Professional Documents
Culture Documents
20000032046
20000032046
/ CR-2000-209847
Structural
Concepts
Design Methodology
of Uncertainty
February
of Aeronautics
of Washington,
2000
Rusk
and Astronautics
Seattle,
Washington
Based
on
The NASA
STI Program
Office
CONFERENCE
SPECIAL PUBLICATION.
Scientific,
technical, or historical information
from
NASA programs,
projects, and missions,
often concerned
with subjects having
substantial
public interest.
TECHNICAL
PUBLICATION.
Reports
of completed
research or a major
significant phase of research that
present the results of NASA programs
and include extensive data or theoretical
analysis. Includes compilations
of
significant scientific and technical data
and information
deemed to be of
continuing
reference value. NASA
counterpart
of peer-reviewed
formal
professional
papers, but having less
stringent limitations
on manuscript
length and extent of graphic
presentations.
TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM.
analysis.
CONTRACTOR
REPORT.
Scientific
and
PUBLICATION.
Information
(STI) Program Office plays a key
part in helping NASA maintain this important
role.
disseminating
the results of its research and
development
activities. These results are
published
by NASA in the NASA STI Report
Series, which includes the following report
types:
... in Profile
TECHNICAL
TRANSLATION.
language translations
of foreign
scientific and technical material
pertinent
to NASA's
English-
mission.
Specialized
services that complement
the
STI Program Office's diverse offerings
include creating custom thesauri, building
customized
databases,
organizing
and
publishing
research results ... even
providing
videos.
For more information
Program
about
the NASA
STI
Home
to
Write to:
NASA STI Help Desk
NASA Center for AeroSpace
7121 Standard Drive
Hanover,
MD 21076-1320
Information
NASA
/ CR-2000-209847
Structural
Concepts
K. Y. Lin,
Jiaji
Department
Space
and
David
of Aeronautics
University
National
Du,
Design Methodology
of Uncertainty
of Washington,
Aeronautics
and
Based
on
Rusk
Astronautics
Seattle,
Washington
and
Administration
Langley Research
Center
Hampton,
Virginia 23681-2199
February
2000
Prepared
for Langley Research
under Grant NAG-I-2055
Center
Available
from:
MD 21076-1320
(301) 621-0390
Information
(CASI)
National Technical
Information
VA 22161-2171
(703) 605-6000
Service
(NTIS)
FOREWORD
This
report
summarizes
September
30,
The principal
research
under
investigator
assistant.
researcher
and support
project
from
the
Research
period
Center
Backman
manager
from
of the Boeing
Stroud
of the FAA
of NASA,
are greatly
of May
Grant
David
West
is Dr. W. Jefferson
Dr. Jeff
Swartz
during
Langley
Du, a visiting
Dr. Bjorn
of this research
Ilcewicz
accomplished
the NASA
Dr. Jiaji
The NASA
work
of this program
this project.
Dr. Larry
1999,
the
No.
Rusk
Virginia
Dr. Bjorn
1998
NAG-I-2055.
University,
Company
Stroud.
16,
was
the
also contributed
Invaluable
Backman
appreciated.
to
discussions
of Boeing,
ABSTRACT
The
principal
tolerant
goal
aircraft
past service
of this
structures
using
experience.
for a given
is defined
as the compliment
The cumulative
of Safety"
The
an existing
strength
load
in-service
and
of the
new
the
required
composite
sandwich
derived
data from
component,
structural
safety
sizing
parameters
approach
broad
potential
has
design,
level
above
definition
existing
aircraft,
(sizing).
The
the flaw
consists
design
with results
to the relative
safety
of the
application
to damage-tolerant
uncertainty.
showing
aircraft
event
the critical
following
analyses
was
design.
"Level
The
"Level
in the structure.
configuration
method
types,
than
the baseline
tolerance
damage
inspection
of the discrete
of the
establishing
structural
that incorporates
at each location
damage
and determining
size larger
is the product
type present
conducting
for various
the structural
structure
for damage
of an equivalent
for a single
flaw
and that
process
of Safety"
of Safety"
exists,
of each damage
the
"Level
that a single
structure
a design
on the concept
"Level
from
damage
panel
is based
The discrete
of Safety"
structural
of structural
process
of the
method
is to develop
of the probability
strength
"Level
values
design
collecting
for
structure.
program
a definition
The design
of Safety"
flaw
research
steps:
safety
for residual
for a given
demonstrated
the sensitivity
"Level
structural
level
on
a
of
of Safety"
design
with
EXECUTIVE
There
are
at least
using
factors
apply
to aircraft
contain
fundamental
of safety
novel
measured
two
and
that
structural
measure
of various
of safety
throughout
the
aircraft.
damage
structures
past service
experience.
an approach
of an equivalent
"Level
inspection
is defined
flaw
the discrete
location
The
design
method
in-service
an existing
strength
of the
structural
new
To demonstrate
notch
strength
"Level
and
of the
for each
of safety
"Level
flaw
of each
with
and
based
efficiency
a design
"Level
of Safety"
exists,
of
for a single
flaw
size larger
structure
damage
no
on the concept
that a single
the relative
of structural
design
and
be easily
is to develop
a definition
of the structure
cannot
In addition,
program
to
systems,
to determine
level
of the probability
procedures
be difficult
material
aircraft.
discrete
of Safety"
may
reliability
structural
The
strength
values
derived
for each
safety
damage
above
design,
level
will
is the product
type
present
of
at each
aircraft,
conducting
consists
establishing
damage
and determining
of the
the baseline
tolerance
structural
following
steps:
safety
analyses
level
for residual
configuration
for a given
(sizing).
methodology
on a new
as a function
analysis
type.
definition
existing
component,
strength
A two-step
the
data from
structural
the design
for residual
damage.
from
damage
analyzed
new
it is not possible
aircraft
is studied.
as the compliment
of Safety"
of safety
using
design
in the structure.
collecting
for
of Safety"
use
of this research
to damage-tolerant
The cumulative
"Level
goal
aircraft
procedures
is a consistent
aircraft
that incorporates
not be detected.
there
tolerant
Safety"
that
these
safety
principal
for
event
on the
The
process
In this report,
levels
As a result,
options
it is unlikely
First,
configurations,
Second,
component.
design
to traditional
factors.
unconventional
concepts.
for a structural
importance
shortcomings
knockdown
have
SUMMARY
model
The residual
structure,
of damage
was
used
strength
a composite
size
sandwich
for disbond,
to determine
vs. damage
panel
delamination
post-buckling
size
results
were
was
and
residual
used
to
TABLE
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
1.2
Review
of existing
OBJECTIVES
EQUIVALENT
technologies
LEVEL
General
Approach
3.2
Defining
"Level
3.3
Establishing
3.4
Collection
3.5
Application
3.6
Damage
3.7
Discussion
3.8
Mathematical
of Safety".
a Baseline
Data
16
.....................................................
17
17
on Existing
17
......................................................................
Structures
to Advanced
22
..........................................................
Structural
Design
Concepts
23
.....................
................................................................................
Considerations
Introduction
4.2
Material
4.3
Tensile
4.4
Compressive
4.5
Residual
Strength
strength
Case
1: Panels
4.5.2
Case 2: Panels
4.5.3
Case 3: Panels
5.3
Examples
OF EXAMPLE
.............................
STRUCTURE
...........
35
...............................................................................
37
.......................................................................
Honeycomb
with a Disbond
Sandwich
Panels
...................................
...........................................................................
with a Delamination
with Notches
35
35
of the laminates
of Damaged
33
....................................................................
..............................................................................
39
39
40
47
51
...................................................................................................................
55
.....................................................................................................................
55
DEMONSTRATION
Outline
Formulation
.................................................................................
of the Laminates
4.5.1
5.2
DETERMINATION
and Properties
Strength
Introduction
of Safety
31
.................................................................................................................
Systems
5.1
in the Level
25
26
...................................................................................................................
4.1
RESULTS
APPROACH
of Safety
Schemes
STRENGTH
Summary
12
........................................................................................
Level
of Methodology
RESIDUAL
4.7
.................................................................................
OF SAFETY
Size Updating
Discussion
11
.......................................................................................................
of Flaw
4.6
11
.................................................................................................................
3.1
...........................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
OF CONTENTS
OF DESIGN
METHOD
..............................................................
.................................................................................................................
of Design
Procedures
of Equivalent
AND
Safety
CONCLUSIONS
.....................................................................................
Based
Design
............................................................
.................................................................................
57
57
57
59
65
TABLE
Figure
1. Flow-Chart
Figure
70
3. Bayesian
Updating
of Detected
Damage Size Distribution
with Measured
Size of 3,4,5 Inches ...............................................................................................
71
Figure
Figure
of Developing
OF FIGURES
Equivalent
Safety
Aircraft
...........................................
Case
Damage
3. Notches
2
Figure
5. Finite
Element
Mesh
for a Sandwich
Panel
with a Circular
Figure
6. Finite
Element
Mesh
for a Sandwich
Panel
with an Elliptical
Figure
7. Verification
Figure
8. Buckling
Figure
9. Case 1: Buckling
Load of a Face Sheet with a Circular Disbond (Variation
Thickness)
.............................................................................................................
Figure
of Finite
Load
10. Buckling
Figure
11. Case
Figure
12. Case
Sequence)
1: Buckling
Stacking
Figure
of a Face
Sequence)
13. Comparison
Isotropic
for Buckling
Disbond
Sheet
under
Uniform
with an Elliptical
Load
of a Face
Sheet
Load
of a Face
Sheet
Disbond
Damage
.................
74
Determination
..............
75
..........................
(Variation
76
in
77
in
Element
Analysis
Open
Result
of a Sandwich
(Variation
1: Residual
in
Disbond
79
(Variation
in Compression
Panel
in Thickness)
Strength
Solution
for an
in Thickness)
Disbond
Loaded
..................................................................
Panel
81
with Analytical
Solution for an
.................................................
82
with a Circular
of a Sandwich
(Variation
with Analytical
in
80
Hole ............................................................
15. Residual
Compression
(Variation
...............................................................................................
of Finite
Strength
78
Disbond
with an Elliptical
Figure
Loaded
73
Pressure
with a Circular
14. Comparison
of Finite Element Analysis
Results
Isotropic Plate with an Elliptical
Through Notch
16. Case
....................
...............................................................................................
Figure
Figure
Load
Damage
.............................................................................................................
1. Buckling
Stacking
Model
of an Elliptical
Load
Thickness)
Element
69
with an Elliptical
in
83
Disbond
................................................
84
Probability
Figure37.
Level
Figure38.
Density
of Safety
Function
vs. Critical
Design
Load
Loaded
in Compression
vs. Level
Figure39.
Design
Loaded
Figure40.
with Various
for Detected
Damage
of Safety
Damage
Inspection
for a Sandwich
Panel
Inspection
103
104
with a Circular
Disbond
I) .......................................................
106
Disbond
107
Design
Load
of Safety
Loaded
in Compression
Figure41.
Design
Loaded
Figure42.
Design
Load
Disbond
Figure43.
Design
Disbond
Figure44.
Figure45.
Figure47.
Figure48.
Figure49.
Load
(Inspection
Loaded
with a Circular
Disbond
108
Disbond
109
of Failure
in Compression
vs. Probability
Type
Panel
II) .....................................................
vs. Probability
Loaded
for a Sandwich
(Inspection
of Failure
in Compression
for a Sandwich
Type
Type
with a Circular
I) ........................................
for a Sandwich
(Inspection
Panel
Panel
Design
Load
vs. Probability
Loaded
of Failure
in Compression
I) ........................................
for a Sandwich
(Inspection
Type
Panel
Design
vs. Level
Load
Loaded
Design
vs. Level
Load
of Safety
for a Sandwich
in Compression
of Safety
(Inspection
for a Sandwich
in Compression
(Inspection
Panel
Type
Panel
112
113
114
with an Elliptical
I) ................................
115
with a Circular
Delamination
Loaded
II) ...............................
116
Design Load
Delamination
117
Type
111
with an Elliptical
II) .......................................
Design Load
Delamination
Delamination
110
with an Elliptical
Disbond
Figure46.
vs. Level
Type
...........
(Inspection
Types
Methods
Derived
.............................................................................................
10
122
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Traditional
safety
design
procedures
knockdown
for aircraft
and knockdown
factors
have
been
structures
factors
obtained
are based
on a combination
strength.
Both
past
decades
of design
traditional
design
for the
from
the
five
of factors
the factors
of
of safety
for
and
metal
aircraft.
There
are
First,
at least
because
materials,
apply
novel
that
structural
in essence,
condition
temperature,
unnecessary
weight
A second
that
throughout
the
improvement
structures
approach
for designing
moisture,
damage,
traditional
of various
of safety
safety.
design
procedures
available
during
of these
the design
to produce
the case
for
occurs
may
systems,
of composite
scatter
materials.
This approach,
for
results
and
and to damage
structures.
This
to
in composite
effects
simultaneously
etc.
metallic
be difficult
material
larger
composite
loading,
design
each
design
in substantial
a consistent
on the safety
can lead
to excessive
on the concept
In particular,
and
level
for the
of safety
11
final
and
measures
to determine
is a consistent
based
process
options
is that
that there
situation
problems.
procedures
it is not possible
design
it is unlikely
in overall
many
new
to environmental
scenario"
As a result,
That
overcome
use
to account
of composite
aircraft.
structural
procedures
configurations,
procedures
for example,
case
of
importance
with no measure
traditional
configurations,
a "worst
the relative
conventional
procedures.
and
penalties.
shortcoming
reliability
for
these
Consider,
design
conservative
assumes
concepts,
concepts.
to these
developed
unconventional
led to a very
designer
have
shortcomings
were
structural
of traditional
properties
New
fundamental
procedures
and familiar
Adaptations
have
the
to aircraft
contain
two
design.
efficiency
(with
of the
aircraft.
level of safety
weight
of "design
measures
of
with
under
of safety
This
and
any precision)
In addition,
and efficiency
no corresponding
uncertainty"
and
information
throughout
safety
help to
reliability
allows
the aircraft
are
the
- no
1.2
The
Review
of existing
non-deterministic
disciplines
have
been
design
Integrated
combines
IPACS,
techniques
(Ref.1,
procedure
mechanical
are the
input
engineering
for composite
and
data
of
specific
physical
and
all
of the
This
current
design
for decades.
structures
structures
Composite
Structures
system
properties,
resin
12
data
are
emphases
in various
has
applied
been
In recent
as well.
(Ref. 5).
structure,
of these
research
methodology
applications
composite
Analysis
mechanics,
is one
2, 3, 4).
to aerospace
Probabilistic
physics,
fiber
approach
and electronics
applications
probabilistic
the
design
of engineering
civil, mechanical
technologies
Chamis
The research
years,
and
manufacturing.
and
the fiber
considered
random
has generated
The
properties,
there
developed
(IPACS).
concepts
to
procedure
In
placement
variables.
13
value.This approachis being usedto certify the ATR72 andfuture generationsof Airbus
aircraft.
14
15
The
specific
goals
acceptable
structural
accumulated
methods
process
to detect
which
of Safety"
design
and
details,
procedures
The
will
for
structural
sizing
The
specific
sensitivities
result
experience
concepts
in future
of in-service
design
of non-destructive
will be used
of an existing
matches
resize
systems,
the "Level
designs.
16
will
that
of Safety"
associated
dissimilar
of
be
aircraft
structural
residual
used
and
allows
"Level
safety-based
analyses
and
data-driven
requirements,
explicit
requirements
methodology
the existing
between
load
a design
structure,
quantifiable,
to be made
procedures
design
aircraft
of
inspection
to develop
or exceeds
methodology,
the uncertainty
aircraft
ability
deterministic
design
to quantify
the
safety
safety-based
to quantify
assessments
material
The
will be a uniform
probabilistic
which
incorporating
to
on
is to be an objective,
different
structures.
definition
of Safety"
structure
identified
developed
a workable
definition
of relative
using
the
resulting
method
comparisons
Using
be
design
to establish
and
"Level
of a new
new
structures
etc.
properties
criteria.
the equivalent
in the design
The
are
based
components,
damage.
evaluates
program
of Safety"
to aircraft
such
value.
components
research
"Level
damage
process
of this
OBJECTIVES
resize
strength
to demonstrate
flight
certification
utilization
of the existing
of service
aircraft
fleet,
materials
3.1
General
EQUIVALENT
approach
is defined
in this chapter.
a probabilistic
"Level
from in-service
resulting
design
process
Safety"
data
upon.
Once
A flow-chart
Defining
enable
the
quantitative
and
type
tolerance
component
some
criteria
design
be detected
threshold.
is the joint
so that
used
This method
using
damage
design
efforts
concepts
baseline
data
in service,
value
to
The
meet.
A
the
the "Level
of
is maintained
inspection
in the design
is used
quantifies
and applies
safety
on
type.
must
which
based
collected
applications,
the
of Safety"
or
and maintenance
process,
and to reduce
the
to developing
equivalent-safety
of the approach
is given
aircraft
structures
in the following
is given
in
context.
of Safety"
evaluation
a part
philosophies
of these
structure
is needed
of damage
structural
explanation
objective
method
and
the assumptions
approach
"Level
materials
"Level
probabilities
future
of an aircraft
3.2.
structures
for which
behavior
the structure
1. The detailed
baseline
of Safety"
in Section
with detection
structure
associated
of the
aircraft
tolerance
to validate
level of uncertainty
To
APPROACH
of structural
of existing
for new
the
definition
is derived
a safety
to size
"Level
approach
combined
is defined
can be used
3.2
of Safety"
establish
definition
Figure
tolerance
in the damage
improved
SAFETY
the equivalent
A mathematical
experience,
values
uncertainty
for determining
damage
the
OF
Approach
A general
evaluate
LEVEL
which
that
and repaired
A convenient
density
level
incorporates
is exposed
require
probability
of the
before
way
safety
design
to during
damage
of
its
data
to define
function
approach
limit.
17
along
aircraft
life.
during
the
of the component
the "Level
component,
operational
accumulated
the strength
of an
Modem
service
is degraded
of Safety"
for damage
based
damagelife
of
beyond
on these
detection
This "Level of Safety" conceptwas initially proposedby Bjom Backmanof the Boeing
CommercialAircraft Group, and is definedin statisticalterms as: "The compliment
probability
that a flaw
the structure
There
is incurred,
Detection
state "d",
density
function
pg (d,a)
= pc(dla)
in which
Because
variables
which
random
is the
conditional
function
variable
Since
they
size "a",
which
d2 ....
damage
is not detected
probability
damage
density
of
is cominuous;
the joint
and 2.
probability
density
function
function
and
p(a)
is the
marginal
size.
is detected
p(a)
values,
that is:
+ pg(d2,a)
= p_(dlla)p(a)
= [p_(dlla)
1. Damage
probability
of actual
damage
= pg(dl,a)
strength
(3.2-1)
d/ ....
p(a)
residual
p(a)
density
the marginal
size for
involved:
is discrete.
flaw
pg (d,a) is:
pc(dla)
probability
of the
+ p_(d2la)p(a)
+ p_(d2la)]p(a)
(3.2-2)
Thus,
[pc(dlla)
When
+ p_(d21a)]
the conditional
= 1
probability
the probability
of detection
the probability
of detection
p_(dlla)
(3.2-3)
under
density
function
the condition
for damage
p_(dl a) is evaluated
that the damage
at d = dl, it stands
size is a.
for
=PD(a)
(3.2-4)
18
Usingequation(3.2-3),we have
pc(d21a) = 1- PD(a)
Substituting
(3.2-4)
p(a)
= p(a)PD(a)
The
first
damage
term
in which,
+ p(a)[1
yields:
(3.2-6)
is proportional
or mathematically
to the
(Multiplication
probability
density
function
of detected
Rule):
= f(dl)g(aldl)
(3.2-7)
= PD(a), g(aldl)
= Cpo(a)
or
C is a normalizing
I p(a)da
into (3.2-2)
- PD(a)]
of (3.2-6)
p_(dlla)
p(a)PD(a)
where
and (3.2-5)
size po(a),
p(a)pc(dlla)
(3.2-5)
p(a)
constant
is a constant.
Therefore,
= Cpo(a)/PD(a)
that is determined
(3.2-8)
by the condition
of:
(3.2-9)
= 1
Substituting
(3.2-8)
iC_a=l
into (3.2-9)
or
Therefore,
according
yields:
1/fP(a)
da
(3.2-10)
to (3.2-8):
p0(o)/ p0(o)do
P ( O) - _
Note
aop_)
(3.2-11)
and detected
damage
size distributions
functions
in this
equation.
Finally,
where
"Level
of Safety"
a_ is the critical
is defined
damage
as 1- Probability(damage
of the structure:
19
size
> a_ I not
detected
),
"Level
of
Safety"=l-
Ip(a)[1-P_(a)]da
(3.2-12)
tic
Using
equation
"Level
of
The above
(3.2-11)
Safety"=l-
definition
discrete-source
generally
not true.
of flaws
i P(a)[1-Pv(a)}ta
assumes
a single
number
forp(a):
a single
flaw
is another
inspection
is present
Sometimes
there
/=[P(a)
event
in the
is no flaw,
random
variable
da
at a fixed
structure.
times
must
point
In most
and other
that
(3.2-13)
there
be involved
in time,
real
structures,
are multiple
to define
this
flaws.
the
is
The
Level
of
Safety.
Assuming
that hazard
and there
is no interaction
"Level
of Safety"
"Level
in which
of
the
total
variable,
Safety"
is reduced
between
multiple
interaction
and
will
other,
between
for multiple
Safety"=
random
to each
due to an individual
/
1-
flaws
the
to the
a significant
not be addressed
of the multiple
should
flaws,
in the
is /t.
of flaws
further
the proper
flaws
definition
structure
According
increases.
dependent
stress
then
of other
of
be:
present
to this
Whether
zones
and modeling
here
in order
(3.2-14)
at the time
of evaluation
definition,
the
or not there
concentration
analytical
any
of the existence
Po (a)
Pz)(a)]cla/[--da,
//:oPz)(a)
mean
number
is highly
and relative
poses
flaws
of flaws
for which
as the
each
i P(a)[1
a Pz)(a_-
number
flaw is independent
"Level
challenge
to the
to simplify
the
of
is interaction
of the damages
in the structure.
is a
relative
Damage
structural
method
zone
designer,
as much
as
possible.
damage
mechanisms
distributions.
exist
Thus,
20
simultaneously
the above
definition
in the structure,
should
each
be modified
flaw
to:
"Level
of
where
Safety":
i denotes
number
of
damage
damage
determined
by
known,
"Level
"Level
of
1-
FI/
type,
types
damage
--[l-Pv,(a)]cla
p'(a) [1
tolerance
in the
criteria.
structure
critical
geometry
a_, = F, (P,I),
where
and load,
P is load
into Equation
(3.2-16)
"Level
of
Safety"=Fo(P,1)
Equation
(3.2-18)
to a structure
further
Nr,
lower
Poi(a),
i and Nr
is the total
integration
PDi(a),
limit
the
(3.2-18).
modified
are
/
by deterministic
materials,
structure.
structural
Hence,
analyses
as the
a_ is a function
of
that is:
(3.2-17)
sizing
laminate
dimension
such
in a sandwich
panel.
as sheet
metal
Substituting
gage
thickness,
Equations
or
(3.2-17)
load,
(3.2-18)
structural
structure's
Alternatively,
location
dimension
of multiple
aci is
by the damaged
with specific
of type
yields:
relates
and
Equation
In the case
and 1 is a structural
of a face-sheet
the structure
The
(3.2-15)
i = 1,2,...N r
the thickness
using
of flaws
as a function
acl,ac2,,acN
For a given
flaw
When
Safety"=F
number
structure.
can be expressed
da
[/"
ti is the mean
possible
of Safety"
/_[ P'(a)
when
Equation
damage
are given,
of Safety".
"Level
required
"Level
(3.2-18)
for 1.
in a structure,
to:
21
When
of Safety"
of Safety"
the definition
the load
can
applied
be evaluated
of "Level
of Safety"
is
wherej
denotes
number
of damage
In turn,
the "Probability
damage
"Pr obability
types
of
at location
should
= 1 -"Level
of
Safety"
Pi',j(a)
P
(a)
3.3
example
Establishing
To establish
level
of safe operation
for
the
Equipment
aircraft
fleet
various
states
aircraft
to the
flaw
vehicle.
Under
current
Limit
Detailed
design
to evaluate
are meant
than
and
the
inspection
critical
strength
and certification
(3.2-20)
_]
designs
to replace,
using
the probability
the normal
I]"ij
_da
This process
of interest,
size becomes
is lower
for new
be benchmarked.
under
a flaw
they
(a)
5.
needed
aircraft
/)Poij
design
needed
data
from
the
this residual
service
Original
Damage-tolerance
the residual
same
of Safety"
collecting
that a critical
to maintain
practices,
the
the "Level
involves
regime.
when
to maintain
strength
safe
design
of a structure
operation
strength
value
of the
is at the
analyses
mechanisms
of Safety"
types
(OEM)
that
exposed
design
of Safety
must
will go undetected
philosophy
Level
as the current
Manufacturer
structure
in Chapter
"Level
, ,1,
is given
a Baseline
the equivalent
of the current
data
problem
be:
An illustrative
locations,
j.
of Failure"
Failure"
of damage
must
and failure
be performed
modes
Safety"
value
based
damage
types
in each component,
for each
on the formula
derived
and these
aircraft
component
are vulnerable
in Section
values
22
to ensure
to are accounted
3.2 must
be calculated
will be unique
that
for.
all damage
A "Level
of
to that component
in that
3.4
Collection
A critical
detected
of Flaw
component
damage
size
in the
Data on Existing
determination
distributions
po(a)
Structures
of "Level
based
23
of Safety"
on inspection
data
is the
characterization
for an existing
structure.
of
Inspection
data to be obtained
frequency
of occurrence
detection.
A histogram
be constructed.
over
a given
Although
regularly
submit
maintenance
Difficulty
Reports
Service
accessible
to the
instances
of detection
aircraft
designers
curves
the
However,
may
of this research
under
make
further
aircraft
From
on a regular
the
and
much
basis.
aircraft
to the
database
is not
a comprehensive
to develop
operational
to utilize
consistent
conditions.
the
data
Small
for
"Level
of this specific
is already
facilities
in the
form
of
(SDRS)
that
is
archive
of the
of
can then
repair
FAA
in a database
authorities
period
Licensed
much
method
of this data
collected
it can provide
the
service
are
this data,
structure.
utility
cracks
estimate
the method
a given
task,
of flaws,
it easier
the possible
a first-order
fleet
which
real-world
investigation
within
location
size of damage,
data
of all
necessary
for
damage
size distribution
changes
in the format
of
Safety"
application
of
calculations.
is beyond
the scope
effort.
To demonstrate
database.
repair
damage
on commercial
Although
and certification
for structures
system
aircraft
(SDR's),
and
to be a monumental
actions
public.
period,
size distribution
this appears
collected
time
include
of such
in the fuselage
a Weibull
of detection,
be noted
hence
has
of several
function
succeeded
through
detected
the detection
using
the data
of detected
of these
in collecting
of its aircraft
can be fitted
density
the need
Boeing
skins
distribution
of the probability
It should
a tool,
crack
the SDRS
points
to give
sizes po(a)
cracks
method
raw
in an
are a function
for each
data
of
point
utilized.
Other
methods
Riskalla
used
evaluate
the
have
on-site
design
utilized,
it should
detected
damage
available
visits
damage
probabilistic
incomplete
also been
picture
data
used
to airline
characteristics
methodologies
be apparent
over
the
of the
to obtain
lifetime
true
set is reduced,
on in-service
facilities
and
of composite
airframe
structures
11).
Regardless
it is virtually
and
of damage
more
uncertainty
24
of the
impossible
of a component,
distribution
more
data
maintenance
(Ref.
that
damage
so we
Naval
data
aviation
depots
to
work
on
their
collection
forced
in a structure.
creeps
Gary
for
to record
are
aircraft.
into the
every
methods
instance
to deal
As the
and
size
estimation
with
of
an
of the
of the
probability
density
functions
functions.
associated
calculations
with limited
to these
3.5
Application
With
a baseline
and
structures
with higher
most
techniques.
must
level,
from
incorporated
while
of "Level
of Safety"
regarding
their
way
and extensive
how
the
onto
alloy,
upon
in-service
structure
current
through
experience,
stressed-skin
aircraft
construction
concepts
designs,
will
new
replacement
primarily
and structural
new
advanced
of
or improving
to find
in place,
design
is ensured
aluminum
Concepts
structure
the
aircraft
process
traditional
into
Design
maintaining
of existing
experience
system
design
damage
mechanisms
for service,
"Level
block
Along
into
of
up through
makes
owing
to the
perform
under
effect
on residual
to the operator.
methodology
the
design
PD(a),
component
the designer
data,
before
an
By carefully
25
the
at
level
to
of the
symptoms
of detecting
the concept
the
choosing
distributions
experience
the nature
starts
of
the various
can be declared
can quantify
about
and how
means
associated
the probability
test
Reliable
This process
and sub-structure
to in service,
previously
process.
system.
are made
defined
and their
the component
assumptions
that define
probability
or structural
the way,
be identified
and there
mechanisms
will be exposed
themselves
must
functions
Use
works
the structure
uncertainties
damage
level.
of Safety"
and detection
approach,
and gradually
will manifest
concept.
be
in the design
derived
be identified
damage
statistical
and testing
building
environment
these
of an existing
can
applications
damage
The
of density
environment.
the material
ready
of Safety"
integrity
of uncertainty
a traditional
the final
the sensitivity
Structural
of performance,
structural
for these
operational
strength
concepts
has been
amount
the uncertainty
to Advanced
"Level
it difficult
Using
the
levels
analysis
of which
large
for
structural
The
deterministic
to characterize
of Methodology
value
levels.
is ongoing
effects.
materials
safety
Research
engineer
the parameters
for detected
the relative
with
similar
to incorporate
damage
of the
size po(a)
amount
of risk in the
concepts
in different
3.6
Damage
Size
Updating
a new
structure
has
Once
performing
under
maintenance
damage
tolerance
inherent
in those
methods
(Ref.
revised
curves,
earlier
"Level
of Safety"
Weibull
manufactured
be found
probability
made
during
products.
to approximate
density
into
be utilized
in the design
frequent
is a very
Failure
Weibull
function
service,
available
values
process,
curves
detection
the
well
model
known
mechanisms
in many
distributions,
for the
26
inspection
the level
sizes.
structure.
systems
mechanical
on the
damage
period,
and
than
to
the
reliability
systems
will be chosen
in the "Level
Based
can be revised
to predict
different
statistical
If it is found
frequent
program
about
of uncertainty
of Bayesian
or more
and
assumptions
time
used
size po(a)
it is actually
in a given
so this model
damage
initial
damage
of larger
how
scheduled
by the use
for detected
opportunities
value.
on
and to reduce
and maintenance
to its design
of detected
through
can be recalculated
the inspection
data
to validate
can be returned
relation
can
put
becomes
the distribution
design,
or more
and
of Safety"
has decreased
provide
data
assumptions.
"Level
assumed
The
behavior
built
conditions
The
15) to modify
initially
been
operational
actions.
Schemes
can often
to represent
of Safety"
in
the
method.
Po(a)
Assume
= 4.
In Bayesian
variables.
initial
detected
analyses,
However,
detected
damage
damage
parameter
deviation
fo (o0-
l
0.082;-o__lt2)
,_5_
24
probability
al,a2,...,an,
fl is assumed
random
to be a constant
to follow
a Gamma
distribution
4 for
of 2, and a
(
O_
exp _,- 0.08
size
Let fflal,a2
parameter
are considered
an, the
detected
scale
function
o_= 2 and fl
(3.6-2)
= 0.
actual
in the density
parameters
the
has Weibull
size distribution:
o_ is assumed
standard
size distribution
the parameters
for simplicity,
Po (a I oO = _ a_'-* exp
46
The shape
(3.6-1)
damage
damage
sizes,
function
When
(3.6-3)
new detected
distribution
damge
can be updated
joint
of
probability
o_ under
density
condition
is:
27
size data
using
are obtained
the new
as al, a2...,
information.
The
variables.
function
of given
damage
0_.
size
The
data,
f,(oC lal,a2,...,an)
f;
(al,
a 2,...,
an,
0_)
(3.6-4)
If;(al,a2,...,an,_)d_
Let g(al,a2
condition
of given
= g(al,a2,...,a
(3.6-5)
g(al,a2,...,a
density
function
variables
(3.6-5)
yields:
= _ g(al'a2"'"an
I g(al'
random
probability
n l a)fo(a)
into (3.6-4)
f,,(o_lal,a2,...,an)
Since
joint
o_. Then:
f ;(al,a2,...,an,a)
Substituting
conditional
a2,''''
la)fo(a)
(3.6-6)
n I o0 = lZIPo(ai
independent,
we have:
I o0
(3.6-7)
i=l
Substituting
(3.6-7)
into (3.6-6)
yields:
i=1
(3.6-8)
Il-[
__
density
distributions
of the updated
random
de = i of,(oe
lal,a2,...,an)doe
The updated
distribution
alpha
Po(ai
] oOf (Od_
i=1
function
of o_ under
of o_ are plotted
variable
condition
in Figure
2.
of given
The Bayesian
al,a2
.....
estimate
of o_ is the
o_,that is:
(3.6-9)
of detected
distribution
damage
of detected
size is obtained
flaw
28
size:
using
the Bayesian
estimate
of
Po (al&)=
4--2
The initial
exp
and updated
to reach
an updated
function
ofpo(aloO
Po (a) =
8).
When
(3.6-9).
(3.6-2),
when
are given
distribution
density
detected
estimate
An alternative
_-
both Weibull
function
damage
probability
parameters
simultaneously.
probability
probability
under
density
(3.6-11)
of o_, which
sizes
are al = 3 inch,
as 2.1831
density
is given
function
using
in Equation
a2 = 4 inch,
equations
(3.6a3 = 5
(3.6-2),
of the detected
damage
density
function
as random
that initial
variables,
these
(3.6size is
parameters
the
(3.6-12)
to the derivation
the condition
Then,
can
of o_ and fl is:
fo(a,fi) = fo(a)fo(fi)
Similar
approach
f. (a')da'
of o_ is calculated
The updated
3.
that is:
a _-1 exp
newly
in Figure
(3.6-10).
be updated
joint
size
probability
n = 3, the Bayesian
equation
flaw
(a')da'
is the updated
3), (3.6-8),
size distributions
of Equation
As an example,
inch,
flaw
detected
Po (a I a')f.
wheref,(o0
(3.6-10)
of (3.6-8),
of measured
the updated
flaw
joint
probability
density
function
of o_ and ,6,
from:
1-Ipo(a_
f,(o&fllal,a2,...,a,)
Ia', fl)fo
(a', fl)
(3.6-13)
i=1
n
....
The marginal
probability
i=1
density
functions
29
through
integration
as:
.,a,)
= i f, (o& fl l al,a2,..
f fl,,(fl lal,a2,'",a_)
The
Bayesian
(3.6-14)
.,a,)dfl
(3.6-15)
= i f,,(O& fl lal,a2,'",a_)doe
estimate
of
o_ or fl is the
of the
mean
updated
random
variable
o_ or /3,
respectively.
= iof_(oe
lal,a2,...,an)doe
(3.6-16)
fl = i _f &(fl
lal,a2,...,an)d_
(3.6-17)
The updated
distribution
marginal
size is obtained
using
Bayesian
estimates
of o_
(3.6-18)
exp
the updated
density
damage
distribution:
Alternatively,
of detected
distribution
function
through
of detected
integration
damage
using
the
as follows:
(3.6-19)
= I_ I- -;a -lexp
--_--_
It should
be pointed
distribution
probability
damage
fl
using
can be performed
(__)_]
a
f,(o_,fllal,a2,...,a,)do_d
of detection.
size must
obtained
When
be modified
accordingly
Bayesian
damage
different
before
approach
size
used
as:
30
is to update
measurements
probabilities
being
fl
that
of detection
in Bayesian
detected
must
have
are employed,
updating.
Such
damage
the
size
same
the detected
a modification
G2(a2)
(3.6-20)
a2 = a1
fDl(al)
where
al and
a2 are
PDI(a)
and
PD2(a)
PD2(a)
are
available
damage
sizes
obtained
are corresponding
by inspection
probabilities
and al is detected,
type
of detection.
1 and
When
2, respectively
functions
by solving
PDda)
Equation
and
and
(3.6-
An alternative
distribution
of combining
instead
distribution
p(a)
detection
If p(a)
way
of
new
detected
can be estimated
using
Equation
is selected
damage
from
size
detected
is to update
distribution.
damage
The
"actual"
"actual"
size distribution
damage
damage
size
size
and probability
of
(3.6-11).
to be the basic
variable,
the definitive
equation
for "Level
of Safety"
(3.2-
14) becomes:
"Level
of
Safety"=
1-
pij(a)[1-PDq(a)]da
(3.6-21)
acij
"Probability
of
of Failure"
Failure"=
should
1- ]-1
be:
1-
(3.6-22)
ipij (a)[1 - P_q (a)lda]
"_
ac_j
The
same
damage
3.7
Bayesian
method
size distribution,
as that
developed
for po(a)
can be applied
to update
"actual"
p(a).
Discussion
The definition
an extension
of structural
of reliability
"Level
theory
of Safety",
and statistical
analysis
31
tools
methodology
to the design
derived
from
it, is
and maintenance
size po(a)
and
overlooked
in previous
a structure
is subject
damage
size
detected
damage
necessary
The
data
never
distributions
in use
which
a means
"Level
of Safety"
risk factors
that
unique
These
effects
does
actual
there
detected
and
uncertainty
PD(a).
actual
can then
that
of damage
structure,
be incorporated
functions
for
This is
size.
in a structure
can
associated
with the
analysis
distributions
statistical
probability
of the
Thus,
methods
are the
same,
results.
with the
the designer
size
in
of zero
probabilistic
size
used.
a flaw
be uncertainty
damage
often
allow
density
can detect
Many
reliability
method
probability
will always
associated
and to enable
on the safety
by
distinction
size distributions
of the inspection
distribution
probability
The tools
data on damage
not exist
or unconservative
the
important
because
the
to collect
represented
to this methodology
method,
may have
be
the
and detection
assumptions.
knock-down
Another
characterized,
This is a very
of detection
method
are that
to characterize
probabilistic
priori.
an inspection
assume
aspect
attempt
distributions
A second
Any
generally
size whose
of po(a)
today
size p(a).
to the probability
of this
be exactly
damage
methods.
should
because
implications
actual
detected
inspection
having
to provide
distributions
the effects
specific
without
in the
data to validate
to investigate
without
tools
data
the
unknown
available
resorting
to arbitrary
factors.
unique
aspect
is the incorporation
for a structure.
Although
Safety"
formulas
the
addition
of inspection
of this
accomplished
variable
intervals
to the
to the reliability
derivations
32
estimates
of the
in future
"Level
of
iterations
of
3.8
Mathematical
As mentioned
Considerations
in Section
probabilities
of detected
derivations
have
can assume.
the detected
damage
damage
size p(a)
Cpo(a)
= p(a)PD(a)
size distribution
for
approaches
either
zero
or some
detected
to the actual
be finite
the
zero.
These
pose
significant
of Equation
over
product
damage
and
Formulation
methodology
actual
damage
implications
of Equation
dependent
differentiates
size
numerical
po(a) is highly
detection
One assumption
a probability
Therefore,
of Safety
p(a).
on the
between
The
shapes
(3.2-8),
resulting
that
these
on the distributions
of actual
PD(a).
(3.2-8)
must
and
Level
of Safety"
po(a)
probability
of the
p(a)
size
By examining
form
assign
"Level
statistical
and detection
will go to zero.
the
damage
important
distributions
The
3.7,
in the
minimum
size distribution
characteristics
problems
should
detection
in the statement
distribution
of damage
of damage
actual
damage
po(a),
must
such
and
that
as the
than
detection
zero,
is that we can
This implies
and zero
probability
that
elsewhere.
distributions,
size approaches
of Equation
constant
size
of detection
(3.2-8)
sizes in a structure.
of the normalizing
damage
the probability
of Equation
size greater
size
are inconsequential
in the calculation
be
threshold,
implicit
any interval
of the
probability
(3.2-8),
but
C if it is in the form
(3.2-10).
(3.2-10)
In this form,
zero.
Plotting
C is an improper
the integrand
integral
as a function
33
integration
that it approaches
limit
infinity
of
as a
on
proportional
finite
the
as a goes
shape
of
to the function
on the interval
distributions
generally
so the
Numerical
provided
roundoff
limits
redefined
as:
1/J
for po(a)
available,
integral,
the
for values
of
and Po(a),
order
Assume
of a close
of
singularity
can
is rapid
must
integration
routine
are
of this type
can be integrated
the
integrand
In order
expression
the
1.
cannot
the relative
to be evaluated
be
of
is not
determined
convergence
satisfactorily
Equation
is
to be
function
encountered.
function
be less than
to check
enough
size distribution
to zero.
of
be used
damage
that
a closed-form
convergence
the
integrals
of singularity/3
integration
that
Improper
distribution.
assumed
analytically.
to zero.
the actual
of the
before
(3.2-10)
the
can
be
OO
da
(3.8-1)
where
numerical
convergence
convergence
actually
The parameters
themselves,
integral
that define
quantify
structure.
probability
the initial
is violated,
probability
Failure
density
particularly
chosen
if the order
the integral
of singularity
of po(a)
and PD(a),
for
any
discussions
damage
in distributions
functions.
34
size
appears
of actual
absolute
to converge,
but
is near one.
value.
to the actual
of the distributions
emphasize
data
to guarantee
a probability
zero.
converges
The results
to do so can result
where
from
condition
assumption
of detection
of 8 away
insufficient
may be cases
but
the distributions
be carefully
diverges,
size distribution
admissible
There
in the limit,
must
small value
is a necessary,
of the integral.
diverges
by some
the need
accumulated
damage
If the
damage
are not
to carefully
on
a given
4.1
RESIDUAL
DETERMINATION
STRUCTURE
OF EXAMPLE
Introduction
To
demonstrate
structural
as
STRENGTH
the
concept,
an
equivalent
a graphite-epoxy
example
material
mechanisms
inherent
many
of research
years
(flaps,
ailerons,
aircraft
fleets.
"Level
for
in composite
elevators,
Safety"
honeycomb
system
and
of
the
rudders,
Service-induced
there
data
a metal
have
applied
to
an
was
selected
structure.
been
are many
currently
damage
as
composite
of
structures
Also,
etc.)
sandwich
redesign
sandwich
testing.
approach
advanced
to be used
The
damage
well-characterized
composite
in use
throughout
is therefore
available
through
sandwich
the
civil
structures
and
military
for a variety
of these
applications.
As part
of the process
deterministic
structural
of applying
analysis
of the
sandwich
results
4.2
The
Material
selected
material
core
Three
varies
densities
laminate
with
different
different
and
types
safety
methodology
and
system
of the laminate
sequence.
is developed
under
Systems
graphite-epoxy
stiffness
panels
the equivalent
The
design
structure,
of the residual
established
damage
strengths
tolerance
methodology.
Properties
is a honeycomb
the
were
core
created
is made
systems
density,
and
panel,
of Nomex.
by changing
lamination
honeycomb
sandwich
Variations
the number
are used
Nomex
in which
of graphite/epoxy
35
of plies
in this research.
honeycomb
to a new
core are:
cores
the face-sheet
in the
and
The
strength
their
stiffness
of three
is a
and
stacking
of the
different
Tension:
E1= 22.9mpsi,E2
= 1.34 mpsi,
0.34,
V12----
Compression:
in fiber direction,
Maximum
longitudinal
Maximum
transverse
Maximum
engineering
E1 = 22.0 mpsi,
X = 350 ksi.
strain,
strain,
eL = 15300
eT = 5680
shear
strain,
E2 = 1.34 mpsi,
_te
_te
_:
= 21000
_te
0.34,
V12----
Core(1):
in fiber direction,
Maximum
longitudinal
Maximum
transverse
Maximum
engineering
strain,
strain,
eL' = 13500
eT' = 5680
shear
strain,
_T'
_te
_te
= 21000
_te
Core
(2):
Core
(3):
The thickness
of the lamina
lay-up
0.5,
V13
---- V23----
.01,
V13
---- V23----
.01,
V12----
V12----
0.5,
is 0.005
sequences
The three
laminate
are:
Laminate
(1):
[-45/0/45/0/90]s
laminate
thickness
= 0.05 inch;
Laminate
(2):
[-45/0/45/9012s
laminate
thickness
= 0.08 inch;
Laminate
(3):
[-45/0/45]019012s
laminate
thickness
= 0.10 inch.
36
4.3
Tensile
The tensile
property
Strength
strength
of the Laminates
of the laminates
(1), [-45/0/45/0/90]s
0.1220
When
The solution
Nx = -3311
I_y =
1721
Using
lamina
,we have:
mpsi
the maximum
stress
versus
transverse
strain
relation
strain
of the lamina,
is obtained
e22 = 5680
as:
equation
is:
lb/in
[.te
22.9 mpsi,
increases
E2 = v12
-0.6063
further,
=
to stress
the stiffness
G12 = 0. Then,
0.1174
0.11740.4010
0
According
theory.
0.40270
of the above
As the load
[A(2)] =
The resultant
0.1220
failure
0.1451
strain reaches
the longitudinal
by first-ply
is determined
resultant
the stiffness
0
0
properties
mpsi
0.1359
versus
strain
relation:
37
matrix
of the
90 ply lamina
of the laminate
change
becomes:
to E1 =
IN!2
t[0.6063
0.1174
= 0.1_74
The strain
components
ex = 1.5609
ey
in terms
Nx (2)
of load intensity
are expressed
Mohr's
circle,
strain
components
strain
failure
Nx (2) [18
e 45 = 0.5520
Nx (2) ge
Y45 = 2.0179
Nx (2) ge
the maximum
in +45 degree
criteria,
the failure
directions
load intensity
N_
as:
[18
e45 = 0.5520
Using
o.1359/Ly_
Nx (2) ge
-0.4570
Using
0.40100
- 9802
lb/in
longitudinal
direction
transverse
direction
(2)
5680
-12429
lb/in
0.4570
38
are determined
as:
can be determined
as:
15300
- 27717
0.5520
5680
lb/in
-10289
longitudinal
lb/in
direction
_ansverse
direction
0.5520
21000
-10406
2.0179
Comparing
these
load.
failure
The
tremendously
Laminate
Laminate
results,
(1) is 9802
the
the
load
drops,
Following
lb/in
0 ply
intensity
which
The
same approach
compressive
first
is 9802
means
procedure,
(3), [-45/0/45/0/9012s,
Compressive
fails
the
failure
in its longitudinal
lb/in.
After
laminate
fails.
that,
the
direction
with
strength
of the
Therefore,
the
the
tensile
strength
are determined
strength
of Laminate
as 10490
(2),
The results
the tensile
strength
strength
= 7435
lb/in
Laminate
(2), [-45/0/45]]9012s,
Compressive
strength
= 8930
lb/in
Laminate
(3), [-45/0/45]019012s,
Compressive
strength
= 14870
types
in Figure
considered.
panel
are
according
of possible
4, were
18 inches
of Damaged
damage
analyzed.
In order
of
to model
and
to the damage
and
respectively.
was
also used
for
are:
Compressive
Strength
lb/in,
of the laminates
(1), [-45/0/45/0/90]s,
Three
strength
[-45/0/45]]9012s,
Laminate
Residual
laminate
of the laminates
used to determine
strength.
4.5
tensile
increasing
lb/in.
same
4.4
shear
Honeycomb
commonly
For each
found
damage
24 inches,
configuration
Sandwich
in honeycomb
type,
circular
two stringers,
respectively.
as follows:
39
lb]in
Analysis
Panels
sandwich
panels,
and elliptical
the length
flaw
as shown
areas
is categorized
into three
were
of the
cases
4.5.1
Case
1:
It is observed
sheets
with a Disbond.
and
the
manufacturing
little
Panels
core.
The
defects.
strength
causes
When
degradation
portion
of the
the panel
since
a much
the
smaller
However,
the
disbond
significantly
sandwich
panel
because
of local
the tensile
residual
strength
of a honeycomb
is loaded
load
may
the
of the face
sandwich
panel
40
be either
mostly
stiffness
reduces
is the bonding
in in-plane
is carried
in-plane
buckling
of the
damage
panel
between
impact
tension,
from
the local
by the face-sheets.
the face
outside
disbond
This
or
has
results
in-plane
sheet
compressive
in the disbond
is assumed
to be the
strength
area.
same
of
the
Therefore,
as the total
4.5.1.1
Tensile
Based
Residual
on the above
disbond
loaded
thickness.
panel
Strength
discussion,
in in-plane
Since
the residual
tension
the tensile
of a Sandwich
Panel
strengths
of honeycomb
are independent
strength
of disbond
of the laminates
the residual
strengths
with a Disbond.
size
are already
sandwich
panels
and core
properties
obtained
of the sandwiches
should
Residual
tensile
strength
of the sandwich
with laminate
(1) = 19604
lb/in,
Residual
tensile
strength
of the sandwich
with laminate
(2) = 20980
lb/in,
Residual
tensile
strength
of the Sandwich
with laminate
(3) = 39208
lb/in.
4.5.1.2
Compressive
The
residual
compression
strength
The
of
is actually
the maximum
area.
Residual
load
value
the
the
sandwich
A novel
analysis
two-step
critical
sandwich
buckling
the lamina
panels
load,
to determine
Step 1. Determination
when
post-buckling
residual
strength.
41
be:
loaded
in
strength
here
post-buckling
occurs
The
buckling
load
panel
to determine
the critical
buckling
in the
shape
in-plane
means
disbond
of the disbond
of the core.
utilized
buckling.
and
with a Disbond.
post-buckling
depends
has been
to local
of critical
strength
The
approach
due
can take
Panel
sandwich
strength.
panel
of the post-buckling
of the face-sheet
of a Sandwich
disbond-damaged
its post-buckling
damaged
Strength
with a
two
steps
post-buckling
are:
strength
i) determination
strain
criterion
of
of
of
Finite
element
model
must
be used to obtain
ABAQUS
laminate
connecting
to the
the
disbond.
Symmetric
element
model.
finite
element
model.
uniform.
Pressure
one
of the spring
stiffness
(1) Prescribe
sheet,
(2) Apply
amount
spring
depends
is comprised
a uniform
is applied
along
stiffness
and
the face
and
is modeled
layered
damage
area.
and
element
in Figure
the
loading
mesh
6 for
sheet
by elastic
the corresponding
The finite
along
element
of the face
used in
an elliptical
edges
of the
sheet
of the
mesh
is not
Stiffness
on the local
of the damage
to each
density
the following
node
of the
of the mesh.
method
element
sheet,
In order
the
equivalent
to determine
the
is used:
of the finite
element
model
of a face
of shell elements.
pressure
of the pressure
are prescribed
is connected
constraint
disbond
finite
freedom
core
disbond
to be analyzed.
at the edge
of each spring,
out-of-plane
which
Spring
of nodal
within
of the
element
In this analysis,
honeycomb
the springs
a finite
commercial
compressive
5 for a circular
load
with a disbond,
16).
degrees
The
geometry
needs
conditions
concentration
When
equivalent
in Figure
of Equivalent
stiffness
of the panel
(Ref.
six
by disconnecting
boundary
finite
with
with equivalent
the
panel
The general-purpose
property.
of the panel,
is shown
Determination
sheets
is modeled
only a quarter
analysis
elements
as the material
symmetry
condition,
the solution.
shell
two face
disbond
of the sandwich
by
elasticity
The local
Due
is adopted
is modeled
orthotropic
springs
of the geometry
is equal
of the face-sheet
to the out-of-plane
42
stiffness
finite
element
of the honeycomb
model.
core.
The
Verification
of Finite
In order
to obtain
solutions
of buckling
panel
rectangular
Timoshenko's
computation
of 0.005
solution.
Results
of Critical
disbond
of varying
in Figure
Load
constraint
The
The
8.
The material
is reached
Disbond
43
Poisson's
between
Size.
with
with
out-of-plane
buckling
loads
computed
of an isotropic
and compared
with existing
properties
with
rectangular
solutions
in Yin
available
load of a sandwich
case of an isotropic
E = 10 Msi.,
Versus
7.
verified
of the critical
sizes were
in Figure
was
only a face-sheet
area.
of varying
17) as shown
Buckling
solutions
the disbond
agreement
model
The out-of-plane
(Ref.
Reasonable
Determination
not available,
disbond
modulus
Load
element
closed-form
within
known
finite
are generally
with a circular
are Young's
inch.
the
Since
the nodes
solution
(Ref.
for Buckling
in the verification.
with an elliptical
and Jane
results,
buckling
except
plate
Models
analyses.
is considered
plate
reliable
due to local
constraint
Element
results
and
thickness
the well-
The
critical
disbond
buckling
loaded
load
of a face-sheet
in compression
above.
The results
Figure
9 and Figure
was
of the critical
computed
buckling
disbond.
Parametric
studies
conducted
thickness.
In Figure
the
buckling
thickness
10, laminate
When
versus
between
the
increase
thickness
Step 2. Determination
and shown
parameter
of plies
To provide
in each
critical
damage
buckling
size
in critical
is small,
buckling
load.
load
and
This
the
damage.
than
a small
or laminate
sequence.
data points,
the
Even
critical
In Figure
an intermediate
two laminates.
laminate
increase
in
10 and Figure
orientation,
disbond
described
are shown
sequence
is stacking
enough
sequence
model
in Figure
stacking
stacking
element
or an elliptical
size relationship
of lamina
percentage
is varied.
a different
disbond,
disbond
finite
damage
same
a circular
the
load versus
in terms
especially
the disbond
in a large
stiffness
the
thickness
using
relationship
observed.
results
have
are different,
is plotted
nonlinear
also
11 and Figure
laminates
loads
and Figure
were
with
using
though
laminate
thickness
in laminate
is consistent
with
is
thickness
the
bending
relation.
of Post-Buckling
Residual
Strength
due to Local
Buckling.
Background
In general,
post-buckling
determined
criterion
thrust
through
(Ref.
of
this
residual
strength
a geometrically
of a laminate
nonlinear
finite
effort.
Thus,
an
face-sheet
element
analysis
is extensive
efficient
a material
and is presently
engineering
approach
can be
failure
beyond
needed
the
to be
developed.
In the
assumes
elastic
earlier
work
of Dost,
et al. (Ref.
of the buckled
is used
22),
area
a simple
model
on the laminate
in determining
44
was
proposed.
This
is a soft inclusion.
the residual
strength
model
A reduced
of the damaged
laminate.
Obviously,
laminates,
Model
for post-buckling
According
carried
by the buckled
carries
normal
strain
strength
a constant
in the
loading
Other
of the laminate
location
additional
reaches
The
load
additional
portion.
This
is carried
loaded
structure
portion
of the laminate.
on these
assumptions,
area.
location
by the
load.
load.
is the
The
laminate
may exist.
buckled
load.
area
This
but
load
causes
no
stress
of the buckled
area.
the total
sum of the
laminate
strain
fails
when
excluding
the
material
laminate
of the notch
strain
The additional
by the
the total
strain
of the
same
strain
the undamaged
of
notch
as buckled
is the notch-tip.
residual
strength,
Ppo,t should
be:
the critical
buckling
by maximum
load
and
normal
the
strain
additional
criterion,
load,
respectively.
that is:
buckled
(4.5.1-1)
load is determined
in which
at the
caused
with a through
are the
(4.5.1-2)
strain
laminate
concentration
in the loading
45
factor,
eo and
direction
due
em,x represent
to unit
load
or strain
where
of the
ply lamina.
the post-buckling
the
However,
as the original
location
of deflection
laminate,
of the edge
area
is modeled
The critical
Quasi-isotropic
are made.
the
additional
buckling
level
buckling
load
and
a constant
of the laminate,
throughout
of the buckled
at the buckled
edge
can carry
occurs,
assumptions
at the critical
strain
buckling
but an uncertain
three
direction
of the edge
located
Based
even
the maximum
when
to the
load,
occurs
portion
theory,
is applied
plates
determination
the following
load
for isotropic
study.
of the structure,
concentration
critical
portion
As an increasing
be used
stability
to this concept,
laminate
can only
residual
to linear-elastic
According
this model
the
and
uniform
maximum
strain the material can endure,respectively. As listed in the lamina property section,the
maximumcompressivestrain of the presentlamina is Cm,x
=13500ge. eois derived in the
laminate property determinationproceduresand the results are that eo = 1.8158 ge for
Laminate (1), eo = 1.5117 ge for Laminate (2), and eo = 0.9079 ge for laminate (3),
respectively. Since K
unknowns,
can
be determined
by
finite
element
(4.5.1-1)
and
analysis,
Equation
there
(4.5.1-2).
are
only
Solving
two
for Ppo_t
yields:
,./1
eP"= e'+Leo
Equation
panels
(4.5.1-3)
with either
K is calculated
results,
the
reduction
method
or an elliptical
a finite
element
analysis
of the
Element
element
disbond
solution,
material
the finite
element
analysis
Figure
13 and Figure
loading
finite
direction
element
evaluation
disbond
Results
is selected
of notch-tip
and elliptical
of Post-Buckling
using
The
ABAQUS.
element
strength
model
strain
concentration
In order
as well
of the sandwich
factor
to obtain
as the
reliable
subsequent
data
for Notch-Tip
are
property
In order
of isotropic
elements
elasticity
to make
is used.
to the notch-tip.
along
Analysis
removed.
is extrapolated
Strength
analysis
except
that
comparisons
with
the
computed
by
The
stress
The computed
stress
are used.
values
from
A second
order
and the
model
disbond.
were constructed
area
to the notch-tip
residual
in advance.
Models
models
classical
polynomial
finite
must be examined
in the
closest
post-buckling
disbond
of Finite
elements
to calculate
a circular
by
three
used
appropriateness
Verification
the
is then
the comparisons
analytical
is obtained.
strain
disbond
of the computed
solution
The
to determine
(Ref.
same
the
23).
Acceptable
extrapolation
strain
Strength
Versus
concentration
46
Disbond
stress
accuracy
procedures
situations.
Residual
normal
Size
factors
are
distribution
in
of the
simple
used
in the
for both
circular
4.5.2
Case
Another
2: Panels
commonly
the face-sheet
observed
laminate.
or manufacturing
general,
a variable
the delamination
analysis
must
this research
is selected
The
laminate
effort,
case
analyzed
mechanism
Delaminations
defects.
When
level
of strength
be conducted
can be assumed
damage
do not have
to show
simple
with a Delamination
and
same
as acting
in-plane
extensive
since
Since
in the plane
occurs
there
is not intended
in the plane
of the
be, in
sides
of
mechanics
of
case
data trends.
of symmetry
carried
should
fracture
are required.
of
from outside
on the opposite
Consequently,
47
damage
tension,
the materials
of symmetry
is the delamination
impact
in in-plane
computations
of the approach
panels
by either
strain.
and computation
is loaded
degradation
such an analysis
the feasibility
may be caused
the panel
the
in sandwich
of the
by the face-sheet,
laminate.
In this
symmetric
the load
situation,
the
4.5.2.1
Based
Tensile
Residual
on the above
delaminations
properties
discussion,
loaded
panel
the
in in-plane
and thickness.
the sandwich
Strength
Since
of a Sandwich
residual
tension
strengths
are
the tensile
Panel
of honeycomb
independent
strength
the residual
with a Delamination
sandwich
of delamination
of the laminates
strengths
of the sandwich
tensile
strength
of the sandwich
with laminate
(1) = 19604
lb/in,
Residual
tensile
strength
of the sandwich
with laminate
(2) = 20980
lb/in,
Residual
tensile
strength
of the Sandwich
with laminate
(3) = 39208
lb/in.
4.5.2.2
Compressive
The
residual
compression
the
load
the
of a Sandwich
delamination
damaged
its post-buckling
strength.
sandwich
panel
area.
The value
in the delamination
and shape
stiffness
of the
is actually
maximum
occurs
strength
Strength
of the delamination
can
take
Panel
sandwich
of the core.
48
core
obtained
and
be:
with a Delamination
panel
loaded
post-buckling
strength
when
post-buckling
of the
strength
of the sub-laminate
with
and
should
The
of the post-buckling
size
are already
Residual
Residual
panels
depends
in in-plane
here
means
sub-laminate
on the size
of the face-sheet
and the
Finite
element
In order
bonded
to model
layers
disbond.
nodal
sheets
point.
with
plane
shown
equivalent
of the
the geometry
in Figure
The same
of element
core is modeled
panel
sheet
was used
by elastic
stiffness
of
the
layers
two
is represented
the
by two
by rigid beam
springs
core
elements
material.
with a
at each
connecting
of shell
of the finite
element
layer
of the face-sheet
finite
element
model
of Finite
used
damage
the two
The
elements
with a disbond
and in Figure
local
within
for Case
1 were
of the springs
the
is always
bonded
to a spring
Models
of damage
to the core.
regardless
for Buckling
49
The
were used,
along
along
of the
same
in-
which
are
delamination,
the left
and
lower
of the
model.
are independent
symmetry
6 for an elliptical
as in the disbond
to the
condition.
and pressure
Stiffness
Element
loading
Spring
is connected
owing
conditions
model
laminate
and the
of a panel
delamination
model,
of Equivalent
procedures
to be analyzed,
as in the analysis
boundary
element
needs
delamination
meshes
Verification
sandwich
Symmetric
Determination
face
are connected
disconnecting
5 for a circular
of the finite
face sheet
type
compressive
by
of the
element
respectively.
edges
The honeycomb
delaminated
area.
a quarter
finite
The same
is modeled
corresponding
panel,
the locally
of shell elements.
delamination
Only
the delamination,
in-plane
face
model
Load
The reason
node
is that in
is that one
of this layer
Determination
of the
The
verification
of the
provided
in the
damage.
Hence,
Results
of Critical
The
critical
elliptical
Buckling
above.
thickness.
In Figure
the
buckling
were
loads
also
have
To
different
stacking
sequence
between
the critical
buckling
size
is small,
buckling
load.
provide
the
In Figure
data
than
laminate
was
buckling
of circular
of delamination
delamination
the finite
damage
or an
element
model
size relationship
delamination,
and shown
parameter
19 and Figure
the
stacking
of plies
other
two
in each
are
in Figure
Residual
stiffness
due to Local
using
the damage
increase
thickness
critical
relationship
When
in a large
Even
is laminate
A nonlinear
versus
Strength
the
is plotted
is observed.
results
sequence.
parameter
thickness
laminates.
or laminate
orientation,
thickness
thickness
sequence
is stacking
an intermediate
of Post-Buckling
using
of lamina
percentage
points,
for
a circular
load versus
in terms
in laminate
This is consistent
with
computed
increase
Step 2. Determination
case
determination
Size
same
enough
a small
load
delamination.
conducted
are different.
thickness.
for the
21 and Figure
laminates
is still meaningful
Delamination
studies
though
Versus
of the critical
19 and Figure
Parametric
buckling
in compression
The results
in Figure
critical
of a face-sheet
loaded
for
here.
Load
load
analysis
damage
it is not repeated
buckling
20 and Figure
element
of disbond
delamination
described
shown
section
finite
in critical
relation.
Buckling
Background
The
method
for determination
described
in the section
exception
buckled
thickness.
layer
of post-buckling
of disbond
notch
damage,
residual
is still valid
in the model
of the
sub-laminate
of the
The same
extrapolation
procedures
strength
as those
5O
described
face-sheet
due
laminate
used
to local
of delamination.
buckling,
of being
as
The
is only on the
through-the-
damages
of notch-tip
damages.
Results
Residual
of Post-Buckling
The post-buckling
elliptical
residual
delamination
the method
and shown
are shown
were
In Figure
no significant
stacking
The
results
sequence.
conducted
between
observed.
When
the damage
size is small,
sheets.
This result
4.5.3
Case
Severe
impact
3:
convenience.
damaged
this
behavior
from
were
occurring
open
Notch
the stress
hole
data
assumed
strength
and many
have
in a face
can then
parameter
panel
load
strength
can tolerate
delamination,
sequence
There
is laminate
is limited
is
of the variation
in
thickness.
thickness
is
by the compressive
strength
small
or laminate
sequence.
as a result
compressive
sheet
laminate
be modeled
to be applicable
The notched
factor
material
of the laminate.
theories
total
of the two
face-
areas of delamination.
been
cracks,
to both
strength
open
stress
Extensive
developed
hole
strength
concentration
research
to describe
51
treated
as an open hole
and so notch
of the laminate
is often
as a through-the-thickness
concentration
of the laminate
the residual
damage
delamination.
stacking
strength
buckling
is the
versus
using
with Notches
of the sandwich.
strength
global
damage
which
strength
is stacking
the critical
Panels
The
area.
study
means
residual
for
or an
was computed
parameter
23 and Figure
panel,
residual
factors
delamination
in compression
of lamina
relationship
sandwich
with a circular
in terms
linear
of the
loaded
concentration
Size
An almost
strength
panel
of post-buckling
in the post-buckling
In Figure
the strain
Delamination
23 and Figure
25 and Figure
difference
Versus
laminate
in Figure
also
to determine
of the sandwich
24 and Figure
studies
thickness.
strength
above.
in Figure
Parametric
Strength
on a face-sheet
described
size relationship
strain
has been
and
notch
analyses
cannot
be directly
of the laminate.
area
is usually
conducted
this phenomenon
for
crack
calculated
In fact,
higher
in past
in the
results
through-thickness
for
than
the
the
two decades
parametersare for laminatesthat are infinitely large and havedifferent lamina tensile and
compressivestrengthsfrom the materialusedhere. In orderto usethe test datato determine
residual strengthof the sandwichpanels,three-dimensionalfinite element analyseswere
performedto makethe correction.
Mar-Lin
Model
The fracture
_
CN
Parameters
model
proposed
in the following
Hc
form:
(4.5.3-1)
(2C)'Y
in which:
ey = = remote
m
= order
strain
of singularity
Hc = composite
fracture
= half crack
length
= geometry
The basic
toughness
factor
material
properties
model
In tension:
Ply strength
in fiber direction,
X = 250 ksi,
52
parameters
used
Laminate(1) [-45/0/45/0/90]s
Hc = 0.00667
in"',
m = 0.225,
Laminate(2) [-45/0/45/901es
Hc = 0.00667
in"',
m = 0.203,
Laminate(3) [-45/0/45/0/90]es
H_ = 0.00667
in"',
m = 0.225,
In compression:
Ply strength
in fiber direction,
Laminate
(1) [-45/0/45/0/90]s
H_ = 0.0034
in"',
m = 0.35,
Laminate
(2) [-45/0/45/9012s
H_ = 0.0043
in"',
m = 0.26,
Laminate
(3) [-45/0/45/0/90]
H_ = 0.0034
in"',
m = 0.35,
The remote
load intensity
2s
is then calculated
by:
PN = eN EN TL
in which
(4.5.3-2)
EN is the in-plane
thickness
of the laminate.
elastic
modulus
of the laminate
used here,
in loading
these parameters
direction
and Tc is the
are:
In tension:
Laminate
(1) [-45/0/45/0/90]s
EN = 11.653
mpsi,
Tc = 0.05 inch,
Laminate
(2) [-45/0/45/901es
EN = 8.841
mpsi,
Tc = 0.08 inch,
Laminate
(3) [-45/0/45/0/90]
EN =11.653
mpsi,
Tc = 0.10 inch,
es
In compression:
Laminate
(1) [-45/0/45/0/90]s
EN = 11.233
mpsi,
Tc = 0.05 inch,
Laminate
(2) [-45/0/45/901es
EN = 8.541
mpsi,
Tc = 0.08 inch,
Laminate
(3) [-45/0/45/0/90]
EN = 11.233
mpsi,
Tc = 0.10 inch,
The
Section
elastic
modulus
4.2 using
lamination
es
values
are
calculated
theory.
53
from
lamina
properties
given
in
Finite Element
Two
finite
notches.
Model
element
One
models
were
notch.
by eight-node
face
sheet
point
solid
elements
with
is built
loading
same reason
the panel
needs
the
same
as those
in the
conditions
Geometry
Factors
The
geometry
sandwich
element
60 times
Results
panel
the notch
of Residual
Strength
in both tension
compression
laminate
connection
positioned
previous
case
of one
of the sandwich
of both
cases.
is the
at every
each
in-plane
nodal
panel
and its
panel.
the mid-plane
finite
sheets
between
to be analyzed.
in-plane
is for the
the face-sheet
element
The
panel,
meshes
boundary
face-sheet
notch
the
having
of
having
and
the
the
case
a
are
loading
cases.
a notch
of variable
core
in this analysis
conditions
as in the previous
to the
and
used
Due
and
size were
of the
obtained
by finite
is at least
size.
face-sheet
The
with
core is modeled
of the panel
a through-the-thickness
The baseline
The honeycomb
only a quarter
for the
having
analysis.
Assuming
strength
factors
The
of the notched
case
panels
the geometry
for the
notch.
sandwich
a notch,
about
to be analyzed
through-the-thickness
also
having
model
elements
of the sandwich
allow
element
properties.
rigid beam
model
condition
elastic
of the
is in one face-sheet
with a disbond.
linear
with
element
The finite
of a panel
case of a through-the-thickness
same
constructed
Versus
model
Notch
parameter
and compression,
having
was calculated
Size
a circular
according
Hc is proportional
the residual
notch
strength
or an elliptical
to the formula:
54
to the corresponding
of the sandwich
notch
loaded
lamina
panel
with a
in tension
or in
2HcENT L S
(2c)'Y
SO
PR =
in which
fiber
S denotes
direction
(4.5.3-1),
laminates
carrying
results
Figure
results
the
test.
Equation
assumption
(4.5.3-3)
on Hc and
in the
is derived
using
consideration
of two
residual
strength
versus
notch,
shown
were
also conducted
relationship
shown
results
in Figure
32 and Figure
size
and
The
are shown
in Figure
studies
notch,
respectively.
size relationship
and
damage
in Figure
shown
in
28 and Figure
of the compressive
31 and Figure
in terms
are
residual
of an elliptical
of laminate
notch,
thickness
and the
in the figures.
Discussion
found
laminate,
factor
that
the
the
stiffer
for selecting
material,
the
stiffness
must
core
stiffness
cannot
the core
must
be to avoid
core
stiffer
core
stiffness
will
be determined
is the
be an independent
weight
generally
global
buckling
of the
be heavier.
variable.
The
of the face
sandwich
panel.
Therefore,
the
thicker
sheet.
For the
best
core
the
Another
same
core
density
or
laminate.
Summary
Methods
or notch
in the
Parametric
are given
It was
tensile
damage
notch,
respectively.
used
(4.5.3-2),
of an elliptical
versus
a circular
specimen
load.
27 and Figure
strength
4.7
test
ply strength
Equation
of the
4.6
the current
of the
Equation
The
(4.5.3-3)
for residual
have
Appropriate
(disbond,
been
finite
strength
analyses
of sandwich
panels
with a disbond,
delamination
developed.
element
delamination
models
and notch)
been
55
strength
constructed.
analyses
of the
three
cases
Results
on residual
a through
the thickness
Parametric
sheets
strength
studies
and
have
or a notch.
Both
and
analysis
been
post-buckling
delamination
tension
notch
for sandwich
have
conducted
residual
compression
been
loading
panels
with a single
notch
on one face
sheet
or
obtained.
to determine
strength
conditions
studied.
56
of
the
critical
sandwich
are included
buckling
panels
load
with
in the damage
of face
disbond,
tolerance
5.1
DEMONSTRATION
METHOD
Introduction
The general
been
method
defined
concept,
in Section
behavior
methods
outlined
versus
flaw
Using
this
determine
data,
Detailed
"Level
the
"Level
are
chosen
the
in the
safety
in the following
approach
to an advanced
have
structural
The
deterministic
strength
is applied
the design
design
for analysis.
using
shown
methodology
assumptions
in Section
damage
analysis
of a sandwich
panel
figures
of the
Appendix.
to the
sandwich
panel
criteria
for a given
to
load level.
section.
inherent
3.2.
process
The
in the
overall
"Level
of Safety"
method
here to illustrate
how
of
method
application
the design
have
been
is restated
and
procedure
progresses
examples.
Evaluation
The "Level
of Safety"
1.
damage
data
Structure
structure
on the distributions
methods
Estimate
the probability
structure,
on Existing
of an existing
detection
existing
was
of the residual
of damage
to meet
as applied
investigated
charts
of Safety"
of Safety"
Procedures
into a step-by-step
of Safety"
Collect
been
are described
and
previously
types
system
has
Design
"Level
the process
material
necessary
of Design
the given
4.
for various
of this example
condensed
To demonstrate
of the composite
derivations
defined
honeycomb
in Section
size
Outline
using
3.2.
The details
5.2
and equations
a composite
tolerance
2.
OF DESIGN
for an existing
using
can be determined
through
of flaw
types,
structure,
of detection
the assumptions
sizes,
as described
curves
for each
described
57
flaw
in Section
type
in Section
the following
number
of flaws
and
3.4.
of damage
3.3.
steps:
detected
on the
Using
the data
the structure
structure
value
"Level
Use
from
as a function
using
the
of "Level
of Safety"
accomplished
through
5.
7.
Assume
distributions
from
Steps
the allowable
Bayesian
data
value
the "Level
3.2.
of Safety"
This result
for the
strength
sizing
damage
design
becomes
of new
formulas
of the new
parameters
size po(a)
and engineering
strength
of
of the existing
the
allowable
structures
can be
structure
as a function
of
of interest.
and probability
of detection
curves
judgement.
derived
the relation
of "Level
equal to or greater
structure
has
during
in Section
between
3.2,
structural
combined
geometry
with
the
data
and "Level
of
statistical
of Safety"
been
built
of Safety"
from
to give
and
put
into
service,
collect
data
on the
damage
operation.
methods
on the residual
load levels.
of Safety"
the
structural
5, determine
Using
approach
the residual
of Safety"
4 and
in Section
data
steps:
of detected
on available
for given
accumulated
to determine
Safety"
After
derived
the following
"Level
size, determine
of Safety"
"Level
8.
"Level
damage
the
design
for Design
analysis
Using
with
Perform
PD(a) based
formulas
Approach
equivalent
1 and 2, coupled
of damage
of Safety"
of the
4.
Steps
defined
the assumed
in Section
probability
of the structure.
58
3.6, combined
distributions
Step
8,
5.3
Examples
Some
illustrative
safety
design
of Equivalent
examples
approach.
will at a minimum
allowable
Level
Probability
For
the
sake
damage
The
of Safety,
damage
size
same
Level
of Safety
taken
from
the metal
consider
types
for
Gamma
po(a)
distribution
parameters
application
sandwich
structure,
of the
aluminum
is 99.9%.
damage
35.
associated
the
II.
it.
(a)
The
type
Using
above,
equation
the
numerically
FORTRAN.
diameter
(3.2-10)
normalizing
using
that
one.
The
into a
different
(disbonding),
types
of detection
detection
of disbond
probabilities
k = 2.1,
damage
0 = 1.3
Type
detected
is assumed
for
damage
I and
as a function
detected
one
of inspection
inspection
The
parameters
PDI
damage
Two
The probability
Each
with
one
structure.
to be
Type
in Figure
Inspection
of
damage
to follow
Type
I, and
Type II:
(5.3-1)
probabilities
to be the disbond
panel
This translates
po(o) - 0kr(k-----S
Detected
equivalent
compression
as an existing
of only
the damage.
are assumed
with
k = 2.2,
a case
in the sandwich
Inspection
distribution
the
the
-a14/2
to demonstrate
of 0.1%.
here
Design
a composite
PvII (a)=
Based
task is to design
of simplicity,
location
methods
are used
maintain
of Failure
Safety
are plotted
in inches
from
the SLATEC
36.
The damage
size variable
distributions
a is taken
Section
constant
in Figure
3.2, along
for
DQAGI
relative
the
"Level
Gaussian
and absolute
59
of
Safety"
quadrature
calculation
subroutine
is
assumed
integrated
in double-precision
of the subroutine
To illustrate
integral
are listed
solutions
Table
the
in Table
limit of integration
ofNormalizing
distributions,
c approaches
Constant
TypeI
l/C
Inspection
Type
10 4
1.80730322
2.22955533
10 5
1.80859168
2.23020679
10 6
1.80884877
2.23031005
10
1.80890007
2.23032641
1.80891030
2.23032900
error
was
shown,
the integral
distribution
for the
ofp(a)
Equation
detected
is assumed
to be a valid
probability
function
of the
80%
panel
plotted
by
sizing
Alternatively,
and
4.
in Figures
in the
plots
37.
are shown
calculated
residual
of laminate
38 through
figures,
as these
load versus
in Figures
design
Data
size
the most
behavior
types,
and the
and
points
"Probability
45.
the "Level
versus
load
critical
and "Level
stacking
outside
It is more
type.
of Safety
damage
size
of Safety",
as a
sequence,
are
of Safety"
the design
of Failure"
of
spreadsheet,
the Level
with a "Level
are generally
42 through
60
scheme
strength
thickness
41.
SO
on the
previously,
of disbond
of disbond
between
Based
9,
a trapezoidal
Elimination
the
at 10 8.
of 10
lI
function.
constants
using
Relations
of design
value
as a function
substituting
parameters
also be obtained,
numerically
in Section
and shown
is calculated
in Figure
be performed
obtained
established
at c values
are listed
to a finite
are integrated
relations
constants
to converge
(3.2-13)
normalizing
subroutine
is assumed
of the sandwich
The equations
by the integration
the
zero.
2.22544611
estimates
interest.
assumed
1.80084780
reliable
than
of the
10 3
Roundoff
plots
Table
Inspection
10 8
Safety"
properties
1 as the lower
1. Convergence
Using
convergence
lower
range
relationships
practical
then
of
can
to use these
necessary
the charts
0.1%,
Inspection
a "Level
42 through
Inspection
Disbond
45.
these
Disbond
thickness
the metal
and
structure
"Probability
stacking
is found
from
of Failure"
PF,_llow of
type
a strong
(-45/0/45/90)2s
(-45/0/45/90)2s
min. laminate
Disbond
results,
it can be seen
detection
probability
Inspection
the
Type
largest
of Safety"
or some
than
laminate
above
that
combination
may be utilized,
different
inspection
detection
method,
aircraft
components
accept
the
lower
trade
types.
structure.
Type
used
thickness
1 and
substantial
subject
In general,
detection
and
metal
2, a smaller
61
with
This means
that
the method
if
the
the
Type
1 is
(-45/0/45/90)2s
considerations
increase
of the
for
a specific
to the inspection
of actual
standpoint,
Inspection
for
to maintain
Inspection
thickness
and operational
probabilities
program
be used
laminate
from a life-cycle
associated
35.
If only
costs
in applying
lower
must
to the
as detection
a somewhat
maintenance
structure.
have
2 has
in Figure
Therefore,
probability
inspection
Type
weight
Inspection
of (-45/0/45/0/90)2s
of the existing
is also
of the inspection
1, as is shown
in the
of Types
thus realizing
of design
of the
2 were
(-45/0/45/90)2s
size
Inspection
(-45/0/45]0190)2s
- min. laminate
on the resulting
This type
above
At an allowable
- min. laminate
influence
used,
laminate
Type II
Elliptical
"Level
of Safety"
min. laminate
Disbond
Circular
structure,
the minimum
Type I
Elliptical
only
lbs./in.,
are:
Circular
From
to provide
of Figures
the results
of 8000
Type
it may be better
2 and
use
to
a larger
of each curve
at each damage
Location
is listed
detection
below,
probability
where
PD(a)
t is an array
associated
with
of the mean
number
location:
1
Circular
Elliptical
Location
and
Disbond
(a = diameter)
Delamination
(a = major
axis)
poll(a),
PDll(a),
tll = 1
po21(a),
Pml(a),
ll21 = 1
po12(a),
PD12(a),
1112 = 1
2
Elliptical
Disbond
(a = major
axis)
62
it.
The
of flaws
CircularDelamination(a = diameter)
For
simplicity,
it is assumed
curves
of Equation
Type
I is to be used
(5.3-1).
limit load
= 17,500
lbs./in,
structure
is 99.9%.
PFll
PF21 = 0.0.
5.
Elliptical
Location
distributions
for each
= Pol(a)
poll(a)
= Po2da)
= pozz(a)
PD12(a)
= PD22(a)
= PDI(a)
PDll(a)
= PD21(a)
= PDII(a)
lbs./in,
is applied
2.
The
disbond
of Failure"
into a "Level
disbond
at Location
For the
circular
sandwich
53 is used
tolerance
limit
load
2, Figure
"Level
1, Figure
at a 6000
of LSll
of Safety"
lb./in,
Inspection
type
are
44 can be used to
load.
= 0.9999.
The result
analysis
shows
for any
of the damage
of Failure"
that a panel
at Location
7. These
results
2, Figure
are listed
sizes
PFll
= lxlO
4, LSll
= 0.9999
Delamination
PF21 = 0.0,
Disbond
63
investigated.
of Failure"
50 is used
in tabular
LS21 = 1.0
of
with a circular
delamination
is
to find a "Probability
2
Elliptical
1, and
the
at Location
of Safety"
1, Figure
of PF12 = 5x10
to Location
allowable
damage
for the
the damage
Disbond
follow
inspection
1
Circular
t22 = 1
at Location
probabilities
= Po22(a)
at Location
of Failure"
size
II is to be used
Po12(a)
to Location
translates
damage
PD22(a),
example:
= 6x10
"Probability
Type
The detection
This is because
Location
is applied
damage
delamination
2.
of Plim 1 = 6000
4, which
delamination
PF12
at Location
the "Probability
= lxl0
Inspection
in the previous
A design
determine
that
Po22(a),
form
as:
to find
of
a
CircularDelamination
Using
Equation
LS
For the
value
(3.2-19),
= LSll.
allowable
exceeds
design
has a higher
The "Level
accuracy
based
These
allowable
provides
detected
damage
sizes
structure
depending
distributions
can be determined
= 99.98%
the calculated
damage
as:
"Level
profile
of Safety"
analyzed,
the
new
it will replace.
of the actual
damage
on the inspection
in the formula.
and
0.9999995
of the structure
for the
an estimate
will vary
LS22
(1.0)(0.99994)(0.9999995)
Thus,
estimates
7,
of LSa_ow = 99.9%,
by 0.02%.
method
= 5XI0
of Safety"
= (0.9999)
of Safety"
of the probability
on the
"Level
of Safety"
a structure.
the overall
"Level
the
PF22
detection
The
actual
probabilities
size distribution
method
utilized
damage
can
be
in
and the
size distribution
calculated
by
the
equation:
P(a)
The results
plotted
actual
of this calculation
in Figure
indicating
that
damage
significantly,
the
distribution
infinity
(5.3-2)
using
distributions
distributions
however,
of p(a)
as the damage
inspection
assumed
for both
for various
the distributions
in the
inspection
inspection
as discussed
types.
assumed
The
example
types.
types.
in Section
64
curves
are very
problem
Results
Figure
3.8,
in the example
close
closely
using
to each
are
other,
approximate
actual
54 also illustrates
in that
problems
it asymptotically
data
may
the
vary
the behavior
approaches
of
6.1
The
Benefits
benefits
varied.
of an Equivalent
of an equivalent
By taking
of safety
safety
on
equivalent
a data-driven
with engineering
the design
where
process.
safety
operating
Safety"
have
to be made
between
Also
certification
Safety"
the
meaning
However,
than
the
instant
provides
damage
to fully
The existing
event
tolerance
into
system
comparison
structures
for
and over
into the
"Level
made
airlines
a range
of
in different
assumptions
tool
in the
value
does
structure
experience
65
currently
the
only describes
point
just calculated
Past
not
characterize
derivation
at a fixed
of damage
of calculation.
along
of
during
a valuable
methodology
needed
of Safety"
data,
is
of the
and
flight
of aircraft
types.
Formulation
safety
inspection
the state
the
maintaining
or material
tools
the
program
an objective
statistical
issues
structure.
for validating
method
equivalent
tolerance
for a single
variable.
the
of Bayesian
frees
methodology
inspection
or similar
and
factors
and allows
structures,
still
or "soft"
of structure
to manage
of a particular
of Safety"
incorporation
of the Current
here,
of damage
dissimilar
type
This
of Safety"
of empirical,
to any
for arbitrary
while
characterized,
a mechanism
important,
Limitations
range
been
design,
associated
planning
are many
reduced.
The "Level
the uncertainty
is applicable
authorities
As presented
The
provides
process,
structure.
other
mechanisms
method
structures.
It incorporates
method
in the
design
the need
is substantially
to quantify
to aircraft
failure,
efficiencies
allows
The
environments.
the design
6.2
judgement,
approach
practices
than existing
also
Approach
to structural
structural
of a structure.
damage
relative
that
of Safety"
design
to, or better
CONCLUSIONS
of Safety
approach
maximum
process
characteristics
"Level
traditional
to pursue
AND
Level
a probabilistic
based
designer
RESULTS
in time,
and
is continually
is invalid
with
encompass
operational
"Level
of
a structure's
"Level
is essentially
a state
changing
at any other
mechanical
the
with
point
systems
time,
in time
holds
that
66
6.3
Topics
The
following
the method
broader
,,
for Further
topics
to some
range
are recommended
of the issues
of damage
Behavior
Research
mentioned
tolerance
of probability
for further
research
previously,
to investigate
and to extend
the
sensitivity
the method
of
to cover
issues:
distributions
derived
from
actual
damage
data
for a variety
of
structures.
,,
,,
Extension
of present
inspection
intervals.
Demonstration
fuselages,
of
method
method
empennage,
Investigation
of finite
,,
Incorporation
of damage
,,
Extension
loading,
,,
material
Characterization
composite
on
built-up
rates
and
of damage
monolithic
accumulation,
structures,
and multiple
including
wings,
etc.
,,
of method
to incorporate
and confidence
interaction
and growth
to incorporate
probabilistic
properties,
manufacturing
of probability
level determination.
effects.
assessments
variation,
of detection
structures.
67
curves
of other
variables
such
as
etc.
for
service
inspection
methods
of
APPENDIX
68
Start
Probability
of detected
density
flaw size
type in
Determination
residual
of design
of
strength
of damaged
structures
FEM
using
process
Probability
of total
number
of flaws for
Probability
detection
each
each
flaw
type
in each
flaw type
location
Evaluation
Safety
of Level
the definition
Level
of Safety
and
critical
damage
size
of
of the structure
using
updating
in
In design
of
process
location
Accepted
Level
of Safety
taken
from
Selecting
the local
structure
load
existing
airplanes
During
size for
operation
to satisfy
Update
the
inspection
required
Level of Safety
via critical
damage
size
maintenance
data
from
in-service
Manufacture
and operation
inspection
Figure
1. Flow-Chart
of Developing
69
of
flaw
of
damage
Bayesian
data
Damage
collected
of flaw
as a function
Equivalent
Safety
Aircraft
and
plan
t.==
t-
_l!sua(]
_l!l!qeqoJd
=.
_J
t-
=
.==
?0
tr_
c_
N
e_
C_
O
=
.
e_
CO
eiim
c_
e_
N
iim
CO
=
e_
e_
C_
c_
e_
O
L_3
C_
0
C_
0
L_3
_====
_====
d
_l!suap
L_3
0
0
O
e_
_l!l!qeq0Jcl
=
e_
7]
j=
_l
_ -_
AI
04f_
o_
o_
VI
O
_,_
04f_
_,_
_,_
jv_
>
o_
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
,ml
o_
72
\
\,
\
\
\
\
o_
o_
\
\
o_
o_
o_
o_
73
\\
\
I
\
\
\
\\\
\\
o_
o_
I
I
\
\
o_
o_
o_
o_
o_
74
<-_
t t
C)
c
..c
_0
.E_ w
HI
I
co
l_
J
e_
e_
"0
"0
e_
0
.Q
(n
e_
e_
cJ
o_
co
75
J
t_
=
J
t_
t_
=
tJ
=
=
=
,i
I
I
"0
c
0
.Q
u_
"0
,i
,i
0
u_
X
0
=
I
.
J
;=
J
t_
76
oJ
GO
e"
me
G)
s_
I
CO
V
"0
C
0
..Q
me
"0
0
_r_
L_
G)
G)
(u!/ql)/_l!suelu!
peol
77
J
.
J=
"T--
I
I
J=
J
J
J=
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"1"-"
"1"-"
"1"-"
"1"-"
"1"-"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
=
(u!/ql) l!sualu!
peo-I
78
=
=
0
=
A
O0
e|i
=
LO
LO
"0
CO
e-
0
..D
(/)
,=
i
q,_
"0
_-
E
m
|i
=
I
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
LO
C_
0
0
0
C_
0
0
LO
_-
(u!/ql) A]!sue]u!
0
0
0
_-
0
0
LO
peo-I
=
79
=
=
e"
|m
0
I
11
G)
L_
11
"0
cO
tm
I
I
_=
|m
"0
0
|m
L_
X
11
L_
0
11
_J
=
I
=
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
(u!/ql)
0
0
_
_l!SUalU!
0
0
0
peo-I
0
0
_4
=
8O
=.
A
p-
e_
e_
=
I
e_
LO
e_
C
o
.E_ w
I- LL
{"
me
I
o..
(
co
"O
_)
;;_
e_
J
C
i
O
(-
e_
O
s_
N_
u
{00
u)
,4mJ
e_
e_
me
_J
_r_
L_
O
O
r_
0
(0
(!sd)
0
LO
uo!loaJ!p
0
_J-
0
O0
6u!peol
0
OJ
0
",--
u! ssaJ:lS
=
e_
8]
_L
p--
rJl
(D
_')
()
*_
(
Ix)
(
o
c-
e-
(
o
.E_ w
I- u_
Q.
tO
O
e-
@J
O
C
(
C
C
j
_
o
co
_
I
.m
T'--
T--"
T--"
T--"
(!sd)
uoBoaJ!p
fiu!peol
u! ssaJtS
82
o
C,l
._
I
e_
o
0
w-e_
00
o
o_
_
00_
r_,,,
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
.i
O0
/i
_--
In
"
o
e_
!.--
co
rI
"o
_,_
e_
e_
e_
e_
0,1
/f
C)
0
0
0
LO
03
0
0
0
0
03
0
0
0
LO
(kl
(u!/ql)
0
0
0
0
(kl
0
0
0
LO
_r-
_l!sualu!
0
0
0
0
_r-
0
0
0
LO
peo-I
=
e_
83
LO
C_
C_
os
o
e"
mm
I
I
L_
0
._
0
LO
X
s._
0
ee
0
0
0
LO
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
LO
CJ
cu!/ql)
0
0
0
0
CJ
0
0
0
LO
",--
Al!sualu!
0
0
0
0
",--
peo-I
84
0
0
0
LO
c_
*i
O0
O0
0
O_
LO
cO
eo=
G)
0
LO
*i
ii
LO
o=
I
*i
CO
"0
cO
.Q
*i
ii
*i
)
"0
*i
L__
*i
ca
*i
c_
ii
c_
c_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TII
,TII
,TII
,TII
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r_
(u!/ql) _l!suelu!
peol
c_
*i
85
J
t_
_J
o_
0_
0_
0
O_
0
O_
LO
"_" 0
LO
LO
==
P._
.==
q,_
-==
o_
t_
y
0
0
0
0
0
0
J=
J
t_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(u!/ql) AI!sueIu!
0
0
0
0
0
0
peo-I
0
0
0
0
J
J
t_
o_
86
=
.
J=
=
=
C)
I-
C)
CJ
C)
c)
o_
c)
_=
t.O
!
t.O
!
t.O
l-
!
i
=
l_
_J
J=
"0
J
J
J=
J
!
=
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
_J
(u!/ql) _]!sua]u!
peo-I
J
I-
87
.
o_
J=
L_
o_
o_
o_
o_
o_
00_
o_
o_
I
I
J=
o_
,_
X
0
0
0
U3
C_
0
0
0
0
C_
0
0
0
U3
v--
0
0
0
0
v--
(u!/ql) _!sua_u!
0
0
0
U3
J
J
J=
o_
I
pe0-1
J
o_
88
e_
e_
e_
e_
e_
00
e_
.i
J
"0
e_
J
e_
J
J
C_J
,i
e_
i
0
0
0
I._
OJ
0
0
0
OJ
0
0
I._
",--
(u!/ql) _!sue_u!
0
0
0
",--
0
0
I._
0
J
peo-I
J
e_
89
o_
o_
o_
o_
U3
O0
O0
o_
0
03
(_
,_
o_
(
I
U3
G)
I
o_
o_
I
I
o_
j
J=
J
o_
I
0
0
0
0
_J"
0
0
U3
03
0
0
0
03
0
0
U3
C_
0
0
0
C_
(u!/ql) l!sualu!
0
0
U3
v-
0
0
0
v-
0
0
U3
0
J
peo-I
J
o_
9O
_,_
.i
c_
.i
c_
0
.i
IZ)
IZ)
IZ)
IZ)
"qF
A
11F
.i
_I,
11
i
<
.i
+. ,+;
.i
'_
i
1'i.
_11
0
0
0
L_3
03
0
0
0
0
03
0
0
0
L_3
C_
(u!/ql)
0
0
0
0
C_
0
0
0
L_3
v-
l!sualu!
.i
WF
O3
?./'
.i
0
0
0
0
v-
0
0
0
L_3
pe01
.i
9]
.i
(/)
OJ
tllm
i
,,,1
i
I
v
I
v
41
",-
I)
')
"ill
0
(-
E
()
41 I
_1
0
_m
,III
.,.im
0
/,
++
I,=
,,
I,=
o
0
0
0
LO
09
0
0
0
0
09
0
0
0
LO
C_
0
0
0
0
C_
0
0
0
LO
_--
0
0
0
0
_--
(u!/ql) _l!suolu!
0
0
0
LO
peo-I
I,=
91
_,
o_
o_
0
o_
00
00
03
tO
_-
tO
_"
tO
.c_
o_
0
tO
o_
o_
o_
0
o_
o_
o
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
_-
0
0
0
C_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O0
(u!/ql) l!suelu!
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
_-
0
0
0
C_
pe0-1
o_
93
o_
o_
LD
o_
00
0
0
O_
0
00
0
O_
e=
im
O=
uO
t_
"_" 0
uO
I
O=
uO
"C3
_')
CD
C
E
o_
///'
o_
0
0
0
0
(.0
0
0
0
_J"
0
0
0
Od
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O0
(u!/ql) AI!sueIu!
0
0
0
(.0
0
0
0
_J"
0
0
0
Od
peo-I
o_
94
Ckl
0
II,!
0_
Ckl
o_ _-
o_
00_
t.O t.O
0
t.O
0
t.O
0
t.O
0
t.O
!
v
!
v
CO
r_
ITI
!
v
l)
CO
*_
L_
e_
r[I
/
._
i'r
|m
J_
C_
kr
*_
/
0
0
0
0
LO
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
LO
CO
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
LO
Ckl
0
0
0
0
Ckl
(u!/ql) _l!sualu!
0
0
0
LO
.T--
peo-I
95
0
0
0
0
.T--
0
0
0
LO
J
J
J=
J
CJ
J
LO
J=
Z
i
O_
o_
.=_
ii
LO
j_
o_
_ o_=_
o._
U_
o_
LO
_'_
CO
_.[',,_
LO
e_
0
0
0
0
LO
_"
0
0
0
0
_"
0
0
0
LO
CO
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
LO
CJ
0
0
0
0
CJ
(u!/ql) l!sualu!
0
0
0
LO
_-
0
0
0
0
_-
0
0
0
LO
peo-I
e.l
e_
96
0
L_
0_
L_
0
L_
L_
L_
L_
!
v
!
v
co
!
_
A
o_
_m
,.=E-
o_
am
'=
ca
o_
o_
I
o_
e_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LC)
C_
0
0
0
0
C_
0
0
0
LC)
04
0
0
0
0
04
(u!/ql) _l!suelu!
0
0
0
LC)
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LC)
peo-I
(",1
e_
97
_=
e_
0
0
0
LC)
J=
cJ
Z
i
.
cJ
o_
J=
Od
&
(D
Cq
00d
0
J=
LO
0
0"_
T
J=
0
l_
J=
O)
rfI
im
V
i
_i
e_
i
o_
LO
r_
"
o
0
co
I
o_
o_
ul
i=. i
im
o_
_=;_
cJ
o== I_
=_t
03
LO
_i't
l_
I
0
o_
0
0
0
U3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U3
(u!/ql) i(l!su01u!
peo-I
i
l_
o_
98
==
J=
O0
:=
ee_
t.O
e_
e_
_=
e_
E
_=
in
c_
=
e_
o
0
0
0
Lt3
O3
0
0
0
0
O3
0
0
0
_'3
C_
0
0
0
0
C_
0
0
0
_'3
v-
(u!/ql) _l!suelu!
0
0
0
0
v-
peo-I
0
0
0
Lt3
ee)
=
e_
99
_J
_J
_J
J
LI3
_J
O0
Oq
Z
00"J
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
e_
|i
e_
r-
.C
e_
_I'
"1
q)
0
I
l=
o-=
J
'=
l=
,,_
0
-_'_
0
|i
LI3
t_
ugh
=
e_
0
0
0
I.I3
0'3
,J
0
0
0
0
0'3
0
0
0
I.I3
0,,I
0
0
0
0
0
0,,I
0
0
0
I.I3
",--
(u!/ql) Al!sualu!
0
0
0
0
",--
0
0
0
I.I3
e4
peo-I
=
e_
100
o
0
oJ
C_
_"
0
oJ
_o _
_.=.
il
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CO
CO
C_
C_
v-
v-
0
0
0
0
eo
(u!/ql) _l!sualu!
peo-I
J
101
J=
Z
J
.
o_
J=
L_
&
J=
J=
C_
J=
I
00J
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
o_
t-
"_
V
o_
I
o_
-_
o_
o_
o_
o_
0
0
0
0
LO
O0
0
0
0
0
O0
0
0
0
LO
(NI
0
0
0
0
(NI
0
0
0
LO
_--
(u!/ql) l!sualu!
0
0
0
0
_--
0
0
0
LO
0
J
pe0-1
J
o_
102
O0
m
m
O3
EL
O3
EL
=
tO
tO
C.3
O3
EL
Gr3
t-
C.3
O3
EL
Gr3
t-
c,.O
=
=
|m
,=
N
im
(/)
=
Cl
%
\
%
C)
C)
CJ
c_
(e) a d
c_
_l!l!qeqoJd
c_
c_
uo!loalaQ
103
o_
c=
A
c=
|m
LO
N
iim
0")
o_
E
a
o_
o_
I
o_
c=
C_
0
CO
Lr)
C_I
Lr)
._--
Lr)
Od
"-
{el od _|!l!qeqoJcl
a6euJeo pa|oa|aO
104
o_
o_
im
=
o_
N
LO
|m
>
o_
o_
t_
C_
m
t_
t_
CO
|m
o_
o_
>
Cd
|m
C_
>
0
=
L_
LO
0"_
LO
_leJes
jo leAe3
105
LO
r_
LO
o_
0
0
0
0
cO
00
00_
kO
kO
kO
kO
kO
kO
0
0
0
L._
0
0
0
0
I=
im
im
m
i
im
0
0
0
L._
J
f
I=
I=
m
"0
0
0
0
0
im
_I
I
i
0
_I
0
0
0
140
I
I
0
0
O_
O_
0
co
O_
0
_..
O_
0
cO
O_
0
140
O_
0
_
O_
0
cO
O_
0
0_I
O_
0
e_
_leJes jo leAe-I
106
.E
L_3
0
0
_-
"I"-"
L_3
03
(33
03
03
0
6
Kle_es
L_3
O0
(33
O0
03
0
L_3
_
(33
03
0
t_
jo leAel
t_
107
0
0
__
Or)
00 _
00J
o_
0
0
0"3
0
0
0
LO
Od
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
o_
!
V
!
V
o_
Od
o_
m
I
im
0
0
0
LO
C
o_
o_
C
m
"D
,q
0
0
0
[]
0
_1
.4-,
o_
"7:
im
,q
--I
11
I
I
I
0
0
0
LO
.4
o_
::::::::::::::::
Od
0
0"3
o_ o_ d
o d
_leles
CO
CO
::::::::::::::::::
0o 0o 0o 0o
d d d d
_0 leAe-I
108
o_
//
_K
/
0
C_
m
j,,./
_4
i
0
C_
i o
I
--I
mm
0
0
0
LC_
!
!
!
!
o_
,-
o_ o_
ddd
o_
o_
o_
ddd
o_
o_ o_
ddd
KleJes jo leAe-I
109
o_
o_
o_
0
I
III
0
o_
m
o_
c_
0
o
u)
ILl
0
v
Z
Z
m_
L_
0I
ILl
z
Or)
0
O_
04
0
00_
0
O_
.D
.D
iii
o.
n.
4_
I
0
m_
o_
m_
o
0
IJ.
I
o_
(3")
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L_
_
0
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
L_
,r--
0
0
0
0
,r--
0
0
0
L_
III
0
o_
('u!/sql) _1!suelul
peo7 l!m!-I
o_
110
o
o_
u')
u')
I
V
O'3
=_
I
o_
III
II
III
0
0
0
0
0"3
0
0
0
_
OJ
0
0
0
0
OJ
0
0
0
_
",-
('u!/sql) _l!sualul
0
0
0
0
",-
0
0
0
0
o_
peo-I 1!_!-I
o_
lll
o_
e_
0
e_
<5
i
e_
am
<5 _
e_
o,,
e_
d
O0
m
O'3
0
0
0
..Q
"Q
0
_L
I
0
i
_
0
0
0
0
0
e_
i
e_
0
!
III
0
0
0
0
03
0
0
0
L.O
OJ
0
0
0
0
OJ
0
0
0
L.O
"_
('u_/sa_) _|!sua|ul
0
0
0
0
"_
0
0
0
L.O
0
e_
peo-I |!m!-I
=
e_
112
_._
-_
..]
0
0
0
0
CO
('u!/sql) _l!sualul
peo-I l!LU!-I
,,g
o_
113
O
O
O
O
0'3
O
O
O
L.O
O4
O
O
O
O
O4
.=_"
a= ,'--m
_K
41,
tf
mm
r"
t_
C
O
O
O
L.O
or}
O
O
O
O
_'.-4
O
,--I
r=
mm
03
,--I
O
O
O
L.O
03
03
00
03
I'_
03
_3
03
u')
03
_I"
03
03
03
04
03
_le=l.eSjo leAel
114
,,&
_,_
o_
0
0
0
CO
o_
0
0
0
0
cO
0
A
v
o_
I
V
0
0
0
L._
o_
e"
am
o_
I
I
e_
0
0
0
0
am
I
eo_
0
0
0
L._
e"
m
_
"0
0
.J
0
0
0
0
am
.J
!
0
0
0
u3
0
0
0
o_
03
0
leJes
03
0
03
0
jo leAel
o_
115
o_
0
0
0
U3
CO
O0
0
0
tO
03
tO
0
tO
tO
tO
o_
0
0
0
0
CO
o_
0
0
0
U3
C_
E
I
0
tO
_r _r
0
0
0
0
C_
,..I"
/
AW"
iF
e"
=m
o_
e_
m
V
=m
e"J
0
0
0
U3
...a
/
/
era
o_
0
.J
/
/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U3
=m
E
=m
.J
_E
0
C_
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
o_
Kle_es jo leAel
o_
116
ol
0
0
__
C_
_.
0
OJ
C_
_
C
OJ
03
LO
LO
LO
U_
U_
U_
ol
0
0
0
0
o9
__
ol
0
0
II
cJ
ol
ol
I
I
e_
I
0
0
"1
0
0,1
ol
i
ol
/
/
)
)
'_
_-
0
_1
ol
0
0
t_
,1
t_
iN
_-
) i
..1
0
0
0
)
)
)
)
--
0
ol
0
_
03
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
03
0
K|e_es _o leAel
t--
ol
117
r_
o_
o_
i
I
III
0
i
o_
,l
ill
m
c,O
x_
o_
I
III
0
ill
Ill
i..(")
0
I
_,
III
ii -i
m
Im
l_l
__
II
0
o_
im
m
im
0"_
i
o_
0
I
c_
1.1
III
o_
o_
...............................................................................................
.__.............................
I .._..I
.............................................
III
I
0
0
0
t.,O
CO
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
t.,O
_
0
0
0
0
_
(lU!/Sql) _l!sualul
0
0
0
t.,O
_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t.,O
0
o_
peo-I l!lu!-I
o_
118
6
I
0
0
I
I
o
m
L.O
0
W
,--
_:_
O
I"0
mm
LI.
_+
II_,I
OJ
0
(,/'j
W
0
O
mm
,0
W
,-
O
,12.
o_
o_
I
0
0
0
LO
CO
0
0
0
0
CO
0
0
0
LO
C_
0
0
0
0
C_
('u!/sql) _l!sualul
0
0
0
LO
v-
0
0
0
0
v-
0
0
0
LO
peo-I l!tu!-I
119
_'_
- "i
ip
_,I
o
m
,_I,.
II 'I
II _,I
m+
0
,--_"
U'J
_I,
0
O3
II _'I
0
0
_+
0
!
V
_I, II
"lTr+
0
0
0
U3
03
I _'I
0
0
i
V
!
V
,lJ,
_=_
t,",J
_
= _.,
_E
_
"'_
m.._
"I
..........P?TP
..........rPir
......... ]rl]
...........I]PI
0
0
0
0
03
0
0
0
U3
CJ
0
0
0
0
CJ
0
0
0
U3
"_-
('u!/sql) _|!sua|ul
..........P?Tr
0
0
0
0
"_-
......... Tl?r
0
0
0
U3
peo-I :l.!m!-I
120
LU
_"
=
--_
e4
I
I
0
m
0
0
0
ii"
0b
_-,-
,0
0
0
0
I.I.
"_
LO
LO
LO
e_
03
0
e_
0
,12.
LU
I
v
I
v
I
v
'4+
IPI
0
I
LU
0
0
0
LO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LO
0
0
0
0
('u!/sql)/q!sualul
0
0
0
LO
0
0
0
0
peol
121
0
0
0
LO
l!tu!l
0
>,
0
E
==.
II _
_
0
am
o_
=.
00
m
m
C1)
C1)
>.,
>.,
(.C)
(.C)
O
C1)
O
C1)
c/)
(.-
c/)
(.-
.=
CO
C_
d
nm
C_
_J
o_
t_J
N
iim
C/)
_J
N
o_
03
Cq
C/3
_J
=
J
,_
C_
o_
_J
o_
I
o_
CO
I.(3
"_-
03
Cq
,v-
c;
c;
m)d _3Jl!qeqoJd
C_
t_
eOeuJeo lem,0V
_J
t_
=
o_
122
1.
Cruse, Thomas
York, 1997.
2.
Sundararajan,
1995.
3.
Ditlevsen,
O. and
Inc., 1996.
4.
Soares,
C. Guedes,
Publishers,
1997.
5.
6.
Chamis,
C.C.,
R.S.,
H.P.,
Damage
11.
Gary,
Methods
for
R.
Structures,
Northrop
R.S.,
Advanced
Prediction
Jean,
"How
P.M.,
and
Methodology
Federal
Aviation
12. Rummel,
Ward
Capabilities
Data
(NTIAC),
for
and
Book,
Texas
Kluwer
Academic
Testing
and
1997.
E.S.,
Certification
Testing
Aircraft
Division,
Methodology
for
1997.
Methodology
for
Impact
Damaged
1998.
Composite
Structures,
Recent
Progress
Proceedings
of 17 th ICAS Congress,
the Situation
of the No-Growth
Application
to
ICAF'
97 Composite
M.G.,
DOT/FAA/AR-95/17,
Composite
Administration,
D,
Wiley
1990.
to Address
Riskalla,
& Sons,
Certification
No. DOT/FAA/AR-97/79,
Approach?:
with Composites,"
John
Corporation
No. DOT/FAA/AR-96/111,
Report
Probabilistic
Saether,
New
& Hall,
Materials:
pp. 23-42,
Inc.,
Champman
Design,
Composite
and
Dekker,
Methods,
Structural
Design,"
Cordero,
Reliability
pp. 1439-1447,
Design
Center
Reliability
J., "Certification
of Large Airplane
Trends
in Compliance
Philosophy,"
Rouchon,
with
Report
Enhanced
Stockholm,
10.
H.P.,
Marcel
Handbook,
Structural
R. and Whitehead,
Structures,
Mechanics
Composite
for Composite
CA, October
1986.
Structures,
Rouchon,
and New
H.O.,
Design,
Kan,
H. P., Cordero,
Kan,
Structural
"Probabilistic
Whitehead,
Kan,
Mechanical
Probabilistic
13, ASTM
Composite
.
Madsen,
Design_, Vol.
Composite
8.
Reliability-based
C., Probabilistic
Methodology
Hawthorne,
7.
A.,
REFERENCES
Matzkanin,
Third
Research
Workshop,
Structures,
Washington,
Edition,
Institute
U.S.
A.,
123
Impact
17 June
1997.
of Probabilistic
of Transportation,
1997.
Nondestructive
Nondestructive
Austin,
Edinburgh,
Department
in Fatigue,
Accidental
Development
DC, August
George
Concept
Low-Velocity
Testing
Inc., Austin,
Evaluation
Information
TX, November
(NDE)
Analysis
1997.
Inspections,
Administration,
14.
Spencer,
Rivet
Deparmaent
December
15. Ang,
DC, October
Using
H.S.,
Karlsson
17. Timoshenko,
Wilson
& Sorensen,
and
Jane,
K.C.,
Aviation
John Wiley
Reliability
Stability,
Concepts
& Sons,
20.
K.C.,
and
Yin,
W.L.,
"Refined
2nd Edition,
Buckling
and
Buckling
Dimensional
International
Delaminations,
II: Results
for
Journal of Solids and Structures,
Whitcomb,
J.D.,
Delamination,"
"Three-Dimensional
Journal
of Composite
and
Small
Washington,
DC,
in Engineering
Manual,
McGraw-Hill,
Postbuckling
Analysis
of Two-
Journal
of Solids
Analysis
of Two-
International
Postbuckling
24.
Awerbuch,
J.,
and
Composites,
Vol.4,
Tan,
Seng
Company,
25.
and
Predictions
Madhukar,
Anisotropic
Laminates
and Conclusion,"
Vol.29, No.5, pp. 611-639,
1992.
Analysis
Materials,
of
Vol.23,
Postbuckled
pp. 862-889,
pp.3-159,
C., Stress
Inc.,
Embedded
1988.
and Fracture
of Elliptical
Delaminations
Structures,
Vol.9, pp. 139-159,
1988.
p. 354-363,
M.S.,
Experiments:
5.7,
1961.
23.
Planning
Version
22.
for Composites,
Cracks
U.S.
Kassapoglou,
C., "Buckling,
Post-Buckling
Laminates
Under Compression,"
Composite
Society
on
Aviation
Techniques,
21.
American
Report
1975.
User's
Dimensional
Delaminations,
I: Analysis
and Validation,"
and Structures,
Vol.29, No.5, pp. 591-610,
1992.
19. Jane,
for
Inspection
ABAQUS/Standard
"Refined
Project
Federal
Administration,
H., Probability
Inc.,
W.L.,
Detection
Nondestructive
Federal
Principles",
Research
Transportation,
1996.
Eddy-Current
and Tang,
Vol. 1: "Basic
Inspection
of
DOT/FAA/AR-97/73,
Heads
Alfredo
16. Hibbitt,
1997.
W.,
Visual
Department
of Transportation,
1998.
and Design,
18. Yin,
Washington,
Floyd
Beneath
U.S.
in
Modeling
of
Conference,
1988.
"Notched
Review,"
Strength
Journal
of
of
Composite
Reinforced
Laminates:
Plastics
and
1985.
Concentrations
in Laminated
Composites,
Technomic
Publishing
1994.
Mar,
J.W.
and
Lin,
Discontinuities,"
Journal
K.Y.,
"Fracture
of
of Composite
Materials,
124
Boron]Aluminum
Composites
Vol. 11, pp. 405-421,
1977.
with
Waddoups,
Mechanics
pp. 446-454,
28.
M.E.,
Eiswmann,
of Advanced
and
Kaminski,
Materials,"
Journal
B.E.,
"Macroscopic
of Composite
Fracture
Materials,
Vol.5,
1971.
Chang,
F.K.
and Lessard,
Containing
an Open
Hole
Composite
J.R.
Composite
Materials,
Vol.25,
L.B.,
"Damage
and Subjected
1991.
125
to
Tolerance
of
Compressive
Laminated
Loadings,"
Composites
Journal
of
REPORT
DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington
Headquarters
Services, Directorate for Information Operations and
Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY
USE
Davis Highway,
ONLY
(Leave
blank)
VA 22202-4302,
2. REPORT
February
4. TITLE
AND
DATE
3. REPORT
2000
SUBTITLE
Structural
TYPE
Contractor
AND
Reduction
DATES
Methodology
Based on Concepts
(0704-0188),
COVERED
Report
5. FUNDING
Design
Project
NUMBERS
of Uncertainty
522-31-71-02
6. AUTHOR(S)
K. Y. Lin, Jiaji Du, and David Rusk
7. PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
NAME(S)
Department
of Aeronautics
University of Washington
Box 352400
Seattle,
WA
AND
8. PERFORMING
ADDRESS(ES)
REPORT
and Astronautics
98195-2400
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY
NAME(S)
AND
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
ADDRESS(ES)
AGENCY
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23681-2199
11.
SUPPLEMENTARY
REPORT
NUMBER
NASA/CR-2000-209847
NOTES
Langley Technical
Final Report
12a.
ORGANIZATION
NUMBER
Monitor:
DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY
W. Jefferson
Stroud
STATEMENT
12b.
DISTRIBUTION
CODE
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject Category
39
Distribution:
Availability:
NASA CASI (301) 621-0390
13. ABSTRACT
(Maximum
200
Standard
words)
14. SUBJECT
TERMS
damage
tolerance,
reliability,
17. SECURITY
OF
damage
CLASSIFICATION
REPORT
Unclassified
NSN
7540-01-280-5500
15. NUMBER
probability,
detection,
Bayesian
composite
18. SECURITY
OF THIS
statistics,
sandwich,
CLASSIFICATION
PAGE
Unclassified
inspection,
aircraft structures
19. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
OF
PAGES
130
uncertainty
16. PRICE
CODE
A07
20.
LIMITATION
OF
ABSTRACT
Unclassified
Standard
Form
Prescribed
298-102
by ANSI
298 (Rev.
Std.
2-89)
Z-39-18