P. 1
Chicago ACO Antenna DTA

Chicago ACO Antenna DTA

|Views: 1,136|Likes:
Published by edofstress
FAA suggested method of aircraft antenna DTA
FAA suggested method of aircraft antenna DTA

More info:

Published by: edofstress on Aug 29, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/15/2013

pdf

text

original

';f.

;,~ "'J," ~

.

DAMAGE T'OL,ERANC'E ANALYSIS

ON

..

AIRPI, - 'L' "",Ao., ,1\.~S:

" ,~"~,

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office

)

-1-

J).AMAGE TOLERANCE AN'ALYSIS .FOR AN'I'ENNA INSTAlLATIONS-GENERA,L ODnmE

r.u WHAT ISDAM.AGE TOLERANC.E ANALYSIS - A UEFINITION

Damage Toieranoe A.nalysis is thea,pp]1cat],an ofFmcture l\.le.,c;hanios te assess how :1'1 strue .. :iltre .. assumed to be crackled." will respond ito loads (eye] ic and static) over- time .. Sp,ecificaJly. a Damage Telesanee .;\rIalysi s assesses: (I) Haw quioklya cr;ac~(s) will grow over time; and (2) How the E:trength of [he structnre is-affected bye-rack siae and shape,

2.1 Dama:g~ To~ erance wasad opted as, a rul e fOlrb,l.rg~ transport lCiaib.'l;gO.ry :aJ.rpl~ne~ ion Oc:tober 191:8 by A:rn.endme:nt 45'11:0 -FAR 2S.:571. Ar..y airpl aae with A:m.end,ment 45 as part ofitscertificRtiQl1 basi s must have damagetol erance evarU~l~nl~ performed _,o.n a:ITY modifications (e.g, ~lteraJi.ons~ repairs. and STC~s),

)

2.2,8everiaJ' 0 ld'er transp_prt c:atego:IJ'airplanes certified prior to the a\d,opti,on. of ,Axnendment 45 to FAR 25.57.-1 have underg.o.n.e' dama.ge toleranceevafuetions bj't.heir ma:fiufacture:rs,_ These e!i,!'aluat1on~reSllJlt~d in the develapm errt of Supplernenta.1 Inspection D ccumerrts (SID'S') thatwhe.re subsequently manda,ted by run,vorl:h:i ness, Directives (ADsJ. Tn.e:s:eali-plaThes are: Airbus MOO~ BAC1-[ 1; Boeing i07n20~ 727l, 737.147; Douglas DC~S~ DC·9f1\.1D- 80:,. DC-19; Fokker F,~2'2;and Lo~kheedL-lO 11.. Censequently; even. though these air-craft were certified prior to An]endm~m.t 45,> tbey'wer,elbrought tip tOI that. level by virtue of :mandating the SIDs and c1'3]}!lleqUtlntlymust: 'have

'dam age.tolera1!lCte ~:v~llJlatioti:s performed on riI.nymodi fications, '

Itshould :al &0 be na,ted tha.n:heQrig]n~l intent was that replrur.s to all aircraft mode] s havin.g damage tolerancebased SiIDs should also be !5:ubj eel to damage w,leunceevaluati.ons and·;a;pprCipriate inspl:ctions established. Howey~~ this

] ntent was, not .id.wayoS met. Asa result anewrul e was: issued on Ap.ril 18! 200'0 '~mHtle}d "Rep~ir Assessment fo,r,Pl!~suri~d Fuselages", 'this rule requires that a comprehensive damage tnleranee repair 'flssessment be completed far fusel age pres:sllre, bound ary repairs to {hell aging aircraftmod~ls. The

.?requIred inspections, modificetiens.and corrective actions ere to be aecompl ished in seecrd ance wi'lfl an airplane' S :&'Ilade!specific mpaii:r assessment: guid'e'iin.e's and incorporated lnU} -a oerUfl·cate holders FAA approved maintenaJICe program .

. J

2 .. 3 Damage Tolerance was established as ,3 r,equir,ement for commuter category ai:rpl.anes in 'February 1996 by the adoption of FAR. 2351'4. Anyairplan» ha ving FAR 23 . .s '74 as part of its ce:rt:ificati on basis mu st ha vee clamillg,e

tolerance evaluations performed on all: modifiOttions. .

2.·4, .Alirpl.anes that :op·erate, iat high altitude (41.000 feet. and above) generallyhave a special condition. requiri n,g a damage tolerance evaiuatlcn as: part of its certification basis. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the' critical cra.ck I,~ngth,. and resultant leakage rate precludes rap! d decompression. Certificatlecl airplanes in this category include: Cessna 525A., 560 and ,050; Challenger (B.ombmrdi.er) 600 mode] series; Falcon :sO; Hawker 800;. Israeli Aircraft Industries 1125'.; Lear 35A" 45) 55 ,and 60; the Sino Swearjng~nmodel SJ36-2~ and the Raytbeon. Cf3.eech)400A -

3.0 HOW ARE THE ANALYSIS RESULTS USED.

3.1. FAR 2S. J71 requires the establishment of inspections or other procedures, as necessary, to pr-event eatastrcphic failure. These requirements must be eonslstent 'With the damage toleracce characteristics of the structure as deterroined by analysis: and test

3' .• 2 FAR 21.500 and FAR 25.1529 require Instructions fo.r Continued JUf\Vorthine.ss and Manufscturerts Maimemmce Manuals haVing Ainvorthiness Limitations sections be delivered withea4h aircraft, The AD mandated SIDs .bring. the above listed older :airp],anes up to this same requirement level, .Aprp~ndj.x H to FAR 2S~ section H25,4 requires a separate Airworthiness Limitations section to be approved by the certificating Mcraft Certi.fication Offic,e (ACO). This section m.ust isetfurth each mandatory replacemem time, stnJ,CtyraL inspection interval, and related structural inspection precedure approved under FAR 25.571.

3,.3 .B ecans e of the aforernentioned requirements, when a dam age tolerance revaluation i.s required for an aircraft. the results ofthe damage tolerance analysis for aU antenna inst{lJ!ath:ms will be used to develop a Maintenance Man.uaI Supplement, specifying the necessaryi nspection 10·catio-ns" methods and frequencies, EachMaimenance Manual Supplement rmist be approved by the certificating ACOj and cited in the limitatj.ol::t-s section .of the, STC approving the fnstalIatioil (e.g. the approved antenna: modifioationmust be maintained In accordance with the F AA-a-ppmvrooMaintenance Mam.l,al Supplement. )

4.00 ANTE!i~A n~STALLA TION CHARACTERIST.l!CS

Atypi.cal antenna instllil1ation. with a single external. doubler is illustrat,ed below, Installations are typically mid-bay between fhtnj,e·s·ancJ long:erons. The .antenna straddles the connector hole.and is easily removed tofacilitate inspection by beins meehanically fastened to the fuselage skin via screws into the nutplates, In tum the mztplates are riveted to the doubler andfus'eiage skin.

A"~""""'~o...

'.' ' " ..._'"

, F~ 'P "'., .... -.c

\'r.i;,.,;,..,;I.: -s: r:

'I"~\,,~" ,

-' ,,'.

~

/

Flgu,re 1 TY[l~cal An~e:n:na:. Ir.ui't;!U:::ttion

4.1 QUAL1lFYINIG ASSUMPTIONS

,4.1.1 IN'STALLATIQN CHARACTERISTiCS

The SlOOP e ohms document is ] imited to antenna installations that; (1) Donot involve cutting any ma.jor lo:a~ paths such as stringersor frames; and (2) A.re located in the fuselage- shell away from discontieuhies such as doors, windows, wing-fuselage intersection, etc. where significant load redistribution takes. place. Typically, the antenna installations addressed herein ar-e located mid.bay between framesand stringers .

...... ,

,4.1.2 GENERAL .APPI~ . .oAClI

The .guidance presented herein fS generally consistent whh the :appraacb used in ,the RA.PIDprograms wbji'ch may be downloaded from the Internet web ~ite given in. Reference [1]. In some cases this document ismore conservative than. the RAPID programs since the approach presented herein is less rigorous,.

·4.1:3, LOADING

A conservative cnee-per-ffigbt constant ,amplitude Ground-AirGrollnd. (GAG) [oading cycle is suggested in lieu ofa more

precis e, co,mpl ex f! ]ght-by .. fIight. _[o~d.mg spectrum. Reference [2] states that for cir'Cumferenti,a] cracking the rule of'thumb is to usea stress. equivalent to stress due to pressure (e.g .. ApRJ2"t) plus. inertia stress due to ] . .50. Bxperi ence indicates that thiiS should be conservative for large transport aircreft and fit lessor inertiae component might be acceptable (e.g, 1.3G).

5J) GROSS AREA STRESSES

The des:i:gn stresses used by the airplane manufacturer are generally unavailable. However, ,2. conservative estimate ofgross area stresses can:'be made as discussed helo",'., Thefuse]age wiU he treated. as a pressurized cylinder and the beneficial effects ofJongerQn and frame areas ignoJ"led, .Basic cylindrical pressurized shell equations are used,

5.1 HOOP STRESS

The stress: in the hoop direction is assum eo to be due to pressure only and is given by,

Wher~

Ap= sheri differential pressure, psi t. ~ shell thickness~ in

.R :; shell radin s, in

~

f~= 8~Rj2t +~.{i ]\!l,mM: i

. :5.2 LO'NG.I11JDINAt. STRESS:

The stress in the longi tu d.l na I din~idlDn is sssumed tal be-due to pressure and vC'Eil:icaJ fuselagflt bending due to inertia (i,e, vertical acc~lemdaIl) and .~'S given b:y~

Ap :; she~ I d]ffierentialpres.s:ure, psi t ~ she,ll thickness,. In.

R "'" sheU radi us. in.

Ii: ""'. vertlcallead factor

JlIQ .. ""' lG stress at ,a:ntelliCLa location

The.longi.md:i n al stressi s aSisum.oo to vacry along the length efthe fi.:meJage M shewnb elow. Any vari ati on ereun d the circumference Is conservati vely: :negUcte:d.

"

~ '1

!Pr>t!llt spar. I .... ~ W

L i I

K-----.... I

! !:

. .

F{]SELAGE LOCATION

- .. ,.....--~.

- 0

5.3 EST,:r.M:A1E OF ~UM: I.G STRESS

The maximum 19 stress is assumed to Dccur,at the top ef thefaselage over '''I

the wing where vertical fuselsge.sendiag j~, the greatest In order toinsure conservatism In estim ~lLd ng it ·any static, strength "hole out" factor as: wel I as

additions to normal opera,dng pressure (e,g; aeroso ction, pressure regulator

tolerance, etc..) are ignored ,j nthefollowi ng cal eulation, It isassumed that the

airplane rnanufa,cru,r~t designed to zero mall'gin atultimate, The total ultimate

d,e~ign stress is composed of a pressure and in ertia component rind is given

by,

\Vhe~e,

AP = normal operating pressure at maximum design altitude, psi

R "" fusel age radius, in,

t ~ fu.se]age skin thickness, in.

nz =: maxi mum li m it .deslgn load ,rnlCtor

C1H\),mi1!(= maximum ] G longitudinal stress ]n thefoselage due ito bend] ng

I _ 5 := Safety fdctar~Jlef .. FAA 2:5.303

(NOTE: Hz. should be conservatively assumed to be 2 . .5 unless it tal] be substantiated that the airplane menufacturer used a higher value (refe:l'enceFAR 25.337(b)).)

For a zero margin design the total ultimat.e stress, would. be justequal to the ultimate. allowable used for the material (re:fe:renc.e1flL-HDB:K-$~ Fm. B value). Therefore ClilG,!rri:!:)l: is given by,

5.4 CRACK GROWTH

Stresses to be used to compute creek gro'Wth should represent t}~l,cal or nominal lQIa.cHng~ Adverse pressure regulator tolerance as well as relief valve setting and tolerance are notincluded, Although many cycle's aotnally OCCUT durin.g,MY given fligbt, a once per fUght stress cycle may be used to estimate tbe cr,ack,gi6,lWlh behavior. This: is schematically illustrated below.

EQUIVALENT

- CYCLE

JFI,gun:~ ,3 Once Per Flight Equivalent Cycle

The equivalent once: per flight stress cycle to be; assumed for the Ioearion being ai!a~yzed win depend on whether ,e, longitudinal or circurnferemlal crack is being ,eY,aluatea.

5.4.1 LONGITUDlNAL CRACKS

For longitudinal. cracks it is assumed that inertia effects are :negligible and tnar Iota] stress is in the hoop direction. Hoop' stre-ss is givenby~

j

_.-

where ,.6,P is the normal opersting pressure ,2::1: maximum. design altitude plus 0.5 p,si to approximate a. once p.er flight maximum

.l' •• .)" .11"

aerQyynarrlIt_Sl.lctmn cacmg,

5.4.2 CffiCUJ\DfERENTIAL CRACKS

For cirecrnferentia! cracks both pressure and inerfialo,ading is accounted for and the longitudinal stress is given by the, equations in 'section S.2 dependent on whether the location being Mlalyzed is, forward or aft 'of thefroRt spar. AP is the same as for the hoop stress as given in section 5,A. I, The toad factor, nt" taken. to be

1.3 G. represents the eqnivalent once per Hight Inad factor to be used in. the crack gmwth assessment, As mentioned in Section

4.1 ,J a value of 1.5 has been acoepted in the past for large aircraft hcwever lesser values may beacceptabl e. The Chi Gage Aircraft Certification Office recommends the use of 1,J,.

)

-7 ...

..

5.S RESIDUAL STRENGTH.

She residual strength requirements aregiven in FAR 2.5.ST] (b) (S)(J)&{j i), (NOTE: The load requirements of FAA 25.365 Cd) defines r.s 3x&P as the Bmit stati.c 5t.ren~cih loading and should not 'be confused with the 2557.1 reqnirements.) Residual strength condition(s) (]) includes normal operating differential pressure plus aerodynamic pressarecembined with the limit f1jght loadsgiven In2.55H (b)(l) through(4). lte;.;.iduaJ strength condition (ii) includes tbe maximum ¥,aIue ofnormal operming dliffere:nt1a] pressure factored by 1" 1 to account for relief valve setting and. tolerance plus aerodynami Co S,UC.tiOII'i at 10,

5.5.1 .LONGITUDINAL CRACKS

For ]ougirudinal eracks, conditlon (il) prevails since mertia effects are assumed to be .neg]igible: and the required. residual strength hoop stress is given by"

fH.RES= 1.111PRlt + O. SRi!

where ilP' is the norma] operating pressureat maximum design altitude and 0.5 psi is tbe assumed aerodynamic suctionpressure.

5.5.2 Cm.cUMFERENTh\L CMCKS

For circumferential cracks. condition (i) prevails since Inertia effectsare .signif'i.cant The; required. residual strength longitudinal stress is calealared nom, the lequa'ti,ons given In section 5_2 depending on whether the location is. forward or aft of the front spar. That is,

£1. P.:ES ~ .APR + n", ( 1 ) c ~I.\nw: (forward affront spar)

2t . S

.

__ . -

f~ RES = A~~, + f 1.8 triM (Aft. of front sp~r)

-'IL .

_. !

1

where,

Ap'~ normal operating pressureat maximum design altitude+ O.s. psi. for Aerosuctien,

:Ill == maximum design limit load factor Cat least 2 .. 5 but not greater than 3.8)

6.0 FASTENElt LOADS

typi'caI antenna instaUatiom; ,employ a re;inforcing, doubler fastened to the fuselage skin with rivets, When the airplane is loaded (stress is applied) the' doubler and skin will-attempt to straln together, and some amount ofload will transfer out ofthe skin and into the doubler. The load is.transferred by rivet shear arid bearing. The highest (critical) rivet load asso ciated with the transfer ] oad is at the fi rst fastener row as: illustrated :in the figure below. Cracldngin the skin is most Hke~y at the first fastener due to the high bearing load in eomhinaticn with basic ,gnJS,S stress,

'''I,

Fig~ure~, Critical Fastener ROiWS

)

Fastener loads may be approximated by a n1:l rob er of different methods, A commo~ approachis to use a. strip analogy and perform a displacement compatibility analysis as deserib ed in section 6.1 bel DW. Finite element metho cis may at so he used on a. 201 or 3D basis to more rigorously o.etert:lline leads,

-.10 -

6.lL' DISPLACEMENT CO:MPAfIBDLITY APPR.OACH

To understand this method refer to the Figulie 5 where the ldealizedstrip ('I rivet spacing in width) is ]oaGed with skin hoop stress •. tH, A similar :a.ppm&ch isused to determine rivet leadsassociated with I ongitu dinal skin stress .

•.

F.igure 5 Strip Analogy

A displacement compatibility analysis wm yield a fastener lead d.fstdbution as deJ.1i'ctled below,

L

, .

)

%

-Q

o

o ., .~

~ ._. ~ _'_.-.-' F====~=

~

I

_ .... - ~ - .... '--t==~

_. - .-. ~--. ,_ - - F~====

,0'

--(/-,

-'

7 J) CRACK GROWTH ASSESSMENT

Cr~ck growth is typilc;a]iy determined by numencal]y ~ntegrating the growth rate, - d8lldN~ from some initi:~d crack size to some final crack siZ?e. Computer programs.are a,v,iti1 abl e to. do ibis but it may also be performed by hand using a spread sheet .. Cr~ck growth rate is d:irecdy pr~port:ianal to the Stress: intensit-y range. AK." and the generel

relationship tS il lu strated below. -

1

L~t> -&

d,IL,'

d.\.t'

~/Cjd.~

~I

A\(..jnI'

'LD g ~,\<:ksl J {~ •

Figure 6: Crack Growth }tate as A Fu~t'ijon of.6,I{

Notes: ~egioll A- G.ro\vr:h rate decre:aJS!",s aSYllliplOdcally witl! (lecre<lSIDg AK. Be]OW3 Iilir6Sholdlvah.m of 6K. (i.~. AKm) there is no gro!ilrlh.

Region B - GrCDI'lvm mite and liK foUQ\v a Leg-Leg 1i.n~ UJa:tiOIlS'rup a.rHi ·Cim b.e re,as"Omibly approximated mmg th.e Paris Equati.nl'l where;

n= Slope of Ilne

• C'" IntJere.tp't ofdaldN :L..::is

R~gioIl C- Growth rate increasesasymp~otlca]lywi.th .mcreas.ing aK.

Crack growthrate libraries are included with many 'Of the crack growth programs that are available. A number of different approaches tare used to represent the. dan. The simplest mathematieal representation is theParis equationas sliown lin. Figure "l however it does not incih,ad,eany stress ratio 'effects. W'ilkergener,alized the Paris equation to make daJdN also afimetien ofstressratio and it takes the form given below ..

The. RAPID computer program.s; usetheWalker equation, C; q, and p values for a number of commonly used. aluminum alloys are included in Table 1 :FDr reference ..

.... ,~,-

. ~

-~) ~I
~r
,. 9 \:0 10 N 0 M v:I !"'i 0. IIf'! -
,; 0< 100 'W ,."....",. ee ~ .- I~ 0
,Cl'l, 101 ~ 0 M M N t-, ~ t:-
!:::' ~ It:¢ ~ 'eG ,_ ,~ <;;:I "f':J ,0-, OW V
0 t--, r-- '1.0 I ~ "0 '''I''l t-: ILf"'I r--
r .. .)' . . ~
.,;.,,;i Fl ,~ 'r'"l 1M ~ M M 'r"l M n
1:1,
~
"'~
.0
~
l;"",
:.;:
'.:. e- r-- ,10 OCI :\,f;i! 0' c:'I 0, ~, r"1
C' ~ ~' ~ r-- V m ""l Lfil - e-
'I!:l' 0>. - 't- oor ~' r-. V ~
B I~ t'-> ,~ 'iN: r- t'Q I,Oi 0' 0 \C
V) ~ 'i.O '10 ~ ~ '\Q 1;0, '10
,~ Q 0 0 d 0\
',~ 0 '0 0 Q 0
t:i
..c
,~
~
d' ~.
: ...
.....
a ,0 0=. 11;1 <:::;< ~
'f!:: '~ ~ I~ ~ ~ .,f}; =
..... b b b b 61 b 10 0 '0 b c
lID
:Q.. 'f""""l ..",. - ~ ~ ~ - ~~
E ~ '~ ;.:, ~ M X K ~! ,)C ~ ~
lit) U N ~ '>D 'kJ'"l ~ 00 t'- r-- \0 N 0;.;
E-t ~ IN !.,;O 0 ~ ~ I~ M t- F'"I ~
8 '...r VI a 'M, .- G>. r- V, ~ ~,
\C 1.0' ..... 1:.0 CQ 00 1rN! I.h Il:::
0 '\.Cl ~, 0- DO' C> 0\ M iO ..., II)
~ '""' '.
a. 1;.0 '01 ~ -' 'f'!"'""I. .-< '~ ~ I::
II) rt.i~
'"'" 73 ~
,~ '~ ,_,
~ ~ """"",
~
~ ...... _, ..
~: :z; ·c ... ...... J
~ ~ ~ . ;i,-i ~.
c:; 0 ~ , 'ilf ':3
0 IooOi ~
Q. E'..;: I---i ~ ~ H ~ ~ Fl' ~ -;a: 0., "5
~ ,~ &d a
U I I , 'I • n , ~ ,dr ~
W ~ ~ .J :~ H f:--t ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~
'''0 i ~. 10"'1
j I
Ii:: ~ ES ~,,,,,,
,~ '0- ~
Q 'H P '0=;
~ t:lo E 'I.,;;
~ '7j ~
~ !>'l
aJ ®
0 [iCJ ro H
6 ~ bO ~ '~J
0
a II ~I II
0) II::!
0 rn CJ:l ,~
S E 9 ~, ~
0 dd .... ~ ~' l,u, .'""'-!I ~ 'iI;",I ,~
~ aJl ~' '. bb "'l' 4,,-1, oj) """ C), "
.jil, (;:I 'IU' '~ ~ £ '-"'l Q) (';j G.l' ~ ~
'~ 0 .1:; ~. ~ L... I_J .f:i -
'0 VJ (.I';j ~ 0 ~ iJ:l..i ttJ I:l:.oi VJ "C
~ ~ ,_ '~ , Illf
~ ~ """
~ QJ,
~ l'
~
~
!D, L"O.
.&~ .....,
,- F"'! ~ >';'
I~: .I.I"l V"ii If'iI ~
~ .,.. \0 ">f \0 M
N N :~ r- t--
v ~ i!r) N Ft ~ e"'
H ~
- ~ M rlr"j, ,.... ~:
.~ \D ~ t: ,~ ~ '~ ~ \Ci
~ r-; ~ ~ '~ g...r' 'e:
0. r-.
~ I ="' ~ ~, ~ • ~ '0
~ ...::I ''<3'' M M L!"'I on It"l 14!'l, "
~ I e- ,I.!"l,
~ """""- H 'r"l 0 U"ll \0 M, T;'""'!
0 I F ~<"r v ~ 0 t-- ,t'-~ .......
-e- e- ~ ~
~ ~ V I 0 e- ~ U
N ~ v t- ~ ! I' r-
b ~. N 10 1fI I~
0 I
N '0 !Jf1 l'-
~ V) 0 7 Z
0 r- e-- 'U
I:"-- ~
) -0
- *' · ,

.'i .• 1!

7.1 STRESS lNTENSITY .FACTOR. MNGE

The stress int,e:nsity factor rnnge" -AK~ is the difference 'between the maximum and minimum appli,ed stress inteIlsity.

For antenna installation assessment the loading cycle is from zero load to 'the enee perfIight equivalentlead. Tl1erefore ~i<I is zero and .AK. is, equal. to K~j';_ The cYG]lc historji' of appli ed stress and stress intensity are :iI1mmated below,

Stressintensay is given by.

0' = reference stress or load (typically far field gross Stress)

2!~. crack dimension (typically crack length)

~,=- geometry- factor (typicaUy a function of sileast 'a»

(Note: Unitsfor stress, intensity factor" K. are t-ypically psi(init\Qf ksi(inil"2)

.... \4 , ....

O.005'~

~!to CRlTICA'LLOCATIONS

Severa] dehtil locatinns should be evaluated to determine the damage tolerance characteri sties. As aminirnu rn lOngitudi.nal and cin.rumfere.nti ax' cracking at the outer row of fastener 'holes and at the.antenna connector hole should be considered, Consistenr with 'this. so me candid ate eraeki ng scenarios are illustrated below. Other scenarios should be considered if it is suspected that those described herein do not ,soffici~nt1y bound the de:tai]s involved.

_)

'9.0 lNITIALFL4.:\V SLZES AND CONTTh'l'tJIN.G GRO,"VTH

..

To perform a. Damage Tolerance Analysis (DTA), ofthe. ,antenn.a. modification, assumptions. of j n itial flaw si us. and su bsequent growth are neceesary. To achieve a uniform approach to DTA for antenna. ins,t-anat.ioIliS~ the fo Bowing initial flaw size and subsequent growth scenarios are assumed.

9.1 Th<TIIAL FLAW ASSUMPTIONS

At any analysis loeafion, a primary 0.050" through the thickness crack is assumed to exist in the skin on the most critical side of the hole from a damage tolerance perspective. Si multaneously, a secondary 0 .OOS'" tnreugh the thickness crack is assumed to exist :in the opposite side of the hale having the primary crack, and in each adjacent bole on. the; remote side- on the primary 01.050" crack as depicted below:

.j

'0;'

:.' • I

. . ....

0.005"

Fwgun!:.9 Inltlal Flruw Assu.m:ptions ... 15-

0.005" + .6a.l

O.0605?'+\6h~_] '. D 670" .. ' /" ~

. LJ .. , , , -:.,., , ............•.. ···li'lf1···~·:"··I. ~ .r .» ' .•

• ·.1· •.... CY a

~,

Al = e' + Do + 2{.00.5 + Aat)

9'.2 SUBSEQUENT 'GliOWTH ASSIJ)1pTIONS

All cracks, bath primary and S!econ.d:ar:Y~ are assumed to grow concurrently, but indepe.iid.ently. Tt.e interaction betweencracks .is: ignored. Growthofthe primary -0.050'1 crack is: evah.Hlt.ed until ::It breaks through int;o an.adij,acent hole. At this juncture:" all the' seeendary 0.0005" cracks are assumed to have simuha.:neotisly grownan amount, ~al.a.nd the total crack length would have become: the eenter .. -te-centerdistance between the ,adJaoent holes plus a hole diamoe.te1f plus (.00':5"+ l\.,a'J) beyond each ho!e~ The Elrod, of the fit'S! stage of

grov,..'th is depi,cted below. . -

Figure 10 End of First Stage of Continuing J)·aFDage

Determlnation of the sec,onda:ry R 005>' crack incr.em~Jlml growth, bah should be with the same cyclicload as was uS.ed for the groVrih of the primary 0,05'1' crack, 'and for thenumber or cycles necessary for it 'to grow to the

acljat.cent hole. .

This same process continues in successive growth, Splecifica11y~ the primary crack ofhmgtb "~Al'" in. the first stage, wiI] grow to th-e next adjacem holes. During this growth period; an the secondary cracks o.f length O,OOS"+ Aa! are assumed to hsve grown an addition,a! amount.! A,ill, and the total primary crack lengthat the end qfthe . second stage: of continuing damage.would be equal to three hale-pitches plus a hole diameter plus (0.00.5"+ Aal + ~a:1) beyond each hole. The end anne second stage ef contirming damageis depicted. below,

Determination 'of',6,al would he the same processas used to establish A,a.! except that the numb'er of gromh cycl es would be these necessary for the primary crack at the end of the first stage to grow out to the; De:\1adjacent hales. This same scenario would be fellowed-as long as continuing damage is to 'be caJ C1J rated.

1\1.0

STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR SOLUTIO NS1CONSIDERA nONS

J

The ,actual problem ore-racking:. ale ng a row ef leaded holes or cracking; from the antenna connector holeas described about is veery complex, However there ere reasonable ways to approximatethese problems; Both situations an: discussed below along witb some possible simplifying assumptions,

1 0.1 Lo.ADED FASTEl\'lER BOLE

The initial problem is illustrated below. i'his is the case af,a loaded hole with bearing and bypass stress. Solutions fOf this case are readily available if! the Jiteratnre and are tYP'Ica]Jy part oftoe'str,ess intensity libr,ary in availabl e crack growthcodes. These. are typ,j cally based em superp osition of Ill:. through stress case and a loaded hole case,

.Figure 12 Singh~ Cr,ack Ff'QrnHol,e with B,earing and Eyp,ass S'tress

If continuing crack growth is, to be' evaluated after growth of theprfm ary crack terminares, the scheme discussed in section 9.0 is: foIl owed. In order to appro:;dmatethis a through crack may be considered with ·wtallength. as shown below. Continuing growth would beap'I;;JH:lxlmated with. a ju mp discontinuity equal, to rwo 'hole diameters phis .,0005" and whatever 6a had o-ccurred u.p to that point in time beyond each hole, This is illustrated below.

, .005~~ + 6.a '

.Figure 13 Through Crack App.f\oxii:m.9t~on

10.2 ANTENNA CONNECTOR H.OLE

The initial: problem is illustrated below, This is the case ofa single. crack out of an openhole, Inre:ali:t)r the reinforcing doubler bas a beneficial effect In

] nwering the Iocal stresses around the ccnnecter hole, .. However unlessa finite element .. analysis has been performed to lIccllrateIy quantit:y the effectit may be eenservatively assumed that it. is ineffe.cti,ve and that the hole is subject to tbe full value of gross hoop and longitudinal. stress. Continuing c;ra.ck growth after 'the primary- cr,ack grows into the ai:Ij,acent fastener hole, (if ,any) would proceed ina similar fashion as described, above in section 10. I.

I

\(e,

n.o CRITICAL CRACK srzs

The; :C'fitl!CI1lJ cracksise wculd be the crack sll;elliat would Jus,to eSlable with the requlred residual. strengthstresses of Section :5 _ 5,· a.ppl~.ed. ThIssh,e sets an 1.1 pper bound on. the cr,a!t:l{'gr'~\Vitn hfe that can be used .:rOt credit-when de,if.:rm1ning li'ii$!:ktotion fnreShQ;]d arrdlorintervaI.s,. T'&H~critic;;al cra(;ks:i~e can b~, ,estimated using '~ inear e:! astie fracture rneehani C~, (LEF.M) prineipl es, The expressi on for stress intenaity jsused i,o solve fer criotiC1!!1 crack size, ·am~. as a .funCtion. of c:iitk;~1 stress

j ntensity, K~ and appli,ed stress, cr.

11?"' _ - -C" .. ) Illil

~."-l,,:- 0" 1!;S).1 !-'

Therefore.

It IS typically convenient to generatea plot efe versus 'aeri~ and then enter the curve at cr ""''f~s, (the 'required res;iciual stres!S)tci' de~,ermine the critical cra~:fit size for the location bel ng addressed. Thisls depicted in Figure 16.

.~.

!CllACK S:IZEf Ii.

Figure 150 Raidu:a~ Stt-ength. Curve

(NOTE: The curve is truncated at the gross stress that would result in net section yield .. Under no, circumstances should a residual strength largerthan this ever be us_cd.)

12.0 LWE .MANAGE.l\:JENT' - JNSPEcnON REQUIREl\IENTS

Damage Tolerance Analysis is a life. management philosophy wherinan undetectable crack is essumed 1Q be present, and is evaluated. to assess: (1) If and how quickly it win grow ever time; (2) Establish a detectable crack length ~j and acritlcal crack length, acnh to mai:ntain adequate residual strength under Hmb: loading cenditionjand (3) Impose inspection requirements toW!lmv its discovery and corrective rework prior to it Ca:UShlg a flight safety problem.

Theresulta of a. d.ama.g~ tolerance evaluation-can be used to establish inspection requirements that w:m mitigate a failure dueto fatigue, Given the damage tolerance characteristics ofthe structure 10 question and :Ii detectablecrack slze one is ready to deterrnin e when the inspection should start (j .. e. threshold) and how often it shoo 1d be perf1Qnned (i.e, interva]). Inspection requirements basedon the .gu.idanceprovided hereifl are only Sltlffi,cient by themselves during the period of time when: normal fatigue degradation (as opposed to' "rogue" or anomalous farigu.e) is not expected to occur. That is, the resulting inspectionsare DOlt meanr to protect a structure that has exhanstedits Donna] fatigu.e 1 ife, especially if the struetureis susceptible to the MSDIMED threat:" which can Jead to widespread fi!:t~gu,e cracking, Reccmmendations for ma:naging MSDIlVfED have been proposed by the Al\ WG in Reference [31.and this sa:rne-gr.cfup are currently drafting it proposed rule andadvisory material relative to \VFD under t'h.e ARAG process ..

NOTE:

. MSD .... Multi, Site. Damage

Jv1ED "" 1~r.dti Element Damage AA.WG"'" Aging AlrcraftWorking Group WFD = Wid spread Fatigue Damage

j, ·[L~C· A" . R]- - ·ki· A'~' r C· •

~ _ =:.: ··Vl.a.tron.u ema: ~-.Dg, . ,u:vlsary .. nmmittee

12.1 JiNSPECTION THRESHOLD

The inspection threshold or first inspection is the time in cycles 'o.r flight hours that inspections should begin. The inspection threshold, NI. is establi s-hed as the lesser of:

No = cycles to. detectable crack length, ~ (see Section 12..3)

'h Ncr == M of eyeles to eritlcal crack length:, amt

_ )".' ,

,

'4.

The inspee;tion intenrai Is, estab l i shed toassure.that 1th~re ,are alt least two in.S!pecti,ons, before It eritical erack devela.ps,_ The i.nte.n.ra..l far repet~.dve ]:IlSP ections, NR,i so:

A gra:phi c descripHon of determiningthresbo ld and interval from the damage Ito]erance characteri stic.s..is: 'presented i)fl Flgur,e 11.

'Third Inspection, N]

~

Second Imspection,N2

i

First Inspeetlon, N'l

Nd

'NJ"",n ','

. CF-

CYCLES"N

- -z:&. ... ,

\.

11.3 DETECTAELE CRA.CK. LENGTH

TheNen-Destruetive Inspection (NUl) procedures, employed determine the detectable flaw size, Industry' and Ag~e'ncy consensus has been to establish. the detectable crack lengthas thar whlcb can be found with a 90'% Pr,obabilit.y of Detection (POD). Common NDI methods include Visua! (3 to, 5x ma.gru:£ying glass), l"eneuant (dye or fluorescent), Magnetic P article (for ferrOmagne.tic material), X-Ray (rad.iogr,aphh')l Ultrasonic; and Eddy Current (high and ]QW frequency).

Table 2. presents reasonable estimates of d:etectab]'ei crack, Iength 'with ,2. 9~()% POD. Ofthese~ for antenna, 'in;stailla:ti!i)ns~ the surface probe Eddy Current method using gradVi31ted, temp] ates i,s preferred ..

Met~lod

Visual

],0 or Hole-to- Edge

Unpainted Stad'aLce*:

I 3to 5:0:: Ma_gni;fi cat] O]l

I None

I:

I

Unpa:iruted Surface:

3 to ~;X: Magni5 ca&i.on WIthont Ma~ifi cation

0.]25 0..25.0

INDne

Magnetic P:a_rti.cle

)

BaIt Hole Ed c!y Current (Faster Removed)

X-RAY Radio.;gr,aphy

, Ultrasonic ShNir-·Wave (AngJeBearo)

Crack. at fastener 'bole usi ng 0'_125 Long ~x .062.5, Deep rniniprbbe (0 . .2.5 X 0.25

inch el em~inlt) at :5;to 10

'r .. 1hz

Unp ainted. Surface:

'3 1;0 5x Magnifi.ca1tlo..n Wiiliou.itMa1Jiil ifica tion

0.0625 (1,125

I Painted Surface:

. Without Magnifi C1:i(i_o;n

Uncovered ~e]lgfh of erack in aluminum (not covered bya steel member)

(l75 or HollEFto--Ha.]e or Hole-toEdge

Crack in Clevis or Lug

I O.,.12.5lAlng x (1,0,625 Deep

I

Ultrasonic Longitudin al Witve. CStr,il:ightBe:am)

Crackat Fastener Ho!e 0.1.25

! % to V3 Diameter

OJJ3 0%.0,030

0.060 Long x 3J30 Deep

¥ Only primer lS allowed onunpainted surfaces.

~ )'"

"\I ....

.

)

.

1.3 REFERENCES

I, ~'\PID website - httrJ,.'llaar400 .. tc,faa g,ovlr.r:wi'ti· For mare information. contact Dr, Xiaogcng Lee at 609-485-6961 or xiaog:ongJ:e~@ftIaa.gQ_;Y,

2. Los Angeles Aircraft Certificatlen Office Po]ir;y Memo, nnwORlVrATION.;ANl\1- 120L Damage Tolerance Philosophy, dated. May 3~ 199.5.

:3 Airworthiness Assurance Working Group for the Aviation Rul em aking Advi SOI"}' Committee - Transport .a[1d Engine Issues, "Recommendations for Regulatory Action to' P'.oovemWides]lJf'tad Fatigue da.mage in the Corrunercia] Airplane Ffeet'\Man:.:h 11, 1999 ..

4.. D. Hagemaier, MaililtenanceEngineering Plan, May 1988.

- 204-

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->