You are on page 1of 48

Past Experiences and Future Trends for Composite Aircraft Structure

11/10/09 Montana State University Seminar Main M i points i t Historical perspectives on composite usage Critical C iti l design, d i manufacturing f t i and d repair i issues (including service damage considerations) Service experiences
AA587 transport accident investigation

FAA
Larry Ilcewicz
CS&TA, Composites

Barriers to expanded p use


Scaling critical to product development

FAA composite initiatives


Background B k d & technical t h i l highlights hi hli ht

Career challenges in composites

FAA

Main Points

Composite airframe applications are increasing Design and manufacturing integration is essential during composite product development and certification Structural details and service damage g drive design g Some service durability problems for minimum gage structures Composites used in empennage main torque box structures h have h had d a good d maintenance i t and d safety f t history hi t Advanced composite manufacturing, maintenance and structures technologies continue to evolve Resource dilution and a desire to be more efficient is driving industry to standardize and work together Ongoing FAA initiatives support industry advances Challenging career opportunities will be available
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 2

FAA

New Airframe Structures Technologies

Until the 1930s, wood was the primary material used in aircraft construction. It was plentiful
and cheap, had large bulk and strength for its weight, and could easily be worked into any desired shape

Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA

. Skilled Skill d carpenters, t cabinet bi t makers, k and d seamstresses t used d their th i talents t l t to t help h l transform t f experimental i t l aircraft i ft shops h into major manufacturing centers. The first planes they built were of a mixed construction that combined wood, fabric, steel and small amounts of aluminum for reinforcement. Manufactures used ash and spruce for the wings which were usually built around two I-shaped spars, and braced either by internal cables or by forming the leading-edge surface surface with ply. Seamstresses applied the final touches, covering wings with linen, cotton, or sometimes silk. After World War I, builders made the transition for the biplane configuration to monoplanes and other aerodynamic refinements. Among the many structural improvements of this time were the monocoque fuselage and better metals.

transition to all-metal construction was gradual, in large part because of f the h hi high h costs of f new tooling li and d related l d retraining i i of f personnel. l
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 3

FAA

Composite Benefits Driving the Initial Applications


Weight reduction red ction Improvements in fatigue resistance Corrosion prevention Other Oth benefits b fit noted t d in i some programs
Potential fabrication cost advantages for parts with complex shapes Performance advantages (e.g., damage tolerance)

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Major Composite Components on Boeing Airplanes


707 747 737 727 737 300 737-300 767 757 777

Carbon fiber
Surface area

Fiberglass

Fiberglass and hybrids


90 2000
5

1950

60

70

80

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Composite Structural Weight in Commercial Transport and Military Applications


Boeing Commercial 60% % Advanced Structural Composites Airbus Commercial McDonnell Douglas Commercial 50% U S Defense U.S. Future Commercial Applications
RAH-66 Wing+Tail

787 Wing+Tail+Fuselage *
A/FX

40%

30%

B2 V-22 A-6 Rewing F-22 F-18E/F YF-22 A320

A380 *

20%

A321 A330 F-18A 777 10% A310 A300 A340 MD-87 C-17A MD-82 757 MD-83 MD-90 MD-11 F-15A F-16A 767 737

0% 1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

U.S. Development & Certification Basis


Advanced composite transport airframe structures were derived from NASA Prototype & military applications pp from the 1970/1980s Boeing 777 Empennage Certified in 1995

*
*P Prototype aircraft i f application li i (5 shipsets)

V-22 Osprey Wing & fuselage development B-2 Bomber 60 foot wing box
7

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Implementation of Composites in Small Airplane and Rotorcraft Applications


C Composite e Usage, % Structur ral Weight t

100
Windecker Eagle

Gyroflug y g Speed Canard

Slingsby T67M Grob G-115

Israviation ST-50 Grob/E-Systems Egrett

80 60 40
S-76

Dornier Seastar Avtek 400 Lear Fan 2100

Beech Starship

20 0
65 70 75

Military Aircraft and Commercial Transport Application 80 85 90 95


8

Year of First Flight


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Lancair and Cirrus Aircraft (Certified in 1998)

Most primary structure uses composite materials l

Cirrus Design Corp. SR20

Extensive use of adhesive bonding


PAC USA L Lancair i LC40 LC40-550FG 550FG
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 9

FAA

Other Small All-Composite All-Composite Aircraft

Scaled Technology Works Proteus

Morrow Boomerang

SNA Seawind

Adams Aircraft
10

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Pressurized Business Jets Using Composites in Fuselage and other Primary Structure

Raytheon Premier I

Raytheon Horizon

AASI Jetcruzer 500


Visionaire Corp. VA10 (Vantage)
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 11

FAA

Composites in Advanced Rotorcraft, Including Dynamic Components of Rotor Structure


Sikorsky S92 Rotorcraft

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

12

FAA

Existing State-of-the-Art in Composite Aircraft Structures

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

13

FAA

Critical Issues for Composite Designs


Integration g of structural design g detail with repeatable manufacturing processes
Material and process control

Design details details, manufacturing flaws and service damage, which cause local stress concentration
Strength, St th fatigue f ti & damage d tolerance t l Dependency on tests Scaling issues

Environmental effects
Temperature Moisture content

Maintenance inspection and repair


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 14

FAA

Manufacturing Factors Critical to Structural Properties Properties*


Continuous control of key process steps
Most raw materials are perishable and require environmental controls (storage and use) Must eliminate contamination threats in lay-up and bonding process steps Reproducibility of lay-up and bagging process steps Systematic control of part cure/consolidation Many M potential t ti l sources of f defects d f t in i machining, hi i handling and assembly of cured composites a g of o manufacturing a u actu g technicians tec c a s Training

* Taken from the MIDO Course on Composites for the Aviation Safety Inspector
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 15

FAA

Some Structural Design Details Causing L l Stress Local St Concentration C t ti and d Redistribution R di t ib ti
Bolted joints Doors and windows System provisions (penetrations and attachments) Access and drain holes Attachment tabs Stringer terminations (run-outs) Bonded attachments Pl drop-offs Ply d ff

Example design details given above can lead to static strength or durability problems if not accounted for with sufficient tests and analysis in structural development
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 16

Structural Design Detail Leading to Failure


FAA

C Case study: d JVX, JVX V-22 V 22 O Osprey f full ll scale l wing i test box b

Premature failure of the forty five foot-long foot long wing box structure, with upper surface compression cracking occurring in the central bay region during development tests.
Ref: R f Composite C Failure F l Analysis A l Handbook, H db k Volume Vl II - Technical T h l Handbook, Part 3 - Case Histories, DOT/FAA/CT-91/23, Feb. 1992
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 17

FAA

Allowed Strength for a Composite Design must Account for Defects and Damage

Stress

Base material property (defect free) ( )

Design value (including representative defects*)


p Clearly visible damage * Non-visible impacts Porosity (Detectable in service) Cut fibers Delaminations etc. t

Strain
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 18

FAA

General Structural Design Load and Damage Considerations


Ultimate Design Load Level
1.5 Factor of Safety

Limit
~ Maximum load per lifetime Continued safe flight

Allowable Damage Limit

Critical Damage Threshold

(ADL) ( )

(CDT)

Increasing Damage Severity


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 19

FAA

Key Composite Behavior


Relatively flat S-N curves & large scatter for repeated load cases
Relatively high repeated loads needed for growth Load enhancement factors used to show reliability

Environmental effects require careful consideration Relatively large manufacturing defects and impact damage are considered in design criteria Compression & shear residual strength are affected b damage by d ( i i l for (critical f many structures) ) Similar tensile residual strength behavior to metals
(e g strength versus toughness trades) (e.g.,

Limited service experiences yield unknowns


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 20

FAA

Categories of Damage & Defect Considerations for Primary Composite Aircraft Structures
Category Examples
(not inclusive of all damage types)
BVID, minor environmental degradation, scratches, gouges and allowable mfg. defects that must retain ultimate load for the specified life defects/mistakes, major local heat or environmental degradation that must retain limit load until found Damage obvious to operations in a walk-around inspection or due to loss of form/fit/function that must retain limit load until found by operations Damage i D in fli flight ht from f events t that th t are obvious b i to t pilot il t (rotor burst, bird-strike, lightning, exploding gear tires, severe in-flight hail) Damage occurring due to rare service events or to an extent beyond that considered in design, which must be reported by operations for immediate action
21

Category 1: Allowable damage that may


go undetected by scheduled or directed field i inspection ti (or ( allowable ll bl manufacturing f i defects) d f ) or directed field inspection @ specified intervals ( (repair p scenario) )

Category 2: Damage detected by scheduled VID (ranging small to large), deep gouges, mfg.

Category 3: Obvious damage detected


within a few flights by operations focal (repair scenario)

C Category 4 4: Discrete source damage


known by pilot to limit flight maneuvers (repair scenario)

Category g y 5: Severe damage g created by y


anomalous ground or flight events (repair scenario)

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Categories of Damage
Category 1: Allowable damage
that may y go g undetected by y scheduled or directed field inspection
(or allowable manufacturing defects)
X-sec of f BVID at Design Skin Impact Site Load
Level Ultimate
1.5 Factor of Safety

FAA

Category 2: Damage detected


by y scheduled or directed field f inspection at specified intervals (repair scenario)

Category g y1 Exterior Skin Damage Category 2


Limit
~ Maximum load per lifetime

X-sec of BVID I Impact t at t Flange Fl to Skin Transition


Allowable Damage Limit

Interior Blade stringer Damage


Critical Damage Threshold

Continued safe flight

(ADL)

(CDT)

Increasing Damage Severity


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 22

Categories g of Damage g
FAA Category 3: Obvious damage

Category 4: Discrete source


damage known by pilot to limit flight maneuvers (repair scenario)

detected within a few flights by operations focal (repair scenario)


Ultimate Design Load Level
1.5 Factor of Safety

Category 3 Limit Category 4 ~ Maximum load


per lifetime Continued safe flight

Accidental Damage to Lower Fuselage

Rotor Disk Cut Through the Aircraft Fuselage Belly and Wing Center Section to Reach Opposite pp Engine g

Allowable Damage Limit

Critical Damage Threshold

(ADL)

(CDT)

Increasing Damage Severity Lost Bonded Repair Patch

Severe Rudder Lightning Damage


23

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Categories of Damage
Category 5: Severe damage created by anomalous
ground or flight events (repair scenario)

Birdstrike (flock)

Maintenance J ki I Jacking Incident id t Propeller Mishap

Birdstrike (big bird)

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

24

FAA

Boeing 737 Composite Horizontal Development and Certification


Developed and certified under NASA Aircraft Energy Efficiency, ACEE, program (1977-1982)

NASA ACEE 737 Horizontal Stabilizer Structural Arrangement

Building Block Approach

Taken from: Structural Teardown Inspection of an Advanced Composite Stabilizer for Boeing 737 Aircraft," D. Hoffman, J. Kollgaard and Matthew Miller, 8th Joint FAA/DoD/NASA Aging Aircraft Conference, January, 2005. Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 25

FAA

Service Experiences for Boeing 737 Composite Horizontal Stabilizer

Five shipsets entered service in 1984 Structural inspection program that included detailed visual inspection, with some pulse pulse-echo echo ultrasound in specific areas to collect fleet data g service-induced damage g events to main Four significant torque box structure as of 2001 technical paper:
(1+2) De-icer impact damage to upper surface skins (3) Fan F blade bl d penetration t ti of f lower l surface f skin ki (4) Severe impact damage to front spar web and upper & lower chord radii
Taken T k from: f Composite Empennage Primar Primary Structure Str ct re Service Ser ice Experience," E perience " G. G Mabson, Mabson A. Fawcett and G. Oakes, CANCOM Conference, Montreal, Canada, August 2001. Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 26

FAA

B737 Horizontal Stabilizer Teardown Inspection

Inspections found little deterioration due to wear, fatigue, or Factory Ultrasonic Scans of Skin Panels environmental factors Production NDI results indicated that todays factory standard is advanced beyond that of early 1980s 1980s Vintage Todays 3.5 MHz
High levels of porosity are evident in much of the composite structure
1 MHz ATTU
60 50

Thin Film Pulse Echo

Residual Strength After Service


Control (1980 t (1980s tests) t) Shipset 5 (lower skin) Shipset 5 (upper skin) Shipset 4 (lower skin) Shipset 4 (upper skin)

Mechanical tests of coupons and elements cut from B737 stabilizers had residual strength equivalent to those obtained more than 20 years ago

Tensile 40 Strength 30 (Ksi) 20


10 0 Region 2 Region 3

Skin Panel Locations

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

27

FAA

History of Composite Service Problems


Composites used in fragile, thin-gaged control surfaces and secondary structures pose some problems for airlines
Prone to damage from impact and environmental exposures (has not proved to be a safety issue, instead it has been an economic burden) In many cases, the problems can be traced to bad design details

Lack of industry standardization and training for maintenance

Dents and Punctures on Boeing 757 Inboard Aft Flap (thin skin of composite sandwich)

Example of Hail Damage from 1999 Sydney Storm

Dents on Boeing 777 Aft Flap (thin skin metal bonded sandwich)
28

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Environmental Durability Problems from Early Use of Aramid/Epoxy Materials

Transverse Matrix Cracking (TVM) of aramid/epoxy sandwich facesheets yielded a path for water ingression into honeycomb core

Boeing 767 Aircraft Developed in 1980s

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

29

FAA

Recovery of AA587 Vertical Fin from Jamaica Bay, Bay New York

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

30

FAA

Fuselage Attachment Structure at the AA587 A id t Site Accident Sit in i Belle B ll Harbor, H b New N York Y k

Left center attach point with portion of vertical stabilizer Left rear attach point with portion of vertical stabilizer p

Right rear attach point


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 31

FAA

Two Main Branches of the Fault Tree Being Studied for the AA587 Accident
V ti l Fin Vertical Fi Failure F il

Vertical Fin Capability p y Less Than Expected Structural design Manufacturing quality Material degradation Service S i event and d maintenance

Vertical Fin Loads Greater Than Expected Upset condition (e.g., wake k vortex/turbulence) t /t b l ) Rudder problems Loss of flight stability and control Pilot input
32

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Barriers to Expanded Application

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

33

FAA

Consider Six Stages of Material Development and Application


6 Field 6. Fi ld Support S

Where the ball is often dropped between developers p and users

5. Production Technology 4. Product Definition Readiness and Certification 3. Large-Scale Development Production d Application

An expanding workforce is needed for applications

2. Concept Development 1 Initial 1. I i i l Concept C

Representative Development Application


34

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Definitions of Scaling Types

Efforts to apply information at one scale l of f study t d to t predict di t the th behavior b h i at a larger, more complete level
References for charts 43 through 47
a) Composite Technology Development for Commercial Airframe Structures, L.B. Ilcewicz Chapter 6 Ilcewicz, 6.08 08 from Comprehensive Composites Volume 6,, published by Elsevier Science LTD, 2000 b) Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures, L.B. Ilcewicz, D.J. Hoffman, and A.J. Fawcett, Chapter 6.07 from Comprehensive Composites Volume 6,, published by Elsevier Science LTD, 2000

Efforts to verify a technology basis, which links design components, factory process cells, maintenance procedures, p , and cost evaluations
35

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Examples of Size Scaling


Example: p Fuselage g Damage g Tolerance Process development Tooling trials Material & p process control

Manufacturing

Structures
Design criteria, requirements and objectives Building g block tests & analysis y for internal loads, including the effects of environment

Maintenance
Inspection p procedure development p p Repair process development Repair building block tests & analysis

Manufacturing, g, structures and maintenance methods & procedures


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 36

FAA

Examples of Product Scaling


Example: p Braided/RTM Fuselage g Frames Direct operating costs (acquisition, fuel, maintenance) Performance (range, payload, speed) Market (# aircraft, timing, external factors)

Product Viability

Factory Definition
Floor space and process flow Q Quantity i of f equipment i and d tools l Quality and process controls Staffing needs

Certification
Design, manufacturing, and maintenance definition/documentation Design, g , manufacturing, g, and maintenance verification (material qualification, mfg. conformity and structural substantiation)
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 37

FAA

Product Value Assessment of New Technology


Composite p technology gy is of interest in new aircraft products p of all types because it can help decrease total direct operating costs (DOC) in 3 key areas (see example below from transport aircraft)

(1) Potential for lower manufacturing g costs

Typical Components of Total DOC


Fuel 25%

Ownership 50%

Flight Crew 14%

Life-cycle cost related to structural weight i h savings i

Components of Ownership
Avionics 11% Systems 8% Interiors Other 2% 9%

Airframe Insurance Engine 1% Maint. Maintenance 6% 4%

(3) Proven weight savings i reduce fuel costs

Airframe 51%

Engines 19%

Life-cycle cost related to structural reliability, inspectability, and repairability

(2) Potential for lower maintenance costs

Total DOC savings on the order of 5 to 8% appear possible with composites applied to both transport wing and fuselage
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 38

FAA

Reduced Cycle Time to Market is Equally Important to Increased Product Value


Unless U l new composites it technology t h l becomes b as assessable to the engineering community as metals, Total DOC benefits are lost
Total DOC Breakout
Fuel 25%

Total DOC 2.5% g Savings


2.0%

Ownership 50%
Flight Crew 14%

Total Unit 5.0% Cost Savings


4.0% 3.0% 2.0%

Insurance Engine 1% Maint. 4%

Airframe Maint. 6%

1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0 0% 0.0% 0 5 10 15 20


*Assumes recurring and non-recurring costs are both 50% of total unit cost. Rate of return = 13%

1.0% 0 0% 0.0%

Development Cycle Time Saved (months)

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

3.0%

6.0%

Lack of composite standardization and engineering resource dilution pose serious safety & certification issues and limit aircraft ai c aft product p oduct applications
39

Ongoing FAA Composite Safety and Certification Initiatives


FAA

Actively working with industry since 1999

Safety management (airworthiness) Task Groups initiated within composite industry standards organizations
(CMH-17, CACRC)
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 40

Composite Technical Thrust Areas


FAA

Advancements depend on close integration between areas Material Control Control, Standardization Damage Tolerance and and Shared Databases Maintenance Practices Critical defects (impact & mfg.) Progress to Date Structural Substantiation
Advances in analysis & test building blocks Statistical significance Environmental effects g integration g Manufacturing
AC 20-107B (9/09) 2 other Advisory Circulars

6 Policy Memos p 11 Workshops 3 Training Initiatives 2 Technical Documents CMH-17 Updates SAE CACRC Standard ~50 FAA R&D Reports

Bonded B d d structure t t & repair i issues i Fatigue & damage considerations Life assessment (tests & analyses) Accelerated testing Structural tear-down tear down aging studies NDI damage metrics Equivalent levels of safety Training standards

Bonded Joint Technical Issues

Advanced Material F Forms and dP Processes

Flammability & Crashworthiness


Support to cabin safety research groups
41

Significant progress, which has relevance to all aircraft products, has been gained to date
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

FAA Approach to Composite Safety and Certification Initiatives


Evolving g Mature
Rules & General G id Guidance FARs Policy Statements Advisory Circulars

Certification and Service History

Focused RE&D

Time

Internal Policies Industry Interface

Training g( (Workshops, p, Courses, Videos) Detailed B k Background d Public Documents and (various forms of technology transfer) Standards (e.g., CMH-17,
SAE AMS, Contractor Reports)

New Technology gy Considerations

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

42

Important Teammates
FAA

Partnerships with industry have been essential,


e.g., e g CMH-17, CMH 17 SAE P P-17, 17 CACRC, CACRC ASTM, ASTM SAMPE, SAMPE AGATE, AGATE SATS, RITA, SAS/IAB/AACE
Training T i i Databases Standardization Engineering g gg guidelines

NASA research and other support


Significant g research support pp since 1970/1980s AA587, A300-600 accident investigation

NASA

DOD and DARPA research


NCAMP support tt to material t i l standardization t d di ti

EASA and other foreign research/standardization


Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 43

FAA

FAA Joint Advanced Materials and Structures (JAMS) Centers of Excellence


New FAA JAMS Centers of Excellence to provide research and training in support of expanding composite applications

Wichita State University

Northwestern University Purdue University Tuskegee University University of California at Los Angeles University y of California at San Diego g University of Delaware

University of Washington
Edmonds Community College Oregon State University Washington State University

University of Utah

Florida International University y

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

44

Past Milestones for Composite Safety & Certification Policy, Guidance & Training
FAA
Material & Process Control and Shared Databases Bonded Joints & Structures Other CS&CI Initiatives
Composite Structural Development Workshop CS&CI 7-Year Plan FAA/Industry Bonded Structures Workshop I NTSB/Airbus/NASA/FAA FAA/EASA/Boeing/Airbus AA Flt587 Accident Investigation (A300 Secondary DT & Maintenance WG Composite Vertical Fin) Structures Policy

Start Bonded Draft Composite ASTM Workshop p for Structures Initiatives Composite Fracture Maintenance Training Modules, FAA Technical AGATE Shared Document & Workshop II CMH-17 Database Workshop Prepreg M&P Spec. Revision F FAA Bonded Advisory Circular Static Strength Substantiation Structures Policy y Policy and Workshop NTSB/FAA/WSU Initial material qualification Composite Cert. SH Nimbus Accident Roadmap Tech. Doc. and equivalency policy TSB/NTSB/FAA/Airbus FAA/NASA/Industry Investigation Rudder Investigation Structures Workshop Update material Initiated sandwich FAA/Industry Prepreg qualification and FAA/Industry Composite damage tolerance studies equivalency i l policy li M&P & Spec. S Workshop kh UCSB Peel Ply Research Maintenance Training Workshop I FAA/Industry LRM Policy on material selection TTCP Bonded Structures New Rule & AC for FAA/Industry Bonded M&P Spec. Workshop Structures Workshop II Certification Document Rotorcraft Fatigue & DT guideline (T rule) Italian Industry Shared Database Workshop

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005
45

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Recent Milestones for Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Initiatives


FAA
FAA/NRC Workshop (5/04) Composite Maintenance Overview FAA Seattle Workshop (11/04) Initiate Composite Maintenance Training (CMT) JAMS CMT Develop. (11/04-7/05) Draft Course Objectives/Modules FAA/Industry CMT Workshop (9/05) Detailed CMT Review Airbus/Boeing FAA/EASA Composite Presentations, recaps and breakout session summaries at: Damage Tolerance & Maintenance WG http://www.niar.wichita.edu/niarworkshops/ Toulouse (9/05) Seattle (3/06) JAMS CMT Develop. Develop (7/06 (7/06-6/07) 6/07) SAE CACRC Course Standard FAA/EASA/Industry Damage Tolerance & Maintenance Workshops Chi Chicago (7/06)

Amsterdam A t d (5/07)

FAA/EASA/TCCA WG Draft CMH-17 Certification and Compliance Chapter, V3C3 (9/07) Ongoing g g CMH-17 Revision G Developments p (2005-2007) ( )

2004

2005

2006

2007
46

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

Future milestones for Composite Safety & Certification Guidance and Training
FAA
Release CMH-17 Revision G
Advances in statistics, test methods and data reduction protocol Major Volume 3 re-organization New Volume 6 (Sandwich) New certification & compliance chapter New crashworthiness chapter N safety New f t management t chapter h t Updates to damage tolerance & maintenance

Implement Composite Maintenance Awareness Course High g Energy gy Blunt Impact p Awareness Release AC 20-107B (Composite Aircraft Structure) NCAMP shared databases and specifications (CMH-17, SAE AMS) New CACRC Airworthiness TG Initiatives (major repair)

FAA/Industry education initiatives


Composite damage tolerance guidance Crashworthiness rule & guidance

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013
47

Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar

FAA

Career Challenges in Composites

Numerous challenges in design/manufacturing integration require multiple engineering skills and teamwork Skills to advance manufacturing methods (i.e., tooling, process modeling, automation, quality controls, equipment design) Business/eng. skills to overcome economic issues, which limit applications (design cost and business case analyses) Skills to combine analysis methods, databases and engineering tools to evaluate the effects of damage and defects Skills to advance maintenance procedures (i.e., repair and NDI) Research and teaching skills with close links to applications (applied R&D, distance learning and continuous education) Willingness to lead or support a team, depending on the project
Presented by L. Ilcewicz at 11/10/09 Montana State Univ. Seminar 48