www.hcltech.

com

Damage Tolerance Analysis

Methodology for Aircraft
Structures

WHITEPAPER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract 3

Need for Fracture Mechanics 4

Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals 6

Damage Tolerance Analysis (Objective) 9

Crack Propagation Analysis Failure Criteria (Solution) 12

Conclusion 18

References 18

Author Information 19

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 2

Abstract
The traditional strength of material analysis of aircraft structures, in many cases, leads to a
catastrophic failure and underestimated lives, and thus, greater costs. So, a different methodology
was developed in fracture mechanics, Damage Tolerance Design.

As per this theory, the designer no longer assumes a perfect component but instead, assumes
the existence of initial damage that it can propagate. However, that damage is detected and
repaired to prevent the structural instability within the safety limits placed.

This paper presents the fundamentals of fracture mechanics and damage tolerance analysis
methodology in an aircraft structure. The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines and
analysis methods that should aid engineering personnel to implement the damage tolerance
methodology in an aircraft’s structural design.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 3

Need for Fracture Mechanics
Historical Perspective
Experience with structural failures has triggered major changes in aircraft structural design
techniques. The interest is now focused on the propagation of cracks and the skill to arrest a
fracture in the place of the previous emphasis on the initiation of cracks.

The starting point for this new approach was known by the 1960s, but technology development
has been propelled by breathtaking incidents. These incidents can be understood in terms of
case histories. One of the famous failures in the aircraft industry is presented below. Refer [3]
for historical incidents related to fracture failure.

Fig 1: De Havilland Comet

The De Havilland Comet Crash

The comet was the first production commercial jet airliner that went into service in 1952. Many
innovations were pioneered on the Comet such as,

The comet had four turbojet engines, which made the aircraft much more efficient at higher
altitudes of flight.

The Comet was flying significantly faster and higher than any other passenger aircraft.

The use of an internally pressurized fuselage/cabin, swept-back wings, integrated wing fuel
tanks, and a four-wheel bogie undercarriage were some of its unique features.

Three destructive Comet-1 crashes over a 12-month period during 1953 and 1954 led to the
grounding of the entire comet fleet.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 4

Crash Investigation

The subsequent investigations led by Sir Arnold

Hall at the Royal Aeronautical Establishment in
Farnborough concluded that the failures were
found to be caused by cracks propagating
from corners of the square fuselage windows.
The square corners worked as stress risers,
accelerating crack formation and growth in a
fuselage emphasized by pressurization during
high altitude flight.

Experience from Historical Incidents

The design should have crack arrest capabilities.
The aircraft structures design should not have a
stress riser design feature. The structure should
be designed to tolerate such manufacturing
flaws. An inspection program should be
introduced to detect these flaws on the aircraft
while it is in service. For more details Ref. [1]
and [2].

Fig 2: Failure Origin Comet

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 5

Fracture Mechanics
Fundamentals
A study of structural behavior/failure based
on the interaction between applied stress,
crack (or flaw), and material parameters are
needed. It is concerned primarily with the
distribution of stresses and displacements in
the area near or surrounding a crack tip.

Types of Fracture mechanics:

1. Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)

2. Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM)

Fracture Modes Fig 3: Crack Propagation

Cracks grow in the aircraft structure’s design

in a variety of ways and the stress fields that
develop around the crack tip may be divided
into three primary modes.

Mode I
Mode-I is the crack opening mode in which the
tensile load is normal to the face of the crack.
It is the most common mode, particularly in
fatigue, because cracks tend to grow on the
plane of maximum tensile stress. Fig 4: Fracture Mode I

Mode II
Shear, normal to the crack front. Mode-II is
corresponding to the in-plane shearing or
sliding mode.

Mode III
Fig 5: Fracture Mode II
Mode-III is the tearing or anti-plane shear
mode. Shear, parallel to the crack front. It is
associated with a pure shear condition, typical
of a round notched bar loaded in torsion.

Fig 6: Fracture Mode III

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 6

Stress Intensity Factor (SIF)
In analyzing the stresses close to the crack tip, Stress Concentration Factors (SCF) break down.
This is because as the radius of the crack tip approaches zero, the theoretical stress approaches
infinity. This stress is known as a stress singularity and is not materially possible.

To avoid the difficulty of analyzing ‘infinite’ stress at the crack tip, a parameter called the Stress
Intensity Factor (SIF) is introduced.

What is Stress Intensity Factor?

The Stress Intensity Factor is a parameter used in fracture mechanics to define the magnitude
of the local stresses and the displacements near the crack tip. It is denoted by K. The stress
intensity factors for each geometry can be described using the general form shown below.

K=σ√πa β

Where, a is the crack size, σ is the applied stress, and β is the factor used to relate gross
geometrical features to the stress intensity factor.

The stress intensity factor depends on the loading, the crack size, the crack shape, and the
geometric boundaries of the specimen.

Crack Growth Rate (da/dN) Curve

Due to repetitiveness in the nature of the
loading, stress concentration will occur at
sensitive parts of the geometry and cracks will
initiate.

Crack growth rate, i.e., how a crack will grow

according to the time, can be explained by the
following diagram.

It is a log-log scale plot between crack growth

rate (da/dN) against stress intensity range ∆K.

Fig 7: Crack Growth Rate Curve

The 3 da/dN curve regions

Region I: (Crack Initiation)

In region I, the crack growth rate is small, and

the corresponding SIF range approaches a
minimum value called threshold SIF ∆Kth, below
which the crack does not grow.

Region II: (Crack Propagation)

Stable and regular growth region and it is

defined by the Paris curve.
Fig 8: Crack Growth Rate Regions

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 7

Region III: (Crack Unstable)

In region III, the crack growth is rapid and accelerates until the crack tip stress intensity factor
reaches its critical value.

The critical value of stress intensity factor KC is called the fracture toughness of the material.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 8

Damage Tolerance Analysis
(Objective)
Damage tolerance is the ability of the design to prevent structural defects or cracks from causing
catastrophic fracture when the airframe is subjected to flight or ground loads.

Damage tolerance methodology allows the designer to demonstrate through a calculation that
some assumed pre-existing defect will not propagate to failure between two inspections, the
first being assumed to be made at a time when the defect was at the threshold of detectability.

Fig 9: DT Objective

FAA Requirements
The regulation requirements on damage tolerance design and fatigue evaluation (CS25.571):

An evaluation of the strength, detailed design, and fabrication must show that a catastrophic
failure due to fatigue, corrosion, or accident damage, will be avoided throughout the operational
life of the airplane.

Damage tolerance evaluation must include a determination of probable locations, modes of

failure due to fatigue, corrosion, and accidental damage.

The determination must be by an analysis supported by test evidence, and (if available) service
experience.

Damage at multiple sites due to a prior fatigue exposure must be included if this type of damage
can be expected to occur. The evaluation must incorporate repeated load and static analysis
supported by test evidence.

The extent of the damage for residual strength evaluation at any time within the operation life
must be consistent with the initial detectability and subsequent growth under repeated loads.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 9

The residual strength evaluation must show the remaining structure can withstand static ultimate
loads.

General Classification of Structure and F&DT Requirement

PSE (Principal Structural Element):
The element contributes significantly to the carrying of flight, ground, or pressurization loads,
whose failure could have a possible direct influence on safety. In addition to PSEs, damage
tolerance evaluation must be made for other areas which are not carrying significant flight,
ground, or pressurization loads, but whose failure or detachment can have an indirect influence
on safety.

COMPLETE STRUCTURE

Does the element

significantly to the carrying No
of flight, ground or
pressurizaon loads?

Yes

Could failure of the Could failure of the Would the large size of
element lead to No element have a possible No the element be a No
Catastrophic failure of the indirect impact on concern if released from
aircra? airworthiness? the aircra?

Yes
Yes Yes
PRINICIPAL
STRUCTURAL
ELEMENT

A B Structure
C D Category

SIGNIFICANT
STRUCTURAL ELEMENT

Fague and Fague No Fague

Damage Re-design endurance or Damage
Tolerance calculaon Tolerance
evaluaon at design evaluaon
stage required

No Does the element

have sufficient service
life?

Yes

CANDIDATE FOR INCLUSION IN STRUCTURAL

NO DIRECTED FATIGUE REQUIREMENT
INSPECTION PROGRAM

Fig 10: Structural Classification for F&DT Requirement

SSE (Significant Structural Element):

Elements contributing significantly to the carrying of loads and/or elements whose failure could
have a possible indirect influence on safety. Damage tolerance evaluation is not required for
structural elements with no impact on safety.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 10

DT Classification of Structure
Single Load Path Structure (SLP):
It describes the structure, the applied loads of which are eventually distributed through a single
structure member, the failure of which would result in the loss of the structural capacity to carry
the applied loads.

Multiple Load Path Structure (MLP):

It applies to the structure, the applied loads of which are distributed through redundant
structural members. So that the failure of a single structural member does not result in the loss
of structural capacity to carry the applied loads.

Damage Contaminant Feature Structures (DCF):

These are structures that incorporate significant crack arrest or crack retardation features, such
as the integral crack stoppers in machined wing spars and cast doors.

It is intended to restrict possible damage to a size whereby the remaining uncracked structure
can sustain limited loads. Some examples of the DCF structures are skin cutouts, wing box
spars, window and door frames, window posts, and control surfaces.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 11

Crack Propagation Analysis
Failure Criteria’s (Solution)

Fig 11: Analysis Failure Criteria

Net Section Yield Criterion:

The crack reduces the component section; hence the stress is increasing during the crack
growth. The critical crack length will be obtained when the stress obtained with the section
modified reaches the material yield value. An NSY check should always be performed to ensure
the piece is not yielding before a brittle fracture occurs.

Where, Seq is the propagation equivalent stress, W is the total width of the model, a is the total
length of all the cracks plus hole diameters, and β is the limit load factor.

Fracture Toughness Criterion:

Fracture toughness is a measure of material
resistance to crack growth, and it is the critical
stress intensity factor beyond which unstable crack
growth occurs. This criterion detects the crack
growth comparing SIF with the fracture toughness.
Fracture toughness varies with thickness. For a
given material, KC depends on the thickness of the
component. It is maximum for plane stress (in thin
plates) and minimum for plane strain (thick plates).

Fig 12: Material Fracture Toughness

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 12

R-Curve Criterion:
This curve is also known as Irvin’s crack
extension resistance curve shown in Fig 13.
This curve shows that the resistance to fracture
increases with growing crack size in elastic-
plastic materials. The R-curve is a plot of the
total energy dissipation rate as a function of
the crack size and can be used to examine
the processes of slow stable crack growth and
unstable fracture. R-curve varies based on the
geometry of the specimen and the crack driving
force. The resistance curve or R-curve is used
to predict the conditions necessary for unstable
crack growth through the material. The R-curve
allowable is constant to a given equation, which
Fig 13: Irvin’s Crack Extension
creates a curve as shown in Fig 13.
Resistance Curve

The typical plot between crack growth resistance

to the crack growth is shown in Fig 14.

This curve is lined up with the stress intensity

factor (SIF) result from crack propagation and
life assessment tool called NASGRO.

The SIF curve tangential to the R-curve defines

the critical SIF at the onset of unstable crack
growth. Fig 14: Crack Resistance and Crack
Growth
The acrit is determined by when the R-Curve
becomes tangent to the SIF curve.

Spectrum Equivalent Stress

During normal operation, an aircraft will undergo a sequence of normal operating loads
throughout the flight cycle (which will include taxi/take-off/gust/cruise/landing loads). Stresses
for each of these different load cases are extracted and are used to build a flight spectrum.
Equivalent stress of spectrum is a single stress that represents the whole spectrum (Seq). The
equivalent stress represents the maximum stress of a single cycle.

Limit Load Factor

Once the NASGRO analysis is complete, the crack will have grown from ainitial to afinal. However,
it may not be the critical crack length. NASGRO grows cracks to the geometrical limitation of
the parts.

The critical crack length may be much before the geometry limitation of the part. It is up to the
engineer to determine the acritical for any given scenario. In a typical damage tolerance analysis,

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 13

acritical is the shortest length of the crack at which the limit load will catastrophically break the
part being analyzed. This is done by multiplying the SIF by β. Where β is the ratio between the
limit load stress and the damage tolerance equivalent stress.

Crack Propagation Model Output

After running the crack model, the NASGRO will produce the following outputs:

Fig 15: NASGRO Output

From the NASGRO model output, the user can produce a table as shown in Fig 16 for further
analysis.

Number of Stress Intensity

Crack length
cycles Factor
(mm)
(N) (MPa*mm1/2)
ainial 0 Kinial

a2 N2 K2

. . .

. . .

afinal Nfinal Kfinal

Fig 16: NASGRO Output Tabulation

Crack Propagation Analysis

The damage tolerance analysis is composed of several different steps.

The analytical procedure follows these steps Ref. [18]:

1. Required crack growth behavior inputs:

• Initial crack size
• Stress spectrum at the location of analysis
• Crack propagation and fracture toughness of the material

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 14

2. Determination of ΔK using the chosen spectrum’s stress range (Δσ):

3. Determination of da/dN applying the Growth Law in use (Paris, Forman, etc.);

of
4. Obtaining a medium (arithmetic or geometrical) of two consecutive values of ;

5. Determination of number of cycles for the current increase in crack length:

6. The number of cycles, N, is obtained adding the value for ΔN determined.

7. Adding an increment to the crack size– Δa;

8. The process is then repeated from point 2 until a failure criterion is reached, whether based
on residual strength, acrit, or based on the fracture toughness of the material, KIC.

It is important to note that the geometry is very important for the definition of the shape factor
β, which must be determined recurring to tables, graphs and formulas. Ref. [19].

Typical Crack Propagation Scenarios

The typical example for crack grown initial to final are described below:

CC 02 TC 03 Plate Model - 1
Inner Flange Inner Flange Inner Flange

QF
Fastener 1 Fastener 1 Fastener 1

RF

QF
Fastener 2 Fastener 2 Fastener 2

QF

Outer Flange Outer Flange Outer Flange

Plate Model - 2 Plate Model - 3

Inner Flange Inner Flange

Fastener 1 Fastener 1

Ligament Broken Ligament Broken

Fastener 2 Fastener 2

Outer Flange Outer Flange

Fig 17: Crack Propagation from Initial to Final

Crack Propagation vs Flight Cycle Plot

The typical crack propagation with respect to flight cycles is shown here to describe the critical
crack size and detectable crack size.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 15

 Fig 18: Crack Size vs Flight Cycles Plot

Inspection Technique for Crack Propagation Analysis

Once the critical crack length is determined, the detectable crack length should be calculated
to determine the threshold and inspection intervals for the structure. The following inspection
techniques are carried out depending on the structure criticality and economic situation of the
operator.

GVI NO DET NO NDI

Applicable & Applicable & Applicable &
Effective Effective Effective

Yes Yes Yes

Fig 19: Inspection Technique

General Visual Inspection (GVI) is the easiest and most economic procedure for inspection.

When the GVI is considered as not applicable or not effective, the next inspection level should
Lighting Viewing

be the Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI/DET). The inspector may require inspection aids such as
Surface Congestion

magnifying glasses, mirrors, or borescopes. Intricate cleaning along with substantial disassembly
ACCESS
RATING

and removal of furnishings and systems could

CONDITION L = be required.
L +L
SIZE=L EF GF + L DET VIS HIDDEN BAS HIDDEN
+

RATION
PRACTICALITY
RATING

When DVI/DET is considered as not appropriate, the NDI level should be considered, and the
RATING SYSTEM

rating process is no longer applicable.

DETECTABLE
BASIC GAUGE EFFECT VISIBLE HIDDEN
EFFECTIVE
DETECTABLE DETECTABLE CRACK
EDGE EFFECT CRACK
CRACK LENGTH CRACK LENGTH LENGTH
LENGTH

Detectable Crack Length

Lighting Viewing

Surface Congestion

ACCESS
RATING

LDET = LVIS + LHIDDEN

CONDITION SIZE
RATION
PRACTICALITY
RATING

RATING SYSTEM

DETECTABLE
BASIC GAUGE EFFECT VISIBLE HIDDEN
EFFECTIVE
DETECTABLE DETECTABLE + CRACK =
EDGE EFFECT CRACK
CRACK LENGTH CRACK LENGTH LENGTH
LENGTH

Fig 20: Detectable Crack Length

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 16

When damage is identified in an aircraft during an inspection, it is either repaired according
to procedures and guidelines provided in manufacturers’ standard repair documents, or a new
repair is approved.

Typical output of DT practice would be,

• Predicted life cycle

• Average crack growth rate (crack size/flight cycle)

• Number of flight cycles required for the crack to become critical

RF Requirements
The crack propagation analysis has two reserve factor (RF) requirements, namely threshold
(TH) and inspection interval (II).

RFTH: The threshold margin (RFTH) ensures that the crack will not grow from the initial length to
critical length before the first heavy maintenance.

RFII: The interval margin (RFII) ensures that the crack will be detectable before it reaches the
critical crack length. It is the period in which the crack is detectable until failure (adetect to acritical).

Scatter Factor
Scatter Factor is a life reduction factor used in the interpretation of fatigue analysis and fatigue
test results. Lives calculated using the facture mechanics methodology are average lives.
Therefore, it is necessary to apply a safety factor to take into account the scatter inherent to the
fatigue phenomenon.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 17

Conclusion
This paper discussed the importance of damage tolerance analysis procedures, which are the
dominant factors in the aircraft structural design process as well as in the service life.

References
1. R.J.H Wanhill (2002). Milestone Case Histories in Aircraft Structural Design. National
Aerospace Laboratory. NLR-TP-2002-521.

2. T. Swift (1987). Damage tolerance in pressurised fuselages. 11th Plantema Memorial

Lecture. New Materials and Fatigue Resistant Aircraft Design (ed. D L Simpson) pp 1 – 7.
Engineering Materials Advisory Services Ltd., Warley, UK.

3. DOT-VNTSC-FAA-93-13, “Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook”.

4. Shutter stock Photo ID: 1678579144, De Havilland Comet Image, https://www.shutterstock.

com/image-photo/cosford-england-march-13-2020-de-1678579144.

5. Anderson, T.L., Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 1991.

6. NIU, M. C.-Y. Airframe Stress Analysis and Sizing. [S.l.]: Hong Kong Conmilit Press, 1997.

7. MEGSON, T. H. G. Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students. 4th. ed. [S.l.]: Elsevier
Aerospace Engineering Series, 2007.

8. FAA federal aviation regulations (FAR), part 25, section 571 damage - tolerance and
fatigue evaluation of structures, 2011.

9. NASGRO, Reference Manual Version 6.11 Final February 2011 http://www.swri.org/

consorita/nasgro

10. USAF Handbook for Damage Tolerant Design”, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
11. Paris, P.C., Gomez M.P. And Anderson W.E., (1961), “A Rational Analytical Theory of
Fatigue”, Trend Engineering University, Washington, 13, 9-14.

12. Walker, E.K., (1967), The Effect of Environmental And Complex Load History on Fatigue
Life, ASTM-STP 462, 1-15.

13. Forman, R.G., (1967), “Numerical Analysis of Crack Propagation in Cyclic Load Structures”,
JI. Basic Engg. Trans. ASME. Section D, 459-463.

14. Elber, W (1971), The Significance of Fatigue Crack Closure Damage Tolerance in Aircraft
Structures, ASTM STP 486, 230-242.

15. Rooke, D.P. and Cartwright, D.J., Compendium of Stress Intensity factors, Hmso, London,
1976.

16. David Broek, “Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics”, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
(1982).

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 18

17. J. R. Rice, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1968.

18. ZHANG, X. Aircraft Fatigue and Damage Tolerance. [S.l.]: Cranfield University - College of
Aeronautics, 2002.

19. ROOKE, D. P.; CARTWRIGHT, D. J. Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors. [S.l.]:

Procurement Executive, United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense, 1974.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 19

Author Info
Karthikeyan Kanthasame

Karthikeyan Kanthasame has been working in HCL since 2016. He

has close to 10 years of industry experience in the CAE and reliability
domain. He has extensively worked on aero-structures and aero-
engines, and has formidable product knowledge of aircraft fuselage
and aircraft wing structures, aircraft interiors, as well as nacelle
structure and systems. He also has software skills like MSC Patran/
Nastran, Hypermesh, Unigraphics and Reliasoft Weibull++.

DAMAGE TOLERANCE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY FOR AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES 20

 HCL Technologies (HCL) empowers global enterprises with technology for the next decade today. HCL’s
Mode 1-2-3 strategy, through its deep-domain industry expertise, customer-centricity and entrepreneurial WI-103217319770417-EN00GL
culture of ideapreneurship™ enables businesses to transform into next-gen enterprises.
HCL offers its services and products through three lines of business - IT and Business Services (ITBS),
Engineering and R&D Services (ERS), and Products & Platforms (P&P). ITBS enables global enterprises
to transform their businesses through offerings in areas of Applications, Infrastructure, Digital Process
Operations, and next generation digital transformation solutions. ERS offers engineering services and
solutions in all aspects of product development and platform engineering while under P&P. HCL provides
modernized software products to global clients for their technology and industry specific requirements.
Through its cutting-edge co-innovation labs, global delivery capabilities, and broad global network, HCL
delivers holistic services in various industry verticals, categorized under Financial Services, Manufacturing,
Technology & Services, Telecom & Media, Retail & CPG, Life Sciences, and Healthcare and Public Services.

www.hcltech.com As a leading global technology company, HCL takes pride in its diversity, social responsibility, sustainability,
and education initiatives. As of 12 months ending on March 31, 2020, HCL has a consolidated revenue of
US$ 10 billion and its 159,000 ideapreneurs operate out of 50 countries.
For more details contact: ers.info@hcl.com
Follow us on twitter: http://twitter.com/hclers and our blog http://ers.hclblogs.com/
Visit our website: http://www.hcltech.com/engineering-services/