14 CFR Part 25 Regulations

14 CFR Subpart C & D Part 25
Regulations
2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

1|Page
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301
This is the first regulation in Subpart C, Structures.
25.301 Loads.
(a) Strength requirements are specified in terms of limit loads (the maximum loads to be
expected in service) and ultimate loads (limit loads multiplied by prescribed factors of
safety). Unless otherwise provided, prescribed loads are limit loads.
(b) Unless otherwise provided, the specified air, ground, and water loads must be
placed in equilibrium with inertia forces, considering each item of mass in the airplane.
These loads must be distributed to conservatively approximate or closely represent
actual conditions. Methods used to determine load intensities and distribution must be
validated by flight load measurement unless the methods used for determining those
loading conditions are shown to be reliable.
(c) If deflections under load would significantly change the distribution of external or
internal loads, this redistribution must be taken into account.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5672,
Apr. 8, 1970]

2|Page
(a) I discuss this part in detail in this post: Limit and Ultimate Loads
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301: Limit and Ultimate Loads
(b) Typical Interpretation: Inertia loads must be applied on structures. Loads and
moments must be in equilibrium with reactions at the aircraft structure interface points.
Acceptable load application methods (simulated and real world) are body loads, pressure
loads (using load spreaders) and point loads where applicable.
For example, during landing, the net inertia loads from all the internal items of mass
(passengers, interiors structures, seats, crew etc.) travel throughout the aircraft structure.
They travel along their respective load paths and are finally balanced by the reaction
loads at the landing gear and aerodynamic lift under the wings.

3|Page
The entire aircraft structure acts as the load distribution path without failing. All internal
loads and moments are in equilibrium at any given point in time, ultimately loading the
runway or the ground at landing load levels.
Hence, the applied loading needs to resemble as closely as possible, the real landing
loads when sizing is done. Conservatism in included in the form of safety factors as
needed. In addition, it must also be shown that the applied loading is verified to be a
reliable way of loading the structures.
In case of cabin interiors, the ultimate loads prescribed in 25.561 is a well-established

reliable way to apply those loading conditions.
Aircraft Structures Modeling Course
(c) Typical Interpretation: The effect of large deformations must be accounted for in the
applied loading. For example, in case of the airplane wings, the large deflection of the
wing tip results in follower forces normal to the surface of the wing, these must be
accounted for.
Similarly, in case of large deflections of full height unsupported cabin partitions or

bulkheads, the effect of follower forces must be accounted for unless it is proven to be
more conservative by not doing so. This consideration applies not only to the partition
itself but also the downstream and upstream primary structure load path.

4|Page
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301: Large Deformations
In other words, not considering follower forces may be more conservative for the cabin
partition itself. But, if the load path beyond the partition or bulkhead is negatively
impacted, then it becomes important to account for such nonlinear geometry follower
force effects.
We can see in the figure above that follower forces could result in two different types of
reaction loads at the aircraft interface, but the interface may not be designed to accept
such loading. Again, this is just an example to explain the reason for this particular FAA
regulation. Thus, it may be required to supply such data to the aircraft integrator to meet
compliance requirements as deemed necessary.

5|Page
25.303 - FACTOR OF SAFETY
Unless otherwise specified, a factor of safety of 1.5 must be applied to the prescribed limit
loads which are considered external loads on the structure. When a loading condition is
prescribed in terms of ultimate loads, a factor of safety need not be applied unless
otherwise specified.
[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5672, Apr. 8, 1970]
In the previous section, we looked at 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301. The -303
regulation is related to it, in the sense that now we have a number called the "safety
factor". The 301 regulation said that the loads are prescribed in terms of limit and ultimate
loads. But this regulation goes farther, and says that the ultimate load is 1.5 times the
limit load.
Safety Factors
For example, in the case of cabin interior items, the ultimate load factor in the forward
(FWD) direction is usually 9.0G. This load has the 1.5 safety factor included in the applied
load. Therefore, forward limit load would be 6.0G. For some research and military aircraft,
ultimate load safety factor may be lower at around 1.2. Limit loads must be sustained by
the structure without any permanent detrimental deformation. Here is a link that explains
some more.

6|Page
Limit Load Situations
There may be load cases such as in flight loads, sustained during turbulence. These
loads may be prescribed in terms of limit loads. In such cases, margins of safety must be
written against the critical yield strength of the structural member's material. In theory, the
ultimate loads will never be encountered under normal operations during the entire
service life of an aircraft.
The maximum normal operation loads expected are limit loads. The 1.5 safety factor has
proven to be statistically and historically adequate for many decades now. But that does
not mean there could be incidents such as severe crashes. In such cases the loads would
be far greater and catastrophic than the ultimate loads the aircraft was designed for.
Because you can never really design something to survive every possible crash or
landing, the best we can do is design for a reasonably severe crash or landing.
Combination Load Cases
Aircraft cabin interiors are generally certified to ultimate loads in various directions,
including linear combinations of different directions. For example, 2.3G SIDE + 1.5G
DOWN load case can be a limit or ultimate load case, depending on the guidelines
included in the Structural Design Criteria (SDC) document provided by the OEM (original
equipment manufacturer) or an aircraft integrator or a completions center.

7|Page
Engine Nacelle Load Cases
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303: Nacelle on ground
In case of engine nacelle components such as the thrust reverser (TR), there may be
hundreds of different load cases. These cases may include various limit, ultimate and
ultimate at 1.0 safety factor load cases. Most of these load cases are provided by the
engine manufacturer. But there are other load cases that are induced into the TR due to
the systems within the nacelle.
For example, the TR actuation system is one such critical system. It induces heavy loads
into the TR structure during landing, or on the ground, or in certain failure cases in flight. It
is critical to nail down which load case has what safety factor, in order to meet compliance
requirements.

8|Page
Cabin Interiors Load Cases
In cabin interiors however, almost all cases are ultimate load cases including abuse, rapid
decompression, emergency landing etc. These cases include the 1.5 safety factor. At the
most, there may be 15 to 20 different load cases including any applicable combined inertia
load cases.
Practical Example
Consider a fighter jet whose Gross Take Off Weight is 30,000 lbs
In a wing test, it was found that the wing fails at an ultimate load of 243,000 lbs
So Tested Ultimate = 243,000 lbs per wing
What is the Design Margin of Safety (MS)? This is a conservative MS value compared to
the tested load and goes beyond the standard Ultimate MS compared to Ultimate Material
Strength. There may be various conservative assumptions and factors that determine the
standard ultimate Load value which may be lower than the tested value.
Design MS = (Tested Ultimate - Design Ultimate)/(Design Ultimate)
But how do we find the design ultimate?
From 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303, for aircraft the safety factor = 1.5
Hence Design Ultimate = 1.5 x Design limit

9|Page
What is Design Limit?
In this case, the V-N diagram of the jet was found to have a 9.0 load factor for limit load.
Therefore, Design Limit = 9.0 x Gross Take Off Weight at 1.0G = 9.0 x 30,000 lbs =
270,000 lbs
Design Limit Per Wing = 135,000 lbs
Design Ultimate Per Wing = 135,000 x 1.5 = 202,500 lbs
Design MS = (Tested Ultimate - Design Ultimate)/(Design Ultimate)
Design MS = (243,000 - 202,500)/202,500 = +0.2
Thus the Design MS is found to be +20%.
The objective would be to minimize this +0.2 MS value to close to zero thus optimizing
the design to ultimate failure strength especially because the failure load is known from
testing. This process is called optimal "sizing".

10 | P a g e
In this section, we will get into the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305.
25.305 - Strength and Deformation
(a) The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental permanent
deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe
operation.
(b) The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least 3
seconds. However, when proof of strength is shown by dynamic tests simulating actual
load conditions, the 3-second limit does not apply. Static tests conducted to ultimate
load must include the ultimate deflections and ultimate deformation induced by the
loading. When analytical methods are used to show compliance with the ultimate load
strength requirements, it must be shown that
(1) The effects of deformation are not significant;
(2) The deformations involved are fully accounted for in the analysis; or
(3) The methods and assumptions used are sufficient to cover the effects of these
deformations.
(c) Where structural flexibility is such that any rate of load application likely to occur in
the operating conditions might produce transient stresses appreciably higher than those
corresponding to static loads, the effects of this rate of application must be considered.
(d) [Reserved]
e) The airplane must be designed to withstand any vibration and buffeting that might
occur in any likely operating condition up to VD/MD, including stall and probable
inadvertent excursions beyond the boundaries of the buffet onset envelope. This must
be shown by analysis, flight tests, or other tests found necessary by the Administrator.
(f) Unless shown to be extremely improbable, the airplane must be designed to

11 | P a g e
withstand any forced structural vibration resulting from any failure, malfunction or
adverse condition in the flight control system. These must be considered limit loads and
must be investigated at airspeeds up to VC/MC.
Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-54, 45 FR 60172, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 25-77, 57 FR 28949,
June 29, 1992; Amdt. 25-86, 61 FR 5220, Feb. 9, 1996]
In the previous sections, we looked at 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301, and 14 CFR
Subpart C Section 25-303.
The 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305 regulation is related to both. Now we have some
more specifics on the strength and deformation requirements under limit and ultimate
loads. OK let us break it down.
(a) Limit Load Interference
We already know that no permanent deformation is allowed up to limit loading. But it is

also important to make sure that under elastic deformation there are no detrimental
impacts. For example, it can be an impact on the adjacent units that may not be designed
for load sharing. Or a protrusion/interference situation that could cause safety issues for
the occupants in the area.

12 | P a g e
Other instances maybe where flight limit or ultimate loads are induced into the interior
structure from aircraft structure deflections.
If an interior structure is designed in such a way that these deflections are constrained,
for example vertical deflections of floor beams, it could be severely detrimental to both
the aircraft structure and the interior structures. So care needs to be taken in addressing
these issues for compliance.
Figure 1: 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305 Deflections, FAA Policy Statement

13 | P a g e
The figure above shows an example scenario of the effects of deflection. If you would like
to know more, there is a policy statement from the FAA with additional explanation on
compliance for cabin interiors, click here.
(b) Ultimate Load Pass Condition
Under ultimate load the structure must be capable of holding the load for a minimum of
3 seconds. For example, in any ultimate load static test, the load is held for 3 seconds in
front of the witnessing DER before the test is considered a success.
How do we interpret this? One way to think about it is that 1 second may be too short to
conclude the structure is truly sustaining the applied loading without failure. Another
way is to cover the possibility that the ultimate load in a crash situation may last up to
three seconds. Parts of the aircraft may deform under loading and sustain the load on
other components for up to three seconds. These are just my thoughts though.
The exception to this condition is when aircraft seats are tested to 16.0G dynamic
loading. In that test, the seat certification does not require a 3 second hold, the load is
considered as an instantaneous G load amplification. The seat is accelerated on a track
and the acceleration is continuously measured. At the end of the track are a bunch of
wires that stop the seat. They are adjusted to make sure the peak acceleration of the
seat reaches is at least 16.0G.
When actual static tests are conducted, its more straightforward to show compliance,
the proof is in the test results.

14 | P a g e
However, more often than not, analysis is used for interiors certification. Therefore, it is
important to account for the deflections and prove that they are not detrimental as
described in the FAA policy statement link above. In doing so, well established SDC
(structural design criteria) guidelines must be used to demonstrate compliance.
(c) Stiffness Dependent Load Amplification
This is not so much of a concern for interiors, with the exception of Sustained Engine
Imbalance Analysis, the analysis of the effect on interior items close to an engine that is
out of balance.
The regulation is more applicable to components that are relatively flexible, that tend to
resonate and oscillate. This amplifies the deflection and thus the induced load at
resonance within the dynamic range of engine vibration.
On engine nacelles for example, an equivalent static load factor may be used to size
components subject to vibration and resonance within the engine frequency range.
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305 (e) and (f) are out of the scope for interiors so I will
stop here.

15 | P a g e
In this section, we will get into the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307.
25.307 - Proof of Structure
(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this subpart must be
shown for each critical loading condition. Structural analysis may be used only if the
structure conforms to that for which experience has shown this method to be reliable.
The Administrator may require ultimate load tests in cases where limit load tests may be
inadequate.
(b) -(c) [Reserved]
(d) When static or dynamic tests are used to show compliance with the requirements of
25.305(b) for flight structures, appropriate material correction factors must be applied
to the test results, unless the structure, or part thereof, being tested has features such
that a number of elements contribute to the total strength of the structure and the failure
of one element results in the redistribution of the load through alternate load paths.
Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-54, 45 FR 60172, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29775,
July 20, 1990]
In the previous sections, we looked at:
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301: Loads

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303: Factor of Safety
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305: Strength and Deformation

16 | P a g e
The 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307 regulation provides guidelines on proof of
structure and more detail on compliance requirements of the 14 CFR Subpart C Section
25-305 Strength and Deformation regulation. OK let us break it down.
(a) Substantiaton by Analysis or Test
The certification process involving compliance with 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-
305 Strength and Deformation regulation can be achieved either by analysis, by test, or
a combination of both. It is important to note however that certification entirely by stress
analysis is generally not acceptable. There will be some level of testing, required to
produce acceptable allowable loads and margins of safety.
First, it is not sufficient to show compliance only by analysis of one critical load case. For
example, 9.0G forward is generally a critical load case.
Compliance must be shown for every critical load case. For instance, 6.5G DOWN, or
Rapid Decompression, or any other load case that is required to be evaluated including
any load sharing and contact due to deflections, as shown in the previous section, 14
CFR Subpart C Section 25-305 Strength and Deformation.
In case of cabin interiors, stress analysis methods and procedures are well established.
Industry standard classical hand calculation methods, and margin of safety calculations
are employed. In addition, finite element analysis and modeling is used for analysis.
Many critical safety margin calculations utilize tested allowable loads.

17 | P a g e
Examples:
1. Panel Flexure and Core Shear (click to read more about this) allowable stresses
2. Panel Joints allowable loads and moments testing
3. Sandwich panel insert testing
Almost all testing conducted in cabin interiors structures is to ultimate loading. The
combination approach above is mainly intended to minimize testing effort required to
show compliance. However, care needs to be taken in selecting efficient and accurate
analysis methods and acceptable allowable data to ensure cost savings.
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307: Compliance Balancing Act

18 | P a g e
In case of a full scale static test, clearly the opportunity for debates and arguments is
vastly minimized and so is the need for various uncertainty factors that may otherwise be
required. But a full scale static test could be a lot more expensive. So it is a delicate
balancing act.
(d) Redundant Load Path
The second part of this 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307 regulation provides guidance
on redundant load paths.
It is required to determine A and B basis allowable values during testing of

components such as inserts, panels etc. The regulation provides some guidance in the
selection of these values. Depending on the ODA unit Member or DER's disgression, B-
Basis allowable values may be acceptable for components along a load path that has
other redundant load paths in case of the failure of one of the members. A good example
for this would be panel pins that join various panels.

19 | P a g e
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307: Redundant Load Path
Panel pins are typically placed at every 2 to 4 inches along the panel joint. This type of a
joint inherently has redundancy built into the joint. The same is true for joints with multiple
inserts.
However, B-Basis is typically not allowed at critical locations such as floor fitting inserts
or top attachment inserts. Here A-Basis is generally required. More details are included
in this post on A-Basis and B-Basis values.

20 | P a g e
The other part of this 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307 part (d) guidance is related to
the use of correction factors or fitting factors. During static testing, it is common practice
to load the structure up to the limit load (ultimate load/1.5), pause for three seconds and
then back down to zero load. Then deflection measurements are taken to ensure there is
little or no permanent deflection at critical points on the structure.
Following that, the structure is loaded again all the way up to ultimate load, which usually
includes a 1.15 fitting factor. So this is an example to ensure compliance with part (d)
of 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307 regulation. During stress analysis as well, we use
fitting factors in margin of safety calculations. A lot of the regulations overlap in terms of
interpretation, we will cover the fitting factors and other material factors in more detail in
subsequent sections.
Aircraft Structures Modeling Course

21 | P a g e
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-561 -
Ultimate Loads
Emergency Landing Ultimate Loads:
In this section, we will try to dig into the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section 2-561,
and try to understand what it means.
25.561 - General
(a) The airplane, although it may be damaged in emergency landing conditions on land
or water, must be designed as prescribed in this section to protect each occupant under
those conditions.
(b) The structure must be designed to give each occupant every reasonable chance of
escaping serious injury in a minor crash landing when
(1) Proper use is made of seats, belts, and all other safety design provisions;
(2) The wheels are retracted (where applicable); and
(3) The occupant experiences the following ultimate inertia forces acting separately
relative to the surrounding structure:
(i) Upward, 3.0g

(ii) Forward, 9.0g
(iii) Sideward, 3.0g on the airframe; and 4.0g on the seats and their attachments.
(iv) Downward, 6.0g
(v) Rearward, 1.5g

22 | P a g e
(c) For equipment, cargo in the passenger compartments and any other large masses,
the following apply:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, these items must be positioned
so that if they break loose they will be unlikely to:
(i) Cause direct injury to occupants;
(ii) Penetrate fuel tanks or lines or cause fire or explosion hazard by damage to
adjacent systems; or
(iii) Nullify any of the escape facilities provided for use after an emergency landing.
(2) When such positioning is not practical (e.g. fuselage mounted engines or auxiliary
power units) each such item of mass shall be restrained under all loads up to those
specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The local attachments for these items should
be designed to withstand 1.33 times the specified loads if these items are subject to
severe wear and tear through frequent removal (e.g. quick change interior items).
(d) Seats and items of mass (and their supporting structure) must not deform under any
loads up to those specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section in any manner that would
impede subsequent rapid evacuation of occupants.
Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-64, 53 FR 17646, May 17, 1988; Amdt. 25-91, 62 FR 40706, July
29, 1997]

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307: Proof of Structure
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-365: Pressurized Compartment Loads

23 | P a g e
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-561 provides guidelines on:
Emergency landing ultimate loads and load factors

Certification requirements for safe egress of the passengers and crew (occupants)
Positioning
Wear and tear requirements
(b) Minimum Ultimate Loads Requirements for Occupant Safe Egress
Note the language used in parts (a) and (b) of this regulation. The interpretation of that
language is important here in terms of minimum ultimate loads.
If an airplane crashes head on into a concrete structure or a mountain or maybe it free

falls onto land or water, it would be catastrophic. The loads will be well over any ultimate
loads the aircraft would ever see under normal operating conditions in its entire life span.
There is very little anyone can do with current design practices and standards to protect
the occupants in such a crash.
Although certain radical design features may help mitigate a severe crash to some extent,
it would either be cost prohibitive or too heavy. Also, it would most likely be unsuitable for
mass transport on an economical scale.
Therefore, the FAA mandates certain minimum ultimate loads or ultimate load factors that
the aircraft and cabin interiors must be designed to withstand, based on past aviation
history. These ultimate loads or load factors are limited to minor crash landings that may
be survivable, provided the conditions in b(1)(2) are met.
As the regulation says, these minimum ultimate loads are 9.0G FWD, 3.0G UP, 6.0G
DOWN, 3.0G SIDE (LHS and RHS), and 1.5G AFT.
But what exactly is a minor crash landing? How do we make sense of these ultimate
loads? The ultimate loads presented in b(3) above are relative load factors.

24 | P a g e
But what the heck is relative? To understand that, see the illustration below.
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25 561: Ultimate Loads, 9.0G FWD Inertia Load Factor
Looking at the image above, let us say the pilots are able to land this aircraft with wheels
up in an emergency situation. They land it on its belly and on a stretch of flat land (can be
a body of water as well). As the plane slides along, the ground (or water) underneath
exerts a drag force due to friction.
But the plane has a lot of inertia (weight moving FWD at high speed), it wants to keep
moving forward (FWD). The relative acceleration FWD is what the FAA mandates as the
9.0G FWD ultimate loads condition. This is a minimum ultimate loads condition (in this
case the FWD direction) that the aircraft and its cabin structures must be designed to
withstand for at least 3.0 seconds. During this process, the equations of static equilibrium
at an instant produce these relative accelerations or body loads with respect to the
surrounding structure.
It is very much like you slamming on the breaks of your car while driving at 70 miles per
hour (similar to the drag force on the plane). You plunge forward with your seat belt on.
In the beginning, your chest will feel an immense force as you push FWD on it. But as
you slow down and spring back occurs, the G force you experience on your chest
decreases.

25 | P a g e
The same thing happens to all the attachments of the interior structures and the entire
primary structure load path all the way to the ground. The drag on the belly balances the
FWD inertia forces. At some point the drag is too high and the plane has to come to a
stop, assuming things are all still intact.
Until the plane comes to a stop, the aircraft and its cabin structures must be designed to
not break free from their supports due to a peak 9.0G FWD ultimate loads condition. This
is considered a minimum to give the occupants a fair chance of escape.
The same applies to all other ultimate loads directions, applied independently from each
other. The reason for independent loading is to ensure sizing for maximum ultimate loads
in each specific direction.
OEM or Integrator Specific Loading:
In addition to the minimum FAA mandated ultimate loads mentioned above, there may be
additional load cases required by either the completion center, the aircraft integrator, or
the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer, example Boeing).
Boeing requires higher load factors than those mandated by this regulation in some
cases. It also requires various combination load cases (also analyzed as ultimate loads)
that combine different ultimate loads in different directions and magnitudes based on the
aircraft type.
For example, if you are sizing a structure to be installed in a Boeing 737-600, Boeing
requires a 3.5G UP and 6.5G DOWN load case (higher than the FAA mandated cases).
An additional 3.0G SIDE (LHS and RHS) + 1.5G DOWN combination load case is also
required.
Flight Ultimate Loads:
There may be interior items that aren't required to be substantiated to ultimate loads as
they are only used in flight.
Examples are flight attendant jump seats or lower lobe crew rests. For such items, a
different set of 'Flight' load factors may be used, but these are also analyzed as ultimate
loads.

26 | P a g e
It is important to note that some of these flight load cases, especially for structures at the
FWD and AFT ends of the aircraft, could have higher ultimate loads than the FAA
mandated ultimate loads.
The reason for this is simple, in flight turbulence will cause the FWD and Aft ends of the
aircraft to experience greater G loads due to the longer moment arms from the CG of the
aircraft. So these cases could very well end up being critical sizing cases for some
components.
After all, the aircraft is a simply supported beam, with the total lift at the wings of this
beam, the overall weight acting down at the forward side of this beam, which is balanced
by the down force on the horizontal stabilizers at the aft side of this beam. This type of a
spread is important to obtain a good tradeoff between efficiency and stability.
Ultimate Loads: Simply Supported Beam, Forces

27 | P a g e
The gross takeoff weight (GTOW) distribution of an aircraft is roughly 50% Wings,
Landing Gear and Fuel, and the rest is spread out approximately evenly along the length
of the aircraft. However, the overall CG is generally FWD of the center of pressure under
the wings as shown in the image and video link above.
So we can see how an aircraft can be treated as a simply supported beam and how the
inflight turbulence static equivalent load cases would tend to be more severe at the FWD
and Aft ends of this simply supported beam.
(c) Positioning of Items of Mass
This section sort of ties into another regulation on retention of items of mass. But we will
discuss that later.
The bottom line for interior items is that almost all loose contents of the interior equipment
or cabin structures are restrained using various restraint devices such as latches and
hinges on doors, quarter turn retainers, the walls of the structures made from sandwich
panels etc.
Generally, there are no items allowed to be completely unrestrained in any direction that
could fly out into the cabin and either insure the occupants or impede their safe egress
after an emergency landing condition. Thus all these restraint devices are sized for
ultimate loads.
Restraint devices are considered quick change or frequent wear and tear items.
Therefore, a 1.33 safety factor is required on quarter turn retainers for example, multiplied
with maximum ultimate loads.
As far as positioning is concerned, an example may be positioning of these restraint

devices in such a way that they are not forward facing, or designing the structure to
restrain the contents using the panel walls of the structure, installing inserts along a less
critical load path etc.

28 | P a g e
(d) Permanent Deformation
Seat structures, and any other interior items are allowed to deform under ultimate loads,
however, not so much that the safe egress of the occupants is impeded. Complying with
this requirement is a little subjective in nature and probably depends on the acceptance
of the DER or ODA Unit Member approving the test.
Note that it is not quite as straight forward to satisfy, if certification is done by analysis
instead of static test. But we know that ultimate loads are 1.5 times limit loads. In other
words, limit loads are 2/3 rds the ultimate loads. For most Aluminum alloys, the material's
yield strength is also close to 2/3rds of the ultimate strength as well.
Therefore, if we are able to show a decent positive safety margin under ultimate loads,
then it is also reasonable to demonstrate no permanent deformation under limit loads and
acceptable permanent deformation under ultimate loads. With composite materials, there
is no appreciable yielding before failure and therefore a positive safety margin is sufficient
to comply with this part of the regulation.

29 | P a g e
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-562 -
Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads
In this section, we will dig into the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section 2-562. We
will try to understand what it means for interior structures other than seats, in terms of
emergency landing dynamic loads.
25.562 - Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads
(a) The seat and restraint system in the airplane must be designed as prescribed in this
section to protect each occupant during an emergency landing condition when
(1) Proper use is made of seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses provided for in the
design; and
(2) The occupant is exposed to loads resulting from the conditions prescribed in this
section.
(b) Each seat type design approved for crew or passenger occupancy during takeoff and
landing must successfully complete dynamic tests or be demonstrated by rational
analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type seat, in accordance with each of the
following emergency landing conditions. The tests must be conducted with an occupant
simulated by a 170-pound anthropomorphic test dummy, as defined by 49 CFR Part 572,
Subpart B, or its equivalent, sitting in the normal upright position.
(1) A change in downward vertical velocity ( v) of not less than 35 feet per second, with
the airplane's longitudinal axis canted downward 30 degrees with respect to the horizontal
plane and with the wings level. Peak floor deceleration must occur in not more than 0.08
seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 14g.

30 | P a g e
(2) A change in forward longitudinal velocity ( v) of not less than 44 feet per second, with the
airplane's longitudinal axis horizontal and yawed 10 degrees either right or left, whichever would
cause the greatest likelihood of the upper torso restraint system (where installed) moving
off the occupant's shoulder, and with the wings level. Peak floor deceleration must occur
in not more than 0.09 seconds after impact and must reach a minimum of 16g. Where
floor rails or floor fittings are used to attach the seating devices to the test fixture, the rails
or fittings must be misaligned with respect to the adjacent set of rails or fittings by at least
10 degrees vertically (i.e., out of Parallel) with one rolled 10 degrees.
(c) The following performance measures must not be exceeded during the dynamic tests
conducted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section:
(1) Where upper torso straps are used for crew members, tension loads in individual
straps must not exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are used for restraining the upper
torso, the total strap tension loads must not exceed 2,000 pounds.
(2) The maximum compressive load measured between the pelvis and the lumbar column
of the anthropomorphic dummy must not exceed 1,500 pounds.
(3) The upper torso restraint straps (where installed) must remain on the occupant's
shoulder during the impact.
(4) The lap safety belt must remain on the occupant's pelvis during the impact.
(5) Each occupant must be protected from serious head injury under the conditions
prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section. Where head contact with seats or other
structure can occur, protection must be provided so that the head impact does not exceed
a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) of 1,000 units. The level of HIC is defined by the equation:
Where:
t1 is the initial integration time,
t2 is the final integration time, and

31 | P a g e
a(t) is the total acceleration vs. time curve for the head strike, and where
(t) is in seconds, and (a) is in units of gravity (g).
(6) Where leg injuries may result from contact with seats or other structure, protection
must be provided to prevent axially compressive loads exceeding 2,250 pounds in each
femur.
(7) The seat must remain attached at all points of attachment, although the structure may
have yielded.
(8) Seats must not yield under the tests specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this
section to the extent they would impede rapid evacuation of the airplane occupants.
[Amdt. 25-64, 53 FR 17646, May 17, 1988]

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-561: General Emergency Landing Ultimate Loads
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-562 provides guidelines on emergency landing dynamic

loads specifically related to seats, all kinds of seats such as passenger seats, FA seats,
and even jump seats (these are flip up cushion seats attached to interior monuments used
by flight crew).
Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads - Interiors Structures Related Stuff
OK, this regulation pretty much deals exclusively with seats, their attachments to the seat
track floor structure, their dynamic test conditions for certification etc.
So what does this have anything to do with the other monument structures such as
bulkheads or partitions/dividers or galleys or lavatories?

32 | P a g e
It does have an indirect impact. Let us examine these impacts below.
Monument Stiffness and Head Injury Criteria (HIC):
The regulation specifies the load factors and testing requirements for seat certification.
And these tests are dynamic tests. The seats are accelerated to 16G and then brought to
a total stop as specified in the regulation within a specific time period.
Click - Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads Seat Test Video
Generally, anytime there is a monument in front of a row of seats, the common practice
is to maintain a gap that is large enough that the test dummy head misses it completely.
But when this is not possible for whatever reason, then the stiffness of the monument in
front of the seats becomes important. This is because the test must simulate the contact
between the test dummy head and the monument structure in front of it, to meet the
stringent HIC criteria for certification.
As we can see in the video above, passenger seats only have the waist harness. The
dummy head is moving and basically hits the knees. But if it is obstructed by a windscreen
or a partition for example, then the HIC number due to the emergency landing dynamic
load test requirement may be too high to certify the seat and the layout of passengers
(LOPA).
This dynamic load may also need to be considered as a separate load case if other load
cases are not as critical to certify that monument.
Flight Loads for Jump Seats:
From the Ultimate Loads post, we know that there are certain load cases that are specific
to in flight turbulence, for example the 6.5G DOWN flight load case.

33 | P a g e
Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads Jump Seat (Credit Getty Images)
Jump seats are not supposed to be used as TTL seats, meaning they are not allowed to
be used for Taxi Takeoff Landing (TTL). And they do not have any seat track attachments
like normal TTL seats do.
Therefore, emergency landing dynamic loads are not applicable. However, the DOWN
flight loads are significant, especially considering the weight of the crew member and the
seat weight itself.

34 | P a g e
Typical weight that is used for jump seat certification is 220lb which includes the FAA
dummy weight of about 170lb and roughly 50lb for the seat installation. But some DERs
may allow a lower weight based on their own experience.
So why are we talking about flight loads suddenly?
Because there is a tangent effect that needs to be considered for jump seats attached to
monuments.
Just like the seat belts, the jump seats and attachments are also required to be certified
for severe wear and tear factor of 1.33, due to frequent in flight use.
Although not common, some DERs may require that this factor be extended to the
monument structure attachments (such as floor fitting installations) to the aircraft structure
under this jump seat. So, keep this in mind and do not be alarmed if it happens to you,
you heard it from me, :-)
Aircraft Structures Modeling

Course

35 | P a g e
Hazardous Unreliable Design Features
We will try to understand what it means to avoid Hazardous Unreliable Design Features.
In this relatively short post, we will dig into the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section
25-601.
25.601 - Hazardous Unreliable Design Features
The airplane may not have design features or details that experience has shown to be
hazardous or unreliable. The suitability of each questionable design detail and part must
be established by tests.
In the previous posts, we looked at:

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-562: Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads
Hazardous Unreliable Design Features - General Interpretation
One simple blanket statement, the regulation basically envelopes the general requirement
that mandates the avoidance and elimination of any Hazardous Unreliable Design
Features that experience has brought to light.
So, what is the major lesson here? The FAA is making sure that plane design is done in
a way that learns from past mistakes, catastrophes, crashes etc. that were the result of
using a hazardous unreliable design feature.

36 | P a g e
One of the more recent examples for this is the Li-Ion battery issues that came to light on
the Boeing 787. Various measures and special conditions had to be implemented due to
the fires from those batteries.
So we now know that those batteries and containment, if not designed and tested
properly, is a hazardous unreliable design feature regulated by 14 CFR Subpart C Part
25.601. Hence compliance must be shown by test if a similar battery design and
containment is used in a new plane design.
The FAA imposed special conditions to comply with this regulation on Li-Ion batteries and
containment installations, such as 14 CFR 25.1353 for electrical equipment installations,
and 14 CFR Part 25.863 which was originally not intended for batteries but for flammable
fluid fire protection requirements.
Hazardous Unreliable Design Features - Interiors Interpretation
This regulation's impact on cabin interiors has also led to many improvements in design.
For example, if a glass partition was designed for aesthetic purposes, but let us say it has
been proven to be one of the hazardous unreliable design features. The glass shatters
under certain conditions thus seriously inhibiting safe egress of the occupants.
Maybe there are certain seat belt design features that are also hazardous unreliable
design features that violate 14 CFR 25.601, unless they are tested to comply with the
regulation, they cannot be certified.
The above are just examples, compliance with 14 CFR 25.601 ensures that such
hazardous unreliable design features do not make it to production, unless certified by test
and proven to be safe and reliable.
The intent of this regulation is not to regulate every little aspect of airplane design but to
make sure manufacturers and OEMs learn from past bad ideas and hazardous unreliable
design features, or even unusual and novel design features that do not have sufficient
regulations to ensure safety of such features.

37 | P a g e
14 CFR Part 25.603 Materials
In this post, we will dig into the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-603 -
Materials. Its all about quality, material quality is critical to safe and long lasting
aerospace structures.
25.603 - Materials
The suitability and durability of materials used for parts, the failure of which could
adversely affect safety, must
(a) Be established on the basis of experience or tests;
(b) Conform to approved specifications (such as industry or military specifications, or

Technical Standard Orders) that ensure their having the strength and other properties
assumed in the design data; and
(c) Take into account the effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature and
humidity, expected in service.
Dec. 20 1976; Amdt. 25-46, 43 FR 50595, Oct. 30, 1978]

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-601: Hazardous Unreliable Design Features

38 | P a g e
So much rides on this regulation. It is probably fair to say that the entire path to
certification hinges on compliance with this one regulation.
Let me explain what I mean...
(a) Materials - Statistical Basis & Test Data
Aerospace material applications are heavy on process specifications approved by the

FAA, and strength values developed based on extensive FAA approved testing, as well
as actual fleet flight experience. One of the most commonly used documents in this
regard is MMPDS (Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization). We
discussed in detail about the tables in this critical document, learn more about A-Basis
and B-Basis allowable values.
Figure 1: Typical MMPDS Mechanical Properties Table, 2024 Plate

39 | P a g e
If a part is made from a material listed in MMPDS, and the various material strength,
temperature dependency and fatigue data found in this document is strictly followed in
sizing the components, then the path to certification is that much more simple with the
FAA.
The point here is that materials used in aerospace applications must have very well
established strength, durability, and process specifications, with supporting test data for
a clear path to certification and use in aerospace applications. WHY? SAFETY...... that is
the cardinal rule.
Let us say you are an adventurist, and you are about to embark on an expedition that you
have never been on before. How do you really feel safe about it? You guessed it, with the
knowledge of people who have already been there done that and documented everything
about that adventure.
You researched it, understand it and make sure to implement every rule of it, and that is
how the FAA feels confident about products that come to its doors for certification as well.
A manufacturer than can consistently and diligently demonstrate this has a lot to gain and
maintain.
(b) Materials - Approved Specifications
Aerospace grade materials must comply with stringent

manufacturing process requirements. What the heck does that mean?
In simpler terms, any aerospace part must be made from a material that complies with
strict manufacturing process standards acceptable for use in aerospace applications.

40 | P a g e
Figure 2: NAS Materials
Per 14CFR 25.603(b), all structural materials and fasteners must conform to approved
specifications. For example, aluminum materials must be specified using Aerospace
Material Specifications (AMS) maintained by the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Fasteners must be specified using Army-Navy (AN), Military Specification (MS), and
National Aerospace Standard (NAS) specifications. If a material specification or fastener
specification is used which is not published by one of the organizations listed above
(example: Hi-Loks) then that specification must be approved by the respective ODA as a
part of each project on which it is used.
Aerospace materials specifications include composition, statistical test data

requirements, temper data, tested strength data, among other important information. Any
supplier is required to comply with these requirements in order to be a certified supplier
acceptable to the procurement departments of aerospace manufacturers.
WHY? It is all about safety of you and me.
Humans without wings flying at 30,000 to 40,0000 feet above sea level, sitting in a seat
inside a pressurized barrel is unnatural and no joke.
It is serious business and extremely risky. And without quality materials helping us do
that, it is simply impossible.

41 | P a g e
(c) Materials - Environmental Effects
Is it enough to follow the specifications? Of course not.
Temperature effects, humidity effects, corrosion treatment (anodization) effects, static

electricity, sonic fatigue, pressure, mechanical vibration fatigue and many other
considerations are required for certification with the aerospace certifying authorities
(example FAA, EASA etc.).
Let us consider the engine nacelle for example. If there is one part of the aircraft where
Armageddon shines, that is the engine nacelle and the engine itself. It is probably where
the worst of the worst conditions come together in perfect synergy, and where the first
line of safe flight defense begins.

42 | P a g e
Environmental effects such as the impact of high temperature on the fatigue and durability
of a component, corrosion resistant anodization treatment of Aluminum parts etc. must
all be accounted for in the sizing of these parts.
The key to the critical path to certification (CPTC) for these conditions is the use of a
material that complies with all of these important regulations.
Learn more about how this regulation ties into the Proof of Structure regulation. Learn
more about A-Basis and B-Basis allowable values.
Aircraft Structures Modeling

Course

43 | P a g e
14 CFR Part 25-605 - Fabrication
Methods
In this post, we will explore the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25.605 -
Fabrication Methods. Manufacturing process specifications and quality control is the
focus of this post.
25.605 - Fabrication Methods
(a) The methods of fabrication used must produce a consistently sound structure. If a
fabrication process (such as gluing, spot welding, or heat treating) requires close control
to reach this objective, the process must be performed under an approved process
specification.
(b) Each new aircraft fabrication method must be substantiated by a test program.
Oct. 30, 1978]


44 | P a g e
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-603: Materials
In the last post on materials, we discussed the importance of the quality of materials.
Such materials are used to manufacture parts and products. But how can we make sure
that every time a product is manufactured, especially the same part is used on multiple
aircraft, the part is essentially the same in terms of structural integrity? This is where the
fabrication methods regulation kicks in. It is not enough to simply use quality materials,
the fabrication methods used also are of critical importance.
(a) Fabrication Methods: Consistency
Consider our good old sandwich panel, it is typically manufactured in large quantities,
meaning mass produced.
In part (a) of this regulation, the FAA is basically saying that the "manufacturing process
specifications" of these panels, or the fabrication methods, must be nailed down to be
consistent and certified. In such situations, it is acceptable to prove to the FAA that the
panels produced meet the requirement of consistent quality and strength requirements,
with an approved testing schedule of samples of those panels. The emphasis of this
regulation also shines light on the quality control of the fabrication methods.
This way, every single panel does not need to be tested for compliance with the
regulations. WHY? Because you already have a certified "process specification" with
coupon testing and documentation procedures in place to convince the FAA that you
don't need to test every panel. This also ties into developing A-Basis and B-
Basis allowable values.

45 | P a g e
Joints are critical for the health of the load path of any assembly structure. Not only is this
regulation applicable to individual parts, but also to assemblies that use various types of
joints including fastened and bonded joints. For bonded joints, the fabrication methods
relate to mixing of the structural adhesive, and testing samples of that adhesive using lap
shear test coupons to ensure consistent results. Same applies to potted insert fabrication
methods in sandwich panels.
(b) Fabrication Methods - New Methods and Testing
As Boeing, Airbus and other OEMs did with radically new composite airframe structures
for example, if some day you come up with brand new fabrication methods to
manufacture a jet engine out of carbon nano tubes, or maybe you figured out how to make
the wings from a special kind of spider web material (I am kidding of course, but you get
the idea, and don't let me stop your imagination from flying high..), it must be proven to
the FAA that the same structure is in compliance with all the regulations via an extensive
testing program.
These new radical fabrication methods must also have certified process specifications to
ensure consistent quality of the part or end product that can use the results of the testing
program for compliance.

46 | P a g e
14 CFR Part 25.607 - Fasteners
Fasteners.
Before you read on, I suggest you read through this advisory circular: AC20-71
25.607 Fasteners
(a) Each removable bolt, screw, nut, pin, or other removable fastener must incorporate two
separate locking devices if
(1) Its loss could preclude continued flight and landing within the design limitations of the
airplane using normal pilot skill and strength; or

47 | P a g e
(2) Its loss could result in reduction in pitch, yaw, or roll control capability or response
below that required by Subpart B of this chapter.
(b) The fasteners specified in paragraph (a) of this section and their locking devices may not be
adversely affected by the environmental conditions associated with the particular installation.
(c) No self-locking nut may be used on any bolt subject to rotation in operation unless a non-
friction locking device is used in addition to the self-locking device.
[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5674, Apr. 8, 1970]

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-605: Fabrication Methods
In the last post, we studied the importance of fabrication methods and process
specifications. In this post, we will dig into a very important design feature that must be
used for critical fasteners to comply with this regulation.

48 | P a g e
(a) Fasteners: Dual Locking Devices
As is clear from part (a) of this regulation (see the regulation text above), removable
fasteners that are primarily intended to transfer shear load (single or double) between
critical joint members must incorporate two separate locking devices or features. This is
applicable to bolts that also serve as axis of rotation for the joint members.
It is common practice to include one locking device, such as self-locking nut with a detent
in the threads. But for critical applications such as control surfaces rotating using clevis
and bolt fulcrum parts, dual locking devices are mandatory as the loss of this bolt (slipping
or sliding out due to failure of the single locking device) would impact safe flight and
landing.
(b) Fasteners: Environmental Impacts
This could be high temperatures, corrosion, cracks etc. Therefore, only

approved materials with proper heat treatments must be used for critical applications.
Common fastener specifications include NAS, MS or Hi-Lok type fasteners that are
commonly used for most applications.
(c) Fasteners: Rotating Bolts
If the bolt or fastener is designed to rotate in the applications, or is allowed to rotate, then
a self-locking nut or any self-locking device is not allowed. In such cases, other non-
friction type devices must be used such as cotter pins that pass through the shank and
the head of the bolt.
Read this article for more details: Non Self Locking Nuts

49 | P a g e
14 CFR Part 25.609 - Protection of
Aircraft Structure Components
In this post we will explore the next regulation, 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25.609 -
Protection of Structure.
25.609 Protection of Structure
Each part of the structure must -
(a) Be suitably protected against deterioration or loss of strength in service due to any
cause, including -
(1) Weathering;
(2) Corrosion; and
(3) Abrasion; and
(b) Have provisions for ventilation and drainage where necessary for protection.

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-607: Fasteners

50 | P a g e
Protection of structure is done in many ways, such as:
Special coatings
Surface chemical treatments
Heat treatments
Special design features
Protection Tapes etc.
(a) Structure Component Protection: Treatments
Let us discuss one such important treatment that affects aluminum parts, which
is "Anodization".
Benefits of Anodization:
So, what exactly is this process? Its a critical process to achieve protection against
corrosion for components made from aluminum alloys such as AL 2024, 7075 etc. There
are three main types of this process:
1. Type 1 (phosphoric acid thin layer)

2. Type 2 (sulfuric acid thin layer) and
3. Type 3 (thicker layer hard anodized)
For more details on this topic, refer to this link: Anodization
Check out this cool video:
https://youtu.be/O0GQPHh3Szk
So the benefits are obvious, it provides corrosion protection in areas of moisture and
acidic environments. But from a stress engineering standpoint, what are the downsides?

51 | P a g e
Drawbacks of Anodization:
The main mechanism of anodization is the creation of microscopic pores on the metal
surface during anodization. This process therefore has a detrimental influence on the
fatigue or endurance capability of these parts. Watch the video above to learn more about
the process.
Stress Impact:
The way this detrimental impact on the fatigue allowable stress is accounted for is by:
Either knocking down the fatigue allowable stress using a factor (depending on
a company's internal guidelines). This factor is between 0.0 < K < 1.0 (the thicker the
protection layer, the lower the anodization factor K due to deeper pores)
Or, assuming a stress concentration effect, thus dividing the applied tensile stress on the
component with the anodization factor K
The final stress value including the factor effect is used in the margin of safety
calculation.
Other Damage Mechanisms:
In addition, there are other mechanisms such as 'abrasion' caused by mechanical

vibrations and the like which also damage components and surfaces. Protection against
such damage can be achieved using special sealant tapes, check this link for an
example: Abrasion
Alright, now that we have covered that part, let us look at part (b).

52 | P a g e
(b) Structure Protection: Design Features
This part is a bit interesting because depending on its interpretation, the

term 'ventilation' can tie into one of the previous regulations I covered, 14 CFR
Subpart C Section 25-365: Pressurized Compartment Loads.
Note that here, we are talking about protection of structure against rapid decompression
loading using design features such as ventilation or drop down panels. This is covered in
detail in part (g) in the link above, so check it out. Vent areas are included throughout the
cabin and other areas to prevent excessive pressure differentials as discussed in the link
above.
Now, in the context of corrosion due to humidity or acidic conditions, ventilation could
be as simple as providing a path or conduit for humidity to escape. Similarly, in areas that
are expected to get wet, such as toilet floors or door entry areas, there may be special drain
hole design features that prevent water accumulation, thus reducing or preventing
corrosion.
Conclusion:
Aerospace components made from Aluminum alloys are typically protected against
corrosion using thin layer anodization. So as a stress engineer, you must account for the
fatigue capability knock down effect when writing fatigue margins. It is also important to
note that fatigue allowable stress is usually a low number compared to ultimate or yield
strength. So any knockdown could really hurt your fatigue margins.

53 | P a g e
14 CFR Part 25.613 Strength of
Materials
14 CFR Part 25.613 - Strength
of Materials and Material Design Values
Strength of Materials and Material Design Values.
25.613 Material strength properties and material design values.
(a) Material strength properties must be based on enough tests of material meeting
approved specifications to establish design values on a statistical basis.
(b) Material design values must be chosen to minimize the probability of structural
failures due to material variability. Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of
this section, compliance must be shown by selecting material design values which
assure material strength with the following probability:
(1) Where applied loads are eventually distributed through a single member within an
assembly, the failure of which would result in loss of structural integrity of the
component, 99 percent probability with 95 percent confidence.
(2) For redundant structure, in which the failure of individual elements would result in
applied loads being safely distributed to other load carrying members, 90 percent
probability with 95 percent confidence.
(c) The effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature and moisture, on

material design values used in an essential component or structure must be considered
where these effects are significant within the airplane operating envelope.
(d) [Reserved]

54 | P a g e
(e) Greater material design values may be used if a premium selection of the
material is made in which a specimen of each individual item is tested before use to
determine that the actual strength properties of that particular item will equal or
exceed those used in design.
(f) Other material design values may be used if approved by the Administrator.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-46, 43 FR 50595, Oct. 30,
1978; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29776, July 20, 1990; Amdt. 25-112, 68 FR 46431, Aug. 5, 2003]

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-607: Fasteners
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-609: Structure Protection
What you will learn in this post:
1. Strength of Materials: Mechanical Properties

2. Strength of Materials: Testing
3. Strength of Materials: Variability
4. Strength of Materials: When to use A-Basis Values
5. Strength of Materials: When to use B-Basis Values
6. Strength of Materials: Environmental Impacts - Temperature Reduction
Factor (TRF)
7. Strength of Materials: Environmental Impacts - Thermal Loads
8. Strength of Materials: Premium Properties
9. Strength of Materials: Conclusion

55 | P a g e
(a) (b) Strength of Materials: Mechanical Properties
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-603 provides basic guidance on strength of materials

in terms of allowable values and material specifications. In this new regulation, more
detailed guidance is included on the type of testing required to establish acceptable
material properties. For more information on this topic, check out this link: MMPDS
(a) Strength of Materials - Testing
Strength of Materials - Test Sample Lots
Part (a) if this regulation combines two things, acceptable material specifications as well
as tests required to establish the strength of materials and their properties.

56 | P a g e
One of the best sources for such material properties is MMPDS. MMPDS is possibly the
only document that is acceptable to the FAA for strength of materials and design allowable
properties for most cases. Without it, certification with the FAA is possible, but it can get
much more complicated and expensive.
The strength of materials must be established on a statistical basis. For example, in

MMPDS, all aluminum alloy materials need at least 100 samples from 10 different lots
and heats to produce the data that is required in statistical reduction. Most of the
aluminum alloys used in the aerospace industry must also meet AMS (SAE Aerospace
Materials Specification) requirements.
If you would like to learn more about the STAT17 tool used to perform statistical
reduction, then check out this link: STAT17
(b) Strength of Materials - Variability
When tested as described in part (a) above, it is quite possible there is some variation
among the 100 different test results in the strength of materials.
This is not good as we need to rely on a strength value to write the margin of safety,
especially if the structure is a single load path structure.
Hence, we need confidence in the strength of materials values. This is the main driver for
the large number of samples and therefore the need for statistical reduction to a single
value. The values fall into three main categories.
1. S-Basis: This is the material specification minimum value

2. B-Basis: At least 90% of the test sample population equals or exceeds the specification
minimum value with 95% confidence
3. A-Basis: At least 99% of the test sample population equals or exceeds the specification
minimum value with 95% confidence (more stringent than B-Basis)
Typically, B-Basis values are higher (although not always) than A-Basis values. But the
use of these values depends on the type of structure, as noted in the regulation, and
explained more below so keep reading.

57 | P a g e
(b)(1) Strength of Materials - When to use A-Basis
(1) Where applied loads are eventually distributed through a single member within an
assembly, the failure of which would result in loss of structural integrity of the
component, 99 percent probability with 95 percent confidence.
What this means is that there are no fail-safe load paths possible in the assembly, and
there is only one primary load path. The failure of this load path results in catastrophic
failure or significant safety issues. In such cases, the more stringent A-Basis strength of
materials must be used.
(b)(2) Strength of Materials - When to use B-Basis
(2) For redundant structure, in which the failure of individual elements would result in
applied loads being safely distributed to other load carrying members, 90 percent
probability with 95 percent confidence.
In a redundant structure, there are multiple load paths in the assembly. The failure of one
member results in the safe redistribution or redundant load redistribution to other
members in the same assembly. In such cases, B-Basis strength of materials values are
allowed.
Strength of Materials When to use B-Basis

58 | P a g e
Having said that, in general sizing (stress analysis sizing) practice in the aerospace
industry, it is always recommended to use A-Basis values whenever possible. If this results
in a negative margin, then justification must be shown for the use of B-Basis allowable
values.
An example may be a joint that has multiple fasteners or rivets. If the failure of one
fastener or rivet (negative MS with A-Basis) is shown to safely redistribute the load to the
redundant fasteners or rivets, and has a positive margin using B-Basis, then B-Basis is
acceptable per this regulation.
(c) Strength of Materials: Environmental Impacts - Temperature
Strength of Materials - Environmental Impacts - TRF
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-609 covered important aspects related to the negative
impacts of corrosion, humidity, and other factors on the strength of materials.
It also covers the means of protection against such issues and the positive and negative
side effects of these means of protection. For example, anodizing is used against corrosion
of aluminum alloys, so read that post if you want to learn more.
In this regulation, the main topic is temperature. Temperature, either very hot or very
cold, has the impact of either decreasing or slightly increasing the strength of materials
respectively, if it is strictly based on an estimated temperature reduction factor (TRF).
The effect of any extrapolated TRF increasing the strength of materials allowable value at
low temperatures (well below room temperature) is generally disallowed, and the cut off
is set at "no change" from room temperature value for low temperatures.
But for higher temperatures, the TRF is a factor that is less than 1.0. and must be
multiplied with the strength of materials to determine the actual allowable value under
the temperature environment. The TRF is generally obtained from existing curves
included in MMPDS for a material and temper as well as raw material form.

59 | P a g e
For example, the figure below shows MMPDS Figure 3.7.5.2.1(a). This chart shows the
reduction in the ultimate tensile strength of Aluminum Alloy 7050-T7451 plate, exposed
to various elevated temperatures for up to 10,000 hours. The TRF is the read across value
on the vertical axis for a temperature on the horizontal axis for a given exposure curve.
The TRF is expressed as a percentage value compared to the room temperature strength.
Strength of Materials - TRF
If you draw a vertical line from 240 Deg. F and intersect with the 10,000-hour exposure
curve, and then read across on the vertical axis, we get TRF = 0.76

60 | P a g e
A component made from Al alloy 7050-T7451 plate at 240 Deg. F temperature may easily
be exposed to such temperatures inside an engine nacelle, or maybe within a non-
ventilated enclosure of the primary structure on a hot day in a desert airport for a few
hours.
Hence, the room temperature ultimate tensile (as well as shear, bearing and Young's
modulus if separate curves are not available for each ultimate value) strength of materials
may be reduced by a factor of 0.76 for calculations purposes. This method or practice may
vary from company to company, but the fact remains that the TRF must be accounted for.
Strength of Materials - Environmental Impacts - Thermal Loads
Another important compliance factor is the thermally induced load which may also affect
the induced load within various components. So, thermal loads may have to be added to
or subtracted from a mechanical load case induced load, in a particular component, under
a thermal environment corresponding to that mechanical or aero load case.
(c) Strength of Materials: Premium Properties
There may be situations during the service life cycle of a component, a different material
is required for one time use which was not used before by that manufacturer.
Or, there may be a unique assembly whose collective strength is tested for a one time use
on a particular aircraft application. In such cases, the component or assembly is tested
using close to exact load and constraint conditions, to determine the superior strength.
Of course, the use of safety factors is understood in margin calculations. This is submitted
to the FAA for certification of that part or assembly, instead of using any MMPDS values,
which may be lower than needed. The assumption here is that the part or assembly is not
included in a multiple STC for that design, in other words it is not duplicated and used on
any other application or aircraft except for that one time for an STC.

61 | P a g e
Strength of Materials: Conclusion
For a stress engineer, it is crucial to understand the importance of this regulation.
The variation in the strength of materials due to various factors

When to use A-Basis or B-Basis values and what are these values
The importance of the TRF
These concepts can have a significant impact, especially on fatigue strengths, and
therefore also have a significant sizing impact on a component.

62 | P a g e
14 CFR Part 25.619 - 625: Various
Factors Including Fitting Factor
In this post, we will explore the next series of regulations, 14 CFR Part 25.619 thru 625.
These cover special factors, casting factor, bearing factor and fitting factor. But mainly we
will focus on the "fitting factor".
25.625 Fitting Factor.
For each fitting (a part or terminal used to join one structural member to another), the
following apply:
(a) For each fitting whose strength is not proven by limit and ultimate load tests in
which actual stress conditions are simulated in the fitting and surrounding structures,
a fitting factor of at least 1.15 must be applied to each part of -
(1) The fitting;
(2) The means of attachment; and
(3) The bearing on the joined members.
(b) No fitting factor need be used -
(1) For joints made under approved practices and based on comprehensive test
data (such as continuous joints in metal plating, welded joints, and scarf joints
in wood); or
(2) With respect to any bearing surface for which a larger special factor is used.
(c) For each integral fitting, the part must be treated as a fitting up to the point at
which the section properties become typical of the member.
(d) For each seat, berth, safety belt, and harness, the fitting factor specified in
25.785(f)(3) applies.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5674, Apr. 8,
1970; Amdt. 25-72, 55 FR 29776, July 20, 1990]

63 | P a g e
1. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301: Loads

2. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303: Factor of Safety
3. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305: Strength and Deformation
4. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307: Proof of Structure
5. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-365: Pressurized Compartment Loads
6. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-561: General Emergency Landing Ultimate Loads
7. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-562: Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads
8. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-601: Hazardous Unreliable Design Features
9. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-603: Materials
10. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-605: Fabrication Methods
11. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-607: Fasteners
12. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-609: Structure Protection
13. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-613: Strength of Materials
(a) Fitting Factor: Applicability
14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303 provides guidance on the safety factors related to
limit and ultimate loads. In addition, this regulation requires a factor called the "fitting
factor".
The pesky question many engineers face is:
"What is a fitting factor and when do we need to apply this fitting factor?"
The answer varies by company, sometimes the fitting factor can be an obscure thing to
pin down. But, if you were to sum the reason up in one word, it would
be "UNCERTAINTY".
Reading the text in part (a) of this regulation we can interpret it as follows:
Considering a structural load path, if the members along this load path are
not actually tested to the actual loading and stress conditions, instead
certified by analysis, then a fitting factor must be applied to account for the
variability in analysis/material/manufacturing conditions of each part of the
installation, viz.,

64 | P a g e
1. The fitting itself (section checks, crippling checks etc. as applicable)
2. The fasteners (means of attachment - fastener tension and shear interaction checks)
3. Joint bearing (fastener hole bearing checks)
Fitting Factor: Components
For limit and ultimate cases, a fitting factor of 1.15 is applicable (only in cases where
wear and tear is not an issue, or frequent removal and installation is not required).
Panel pin joints also require the 1.15 fitting factor.
The figure below is a schematic of a sandwich panel floor fitting installation (upstream
of the fitting), and its components. Each of these components will require the 1.15 fitting
factor:
The fitting itself

Screws
Panel inserts
Fitting Factor - Fitting Installation Upstream Components

65 | P a g e
The same is applicable to components downstream of the fitting, up to the floor
structure (not shown in the figure above):
The tie down bolts

Fitting base checks
Fitting tie down bolt hole bearing and pull out checks
Any washers (if applicable)
Seat track fittings (if actual test data for the exact seat track fitting is available),
joint fitting factor of 1.15 is required
Seat track lip
(b) Fitting Factor: Exceptions
So, in what situations can the fitting factor be omitted? Again, this can vary from company
to company.
But typically:
When an actual production assembly is tested and this assembly is used only once, no
fitting factor is necessary
If a joint is manufactured based on a standard process already tested and certified and
allowable values are known from comprehensive tests
If a larger special factor is used for a cast part in the fitting installation, then that part does
not need any other fitting factor
In general, a fitting factor is not required for the sandwich panel checks in cabin interiors
(c) Fitting Factor: Integral Fittings
If one portion of a structural member is machined or formed or cast as part of that

larger member and used to transfer load, then it is considered an integral 'fitting' or
attachment structure.
Examples maybe:
Integrally formed attachment rings

Radome attachment structures
Lugs on larger machined or formed or extruded parts, for example engine pylon or
nacelle hinge or latch beam lugs
Hydraulic tubing end fittings etc.

66 | P a g e
The fitting factor of 1.15 is applicable to these features and beyond for relevant strength checks.
It must be applied until the section properties of the larger portion of the structure become
consistent or typical and do not change much.
(d) Fitting Factor: Wear and Tear
Part (d) of this regulation refers to a different regulation that requires a higher 1.33
fitting factor for components subjected to frequent removal and installation or
frequent operation, thus leading to wear and tear.
Examples of such components may be:
1. Restraint devices such as quarter turn bolts

2. Door latches
3. All seat belt components
4. Jump seat or flight attendant seat attachments
5. Depending on the DER or ODA requirements, you may also need this factor for seat
track fittings and bolts
Now let us briefly touch on the other factors.
Casting Factor: Additional factor to account for the Casting process
In some cases, critical components may be made using the casting process, and 14 CFR
Part 25-621 provides guidance on it.
But why is this done? Generally, it is done to reduce manufacturing costs for high
volume ship sets, and cutting down machining and material costs.
For a detailed explanation of the impacts and safety factors, refer to this FAA AC
(Advisory Circular): AC 25.621-1, Casting Factors
Bearing Factor: Additional factor to account for loose fitting bearing

joints
14 CFR Part 25-623 provides guidance on pin or fastener joints that may have a
significant gap by design. In such case, the parts will most likely pound each other's
bearing surfaces due to vibration. This has a detrimental impact on the bearing strength
margin. Therefore, a safety factor is used to account for this behavior.

67 | P a g e
But, if a larger special factor is used for some reason (for example a larger casting factor
in case of cast parts), no special bearing factor or fitting factor is required.
Fitting Factor: Conclusions
To be safe, in most instances, a DER or an ODA Unit Member or the customer may require
the 1.15 fitting factor for all parts of the load path.
The general form of use for the fitting factor is as follows:
MS = Allowable Load / (FF * Applied Load) - 1 = Allowable Load / (1.15 * Applied Load)
-1
OR
MS = Allowable Stress / (FF * Applied Stress) - 1 = Allowable Stress / (1.15 * Applied

Stress) - 1
But there may be situations where you get a negative MS with an unnecessary fitting factor
requirement, for example:
The MRB or production stress engineer does not have enough wiggle room in the MS value
in case of a repair or a defect tag
May be there is a change in applied loading
Or a maybe there is a change in part design
In such cases, the 1.15 fitting factor may be negotiated out upon the approval of the
signatory authority (DER) or signatory body (ODA Unit).
That's it for this post... Hope you enjoyed this post.
How did you use the fitting factor in your own experience? Comment below
the post....
Cheers...

68 | P a g e
14 CFR Part 25.787: Stowage
Compartments
In this post, we will dig into the next regulation, 14 CFR Part 25.787. This one is related
to cabin stowage compartments. It is more relevant to the interior cabin or cargo areas of
the aircraft.
25.787 Stowage compartments.
(a) Each compartment for the stowage of cargo, baggage, carry-on articles, and
equipment (such as life rafts), and any other stowage compartment, must be designed
for its placarded maximum weight of contents and for the critical load distribution at
the appropriate maximum load factors corresponding to the specified flight and
ground load conditions, and to those emergency landing conditions of 25.561(b)(3)
for which the breaking loose of the contents of such compartments in the specified
direction could -
(1) Cause direct injury to occupants;
(2) Penetrate fuel tanks or lines or cause fire or explosion hazard by damage to
adjacent systems; or
(3) Nullify any of the escape facilities provided for use after an emergency landing.
If the airplane has a passenger-seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 10 seats or

more, each stowage compartment in the passenger cabin, except for under seat and overhead
compartments for passenger convenience, must be completely enclosed.
(b) There must be a means to prevent the contents in the compartments from becoming
a hazard by shifting, under the loads specified in paragraph (a) of this section. For
stowage compartments in the passenger and crew cabin, if the means used is a latched
door, the design must take into consideration the wear and deterioration expected in
service.

69 | P a g e
(c) If cargo compartment lamps are installed, each lamp must be installed so as to
prevent contact between lamp bulb and cargo.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-32, 37 FR 3969, Feb. 24,
1972; Amdt. 25-38, 41 FR 55466, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 25-51, 45 FR 7755, Feb. 4, 1980; Amdt.
25-139, 79 FR 59430, Oct. 2, 2014]
1. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301: Loads

2. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303: Factor of Safety
3. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305: Strength and Deformation
4. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307: Proof of Structure
5. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-365: Pressurized Compartment Loads
6. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-561: General Emergency Landing Ultimate Loads
7. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-562: Emergency Landing Dynamic Loads
8. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-601: Hazardous Unreliable Design Features
9. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-603: Materials
10. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-605: Fabrication Methods
11. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-607: Fasteners
12. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-609: Structure Protection
13. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-613: Strength of Materials
14. 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25.619-625: Fitting Factor
[Tweet "http://www.stressebook.com/stowage-compartments/"]
(a) Stowage Compartments: Load Factors
Throughout the cabin of a large aircraft, there can be literally hundreds of different
stowage compartments. Some examples are as follows:
1. Emergency Equipment Stowage Compartments

2. Miscellaneous Stowage Compartments
3. Coat Rod Stowage Compartments
4. Standard Unit Stowage Compartments
5. Half and Full Size Meal Cart Stowage Compartments
6. Overhead Baggage Stowage Compartments
7. Oven or Microwave Stowage Compartments
8. PSU Stowage Compartments
9. Etc.

70 | P a g e
Stowage Compartments: Placards
Any of these stowage compartments may face any direction, FWD/Aft or Side or DOWN
directions. In each case, the contents must be secured.
A placard is a small sheet metal label that indicates the maximum certified weight that
the compartment can hold, and other details. There may be thousands of these little
placards in a large aircraft, indicating various things to the cabin crew and passengers.
Stowage Compartments: Loading
Stowage compartments restraint devices (doors, latches, quarter turns etc.) must be
certified to the maximum load factors and under the worst possible loading conditions.
For example, consider a large compartment door (loose contents) facing the FWD
direction with a latch at the top and bottom. The worst possible loading would be a bottom
concentrated load with the bottom latch disengaged. Similarly, to account for load shifting
a 60-40 load ratio may be used. This is done to analyze the restraint devices on each side
of the door including the door latch assembly, the door hinge assembly and associated
hardware.
Aircraft Cabin Structures Modeling Course

71 | P a g e
Stowage Compartments: Enclosure
The regulation also mandates full enclosure of stowage compartments for more than 10
seats. This means that the stowage compartments must include doors with latches, or
appropriate restraint devices to enclose the contents completely.
Stowage Compartments: Volumetric Density
The regulation does not provide any specifics on the density to be used for the contents of
stowage compartments that are meant for miscellaneous stowage. This guidance may be
provided by the DER.
In general, the highest density is 10 lb/ft^3, this may decrease based on the height of the
CG points of the stowage compartments. However, for overhead stowage the DER may
specify 10 lb/ft^3. In addition, there may be DER requirements for higher densities or
rounding off of the placard maximum weights to the nearest 5 lb.
Stowage Compartments: Spring Loaded Doors
Another variation of compliance to this regulation is the possibility that a non-spring

loaded door is in the way of a rapid emergency evacuation. Such doors are designed to
always close using a spring-loaded door hinge mechanism to meet compliance
requirements of this regulation.
Stowage Compartments: Safety
The key to compliance is 'safety'. The contents should not break free due to non-inclusive
loading and result in any of the (1) (2) or (3) conditions as noted in part (a) of the
regulation.

72 | P a g e
Finite Element Analysis Course
(b) Stowage Compartments: Shifting and 'Wear and Tear'
It is possible that the contents within the stowage compartments may shift during flight.
In some cases, this can damage the fiberglass skin of the stowage compartments panels.
For example, standard units or meal carts are usually made from metal casings with sharp
corners. Rub strips and other features not only serve as protection against panel puncture
from these contents, but also to constrain the contents from shifting and imposing
unexpected loading on the restraint devices.
In the case of the cargo areas, the shifting of the baggage can cause huge issues. The
overall CG of the baggage compartment can shift so much that it can be a hazard to safe
flight controls. This is the reason for using cargo nets, strap down nets and other restraint
devices in the cargo bay.
There are two ways to ensure compliance to the 'wear and tear' component of part (b) of
this regulation.
Stowage Compartments: Door Dual Latching
One acceptable way to comply with part (b) is by providing dual latching mechanisms
on the doors of stowage compartments.

73 | P a g e
On larger doors, there may be two latches spaced farther apart, with a single bolt in each
latch. Both may have to be engaged manually. Optionally, one of the latch bolts may be
spring loaded, and the other must be engaged manually.
On smaller doors, there may be one single latch with two bolts, either both manual or
one spring loaded and one manual.
Stowage Compartments: 1.33 wear and tear factor
Latches and quarter turns are restraint devices that are frequently engaged and
disengaged. Dual latch design practice ensures compliance with the wear and tear
requirement. However, each bolt must be shown good for the total load, including the
1.33 wear and tear factor.
The idea is that for certification by analysis purposes, one bolt is assumed to be
disengaged or failed under the ultimate load per 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-561.
A couple of popular restraint device manufacturers are Actron, and Stealth, check out
their websites for more information.

74 | P a g e

14 CFR Part 25 Regulations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 CFR Part 25 Regulations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 CFR Subpart C & D Part 25

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301: Limit and Ultimate Loads

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

In case of cabin interiors, the ultimate loads prescribed in 25.561 is a well-established

Aircraft Structures Modeling Course

Similarly, in case of large deflections of full height unsupported cabin partitions or

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5672, Apr. 8, 1970]

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Limit Load Situations

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303

Combination Load Cases

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Engine Nacelle Load Cases

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303: Nacelle on ground

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Cabin Interiors Load Cases

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-303

So Tested Ultimate = 243,000 lbs per wing

Design MS = (Tested Ultimate - Design Ultimate)/(Design Ultimate)

But how do we find the design ultimate?

Hence Design Ultimate = 1.5 x Design limit

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Design Limit Per Wing = 135,000 lbs

Design Ultimate Per Wing = 135,000 x 1.5 = 202,500 lbs

Design MS = (Tested Ultimate - Design Ultimate)/(Design Ultimate)

Design MS = (243,000 - 202,500)/202,500 = +0.2

Thus the Design MS is found to be +20%.

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

25.305 - Strength and Deformation

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305

(a) Limit Load Interference

We already know that no permanent deformation is allowed up to limit loading. But it is

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Figure 1: 14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305 Deflections, FAA Policy Statement

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305

(b) Ultimate Load Pass Condition

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-305

(c) Stiffness Dependent Load Amplification

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

25.307 - Proof of Structure

In the previous sections, we looked at:

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-301: Loads

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307

(a) Substantiaton by Analysis or Test

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307: Compliance Balancing Act

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

14 CFR Subpart C Section 25-307

(d) Redundant Load Path

It is required to determine A and B basis allowable values during testing of

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved

Aircraft Structures Modeling Course

2014- Current Stress Ebook, LLC. All Rights Reserved