11 10 09li PDF

Past Experiences and Future Trends
for Composite Aircraft Structure

11/10/09 Montana State University Seminar
FAA
Larry Ilcewicz
CS&TA, Composites
Main
M i points
i t
Historical perspectives on composite usage
Critical
C iti l design,
d i manufacturing
f t i andd repair
i
issues (including service damage considerations)
Service experiences
AA587 transport accident investigation
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
hhadd a goodd maintenance
i t
andd 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
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
andd seamstresses
t
usedd 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

off the
h hi
high
h costs off new tooling
li andd related
l d retraining
i i off personnel.
l
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)
Major Composite Components

on Boeing Airplanes
FAA
707
737 300
737-300
767
757
747
777
737
727
Carbon fiber
Surface
area
Fiberglass
1950
60
70
80
Fiberglass
and
hybrids
90
2000
5
FAA
Composite Structural Weight in Commercial

Transport and Military Applications
Boeing Commercial
60%
%
Advanced
Structural
Composites
Airbus Commercial
McDonnell Douglas
Commercial
50%
787
Wing+Tail+Fuselage
*
A/FX
U S Defense
U.S.
40%
Future Commercial
Applications
30%
B2
RAH-66
Wing+Tail
V-22
F-22
A-6 Rewing
A380
*
F-18E/F
20%
YF-22
A320
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
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
V-22 Osprey
Wing & fuselage development
*
*P
Prototype aircraft
i
f application
li i
(5 shipsets)
B-2 Bomber
60 foot wing box
C
Composite
e Usage, % Structurral Weightt
FAA
Implementation of Composites in Small

Airplane and Rotorcraft Applications
100
Windecker
Eagle
Slingsby
T67M
Gyroflug
y
g
Speed
Canard
Grob G-115
80
Dornier Seastar
Avtek 400
Lear Fan
2100
60
Israviation
ST-50
Grob/E-Systems
Egrett
Beech
Starship
40
S-76
20
Military Aircraft and

Commercial Transport Application
0
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Year of First Flight

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
FAA
Other Small All-Composite

All-Composite Aircraft
Scaled Technology Works Proteus
SNA Seawind
Morrow Boomerang
Adams Aircraft
10
FAA
Pressurized Business Jets Using Composites

in Fuselage and other Primary Structure
Raytheon Premier I
Raytheon Horizon
AASI Jetcruzer 500

Visionaire Corp. VA10 (Vantage)
11
FAA
Composites in Advanced Rotorcraft, Including

Dynamic Components of Rotor Structure
Sikorsky S92 Rotorcraft
12
FAA
Existing State-of-the-Art in
Composite Aircraft Structures
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

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 off 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
15
FAA
Some Structural Design Details Causing

L l Stress
Local
St
Concentration
C
t ti andd 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
16
Structural Design Detail Leading to Failure

FAA
C
Case
study:
d JVX,
JVX V-22
V 22 O
Osprey ffull
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
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
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

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

20
FAA
Categories of Damage & Defect Considerations

for Primary Composite Aircraft Structures
Category
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
)
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
Category 2: Damage detected by scheduled VID (ranging small to large), deep gouges, mfg.
or directed field inspection @ specified
intervals ((repair
p scenario))
defects/mistakes, major local heat or environmental

degradation that must retain limit load until found
Category 3: Obvious damage detected
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
within a few flights by operations focal

(repair scenario)
C
Category
44: Discrete source damage
known by pilot to limit flight maneuvers
(repair scenario)
Category
g y 5: Severe damage
g created byy
anomalous ground or flight events
(repair scenario)
Damage iin fli

D
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
Categories of Damage
FAA
Category 1: Allowable damage
Category 2: Damage detected
that mayy go
g undetected byy scheduled
or directed field inspection
byy scheduled or directed field

f
inspection at specified intervals
(repair scenario)
(or allowable manufacturing defects)

X-sec off BVID at
Design
Skin Impact Site
Load
Ultimate
1.5 Factor
of Safety
Category
g y1
Exterior Skin Damage
Category 2
Level
Limit
~ Maximum load
per lifetime
Continued
safe flight
X-sec of BVID
I
Impact
t att Flange
Fl
to Skin Transition
Interior Blade
stringer Damage
Allowable
Damage Limit
Critical Damage
Threshold
(ADL)
(CDT)

22
Categories
g
of Damage
g
FAA
Category
3: Obvious damage
Category 4: Discrete source
detected within a few flights

by operations focal
(repair scenario)
damage known by pilot to limit

flight maneuvers (repair scenario)
Ultimate
Design
Load
Level
1.5 Factor
of Safety
Category 3
Limit
Category 4
~ Maximum load
per lifetime
Accidental Damage
to Lower Fuselage
Continued
safe flight
Allowable
Damage Limit
Critical Damage
Threshold
(ADL)
(CDT)

Lost Bonded Repair Patch
Rotor Disk Cut Through the

Aircraft Fuselage Belly and
Wing Center Section to
Reach Opposite
pp
Engine
g
Severe Rudder
Lightning Damage
23
FAA
Categories of Damage
Category 5: Severe damage created by anomalous
ground or flight events (repair scenario)
Birdstrike
(flock)
Maintenance
J ki IIncident
Jacking
id t
Propeller
Mishap
Birdstrike
(big bird)
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.
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 off 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.
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
Mechanical tests of coupons

and elements cut from B737
stabilizers had residual strength
equivalent to those obtained
more than 20 years ago
1 MHz ATTU
Thin Film Pulse Echo
Residual Strength After Service

60
50
Tensile 40
Strength 30
(Ksi) 20
10
0
Region 2
Region 3
Control
(1980 ttests)
(1980s
t)
Shipset 5
(lower skin)
Shipset 5
(upper skin)
Shipset 4
(lower skin)
Shipset 4
(upper skin)
Skin Panel Locations
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
Example of Hail Damage

from 1999 Sydney Storm
Dents and Punctures on

Boeing 757 Inboard Aft Flap
(thin skin of composite sandwich)
Dents on Boeing 777 Aft Flap

(thin skin metal bonded sandwich)
28
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
29
FAA
Recovery of AA587 Vertical Fin

from Jamaica Bay,
Bay New York
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
pportion of vertical stabilizer
Right rear attach point

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 andd
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
FAA
Barriers to Expanded Application
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
2. Concept
Development
1 Initial
1.
I i i l Concept
C
Production
d
Application
An expanding workforce
is needed for applications
Representative
Development Application
34
FAA
Definitions of Scaling Types
Efforts to apply information at one

scale
l off 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
pprocedures,, and cost evaluations
35
Examples of Size Scaling
FAA
Manufacturing
Example:
p Fuselage
g Damage
g Tolerance
Process development
Tooling trials
Material & pprocess control
Structures
Design criteria, requirements and objectives
Buildingg block tests & analysis
y for internal
loads, including the effects of environment
Maintenance
Inspection
p
pprocedure development
p
Repair process development
Repair building block tests & analysis
Manufacturing,
g, structures and
maintenance methods & procedures
36
Examples of Product Scaling
FAA
Product Viability
Example:
p Braided/RTM Fuselage
g Frames
Direct operating costs

(acquisition, fuel, maintenance)
Performance (range, payload, speed)
Market (# aircraft, timing, external factors)
Factory Definition
Floor space and process flow

Q
Quantity
i off equipment
i
andd 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)
37
Product Value Assessment

of New Technology
FAA
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
Components of Ownership
Avionics
11%
Fuel
25%
Ownership
50%
Flight
Crew
14%
Life-cycle cost
related to
structural
weight
i h savings
i
Airframe
Insurance Engine
1%
Maint. Maintenance
6%
4%
Interiors Other
2%
9%
Airframe
51%
Systems
8%
Engines
19%
Life-cycle cost related

to structural reliability,
inspectability, and
repairability
(3)
Proven weight
savings
i
reduce fuel
costs
(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
38
Reduced Cycle Time to Market is Equally

Important to Increased Product Value
FAA
3.0%
6.0%
Total DOC Breakout
Total
DOC
2.5%
g
Savings
Total
Unit
5.0%
Cost
Savings
Fuel
25%
Ownership
50%
2.0%
Insurance Engine
1%
Maint.
4%
Airframe
Maint.
6%
Flight
Crew
14%
4.0%
1.5%
3.0%
1.0%
2.0%
*Assumes recurring and non-recurring
costs are both 50% of total unit cost.
Rate of return = 13%
0.5%
1.0%
0 0%
0.0%
0 0%
0.0%
0
10
15
Development Cycle Time Saved (months)
20
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
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)
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
AC 20-107B (9/09)
2 other Advisory Circulars
Structural
Substantiation
Advances in analysis
& test building blocks
Statistical significance
Environmental effects
g
Manufacturingg integration
Bonded Joint
Technical Issues
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
Advanced Material
F
Forms
and
dP
Processes
Flammability &
Crashworthiness
Support to cabin
safety research groups
Significant progress, which has relevance to all aircraft products, has been gained to date
41
FAA
FAA Approach to Composite

Safety and Certification Initiatives
Evolvingg
Certification and
Service History
Time
Mature
Focused
RE&D
Internal
Policies
New
Technology
gy
Considerations
Rules &
General
G id
Guidance
FARs
Policy
Statements
Advisory
Circulars
Training
g ((Workshops,
p,
Courses, Videos)
Industry
Interface
Detailed
B k
Background
d
Public Documents and
(various forms of
technology transfer) Standards (e.g., CMH-17,
SAE AMS, Contractor Reports)
42
Important Teammates
FAA
Partnerships with industry have been essential,

ee.g.,
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
g gguidelines
NASA research and other support

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

NCAMP supportt tto material
t i l standardization
t d di ti
EASA and other foreign research/standardization

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
44
Past Milestones for Composite Safety & Certification

Policy, Guidance & Training
FAA
Material & Process Control
and Shared Databases
CS&CI 7-Year Plan
Bonded Joints & Structures

Other CS&CI
Initiatives
Composite Structural
Development Workshop
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 Workshopp 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
Policyy
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
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
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 managementt 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
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
48

11 10 09li PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

11 10 09li PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Past Experiences and Future Trends

for Composite Aircraft Structure

FAA composite initiatives

Career challenges in composites

Composite airframe applications are increasing

New Airframe Structures Technologies

Until the 1930s, wood

Museum of Flight, Seattle, WA

transition to all-metal construction was gradual, in large part because

Composite Benefits Driving

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

Major Composite Components

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

Composite Structural Weight in Commercial

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

U.S. Development & Certification Basis

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

Implementation of Composites in Small

Military Aircraft and

Year of First Flight

Lancair and Cirrus Aircraft

Most primary structure

Cirrus Design Corp. SR20

Other Small All-Composite

Scaled Technology Works Proteus

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

Pressurized Business Jets Using Composites

AASI Jetcruzer 500

Composites in Advanced Rotorcraft, Including

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

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

Critical Issues for Composite Designs

Maintenance inspection and repair

Some Structural Design Details Causing

Example design details given above can lead to static

Structural Design Detail Leading to Failure

Allowed Strength for a Composite Design

Base material property

Design value (including

General Structural Design Load

Increasing Damage Severity

Key Composite Behavior

Environmental effects require careful consideration

Limited service experiences yield unknowns

Categories of Damage & Defect Considerations

Category 1: Allowable damage that may

defects/mistakes, major local heat or environmental

Category 3: Obvious damage detected

Damage obvious to operations in a walk-around

within a few flights by operations focal

Damage iin fli

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

Category 1: Allowable damage

Category 2: Damage detected

byy scheduled or directed field

(or allowable manufacturing defects)

Increasing Damage Severity

Category 4: Discrete source

detected within a few flights

damage known by pilot to limit

Increasing Damage Severity

Rotor Disk Cut Through the

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