-safe stress >= 50% 10 BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-63
01/01/00/SAM

Structural Damage Tolerance Concepts and Overview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Damage Tolerance Concepts and Overview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Damage Tolerance

Course Number: 6CV40051

BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-1

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-3

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-4

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-5

Structure is damage tolerant if damage can be detected and

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-6

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-7

Crack Propagation Flights, N

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-8

D6-24958 “Damage Tolerance Methods and Allowables”

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-9

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-10

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-11

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-12

Regulatory load requirement

Normal operating loads

Visual detection period Period of service

Detectable by NDI Visually detectable

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-13

•Cyclic stress spectrum

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-14

Skin crack 3 Based on assumed inspection

Chord crack 2 REQUIRED DTR

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-15

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-16

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-17

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-18

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-19

Certification requirements pre & post Amendment 45

Crack growth •No analysis required •Extensive analysis required

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-20

(Pre - 1978) (Post -1978)

FAIL SAFE DAMAGE TOLERANT SAFE LIFE

• Redundant load path. • Capable of withstanding • Allowable crack size is

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-21

1 Fatigue Environmental Accidental and

Damage Safe Corrosion Discrete Typical

Types of Corrosion Types of Types of

Damage detection Environmental Accidental damage

Approved inspection and

1 Fatigue cracking is assumed to have occurred in the most difficult inspection/access

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-22

Thresholds are based on:

Corrosion prevention and control program inspections

Scheduled maintenance check intervals

Fleet actions for WFD

Strength? Flights? Inspections?

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-24

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-25

K is the defining parameter for crack growth and residual

L- Ext -T77 Alloy, temper & form

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-27

 KA is the apparent fracture toughness

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-28

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-29

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-30

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-32

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-33

Damage Tolerance Overview BYJ30-SDT-P00-00x Page 1-34

Y = 1.0 Y = Jwidtheffect ≠ 1.0 Y ≠ 1.0