International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/ijlmm

Review

Durability and damage tolerance analysis methods for lightweight

aircraft structures: Review and prospects
Jianhong Lin
AVIC Aircraft Strength Research Institute, AVIC, Xi'an 710012, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article started with a review on the evolutionary history of airworthiness regulations. Requirements
Received 20 June 2021 for Durability and Damage Tolerance designs in current airworthiness regulations are an accumulation
Received in revised form result of lessons learnt from various aircraft accidents. “Analysis, supported by tests” can be concluded as
2 February 2022
the baseline of the airworthiness regulations. Although the research works for the fatigue failures in
Accepted 2 February 2022
Available online 11 February 2022
metallic structures have been continued for more than 170 years, unforeseen fatigue failures are still
occurring in the full-scale fatigue validation tests and aircraft operations. Various influence factors to the
uncertainties of fatigue failures have been discussed from the aspects of metallic materials, structure
Keywords:
Aircraft manufacturing
features, machining processes and assembly processes. It can be concluded that considering the effects of
Airworthiness manufacturing processes on the fatigue failure, generating the design values and validating related
Damage tolerance design methods/tools with test pyramids are the best way to design, produce, operate and maintain
Durability aircraft with lightweight structures.
Test pyramid © 2022 The Authors. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This
Validation & Verification is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).

1. Introduction the uncertainties of fatigue failures, which include the aspects of

Purchasing airplanes with lightweight structures, enough safety,
and less operational costs are targets pursued by all airlines, because
all of these factors contribute to reducing the operational costs and
generating more profits for the airlines. Aircraft manufacturers are
making efforts to reduce the aircraft weight to satisfy their cus-
tomers, but the manufacturers are also more interested to cut down
the manufacturing costs and increasing the market competitiveness
for their products. In order to secure the safety of the aircraft op-
erations, the authorities have established comprehensive regula-
tions to maintain airworthiness and continued airworthiness, and
applied them into aircraft certifications for design, manufactures,
operations and maintenances [1e14]. Although the research works
for fatigue failures in metallic structures have been continually
conducted for more than 170 years, the fatigue failures are still a
predominant failure mechanism in the aircraft operations [10e26].
This article provides a review on the evolution history of
airworthiness regulations, discusses various influence factors on
material microstructures/defects, structure features and the
manufacturing processes. Some issues in the existing design
methods for Durability and Damage Tolerance (DaDT) have also
been identified in this article. The existing airworthiness regula-
tions required to validate the loads, design values, design
methods/tools, and manufacturing processing by various tests,
and to conduct the validation processes through the Test Pyramids
(TP) established by Building Block Approach (BBA). ESDU (Engi-
neering Sciences Data Unit, https://esdu.com) has proposed more
types of coupon specimens in the test pyramid to generate the
design values for DaDT analyses. Because the ESDU methodologies
can froze more uncertainties from the aspects of materials,
manufacturing processes and design methods/tools into the
coupon specimens in the test pyramids, the qualities of DaDT
designs conducted with ESDU methodologies can be improved
significantly than other methods.
2. Evolution history of airworthiness regulations and DaDT
methods

E-mail address: jianhong.lin@hotmail.co.uk.

The airworthiness regulations related to fatigue failures have
Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Board of International Journal of been evolved step by step following various aircraft accidents/in-
Lightweight Materials and Manufacture. cidents, which were the results of lessons to learn from various

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2022.02.001
2588-8404/© 2022 The Authors. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Lin International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250

Abbreviation JSSG Joint Service Specification Guide

LEFM Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
AC Advisory Circular LOV Limit of Validation
AD Airworthiness Directive LSP Laser Shock Peening
ASIP Aircraft Structural Integrity Program MED Multiple Elements Damages
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials MoC Means of Compliance
ATA Air Transport Association MPD Maintenance Planning Document
BBA Building Block Approach MSD Multiple Sites Damages
CA Constant Amplitude MSG Maintenance Steering Group
CAR Civil Air Regulations MT Middle Tension
CFR Code of Federal Regulations NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
CFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer NDI Non-Destructive Inspection
DaDT Durability and Damage Tolerance OUA One-Up Assembly
DaDTA Durability and Damage Tolerance Assessment OWA One-Way Assembly
DCR Deep Cold Rolling PSE Principial Structural Elements
DFR Detail Fatigue Rating (Boeing DaDT Method) QF Quantitative Fractography
DSG Design Service Goal R&D Research and Development
DT Damage Tolerance RII Repeat Inspection Interval
EASA European Union Aviation Safety Agency SB Service Bulletin
EDM Electrical Discharge Machining SBD Safety by Design
EFE Engineering Fatigue Endurance SBI Safety by Inspection
EIFS Equivalent Initial Flaw Size SBR Safety by Retirement
EIQM Equivalent Initial Quality Method SID Supplement Inspection Documents
EPS Equivalent Pre-crack Size SIF Stress Intensity Factor
ESDU Engineering Sciences Data Unit SMP Structural Modification Point
FAA Federal Aviation Administration SMTP Surface Mechanical Treatments Processes
FC Flight Cycle SP Shot Peening
FCG Fatigue Crack Growth STD Standard
FCGR Fatigue Crack Growth Rate TP Test Pyramid
FEA Finite Element Analysis USAF United States Air Force
FH Flight Hour USSP UltraSonic Shot Peening
HDBK Handbook VA Variable Amplitude
IQF Index of Quality in Fatigue (Old Airbus Fatigue VP Vibropeening
Analysis Method) WJCP Water Jet Cavitation Peening
ISP Inspection Start Point WFD Widespread Fatigue Damages
IT Inspection Threshold

investigations of aircraft accidents/incidents. Following the
continually updated requirements in the airworthiness regulations,
the latest aircraft structural design philosophies can provide more
comprehensive coverages to the aircraft safety.
2.1. Regulation for safe life (safety by retirement - SBR)
In 1949, the first Civil Air Regulations (CAR 4b.316) concerned
for aircraft fatigue strength were published [10,27]. CAR 4b.316
required that the aircraft structures shall be designed to avoid
points of stress concentration at the locations where the variable
stresses above the fatigue limit could likely occur in the service.
This means that the designers need to control the variable stresses
in the structures below the fatigue endurance limit of materials and
to retire them prior to their fatigue life. Such kind of design prin-
ciple can be summarized as “Safety by Retirement” (SBR). It re-
quires that NO fatigue crack can be developed in the airframe
components or structures during the whole lives of aircraft oper-
ations [10,28].
Based on a detailed review made by J.Y. Mann [29], the fatigue
failure in metallic structures even delayed the first flight of the
Wright brothers’ flyer [30], due to a fatigue crack developed in a
propeller shaft. There is no other aircraft accident caused by fatigue
failures in airframe structures until 1927, because the rapid de-
velopments of aircraft types in that period led to aircraft being
225
retired far before a fatigue damage initiated from the airframe
structures to threat the aircraft safety.
In the period from the late 1920s to the 1950s, increasing
amounts of accidents due to airframe fatigue occurred. Although
research works for the airframe fatigue failures have been started
towards the end of the 1920s, the fatigue failure problems in
airframe structures trended to lose control [29].
2.2. Regulations for fail-safe (safety by design-SBD)
In 1956, CAR 4b.316 has been replaced by CAR 4b.270, in which a
concept of “fail-safe” has been added as an additional option for the
assessments of airframe fatigue strength [31,32]. Such kind of
updating of regulation was a result of lessons learnt from serious
accidents of the BOAC De Havilland Comet crashes in 1954
[10,16,33e36]. The investigation results for these Comet crashes
revealed the limitations of early fatigue design methodology, which
led to the aircraft safety could not being guaranteed by a safe-life
basis design without imposing uneconomically short repeat in-
spection intervals to major components in the airframe.
The fail-safe design concept is still based on a design concept
with a satisfactory life span without fatigue damage, but the
structures with multiple load paths need to be designed, and such
kinds of structures should be inspectable in service. Such kind of
design concept with multiple load paths allows that the structural
J. Lin
integrity can be maintained even if an individual load path has
been failed, as the structural integrity can be maintained by
remaining elements to carry the additional loads caused by the
failed element until the damaged element can be detected and
repaired in a pre-defined maintenance period. The concept of fail-
safe design has been called as the design principle of “Safety by
Design” (SBD). The capability of the fail-safe design concept needs
to be demonstrated via a full-scale static test in the aircraft
development processes [28]. Due to the design concept of fail-safe
is working with multiple load paths and inspections, it introduced
structural redundancies into the airframe, i.e., increased the
weight. The inspection requirements also increase the costs of
aircraft maintenances and operations. By the way, to increase the
number of multiple load paths could be a solution to reduce the
structural redundancy.
In 1964, CAR 4b.270 has also been recodified to 14 CFR x25.571
without significant changes, in which both requirements for a safe
life and fail-safe design principles were included [22,27,28].
2.3. Creation of aircraft structural integrity program (ASIP) in 1958
In 1958, five B-47s have been crashed in one month period, 4 of
them were caused by the fatigue failures in the airframe structures.
The flying hours (FHs) to crashes for all of B-47s were less than
2500 FHs [37e40]. Through the accident investigations, several
items have been identified [37]:
(1) Although a static test has been passed at the loading level of
150% limit load, but no test can assure that B-47s would
survive under smaller cyclic loads in their operations.
(2) The dynamic loads suffered by these crashed aircraft in the
operations were significantly severer than the original
design loading spectrum.
(3) No finite service life has been defined for the B-47 series
aircraft.
(4) The existing fatigue analysis cannot provide accurate pre-
dictions on the fatigue life of B-47.
After realised the shortcoming in the design validation method
based on the static loads/tests, U. S. Air Force (USAF) has taken four
major actions through the investigation processes to handle the
chaos caused by B-47 crashes [37]:
(1) Arranged 3 independent full-scale fatigue tests for B-47 in
Boeing, Douglas and NACA.
(2) Created Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) as a
long-term measure to improve the aircraft design philoso-
phies and technologies. The application of ASIP has also been
extended to all types of military aircraft.
(3) Established requirements for all types of military aircraft on
design fatigue life, which needs to be expressed in the
number of flying hours (FHs) and flying cycles (FCs).
(4) Raised the full-scale fatigue test as a standard requirement
for new aircraft, to conduct the fatigue tests with the vali-
dated operational spectrum, to determine the fatigue life for
tested aircraft. The requirement is applicable to validate the
fatigue design for all types of military aircraft.
In the period of 1958e1969, USAF has released a series of doc-
uments to formalise the guidelines for ASIP, which included WCLS-
TM-58-4 in 1958, Military Specification 8800 series in 1960, ASD-
TN-61-141 in 1961, ASD-TR-66-57 and AFR 80-13 in 1968. These
documents have defined the objectives of ASIP as follows [41]:
226
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
(1) To establish, evaluate, and substantiate the structural integ-
rity (airframe strength, rigidity, durability, and damage
tolerance (DT)) of the airplane.
(2) To acquire, evaluate, and utilize operational usage data to
provide a continual assessment of the in-service integrity of
individual airplanes.
(3) To provide a basis to determine logistics and force planning
requirements (maintenance, inspections, supplies, rotation
of airplanes, system phase-out, and future force structures).
(4) To provide a basis to improve structural criteria and methods
of design, evaluation, and substantiation of future systems.
In order to achieve these objectives, ASD-TR-66-57 defined 5
processing phases to meet ASIP requirements [42]:
Phase I: Design information: to define design criteria, and plan
operational usages.
Phase II: Initial design analyses: for loads, static stress, fatigue,
flutter, and test verifications.
Phase III: Testing: including ground tests for static, fatigue, flutter
and sonic, and flight tests for loads, dynamic response,
thermal and flutter.
Phase IV: Final structural integrity analysis: for strength summary
and operation limitation, service life, and parametric
fatigue analysis.
Phase V: Actual operation usages: to record the histories of
aircraft operations and maintenances.
Inside the Phase II requirements, ASD-TR-66-57 required aircraft
manufacturers to conduct pre-design developments tests to verify
design concepts and configurations [42]. The contents of these tests
included various development tests from elements to structural
configurations, which cover the levels from 1) Materials; 2)
Machining processes; 3) Joints to 4) Final assemblies. Due to the
lessons learnt from B-47 crashes, the determination of loading
spectra is also a critical factor to affect fatigue performances of
airframe structures, which led to a requirement to conduct full-
scale fatigue tests to determine the fatigue life of airframe for
new military aircraft in further developments.
From 1958 to 1972, the fail-safe design approach was the basis
for all types of new military aircraft, which means that the airframe
strength must be verified by a full-scale static strength test with 1.5
times of limit load, and the airframe fatigue life must be deter-
mined with the total numbers of tested fatigue life divided by a
scatter factor of 4.0 [22,28,39,43].
2.4. Regulations for damage tolerance (DT) designs (safety by
inspection - SBI)
USAF has released MIL-STD-1530, “Aircraft Structural Integrity
Program”, in September 1972; and MIL-A-83444, “Airplane Damage
Tolerance Requirements”, in July 1974. USAF used these two doc-
uments to mandate the DT design concept as the new guideline for
military aircraft designs to ensure the aircraft structural integrity,
and replaced the safe-life requirements defined by ASIP in ASD-TR-
66-57 [22,43]. As T. Swift pointed out in Ref. [22], the fail-safe
approach applied from 1958 cannot prevent fatigue cracking
within the aircraft service life. T. Swift has also presented three
notable failure examples of military aircraft in Ref. [22]:
 An F-111 crashed at 105 FHs: the left-wing pivot fitting of USAF
F-111 No.94 failed during a 4.0 g pull-up manoeuvre on
December 22, 1969. This crashed F-111 has only accumulated
J. Lin
105 FHs at the time of the accident, although F-111 was designed
for a limit load factor of 7.33, together with a safe life of 4000
FHs [13,21,44]. The failure was caused by a quick fatigue cracking
from an undetected infamous manufacturing defect
(23.4 mm  5.9 mm) in the D6ac steel pivot fitting [40]. When
this in-service failure occurred, a full-scale fatigue test for the F-
111 airframe was still well on its way. When the test was per-
formed to the equivalent of 400 FHs, a major failure occurred in
the wing carry through box. The crack was initiated from a flaw
that was around 2.5 mm deep adjacent to a bolt hole in an
upstanding flange integral to the lower plate, which was also
made with D6ac steel [45]. Three causes have been concluded
from the failure investigation: 1) Poor toughness of D6ac steel,
especially at the low temperatures; 2) Structural design not fail-
safe; 3) Inadequate Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) [43]. Due
to the toughness of D6ac steel can be dropped significantly at
lower temperature, as one of the rescue measure to secure the
safeties of the whole in-service F-111 fleet, USAF has conducted
cold-proof static loading tests for the whole in-service F-111
fleet. In a period of 25 years, 11 F-111s have been failed during
the proof tests at 40  C, which potentially eliminated 11 in-
service failures due to the toughness dropping of D6ac steel at
the low temperature [13].
 An F-5 was lost at 1900 FHs in 1970: the fatigue failure
happened at a skin with 0.42-inch thickness, and the critical
crack size is about 0.2 inch [13]. The skin was machined from a
single plate of 7075-T6 aluminium alloy. USAF has taken two
measurements to improve the fleet safety: 1) Applying detail
Durability and Damage Tolerance Assessments (DaDTA) to the
whole fleet, followed by frequently repeat inspections in critical
areas; 2) Replaced the lower skin with 20% thicker skin made
with 7075-T73; 3) Apply oversize drilling and cold working to
fastener holes and drain holes to extend their fatigue lives.
 KC-135 suffered 28 reported incidents of unstable crack propa-
gation between 1966 and 1977: Both KC-135 and B707 were
derived from Boeing's Dash 80 prototype. One of difference
between KC-135 and B707 was that the 7186-T6 Al alloy has
been selected to make the lower wing skin for KC-135, instead of
the 2024-T3 Al alloy for the lower wing skin in B707. Such kind
of material replacement has made about 600 lb weight saving
for KC-135, but raised more than 30% stress level in its lower
wing skin, which turned to be the root cause for the early fatigue
cracking in the lower wing skin in KC-135. In order to assure the
safety, USAF decided to modify the KC-135's design to replace
the centre and inner lower wing skin to 2024-T3 Al alloy, for the
outer lower wing skin panels, remained no change to the ma-
terial, but applied cold works to the fastener holes to enhance
their resistance to fatigue cracking [13].
In the above three examples, one similar issue is that higher
strength materials were applied in the airframe structures, but all
of these materials have poor fracture toughness and faster fatigue
crack growth rates. As both safe-life and fail-safe design approaches
did not account for the life of fatigue crack propagation, the effects
of poor fatigue cracking performances on the airframe structural
integrity cannot be identified, consequentially it is impossible to
define a reasonable inspection scheme for the aircraft mainte-
nances. As one of the verification programs for aircraft structural
designs and developments, MIL-STD-1530 started to require the
validation tests with coupons, small elements, splices and joints,
panels fittings, control system components, and structural oper-
ating mechanisms and major components. Such kind of testing
227
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
validation program has also been extended to aircraft composite
structural designs, and called as “Building Block Approach (BBA)”
by R.S. Whitehead in 1983 [46]. In 1975, USAF has updated MIL-
STD-1530 to MIL-STD-1530A [47].
On May 14, 1977, a Boeing 707-300 fright operated by Dan-Air
Service crashed in the descend process on approach to Lusaka In-
ternational Airport. This aircraft entered services in 1963, and its
Design Service Goal (DSG) is 60,000 FHs and 20 years. Before it
crashed, the aircraft has accumulated 16,723 FCs and 47,621FHs
[21,48]. The accident investigation results showed that a combi-
nation of metal fatigue and inadequate fail-safe design in the rear
spar structure was the root causes for the crash. Shortcomings in
design assessment, certification and inspection procedures were
contributory factors. Although the B 707-300 was certificated on
the fail-safe design basis, but related structural design was not
validated by a full-scale static test, and there was no proper in-
spection schedule in place to identify the fatigue crack at the
cracked location that was detectable at 7200 FCs [48]. The post-
accident inspections of the B 707-300 fleet in-service revealed
further 38 detectable fatigue cracks at the same location in other
aircraft. The number of airplanes found cracks was about 7% of the
number of the whole fleet [48].
After Dan-Air accident, FAA re-titled 14 CFR x25.571 to “Damage
Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Structure” in 1978, with
Amendment 25e45 [49] supported by Advisory Circular 25.571-1
[50]. 14 CFR x25.571 generally agreed that the “safety by design”
approach had fallen short of expectations, and emphasised that the
damage detectability and growth rates to the airframe structural
designs must be considered [10,22,28]. R.G. Eastin [28] called such
kind of design philosophy as “Safety by Inspection”, i.e., SBI. The
adoption of regulations required determinations of the probable
locations, and the damage modes due to fatigue, corrosion or
accidental damages. These determinations must be via design an-
alyses supported by TEST EVIDENCES, together with the service
experiences (if available). For the structures where inspection is
impractical, a fatigue evaluation (safe-life) is still required. In
addition, the requirements of DT evaluation for a certain types of
damages caused by discrete sources, such as birds, engine debris,
were clearly added as the critical items that must be considered in
the designs. Consideration for “damages at multiple sites” was also
required in Amendment 25e45(b), due to the lessons to learn from
AVRO 748 accident in 1976 [21].
The DaDT adoption with Amendment 25e45 for the type cer-
tification of future transport category airplanes was also manda-
torily applied to these in-service airplanes, which have been
certified by early fail-safe design philosophy. In order to prevent
any catastrophic failures due to fatigue for these legacy certified
airplanes, DaDT evaluations must be conducted for their airwor-
thiness certifications. Based on the DaDT evaluation results, related
inspection schedules were also established and verified, and pre-
sented as the Supplement Inspection Documents (SIDs) for their
maintenances. The affected in-service airplane models included the
Airbus A300; BAC 1e11; Boeing 707/720, 727, 737, 747; Douglas DC-
8, DC-9/MD-80, DC-10; Fokker F-28; Lockheed L-1011 [28]. The first
SID for Boeing 737 was mandated in 1984 [28].
In 1986, FAA updated Advisory Circular 25.571-1 to Advisory
Circular 25.571-1A [51], with minor revision to 14 CFR x25.571,
deleted 14 CFR x25.573 [22], added compliance provisions related
to the proposed changes, and included consideration to discrete
source damages [51].
In 1997, FAA updated Advisory Circular 25.571-1A [51] to
Advisory Circular 25.571-1B [52], with adding guidance on the
J. Lin International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250

elements to be considered in developing scatter factors for the type certification (and recertification when necessary) to ASIP as part of
certification. airworthiness certification; 2) Risk analysis in ASIP tasks [63,64].
Amendment 25e96 also only required the airplane designers to
validate that WFD will not occur in the DSG of a designed airplane
2.5. Regulations linked to DT and widespread fatigue damages
with testing evidences, but not required how long the airplane can
(WFD)
be operated. After further investigations and conversations, FAA
updated 14 CFR x25.571 and 26.21, with AC 25.571-1D, Amendment
On April 28, 1988, a Boeing 737-200, operated by Aloha Airline,
25e132, 26-5, 121e351 and 129-48 [28,65e67] in 2010, to raise the
has experienced an explosive decompression during climb out at
requirement of Limit of Validity (LOV) for initial airworthiness and
cruise altitude. About 5.5 m long pressure cabin skin above the
continued airworthiness. CS-25 is the equivalent EASA airworthi-
passenger floor-line and supporting structures after the cabin
ness regulation for large transport aircraft [68], following the LOV
entrance door exploded away in the decompression. This B 737-200
requirement raised by FAA, CS-25 has also added LOV requirement
was delivered to enter service in 1969, and accumulated 35,496 FHs
The definition of LOV (Limit of Validity of the engineering data
and 89,680 FCs at the time of the accident [28,40,53]. The aircraft
that supports the structural maintenance program) is that the
was designed for an “economic service life” of 20 years, and
periods (in FHs, FCs, or both), up to which has been demonstrated
included 51,000 FHs and 75,000 FCs.
by full-scale test evidences, analysis and, if available, service
The root causes identified from the accident investigation
experience and teardown inspection results of high-time air-
included: 1) Multiple Sites Damages (MSD) initiated from the hole
planes [65]. Once the authority approved a LOV for a type of
edges of the rivet joint rows, due to poor quality of cold bonds joints
airplane, it will not allow the operation of the type of airplane
for the lap splices, and the corrosion environment surround the lap
beyond its LOV. However, the LOV may be extended by anyone
splices. Such kind of multiple site cracks merged together, and led
who can demonstrate that the airplane will be free of WFD up to
to the explosion of the front fuselage significantly early than ex-
an extended LOV, with additional testing evidences combined
pected DT life that was based on the original DT design for a single
with inspection methods [65].
crack; 2) Aloha Airlines has not properly followed related service
In 2016, USAF has updated MIL-STD-1530C to MIL-STD-1530D
bulletins (SBs) issued by Boeing and Airworthiness Directive (AD)
[69], then updated minor corrections with MIL-STD-1530D w/
issued by FAA, to conduct required maintenances and inspections
CHANGE 1 [70]. Five ASIP primary tasks defined in 1968 are still
to; 3) The executed FCs for the airplane has exceeded its design
maintained, but the contents were updated with the latest research
service goal (DSG), but NO service termination point has been
outputs [70]. The differences between MIL-STD-1530C and MIL-
defined [16,53]. After the accident, Boeing issued additional service
STD-1530D can be found in Ref. [43].
bulletins (SBs) to inspect lap splice cracks and corrosions, and
A summary of regulations evolution history is listed in Table 1.
redesigned the splice detail for their new productions [16,21,40].
The investigation results for the Aloha 737 accident showed
2.7. DaDT design requirements for civil and military aircraft
when the operational bounds have not been established, WFD can
be a significant risk to threaten the safety of an airplane that is only
Civil aircraft has higher demands than military aircraft on safety,
based on DT analysis design for a single crack. Therefore, in 1998,
operational frequency, and maintenance. Civil airlines cannot afford
the requirements for DT analysis design in 14 CFR x25.571 have
server fatigue problems that require grounding the fleet [9]. In
been updated by FAA, with Amendment 25e96 [54] supported by
order to establish a more efficient maintenance program for civil
AC 25.571-1C [55], which required the use of full-scale test results
aircraft fleet, airlines and manufacturers have established the Air
to validate NO WFD could occur up to DSG [16,28,56]. Amendment
Transport Association (ATA) Maintenance Steering Group (MSG)
25e96 also added “manufacturing defect” as a considerable source
since 1968 to develop logical decision processes [71]. The first
of fatigue failure, and the full-scale fatigue test specimens need to
handbook for the processes has been complied as MSG-1 hand-
be manufactured with original manufacture equipment [54,55,57].
book, and it was applied to develop a scheduled maintenance for
In 1996, UASF has converted MIL-STD-1530A(11) to MIL-HDBK-
the new Boeing 747. MSG-2 was published in 1979, then updated to
1530 [58], and applied MIL-HDBK-1530 for guidance purposes only.
MSG-3 in 1980. In the late of 1980s, authorities have also involved
The only change from MIL-STD-1530A(11) to MIL-HDBK-1530 was
in the improvements of MSG-3 [72].
the cover page. In 1998, USAF has also released the “Joint Service
On the other hand, compared with civil aircraft, military aircraft
Specification Guide (JSSG-2006)” [59] as a new detailed DT design
have fewer limitations in aspects of repairing, grounding periods,
guidelines to specify the design requirements defined by MIL-
and fewer operating hours, but the loading variations are signifi-
HDBK-1530 [41].
cantly severer than the ones for civil aircraft. MIL-STD-1530D has
provided more details of technical requirements to military aircraft
2.6. Regulations demanding Limit of Validation (LOV) developments. As military design standards, MIL-STD-1530D not
only provided guidelines for 5 phases’ processes to establish ASIP
As MIL-HDBK-1530 only required to avoid the WFD occurring in for every new military aircraft, but also provided related standards
an economic operation life, USAF updated the MIL-HDBK-1530 to and handbooks which included materials properties, DT designs
MIL-HDBK-1530A with the requirement on the predictions of WFD and inspections [70]. The certification processes for these military
onset time in 2002 [60]. The prediction should also be based on the aircraft derived from a commercial aircraft are more complicated
test evidences from the full-scale durability tests, in-service in- than the certification processes for the original civil aircraft [73].
spection results and teardown inspection results from aged aircraft. The certification processes are illustrated in Fig. 1.
In July 2002, USAF updated MIL-HDBK-1530A to MIL-HDBK-1530B In general, the latest aircraft structural DaDT design philoso-
[61] quickly, in which additional items concerning to the “corro- phies are combined with DT and safe life concepts, whatever for
sion” issues were added individually. civil or military aircraft [66e70]. For civil aircraft, the DT design
In 2004, USAF released MIL-STD-1530B [62] as the structural philosophies must be applied to the Principial Structural Elements
integrity requirements to supersede the MIL-HDBK-1530B that was (PSE) [67], except these elements that the application of DT concept
the guidance for structural integrity. In 2005, USAF released MIL- is impractical, such as the landing gear, which need still to be
STD-1530C, which included two key changes: 1) Structural designed with the safe life design concept. For the elements
228
J. Lin International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250

Table 1
Summary of regulations evolution history.

Periods Events Evolution Stories

1949 CAR 4b.316 Introduced the concept of fatigue strength into aircraft designs (based on SBR)
1954 HavillandD.H.106 The full-scale fatigue tests must be separated with static tests. SBR cannot secure the free of fatigue
1956 CAR 4b.270 Introduced option of fail-safe, and test validation requirement to the SBD concept
1958 B-47 Only fatigue analysis cannot secure aircraft safety. Design Loads must be close to real operations.
1958e1969 ASIP & series Doc. Established ASIP for all of military aircraft, to determine the fatigue life with full-scale fatigue tests.
1964 14 CFR x25.571 CAR 4b.270 has been recodified to 14 CFR x25.571 without significant changes
1968 ASD-TR-66-57 Required tests for 1) Materials; 2) Machining processes; 3) Joints to final assemblies
1969 F-111 A metallic material with high strength/low toughness is not a good option for airframe structures.
1970 F-5 Balance designs between static and fatigue are needed. Introduced cold working as fatigue enhancing technique
1966e1977 KC-135 Balance designs between static and fatigue are needed, and important for material selections
1972 MIL-STD-1530 For ASIP, required the validation tests for coupons, small elements, splices and joints, panels fittings, control system
components, and structural operating mechanisms and major components
1974 MIL-A-83444 Raised Damage Tolerance Requirements for all of military aircraft
1977 B 707-300 Designed with Fail-safe concept, not executed inspections properly
1978 Amdt.25-45AC 25.571-1 Raised Damage Tolerance Requirements for all civil aircraft, included in-service fleets
1986 AC 25.571-1A Included consideration to discrete source damages
1988 Aloha B 737-200 Widespread damages with over DSG operations and poor maintenances
1996 MIL-HDBK-1530 Required to avoid the WFD occurred in the economic operation life for military aircraft
1997 AC 25.571-1B Introduced the concept of scatter factors into certification requirements
1998 Amdt.25-96/AC 25.571-1C Required test validations for No WFD occurred before DSG for civil aircraft
1998 JSSG-2006 New detail DT design guidelines for military aircraft
2002 MIL-HDBK-1530A Required the predictions of WFD onset time for military aircraft
2004 MIL-STD-1530B Superseded MIL-HDBK1530B, in which the requirement items for corrosion was included
2005 MIL-STD-1530C Linked ASIP with airworthiness certification, added risk analysis into ASIP
2010 Amdt.25-132/AC 25.571-1D Set LOV validation requirements for civil aircraft, applicable to all of in-service aircraft
2016 MIL-STD-1530D Adding requirements for composite, economic service life, and capabilities of NDI techniques

designed with DT philosophies, the structures need to be designed
with the configurations of slow crack growth, or fail-safe supported
by crack arrests or multiple load paths. Fig. 2 is such kind of design
flowchart illustrated by C. Boller in Ref. [12]. It has also been dis-
cussed by S.M.O. Tavares in Ref. [17].
U.G. Goranson has presented Fig. 3 in Ref. [74] to discuss the DT
design philosophy. Due to the fatigue damages in metallic struc-
tures were gradually accumulated in operations, the structural
strengths of metallic airframes are in the status of continual
degradations. The DT design philosophies allow damages (cracks)
to occur during the service, but all of the damages must be
detected and repaired with the guidelines defined by Maintenance
Planning Document (MPD), which need to be validated by various
tests and approved by authorities in the type certification pro-
cesses. The Inspection Thresholds (ITs) and Repeat Inspection In-
tervals (RIIs) correspond to predefined NDI methods are the key
elements in an MPD. As different NDI methods have different ca-
pabilities and probabilities to detect the damages, the RIIs defined

Fig. 1. Certification processes for a military aircraft derived from a commercial aircraft [73].

Fig. 2. DaDT design routines for airframe structures [17].

229
J. Lin
Fig. 3. Relationship between DT Concept and Inspections methods [74].
by the DaDT designs are directly linked to specified NDI methods,
together with the structural features linked to the inspection ob-
jectives, consequently linked to the maintenance costs. The ap-
plications of MSG-3 into the airframe designs and airworthiness,
helped designers to conduct the DaDT designs with “Scheduled
Maintenance Plans”. In particular, the designers can determine the
detectable crack lengths with the MSG-3 logic processes at first,
then to figure out reasonable ITs and RIIs with related DaDT ana-
lyses. In cases that the calculated ITs or RIIs cannot reach to pre-
defined design targets, the DaDT designs could be modified with
changing of NDI methods or applying measures to enhance the
structures, such as shot peening, cold works, changing materials,
or even reconduct the structural designs.
Following the airworthiness requirements to WFD and LOV,
further DaDT/WFD analysis and validations are required based on
the full-scale fatigue tests evidences, and if possible, service expe-
rience and the teardown inspection results of high-time airplanes
retired from the in-service fleets. At the beginning of the WFD
analysis processes, it needs to identify the Multiple Site Damage
(MSD) and Multiple Element Dagame (MED) from the WFD sus-
pectable areas, where have been recommended by authorities, but
not limited [67,75]. Then the Inspection Start Point (ISP) and
Structural Modification Point (SMP) need to be determined with the
average WFD behaviours. If an WFD suspected area has no occur-
rence after being tested 3 times of the LOV, then the WFD-related
maintenance requirements can be eliminated for this area [67].
2.8. Test is the backbone to validate DaDT/WFD designs for aircraft
As reviewed in this paper, the airworthiness regulations (14 CFR
x25.571 [66], CS 25.571 [68] or MIL-STD-1530D [70]) for aircraft
DaDT designs have had an evolution path from safe-life (SBR) (with
limiting usage of the designed parts), to fail-safe (SBD) (allowed
failure occurred without catastrophic failures), to DT (SBI) (allowed
damages occurred, then identifying and repairing them on time to
avoid the catastrophic failures with predefined maintenance plans),
to avoid WFDs in the aircraft DSG at first, followed by the request to
avoid WFDs in a defined LOV period. R.G. Eastin has described such
kind of evolution path as an evolution with a full circle to a limited
fatigue life [28], because of the full-scale structural fatigue tests
230
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
have been required since 1958, to determine the aircraft fatigue life
with safe-life philosophy, then gradually converted to the routine to
validate a LOV with full scale fatigue tests to avoid WFD occurring in
the period of LOV. The meeting point is when the aircraft operated
to the limit of fatigue life defined by either a safe-life, or a LOV, the
aircraft operational service must be terminated. Through the evo-
lution history of regulations, the various requirements to DaDT
designs have been upgraded and expended, but the baseline can
still be simply described with one key sentence: “Analysis, sup-
ported by tests” [66e70].
3. Fatigue failure and its uncertainties
As mentioned by L. Molten in Ref. [76], although the research
works on fatigue failures have been continued for more than 170
years, it is still not easy to conduct fatigue designs for airframe
structures accurately and/or precisely, unforeseen fatigue problems
continually occurred in the certification tests [20] and in-service
operations [21,40,77]. Many reviews on the fatigue failures have
been published in the past, the uncertainties and related influence
factors on fatigue failures were always major topics concerned by
these reviews [24,76,78e99].
In general, the fatigue failure progresses can be considered in
two different stages: 1) Fatigue crack initiation or nucleation; 2)
Fatigue crack propagation to failure. In the stage of crack initia-
tion/nucleation, Schijve emphasised that the fatigue crack initia-
tion is a material “surface” phenomenon, which is dominated by
the cyclic slip in the grains on the free surfaces [95]. When
different slip systems hit the inner boundaries of grains, the
cracking resistances can be increased significantly by these grain
boundaries. Once these inner grain boundaries were broken and a
crack tip gets into the adjacent grain, it can be considered that the
“crack initiated”. Then the crack can grow significantly faster than
the stage to break the inner grain boundaries, until the crack tip
hits to other grain boundaries. Most of researchers considered
such kinds of small cracks as a micro/short crack. From an engi-
neering point of view, the author prefer to consider such kinds of
crack initiation as “academic crack”, because in the industrial
environment, such kinds of cracks are not able to be detected with
any NDI methods [100].
J. Lin
Fig. 4. Schematic view of the subsequent fatigue crack propagation stages [78].
Fig. 5. Optical micrographs of grain structure in an AA 8090 alloy rolled plate, plus
crack-plane orientation codes for rectangular sections in a rolling plate (ASTM Stan-
dard E399-09) [105].
At the stage of microcrack, if the external cracking driving force
is not big enough, the crack will be arrested by the grain bound-
aries. K.J. Miller defined the level of such kind of driving force as
“Material Threshold” [98], and K.J. Miller has also defined the cracks
at this stage as “microstructurally short crack”. For these cracks
broken 10 to 100 grains, K.J. Miller has defined them as “Mechan-
ically/Physically short cracks”. For these cracks across more than
100 grains, K.J. Miller has defined them as “Long Crack”, together
with the “Mechanical Threshold” for the “Long Crack” [98]. Based
on these definitions and illustrations made by K.J. Miller [98], U.
Zerbst illustrated the fatigue failure progresses as Fig. 4 in Ref. [78].
In Ref. [95], Schijve has concluded 8 different fatigue cracking
mechanisms: 1) Crystallographic nature of the material; 2) Crack
initiation at inclusions; 3) Small cracks, crack growth barriers, crack
231
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
growth thresholds; 4) Number of crack nuclei; 5) Surface effects; 6)
Environmental effects; 7) Cyclic tension and cyclic torsion; 8)
Macrocrack growth and striations. Except for the 7e8th cracking
mechanisms, the rest of the mechanisms are focused on the short
cracks. Obviously, the first mechanism is directly linked to mate-
rials and their microstructures, especially the grains on free sur-
faces. The differences in fatigue performances for Al, Ti, Steel, and
Ni Alloys are strongly linked to this mechanism. The 2nd-4th
mechanisms can be linked to the effects of defects on the paths of
fatigue crack propagations. The 5th-6th cracking mechanism can be
linked to the surface's conditions determined by mechanical/
chemical manufacture processes, and in-service environments. The
7th-8th mechanisms can be strongly dominated by the in-service
loading histories.
According to the Schjive's category, the uncertainties of material
fatigue failures can be caused by: 1) Intrinsic Material properties,
included constituent, microstructure (size and orientation of
grains), and microstructural defects (inclusions, voids, pores and
micro-shrinkages), which are linked to the supplying status of raw
material, heat treatments and delivered status, such as rolling
plates, extrusions, forgings, or castings; 2) Discontinuity locations
linked to the manufacturing processes and in-service environ-
ments, such as roughness of surface finishing, etch pitting,
scratches, grinding marks, blow counts, other scribed marks, burrs,
dents, tears from machining and hole drilling, corrosion pits, con-
tact fatigue, fretting fatigue, rolling contact fatigues, and welds; 3)
Discontinued structural features, such as hole, notch, slot, lug, and
fastener joints; 4) In-service loading histories [95]. In addition,
residual stresses are also an important mechanism for fatigue
failures. To generate compressive residual stresses on the parts
surface have been applied with a lot of manufacturing processes,
such as shot peening, cold works, to enhance the fatigue perfor-
mances of the structures. R.J.H. Wanhill has also made a review on
the nucleation sites for fatigue-related aircraft accidents, and
concluded that the sites of fatigue cracks nucleated from micro-
structural defects are 2e10%, ones from discontinuities locations
are 12e14%, and ones from stress concentrated areas are >50% [15].
J. Lin
3.1. Uncertainties from materials defects
Based on the K.J. Miller's concepts of “Material Threshold” and
“Mechanical Threshold” [98], U. Zerbst has described the compe-
titions between crack growing and arresting as 3 different sce-
narios: 1) Micro short crack; 2) Mechanically/physically short
crack; 3) Cracking at notches [78]. For the 1st scenario, the level of
cyclic stresses to arrest the cracking was defined as “material
threshold”, or “fatigue limit”. For the 2nd scenario, the level of
cyclic Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) to arrest the cracking was defined
as the mechanical thresholds for a long crack, i.e., DKth. For the 3rd
scenario, once the crack initiated from the edge of the notch, and
growing away from the notch edge, the local stress around the
crack tip can be reduced to a lower level than the stress level at the
edge of the original intact notch, which could also arrest the crack
growing in further.
The crack growing statuses at both micro and mechanical short
crack stages are strongly affected by the microstructure, such as
grain size, orientations, and defects. U. Zerbst has made a
comprehensive review on the effects of defects on the Fatigue Crack
Growth (FCG) [101e103], which have been considered in the de-
signs with the effects of part size, surface finishing (roughness), and
additional requirements to gain the material properties along
different orientations. For rolling plate, extrusions, and forgings, as
their mechanical properties are not only determined by their
chemical constituents, but also determined by the textures at final
supplying statuses, including sizes, volumes, geometries, final heat
treatments and chemical treatment, therefore significantly aniso-
tropic behaviours could be one of important characteristic for the
raw materials. In the testing processes to measure their mechanical
properties, especially for their fracture mechanics properties,
identifications to crack plane orientations have been required by
related testing standards, such as ASTM E399-12 [104]. Fig. 5
demonstrated the microstructure in an AA 8090 rolled plate with
the definition of crack-planes, and related orientation codes
required by related testing standards [105]. Fig. 6 shows measured
Fatigue Crack Growth Rates (FCGR) for several aluminium alloy
Fig. 6. FCGRs for Al-Li alloys compared to conventional alloy [106].
232
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
plates [106]. The differences of FCGRs along the different rolling
directions can be identified in the Fig. 6.
Due to the casting metallic materials included more micro-
defects than rolling plates, extrusion and forging, FAA has issued
AC 25.621-1 in 2014 to provide more strictly certification re-
quirements to the castings [107].
The size effect on the structures fatigue performances is another
factor of the microstructural influences [87,95,108,109]. Fig. 7
shows a comparison of FCGRs measured from Middle Tension
(MT) specimens that were taken from a large size of axles and a
smaller axel that size is 1/3 scale of the bigger one [108]. Although
both specimens were made with the same material of 25CrMo4
steel, but the FCGRs for the MT specimens extracted from the large
axles are faster than the ones from the smaller axles.
3.2. Uncertainties from discontinuities linked to manufacture
processes
Discontinuities, or defects, linked to manufacturing processes,
have strong influences on the fatigue crack initiations and propa-
gations. As most of fatigue cracks are initiated from the free surface
of parts, it is well known that the factors of machining processes,
heat treatments, chemical treatments, or cold working can signif-
icantly affect the fatigue endurance of the parts. The surface
roughness determined by machining processes is one of major
factor to determine the fatigue life of the parts/components, the
lower the surface roughness, the longer the fatigue life [110,111].
The surface qualities of the parts/components are strongly linked to
the status of the raw materials, selected machining methods, pro-
cesses controlling parameters, and even the number of usages of
the tools.
In order to enhance the capability of aluminium alloy to against
the in-service corrosion, pickling þ anodizing treatment has been
used as a typical chemical surface treatment process for aluminium
alloy parts/components [112], because such kinds of surface treat-
ments can generate thinker and stable protection layers on the
surface of the parts/components. The problem is that such kind of
J. Lin International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250

Fig. 7. Size effect on the FCGRs of 25CrMo4 steel [108].

surface treatments can also generate a lot of micro defects on the the FCGR can be reduced with the increasing of the crack lengths.
surfaces, the fatigue performances of these treated parts/compo- Another side, the existing values of intrinsic residual stresses are
nents can be knocked down significantly [113e124]. Therefore, almost constant, therefore the influences of the residual stresses
strictly quality control measures to the treatment processes are combined with an applied constant amplitude cyclic load on the
needed to improve the anti-fatigue capability of the parts/compo- FCGR can be reduced with the increasing of R ratio for applied cyclic
nents, consequently reducing the uncertainties of their fatigue loads.
failures.
As discussed at beginning of this section, fatigue crack initiation
3.3. Uncertainties from discontinued structural features
has been considered as a “surface” phenomenon of materials,
various Surface Mechanical Treatments Processes (SMTP) to
Most of the uncertainties discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are at
improve the fatigue performances of materials have been devel-
microstructural levels for materials and their surface conditions,
oped since 1941 [125,126]. These SMTPs include Shot Peening (SP)
which are mainly linked with the microstructures in the materials,
[127e131], Laser Shock Peening (LSP) [132e134], Deep Cold Roll-
ing (DCR) [135e137], Vibro-Peening (VP) [138,139], Ultra-Sonic
Shot Peening (USSP) [133,140,141], and Water Jet Cavitation
Peening (WJCP) [142,143]. The major purpose of SMTPs is to
generate local plastic deformation on the surface of parts, and
introduce compressive residual stresses on the part surface, which
will reduce the effective R ratio of cyclic loadings acting on the part
surface, to extend the period of fatigue crack initiation on the
surface. Such kinds of processes also need to have strictly process
control measures, as the over-peening process can increase the
surface roughness, and even generate micro surface damages,
which can also reduce the fatigue life of treated parts [144].
Therefore, the SMTP can also be an uncertain manufacturing factor
to affect the fatigue life of metallic parts.
In the laboratory environments, it has been possible to measure
the FCGR for a short crack down to a scale of 1.0 mm since the 1970s.
Fig. 8 shows the FCGR for 7050-T7451 Al alloy [19]. It can see that
the scatters of FCGRs are reduced with the increase of the crack
length. The effects of R ratios on the scatter of FCGRs can also be
found in Fig. 9 [145]. In Fig. 9, the scatters of FCGRs are reduced not
only with the increase of FCGRs, but also with the increase of R
ratios. As shown in Fig. 9, in the range of da/dN between 1.0E-7 to
1.0E-6, the data scatter in Fig. 9 (b) is significantly bigger than the
one in Fig. 9 (a). Such kind of phenomenon can be considered as the
effects of microstructure and intrinsic residual stresses on the
FCGR. On one side, the effects of uncertainties of microstructures on Fig. 8. Short cracks' FCGRs measured from 7050-T7451 Al alloy [19].

233
J. Lin
Fig. 9. Effects of R ratios on the scatters of FCGR for AA2024-T3 [145].
the surface conditions determined by manufacturing processes,
and related residual stresses. The influences from these aspects on
the fatigue performances are almost constant.
The uncertainties linked to structural features are more strongly
linked to the machining and assembly processes. The uncertainties
existed in open holes and fastener joints are typical examples.
Fasteners joints, such as rivets and bolt joints, are still the major
connection methods to join the airframe structures together. An
A380 is assembled with more than 2,000,000 fasteners joints [146].
For an A350-900, which was made with more than 53% composite
materials in weight, it still contained more than 55,000 fasteners
[147]. Although huge amounts of Research and Development (R&D)
works to improve the manufacture qualities of the fastener joints
have been conducted continually in the several decades, from the
aspects of fastener structural designs, hole drilling, cold works, and
234
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
assembly processes, but the hole drill or reamer damage, burrs, and
poor de-burring practice are still the most common structural de-
fects to cause the fatigue failures in the airframes [18].
For an open hole, except the defects discussed in previous sec-
tions, the scores, burrs, tears/nicks from machining and hole dril-
ling can produce further uncertainties of the fatigue failures (via the
effects of shape, surface quality and residual stresses) [148]. A lot of
research works have been conducted to improve the open holes'
surface integrity and fatigue performances [149e152]. The fatigue
performances of drilled holes are not only determined by the
drilled materials, drilling methods, but also strongly determined by
the drilling parameters, such as drilling speeds, cutting forces,
cooling/lubricating conditions [110,111]. In further, the wearing of
drilling tools can also affect the holes’ shapes, diameters and sur-
face roughness [153,154]. Fig. 10 illustrated the relationship
J. Lin International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250

Fig. 10. The relationship between the cutting forces and the number of drilled holes [154].

between the cutting forces and the number of drilled holes. The
relationship between the roughness of drilled holes and the num-
ber of drilled holes with the same drill is shown in Fig. 11. It can be
seen that the surface roughnesses on 22nd drilled hole are signif-
icantly worse than the ones on the 6th drilled hole. These results
are implying that the fatigue performances of the open holes can be
linked to the quality control measures in the hole drilling processes.
The technique of cold working/expansion holes has been used
long times to extend the fatigue lives of the holes, because the cold
working process can generate compressive residual stresses on the

Fig. 11. The relationship between roughness and number of drilled holes with the same drill [154].

235
J. Lin
Fig. 12. Cross-section of a broken pin-loaded hole specimen with 4% pre cold expansion [155].
hole surface. At the same time, the cold working processes can also
generate additional uncertainties to the fatigue behaviours of cold-
worked holes, because the microcracks can be generated on the
hole surface during the cold expansion processes. Fig. 12 demon-
strated a broken surface of a hole treated with 4% expansion during
the cold working process [155]. It can be found that a lot of micro-
cracks/damages have been generated on the hole surface during
the cold working process, but most of them have not propagated
significantly due to the severe crack closures caused by the
compressive stresses generated by the cold working processes.
The uncertainties for the fatigue failure at a fastener joint can be
more complicated, because of the surface roughness of joined parts,
the clamping forces, the fastener type and assembly processes, the
interactions between fasteners and holes, the type and level of
transferred loads, and the friction factors between the joined parts
can be additional factors to affect the fatigue failures of the joints
[156e158]. Fig. 13 shows that the effect of clamping forces on the
fatigue endurance of the bolted joints. The effect of interactions
between the fastener and hole fitting on fatigue life of the fastener
joints can be found in Fig. 14 [159]. In further, as the results shown
in Fig. 11, when the drilled holes numbers for the same drill
increased, the diameters of drilled holes can be reduced, and the
roughness of the drilled surface can be increased due to the
wearing of the drill. If the drilling number for the same drill was not
limited, the fatigue performances of drilled holes can be changed to
worse gradually. The quality control measures for the drill usages
can also cause uncertainty to fatigue performances of drilled holes.
Fig. 13. Effect of clamping forces on the S-N curves of the bolt joints [158].
236
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
Fig. 15 are the fatigue endurance lives for 200 single lap riveted
joints tested with 3 different maximum cyclic stress at a R ratio of
0.05 [160]. The results show that the scatter of the endurance lives
for these joints are increased with the decreasing of maximum
cyclic stresses. It means that the uncertainties of the fatigue lives
for these riveted joints are also linked to the levels of maximum
cyclic stresses. The uncertainties factors could include the scatters
of the dimensions of the joined plates and the drilled holes, and
various operational parameters in the riveting processes, etc.
Following the uncertainties discussed in this section, it can be
easily understood what L. Molent stated in Ref. [76]: it is hardly
surprising that so-called ‘blind predictions’ of airframe fatigue lives
may be poor in some instances, or those unexpected fatigue
problems still occur in certification tests (e.g. the full-scale fatigue
tests for F-35 Joint Strike Fighter [20]), and in-service [21,40,77].
4. Perspectives on the improvement fatigue analysis methods
Through the evolution of the airworthiness regulations, the type
certification backbone of “analysis supported by tests” has been
established. The test validations and verifications are required from
the aspects to determine design loads/spectra, selection of mate-
rials, categories on the structures for designs, designs for parts/
elements/sub-components/components/whole aircraft, identifica-
tions of WFD suspecting items, to the determination/extension of
LOV. Although the concept of Test Pyramid (TP), as shown in Fig. 16
[161], was formally proposed by J. Rouchon in 1990 for the type
J. Lin
Fig. 14. Bolts installed in aluminium with relative fatigue life factors vs. a transition fit baseline [159].
certifications of composite structures, the requirements to establish
the Test Pyramids (TP) using Building Block Approach (BBA) were
proposed with the establishment of 5 tasks for ASIP in the 1970s
[37].
As shown in Fig. 2, the aircraft DaDT designs should be started
with establishments of the fatigue design philosophies, which in-
cludes identifying the usages of aircraft, Design Service Goal (DSG),
loads/spectrum for certifications, categorising structures, and
Means of Compliances (MoCs) together with the testing verifica-
tion/validations plans to meet the requirements of airworthiness
regulations. For different categorised structures, DaDT or safe life
design analyses need to be conducted. For the structures cat-
egorised as the DaDT structures, the further categorising is required
to identify the structures as slow cracking structures, or the
structures need to be designed with the fail-safe strategy. All of the
designs need to be validated through established Test Pyramids
(TP) using Building Block Approach (BBA). As the test pyramid
validations have been planned at the beginning of F-35
Fig. 15. Fatigue failure testing results for single lap riveted joints [160].
237
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
developments, in the three full-scale fatigue tests conducted for F-
35s, there is no major crack initiated from the fastener holes after
these tests were conducted to 1st DSG [20]. Some of unforeseen
fatigue damages occurred before tested to 1st DSG in these tests
were due to cracking at geometric details or stress concentration
that was either not analysed, or were incorrectly analysed during
the pre-sizing design stage. Following the additional research
works (tests and analyses) at the levels of coupon and components,
it was found that the bulk residual stresses in the raw forging
played important roles in these unforeseen cracks [20,162]. The
experiences gained from these full-scale fatigue tests for F-35
demonstrated the values of the test pyramid in advance: One side,
due to the existed test pyramids covered the fastener joints for F-
Fig. 16. Aircraft development test pyramid established with building block approach
[161].
J. Lin
35, the crack initiations from fastener holes did not occur before the
first DSG testing period; another side, due to the existing design
process requirements have not covered for the effects of bulk re-
sidual stresses inside forgings [162,163], these unforeseen cracks
occurred in the early stages of the full-scale fatigue tests [20].
4.1. Selections of materials for the fatigue designs
Selecting proper materials is a critical task in the stage of
concept designs. In order to meet the static/fatigue demands
together with the target of weight saving, the selection of materials
must be based on the past experiences, linking with the location
and potential operating conditions. Fig. 17 shows the relationship
between fracture toughness and proof strength for different types
of materials [164]. For the same type of materials, the higher the
proof strength, the lower fracture toughness, consequently its fa-
tigue performance is also poor. Another tendency is clear that
among the steel, Ti and Al alloy, the steels have the highest strength
together with fracture toughness, and Al alloys have the lowest
strength and fracture toughness.
For a large transport aircraft, normally 7000-series aluminium
alloy are applied as the material for top wing skin, because the top
wing skin needs to have higher strength to against buckling failure,
and have less demand on its fatigue performances. For the low wing
skin, 2000-series aluminium alloy are selected, as the low wing
skin have high demand on its fatigue performances. As mentioned
in Section 2.4, both KC-135 and B707 were derived from Boeing's
Dash 80 prototype, 7186-T6 has been selected for KC-135 lower
wing skin, instead of 2024-T3 for B707 lower wing skin. Although
such kind of material change achieved significant weight saving for
KC-135, but also caused early fatigue cracks in the low wing skin in
its service operations [13]. It can be explained because the 7186-T6
has higher static strength, the static design principle allows that the
designer to reduce the skin thickness for weight saving, but also
Fig. 17. Relationship between fracture toughness and proof strength for different type of materials [164].
238
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
raised the working stresses in the skin significantly. For a material
with similar fatigue properties, such kind increasing of stresses can
knock down the fatigue life of skin significantly. After the early
fatigue cracking problem was disclosed from KC-135's operation
services, part of KC-135 lower skin materials were replaced 2024-
T3 as the production modifications and recovering measures for
the in-service fleet. Cold working holes were applied to the outer
board lower wing panel as the enhanced measures for the in-
service fleet, where the materials remained as 7186-T6 alloy. Both
modifications in productions and in-service were raised additional
costs to the KC-135 fleet. If at the beginning of the designs of KC-
135, 7186-T6 was not selected as the material for its lower skin
wing panel, which mainly focused on the weight-saving target, and
ignored the high demands of fatigue performance required by the
lower wing skin panels, then significantly cost saving can be made
to avoid the additional design modifications and the modifications
for in-service fleet [13].
4.2. Short and long cracks in DT analyses
The research works for short fatigue cracks were started in the
1970s [165,166], which were concerning the micro-cracks initiated
from a grain on a free surface [78,84,89,98]. Huge amounts effort
have been conducted to develop various analysis methods to cover
the fatigue cracking from micro to macro scales. Most of them
were trying to apply the fatigue cracking theories and analysis
methods for the long cracks directly to the short cracks, and even
the ASTM fatigue cracking test standard has provided a special
guideline in its appendix X3 to cover the short crack concepts
[167]. Starting with the requirements from MIL-A-83444 [168], the
DT design methods based on fatigue crack growing analysis have
been gradually developed in several decades, accompanied with
the developments of various DT analysis tools with the theory of
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM), such as NASGRO [169],
J. Lin
AFGROW [170] and FASTRAN [171]. The analysis concepts were
also developed from Equivalent Initial Quality Method (EIQM)
[172], Equivalent Initial Flaw Size (EIFS) [173], to Equivalent Pre-
crack Size (EPS) with a lead crack that relies heavily on Quantita-
tive Fractography (QF) [174,175]. Several round-robin exercises to
examine the accuracy of these LEFM analysis tools have been
conducted in the past [176e178].
A DT analysis round-robin challenge for helicopter components
was initiated in May 2002 [178]. The objective of this challenger
was to compare predicted crack growth lives from various partici-
pants on a corner defect (2 mm in radius) at the edge of a large
central hole in a flanged plate made of the 7010-T73651 alloy, as
shown in Fig. 18. The author has conducted FCG tests for two
specimens with Asterix Variable Amplitude (VA) spectrum for
rotorcraft [179], produced crack propagation data, and determined
the final cracking lives [178]. The initial corner notch was generated
with Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) technique, then applied
Fig. 18. Helicopter round-robin crack configuration [178].
239
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
small Constant Amplitude (CA) cyclic loading to pre-crack the notch
to a corner crack with 2.0 mm surface length. The VA spectrums
were applied to the specimen to let the crack grow until the
specimen broke at a nominal crack length around 25.0 mm. The VA
FCG testing results are shown in Fig. 19. The measured FCG data for
these two tests matched each other very well. It means that under
long crack FCG regimes, once the loading spectrum fixed, the effects
of crack closure, overloading retardations on the FCG are very sta-
ble, and these influence factors do not cause significantly un-
certainties in the long crack FCG tests with VA spectrum loading.
Before these experimental test results disclosed, the basic FCGR
data (the FCGR data obtained from several difference R ratios
constant amplitude loading tests), the SIFs derived from 3D Finite
Element Analyses (FEAs), and the loading spectrum have been
provided to all of the participants attended the round-robin chal-
lenge. All of the attendances were asked to do the blind (uncali-
brated) prediction with a LEFM FCG analysis tools selected by
J. Lin
Fig. 19. Prediction results compared with the FCG testing results [180].
themselves. Fig. 20 shows the summary of blind prediction results
compared with the VA testing results [180]. Compared with the test
results, big scatters of the blind prediction results have been found.
After the challenge, several calibrated predictions have also been
conducted together with corrections on FCGR data and better SIF
solutions. The prediction results have been improved significantly
[180e183]. In Fig. 19, the predicted results obtained from both
“blind” and “calibrated” predictions have also been presented and
compared with the VA experimental testing results.
In another round robin challenge conducted recently [177], A.V.
Litvinov concluded that the latest FCG analysis tools can predict
FCG for long cracks very well, but it is still difficult to predict the
cracking profiles before the crack growing to 1.0 mm, especially in
Fig. 20. Summary of blind predictions with LEFM FCG tools for long crack compared to the tests [178].
240
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
Fig. 21. Testing results for Al7050-T7451 open hole specimens with four different
maximum stresses loading levels [184].
the case to only use single FCGR data to conduct the predictions, i.e.,
the differences of FCGR along different material orientations were
ignored. After a careful investigation, it was found that better
prediction results can be achieved, if the FCGR data along different
orientations can be applied in the predictions. It means that the
short cracking behaviours are strongly dominated by microstruc-
tural properties along different orientations of the materials.
Fig. 21 shows the testing results for Al7050-T7451 open hole
specimens with four different maximum stresses loading levels
[184]. For two group tests at 250 and 225 MPa stress levels, their
FCG data have less scatter than the ones for the other two group
tests at 200 MPa and 155 MPa stress levels, especially at the early
stages of cracking. For the test results at 155 MPa stress levels, the
FCG lives for the cracks growing to 0.1 mm length in this group have
more than 6 times differences, but the FCGRs for longer cracks
(from 1.0 to 10.0 mm) in this group are similar, which implied that
the FCGRs in the long crack growing stages are much more stable
than the FCGR in the short crack stages, i.e., the uncertainties of
FCGR in the long crack growing stage are significantly less than the
J. Lin
ones in the short crack growing stages. These test results implied
that most of the scatters in the FCG testing data existed in the stages
of short crack, and the scatters are increased with the decreasing of
the maximum applied stresses. These results are matching well
with the FCGR data shown in Figs. 8 and 9.
Stepping back to consider the DT analysis design philosophy, the
most important issues in the DT analysis are to determine the IT and
RII properly, which can be analysed with the supports of industrial
NDI capabilities [100] and MSG-3 [70]. As the concept shown in
Fig. 3, the most important part in a DT analysis is to calculate the
FCG life from a detectable crack length to the critical crack length in
the structure, which is the final loading point that the structural
integrity still can be maintained under the limit load. The detect-
able crack length is a value not only linked to a defined inspection
method, but also linked to planned inspection processes. For
example, for a fastener joint, the crack can be easily initiated from
the edge of the fastener hole. If there is no plan to disassemble the
fastener joint to do the inspection, then because the edge of the
fastener hole is normally covered by the head of the fastener, the
nut, or the washers, the in-service detectable crack length for the
fastener hole can be significantly longer than the minimum
detectable length for defined NDI method. For example, for the
General Visible Inspection (GVI) methods, the minimum detectable
crack length, in general, is longer than 6.0 mm, but following the
MSG-3 logic processes, a detectable crack length for a fastener joint
can easily exceed 10.0 mm. If in the first design loop, the defined
inspection method is GVI, but calculated cracking life is shorter
than the pre-defined RII target, then one potential design solution
can be to change the NDI method from GVI to Detail Visual In-
spection (DVI) or other specified NDI methods, even with disas-
sembly the fastener. It means that the pre-defined detectable crack
length can be easily reduced from 10.0 mm down to 1.0 mm [100],
then the calculated DT life can be stretched due to the reduction of
pre-defined detectable crack length. Obviously, the trading price
behind this solution will be to increase the in-service maintenance
costs and times.
4.3. DaDT design analysis for fastener joints
Following one of the classic analysis methods introduced by
M.C.Y. Niu [183], a DaDT analyses design for a group of fastener
joints can be split into two steps: 1) the decomposition analyses for
load distributions and transferring in the fastener group and inner
joints; 2) the DaDT analyses for the fastener joints. Fig. 22 shows the
decomposition of applied load at the first rivet row for a two-layer
multi-row lap joint [186].
Fig. 22. Decomposition of applied load at the first rivet row for a two-layer multi-row lap joint [186].
241
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
Determinations of the fastener load distributions in a joint
group are required by structural designs, both in static and DaDT
analyses, but such kinds of analysis processes were always a chal-
lenge to the structural designers. The results can be affected by a lot
of factors, which include the geometries of the joints, types and
numbers of the fasteners, the machining and assembling processes
to the joints, applied loading levels, the fitting status between the
fastener and the hole, even clamping force and the friction factor of
the connected parts.
H. Huth has conducted comprehensive experimental studies on
the fastener joints in the 1980s [187], and established a linear
stiffness model to calculate the joint stiffnesses. Huth's linear
stiffness model have been applied widely in analytical and nu-
merical analysis to account for the stiffness of fastener joints. The
problem is that Huth's stiffness model is a linear, but his experi-
mental studies show that the stiffnesses of fastener joints reduced
with the increasing of applied loading levels [187]. Such kind of
mismatch between the linear stiffness model and the non-linear
behaviours of the real fastener joints, definitely introduced errors
into the analyses for fastener joints, which created an uncertainty
in the methods to calculate the fastener loads/distributions,
consequently affecting further analyses results.
Recently P.A. Sharos and C.T. McCarthy have conducted
comprehensive simulations with a 3D FEA model to demonstrate
the effects of total loading level on the stiffnesses of joint groups
and the loads redistributions in different fasteners [188]. The
simulation results are matching with the Huth's experimental re-
sults very well. In further, P.A. Sharos and C.T. McCarthy's model has
also demonstrated that the differences of transferred loads in
different fasteners in the same joint group can be reduced with the
increase of total applied loads. It means that following the Niu's
analysis routine, the analysis methods to determine the load dis-
tributions in fastener joint groups can be improved even further.
In fact, except for the problem in the simulation on the stiff-
nesses of fastener joints, another existing problem is how to
calculate the stresses around the fastener hole edge accurately,
because of the influences coming from the variations of contacts
behaviours between the fastener and hole, the load transferring
and friction forces and movements between the jointed plates, and
their relationship to the stiffness and the load distributions, etc. All
of these issues can cause more difficulties to identify the locations
for fatigue crack initiations and propagation in the joint groups.
For a part made with Al alloy, 1% stress error can easily produce
5e6% errors on the predicted fatigue life. Therefore, through the
way to use fasteners stiffnesses in the joints group to determine
the individual loads at every fastener, then to determine the
J. Lin International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250

Fig. 23. Test specimen design for low load transfer joints [193].

decomposition loads to every fastener hole, finally to conduct the
DaDT analysis, the whole calculation procedures can accumulate a
lot of errors to the stresses to calculate the fatigue life. Following
what is discussed here, it can be easy to understand how difficult
to conduct a properly DaDT analysis for fastener joints.
In fact, there is a different way to conduct the DaDT analysis for
fastener joints. ESDU has developed a serial of methods, to use
different types of coupon specimens, such as open holes, lugs, and
fastener joints, to determine their fatigue endurance S-N data
directly [189e195]. Fig. 23 shows the low load transferring coupon
specimen defined by Ref. [193]. The concept of ESDU methods is to
build the coupon specimens, which were manufactured with the
materials and production standards as close as possible to the
production parts, to let the coupon specimen (open holes, lugs,
various types of fastener joints) to hold the various features
representing the manufacturing status of the parts. These features
included the raw materials, the surface treatment processes, the
hole drilling processes, the type of fasteners, the assembly pro-
cesses, and the load transferring and distributions inside of fastener
joint groups. The testing procedures are similar to what E.
Armentani has conducted to his 200 coupon specimens [160].
Doing this way, the effects of all of the related influence factors
linked to the materials, structure features and manufacturing pro-
cesses can be fixed into the coupon specimens to generate their
fatigue endurance data.
Following ESDU's methods, the fatigue endurance tests are
conducted with coupon specimens, which can represent the final
statuses of the productions. As the testing group results are shown
in Fig. 15, it can expect that the results have certain level of scatter,
but with the statistical analysis guidelines provided by MMPDS

Fig. 24. Fatigue lives for 2024-T851 plates with various structural features [197].

242
J. Lin
[196], the statistic-based S-N curves for endurance designs can be
generated. Using such kind of S-N data to conduct the fatigue
endurance analysis for the components, the analysis processes can
also be simplified significantly, as the complex analysis procedures
to determine the load-stresses can be simplified to only use far-field
stresses to do the fatigue endurance analysis for related structures.
As discussed in Section 3, the manufacturing processes and
structural designs can generate a lot of uncertain factors to affect
the fatigue analysis results for open holes and fastener joints.
Fig. 24 shows the fatigue lives for various 2024-T851 specimens
made with different manufacturing processes [197]. The reamed
open hole has the worst fatigue performance, and the net fit
fastener with a cold-worked hole has the best fatigue performance,
which is even better than the parent metal. With the curves shown
in Fig. 24, the S-N curve for cold-worked open holes crossed most of
the other S-N curves. If only comparing the S-N curves between the
reamed open hole and the cold worked open hole, the life differ-
ences between the two curves are increased with the reduction of
the maximum stresses. Such kind of phenomenon can be consid-
ered as the contribution of the compressive residual stresses
generated by cold works to the fatigue lives. For a cold-worked
hole, the cold work-induced compressive residual stresses are a
constant value. If the hole integrity is maintained, then the level of
residual stresses will be constant. In such case, when the level of
applied stress increased, the positive contributions of the cold
work-induced residual stresses to the effective cyclic stress will be
reduced, which lead to the gaps of fatigue lives between the reamed
open hole and the cold worked open hole decreased with
increasing of the maximum applied stresses.
Following ESDU routines to generate the S-N curves with
various coupon specimens, most of the uncertainties existed in
short cracking stages can be fixed into the coupon specimens to
generate the S-N curves, as the results are shown in Figs. 15 and 24.
The fatigue endurance lives with statistic character can be simply
applied to the fatigue endurance analyses for the parts at the tested
coupon level. All of the time-consuming analyses routines to the
detail features and related analysis processes introduced by M.C.Y.
Niu [185] can be simplified/eliminated.
On another side, the DT analysis results for the cracking be-
haviours only in the regime of long crack are more stable, as the
most of uncertainties have been frozen into the S-N curves for the
coupon specimen. It means that the uncertainties caused by the
microstructures of material, the surface conditions of the part,
various factors related to the manufacturing processes, either
machining or assembly, can be frozen into the S-N curves generated
from various coupon specimens, and most of their effects to the
long crack propagations have been removed away from the DaDT
analyses following ESDU routines.
The ITs and RIIs listed in Table 2 [198] are good examples to
show the advantages of applying the ESDU routine to conduct the
DaDT designs for airframe structures. The ITs and RIIs listed in
Table 2 for fuselages and wing components were extracted from
A320 MPD [199]. In Table 2, the ITs and RIIs for the wing (ATA 57-1/
Table 2
Inspection thresholds and intervals for different components in A320 [198].
Fuselage (53-1) Fuse Lage Wing (57-1/57-2)
Frame and Stringer (53-3) Skin Rib, Spar and Skin
No. Parts [] 138 79 134
Weight [kg] 5372 2686 9150
MPD Tasks T[FC] I[FC] T[FC] I[FC] T[FC] I[FC]
Maximum 24,000 20,000 48,000 20,000 80,000 62,100
Median 24,000 8000 24,000 9800 42,000 24,400
Average 20,161 9942 24,167 10,021 48,945 26,695
T ¼ Threshold (First Inspection), I ¼ Repeat Inspection Interval, FC ¼ Flying Cycle.
243
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
57-2) are significantly longer than the ones for the fuselages. In the
design processes for the A320 series, with historical reasons, the
fuselages DaDT designs were followed methods introduced by
M.C.Y. Niu [183], which included the load decomposition processes
for the fastener joints and applied material properties to conduct
the detailed DaDT analysis for the components. The DaDT designs
for the wingbox were followed ESDU's methodologies. Considering
all of the inspection plans in the MPD have been validated by the
testing results generated from different levels of the test pyramid,
the inspection plans for the fuselages and wingbox are more or less
reflecting the real fatigue performances of the airframe structures.
As the production techniques and quality control systems in Airbus
should be very similar, such kind of gaps of these certified ITs and
RIIs between the wings and fuselages, can only be caused by the
differences of the design analysis routines for the wing and fuse-
lages, rather than any other differences in the manufacturing and
qualities controlling processes.
As discussed, ESDU design routines have separated the fatigue
endurance analysis from the DT analysis. In the fatigue endurance
analysis, the S-N curves derived from the fatigue endurance tests
with various specified coupon specimens, which have included
most of the uncertainties issues coming with the material supply-
ing status, the manufacture processes, and typical loading condi-
tions. The stresses in these derived S-N curves are the far-field
stresses. Using such kinds of S-N curves to conduct the fatigue
endurance analysis for related parts, the fatigue durability analysis
can be simplified significantly, because there is no need to figure
out the load's decompositions in the fastener joints, and various
effects of influence factors to the fatigue behaviours of coupons
have also been frozen into the S-N curves. Compared with other
fatigue analysis methods, such as EIFS, EPS, DFR, and IQF methods
[172e175,200e202], ESDU design methods not only simplified the
processes to generate related fatigue design values, but also
simplified the fatigue analysis processes.
For a large aircraft, its airframe structures can have over millions
of holes and fastener joints, in which a lot of them are the same
types. Therefore, following EDSU design philosophy, the type
numbers of the coupon specimen for a given aircraft can be
accounted for just over one hundred. Although little more coupon
tests are needed with ESDU design philosophy in the early aircraft
development stages, but if these tests can be combined together
with the tests required by manufacturing quality control processes,
the increased test numbers for the coupon specimens are still a
limited number. In further, if the materials, manufacturing quality
control processes can be maintained in the next new aircraft de-
velopments, these generated design values derived in early devel-
opment stages can be continually applied to the new aircraft. In
further, the simplifications on the DaDT analysis processes can also
save huge amounts of time in the DaDT design processes, with
advanced time-saving in the processes to approve and authorise
related technical analysis documents.
The developments in the manufacturing techniques are always
non-stop processes. The development objectives are targeting to
achieve higher production rates without reductions on qualities,
and fewer costs/times for the manufacturers and maintenances. For
example, more and more automatically machines and robots have
been introduced into the aircraft manufacturing. An automatic
riveting system has been introduced into the wing assembly lines
for Airbus at the last century [203,204]. Step by step, other related
manufacturing techniques, such as One-Way Assembly (OWA)
[205]/One-Up Assembly (OUA), automatic cold working, have been
also integrated into the automatic assembly system, followed by
related validations via the test pyramids to meet the airworthiness
requirements. As the assembly operational parameters can be
controlled precisely in the automatic assembly than the manual
J. Lin
assembly, the assembly qualities of related joints can also be
improved significantly. As reported by R. Jochum in Ref. [159],
before 2013, Boeing needs to correct 10 misalignments holes out of
60,000 fastener assembly; after the automatic assembly lines were
introduced to their assembly lines, the misalignment holes have
been eliminated from their productions [159]. It means that the
general fatigue performances for the fastener joints can also be
boosted with OWA/OUA. Following ESDU design philosophy, the
effects of applying automatic assembly techniques on the fatigue
behaviours can be easily validated via the tests at the level of
coupon specimens to meet the certification requirements.
5. Discussions
This paper has reviewed the evolution history of airworthiness
regulations linked to airframe structural DaDT designs. As dis-
cussed, the fatigue failures are concerned with a lot of influence
factors, from the type of materials, defects coming with the raw
materials, various manufacturing processes, and in-service condi-
tions that are linked to loading history for various missions, and the
operating environments. From an academic research point of view,
after cyclic loading applied to a metallic part, a microcrack can be
initiated from a free surface or a defect very quickly [76]. Huge
Efforts to apply LEFM theory for the long crack to cover the DaDT
analysis for the short cracks have been made by academic re-
searchers in the past several decades, but due to various complex
fatigue cracking mechanisms for a crack shorter than 1.0 mm have
been identified, it is still a challenge to conduct a properly/accu-
rately DaDT analysis for the short cracks. Fig. 25 shows a compar-
ison of crack growth between several coupon testing results and
the prediction results obtained with different DT analysis methods/
tools in a recently conducted round-robin challenges. The gaps
between the test results and predictions shown in Fig. 25 are very
clear: With making a lot of efforts, it is possible to let the predicted
lives closing to the testing results, but it is still very difficult to let
the predicted cracking progresses to match with the physical
cracking progresses [206].
From an engineering point of view, 1.0 mm crack length is still a
typical crack length that can be detected with NDI techniques with
Fig. 25. A comparison of crack growth between coupon test data and predictions [206].
244
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
95% confidence [100]. Following the reviews conducted in this pa-
per, the uncertainty issues in the fatigue failures are not only caused
by various short crack FCG mechanisms, but also strongly affected
by manufacturing processes, assembly processes and operations
histories. Considering that most of these uncertainties affected fa-
tigue failures exist in the stages of the short crack growing, it should
be better to split the fatigue failure progresses with fatigue endur-
ance and DT analysis. Following ESDU design philosophy, to use
coupon specimens to generate the S-N curves, it can fix various
uncertainties coming with the raw material, the machining pro-
cesses and the assembly processes into the coupon specimens, to
generate fatigue endurance design values directly linked to statuses
both of supplied raw materials and the manufacturing processes.
Doing things this way, it can also perfectly to match the airworthi-
ness requirements.
On the other hand, J. Schijve has found out in the 1960s that for
unnotched 2024-T3 specimens, a fatigue crack growing to 1.0 mm
length needs to spend more than 95% times of its whole life [99].
Based on this observation, it can conclude that to account for the
coupon specimen broken lives as the endurance lives should not
introduce significantly conservatism into the S-N curves. Therefore,
the endurance life can be defined as “engineering fatigue endurance”
(EFE). With the results shown in Fig. 15 [160], it can be an image that
EFE obtained from the coupon specimens should have a certain level
of dispersion, and the scatters can be increased with the reduction of
cyclic stress levels. With enough testing numbers and statistical
analysis methods, as suggested by MMPDS [196], the statistic char-
acters of EFE can be easily figured out, and provided probability fa-
tigue endurance analysis results for the airframe fatigue designs with
solidly supporting test evidences. As the EFE have included the ef-
fects from the materials themselves, and the manufacturing pro-
cesses, the analysis processes can also be simplified significantly,
therefore, it can help the designer to conduct better pre-sizing de-
signs, and reduce the number of design iterations loops between the
testing validations and modifications.
Composite materials have been applied to airframes step by step
in several decades, especially for the carbon fibre reinforced poly-
mer (CFRP). CFRP has been gradually introduced into airframe
structures, through the progress from secondary structures to the
J. Lin
primary structures. For an A350-900/1000, the weight portions of
CFRP applied in its airframe have been increased to 53% [207,208].
The benefits to apply CFRP materials into airframes include less
prone to fatigue crack initiation, anti-corrosion resistance, light-
weight via layup optimisation, in principle to reduce assembly costs
due to more integral designs (i.e. significantly fewer detail parts
and fasteners). The disadvantages of composites include high costs
on raw materials, being environmentally sensitive, impact dam-
ages, poor strength in the out-off plane, delamination, high infra-
structure costs, and difficult to be repaired.
AC 20-107B [209] is the latest guidance material published by
FAA for composite structures materials. AMC 20e29 [210] is the
similar guidance material published by EASA, which was harmo-
nized with FAA AC 20-107B. The aims of AC 20-107B are to aid in the
evaluation of certification programs for composite applications and
to reflect the current status of composite technologies. AC 20-107B
required to test the structure details, elements, and subcomponents
of critical structural areas under repeated loads to define the
sensitivity of the structure to damage growth. Such kinds of tests
can form the basis to validate a “Damage No Growth” philosophy to
the damage tolerance requirements for composite structures,
which means that the designs of composite airframe structures are
mainly dominated by static designs. For the material properties of
composite laminates, they are not only dependant on the proper-
ties of fibre/resin, the interface properties between the fibre and
resin, but also strongly linked to their manufacture processes,
which can generate various defects inside the laminate, and pre-
sented with greater scatter on their static strengths. Similar to the
fatigue performances of metallic components, machining and as-
sembly processes can also generate various uncertainties to com-
posite components, which are above the uncertainty factors existed
for composite laminates. In order to conduct precisely designs for
composite structures, test pyramids established with the building
block approach are also needed to generate the design values and
validate related methods for composites [161,211] Due to the
damage tolerance designs for composite aircraft structures are
mainly covered by static structural designs, the author will compile
an additional review on the damage tolerance designs for aircraft
composite structures.
6. Conclusion
In order to maintain the safety of aircraft operations, the
airworthiness regulations have accumulated more than 70 years’
evolution history. Through the evolution path from SBR (Safety by
Retirement), to SBD (Safety by Design), to SBI (Safety by Inspec-
tion), and to LOV (Limit of Validation), one basic request was
existing all the time: “Analysis, supported by tests”. The applica-
tion of test pyramids validation processes has been approved as a
reliable process for the validations/verifications of aircraft struc-
tural designs.
The uncertainties caused by various influence factors, from the
raw materials, manufacturing processes, to the operation history,
still are big resistances for aircraft manufacturers to design and
produce an aircraft to achieve the targets with higher levels’
safeties, lightweight, cheaper costs for operations and mainte-
nances. From what were reviewed in this paper, to include the in-
fluences of manufacturing processes is a very important part to
conduct a successful DaDT (Durability and Damage Tolerance)
design for airframe structures. Following the regulation re-
quirements, conducting iteration loops between the design and
testing validations is the most reliable and economic way to pro-
duce good aircraft products, and to cut down the costs for designs,
productions, operations and maintenances.
245
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
Compared with other existing DaDT (Durability and Damage
Tolerance) design analysis methods, the ESDU design routines
separated the DaDT (Durability and Damage Tolerance) design
processes into to two pieces: 1) Using S-N curves obtained from the
endurance tests with coupon specimens (Based on the nominal
stress vs EFE (Engineering Fatigue Endurance)), the results can be
used to determine the IT; 2) Using LEFM (Linear Elastic Fracture
Mechanics) theory to conduct the FCG (Fatigue Crack Growth)
analysis to calculate the FCG (Fatigue Crack Growth) life from
detectable crack length to critical crack length, the results can be
used to determine the RII. The evidence presented in this review
has shown that ESDU design routines can produce a significantly
better DaDT (Durability and Damage Tolerance) designs to the
airframe structures than other existing methods.
Funding
This research received no funding.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] K. Jones, M. Liao, C. Babish IV, Chapter 24, best practices summary, in:
Continuing Airworthiness of Aging Systems, 2020, pp. 195e200, https://doi.org/
10.14339/STO-TR-AVT-275-ALL-PDF. https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/
STO%20Technical%20Reports/STO-TR-AVT-275/$$TR-AVT-275-ALL.pdf.
[2] S.M.O. Tavares, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Chapter 2 maintenance, in: Damage
Tolerance of Metallic Aircraft Structures, Springer Briefs in Computational
Mechanics, 2019, pp. 17e23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70190-5_2.
[3] T. Dong, N.H. Kim, Cost-effectiveness of structural health monitoring in
fuselage maintenance of the civil aviation industry, Aerospace 5 (3) (2018)
1e24, https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace5030087, 87.
[4] E.M. Karft, The US Air force digital thread/digital twin-life cycle integration
and use of computational and experimental knowledge, in: 54th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, vols. 4e8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2016-0897. January 2016, San Diego, California, USA.
[5] M. Engstrom, Low Cost Manufacturing and Assembly of Composite and
Hybride Structures-LOCOMACHS-EC0funded Research Project in 7th FP,
SAAB, 2016. https://ftfsweden.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FT2016_L03_
Magnus-Engstr%C3%B6m_LOCOMACHS.pdf.
[6] P.C. Hoffman, Fleet management issues and technology needs, Int. J. Fatig. 31
(11e12) (2009) 1631e1637, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.11.016.
[7] J.W. Lincoln, R.A. Melliere, Economic life determination for a military aircraft,
J. Aircraft 36 (5) (1999) 737e742, https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2512.
[8] D. Ball, B.K. Tom, R.J. Bucci, M.A. James, Toward Understanding the Impact of
Bulk Residual Stress on the Life, Weight and Cost of Primary Aircraft Struc-
ture, Conference: Aeromat 21 Conference and Exposition, American Society
for Metals, 2010. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267900212_
Toward_Understanding_the_Impact_of_Bulk_Residual_Stress_On_the_Life_
Weight_and_Cost_of_Primary_Aircraft_Structure.
[9] J. Schijve, Fatigue damage in aircraft structures, not wanted, but tolerated?
Int. J. Fatig. 31 (6) (2009) 998e1011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.
05.016.
[10] P. Safarian, Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Requirements of Civil Aviation,
Lecture in University of Washington, 2014. https://www.aa.washington.edu/
files/mae_colloquium/mae_winter2014/Safarian_2-3-2014.pdf.
[11] U.G. Goranson, Damage tolerance facts and fiction, keynote presentation in
international conference on damage tolerance of aircraft structures. http://
dtas2007.fyper.com/userfiles/file/Paper%2011_Goranson.pdf, 2007.
[12] C. Boller, M. Buderath, Fatigue in aerostructures-where structural health
monitoring can contribute to a complex subject, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 365
(2007) 561e587, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2006.1924.
[13] C.F. Tiffany, S.N. Atluri, C.A. Bigeflow, E.W. Briesch, R.J. Bucci, W.R. Cieslak,
E.E. Covert, B.B. Djordjevic, C.E. Harris, J.W. Mar, J.A. Marceau, C. Saff,
E.A. Starke Jr., D.O. Thompson, in: Aging of U.S. Air Force Aircraft, Appendix
covering Structural History of the F-111, National Research Council report
NMAB-488-2, National Academy Press, Washington D.C., 1997, pp. 104e106,
https://doi.org/10.17226/5917.
[14] J.W. Mar, Structural integrity of aging airplane: a perspective, in: S.N. Atluri,
S.G. Sampath, P. Tong (Eds.), Structural Integrity of Aging Airplanes,
Springer-Verlag, 1991, pp. 241e262, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
84364-8_17.
J. Lin
[15] R.J.H. Wanhill, S. Barter, L. Molent, Quantitative fractography (QF) for fatigue
crack growth analysis metallic aircraft components. https://doi.org/10.
13140/RG.2.2.12232.96001, 2021.
[16] J.D. Ocampo, Changes in design paradigms aeronautics through time:
historical accidents that marked the aeronautical industry (From Static
Effort to Digital Twin). http://www.centrodeestudiosaeronauticos.edu.co/
cea/Investigacion/InvestigacionCEA/Anexos%20Memorias%20Encuentro/
ANEXO%206%20Cambios%20en%20los%20paradigmas%20de%20dise%C3%
B1o%20aeron%C3%A1utico%20a.pdf, 2019.
[17] S.M.O. Tavares, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Chapter 1. Introduction, in: Damage
Tolerance of Metallic Aircraft Structures, Springer Briefs in Computational
Mechanics, 2019, pp. 3e16, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70190-5_1.
[18] S.A. Barter, L. Molent, R.J.H. Wanhill, Chapter 3, typical fatigue-nucleating
discontinuities in metallic aircraft structures, in: Aircraft Sustainment and
Repair, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 41e65, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100540-
8.00003-0.
[19] R. Jones, D. Peng, A.J. McMillan, Chapter 5, Crack growth from naturally
occurring material discontinuities, in: Aircraft Sustainment and Repair,
Elsevier, 2018, pp. 129e189. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100540-8.
00005-4.
[20] D.L. Ball, P.C. Gross, R.J. Burt, F-35 full scale durability modelling and test,
Adv. Mater. Res. 891e892 (2014) 693e701. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.
scientific.net/AMR.891-892.693.
[21] C.F. Tiffany, J.P. Gallagher, C.A. Babish, IV, Threats to Aircraft Structural Safety,
Including a Compendium of Selected Structural Accidents/incidents, ASC-TR-
2010-5002, 2010. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA519867.pdf.
[22] T. Swift, Fail-safe design requirements and features, regulatory re-
quirements, in: AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and
Exposition: The Next 100 Y, 14-17 July 2003, 2003, https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.2003-2783. Dayton, Ohio.
[23] S.J. Findlay, N.D. Harrison, Why aircraft fail, Mater. Today 5 (No.11) (2002)
18e25, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(02)01138-0.
[24] W. Schütz, A history of fatigue, Eng. Fract. Mech. 54 (2) (1996) 263e300,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(95)00178-6.
[25] S. Nishida, Failure Analysis in Engineering Applications, Butterworth-Hei-
nemann, 1992, https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-06527-9.
[26] G.S. Campbell, R. Lahey, A survey of serious aircraft accidents involving fa-
tigue fracture, Int. J. Fatig. 6 (1) (1984) 25e30, https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-
1123(84)90005-7.
[27] M. Guillaume, A. Uebersax, G. Mandanis, C. Huber, Structural integrity-
yesterday-today-tomorrow, Adv. Mater. Res. 891e892 (2014) 1053e1058.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.891-892.1053.
[28] R.G. Eastin, W. Sippel, The “WFD Rule”-have we come full circle?, in: USAF
Aircraft Structural Integrity Conference, 2011, in: http://meetingdata.
utcdayton.com/agenda/asip/2011/proceedings/techpapers/TP5090.pdf.
[29] J.Y. Mann, Aircraft fatigue-with particular emphasis on Australian operations
and research, ARL Struct. Tech. (1983). MEMO-361, AD-A131036, https://
apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a131036.pdf.
[30] B.A. Schriever, Keynote Address-Symposium on fatigue of aircraft structures,
in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Fatigue of Aircraft Structures, WADC
TR, vols. 59e507, 1959, pp. 4e7. AD-227788, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/
fulltext/u2/227788.pdf.
[31] Miscellaneous amendments resulting from the 1955 annual airworthiness
review, in: Civil Air Regulations Amendment 4b-3, 7th Feb, 1956. https://
lessonslearned.faa.gov/danair/car_4b_270.pdf.
[32] Damage tolerance data for repairs and alterations, FAA-2005-21693, Fed.
Regist. 72 (238) (2007) 70486e70508. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2007-12-12/pdf/07-6016.pdf.
[33] UK Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, Civil aircraft accident; report of
the court of inquiry into the accidents to comet G-ALYP on the 10th january,
1954 and comet G-ALYY on 8th April, 1954, London HMSO, https://reports.
aviation-safety.net/1954/19540408-2_COMT_G-ALYY.pdf, 1955.
[34] P.A. Withey, Fatigue failure of the de Havilland comet I, Eng. Fail. Anal. 4 (2)
(1997) 147e154, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-6307(97)00005-8.
[35] P. Withey, The Real Story of the Comet Disaster, Hamburg Aerospace Lecture
Series, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2551089, 24th January.
[36] R.J.H. Wanhill, A Review of the De Havilland Comet I G-ALYP Fuselage Failure
Based on the Court of Enquiry Report (1955) and Publications by T. Swift and
P, Withey, 2020, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23883.41764.
[37] G.R. Negaard, The History of the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program,
Aerospace Structures Information and Analysis Center Report No. 680.1B, Air
Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton,
Ohio, 1980. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a361289.pdf.
[38] C.A. Babish IV, USAF ASIP: protecting safety for 50 years, in: Proceedings of
the 2008 Aircraft Structural Integrity Conference, December 2008. San
Antonio, Texas, http://meetingdata.utcdayton.com/agenda/asip/2008/
proceedings/presentations/P1740.pdf.
[39] J.W. Lincoln, Effect of aircraft failures on USAF structural requirements, in:
Proceeding's 22nd International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS
2000), 2000. Harragote, UK, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a573164.
pdf.
[40] R.J.H. Wanhill, L. Molent, S.A. Barter, E. Amsterdam, Milestone Case Histories
in Aircraft Structural Integrity-Update 2015, 2015. NLR-TP-2015-193,
https://reports.nlr.nl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10921/1065/TP-2015-193.pdf.
246
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
[41] P.C. Miedlar, A.P. Berens, A. Gunderson, J.P. Gallagher, Analysis and support
initiative for structural technology (ASIST), delivery order 0016: USAF
damage tolerant design handbook: guidelines for the analysis and design of
damage tolerant aircraft structures, Air force research laboratory technical
report: AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2003-3002, wright-patterson Air force base, Day-
ton, Ohio, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA411872.pdf, 2002.
[42] H.M. Wells, Air force aircraft structural integrity program: airplane re-
quirements, ASD-TR-66-57, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/707884.
pdf, January 1968.
[43] D.L. Ball, R.J. Burt, Evolution of the USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program
(An OEM Perspective), USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Conference
San Antonio TX, 2016, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12647.85922, 29th
Nov. 2016.
[44] R.J. Burt, Aircraft structural integrity at Air force plant #4, 1942-2017, 2017
aircraft structural integrity program conference, in: http://meetingdata.
utcdayton.com/agenda/asip/2017/proceedings/presentations/P13694.pdf,
2017.
[45] W.D. Buntin, Application of fracture mechanics to the F-111 airplane, in:
AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 221 on Fracture Mechanics Design
Methodology, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development,
Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, 1977, pp. 3-1e3-12. AGARD-CP-221, https://apps.
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a040191.pdf.
[46] R.S. Whitehead, R.B. Deo, A building block approach to design verification
testing of primary composite structure, in: 24th Structures, Structural Dy-
namics and Materials Conference, AIAA, 1983, https://doi.org/10.2514/
6.1983-947.
[47] Military standard, aircraft structural integrity program, airplane re-
quirements, MIL-STD-1530A(11), http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-
1500-1599/MIL_STD_1530A_1502/, 1975.
[48] G.C. Wilkinson, Boeing 707 321C G-BEBP: Report on the Accident Near
Lusaka International Airport, Zambia, UK Department of Trade Accidents
Investigation Branch, 1979 on 14 May 1977, https://assets.digital.cabinet-
office.gov.uk/media/5422f564ed915d137400054f/9-1978_G-BEBP.pdf.
[49] Federal Aviation Administration, Fatigue Regulatory Review Program
Amendments, FAR Final Rule, 14 CFR Part 25, Docket No. 16280, Amendment
No. 25-45, Federal Register: 5th October 1978, 194, vol. 43, 1978,
pp. 46238e46243. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/fr/43/46242.
[50] J.A. Ferrarese, Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, Advis.
Circ. (28th Sept. 1978). AC 25.571-1, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/
media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25.571-1.pdf.
[51] L.A. Keith, Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, Advis. Circ.
(5th March 1986). AC 25.571-1A, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/
media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25.571-1A.pdf.
[52] J.V. Devany, Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, Advis.
Circ. (18th February 1997). AC 25.571-1B, http://www.faa.gov/
documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25.571-1B.pdf.
[53] National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Aircraft accident report-
Aloha Airlines, Flight 243 (1989). Boeing 737-200, N73711, near Maui,
Hawaii, 28 April 1988, NTSB/AAR-89-03, https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR8903.pdf.
[54] Federal Aviation Administration, Fatigue evaluation of structure, FAR final
rule, 14 CFR Part 25, docket No. 27358, amendment No. 25-96, Fed. Regist.
(1998) 15708e15715, 31st March 1998, 61, 63, https://www.govinfo.gov/
link/fr/63/15714.
[55] R.T. Wojnar, Damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, Advis.
Circ. (29th April 1998). AC 25.571-1C, http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_
Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2025.571-1C/$FILE/ac25.
571-1c.pdf.
[56] S.M.O. Tavares, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Chapter 5 widespread fatigue damage and
limit of validity, in: Damage Tolerance of Metallic Aircraft Structures,
Springer Briefs in Computational Mechanics, 2019, pp. 43e55, https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70190-5_5.
[57] R.G. Eastin, J.B. Mowery, 30 Years of damage tolerance-have we got it right?,
in: ICAF 2009, Bridging the gap between theory and operational practice,
proceeding of the 25th Symposium of the International committee on
Aeronautical Fatigue Springer Science þ Business Media, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 2009, pp. 169e186, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2746-
7_10, 27th-29th May 2009.
[58] Department of defense handbook, aircraft structural integrity program,
general guidelines for DoD, USAF (1996). MIL-HDBK-1530, (MIL-STD-
1530A(11), http://everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK-1500-1799/MIL_
HDBK_1530_1844/.
[59] Department of defense joint service specification Guide: aircraft structures,
JSSG-2006. http://everyspec.com/USAF/USAF-General/JSSG-2006_10206,
October 1998.
[60] Department of defense handbook, aircraft structural integrity program,
general guidelines for DoD, USAF (2002). MIL-HDBK-1530A, http://
everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK-1500-1799/MIL_HDBK_1530A_1921/.
[61] Department of defense handbook, aircraft structural integrity program,
general guidelines for DoD, USAF (2002). MIL-HDBK-1530B, http://
everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK-1500-1799/MIL_HDBK_1530B_1890/.
[62] Department of defense standard practice, aircraft structural integrity pro-
gram (ASIP), MIL-STD-1530B, http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-
1599/MIL-STD-1530B_23418/, 2004.
J. Lin
[63] Department of defense standard practice, aircraft structural integrity pro-
gram (ASIP), MIL-STD-1530C, http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-
1599/MIL-STD-1530C_23416/, 2005.
[64] Y. Kim, S. Sheehy, D. Lenhardt, A survey of aircraft structural-life manage-
ment programs in the U.S. Navy, the Canadian forces, and the U.S. Air force,
RAND project AIR FORCE. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/
monographs/2006/RAND_MG370.pdf, 2006.
[65] Federal Aviation Administration, Aging aircraft program: widespread fatigue
damage, FAA final rule 75 (219) (2010) 69746e69789, 14 CFR Parts 25, 26,
121, and 129 Docket No. FAA-2006-24281, Amendment Nos. 25-132, 26-5,
121-351, 129-48, Federal Register: 15th November 2010, https://www.faa.
gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/transport/aging_aircraft/media/
WFDFinalRule.pdf.
[66] 14 CFR Part 25.571, Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, 14
CFR Ch. I (1e1e20 Edition). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-
2020-title14-vol1/pdf/CFR-2020-title14-vol1-sec25-571.pdf, 2020.
[67] J.E. Duven, Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, Advis. Circ.
(13th January 2011). AC 25.571-1D, http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/
media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25_571-1D_.pdf.
[68] Easy access rules for large aeroplanes (CS-25), initial issue & amendment
1-21. https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Easy%20Access%
20Rules%20CS-25%20%28Amendment%2021%29.pdf, 2021.
[69] Department of Defense, Department of defense standard practise-aircraft
structural integrity program, MIL-STD-1530d, USAF life cycle management
center (AFLCMC), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 2016. http://
everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1530D_55392/.
[70] Department of Defense, Department of Defense Standard Practise-Aircraft
Structural Integrity Program, MIL-STD-1530D Change 1, USAF Life Cycle
Management Center (AFLCMC), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 2016.
http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1530D_CHG-
1_55391.
[71] Airlines for America, operator/manufacturer scheduled maintenance devel-
opment, ATA MSG-3 volume 1 (fixed wing aircraft), Revision 2018.1, https://
publications.airlines.org/CommerceProductDetail.aspx?Product¼278, 2018.
[72] EASA Certification Memorandum, Maintenance review board report/main-
tenance type board report development process, EASA CM No.: CM-MRB-001
issue 02. https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA%20CM-
MRB-001%20Issue%2002%206_Nov_2019.pdf, 2019.
[73] C. Mahoney, D. Hall, ASIP Experience for FAA-Certified Commercial-Deriva-
tive Aircraft, ASIP Conference, 2019, in: http://meetingdata.utcdayton.com/
agenda/asip/2019/proceedings/presentations/P19728.pdf.
[74] U.G. Goranson, Damage Tolerance Facts and Fiction, USAF Aircraft Structural
Integrity Program, ASIP, San Antonio, Texas, 2006, in: http://www.asipcon.
com/proceedings/proceedings_2006/2006_PDFs/Tuesday/0800_Goranson.pdf.
[75] Federal Aviation Administration, Establishing and implementing limit of
validity to prevent widespread fatigue damage, FAA, Advis. Circ. 120e104
(2011). AC No, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_
Circular/AC_120-104.pdf.
[76] L. Molent, B. Dixon, Airframe metal fatigue revisited, Int. J. Fatig. 131 (2020)
105323, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105323.
[77] L. Molent, Fatigue crack growth from flaws in combat aircraft, Int. J. Fatig. 32
(2010) 639e649, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.09.002.
[78] U. Zerbst, G. Bruno, J. Buffiere, T. Wegener, T. Niendorf, T. Wu, X. Zhang, N.
Kashaev, G. Meneghetti, N. Hrabe, M. Madia, T. Werner, K. Hilgenberg, M.
Koukolíkov

zka, J. D
a, R. Procha zugan, B. Mo €ller, S. Beretta, A. Evans, R.
Wagener, K. Schnabel, Damage tolerant design of additively manufactured
metallic components subjected to cyclic loading: state of the art and chal-
lenges, Prog. Mater. Sci. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2021.
100786.
[79] B. Main, M. Jones, S. Barter, The practical need for short fatigue crack growth
rate models, Int. J. Fatig. 142 (2021) 105980, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijfatigue.2020.105980.
[80] A. Sharma, M.C. Oh, B. Ahn, Recent advances in very high cycle fatigue
behavior of metals and alloys-A review, Metals 10 (2020) 1200, https://
doi.org/10.3390/met10091200.
[81] S. Kundu, R. Jones, D. Peng, N. Matthews, A. Alankar, S.R.K. Raman, P. Huang,
Review of requirements for the durability and damage tolerance certification
of additively manufactured aircraft structural parts and AM repairs, Mate-
rials 13 (6) (2020) 1341, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13061341.
[82] N. Kouraytem, X. Li, W. Tan, B. Kappes, A.D. Spear, Modeling process-
structure-property relationships in metal additive manufacturing: a review
on physics-driven versus data-driven approaches, J. Phys. Mater. (2020)
1e29, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7639/abca7b.
[83] N. Tuncer, A. Bose, Solid-State metal additive manufacturing: a review, ad-
ditive manufacturing: beyond the beam technology, JOM 72 (2020)
3090e3111, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-020-04260-y.
[84] K. Sadananda, M.N. Babu, A.K. Vasudevan, A review of fatigue crack growth
resistance in the short crack growth regime, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 754 (2019)
674e701, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2019.03.102.
[85] R.J.H. Wanhill, S. Barter, L. Molent, Fatigue Crack Growth Failure and Lifing
Analyses for Metallic Aircraft Structures and Components, SpringerBriefs in
Applied Sciences and Technology, 2019.
247
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
[86] R. Pippan, A. Hohenwarter, Fatigue crack closure: a review of the physical
phenomena, Fatig. Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 40 (2017) 471e495, https://
doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12578.
[87] A. Pineau, D.L. McDowell, E.P. Busso, S.D. Antolovich, Failure of metals II:
fatigue, Acta Mater. 107 (2016) 484e507, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.
2015.05.050.
[88] U. Zerbst, M. Vormwald, R. Pippan, H.P. G€ anser, C. Sarrazin-Baudoux,
M. Madia, About the fatigue crack propagation threshold of metals as a
design criterion e a review, Eng. Fract. Mech. 153 (2016) 190e243, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.12.002.
[89] P. Chowdhury, H. Sehitoglu, Mechanisms of fatigue crack growth-a critical
digest of theoretical developments, Fatig. Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 39 (6)
(2016) 652e674, https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12392.
[90] E. Santecchia, A.M.S. Hamouda, F. Musharavati, E. Zalnezhad, M. Cabibbo,
M. El Mehtedi, S. Spigarelli, A review on fatigue life prediction methods for
metals, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2016) 9573524, https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/
9573524.
[91] D.F.O. Braga, S.M.O. Tavares, L.F.M. da Silva, P.M.G.P. Moreira, P.M.S.T. de
Castro, Advanced design for lightweight structures: review and prospects,
Prog. Aero. Sci. 69 (2014) 29e39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2014.03.
003.
[92] R. Jones, Fatigue crack growth and damage tolerance, Fatig. Fract. Eng. Mater.
Struct. 37 (2014) 463e483, https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12155.
[93] D.W. Hoeppner, C.A. Arriscorreta, Exfoliation corrosion and pitting corrosion
and their role in fatigue predictive modelling: state-of-the-art review, Int. J.
Aero. Eng. (2012) 191879, https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/191879.
[94] K.H. Schwalbe, On the beauty of analytical models for fatigue crack propa-
gation and fracture-A personal historical review, in: Fatigue and Fracture
Mechanics: 37th Volume, Selected Technical Papers, STP 1526, vol. 7, 2011,
pp. 3e73, https://doi.org/10.1520/JAI102713. Journal of ASTM International, 8.
[95] J. Schijve, Fatigue of Structures and Materials, second ed., Springer
Science þ Business Media, B.V, 2008. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/
9781402068072.
[96] J. Schijve, Fatigue of structures and materials in the 20th century and the
state of the art, Int. J. Fatig. 25 (2003) 679e702, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0142-1123(03)00051-3.
[97] S. Suresh, Fatigue of Materials, second ed., Cambridge University Press, USA,
1998 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806575.
[98] K.J. Miller, The two thresholds of fatigue behaviour, Fatig. Fract. Eng. Mater.
Struct. 16 (9) (1993) 931e939, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.1993.
tb00129.x.
[99] J. Schijve, Significance of fatigue cracks in micro-range and macro-range, in:
Fatigue Crack Propagation, vol. 415, ASTM International, 1967, p. 415,
https://doi.org/10.1520/STP47238S. STP.
[100] G. Schoeppner, C.B. Babish IV, In-Service Inspection Crack Size Assumptions
for Metallic Structures, USAF Structures Bulletin, 2018. EN-SB-08-012, Revi-
sion D, https://daytonaero.com/wp-content/uploads/EN-SB-08-012-RevD.pdf.
[101] U. Zerbst, M. Madia, C. Klinger, D. Bettge, Y. Murakami, Defects as a root
cause of fatigue failure of metallic components. I: basic aspects, Eng. Fail.
Anal. 97 (2019) 777e792, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.01.055.
[102] U. Zerbst, M. Madia, C. Klinger, D. Bettge, Y. Murakami, Defects as a root
cause of fatigue failure of metallic components. II: non-metallic inclusions,
Eng. Fail. Anal. 98 (2019) 228e239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.
2019.01.054.
[103] U. Zerbst, M. Madia, C. Klinger, D. Bettge, Y. Murakami, Defects as a root
cause of fatigue failure of metallic components. III: cavities, dents, corrosion
pits, scratches, Eng. Fail. Anal. 97 (2019) 759e776, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engfailanal.2019.01.034.
[104] ASTM International E399-12, Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-
Strain Fracture Toughness KIC of Metallic Materials, 2012.
[105] S.P. Lynch, R.J.H. Wanhill, R.T. Byrnes, G.H. Bray, Fracture toughness and
fracture modes of aerospace aluminum lithium alloys, in: N.E. Prasad,
A.A. Gokhale, R.J.H. Wanhill (Eds.), Aluminum-Lithium Alloys, Processing,
Properties and Applications, Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier), Oxford, UK,
2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-401698-9.00013-6 (Chapter 13).
[106] R.J.H. Wanhill, G.H. Bray, Fatigue crack growth behavior of
aluminumelithium alloys, in: N.E. Prasad, A.A. Gokhale, R.J.H. Wanhill (Eds.),
Chapter 12 in: Aluminum-Lithium Alloys, Processing, Properties and Appli-
cations, Butterworth-Heinemann (Elsevier), Oxford, UK, 2014, https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-401698-9.00012-4.
[107] J.E. Duven, Casting factors, FAA, Advis. Circ. (2014). AC 25.621-1, https://
www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25_621-1.pdf.
[108] M. Luke, I. Varfolomeev, K. Lütkepohl, A. Esderts, Fatigue crack growth in
railway axles: assessment concept and validation tests, Eng. Fract. Mech.
78 (5) (2011) 714e730, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2010.11.
024.
[109] A. Carpinteri, A. Spagnoli, S. Vantadori, Size effect in SeN curves: a fractal
approach to finite-life fatigue strength, Int. J. Fatig. 31 (5) (2009) 927e933,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.10.001.
[110] A. Pramanik, A.R. Dixit, S. Chattopadhyaya, M.S. Uddin, Y. Dong, A.K. Basak,
G. Littlefair, Fatigue life of machined components, Adv. Manuf. 5 (2017)
59e76, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-016-0168-z.
J. Lin
[111] R.M. Saoubi, J.C. Outeiro, H. Chandrasekaran, O.W. Dillon, I.S. Jawahir,
O.W.A. Jawahir, A review of surface integrity in machining and its impact on
functional performance and life of machined products, Int. J. Sustain. Manuf.
1 (1e2) (2008) 203e236, https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSM.2008.019234.
[112] M.P. Martínez-Viademonte, S.T. Abrahami, T. Hack, M. Burchardt, H. Terryn,
A review on anodizing of aerospace aluminium alloys for corrosion protection,
Coatings 10 (11) (2020) 1106, https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings10111106.
[113] I. Ali, M.M. Quazi, E. Zalnezhad, A.A.D. Sarhan, N.L. Sukiman, M. Ishak, Hard
anodizing of aerospace AA7075-T6 aluminum alloy for improving surface
properties, Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 72 (1) (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12666-019-01754-5.
[114] P.E. Edwards, The Effect of Shot Peening on Fatigue Performance of Anodised
Aluminium 7010T7651, in: Conference Proceeding 2014, ICSP-12 Goslar,
Germany, 2014, pp. 147e150. https://www.shotpeener.com/library/pdf/
2014066.pdf.
[115] H.J.C. Voorwald, T.A. Minto, M.Y. Pitanga, M.C. Fonseca, Influence of Shot
Peening on the Fatigue Resistance of Sulfuric Anodized AA 7175-T74, in:
Conference Proceeding 2014, ICSP-12 Goslar, Germany, 2014, pp. 119e123.
https://www.shotpeener.com/library/pdf/2014061.pdf.
[116] E. Lee, Y. Jeong, S. Kim, S-N fatigue behavior of anodized 7050-t7451 pro-
duced in different electrolytes, Metall. Mater. Trans. 43 (6) (2012)
2002e2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-011-1044-x.
[117] E. Cirik, K. Genel, Effect of anodic oxidation on fatigue performance of 7075-
T6 alloy, Surf. Coating. Technol. 202 (21) (2008) 5190e5201, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.surfcoat.2008.06.049.
[118] J.A.M. De Camargo, H.J. Cornelis, V.M.O.H. Cioffi, M.Y.P. Costa, Coating re-
sidual stress effects on fatigue performance of 7050-T7451 aluminum alloy,
Surf. Coating. Technol. 201 (24) (2007) 9448e9455, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.surfcoat.2007.03.032.
[119] A. Merati, G. Eastaugh, Determination of fatigue related discontinuity state of
7000 series of aerospace aluminum alloys, Eng. Fail. Anal. 14 (4) (2007)
673e685, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.02.016.
[120] B. Lonyuk, I. Apachitei, J. Duszczyk, The effect of oxide coatings on fatigue
properties of 7475-T6 aluminium alloy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.
2006.02.002 201 (21) (2007) 8688e8694.
[121] R. Sadeler, Effect of a commercial hard anodizing on the fatigue property of a
2014-T6 aluminium alloy, J. Mater. Sci. 41 (18) (2006) 5803e5809, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0725-0.
[122] A.M. Cree, G.W. Weidmann, The fracture and fatigue properties of anodised
aluminium alloy, Trans. IMF 75 (5) (1997) 199e202, https://doi.org/10.1080/
00202967.1997.11871172.
[123] A.M. Cree, G.W. Weidmann, Effect of anodised coatings on fatigue crack
growth rates in aluminium alloy, Surf. Eng. 13 (1) (1997) 51e55, https://
doi.org/10.1179/sur.1997.13.1.51.
[124] R.G. Rateick, T.C. Binkowski, B.C. Boray, Effect of hard anodize thickness on
the fatigue of AA6061 and C355 aluminium, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 15 (1996)
1321e1323, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00240794.
[125] F.P. Zimmerli, in: Shot Blasting and its Effect on Fatigue Life, ASM, 1941,
pp. 261e278. https://www.shotpeener.com/library/pdf/1941006.pdf.
[126] D. Kumar, S. Idapalapati, W. Wang, S. Narasimalu, Effect of surface me-
chanical treatments on the microstructure-property-performance of engi-
neering alloys, Materials 12 (16) (2019) 2503, https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma12162503.
[127] D.S. Al-Fattal, S.A.A. Al-Rabii, I.M. AL-Sudani, Effect of shot penning with
surface anodic coating on the mechanical strength and fatigue life of
aluminum alloy 7075-T73, Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 10 (16) (2016) 314e322.
http://www.ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2016/November/314-322.pdf.
[128] D.S. Al-Fattal, S.A.A. Al-Rabii, I.M. AL-Sudani, Study the effect of shot peening
with anodizing process on the mechanical properties and fatigue life of
aluminum alloy 2024-T3, Adv. Nat. Appl. Sci. 10 (15) (2016) 43e51. http://
www.aensiweb.net/AENSIWEB/anas/anas/2016/October/43-51.pdf.
[129] Y.K. Gao, X.R. Wu, Experimental investigation and fatigue life prediction for
7475-T7351 aluminum alloy with and without shot peening-induced re-
sidual stresses, Acta Mater. 59 (9) (2011) 3737e3747, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.actamat.2011.03.013.
[130] J.J. Daly, Shot peening-current trends, future prospects, in: Surface Engi-
neering, Elsevier, 1990, pp. 371e378, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-
0773-7_38.
[131] R.L. Kleppe, B. Gillespie, The use of shot peening to recover fatigue strength
debit due to finishing/plating processes, SAE Tech. Pap. Ser. (1988), https://
doi.org/10.4271/880873, 880873.
[132] D.O. Busse, Extending Fatigue Life of Aircraft Fuselage Structures Using
Laser-Peening, Cranfield University, 2017. PhD. Thesis, https://dspace.lib.
cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1826/14651/Busse_D_2017.pdf.
[133] A.K. Gujba, M. Medraj, Laser peening process and its impact on materials
properties in comparison with shot peening and ultrasonic impact peen-
ing, Materials 12 (7) (2014) 7925e7974, https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma7127925.
[134] H. Luong, M.R. Hill, The effects of laser peening and shot peening on high
cycle fatigue in 7050-T7451 aluminium alloy, Mater. Sci. Eng. 527 (3) (2010)
699e707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2009.08.045.
[135] D. Kumar, S. Idapalapati, W. Wei, Microstructural response and strain
hardening in deep cold rolled nickel-based superalloy for aerospace appli-
cation, Procedia CIRP 71 (2018) 374e379, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.procir.2018.05.044.
248
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
[136] C.C. Wong, A. Hartawan, W.K. Teo, Deep cold rolling of features on aero-
engine components, Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 350e354, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2014.04.059.
[137] K.H. Kloos, B. Fuchsbauer, J. Adelmann, Fatigue properties of specimens
similar to components deep rolled under optimized conditions, Int. J. Fatig. 9
(1) (1987) 35e42, https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-1123(87)90087-9.
[138] D.T. Ardi, W. Wei, I. Parr, G. Feldmann, A. Aramcharoen, C.C. Wong, In-
vestigations of the residual stresses and surface integrity generated by a novel
mechanical surface strengthening, residual stresses 2016: ICRS-10, Mater. Res.
Proc. 2 (2016) 311e316, https://doi.org/10.21741/9781945291173-53.
[139] G. Feldmann, C.C. Wong, W. Wei, T. Haubold, Application of vibropeening on
aero - engine component, Procedia CIRP 13 (2014) 423e428, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2014.04.072.
[140] X. Wu, N. Tao, Y. Hong, B. Xu, J. Lu, K. Lu, Microstructure and evolution of
mechanically-induced ultrafine grain in surface layer of AL-alloy subjected to
USSP, Acta Mater. 50 (8) (2002) 2075e2084, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-
6454(02)00051-4.
[141] G. Liu, J. Lu, K. Lu, Surface nanocrystallization of 316L stainless steel induced
by ultrasonic shot peening, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 286 (1) (2000) 91e95, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5093(00)00686-9.
[142] H. Soyama, Cavitation peening: a review, Metals 10 (2020) 270, https://
doi.org/10.3390/met10020270.
[143] D.Y. Ju, B. Han, Investigation of water cavitation peening-induced micro-
structures in the near-surface layer of pure titanium, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 209 (10) (2009) 4789e4794, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.
2008.12.006.
[144] D.J. Chadwick, S. Ghanbari, D.F. Bahr, M.D. Sangid, Crack incubation in shot
peened AA7050 and mechanism for fatigue enhancement, Fatig. Fract. Eng.
Mater. Struct. 41 (1) (2018) 71e83, https://doi.org/10.1111/ffe.12652.
[145] L. Molent, R. Jones R, The influence of cyclic stress intensity threshold on
fatigue life scatter, Int. J. Fatig. 82 (2016) 748e756, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijfatigue.2015.10.006.
[146] A. Lacombe, Y. Landon, M. Paredes, C. Chirol, A. Benaben, Influence of the
hole surface integrity on the fatigue strength of an aluminium drilled part,
in: Advances on Mechanics, Design Engineering and Manufacturing III,
Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Mechanics, Design
Engineering & Advanced Manufacturing, JCM 2020, 2021, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-70566-4_7.
[147] A. Faraz, D. Biermann, K. Weinert, Cutting edge rounding: an innovative tool
wear criterion in drilling CFRP composite laminates, Int. J. Mach. Tool Manu-
fact. 49 (2009) 1185e1196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2009.08.002.
[148] A. Lacombe, Y. Landon, M. Paredes, C. Chirol, A. Benaben, Impact of the hole
surface integrity on the fatigue life of a 2024-T351 aluminium drilled part.
https://doi.org/10.22541/au.160071421.14927969, 2020.
[149] D. Sun, P. Lemoine, D. Keys, P. Doyle, S. Malinov, Q. Zhao, X. Qin, Y. Jin, Hole-
making processes and their impacts on the microstructure and fatigue
response of aircraft alloys, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 94 (2018) 1719e1726,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9850-3.
[150] M. Elajrami, M. Benguediab, G. Ronald, Effect of various drilling procedures
on the fatigue life of rivet holes, Rev. Synthese 19 (2008). https://www.ajol.
info/index.php/srst/article/view/118057/107655.
[151] W.C. Ralph, W.S. Johnson, A. Makeev, J.C. Newman, Fatigue performance of
production-quality aircraft fastener holes, Int. J. Fatig. 29 (7) (2007)
1319e1327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.10.016.
[152] R.A. Everett Jr., The effect of hole quality on the fatigue life of 2024-T3
aluminum alloy sheet, NASA/TM-2004-212658, ARL-TR-3106. https://ntrs.
nasa.gov/api/citations/20040110776/downloads/20040110776.pdf, 2004.
[153] R.B.D. Pereira, L.C. Branda ~o, A.P. de Paiva, J.R. Ferreira, J.P. Davim, A review of
helical milling process, Int. J. Mach. Tool Manufact. 120 (2017) 27e48,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2017.05.002.
[154] H. Li, G. He, X. Qin, G. Wang, C. Lu, L. Gui, Tool wear and hole quality
investigation in dry helical milling of Ti-6Al-4V alloy, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 71 (2014) 1511e1523, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-013-5570-0.
[155] L. Boni, D. Fanteria, D. Furfari, L. Lazzeri, Fatigue crack growth in pin loaded
cold-worked holes, in: ICAF 2019-Structural Integrity in the Age of Additive
Manufacturing, Proceedings of the 30th Symposium of the International
committee on Aeronautical Fatigue, June 2e7, 2019, 2020, pp. 606e616,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21503-3_49.
[156] S. Pitta, Comparison of the Response of Different Configurations of Aircraft
Repair Patches under Static and Dynamic Loading, Universitat Polite
cnica de
Catalunya, 2019. PhD Thesis, https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/
2117/328187/TSP1de1.pdf.
[157] H. Yu, B. Zheng, X. Xu, X. Lai, Residual stress and fatigue behavior of riveted
lap joints with various riveting sequences, rivet patterns, and pitches, Proc.
IME B J. Eng. Manufact. 233 (12) (2019) 1e14, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954405419834481.
[158] T. Benhaddou, P. Stephan, A. Daidie, F. Alkatan, C. Chirol, J. Tuery, Effect of
axial preload on durability of aerospace fastened joints, Int. J. Mech. Sci. 137
(3) (2018) 214e223, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2018.01.023.
[159] R. Jochum, A. Rufin, T. Sisco, F. Swanstrom, Fatigue considerations in the
development and implementation of mechanical joining processes for
commercial airplane structures, in: ICAF 2019-Structural Integrity in the Age
of Additive Manufacturing, Proceedings of the 30th Symposium of the In-
ternational committee on Aeronautical Fatigue, June 2e7, 2019, 2020,
pp. 215e227, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21503-3_17.
J. Lin
[160] E. Armentani, A. Greco, A. De Luca, R. Sepe, Probabilistic analysis of fatigue
behavior of single lap riveted joints, Appl. Sci. 10 (10) (2020) 3379, https://
doi.org/10.3390/app10103379.
[161] J. Rouchon, Certification of large airplane composite structures, recent
progress and new trends in compliance philosophy, ICAS Congr. Proc. (1990).
ICAS-90-1.8.1, https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1990/ICAS-90-1.8.1.
pdf.
[162] D. Ball, The impact of bulk residual stress on the qualification of large
aluminum forgings, 2017 Residual Stress Summit, Dayton, Ohio, http://
rssummit.org/presentations/ball.pdf, 2017.
[163] Department of defense, material and process requirements for aerospace
weapons systems, design criteria standard, MIL-STD-1587E. http://
everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1500-1599/MIL-STD-1587E_55796/, 2018.
[164] Design and airworthiness requirements for service aircraft, Part 1: -fixed
wing, section 3: structure, DEF STAN 00-970 PART 1/15, SECTION 3. http://
silverbiplanes.com/SPECIFICATION_PDFS/BDR_RAF/2015/970_1_3.pdf, 2015.
[165] K.J. Miller, The short crack problem, Fatig. Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 5 (3)
(1982) 223e232, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2695.1982.tb01250.x.
[166] S. Pearson, Initiation of fatigue cracks in commercial aluminium alloys and
the subsequent propagation of very short cracks, Eng. Fract. Mech. 7 (2)
(1975) 235e240, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(75)90004-1. IN15-
IN18, 241-247.
[167] ASTM E647-15e1, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack
Growth Rates, ASTM International, 2015. www.astm.org. https://doi.org/10.
1520/E0647-15E01.
[168] Military Specification, Airplane Damage Tolerance Requirements, United
States Air Force, The Pentagon, VA, 1974. MIL-A-83444.
[169] Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), NASGRO - fracture mechanics and fa-
tigue crack growth analysis software, version 9.2. https://www.swri.org/
consortia/nasgro, 2020.
[170] AFGROW, Fracture Mechanics and Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis Software
Tool, vol. 24, 2020. Version 5.03.05, https://www.afgrow.net/about/currentver.
aspx.
[171] FASTRAN, A fatigue crack growth life-prediction code based on the crack-
closure concept. http://www.fracturelab.com/more-info/fastran-v-5-42,
2015.
[172] J.L. Rudd, Applications of the equivalent initial quality method (EIQM), AFFDL-
TM-77-58-FBE, AD-A374014. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA374014.pdf,
1977.
[173] J.N. Yang, S.D. Manning, W.R. Garver, Durability Methods Development,
Volume V, Durability Analysis Methodlogy Development, 1979. AFFDL-TR-
79-3118, AD-A116395, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a116395.pdf.
[174] L. Molent, A review of equivalent pre-crack sizes in aluminium alloy 7050-
T7451, Fatig. Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 37 (2014) 1055e1074, https://doi.org/
10.1111/ffe.12214.
[175] L. Molent, S.A. Barter, R.J.H. Wanhill, The Lead Crack Fatigue Lifing Frame-
work, DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation, 2010. DSTO-RR-
0353, AD-A525352, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525352.pdf.
[176] R. Jones, D. Peng, R.K.S. Raman, P. Huang, Computing the growth of small
cracks in the assist round robin helicopter challenge, Metals 10 (2020) 944,
https://doi.org/10.3390/met10070944.
[177] A.V. Litvinov, J.A. Harter, R. Pilarczyk, Summary of recent round robin life
prediction efforts for crack shape and residual stress effects, in: ICAF 2019-
Structural Integrity in the Age of Additive Manufacturing, Proceedings of
the 30th Symposium of the International Committee on Aeronautical Fa-
tigue, June 2e7, 2019, 2020, pp. 518e527, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-21503-3_41.
[178] P.E. Irving, J. Lin, J.W. Bristow Jw, Damage tolerance in helicopters: report on
the Round Robin challenge, in: 59th American Helicopter Society Interna-
tional Annual Forum 2003, Phoenix, AZ 85003, USA, Vol 3, Curran Associates
Inc., Red Hook, NY 12571, USA, 2003, pp. 1642e1652, in: http://www.
proceedings.com/11811.html.
[179] A Standardised Fatigue Loading Sequence for Helicopter Airframe Structures
(Asterix), Research Paper RP980, GKN Westland Helicopters, Department of
Trade and Industry Link Contract No. RA/6/30/06, 1996.
[180] J.C. Newman Jr., P.E. Irving J, D.D.L.E. Lin, Crack growth predictions in a
complex helicopter component under spectrum loading, Fatig. Fract. Eng.
Mater. Struct. 29 (11) (2006) 949e958, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-
2695.2006.01053.x.
[181] U.H. Tiong, R. Jones, Damage tolerance analysis of a helicopter component,
Int. J. Fatig. 31 (2009) 1046e1053, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.
05.012.
[182] U.H. Tiong, R. Jones, L. Molent, Damage tolerance analysis of a helicopter
component, in: 1st International Conference on Damage Tolerance of Aircraft
Structures, DTAS 2007, Delft, The Netherland, September 25e28, 2007.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.732.
1723&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf.
[183] J. Shi, J. Lua, N. Thammadi, D. Chopp, Enhanced XFA3D for fatigue crack
growth and life prediction in aluminium structures, in: 51st AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
18th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference, 2010, https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2010-2537.
249
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
[184] L. Molent, S.A. Barter, A comparison of crack growth behaviour in several
full-scale airframe fatigue tests, Int. J. Fatig. 29 (6) (2007) 1090e1099,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2006.09.015.
[185] M.C.Y. Niu, Airframe Structural Design - Practical Design Information and
Data on Aircraft Structure, second ed., Hong Kong Conmilit Press Ltd, 1999.
[186] M. Skorupa, T. Machniewicz, A. Skorupa, A. Korbel, Fatigue strength reduc-
tion factors at rivet holes for aircraft fuselage lap joints, Int. J. Fatig. 80 (2015)
417e425, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.06.025.
[187] H. Huth, Influence of fastener flexibility on load transfer and fatigue life
predictions for multirow bolted and riveted joints, N8516219, https://ntrl.
ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/N8516219.xhtml, 1984.
[188] P.A. Sharos, C.T. McCarthy, Novel finite element for near real-time design
decisions in multi-fastener composite bolted joints under various loading
rates, Compos. Struct. 240 (2020) 112005, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp-
struct.2020.112005.
[189] Endurance of structural joints, (Aluminium alloy material - tensile loading),
Engineering Sciences Data Unit, 1977. ESDU FAT E.05.01, https://www.esdu.
com/cgi-bin/ps.pl?sess¼unlicensed_1210614181917wzn&t¼doc&p¼esdu_
fate0501a.
[190] Endurance of bonded lap joints, (Aluminium alloy sheet material; phenolic
resin/vinyl powder glue, tensile loading), Engineering Sciences Data Unit, 1977.
ESDU FAT E.05.06, https://www.esdu.com/cgi-bin/ps.pl?sess¼unlicensed_
1210614182019sjm&t¼doc&p¼esdu_fate0506a.
[191] Endurance of bonded double strap joints. (Aluminium alloy sheet material;
phenolic resin/vinyl powder glue, tensile loading), Engineering Sciences Data
Unit, 1977. ESDU FAT E.05.07, https://www.esdu.com/cgi-bin/ps.pl?
sess¼unlicensed_1210614182206mkq&t¼doc&p¼esdu_fate0507a.
[192] Endurance of Riveted Lap Joints (Aluminium Alloy Sheet and Rivets), Engi-
neering Sciences Data Unit, 1982. ESDU 79031, https://www.esdu.com/cgi-
bin/ps.pl?sess¼unlicensed_1210614182934ckg&t¼doc&p¼esdu_79031a.
[193] Fatigue of Aluminium Alloy Joints with Various Fastener Systems, Low Load
Transfer, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, 1989. ESDU 89046, https://www.
esdu.com/cgi-bin/ps.pl?sess¼unlicensed_
1210614183641rxk&t¼doc&p¼esdu_89046.
[194] Fatigue of Aluminium Alloy Joints with Various Fastener Systems, Medium
Load Transfer, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, 1990. ESDU 90009, https://
www.esdu.com/cgi-bin/ps.pl?sess¼unlicensed_
1210614183730tlw&t¼doc&p¼esdu_90009.
[195] Fatigue of Aluminium Alloy Joints with Various Fastener Systems. High Load
Transfer, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, 1990. ESDU 90018, https://www.
esdu.com/cgi-bin/ps.pl?sess¼unlicensed_
1210614183920pcx&t¼doc&p¼esdu_90018.
[196] W.J. Hughes, Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization
(MMPDS) Handbook, FAA, MMPDS-11, Battelle Memorial Institute, 2016.
[197] L. Reid, Hole cold expansion-the fatigue mitigation game changer of the past
50 years, Adv. Mater. Res. 891e892 (2014) 679e684. https://doi.org/10.
4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.891-892.679.
[198] D.M. Steinweg, M. Hornung, Evaluating the influence of SHM on damage
tolerant aircraft structures considering fatigue, in: ICAF 2019-Structural
Integrity in the Age of Additive Manufacturing, Proceedings of the 30th
Symposium of the International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue, 2020,
pp. 976e993, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21503-3_77. June 2-7,
2019.
[199] Aircraft characteristics-airport and maintenance planning-a320 (MPD), Rev,
1st Dec. 2020. https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/
publications/backgrounders/techdata/aircraft_characteristics/Airbus-
Commercial-Aircraft-AC-A320.pdf.
[200] F.D. Cicco, P. Fanelli, F. Vivio, Fatigue reliability evaluation of riveted lap
joints using a new rivet element and DFR, Int. J. Fatig. 101 (2) (2017)
430e438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.02.006.
[201] S.A. Chisholm, A.C. Rufin, B.D. Chapman, Q.J. Benson, Forty years of structural
durability and damage tolerance at boeing commercial airplanes, Boeing
Tech. J. (2016). https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/features/
innovation-quarterly/may2017/btj_strutures_full.pdf.
[202] L. Divenah, J. Beaufils, Large commercial aircraft loading spectra: overview
and state of the art, J. ASTM Int. (JAI) 1 (11e12) (2004) 1e13, https://doi.org/
10.1520/JAI19050.
[203] J. Hartmann, C. Meeker, A. Minshull, A. Smith, Automated wing panel as-
sembly for the A340-600, SAE Tech. Pap. Ser. (2000), https://doi.org/10.4271/
2000-01-3015.
[204] B. Rooks, Automatic wing box assembly developments, Ind. Robot 28 (4)
(2001) 297e302, https://doi.org/10.1108/01439910110397101.
[205] M. Stalley, Investigation of manual one way Assembly on primary wingbox
structure, SAE Tech. Pap. Ser. (2002), https://doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-2633,
2002-01-2663.
[206] B. Dixon, M. Burchill, B. Main, T. Stehlin, R. Rigoli, Progress on the pathway to
a virtual fatigue test, in: ICAF 2019-Structural Integrity in the Age of Additive
Manufacturing, Proceedings of the 30th Symposium of the International
Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue, June 2e7, 2019, 2020, pp. 816e830,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21503-3_64.
[207] D. Evrard, F. Alonso, A overview of the A350 XWB, Airbus flight airworthi-
ness support technology(FAST), special edition, 2013, pp. 4e7. A350 XWB,
J. Lin
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/fast/
FAST_specialA350.pdf.
[208] C. Fualdes, Experience and Lessons Learned of a Composite Aircraft, ICAS
2016, 2016, 30th Congress, https://www.icas.org/media/pdf/ICAS Congress
General Lectures/2016/2016 Composite Aircraft Fualdes.pdf.
[209] U.S. Department of transportation, Federal aviation administration, com-
posite aircraft structure, Advis. Circ. 1 (2010). AC 20-107B Change, https://
250
International Journal of Lightweight Materials and Manufacture 5 (2022) 224e250
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/
document.information/documentID/99693.
[210] EASA, Composite aircraft structure, AMC 20e29 (2010). http://easa.europa.
eu/system/files/dfu/Annex II - AMC 20-29.pdf.
[211] S. Waite, Chapter 19, Certification and airworthiness of polymer composite
aircraft, in: Polymer Composites in the Aerospace Industry, Elsevier Ltd.,
2020, pp. 593e645, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102679-3.00019-8.