P7727 PDF

F-35 Program Information
Non-Export Controlled Information – Releasable to Foreign Persons
2014 USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Conference

San Antonio TX
Strategy for and the Importance of DaDT

Analysis Validation at the System Level
02 December, 2014
Dale L. Ball
T. Scott Limer
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
2014.12.02 © 2014 Lockheed Martin Corporation, All Rights Reserved.

Non-Technical Information

ABSTRACT
Durability and damage tolerance (DaDT) analyses are foundational to the ASIP process and are
required during virtually every one of the five tasks: from the generation of DaDT-based design
allowables during Task 2, to the development of representative full-scale test spectra in Task 3, to
the planning of force structural maintenance in Task 4 and the execution thereof in Task 5. The
criticality of these analyses cannot be overstated and demands that both validation of the
methods and verification of their software implementation be conducted early and thoroughly in
any ASIP guided structures development program. While the conduct of verification and
validation (V&V) programs within ASIP is not new, the dramatic increase in both the number and
complexity of DaDT analyses used to support the airworthiness certification process has raised
new challenges to the efficacy of such programs. These challenges will undoubtedly continue as
the industry moves toward virtual (digital) representation of products and even individual assets.
In this presentation we describe a strategy for the system level validation of an integrated
software system used for the DaDT analysis of several major military aircraft programs. The
strategy includes V&V of the individual components, as well system level survey exercises and
the application of the system for full scale durability test correlations. We cite several examples of
issues that can be discovered during system level V&V, including the non-application or mis-
application of design factors, the importance of the determination and use of local stresses for
fatigue calculations, and the advantages and shortcomings of coarse-grid (internal loads) finite
element model generated loads spectra.
Use or disclosure of the information contained herein is subject to the restrictions on the Cover Page
2014.12.02 © 2014 Lockheed Martin Corporation, All Rights Reserved. 2

• INTRODUCTION
• Component Validation
• System Level Surveys
• Application to FSDT RCA
• Concluding Remarks
DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

Introduction
• Aerospace community inexorably moving toward increased
reliance on computational simulation for:
– design
– certification
– force management (prognostics and risk analysis)
– digital twin
• Acceptance of analysis for these purposes cannot be achieved

until robust verification and validation (V&V) and uncertainty
quantification (UQ) are accomplished

Introduction
• Verification and validation (V&V) defined:
– Verification = demonstration that a

mathematical model has been
correctly implemented and that the
algorithmic implementation executes
properly
– Validation = demonstration that a

mathematical model correctly
represents the physical process /
phenomenon which it is intended to
represent

Introduction
• A third and necessary component of V&V is Uncertainty
Quantification (UQ)
– Physical system uncertainty
 Uncertainties due to lack of knowledge about the
physical system (epistemic)
– geometric – as-built vs. as designed
– material – inadequate characterization of properties
– loading – actual vs. design usage
– these uncertainties can be reduced with time and $
 Uncertainties due to inherent random variability in
physical process or system (aleatoric)
– these uncertainties are not reducible
– Model uncertainty
 Uncertainties due to lack of correspondence between
the model and the physical system
 These are epistemic and should be quantified as part of
analysis system V&V

Introduction
• Model V&V typically conducted using ‘building block’ approach
• Parallels structures development test program
full scale
Increasing Structural Complexity
model
Increasing Model Complexity

Ground & Flight Tests
Structures Development Manufacturing Development
component
Components
Design Allowables Materials & Process Qualification models
Analysis Calibration/Correlation Fabrication & Assembly Dev
Risk Reduction & Validation Risk Reduction & Validation
Structural Certification Mfg Process Verification
& Verification
Subcomponents
element
Legacy Metallics
Design Allowables
Legacy Non-Metallics models
Design Allowables
Aluminum, Titanium,
Steel, Etc. Elements Epoxy & BMI
AA A
Sect A-A
Coupons coupon
models

Introduction
Strategy for V&V of DaDT analysis system has three major
components:
V&V of analysis
system components
application of
conduct of system system during full scale
level material, loads durability test finding
and damage surveys root cause analyses

• Introduction
• COMPONENT VALIDATION

Analysis Component Validation
• Standard (ideal) V&V process calls
for parallel development of
computational models and physical
tests
• Iteration when acceptable
agreement between model and test
not achieved
• In many engineering applications,
schedule and budget do not permit
significant model development
• Under these conditions must use
reduced fidelity model, quantify
uncertainty associated with its use,
and apply correlation / correction
factors as required
ASME V&V process, 2006


• V&V of DaDT analysis system components includes:
– Identification and correction of errors in design data
 geometry
 material
 loading
– Identification and correction of errors in model
implementation – verification
– Quantification of correlation between model results and
physical data – validation
– Quantification of uncertainties due to
 poor representation of design parameters (over-
simplified models)
 stochastic nature of design parameters (material
properties, initial quality, operating environment, etc.)
 poor model fidelity

design
CAD data
allowable
local feature
stresses
detail model definition peak stress,
/ loading / local stress dist., classical fatigue
stress analysis SIF analysis fatigue
applied test
loads data correlations
design fatigue crack
materials material initiation
characterization properties
analysis DaDT
material analysis
test data results
fatigue fatigue fatigue crack
spectrum stress growth analysis
generation spectrum
loads force
spectrum management
data data
Six DaDT Analysis Components

Model definition, model loading, local stress
analysis
• Loads analysis and SCF, SIF tools
subjected to formal V&V
• Model geometry & loading definition
typically performed manually, subject to
human error
calculate peak
define model stress and local
CAD model
geometry, stress distribution
data geometry
dimensions • closed form solns.
• fgFEA
vehicle define applied calculate stress

internal / model
level loads loads (bypass, intensity factors
component applied
bending, • closed form solns.
analysis loads loads
bearing, etc.) • FEA / BEA

Model definition, model loading, local stress analysis (cont’d)
• Air vehicle (coarse grid) FEM used for loads analysis
• These models typically validated by correlation with strain-gage
results from full scale test
conservative
CAD solid
cgFEM calculated vs.

FST measured strain
cgFEM

Model definition, model loading, local stress analysis (cont’d):
• ‘Standard’ models are typically used for common design
features
• Closed form solutions are used
for stress concentration factors,
stress intensity factors
Standard model for Partial ABAQUS FE model with close-up of

A hole in a plate crack shown

• Solutions for standard models typically written in terms of
remote applied stress – available from cgFEM element(s)
• Many applications require fgFEA to determine local peak stress,
local stress distributions, and stress intensity factors
surface crack in fillet radius
Stress distribution on section A-A
fine grid FEA results calculated SIF for

surface crack in fillet radius

• Solutions are validated by comparison with industry
accepted FEA / BEA
conservative
comparison of closed form comparison of standard

and FEA calculated SIF for model and reference SIF
open hole in finite plate solutions

Materials characterization
• For DaDT analysis, material models are
typically simple, discrete design curves
• Validation consists primarily of
confirmation that design curve fits data,
and of quantification of data scatter
define design stress-
material strain curves
strength
data cyclic define design
stress-strain Cyclic stress-strain
and strain-life and strain-life curves
test data fatigue define design
crack growth fatigue crack growth
rate test rate curves
data fracture define design
toughness fracture toughness
test data behavior

Materials characterization (cont’d)
• Example: fit design curve fit to measured fatigue crack growth
rate (FCGR) data
• For a given alloy, product form, grain orientation, and
environment, fit individual curves at each stress ratio
• For a given stress ratio, examine ratio of model predicted and
test measured FCGR for each point in test database
conservative
comparison of measured model vs measured model vs measured

FCGR data and design curve FCGR data FCGR data

Fatigue spectrum generation
• Design spectra are generated using AV-
FEM approach
• AV-FEM validated by correlation with FST
measured strains (described above)
• stress history generator and stress
spectrum generator require manual
verification (e.g. simple benchmarks run in
interpretive mode)
external FEA of element generate stress
FEM
loads for fatigue stress history spectrum
results
fatigue load load cases generation • channel comb’n
database
cases • turning point def.
• scaling
master • filtering
event • clipping
• cycle counting
sequence

Fatigue spectrum generation (cont’d)
• Operation of element history generator can be checked by
comparing element results to independently generated internal
load spectrum
conservative
AV-FEM generated vs
WBM generated CP stresses
WRBM @ BL X

Fatigue spectrum generation
(cont’d)
• CP stress spectrum
generation procedures require
manual verification
– CP stress calculation
(channel combination,
application of factors)
– turning point definition,
sequence filtering
– cycle counting (rainflow
or range pair)
– Clipping
• These procedures are
validated by demonstration of
improved FCI or FCG test
correlation

Fatigue crack initiation analysis
• Two primary components of analysis:
– stress-strain hysteresis loop tracking
– damage calculation (including mean
stress & strain effects)
• Subjected to V&V individually
peak
stress, stress
distribution
calculate fatigue crack
cyclic initiation life
stress-strain, • local stress-strain response
strain-life • damage calculation
data • mean stress, strain correction
applied
stress
spectrum

Fatigue crack initiation analysis (cont’d)
• Stress-strain hysteresis loop tracking verification – compare
calculated response stress and strain values to those found by
independent method (elastic-plastic FEA of notch)

Fatigue crack initiation analysis (cont’d)
• Validation by comparison of calculated vs measured FCI life for
range of geometries, materials and spectrum types
• Component V&V can reveal the necessity for, and guide the
implementation of design factors – example shown is for
surface condition
conservative

Fatigue crack growth analysis
• SIF calculation V&V discussed above
• FCGR calc. and crack size integration can
be checked with const.amplitude test data
• Load interaction model verification
requires variable amplitude test data
stress
intensity
factor
calculate fatigue crack
FCGR growth life
and fracture • Delta-K
toughness • Load interaction
data • Crack growth rate
• Crack size increment
applied
stress
spectrum

Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis (cont’d)
• Fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) and crack size integration
models can be verified by comparison between computed and
measured crack growth histories for simple geometry / loading
and for constant amplitude cycling (no load interaction effects)
conservative
example comparison of
comparison of calculated vs. measured
calculated vs. measured FCG
FCG life

• V&V of load interaction models consists, in part, of model
‘calibration’ to variable amplitude (spectrum) FCG test data
• Very significant inaccuracies can occur in load interaction
modeling, especially for compression dominated spectra
conservative
example comparison of
comparison of calculated vs. measured
calculated vs. measured FCG
FCG life

• FCG model fidelity can be improved with explicit inclusion of
residual stresses where they are known to exist
conservative
Ref: Ball, et.al. 11th Int’l Fatigue Conf., 2014

• Introduction
• SYSTEM LEVEL SURVEYS

System Level Surveys
• Verification of the analysis system can be accomplished (in part)
through conduct of ‘surveys’ which:
– exercise two or more analysis system components
– use standard or system generated data inputs (as opposed
to manual, special purpose data)
– demonstrate that data interfaces work properly (each
component properly accepts data from its predecessor and
delivers data to its successor)
– demonstrate that benchmark problems execute properly
and produce expected results

• The integrity of the load cases used in the design fatigue
spectrum can be checked by surveying reference limit stress
(RLS) to maximum spectrum stress (MSS) ratios throughout the
AV-FEM

• The proper definition and application unique classes of load
cases can be checked by performing damage surveys and
checking that the expected damage occurs in the expected
structure – for example maneuver vs. buffet
buffet damage fraction maneuver damage fraction

• The operation of the FCI and FCG analysis engines can be
compared and the results of those comparisons evaluated over
the full AV-FEM

• Introduction
• APPLICATION TO FSDT RCA

Application to FSD Test Finding RCA
• System validation happens gradually – requires repeated
demonstrations that system level calculations correspond with
suitably controlled physical tests or otherwise observed
physical phenomena
• Assessment as to whether or not system is ‘valid’ must be

accompanied by quantification of uncertainties
• Some discrepancies between physical and digital results are the

result of a conscious decision to apply reduced fidelity models
– Schedule and budget constraints dictate that not every
point in the structure can be the subject of high fidelity
analysis
– Large portions of the structure may be assessed with
rudimentary models or simply deemed good by engineering
judgment

• Some discrepancies are the result of known epistemic
uncertainties – a.k.a. current model limitations
– Geometric uncertainty
 complex geometry due
to unitization
 as-designed vs. as-built
– Local stress uncertainty
 joint effectivity (load
transfer, faying surface
shear, etc.)
 thermal mismatch
 assembly mismatch complex structure involving mechanical
 residual stress joints between dissimilar materials,
complex 3D geometry & multi-axial loading
– Material uncertainty
 properties
 initial quality
– Operating Loads uncertainty

• Root cause analyses (RCA) of test findings during large
component and/or full scale durability tests provide:
– data for system validation
– process template for system validation
example RCA
fishbone chart

• RCA of each test finding corresponds to
evaluation of each data set and process pitting present under
intact primer
in DaDT analysis system Ref: D. Aubert, 18 Oct. 2013.
– Surface condition modeling

• RCA of each test finding corresponds measured

residual
to evaluation of each data set and stress on
process in the DaDT analysis system critical
(cont’d) plane
– Residual stress modeling Ref: Hill Engineering,
LLC, 20 Jan. 2013.

• RCA of each test finding corresponds to

evaluation of each data set and process
in DaDT analysis system (cont’d)
– Spectrum development
multi-element stress
equation regression analysis
as-tested spectra as-tested spectra

cycle minimums cycle maximums

• RCA of each test finding corresponds to evaluation of each
data set and process in DaDT analysis system (cont’d)
– Comparison of calculated and measured behavior
correlation data for

correlation summary for
single test finding
multiple test findings

• Introduction
• CONCLUDING REMARKS

Concluding Remarks
• DaDT analysis validation at the system level can be
accomplished by:
– V&V of system components
– Verification of the system by execution of system level
surveys
– Validation of the system by application to FSD test finding
root cause analyses
• Validity of any analysis system must be considered in the

context of design / sustainment process for which it is used –
for example, design authority (either explicitly or implicitly)
typically prescribes level of analysis:
– none (appropriate for large regions of non-critical parts)
– good by inspection / judgment
– cursory / rudimentary analysis
– detailed / high-fidelity analysis
DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level:

Concluding Remarks
• Use of a validated DaDT analysis system is necessary but not
sufficient to guarantee that an aircraft will meet its durability and
damage tolerance goals/requirements
– Points may exist for which analysis is not performed –
decisions regarding where to perform analysis and where to
use engineering judgment are subjective
– Points may exist for which analysis is performed incorrectly
– as long as humans are required to operate the system, the
potential for human error exists
• Before we move toward increased reliance on computational

simulations for the certification and management of structures,
we must ensure not only that the analyses are valid, but also
that they are applied in a sufficiently comprehensive manner

P7727 PDF

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

P7727 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F-35 Program Information

Non-Export Controlled Information – Releasable to Foreign Persons

2014 USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Conference

Strategy for and the Importance of DaDT

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

2014.12.02 © 2014 Lockheed Martin Corporation, All Rights Reserved.

Strategy for and the Importance of DaDT

Strategy for and the Importance of DaDT

• System Level Surveys

• Application to FSDT RCA

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

• Acceptance of analysis for these purposes cannot be achieved

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

– Verification = demonstration that a

– Validation = demonstration that a

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

Increasing Model Complexity

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

Strategy for and the Importance of DaDT

• System Level Surveys

• Application to FSDT RCA

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

ASME V&V process, 2006

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

Six DaDT Analysis Components

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

vehicle define applied calculate stress

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

cgFEM calculated vs.

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

Standard model for Partial ABAQUS FE model with close-up of

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

surface crack in fillet radius

Stress distribution on section A-A

fine grid FEA results calculated SIF for

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

comparison of closed form comparison of standard

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

comparison of measured model vs measured model vs measured

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

Ref: Ball, et.al. 11th Int’l Fatigue Conf., 2014

Strategy for and the Importance of DaDT

• SYSTEM LEVEL SURVEYS

• Application to FSDT RCA

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

buffet damage fraction maneuver damage fraction

DaDT Analysis Validation at the System Level

Strategy for and the Importance of DaDT

• System Level Surveys