TOPICS

Introduction

Complications

The role of NDI

USAF Damage Tolerance Design Methodology

USAF Damage Tolerance Design Handoo!

Designing y Hindsight " case studies

SOURCE :For Information and Illustrations
#$ %$ Sanford
&rinciples of Fracture Mechanics'
&rentice Hall'
())*$
Designing Against Fracture
Introduction:
Fracture is failure due to crac! propagation$
No+ that ,-FM has gro+n into a mature science' it +ould seem
o.ious to incorporate its principles into the design process$
The Reality" /ith the e0ception of the aerospace and nuclear po+er
industries' fracture mechanics analysis ased design is the e0ception
rather than the rule$
More Liely" Fracture mechanics analysis are considered as part of a
post mortem of failed components returned from field$
The Fact" There are more oo!s de.oted to case studies of failed
components than there are te0too!s on the use of fracture mechanics
for design of these components$
Designing Against Fracture
A nota!le e"ce#tion" 1arsom' % #' and #olfe' S T 234567 Fracture
and Fatigue control in structures' (8e' &rentice Hall' N%$
The dominant design goal to e met is the lo+est life cycle cost per
unit$ In addition to manufacturing cost' maintenance' +arranty' repair
or replacement' inspection and potential liaility costs all ha.e to e
considered$
The liaility costs is termed ris! assessment and in many 9-M:s it
is a management decision' not an engineering one$
The added cost of fracture mechanics analysis can e ;ustified on the
ases of reducing ris!$
Co$#lications:
In con.entional design engineering practice the focus is on meeting
Stiffness' Strength and Duraility goals in addition to lo+est life
cycle cost$ This is ased on engineering analysis$
The material selection is ased on such factors as cost' a.ailaility
and yield strength$
To ensure that the manufactured component8structure is ale to
perform its intended functions' NDI' as part of <uality control
procedure' is sometimes specified$ The role of NDI is to ensure that
the item is defect=free$
In contrast' in fracture mechanics ased design
3$ The role of NDI is enhanced as the structure8component is e0pected
to perform its intended function2s7 despite the presence of >F,A/S
detected y NDI:$
Designing Against Fracture
($ The material selection is further complicated y the fact that a ne+
material property' the materials resistance to fracture' needs to e
included in the decision ma!ing$ 9ften desirale yield properties are
in conflict +ith desirale fracture properties$ It is a fact of life that in
many cases' materials ha.e increased yield strength at the e0pense of
fracture toughness and8or ductility$ In addition materials synthesi?ed
to ha.e desirale fracture properties tend to cost more than their run=
of=the mill counter parts$
*$ Finally' fracture mechanics ased design places a urdge on the
designer to perform engineering analysis of components 8structures
+ith fla+s of different types' si?es' orientations or locations$ This in
fact is a .ery tough ;o lea.e alone to the designer e.en for an
e0perienced analyst$
-.en for the case of statically loaded component8structure the
incorporation of fracture mechanics into the design stream is not easy$
It is generally done in t+o steps$ The component is designed ased on
stiffness or strength criteria 8suitale material2s7 are selected$
A Separate fracture mechanics analyses ased design is performed
and the design .ariales are e.aluated and materials selected$
After oth the designs are performed the results of one approach are
compared +ith the results of alternati.e to ensure that the design is
safe$ A Successful design is one that satisfies oth analyses +ith the
same set of design .ariales$
If there are alternating loads' e.ent at lo+ fre<uencies' fatigue crac!
gro+th needs to e considered$ Using appropriate FC@ la+s and
assuming an initial crac! length e<uals to the NDI limit' +e can
estimate the time to failure $ In the period one can de.elop a periodic
NDI plan$ 1ecause of the need for these inspects as the design should
allo+ access to all of the areas needing inspections' particularly the
+eld seams$
The Role o% &DE:
In Con.entional design -ngg$ practice' ND- is considered a part of
the <uality control process and is the responsiility of the
manufacturing department$
In contrast' in designing against fracture ND- is of little .alue if
defects can not e measured ' or the costs to complete the re<uired
inspection are prohiiti.ely e0pensi.e$ For this reason it is important
that a ND- specialist e in.ol.ed in the design from the outset$
The ND- group can assist the designer in estalishing the minimum
defect si?e$
A (=mm semi elliptical surface crac! is reasonale for a turine dis!
+here eddy current methods are the norm' ut +ill e unreasonale for
the NDI limit of a large pipe under field conditions +here ultrasonic is
the method of choice$
Designing Against Fracture
In addition the choice of NDI methods and initial defect si?e depends
strongly on the ser.ice loads$
For statically loaded structures the detection limits is the critical crac!
si?e reduced y the re<uired factor of safely $
For cyclically loaded structures the re<uirement is for an initial defect
small enough to support the applied loads until the ne0t inspection = a
much more stringent re<uirement $
There are t+o possile approaches to determine inspection inter.als"
Acti.e or &assi.e$
In the passi.e approach' the NDI inter.al should e selected such that
a fla+ ;ust smaller than the inspection limit +ill not gro+ to critical
si?e efore the ne0t inspection' +ith some margin of safety included
in the calculation$
The acti.e approach is to ase the decision as to the ne0t inspection
inter.al on the results of the most recent ND-$ Using the si?e of any
oser.ed fla+s' one recalculates the e0pected life and sets the ne0t
inspection for some fraction there of$ For operational safety the
inspection inter.al should e n times the residual life' so that e.en if
an inspection is missed or the defect goes undetected in an inspection'
the fla+ed component 8structure +ill perform safely until the ne0t
inspection or eyond $
The more critical the application' the larger the .alue of n to e
employed$ For pressure .essels a .alue of n'( is not uncommon$
As an alternati.e to ND- at regular inter.als it is common practice to
sustitute proof tests at regular inter.als$ The proof load is selected
sufficiently high so as to cause fracture in the presence of
sucritical crac!s that could gro+ to critical si?e efore the ne0t proof
test$ Ho+e.er the use of proof test it self contro.ersial$ 9n the other
hand proof testing efore the part is placed in ser.ice could +eed out
potentially dangerous parts that managed to S,I& past the Auality
Control Dept$ at the manufactures plant$
The counter argument is that the proof test permits components +ith
defects ;ust elo+ the critical si?e 2at the proof load le.el7 to e
released into ser.ice$ Moreo.er' the proof test it self may encourage
the gro+th of a crac! that other+ise may ha.e remained small$
Some people elie.e that periodic proof testing is eneficial$ The
argument is that if the component8structure sur.i.es the o.erload' any
e0isting crac!s +ill ha.e een su;ected to plastic strains' and the
residual stress field$ Surrounding the crac! tips +ill pro.ide some
shielding of the crac!$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
Argualy' the most carefully thought out and +ell=documented
Fracture Mechanics 1ased Design &rocedure is the methodology
spelled out in MI,=A=5*BBB' Air &lane Damage Tolerance Design
#e<uirements$
This methodology ma!es the assumption that crac!s e0ist in all
primary aircraft structures and include initial crac! si?es ased on the
limits of inspectaility$
The design methodology presupposes that the crac!s +ill propagate
either y load=induced fatigue crac! gro+th or en.ironmentally=
assisted crac! gro+th and re<uires that these crac!s not gro+ to
critical si?e +ithin a specified period' ased on inspectaillity$
A companion document' MI,=HD1C=3D*) 2USAF7 E344FG' pro.ides
implementation guidelines and documentation re<uirements for an
o.erall damage=tolerant control plan +ith in the limitations imposed
y principles of damage=tolerant design$
MI,=A=5*BBB 2USAF7 E346BG Airplane damage tolerance
re<uirements' ( %uly346B$
MI,=HD1C=3D*) 2USAF7 E344FG Aircraft structural integrity
program " general guidelines for' *3 9ct 344F$
MI,=A=))55FF1 2USAF7 E346DG Airplane strength stiffness and
reliaility re<uirements" #epeated loads and fatigue' (6 Aug 346D$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
The first step in damage tolerant design methodology is selection of
the appropriate design concept from the t+o choices permitted 2See
Figure 3)$(7$
Structures are di.ided into t+o categories' ased on the numer of
load paths or crac! arrest capaility$
Structures that contain only one load path must e <ualified under the
category of S,9/ C#ACC @#9/TH and must rely solely on slo+
crac! gro+th as the mechanism to pre.ent failure$ Conse<uently' the
emphasis must e on reducing design stress le.els and careful
material selection$
Structures +ith uilt=in multiple load paths or uilt=in crac! arrest
features' defined as FAI,SAF-' ha.e only to demonstrate that they
are and +ill remain structurally sound until the ne0t inspection=this is
that they ha.e sufficient residual strength in the presence of failure of
one of the load paths$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
A Structure can e considered FAI, SAF- only if it is ale to ta!e
ad.antage of its redundancy$
-.en for structures that ha.e clearly defined multiple load paths' the
analyses of all of the possile cominations of partial failures 2A
re<uirement for FAI, SAF- C-#TIFICATI9N7 may e prohiiti.e'
in +hich case a slo+ crac! gro+th analysis may e sustituted$
The re<uirement for inspection and the coupling of allo+ale crac!
gro+th to the inspection inter.al is integral to the damage tolerant
design philosophy$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
Si0 degrees of inspection and their associated inter.als are defined in
MI,=A=5*BBB"
3$ In=flight e.ident inspectale
($ @round=e.ident inspectale
*$ /al! around inspection
B$ Special .isual inspection
D$ Depot or ase le.el inspection
F$ In=ser.ice Noninspectale structures
9f these si0 le.els of inspection' only the last t+o apply to structures
designed to the slo+ crac! gro+th standard$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
To ensure that a >defect: missed in one inspection does not gro+ to
critical dimensions efore the ne0t inspection' the structure is to e
designed such that the minimum life time is at= least t+o inspection
inter.als$
For multiple load path structures the design re<uirement is that the
residual strength after a load path failure plus the accumulated
damage in the remaining load paths must e sufficient to sustain the
structure +ith=out failure for a minimum period of unrepaired ser.iceH
as specified in Tale 3)$($
Tale 3)$( Minimum ser.ice re<uirements ased on inspection le.el$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
The estalishment of the applied loads on structure8component is the
most uncertain part of aircraft design
All aircraft' particularly fighter aircraft' undergo large .ariations in
the applied forces' depending on the current flight conditions$
The magnitude of the forces is determined y e0tensi.e load spectra
data gathered for each of the classes of aircraft for each mission
segment$
1ecause of the stochastic nature of a typical flight mission' the
magnitude of the applied forces +ill .ary +idely et+een flights$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
Accumulated data taulated in MI,=A=))55FF E346DG represent this
fact in the form of the numer of load occurrences in e0cess of a
specified force le.elH e0pressed per 3))) flight hours$
Since the proaility that a particular ma0imum mean load +ill e
seen y the structure at some point et+een inspections increases as
the inspection inter.al increases 2and thus the damage incurred
increases7' the Air Force:s damage tolerant design re<uirement for the
design limit load is ased on multiples of the inspection inter.al as
taulated in Tale 3)$*$ Tale3)$* design load for each degree of
inspectaility$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
@i.en the crac! length allo+ale and the ma0imum design load' the
fracture mechanics analysis proceeds along customary lines for fatigue
crac! propagation$
Fracture Mechanics Analysis re<uires"
2a7 Accurate information of the geometric stress intensity factor for
the candidate design$
27 1aseline fatigue crac! gro+th properties for the proposed maternal
in the rele.ant en.ironment
2c7 &ro;ection of the anticipated cyclic stress history of the
structure8component$
All of this information is incorporated into a suitale fatigue crac!
gro+th model' and the resultant e0pression is INT-@#AT-D
2numerically7 to determine the computed time to failure$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design Methodology:
Finally' the computed time to failure is compared +ith inspection
inter.al multiple form' Tale3)$*' and an accept8re;ect decision for the
candidate design is made$
Although this procedure sounds straight for+ard' the comple0ities of
the analysis ma!e the tas! tedious$
To assist in implementing the damage tolerant design methodology'
the USAF has prepared a comprehensi.e design manual' USAF
Damage Tolerant Design Handoo!"
@uide lines for the analysis of damage tolerant aircraft"
This handoo! is a.ailale in pdf format from
+++$udri$udayton$edu8DTDH#e.iee+8
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design : *and +oo
@allager' %$ &$' @iesler' F$%$' 1erens' A$&$' and -ngle' #$ M$' 2345B7'
USAF Damage Tolerant Design Handoo! " @uide lines for the
analysis of damage tolerant aircraft structures' AF/A,=T#=5(=*)6*
/right=&atterson Air Force 1ase' Dayton' 9H' USA$
In this Hand 1oo!' all of the intricacies of the fracture mechanics
analyses are descried +ith reference to AI#C#AFT ST#UCTU#-S$
This Handoo!' in essence a course in fracture mechanics targeted
to+ard the airframe designer' is intended to pro.ide the analyst +ith
the latest thin!ing on the .arious aspects of fracture mechanics
analysis in.ol.ed$
USAF Da$age)Tolerant Design : *and +oo
A summary of the topics treated in the Handoo!' sho+ in Tale3)$B
demonstrates the road scope of this designer:s manual$
A +ord of caution to the ine0perienced practitioner of the fracture
mechanics art" This .oluminous Handoo! is' at est' o.er +helming
and' at +orst' dangerous in that it can pro.ide a false sense of
security$
The damage tolerant Design Handoo! is a carefully thought=out
guide' de.eloped and refined o.er many years' and +hen interpreted
correctly' is a .aluale tool for applied fracture mechanics that can e
incorporated into the design analysis of a .ariety of structures or
components' not ;ust airframes,
Designing Against Fracture
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
Design -ngineering" more than any other ranch of engineering' is
su;ect to that particular .ariant of Murphy:s la+ !no+n as the la+ of
uninteriderid conse<uences$
As ne+ concepts de.elop the lac! of historical precedent can lead to
prolems that the designer failed to anticipate$ 9ne +ay to prepare for
this e.entuality is to see ho+ others ha.e handled prolems +hen they
occurred$
All too often' FAI,U#-S are ne.er reported' ut' +hen they are' in
the form of pulished case studies' they can pro.ide .aluale lessons$
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
-.en though the prolems sol.ed in reported case studies' may not
apply to a designers particular dilemma' the case studies pro.ide
mental training to condition the designer to de.elop meaningful
hypothetical prolems that can then e e0amined efore the fact$
The use of failure analysis case histories as a teaching tool +as
standard practice at one time in engineering schools to help future
engineers de.elop the logic s!ills .ital to their success' ut this
practice has een lost in modern engineering education$
The ne0t fe+ e0amples pro.ide some insights into the design process
that ha.e een gained from cases studies$
-sa!lul' C$A 2editor7 E344(G Handoo! of case Histories in Failure
Analysis' ASM International' Materials &ar!' 9H' USA$
Designing Against Fracture
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
Caplan' M$&$' /illis'T$ and 1arnett' #$ 2345F7 $ A pressure .essel
Hatch Co.er Failure " A Design analysis in case Histories In.ol.ing
Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics' ASTM ST&$ 435' ASTM'
&hiladelphia' &$&$BF=FB$
Aluminum arge hatch co.er$
These co.ers contain si0 hold=do+n dogs used to seal the
compartment so that po+dered contents 2cement7 could e pumped out
under pressure$
It is common practice to release one or more of these dogs to assist in
.erifying the compartment at the end of the unloading$ This action
rea!s the Neoprene seal so that the pressure in the compartment can
dissipate more <uic!ly$
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
9n one such occasion Aug 346D' a FAI,U#- occurred immediately
after the release of the second dog$
A fracture mechanics analysis performed after the fact sho+ed that safe
conditions +ould e0it unless one of the hinge legs +as ro!en off$
This situation is not uncommon ser.ice' and the design engineer should
ha.e considered this scenario$
A lesson to e learnt" court opinions in product liaility cases ha.e held
that it is the engineers responsiility not only to design
components8structures that are safe +hen used as intended' ut also to
design against auses that might reasonaly e e0pected to occur$
In this e0ample' cast aluminum lugs that formed the hinge attachments
on the hatch co.er could e e0pected to rea! off due to rough handling
y doc! +or!ers$
Designing Against Fracture
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
&erson H' Sad Dooman # @ 2345F7 Fracture Analyses of &ropane
Tan! -0plosion" In Case Histories In.ol.ing Fatigue and Fracture
Mechanics' ASTM ST& 435' ASTM' &hiladelphia' &&$ FD=66$
This study demonstrates the importance of performing a through post
mortem failure analysis$
The authors in.estigated the FAI,U#- of a truc! mounted propane
tan!$
The tan! failed along one of the girth +elds connecting the domes to
the rolled and +elded cylindrical central section$
Fortunately' the truc! +as par!ed and unattended +hen the failure
occurred$
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
Initial e0amination of the fracture surface sho+ed e.idence of
e0isting crac!s' and there +as temptation to attriute the failure to the
propagation of such crac!s and terminate the failure in.estigation$
Ho+e.er' a preliminary calculation assuming a semi=elliptical surface
crac! of the si?e !no+n to e0ist sho+ed that the pressure re<uired to
cause fracture 2a ne+ failure model due to unstale propagation of an
e0isting crac!7 +ould ha.e een in e0cess of * times the operating
pressure$
Since the tan! contained a pressure relief .al.e e0cess pressure
seemed unli!ely$
The possiility of a sustandard material +as then considered$
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
Ho+e.er' ASTM- *44 test specimens made from a sample of the tan!
+all demonstrated that the material fracture toughness +as more than
ade<uate for normal stress conditions in ser.ice$
9nce again' attention +as directed at an o.er pressure e.ent' ut e.en
if the pressure relief .alue failed '+hich it did' due to e0cessi.e
corrosion damage the increase in pressure +ould ha.e simply
li<uefied the propane' unless the tan! +as o.er filled$
Unfortunately' there +as e.idence that the tan! had een o.er filled$
-.en then' failure should not ha.e occurred unless the tan! had een
heated$
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
Although the tan! +as in the sun +hen it e0ploded' thermodynamic
analysis indicated that the temperature rise +ould een insufficient to
raise the pressure in the tan! enough to cause failure$
Unless a supplemental heat source +ere added$
As it turned out' the truc! had een left idling +hile the operator +ent
inside for lunch$ The heat gi.en off y the muffler supplied the
additional heat needed to cause failure$
This e0ample demonstrates the importance of considering all possile
scenarios +hen conducting a failure analysis$ -.en improale
mechanisms should not e ruled out +ithout supporting analysis$
Designing Against Fracture:
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
#eid C N and 1ac!ie 1 , 2345F7 choosing a steel for Hydroelectric
&enstoc! pipes' case studies in.ol.ing Fatigue and Fracture
Mechanics' ASTM ST& 435 ASTM' &hiladelphia' &&$ 3)(=3(3$
Although the design engineer can specify the material and <uality
le.els re<uired for a component8structure' he8she can not guarantee
that the material used meets specification re<uirements$
In critical applications ASTM and other accepted standards' along
+ith appropriate NDI procedures' can reduce the incidence of
sustandard materials'
1ut' in less critical applications' the costs associated +ith these
pre.enti.e measures may not e ;ustified$
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
Conse<uence" many of the failures oser.ed in the field are the result
of defects' imperfections in the material' and the focus of much of the
case study literature is directed at the metallurgical not the mechanics
aspect of fracture$
A proper analysis of this aspect of failure is est performed +ith the
assistance of a metallurgist 2-0perimental Fractography7$
A more thorough discussion of this topic found in any of the se.eral
e0cellent .olumes of case studies prepared y the American Society
of Metals E-sa!lul'344(G that address the metallurgical aspects of
fracture$ Additional information can e found in the ASM handoo!'
Iol$ 3$3 E345FG and Iol$ 34 2344F7$
Designing !y *indsight: Case Studies:
ASM Hand oo!'345F' Iolume 33" Failure Analysis and &re.ention'
ASM International' Materials &ar!' 9ff$
ASM Hand oo!' 344F' Iolume 34" Fatigue and Fracture' ASM
International' Materials &ar!' 9ff$
-sa!lul' C$A 2-ditor7 344(' Hand oo! of case histories in Failure
analysis ASM International' Materials &ar!' 9ff$