AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition: The Next 100 Year
14-17 July 2003, Dayton, Ohio
DAMAGE TOLERANT DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
OF CURRENT AND FUTURE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE
Hans-Jrgen Schmidt
Head of Metal Design Principles and Head of Fatigue and Damage Tolerance, Airbus, Hamburg, Germany
Bianka Schmidt-Brandecker
Metal Design Principles and Fatigue and Damage Tolerance, Airbus, Hamburg, Germany
Abstract
The primary objective for the aerospace industry
is to offer products that not only meet the operat-
ing criteria in terms of payloads and range but
also significantly reduce the direct operating
costs of their customers, the airlines. The struc-
ture of the present civil transport aircraft is de-
signed considering the current and forthcoming
airworthiness regulations, the customers re-
quirements and manufacturing aspects.
This paper outlines the implications of the cur-
rent airworthiness regulations for fatigue and
damage tolerance (FAR 25.571 Amendment 25-
96 and advisory circular AC25.571-1C), with
respect to structural design, analysis and main-
tenance requirements. This includes structure
potentially susceptible to widespread fatigue
damage.
During the last years significant improvements
have been achieved for fuselage structures by
using new design principles, advanced materials
and improved manufacturing processes. The
application of these new technologies for future
fuselage structures requires a new interpretation
of the airworthiness regulations, which were
originally defined for monolithic metallic materi-
als and conventionally assembled structure (e.g.
by riveting or bonding). Furthermore the appli-
cation of the new materials and manufacturing
processes requires also further development of
the analysis methods to comply with the regula-
tions. Examples of design features using the
new technologies as well as the new aspects of
the analysis methods are presented.
Introduction
The continued growth in air traffic has placed an
increasing demand on the aerospace industry to
manufacture aircraft at lower cost, whilst ensur-
ing the products are efficient to operate, friendly
to the environment and ensure that the required
level of safety is maintained. Four key airframe
drivers are identified which include the following
primary objectives:
1. Development:
Low weight structure
Low non-recurring costs
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2003 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
AIAA 2003-2784
High performance aircraft
Reduced design times
2. Manufacturing
Low recurring costs
Short flow time
Reduced impact on environment
3. Operation
Increased safety and reliability
Reduced inspections and improved repa-
rability
Low operating costs
Low environmental impact (emissions and
noise)
Increased operational capacity and pas-
senger comfort
4. Disposal
Possibilities of recycling
Low environmental impact
To fulfill these targets and to comply with the
latest airworthiness regulations and recommen-
dations, the application of the advanced damage
tolerance philosophy, methods and data is es-
sential. The existing analysis and experimental
methods as well as the newest research results
have to be taken into account.
Structural criteria and requirements
The major structural design criteria considered
during the design development phase are listed
in Table 1. These criteria comprise the basic
static strength, durability and the damage toler-
ance aspects, as introduced in 1978 into the
regulations as well as the additional major re-
quirements (e.g. discrete source damage, sonic
fatigue, wind milling, etc.). The forthcoming regu-
lations must be considered too, which require a
certain structural damage capability (SDC) to
provide an additional design margin to the air-
craft. Furthermore other airworthiness and eco-
nomic aspects as corrosion resistance, repara-
bility and inspectability need also to be consid-
ered. Designing for these criteria will provide a
structure, which will meet the certification re-
quirements and the customers expectations.
Figure 1 shows in principle the damage types to
be considered during the damage tolerance
evaluation. The basic assumption for all damage
tolerance assessments is the local damage sce-
nario, i.e. a damage in one or more elements of
a principal structural element (PSE) at a single
site, which is not influenced by damages in adja-
cent locations. Furthermore multiple site damage
(MSD) and/or multiple element damage (MED)
have to be considered in structure susceptible to
these types of damages. MSD is characterized
by the simultaneous presence of fatigue cracks
in the same structural element and MED occurs
simultaneously in similar adjacent structural
elements. MSD or MED may lead to widespread
fatigue damage (WFD), which is reached when
the structure will no longer meet its damage
tolerance requirements, i.e. sufficient residual
strength under limit load condition. The structural
damage capability (SDC) will be required by the
forthcoming regulations. It is the characteristic of
the structure which permits it to retain sufficient
static load capability in the presence of damage
equivalent to the complete failure of a load path
or partial failure of the load path between dam-
age containment features, i.e. a one- bay-crack-
criterion. A more detailed interpretation of the
regulations and requirements is given by Swift 1.

Table 1: Structural design criteria

Design Criteria Requirements Loads

Static strength Undamaged structure must sustain the loads Ultimate loads
Deformation Deformation of undamaged structure may not inter- Limit loads
fere with safe operation
Durability Damage tolerant structure must meet service life Operational loads
requirements
Safe life components must remain crack free in
service
Residual strength Damaged structure must sustain loads without Limit loads
catastrophic failure
Crack growth Damage tolerant structure must meet defined in- Operational loads
spection program
Structural damage Damage tolerant structure must have structural Limit loads
capability damage capability
Discrete source Airplane with damaged structure must be able to Discrete source
damage complete flight successfully or certain risk level to damage loads
be meet get home loads
Sonic fatigue Sonic fatigue cracks leading to catastrophic failure Operational loads
must be improbable
Further considerations Corrosion resistance, repairability, inspectability,
wind milling, etc.

strength capability. These results are the neces-

sary for the definition of the structural inspection
program.

Current aircraft design and analysis

During the initial design phase of new aircraft

Figure 1: Damage types (examples)
For all locations susceptible to either local dam-
age (LD) or widespread fatigue damage (WFD),
see Figure 2, fatigue and damage tolerance
evaluations are required. These evaluations
include the assessment of the fatigue life (dura-
bility), the crack growth between detectable and
critical size and the determination of the residual
types the application of new materials and pro-
duction methods is considered to reduce the
production costs and the structural weight as
well as to comply with the new regulations. The
fuselage skins of all Airbus aircraft certified up to
2001 were made of 2024T3, T42 or T351. The
stringer material was 2024T3 in the upper shell
and 7075T73 in the lower shell, which is mainly
designed by compression loads.
The first step to apply new materials for the fuse-
lage skin was made for the derivatives of the
A340, i.e. for the A340-500 and 600, which are
stretched versions of the basic A340-300 and
which have been certified in 2002.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 the lower shell where the skin-stringer connec-
tion is welded to reduce the production costs,
see Figure 5. Consequently a weldable material
has to be chosen which is 6013 or 6056 for the
skin and 6110A or 6056 for the stringers.

Figure 2: Local damage versus MSD/MED

The dimensioning design case for the upper

fuselage shells is the crack growth behavior
between a damage detectable by general sur-
veillance inspection (walk around, A-, B- or C-
check) and the critical crack length under limit
load. To meet the weight target for the A340-
500/-600 new materials were selected in many
areas, see Figure 3.

Figure 4: Built-up structure

Figure 3: Material distribution at Airbus

A340-600 fuselage

For the forward and rear fuselage the material

2524T3 has been selected for the skin in the
upper shell, which allows to increase the allow-
able longitudinal skin stresses by approximately
15 percent. For the side and lower shells the
basic 2024 material is kept except in a small
area forward and aft of the center section where
7475T761 was selected due to static reasons.
For improvement of the static strength stringers
of high strength material 7349T7 were selected
for the whole fuselage circumference with a few
exceptions.
To date pressurized fuselages of commercial
transport airplanes generally consist of a built-up
structure where the skin-to-stringer connection
may be riveted or bonded. The other connec-
tions such as skin-clip (shear ties) and clip-
frames are riveted, see Figure 4. The materials
used are in general the aluminum 2000 series
(2024, 2524) for all elements. In specific areas
7000 series alloys (7475, 7075, 7349) are used
to increase the static strength and/or the residual
strength. The new derivative of the Airbus single
aisle family, the A318 contains some panels in
Figure 5: Integral (welded) structure
Evaluation of structure
The fatigue and damage tolerance evaluation as
required by the FAR/JAR regulation must be
performed by analysis supported by test evi-
dence, i.e. structural tests are performed for
certification purposes to validate analysis meth-
ods and design allowables and finally to proof
the structure. Figure 6 shows as an example the
full scale fatigue test of the center fuselage and
wing of the A340-600. Furthermore tests are
conducted for development purposes and to
ensure that the in-service airplanes meet or ex-
ceed customers requirements and expectations.
Development tests are accomplished to charac-
terize the performance of new materials, validate
new design and manufacturing procedures and

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
demonstrate improved durability, safety and
maintainability of the structure.
Figure 6: A340-600 full scale fatigue test
center fuselage and wing
The analysis of the structure is performed to
justify a sufficient fatigue life of the structure as
well as an adequate damage tolerance behavior,
which results in the definition of an appropriate
inspection program. The traditional fatigue life
calculation using the MINER rule is still widely
used by the major manufacturers of civil trans-
port aircraft. However, many investigations have
shown that the application of the MINER rule
may lead either to un-conservative results or an
under-prediction of the real fatigue life. There-
fore several improvements have been imple-
mented in the fatigue life calculation by the dif-
ferent manufacturers leading to appropriate re-
sults.
The objective of the damage tolerance evalua-
tion is to provide an inspection program for each
principle structural element (PSE) such that
cracking, initiated by fatigue, accidental damage
or corrosion, will not propagate to catastrophic
failure prior to detection. The damage tolerance
analysis consists of fatigue crack growth and
residual strength analysis. The general approach
makes use of a basis stress intensity parameter
K, which is a measure of the stress singularity at
the tip of a crack in an infinitely wide panel. This
stress situation is generally characterized by a
stress intensity factor. In addition, correction
factors are used for modifying the influence of
the geometry. The crack growth periods are
generally determined using the Forman law.
Furthermore a residual strength analysis is per-
formed to determine the critical crack length
under limit loads, which limits the crack growth
period for determining the inspection interval.
A new aspect of the damage tolerance analysis
was introduced by the Amendment 25-96 requir-
ing the demonstration that widespread fatigue
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
damage (WFD) will not occur within the design
service goal (DSG) of the aircraft. There is a
general agreement throughout the literature that
MSD and its subsequent phenomenon WFD
largely depend on probabilistic effects. These
effects can be derived from parameters which
influence the development of MSD and WFD
and which themselves show a probabilistic char-
acter. The major parameters are the initial de-
sign of a structural part, the loading (e.g. high
tension, high induced bending or high load trans-
fer), the manufacturing process, the material
properties and to a certain degree the environ-
ment. These parameters obviously have a great
influence on the fatigue life (MSD behavior) of a
structure. Therefore, any approach to assess
MSD has to consider the probabilistic nature of
these parameters.
In the Airbus approach this is done by means of
a Monte-Carlo simulation. The analysis model
itself consists of two parts, a probabilistic and a
deterministic part. Within the probabilistic algo-
rithm the initial damage scenario is determined,
while the subsequent steps, such as damage
accumulation, crack growth and residual
strength are calculated in a deterministic ap-
proach. The process is performed for a pre-
defined number of simulations.
The AAWG report 2 has defined the general
evaluation process for structure susceptible to
WFD for monolithic aluminum. It is recom-
mended to commence the so-called WFD
inspections at 33 percent of the average time to
WFD occurrence. Considering the limited
reliability of these inspections to find small
multiple cracks particularly in hidden areas, it is
required to modify, retire or repair the structure
at 50 percent of the average time to WFD oc-
currence. The threshold for WFD inspections is
defined as Inspection Start Point (ISP) and the
time to repair as Structure Modification Point
(SMP).
Figure 7: In-service actions for structure
susceptible to WFD
The results of the WFD analysis have to be as-
sessed regarding the repercussions on the aging
fleet. An example for service actions as the re-
sult of the WFD analysis is given in Figure 7.
This example shows typical values that can be
expected for monitoring periods in fuselage type
structure.
Advanced technologies and materials
fuselage panels dimensioned by damage toler-
ance behavior. The material provides several
improvements such as low density, high durabil-
ity, slow crack growth, high residual strength,
high corrosion resistance and high fire resis-
tance.

The aircraft industry, as one of the most innova- GLARE is a hybrid material built-up from alter-
tive industries, is always obliged to introduce nating layers of aluminum sheets (thickness
new materials and technologies. The aim of this between 0.2 and 0.5 mm, mainly made from
introduction is the reduction of the manufacturing 2024T3) and glass fiber reinforced adhesive
costs, the aircraft weight and the direct operating unidirectional layers (FM94-S2-Glass, thickness
costs (DOCs) as well as the compliance with the 0.125 mm). Figure 9 shows the general defini-
more stringent future airworthiness regulations. tion of GLARE and Table 2 contains the eight
standard GLARE types.
An additional challenge exists for the develop-
ment of very large transport aircraft, e.g. Airbus
A380. In theory, when the size of an aircraft is
increased by a certain factor, its volume and its
weight increase with the factor to the third
power. This exponential increase means that
weight problems of very large transport aircraft
are quite significant. By improving the configura-
tion of these aircraft types, the effect of this law
can be reduced. Furthermore new materials and
technologies play a major role for very large
aircraft.

The following chapter describes key technolo- Figure 9: Definition of GLARE

gies to achieve the goals mentioned above, and
their application to date and/or in future. Figure 8 Table 2: GLARE types
shows the distribution of the skin material at the
Airbus A380-800. Standard Fiber Fiber/ Al alloy
GLARE adhe- adhesive
types sive layer
layer build-up
(mm)
GLARE 1 0.25 0/0 7475T761
GLARE 2A 0.25 0/0 2024T3
GLARE 2B 0.25 90/90 2024T3
Figure 8: Material distribution at Airbus A380
GLARE 3 0.25 0/90 2024T3

Fiber metal laminate GLARE GLARE 4A 0.375 0/90/0 2024T3

Fiber metal laminates (FML) were developed at GLARE 4B 0.375 90/0/90 2024T3
Delft University of Technology as a family of new GLARE 5 0.50 0/90/90/0 2024T3
hybrid materials consisting of bonded thin metal
sheets and fiber/adhesive layers. The laminated GLARE 6 0.25 +45/-45 2024T3
structure provides materials with excellent fa-
tigue, impact and damage tolerance characteris- GLARE offers an excellent crack growth behav-
tics at low density. The trademarks are ARALL ior for both crack types, i.e. for the so-called
and GLARE. The prepregs act as barriers through cracks and part-through cracks. This
against corrosion and the laminate has an inher- superior behavior is the result of the presence of
ent high burn-through resistance as well as good fibers in the laminate, which do not fail due to
damping and insulation properties. fatigue. This enables load transfer over the crack
through the fibers, thus reducing the crack tip
GLARE provides an attractive weight saving opening, the stress intensity factor and finally the
potential of approximately 10 to 20 percent for crack growth rate. Figure 10 shows the crack

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
bridging of the fibers and the resulting effect on
the crack growth curves. The GLARE 2 type
specimen was loaded in fiber direction,
GLARE 3 includes fibers in both directions, par-
allel and perpendicular to the load direction. Due
to less fiber content perpendicular to the crack
GLARE 3 shows a slightly worse crack growth
behavior compared to GLARE 2.
Figure 10: Crack growth behavior in GLARE
Most current regulations and advisory circulars
were established when the aircraft structure was
made of monolithic aluminum. Therefore the
present interpretation of the damage tolerance
requirements has to be adapted to the specific
characteristics of GLARE material without
changing the overall goals regarding a safe op-
eration up to the end of the service life. Table 3
contains the comparison of the characteristics
between the conventional aluminum and the
GLARE structure. Summarizing Table 3 the
GLARE material provides a short crack initia-
tion time, but superior crack growth behavior and
excellent residual strength properties in case of
fatigue cracks, i.e. when the fibers are intact.
Figure 11 shows the application of the damage
tolerance philosophy for structure made of
GLARE and monolithic aluminum and suscep-
tible to WFD. The curves Al and Gl indicate the The total stresses in the aluminum layers are
typical crack growth and residual strength be-
havior of monolithic and GLARE structure.
As explained above the Inspection Start Point
(ISP) and the Structural Modification Point
(SMP) are defined by applying factors 3 and 2,
respectively, on the WFD average behavior. For
the inspection interval a factor 2 is used on the
6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
crack growth period between detectable and
critical MSD damage:
ISPAl = NWFD Al / 3 ISPGl = NWFD Gl / jISP Gl
SMPAl = NWFD Al / 2 SMPGl = NWFD Gl / jSMP Gl
IWFD Al = NWFD Al / 2 IWFD Gl = NWFD Gl / jI Gl
Figure 11: Damage tolerance philosophy for
WFD in Al and GLARE structure
The scatter factors jISP Gl, jSMP Gl and the crack
growth factor jI Gl will be defined by relevant re-
search programs. However, the probability of
failure at SMPGL should not exceed the probabil-
ity of failure at SMPAL, i.e. approximately 510-2.
Since fatigue initiation affects mainly the alumi-
num layers in GLARE, the fatigue initiation
process is similar to that of monolithic aluminum.
Therefore a similar stress level in the aluminum
will lead to the same time to crack initiation. The
fatigue initiation in GLARE is calculated in the
same way as for monolithic aluminum, i.e. using
the actual stresses in the aluminum layer at the
critical location. The actual stresses in the alu-
minum layers in GLARE consist of stresses due
to the curing process, stresses due to external
loads and stresses due to temperature deviating
from the ambient conditions.
The actual stresses in the aluminum layers due
to external loads are affected by the different
stiffness of the GLARE components. Due to the
lower stiffness of the fibers, the stresses in the
aluminum layers will therefore be higher than the
applied stresses.
obtained by superposition of the curing stresses,
the stresses due to external load and the
stresses from operational temperatures (not
described here), see Figure 12. The total stress
and the relevant SN curve allow to estimate the
fatigue initiation life in the aluminum layers.
Table 3: Monolithic Aluminum structure versus GLARE structure

Aluminum structure GLARE structure

Fatigue and damage tolerance
Long crack free life Shorter crack free life
Moderate growth of short and small cracks Faster growth of short and small cracks
Significant growth of long cracks Slow growth of long cracks
Significant reduction of residual strength in the Small reduction of residual strength in the
presence of multiple site damage (MSD) presence of multiple site damage (MSD)
Rapid reduction of residual strength with in- Small reduction of residual strength with in-
creasing fatigue crack length creasing fatigue crack length (intact fibers)
Significant reduction of residual strength for the Similar reduction of residual strength for the
so-called two bay crack so-called two bay crack caused by foreign
object damage
Corrosion (heavy corrosion assumed)
Significant strength reduction Limited strength reduction (corrosion is limited
to surface layer)
Possibility of crack initiation followed by signifi- Shorter crack initiation time followed by slow
cant crack growth (through the thickness crack- crack growth in the surface layer (part- through
ing) cracking)

Figure 13 illustrates the crack growth behavior of

a part-through crack. The crack starts in the
surface layer from the notch. Then cracks are
initiated in the subsequent layers.

Figure 12: Stress cycle in Aluminum layers at

room temperature (example)

Since fatigue crack growth occurs in the Alumi-

num layers only, metal methods, i.e. linear frac-
ture fracture mechanics may be used to deter-
mine the crack growth behavior. Different crack
cases require different stress intensity solutions.
Surface cracks, for example, may be analyzed
according to Homann 3 using the Paris equation
and the following stress intensity solution:
4 L 2
K max = F max t m
2 LT n strength behavior of the GLARE material.
Figure 13: Part-through crack in GLARE
Since GLARE has a low crack initiation life,
early cracking is expected during full scale fa-
tigue test. Consequently future aircraft with
GLARE structure will fly with small undetected
cracks in the Al layers of the GLARE up to the
end of the service life. In contrast to monolithic
aluminum structure these cracks are acceptable
due to the superior crack growth and residual

with: The requirement of the airworthiness authorities

L = material constant about flyable crack length allows the operation
= correction factor for loading direction of an aircraft with known cracks only, if ultimate
= correction factor for the number of Al load capability exists up to repair. This philoso-
layers phy is to be applied also to GLARE, i.e. ulti-
F = finite width correction mate load capability must exist at the end of the
tm = metal layer thickness full scale fatigue test, minimum after demonstra-

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
tion of two life times. The procedure shown in
Figure 14 has to be applied.
the lower and side shells of the Airbus A318
using 6013 and 6056 for skin to stringer welding.
Furthermore lower and side shells of the A380-
800 will be welded (skin-stringer joint). However,
to date an application of the welded structure in
all areas of the pressurized fuselage is not ap-
propriate due to the limited residual strength
capability of the integral structure. In the welded
areas of the A318 the operational tension
stresses (in stringer direction) are rather low,
since the lower and side shells are dimensioned
mainly by compression.

Figure 16 shows the fatigue behavior or the

welded structure transverse to the weld line. The
Figure 14: Procedure for justification of GLARE welded joint shows fatigue lives comparable to a
Kt = 3.6 specimen. The actual aircraft stress
Laser beam welding level is significantly below these SN- curves.

Laser beam welding (LBW) is one of the most

promising welding technologies for aerospace
application. The major motivation of the applica-
tion of LBW is the reduction of the production
costs and a slight weight reduction. The LBW
technology is most suitable for welding of T-
joints, e.g. skin-to-stringer or skin-to-clip joints.
Weldable aluminium alloys such as 6013 and
6056 have to be used for the time being. Figure
15 shows an Airbus LBW pilot plant and the
LBW tool.

Figure 16: Fatigue behavior (transverse) of laser

beam welded skin stringer joint

The crack growth of longitudinal cracks in the

weld line is shown in Figure 17.

Figure 15: Overview of LBW technology

One of the first applications of LBW on primary Figure 17: Behavior of cracks in weld line
structure of a commercial transport airplane are

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
If the crack turns into the base material, the be-
havior is the same as for the base material. If the
crack remains in the weld line, the crack growth
is faster for stress intensity factors of K >
28 MPam.
Friction stir welding
The second promising welding technology is the
friction stir welding (FSW), which is based on
patents developed by the The Welding Institute
(TWI) in UK. The process consists of a rotating
tool producing frictional heat so that plasticized
material in kneaded under pressure and there-
fore leading to a tight connection of the sheets.
FSW allows joining of non weldable alloys, e.g.
2000 and 7000 series aluminum alloys. Fur-
thermore different materials may be joined, e.g.
different Al alloys. For series production FSW is
today applied in non-aircraft industry. Examples
for application are ship and train manufacturing
as well as aerospace industry (rocket produc-
tion). In the aircraft industry first applications of
FSW are envisaged for fuselage longitudinal
joints, wing spanwise joints, wing spars made of
dissimilar alloys and extruded panels, e.g. in
center wing box.
Figure 18 shows the excellent fatigue behavior
of FSW joints compared to a riveted joint. The
lap joint shown in this figure is an optimized riv-
eted joint with additional doublers in the rivet
area and three rivet rows.
Reduction of fasteners with
- reduced manufacturing costs
- deletion of sealing (less weight, less costs)
- no fatigue cracking initiated at fastener
holes (no MSD)
Material utilization by
- reduced by to fly ratio
Optimization of performance by
- welding of non weldable alloys and dis-
similar alloys
Process automation
Figure 19: Allowable stresses for riveted and
FSW joints
On the other hand the FSW process causes
additional features, which need to be consid-
ered, e.g. residual stresses generated by the
contraction of the cooling weld nugget which is
impeded by the material on both sides of the
weld. These residual stresses influence both,
fatigue and crack growth performances.

Figure 18: Fatigue behavior of FSW joints

Figure 19 contains the allowable stresses for a

three-rivet-row lap joint (same as in Figure 18)
and a FSW joint compared with the behavior of
the baseline material. The allowable maximum
fatigue stress (far field stress) is 54 percent
lower for the riveted lap joint compared to the
FSW joint. These figures are valid for specimens
with a mean fatigue life of 250 000 cycles.
The application of FSW to joints instead of rivet-
ing offers several advantages:
Figure 20: Crack growth analysis of FSW joints
They depend from the size and process parame-
ters. Dalle Donne and Raimbeaux 4 proposed a
fracture mechanics approach based on a crack
closure model with the superposition of external
load and internal stresses (Krs), which can be
used to predict the crack growth rate. The crack
opening stress (Kopen) is calculated from empiri-
cal relationships. The da/dn Keff approach

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
results in the suppression of the R-ratio effect SHM system could be installed to monitor these
and the residual strength effect, see Figure 20. areas. The SHM application can be very benefi-
cial, especially for structural locations which are
Structural health monitoring difficult to inspect using conventional inspection
methods and/or where access to the structure
The primary objective for the aerospace industry location is difficult.
is to offer products that not only meet the operat-
ing criteria in terms of payloads and range but The major benefit from SHM systems may be
also significantly reduce the direct operating gained, if considered during the design of new
costs of their customers, the airlines. Advanced aircraft. As one of the first possible applications
structural health monitoring systems may signifi- the monitoring of internal stiffeners in wing or
cantly support these goals. Table 4 gives an fuselage panels is investigated. The effects of a
overview of the repercussions of a health moni- health monitoring system on the inspection re-
toring system on the structural behavior. quirements this type of airframe structure is de-
scribed in Figure 21 showing an aircraft wing or
Table 4: Benefits for structural health monitoring fuselage skin stiffened by stringers. In many
cases the conventional inspection system does
not require internal inspections of the stringers.
Structural criterion Repercussions For these cases it is assumed that the stringer
Static strength No improvement possible contains the so-called primary flaw and the skin
Fatigue strength No improvement possible the secondary flaw (shorter than the primary).
(durability) The stringer fails after a certain number of
Airworthiness Improvements possible, flights, then the loads are redistributed into the
but current structure skin which increases the crack growth rate in the
meets airworthiness re- skin. The inspection interval is based on the
quirements crack growth period between the detectable and
Crack growth Improvements in case of the critical crack length in the skin divided by an
periods longer cracks due to appropriate scatter factor. In case of health
modified crack scenarios monitoring of the stringer a failure of the stringer
Structural damage Improvements in case of has not to be assumed (i.e. the stringer is intact),
capability fatigue cracks due to which reduces the crack growth rate in the skin
modified crack scenarios, significantly.
no improvements possi-
ble for impact damage
due to accidental dam-
age scenario

Several fields of application of structural health

monitoring (SHM) systems are under investiga-
tion:

Application in laboratory and full scale tests

Monitoring of specific areas of in-service
aircraft
Consideration of SHM during the design
phase of new aircraft
Figure 21: Effect of SHM on inspections
These applications are briefly discussed in the
The benefits due to health monitoring are dis-
following. Application of SHM systems in test
cussed in Figure 22. One of the major parame-
specimens will mainly be performed to gain ex-
ters determining the inspection interval is the
perience with such systems. The condition of the
operational stress in the structure. The figure
structure is well known due to extensive inspec-
shows in principle the interval versus a reference
tions of the specimens, therefore the SHM re-
value of the operational stress (e.g. the once-
sults may be verified. Furthermore the use is
per-flight stress) for a structural element for the
possible in a short term approach, since no
conventional inspection system and a monitored
qualification process is necessary.
structure. Benefit can be taken of the structural
health monitoring: Firstly the stress level is kept
In flying aircraft, there are known hot-spot areas
constant. Consequently the inspection interval
which are sensitive to fatigue and/or stress cor-
may be increased which would lead to a reduc-
rosion or corrosion fatigue problems. A suitable

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
tion of the maintenance costs. This results in
relatively small savings for the operators, since
also the new inspection intervals have to be
fitted into the scheduled maintenance program,
which depends mainly on the requirements for
corrosion inspections and systems. Secondly a
constant inspection interval suitable for the op-
erators is assumed, which allows an increase of
the operational stresses for monitored struc-
tures. Increased allowable operational stresses
lead to a reduction of the structural weight in
those aircraft areas, which are dimensioned by
crack growth. The overall weight saving for the
aircraft is significantly higher than the weight
saving in the monitored areas due to the so-
called snowball effect. This leads to significant
reductions of production costs as well as main-
tenance costs, which improves the efficiency for
both the manufacturers and the operators.
Figure 22: Design and maintenance benefits of
SHM
When applying health monitoring systems one
specific aspect has to be taken into account. It
has to be assumed that is not feasible for the
operator to repair the structure immediately after
detection of damage by the health monitoring
system. An immediate grounding of the aircraft
would lead to significant costs, which may not be
balanced by the benefits gained from the sys-
tem. Therefore in case of a finding operation has
to be continued with a known crack for a certain
time. According to the regulations the structure
must be able to sustain the design ultimate loads
in case of a known crack, i.e. the structure
should have the same capability as an intact
structure. Therefore the time to repair has to be
based on the crack growth period between the
detected crack length and the critical crack
length under ultimate load. It should be the goal
that this period divided by an appropriate scatter
factor is at least one so-called C-check interval,
which is usually a 12 to 18 month period of op-
eration. This requirement has to be taken into
account during the design phase, i.e. during
definition of the allowable operational stress.
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Conclusions
This paper summarizes the major structural cri-
teria and requirements as well as analysis as-
pects to be considered during development,
design, certification and operation of civil trans-
port aircraft. During the past few years the de-
velopment of modern transport aircraft has made
several important improvements to cope with the
increased expectations of the customers. Ad-
vanced materials and technologies allow signifi-
cant reductions in aircraft weight, production
costs and operating costs. These new technolo-
gies and materials are partly introduced in the
new Airbus aircraft A318 and A380. Further ad-
vanced developments are planned for future
application. The current and forthcoming certifi-
cation requirements are fully applied to the cur-
rent and the advanced structures.
References
1. Swift, T., Fail-safe design requirements and
features, regulatory requirements. Presented
at the International Air & Space Symposium
and Exhibition The Next 100 Years, Day-
ton, USA, 2003
2. N.N., Recommendations for Regulatory Ac-
tion to Prevent Widespread Fatigue Damage
in the Commercial Airplane Fleet, Airworthi-
ness Assurance Working Group Task
Planning Group, final report, revision A,
June 1999
3. Homan, J., Damage Tolerance Analysis in
Glare. TU Delft, Faculty of Aerospace Engi-
neering. Presented during an internal Airbus
meeting, 2002
4. Dalle Donne, C. and Raimbeaux, G., Resid-
ual stress effects on fatigue crack propaga-
tion in friction stir welds. German Aerospace
Center, Institute for material Research, Co-
logne, Germany.