6.

07
Composite Applications in
Commercial Airframe Structures
L. B. ILCEWICZ
Federal Aviation Administration, Renton, WA, USA
and
D. J. HOFFMAN and A. J. FAWCETT
The Boeing Company, Seattle, WA, USA

6.07.1 INTRODUCTION 2
6.07.1.1 Historical Perspective 2
6.07.1.2 Issues Affecting Expanded Application 3
6.07.1.3 Chapter Outline 4
6.07.2 INTEGRATED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 4
6.07.2.1 Product Value 4
6.07.2.2 Development Cycle Time 6
6.07.2.3 Technology Development and Product Implementation 7
6.07.2.4 Integrated Product Teams 8
6.07.2.5 Scaling Issues 10
6.07.2.5.1 Size scaling 10
6.07.2.5.2 Product scaling 12
6.07.3 COMPOSITE TRANSPORT AIRFRAME APPLICATIONS 13
6.07.3.1 NASA and Industry Prototype Programs 14
6.07.3.2 Production of Secondary Structures 16
6.07.3.3 777 Empennage 17
6.07.3.3.1 Concept development 17
6.07.3.3.2 Large-scale development 18
6.07.3.3.3 Description of structure 19
6.07.3.3.4 Type certification approach 20
6.07.3.3.5 Building block development test program 22
6.07.3.3.6 Experiences in structural size scaling 23
6.07.3.3.7 Preproduction tests 26
6.07.3.3.8 Production component tests 28
6.07.3.3.9 Production and product support 31
6.07.4 SUMMARY 32

6.07.5 REMEMBRANCE OF ERNEST F. DOST 32

6.07.6 REFERENCES 32

1
2 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Figure 1 Percent use of advanced structural composites.
6.07.1 INTRODUCTION
The use of advanced composite materials in
transport aircraft structures has gradually in-
creased since the 1970s. The nature of compo-
site materials and fabrication processes used to
make these structures has tended to promote an
integrated, multidisciplinary, approach to pro-
duct development. To date, the main benefits of
composites over metals technology have been
structural weight savings, fatigue resistance,
and corrosion suppression. Additional strategic
defense benefits have led to more military ap-
plications (e.g., wing and fuselage) than com-
mercial. Relatively high fuel costs helped to
justify the initial commercial applications
based on composite weight savings. In the
1980s and 1990s, fuel costs dropped relative to
other airline costs, such as ownership. Compo-
site manufacturing costs are currently the most
critical barrier to expanded commercial appli-
cations. This chapter will highlight the past
Boeing projects that led to commercial trans-
port applications. Chapter 6.08, this volume
will discuss composite technology develop-
ments for expanded applications to transport
fuselage structure.
6.07.1.1 Historical Perspective
Since the start of the 1980s, US and Eur-
opean manufacturers have made large invest-
ments in composite technology for military and
commercial aircraft structures. Figure 1 shows
this history. It also projects potential future
applications. When reviewing commercial
transport applications in the figure, structural
weights of 5% or less indicate secondary struc-
tures (e.g., fairings, cowlings, spoilers, and fixed
trailing edge wing panels), while those
approaching 10% also include empennage
(e.g., horizontal stabilizer and vertical fin) and
primary control surfaces (e.g., flaps). Primary
wing and fuselage structure would increase the
weight percentage to near 35% and 55%,
respectively.
Commercial economics, technical issues, na-
tional defense, and dilution of human re-
sources, with experience and training in the
new technology, have paced the rate of compo-
site applications. As shown in Figure 1, the US
commercial applications have lagged behind
those of its military by about 10 years. Despite
early Boeing and McDonnell Douglas proto-
type programs with transport jets in the early
1980s, Airbus was the first to implement com-
posite empennage on several commercial
aircraft. Airbus' commercial production experi-
ence with horizontal stabilizers includes fuel
containment for A330/340. Figure 1 projects
that future commercial transport wing applica-
tions will precede fuselage. This relates to an
assumed progression from horizontal stabili-
zers to outboard wing to inboard and center-
section wing structures based on design simila-
rities. A more complete appraisal would study
which composite applications provide the most
value.
 Introduction
6.07.1.2 Issues Affecting Expanded
Application
Throughout the 1990s, deregulation and stiff
competition kept air travel ticket prices down.
Profitable airlines reduced their costs to win
passenger and freight customers. As a result,
all airlines insisted that new technologies, which
are added to future commercial aircraft, help
minimize their costs. Current aircraft manufac-
turers are expected to meet a wide range of
specific airline customer needs, while delivering
products in reduced cycle time. This relies on a
lean and agile manufacturing environment that
is coordinated through integrated product
teams (IPT) with the training and tools needed
to efficiently complete tasks.
Airlines have posed the requirements that all
new technologies must add economic value by
reducing the total life cycle costs of a commer-
cial aircraft. A breakdown of these costs shows
that this must include lower airplane acquisi-
tion costs. In order to achieve this with compo-
sites, design and production costs must be
lower than comparable metal structure. This
has not been the case to date. Maintenance
costs for composite structures, including lost
revenue due to down-time, must also not be
greater than aluminum to avoid offsetting per-
formance advantages from lighter weight. The
maintenance and repair procedures for compo-
site structures must also not require an exten-
sive investment in special facilities and
equipment.
In order to compete with metals in future
commercial aircraft structures, composite tech-
nology must be affordable, maintainable, and
allow some manufacturing flexibility. These are
distinctly different attributes than pursued in
early composite applications triggered by rela-
tively high fuel costs and a desire to establish a
technology base with significant weight saving
benefits. Early composite applications of pro-
totype structures put on airplanes in the late
1970s also had goals of collecting data on ser-
vice exposure and demonstrating reliability. As
will be discussed in detail in the next section of
this chapter, acquisition costs currently repre-
sent about 50% of the total direct operating
cost of owning a commercial aircraft. Fuel costs
are of the order of 25% of these costs, hence the
more recent emphasis on issues other than
weight savings.
Primary barriers to expanded composite ap-
plications in commercial transport wing and
fuselage structures are threefold. First, reduc-
tions in manufacturing costs are needed to
achieve the breakthrough decrease in total life
cycle costs desired by airlines. Second, mainte-
nance-related issues for composite structures
3
must be resolved to gain full airline customer
acceptance. Third, advancements in composite
manufacturing, structures, and maintenance
technology must be captured in a production-
ready form to support IPTs. Future IPTs will
be expected to meet increasingly aggressive
timelines for cost-effective product definition
and just-in-time production that meets chang-
ing market demands.
Recent advances in composite manufactur-
ing and maintenance technology appear pro-
mising in reducing the total life cycle costs of an
aircraft. Manufacturing concepts, which utilize
inexpensive tooling and achieve tight tolerances
in large components, have the potential to drive
costs below that of traditional aluminum built-
up structure (Ilcewicz et al., 1997). There is also
evidence that products with the highest value
will incorporate advances in both metal and
composite technology to achieve the lowest
total costs in a hybrid design. Airlines, manu-
facturers, and maintenance companies have
also been working together to solve existing
composite maintenance issues. Since the early
1990s, one such group has made significant
progress in this area, providing documentation
on favored repair practices, maintainable de-
sign details, and databases (Armstrong and
Barrett, 1998; CACRC, 1997).
Expanding composite applications are evi-
dent in the new class of small airplanes, rotor-
craft, and business jets that are going into
production as we enter the twenty-first century.
Many are applying composite manufacturing
processes and design concepts that are very
competitive with aluminum technology.
Although such applications have distinct differ-
ences, they will help establish a material sup-
plier and supporting technology infrastructure
with future benefits for large transport and
military applications. Many of the general avia-
tion aircraft make extensive use of composites
in fuselage, wing, and empennage structure.
They also use lower-cost fiber and matrix con-
stituents. In some cases, the loads and smaller
scale parts also justify the use of extensive
bonding to reduce assembly costs. These indus-
tries appear to have a strong motivation to
work together and share databases to reduce
nonrecurring costs. They also appear more fo-
cused on the use of engineering approaches for
specific composite structure rather than a more
fundamental, broad-based approach.
The knowledge base and training of human
resources, capable of working with the various
aspects of composite aircraft structure, is not a
trivial issue. In many ways, this is the biggest
hurdle to expanded composite applications.
Documentation and software is needed to cap-
ture composite technology in a form which can
4 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
be quickly applied by an IPT to define, pro-
duce, and maintain cost-competitive products.
One of the primary goals of industrial compo-
site research and development is to convert the
databases generated into design tools, educa-
tional aids, and procedures which can be effi-
ciently applied by large groups of production
and service personnel who are not familiar with
the advanced technology.
The burden for applied research and team
training should not be restricted to industry.
Much of the composite research reported in the
open literature is dominated by studies that
separate fundamental material behavior, pro-
cessing science, and structural mechanics.
Although having long-term benefits, such stu-
dies have limited direct application to the
design, manufacturing, and maintenance tech-
nology needed for composite aircraft structure.
Current academic trends that integrate studies
to complement research performed by industry
and establish curricula which trains full- and
part-time students will help increase the human
resources needed to expand composite applica-
tions. Some academic focus on projects where
students work as part of a team in solving
multidisciplinary problems that go beyond
their individual areas of expertise will also
greatly benefit the future industrial and aca-
demic workforce.
6.07.1.3 Chapter Outline
This chapter is organized in two main parts.
The first introduces the concept of integrated
product development, as applied to composite
technology by the Boeing Company since the
1970s. The composite technology, goals, and
approach used by IPT have changed over
time. Some of these changes relate to the tech-
nical challenges of different applications and
others were due to the time-related differences
in economic issues for commercial airplane
structure. The thrusts of current IPT to reduce
the costs of composite technology are high-
lighted. The second part of this chapter reviews
early developments, which led to some proto-
type structures for service exposure and pro-
duction applications to 737, 757, 767, and 777
aircraft. The certification approach used for the
most recent application, 777 empennage struc-
ture, is emphasized.
6.07.2 INTEGRATED PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
Most aircraft manufacturing companies,
large and small, have adopted some form of
an integrated team approach to efficiently
define, produce, and support their products at
reduced nonrecurring cost. The IPT approach
has also been adopted by technology research
and development teams. A typical IPT has
members from all the disciplines needed to
complete the specific project. Members of an
IPT solve engineering, manufacturing, and/or
maintenance tasks to achieve a common goal.
In a major product definition effort, such as a
new transport airplane program, there are nu-
merous IPTs representing each part of the air-
craft. For example, the Boeing 777 transport
airplane program had up to 250 such teams, 97
of which were related to structure (US National
Research Council, 1995). In contrast, a single
IPT may be used to solve specific production
and service problems for an existing aircraft. By
necessity, many small companies have used
IPTs for a long time. Past composite develop-
ment groups for large aerospace companies
have also co-located many disciplines, in
teams similar to modern day IPTs. This satis-
fied the need for an interface between the func-
tional groups that define composite design and
manufacturing details. Unfortunately, it has
tended to segregate engineers that work com-
posite and metal structure, both in skills and
allegiance.
6.07.2.1 Product Value
Composite technology has the potential to
improve the value of transport aircraft in a
number of ways. Several numerical parameters,
of interest to a candidate airplane's owner, are
often used to compare the value of new tech-
nology. Total direct operating cost (total DOC)
provides one of the best quantitative measures
of the combined impact of airplane acquisition
costs, weight, fuel efficiency, and reliability.
New technology that decreases the total DOC
is attractive to airlines. Figure 2 shows typical
components of total DOC for a wide-body
commercial airplane in the mid-1990s. Note
that ownership costs are part of the total
DOC which differs from another measure of
value, total aircraft related operating costs
(TAROC), only in the exclusion of indirect
costs (e.g., cabin crew, administrative, and
landing fees).
With fuel prices at their current levels,
Figure 2 shows that acquisition cost is the
largest component of total DOC. The current
economic state of many airlines is such that
they are unwilling to pay extra in acquisition
costs for composite structures which have the
potential to pay back over time through the
reduced fuel costs from weight savings. Instead,
composite structures must provide both near-
 Integrated Product Development 5

Figure 2 Value assessment of new technology.

Figure 3 Estimates of the value of structural weight savings.

and long-term cost advantages in today's mar-
ket. The insert at the bottom of Figure 2 shows
that the airframe, including wing, fuselage, and
empennage structure, represents approximately
half the ownership costs. Hence, the application
of composites to primary structure has a sig-
nificant impact on ownership costs.
When composite structures were first intro-
duced in transport aircraft, fuel costs were high
and represented a greater portion of the total
DOC than that shown in Figure 2. Even with
today's fuel prices, the effect of weight savings
on total DOC is still significant. Figure 3 shows
predictions of how total DOC reduces with
structural weight savings for the entire air-
frame. Inserts in the figure show that structures
represent the largest component of operating
empty weight (OEW). Figure 3 also shows that
benefits in total DOC further increase when
scaling engines to take full advantage of the
6 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Figure 4 Estimated value of reduced cycle time to market.
weight savings. When using the graph in
Figure 3 to determine how weight savings for
any particular part of the aircraft decrease total
DOC, the total ªstructural weight savingsº
must first be calculated. For example, a 20%
weight saving in primary wing structure results
in a much lower number for total structural
weight savings.
Recent studies to evaluate the cost and
weight saving potential of composite technol-
ogy were used to help identify which concepts
should be pursued in empennage, wing, and
fuselage structure (Ilcewicz et al., 1997). As-
suming the technology could evolve to meet
cost and weight saving projected for each of
these applications, composites have the poten-
tial to decrease total DOC by a combined total
of up to 8%. Small changes in total DOC
directly impact airline earnings and advanced
technology to produce aircraft with cost sav-
ings as high as this would be a huge benefit to
airlines. The technology advancements needed
to achieve the manufacturing cost savings are
estimated to take up to 15 years, assuming
implementation of each new structure benefits
from previous production experiences.
Although total DOC can be used to quantify
potential composite maintenance or life bene-
fits, no attempts were made to do so in the
study discussed above (Ilcewicz et al., 1997).
For example, improved fatigue performance
and corrosion resistance of composite struc-
tures may extend the useful life and/or decrease
maintenance costs of transport aircraft. In ad-
dition to changes in total DOC for composite
structure technology, other economic measures
are also important to transport aircraft custo-
mers. For example, composite weight savings
can increase range and/or payload capacity.
Such benefits provide flexibility in transport
aircraft use, including potential for expanded
shipping markets.
6.07.2.2 Development Cycle Time
Another factor that can effectively reduce
total DOC is a decrease in the development
time before a product reaches market. The
time period immediately before production is
the most critical because large nonrecurring
costs are spent in detail design, final process
definition, tooling fabrication, factory imple-
mentation, and certification testing. The com-
mercial aerospace industry is striving to reduce
product cycle times, yielding affordable and
reliable aircraft in time to capture aggressive
markets of the future. Increased engineering
efficiency is dependent on a strong tie between
development and application IPTs.
Figure 4 shows an example of the benefits of
reduced product development cycle times,
assuming the same nonrecurring program
costs but early entry into service. Note that
this ªcost of moneyº benefit can help reduce
costs for the manufacturer, user, or both.
 Integrated Product Development
Figure 5 Stages of technology development and product implementation.
Potential total DOC savings shown in the
graph assume that all of the savings achieved
are passed on to the customers. In order to
understand the significance of this effect, a
reduction in cycle time of 12 months yields a
benefit similar to that possible from the cost
and weight saving projections of advanced
composite wing technologies (Ilcewicz et al.,
1997). This effect is significant to new technol-
ogies, which often increase development cycle
time because the technology is not ready for
production applications.
6.07.2.3 Technology Development and Product
Implementation
Figure 5 shows typical stages in the evolution
of new technology such as composites for air-
craft structures. Based on previous discussions,
two primary issues will determine the economic
value of new technology applied to a product.
First, new technology can add value to the
product by reducing manufacturing costs,
increasing fuel efficiency, improving reliability,
and/or extending life. Each of these factors
directly or indirectly reduces total DOC. Sec-
ond, new technology must be ready for
production implementation, including the man-
ufacturing processes, design tools, and mainte-
nance procedures that permit the same or
reduced cycle times as that possible with mature
technology. If technology is not ready, it can
delay implementation and effectively decrease
its value to a given product.
7
From initial conception through large-scale
development, the primary goals of a modern-
day, research IPT is to show credibility in the
value of advanced technology and establish
methods, procedures, and databases which
can be used to define, produce, and support a
product. Since the true value of new technology
is not known until product implementation and
service exposure occur, the choice to apply new
technology is always a difficult decision. The
final decision usually occurs during product
development, where the market is established.
The large nonrecurring cost to define the pro-
duct and purchase a manufacturing facility,
equipment, and tools is made if the company's
shareholders believe such an investment is jus-
tified. As implied by Figure 5, some overlap
exists between timelines for each stage (e.g.,
Stages 3 and 4 are linked to support technology
transfer to production). Specific exit criteria
can be defined for every stage to track the
progress of key technology deliverables in
each functional area. Figure 6 shows several
examples of potential deliverables to track tech-
nology readiness.
As one might expect, it is very difficult to
judge the value and maturity of new composite
technologies. For example, the cost saving cred-
ibility of an innovative design or advanced
manufacturing technique must be projected
based on reduced part count or process simula-
tions. However, numerous size and product
scaling issues arise in taking a composite con-
cept from development to production. Figure 5
shows that structural detail, which is represen-
8 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Figure 6 Examples of define/build/maintain documentation and software that is needed to efficiently apply
new technology.
tative of a specified application, should be con-
sidered throughout development to help mini-
mize some of the size scaling issues. An IPT
approach to cost projections and design cost
models have recently been developed to address
some of the issues related to product scaling
(Ilcewicz et al., 1996; Mabson et al., 1996).
Product and size scaling considerations will be
further discussed later in this section of the
chapter, along with recommended composite
development approaches.
Tracking tasks with measurable deliverables
(i.e., documentation, software, methods, data-
bases and related enhancements or updates) can
monitor the progress of new composite initia-
tives. Once specified tasks for functional areas
are completed, the IPT moves to the successive
development stage. The areas which should
have active tasks throughout development in-
clude cost evaluation, manufacturing, struc-
tural design, and maintenance. Note that
these categories are general enough to include
all the necessary functional disciplines. Cost
evaluations are crucial IPT tasks because inputs
are often required from other design, manufac-
turing, and maintenance tasks. Development
budgets for the first four stages shown in
Figure 5 typically increase commensurate with
more rigorous cost evaluations and technology
achievements for each successive stage. In prac-
tice, the majority of funds needed to complete
large-scale development will be held until an
application appears certain. This ensures the
greatest return on investment. The use of a
gated approach in early phases of development
ensures technology readiness before commit-
ting to production. It is also consistent with
the goal to develop technology in a form needed
to reduce cycle times.
6.07.2.4 Integrated Product Teams
As discussed in the previous section, ad-
vanced structures technology evolves through
several stages of integrated product develop-
ment whereby cost, design, manufacturing,
and maintenance issues are solved concur-
rently. The IPTs contributing to these efforts
have members that represent many functional
disciplines. Included are experts on materials
and processes, structures, manufacturing, tool-
ing, equipment, quality assurance, industrial
engineering, marketing, customer support,
maintenance, and finance. Some understanding
of activities outside an individual's specialty
helps facilitate the necessary team interactions.
 Integrated Product Development
Reference materials and model company ex-
amples of the successful implementation of IPT
have helped educate other companies which
have not used such an approach in the past.
However, the IPT approach best suited for a
given aircraft manufacturer depends on several
issues, including their product line, skills base,
market considerations, internal organization,
customer needs, and location of resources and
suppliers. In earlier discussions, the require-
ments posed by airlines for acceptance of new
structural materials all related to increased pro-
duct value. As a result, future technology devel-
opment and product implementation by the
aircraft industry will pursue composite con-
cepts only if they reduce costs and clearly in-
crease value.
In order to maximize product value, a mod-
ern day IPT will likely have specific goals for
reduced cost and cycle time. This is true
whether the IPT is involved in research and
development, product definition, or problems
from production and service. The success of an
IPT in achieving goals depends on well-defined
work schedules, good communication between
different disciplines, a continuous interface
with other IPTs, and engineering compromises.
Many individual tasks are worked in parallel to
speed up the process. A typical IPT follows
work schedules with due dates accepted by
team members for sharing information between
individuals, disciplines, and other IPTs. The
approach followed by a given IPT will differ,
depending on the company, project, and speci-
fic team skills.
From mid-1970s to mid-1980s, composites
were new to most of the Boeing workforce.
An IPT called the Advanced Composite Devel-
opment Program (ACDP) was created to study
composite structural concepts and establish
supporting technologies through the first three
development stages (see Figure 5). Several con-
tracts were performed for the US National
Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
to gain service experience with prototype sec-
ondary structures and horizontal stabilizers
flown on selected Boeing 737 airplanes. Other
US manufacturers, McDonnell Douglas and
Lockheed, had similar contracts. Additional
NASA research contracts studied the potential
use of composites for wing and fuselage struc-
ture. Prototype experiences were followed with
production applications to 757, 767, and 737-
300 aircraft, which made extensive use of com-
posites in secondary structures. Experiences
from this timeframe mainly helped to establish
databases and train engineers in composite
structural issues. It also gave some familiariza-
tion in manufacturing and maintenance issues,
but most processes developed in these early
9
applications were not selected based on a po-
tential for cost savings. In fact, the IPTs that
worked the programs had little or no visibility
of manufacturing and life-cycle costs. Instead,
they focused on understanding the mechanical
performance of composites in order to safely
and reliably apply these new materials to air-
craft structure.
From the mid-1980s to the end of the twen-
tieth century, Boeing composite IPTs continued
to evolve to consider production applications in
primary structure and then begin their current
focus on service issues and manufacturing cost.
In the mid-1980s, much of the ACDP work-
force was used to support US Military applica-
tions (B-2 bomber, A-6 re-wing, and V-22 tilt-
rotor). Service data from the early use of com-
posites in NASA prototype structures and pro-
duction applications to 757, 767, and 737
aircraft was available. Some environmental
durability problems have been found for the
production parts in service and special IPTs
were formed to identify causes and find solu-
tions. Significant development efforts in this
timeframe also led to laminated composites
having a toughened interlayer microstructure,
with improved resistance to damage when sub-
jected to impact.
Research on advanced concepts for transport
empennage and wing structures were active in
the late 1980s, with the former evolving through
large-scale developments to enable application
to the 777 aircraft. The IPT to define the 777
empennage was active well into the 1990s, with
certification in 1995. The military and commer-
cial transport production experiences have
helped Boeing identify the major cost centers
for composite manufacturing processes. Several
IPTs were active in the 1990s to help reduce the
cost of future composite production. Although
much progress has been achieved, it is very
difficult to reduce the costs of a composite
structure that has a certified design. In order
to further increase the value of new composite
manufacturing processes and designs, the first
three development stages must focus on con-
cepts having cost saving potential over an
equivalent metal structure. During the 1990s,
a composite IPT established to consider trans-
port fuselage applications had such focus (see
discussions in Chapter 6.08, this volume).
The IPT experiences summarized above will
be covered in greater detail throughout the
remainder of this chapter and in Chapter 6.08,
this volume. Much of the text will be on the
most recent efforts of the commercial transport
division at Boeing, including the 777 empen-
nage and advanced composite fuselage devel-
opments. Future IPTs involved with composite
applications are expected to pattern themselves
10 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
after these experiences, learning both from the
advances and mistakes made.
It is also likely that the groups responsible for
technology development, product implementa-
tion, production, and service support will be co-
located as part of the same organization. This
will ensure that production and service experi-
ences will have a greater influence on technol-
ogy development. It should also allow short
cycle times from initial conception to future
product implementation. There will likely be a
need to use less expensive composite materials,
further automate manufacturing processes, and
apply lower cost tooling approaches to meet
aggressive cost saving goals. If the costs of
composite structures continue to drop, trans-
port airplane manufacturers will give serious
consideration to wing and fuselage structures.
Such expanded applications will require that
the larger workforce, currently competent in
metal design, manufacturing, and maintenance
practices, receive training in composites. In
order to meet the reduced cycle times desired
in the future, some advances which simplify the
engineering design tools and maintenance pro-
cedures used for composites are also expected.
6.07.2.5 Scaling Issues
Scaling is crucial to the successful develop-
ment and implementation of advanced compo-
site technology to large transport aircraft
structures. In most cases, an IPT will have to
solve a number of scaling issues in meeting its
goals. In the context of current discussions,
scaling has two forms: (i) apply information
from one-dimensional scale of study to predict
the behavior at a larger or more complete level,
and (ii) verify a technology base linking design
components, factory process cells, cost evalua-
tions, and maintenance procedures. The first,
which will be referred to as size scaling, may be
used to develop processes and structural details.
The second, which will be called product scaling,
integrates functional technologies for product
applications. Both involve analyses, tests, trials,
and data synthesis. Product scaling depends on
successful size scaling. However, both should
be active from the time a concept is selected for
R&D through final product definition to ensure
both economic and technical feasibility.
The aerospace industry has traditionally used
a building block approach for the size scaling
needed to certify aircraft structures. The phrase
size scaling may be misleading because both
part dimensions and complexity are being in-
creased. At each successive level, larger parts,
which better represent the actual structure of
interest, are studied. Complementary product
scaling efforts have also focused on the design,
manufacturing, and maintenance technology
for specific structural details. The combination
of size and product scaling has often been called
ªpoint design,º suggesting that it has little ben-
efit outside the specific application. Contrary
to this belief, fundamental insights are cost-
effectively derived in such efforts, which are
paramount to continued application of compo-
sites in aerospace structures.
Some conceptual examples of size and pro-
duct scaling are given below. Additional discus-
sion can be found elsewhere (Ilcewicz, 1999).
Both scaling types are important because the
results from any sublevel of development have
limited use to an IPT until their efforts confirm
applicability to the structure of interest. There
are no hard rules on the number of scaling
levels needed during development because of a
dependence on the specific problem and tech-
nical approach used. Scaling at too low of levels
may have limited direct significance to the ulti-
mate goal of an IPT to establish design, man-
ufacturing, and maintenance technology for
functional aircraft structures. The complexity,
cost, and time to develop links between lower
levels must be traded against alternative ap-
proaches that start at higher levels. Experience
suggests that initial scaling to a subcomponent
panel or process cell level helps bound the
issues. The importance of scaling will become
evident in specific composite examples given
throughout this chapter and in Chapter 6.08,
this volume.
6.07.2.5.1 Size scaling
Size scaling is easy to visualize using exam-
ples on the tests and analysis used to evaluate
structural performance. Figure 7 shows two
distinct dimensional levels of such scaling for
a fuselage barrel section. The first depicts the
use of methods for scaling coupon and element
data to assess the structural behavior of curved
subcomponent panels. In industry, detailed
design development has relied on such efforts
for most strength, stability, repair, durability,
and damage tolerance assessments. If the parti-
cular structural property is easily predicted
using basic material properties and reliable
analysis methods, the number of element and
subcomponent panel tests can be reduced or
eliminated. However, additional element and
subcomponent panel tests may prove more
cost-effective if mechanical performance data
from the coupon level cannot be scaled without
significant structural methods development, or
overly conservative assumptions cause cost and
performance penalties.
 Integrated Product Development
Figure 7 Example levels of composite size scaling for fuselage structural performance.
The concept of developing structural analysis
and a lower-scale test database for size scaling is
based on the assumption that the stress condi-
tion and design detail for a point in the real
structure can be treated as constant for the
entire gauge section of a lower level structural
assessment. In turn, most structural sizing done
to support design uses conservative assump-
tions for constant load and boundary condi-
tions applied over a segment of the structure to
convert a point internal load condition into a
simplified mechanics problem validated by the
subscale test and analysis database. This is one
reason why the phrase ªpoint designº is mis-
leading when it is used to imply that more
subscale tests are needed because it is too diffi-
cult to analyze. Stated in another way, despite
the sophistication of analyses and tests used for
coupons, elements, or subcomponent panels,
11
they still generally only represent small zones
in the actual structure.
A number of insights gained from the first
level of size scaling (i.e., coupons and elements
to subcomponent panels in Figure 7) in recent
composite fuselage development studies suggest
the importance of scaling to the largest dimen-
sional level feasible early in development (Ilce-
wicz, 1999; Ilcewicz et al., 1999a). The larger
scale tests can be used to help identify weak-
nesses in the desired analysis methods and to
help better realize the meaning of coupon re-
sults. Strong manufacturing-induced perfor-
mance traits have been noted for advanced
material forms (braided composites used in
framing elements) and automated composite
processes (e.g., tow placed laminates used for
skin panels) that have potential cost savings in
transport fuselage applications. These materials
12 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
and processes yield more heterogeneous micro-
structure than composites traditionally used in
aircraft structures. As will be discussed in
greater detail at the end of this chapter, the
resulting differences in mechanical properties
(e.g., residual strength) were found to be most
evident in large-scale tests.
6.07.2.5.2 Product scaling
A significant difference between size and
product scaling comes from the formers' more
scientific basis for synthesizing levels of ana-
lyses, mechanical tests, and process trials over
time, verifying technology before an applica-
tion. Most levels of product scaling (e.g., the
flow time through an individual process cell or
an entire factory) are not fully validated until a
product is implemented to production, at which
time success or failure can mean a profit or loss.
Clearly, product scaling is the more difficult of
the two types and it benefits most from an IPT
approach. The complexity and importance of
product scaling justify the related IPT efforts
from the start of development.
During the development of new technology,
the credibility of product scaling efforts should
improve over time, giving the IPT confidence
that manufacturing cost and performance goals
will be met when finally implemented to pro-
duction. Early results can be used to justify each
subsequent allocation of funds for develop-
ment. Prior to the start of production, the
database expands in large-scale development
to support the decision for significant invest-
ments in additional nonrecurring costs for the
product. Since much of the research and devel-
opment for advanced technology used in new
products is part of the nonrecurring costs, it is
desirable to increase spending for large-scale
development only after a product and market
has been identified. Such efforts are also accel-
erated to shorten the time from this bigger
investment to payback.
As discussed earlier, aircraft acquisition
costs, performance (including the effects of
structural weight on fuel costs, range, and pay-
load), and maintenance affect the total costs
incurred by airlines. Continuous assessments of
the factors contributing to these costs are es-
sential to successful product scaling of emer-
ging technologies such as composites. Size
scaling results for manufacturing, structural
performance, and maintenance issues should
benefit product scaling, particularly when
such studies consider design details critical to
the different components of cost. For example,
composite manufacturing plans need to con-
sider the effects of design characteristics on
the fabrication times for individual steps, ma-
terial utilization rates, processing defects, and
overall factory flow. This information is funda-
mental to determining the associated labor,
facilities, equipment, materials, and tooling re-
quired to meet production rates.
Product scaling research for composite fuse-
lage indicated that braided preforms and resin
transfer molding (RTM) have the potential to
be cost-effective processes for the curved frames
which provide hoop reinforcement and axial
stability for stiffened panels (Ilcewicz et al.,
1991, 1992; Metschan et al., 1992). Figure 8
shows two product scaling levels used to inte-
grate design, manufacturing, and cost assess-
ments for these new processes. In the first, data
from process steps scale to a fabrication cell for
braided fuselage frames. The steps for this fab-
rication cell include preform braiding, RTM,
trim, and inspection. The preform braiding
step, which is magnified in the lower portion
of Figure 8, represents a significant portion of
the labor occurring in the frame fabrication cell.
The second level of scaling shown in Figure 8
combines the braided frame database with
those for other parts and process cells to project
fuselage barrel fabrication. This level of scaling
must synthesize the interactions of the numer-
ous design features and factory processes
needed for a fuselage barrel section.
Arrows in Figure 8 suggest insights scaling
from the lowest levels to those representing
larger portions of the complete factory. How-
ever, this should not imply a sequential order of
study. In the fuselage development program,
analysis was initially performed in the reversed
order. A global cost and weight evaluation was
made for representative design and process sce-
narios, followed by local optimization of the
most important design characteristics and pro-
cess steps. This global/local approach to pro-
duct scaling (Ilcewicz et al., 1991) will be
discussed in Chapter 6.08, this volume. In
time, data collected from the lowest levels
(e.g., detailed design and time trials for process
steps) are expected to combine as part of the
accurate product scaling required for produc-
tion commitments.
In the example shown in Figure 8, the first
level of scaling should establish the frame de-
sign (dimensions and braided architecture), fab-
rication steps, and tooling that will yield a
braided preform required by subsequent pro-
cess steps and factory cells. Key characteristics
that measure the success of this level of product
scaling may include braiding process rates and
tolerances for textile architecture and fiber pre-
form dimensions. The required characteristics
depend on an overall assessment of the frame
design and other process cells. For example,
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
Figure 8 Example levels of composite product scaling for braided/RTM fuselage frames.
design features that maximize rates or relieve
tolerances are as critical as technology improve-
ments in the braiding process itself. Similarly,
developments in other process steps (e.g.,
RTM, final machining to the frame geometry)
or at a higher level of scaling (e.g., design and
process for co-bonding frames to the panel in
an autoclave cure) may eliminate the need for
more difficult procedures applied to the braid-
ing step. These examples highlight the benefits
of an IPT in obtaining solutions to problems in
product scaling. They also reiterate that pro-
duct scaling is best achieved by considering
several scales simultaneously.
As was the case for size scaling, the IPT tools
used for product scaling evolve with the data-
base. Procedures originating in research even-
tually achieve the accuracy to support
production applications. Complex interactions
between design features and process cells must
be recognized to successfully minimize total
13
costs during product scaling. In Figure 8, a
braided/RTM frame process cell for a factory
is scaled using manufacturing time estimates
and other fabrication data to determine the
number of braiding machines and RTM tools
needed to meet production rates. Braided frame
design features desired for efficient process flow
in production should also be identified by the
IPT for design cost analysis.
6.07.3 COMPOSITE TRANSPORT
AIRFRAME APPLICATIONS
Most composite transport airframe applica-
tions at the Boeing Company have ranged from
fixed secondary structures to movable flight
control surfaces. The 777 aircraft extended the
use of advanced composites to main flaps, pas-
senger floor beams, horizontal stabilizers, and
vertical fins. This section of the chapter will
14 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
start with a discussion of initial prototype pro-
grams and end with a synopsis of the develop-
ment program leading to 777 empennage
structure.
6.07.3.1 NASA and Industry Prototype
Programs
The production applications shown in
Figure 1 were preceded by a number of proto-
type programs. The earliest projects were
funded by industry, however, NASA funded a
large portion of the subsequent development
efforts. All of these programs were accompa-
nied by extensive size scaling efforts as de-
scribed in the previous section.
The first piece of structure to fly in revenue
service on a Boeing commercial transport was a
B-707-320 boron-epoxy foreflap. The compo-
nent was designed as an adhesive bonded
monocoque shell using boron-epoxy preim-
pregnated tape stabilized by aluminum honey-
comb core. Identical inner and outer skins of
the monocoque contained cross-plied filaments
oriented at +258 in order to satisfy shear and
stiffness requirements. Additional plies of 08
fibers were located at the upper and lower
extremities of the part as well as the leading
edge. The shell end ribs and the trailing edge
were made of molded fiberglass epoxy. The
resultant composite part was 25% lighter than
the metal part it replaced. Two flight service
demonstration articles were installed on a
Northwest Orient Airlines aircraft and re-
mained in place for several years. This particu-
lar aircraft was being used to ferry personnel
and supplies to Southeast Asia. As such, the
airframe had a high daily utilization rate and
the composite parts accumulated a large num-
ber of flight hours. They were removed from
service because the airframe was being sold and
the new operator declined to participate in the
flight service demonstration program. North-
west assisted Boeing in transferring the parts to
American Airlines where they were flown for an
additional two years. Finally, the prototype
articles were returned to Boeing and thoroughly
inspected. No problems were encountered in
service and none were detected in the postser-
vice inspection. Eventually, one of the foreflaps
was donated to the Museum of Flight in
Seattle, WA.
The time required to introduce new technol-
ogy was discussed earlier in this chapter. Ironi-
cally, by the time the foreflap entered
commercial service, boron had been replaced
by graphite (carbon) as the fiber of choice for
aerospace applications. Graphite possessed
more balanced compression and tension prop-
erties and was significantly easier to process
into aerospace products. For Boeing, the initial
carbon fiber flight service demonstration article
was a B-737 flight spoiler. This spoiler, and
several of the flight service demonstration arti-
cles that followed it, was designed as ªblack
aluminum.º The aluminum skins of the produc-
tion spoiler were simply replaced by structu-
rally equivalent graphite-epoxy skins. The skins
were designed to carry all of the chordwise
bending and required off-axis plies to satisfy
torsional shear loads and to transfer the air-
loads to the hinge fittings. End closure ribs were
made with fiberglass. The production center
hinge fitting, front spar, and full depth alumi-
num honeycomb core remained intact or were
only slightly modified to accommodate the gra-
phite face sheets. The intent of these early pro-
totype programs was to demonstrate that the
composite materials would perform well in the
service environment. No attempt was made to
take full advantage of their properties. Never-
theless, the composite spoiler was 15% lighter
than its aluminum counterpart. Weight savings
for the skins alone were significantly higher.
Two of these flight service demonstration arti-
cles were installed on a Western Airlines air-
craft in 1971. One of these units remained in
service for almost seven years. During that
time, it accumulated over 17 000 flight hours
and in excess of 20 000 flight cycles.
In the early 1970s, shortly after the first flight
spoiler entered service, NASA Langley Re-
search Center (NASA LaRC) funded the first
of several flight service demonstration pro-
grams that significantly enhanced the use of
advanced composites on commercial transport
aircraft. Contracts were awarded to Boeing,
Douglas, and Lockheed to design, fabricate,
and deploy secondary structure or nonstruc-
tural components. These long-term (10+
years) contracts were intended to gather data
regarding the effects of ground and flight
environments.
Boeing's initial NASA contract involved the
737 flight spoiler (Coggeshall, 1989). This pro-
gram had several objectives but the key element
was to gather worldwide, fleet-level data. In
order to do this the contract deployed 108
spoilers with six different airlines beginning in
1973. Airlines were based in Europe, South
America, New Zealand, and three distinct cli-
mate zones in the United States (North Caro-
lina, Colorado, and Hawaii). Participating
airlines were selected because they had different
mission profiles and aircraft utilization rates as
well as regional climate. In addition to regular
airline inspection, the contract provided for
Boeing program engineers to conduct their
own on-site inspection annually.
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
As part of the NASA spoiler program, pre-
selected units were returned each year and de-
structively tested to determine residual
strength. With few exceptions, the failure
loads fell within the error band of 16 spoilers
that were tested prior to deployment. This con-
tract as well as others funded by LaRC also
provided for standard coupon level specimens
to be mounted on ground racks at each of the
airline sites as well as LaRC and Boeing in
Seattle. Some of these specimens were also
tested each year for residual strength. In addi-
tion, these specimens enabled other scientific
observations such as weight gain due to moist-
ure and weight loss due to ultraviolet degrada-
tion of the resin matrices.
The NASA-funded flight service demonstra-
tion programs expanded in both size and scope.
A second round of these programs increased
the size, complexity, and criticality of the de-
monstration articles. Boeing developed carbon
fiber reinforced elevators for their 727 aircraft
(Chovil et al., 1981) and horizontal stabilizers
for their 737 aircraft (Aniversario et al., 1982).
These programs were begun in 1977. Following
ground and flight test programs, FAA certifi-
cation of the elevators occurred in December
1979 and the first aircraft containing the ad-
vanced elevators was delivered to United Air-
lines in 1980. FAA certification of the
horizontal stabilizers took place in August
1982. Major program goals were that the com-
posite part should be cost competitive with the
production part while weighing 20% less. The
parts had to be functionally interchangeable
with the existing design. During this same time-
frame, Douglas placed prototype rudders and
vertical tails on some of their DC-10s while
Lockheed placed some ailerons and vertical
tails on their L-1011 model. In general, all of
these applications met or exceeded their weight
goals. The weight saving on the 727 elevator
was 28% while the carbon fiber 737 stabilizer
was 21.5% lighter than its metal counterpart.
The cost picture was not as easily defined. This
was due in part to the fact that all of these
programs represented limited production runs.
Boeing concluded that the labor-intensive,
hand lay-up technique used to produce the
parts was not cost competitive but that lower
raw material cost and advanced manufacturing
techniques could reduce the cost to a competi-
tive stature.
The operating environment for commercial
aircraft includes many elements that could po-
tentially degrade or destroy polymeric compo-
site parts. A partial list would include moisture,
ultraviolet radiation, fuels, hydraulic fluids,
other chemicals such as paint strippers, light-
ning strikes, bird strikes, hail impact, and me-
15
chanical damage caused by anything from hand
tools to fork lifts. In general, the durability of
these demonstration articles could be summar-
ized as excellent but not flawless. Some lessons
were learned. For the spoilers, the majority of
the in-service problems were related to two
separate design details. The first cause involved
a redesigned rod actuator end that could, under
certain conditions, impinge on the upper skin
directly above the center hinge fitting. This
resulted in a small delamination (approximately
1 in. diameter) sometimes accompanied by
cracks in the skin. The damage was easily de-
tected, did not propagate, and was easily re-
paired. The problem was resolved by adding a
placard under the spoiler that required use of
the original rod end.
The second design detail to cause service
problems concerned the splice of the center
hinge fitting to the ªCº section front spar.
Only the web was joined, the spar cap was
discontinuous. This design proved acceptable
for the production of aluminum spoiler but not
adequate for the graphite skin replacement.
Cracks in the paint or sealant caused by the
unit flexing under load would allow moisture
ingression. If left undetected, continued expo-
sure would initiate a small disbond at the spar
cap discontinuity. The disbond allowed addi-
tional moisture ingression and the galvanic
couple between the aluminum and the carbon
fiber produced exfoliation corrosion on the cap.
This damage did propagate, however, the rate
was relatively slow and was repaired prior to
exposing the aluminum core to the same phe-
nomenon. Two to three years of service (de-
pending on location) were required for the
damage to progress to a repairable state. The
repair, normally executed in Seattle, involved a
ply by ply stepwise patch applied after remov-
ing the affected area and abrasively cleaning the
spar. Subsequent carbon fiber parts were de-
signed with a thin layer of glass fabric prepreg
at any metallic interface. This design has pro-
ven effective in eliminating the galvanic action.
While the paragraphs above detail some of
the experience with the spoilers, other compo-
nents also experienced some service problems.
The Lockheed L-1011 Kevlar 49-epoxy fairings
experienced foreign object impact damage and
paint adherence was a recurring problem, par-
ticularly when the parts came into contact with
hydraulic fluid. Both the DC-10 rudder and the
727 elevators experienced occasional lightning
strike and ground handling impact damage.
The most serious lightning strike damage oc-
curred on a DC-10 rudder when the lightning
protection strap was not installed following a
routine maintenance check. In all cases damage
was repaired and the units were returned to
16 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Figure 9 Composite horizontal stabilizers flown
on 737 aircraft.
service. Thermoplastic resin matrix materials
were found to crack when exposed to stress
and hydraulic fluid. Parts using this class of
resin were removed from the flight service pro-
gram. A DC-10 boron±aluminum skin panel
was also removed from the program when cor-
rosion was discovered. Some programs includ-
ing C-130 boron-epoxy reinforced center wing
boxes and the 737 horizontal stabilizers proved
to be almost incident free.
Five shipsets of composite horizontal stabi-
lizers put on Boeing 737-200 aircraft entered
service in 1984. Figure 9 shows one of these
aircraft. As shown in Table 1, these stabilizers
had amassed over 133 500 flight hours and
130 000 landings as of May 1995. A stabilizer
from a Markair airplane, which was removed
from service in June 1990 with 17 300 flight
hours, was received at Boeing and torn down
for inspection. The component was free from
any fatigue or corrosion damage apart from
minor corrosion pitting in some fastener holes
in aluminum fittings that had received non-
optimum faying surface sealant.
These flight service demonstration programs
eventually involved 350 parts devoted to 12
different applications including helicopters
(Dexter, 1987). By March 1987, they had col-
lectively accumulated over four million flight
hours and more than half remained in service,
some for many more years. (In 1998, a 737
spoiler was removed from an aircraft that had
outlived its economic life and was being dis-
mantled for parts.)
Table 1 Flight data for NASA/Boeing 737 horizontal stabilizers as of May 1995.
Tail No. Airline
N314DL Delta
N307DL Delta
N670MAa Markair
N671MA Markair
N672MA Markair
a
Removed from service in June 1990
6.07.3.2 Production of Secondary Structures
The demonstrated weight savings and overall
excellent service experience of prototype parts
enabled airframe manufactures to make pro-
duction commitments for composite structures.
Unfortunately, some of the early production
applications did not display the same durability
as the flight service demonstration programs.
One of the most significant service problems for
composite parts on commercial airplanes oc-
curred with Kevlar1-epoxy facesheets on mini-
mum-gage, sandwich structures. This type of
design was used for many of the secondary
structures on Boeing 757, 767, and 737-300
aircraft. Detailed studies by Boeing and Du-
Pont showed that the problem related to matrix
cracking in the Kevlar-epoxy material (Ilcewicz
et al., 1987). Matrix cracks accumulated as a
function of cyclic thermal and moisture service
exposure, coupled with a number of complex
size and product scaling issues. Although such
parts were lightly loaded and the matrix cracks
did not affect mechanical performance, they did
allow ingression of water into the honeycomb
core over time. This undesirable performance,
coupled with declining fuel prices, has led the
commercial carriers to view composites with
less than total enthusiasm at this time.
Several other reasons have been advanced for
both the problems encountered in service and
the operator's lack of enthusiasm. One reason
concerned selection of the applications them-
selves. Many were minimum-gage applications
that were particularly prone to damage from
impact, handling, or the environment. An in-
creased emphasis on weight savings caused
these same applications to have a fragile design
compared to the earlier demonstration articles.
This exposed the structure to a greater prob-
ability of significant impact damage. The rapid
increase in the application of advanced compo-
site structures also led to a skill dilution among
the designers and analysts. This resulted in
some parts containing poor design details
such as edge closure members that allowed
moisture ingression into honeycomb core.
A third reason for airline dissatisfaction con-
cerns the repair aspects. The airframe manufac-
Installation Hours Landings
3-13-84 30,455 28,415
3-16-84 30,020 27,918
5-11-84 17,302 19,295
6-22-84 24,369 22,923
8-18-84 31,360 30,806
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
Figure 10 Composite materials usage on the 777.
turers performed most of the repairs conducted
as part of the flight service demonstration pro-
grams. This responsibility shifted to the airlines
once the parts went into production. From the
perspective of many airlines, composite parts
are more difficult to maintain and repair than
their metal counterparts. Part of this belief
stems from the fact that airlines have, over
many years, acquired the facilities and skills
required for repairs to metal structures. Time
has not yet allowed this to occur for composite
structures. The manufacturer's conservatism
also contributes to the problem. Allowable da-
mage limits prior to repair are, in many cases,
set unreasonably low simply due to lack of
broad historical and technical databases. Fi-
nally, little or no research has been conducted
to verify that different composite materials are
mutually compatible. This requires the airlines
to maintain an extensive inventory of several
time perishable materials.
6.07.3.3 777 Empennage
In spite of the concerns described in the
preceding paragraphs, composite materials
have continued to find applications on newer
commercial transport aircraft. These materials
are used primarily to reduce weight and im-
prove aircraft efficiency. For some compo-
nents, composite material usage may be
appropriately based on other requirements
such as fatigue resistance, surface complexity,
corrosion resistance, or manufacturing prefer-
ence. Composite materials are used for the con-
struction of many components on the 777
aircraft. Typical applications include fairings,
engine nacelles, moveable and fixed wing trail-
ing edge surfaces, and gear doors. With the
17
advent of the 777, Boeing extended their com-
posite applications to floor-beams and the em-
pennage structure, including the horizontal and
vertical stabilizers, elevators, and rudder
(Figure 10). This application represented a
major commitment to composites in commer-
cial aircraft service.
6.07.3.3.1 Concept development
During the 1980s, composite empennage de-
sign and manufacturing concepts for transport
aircraft structure evolved from the early com-
mercial prototype and military applications. A
Boeing IPT called the Advanced Composite
Development Program (ACDP) performed
trade studies and developed selected concepts
for empennage, wing, and fuselage structure.
Much of the focus of these efforts was in size
scaling structures and manufacturing technol-
ogy. Enabling technology was captured in data-
bases, process plans, handbooks, software, test
standards, and specifications.
In addition to the enabling technology, sev-
eral structural and manufacturing advances
were achieved by ACDP during concept devel-
opment. Much of the development of I-stif-
fened panel concepts for empennage structure
considered the further evolution to a structure
needed for a transport wing. The use of ad-
vanced laminated materials, with resin-rich in-
terlayers and intermediate modulus fibers, led
to increases in the strength of structures with
BVID and FHT, without significant loss in hot-
wet OHC properties. The improved material
performance led to some simplification in the
stiffened panel design detail. Manufacturing
size scaling was also achieved with the new
materials, including evaluations of automated
18 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Figure 11 7J7 CFRP horizontal stabilizer test article.
laminate lay-up, I-stringer drape forming, and
co-bonded panel cure.
6.07.3.3.2 Large-scale development
The use of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic
(CFRP) in the 777 empennage structure fol-
lowed developmental work and the previously
described commercial service from the early
1980s. Boeing's approach to obtain certifica-
tion and its acceptance by the FAA were key
milestones in the development of composite
structure for commercial aircraft applications.
This certification approach complies with FAA
and JAA regulations and maintains the Boeing
philosophy that aircraft structures are certified
by analysis with supporting test evidence.
Following the 737 horizontal stabilizer pro-
gram, Boeing designed a composite empennage
for the 7J7 airplane. Although this model was
not committed to production, a full-scale hor-
izontal stabilizer test article (Figure 11) was
fabricated by Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI) and
subjected to static, fatigue, and damage toler-
ance testing under the auspices of the Japan
Aircraft Development Corporation (JADC)
(Takaki et al., 1993b). The 7J7 empennage
represented the first significant use of a tough-
ened resin CFRP material. The test program
complied with applicable regulations and
addressed items outlined in the certification
agency advisory circulars for composite aircraft
structures (FAA AC 20-107A, 1984; JAA ACJ
25.603, 1986). The full-scale test, along with a
comprehensive ancillary test program, met all
of the advisory circular recommendations. It
provided full-scale validation of the design
and analysis methodology, fabrication pro-
cesses, and damage tolerance capability.
The use of composite materials on the 777
empennage originated as part of a Boeing-
funded program in December 1987. A proto-
type or preproduction composite horizontal
stabilizer based on the 767-200 planform
(Figure 12) was to be designed, built, and
tested. The 767-200 was chosen as a base con-
figuration because of known weight, loads,
cost, and structural characteristics. The 777
preproduction horizontal stabilizer design
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
Figure 12 Configuration of the preproduction
horizontal stabilizer.
Figure 13 777-200 empennage structure (cover panels not shown).
19
evolved with long-term production in mind. A
major objective was to validate manufacturing
costs. Other objectives for the program
included:
(i) Use composites where weight reduction
can be achieved at a reasonable cost.
(ii) Use toughened resin materials or addi-
tional gage to increase resistance to service
threats.
(iii) Provide for a wide range of repair
options that include mechanically fastened
repairs.
(iv) Provide access for maintenance, inspec-
tions, and repair.
(v) Design for visual in-service inspections
only.
(vi) Design to maximize automated fabrica-
tion processes.
A detailed discussion of the test program
utilizing this preproduction horizontal stabili-
zer is provided later in the chapter.
6.07.3.3.3 Description of structure
The 777 empennage consists of the horizon-
tal and vertical stabilizers, elevators, and rud-
der (Figure 13). Each stabilizer is configured as
a two-cell box consisting of a main structural
box and an auxiliary or forward torque box,
leading edges, tip, and fixed trailing edges. The
main torque boxes are made from CFRP com-
posite material. The structure consists of solid-
laminate front and rear spars, honeycomb
20 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Table 2 Regulations concerning composite structure certification.
Category Regulation
Material and process 25.603
specifications 25.605
Material properties 25.613
25.619
Proof of strength 25.305
25.307
Damage tolerance 25.571
Other 25.581
25.609
sandwich ribs, and integrally stiffened laminate
skin panels. A toughened matrix CFRP mate-
rial is used for the main box panels and the
main box spars. This material provides
improved resistance to impact damage over
previous materials. The auxiliary torque box
and fixed trailing edges are made of glass or
glass/carbon fiber reinforced plastic sandwich
panels and aluminum ribs. The leading edge,
tip, and auxiliary spar are aluminum construc-
tion. The Boeing Company manufactures both
the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers at the
Composite Manufacturing Center located in
Fredrickson, WA, USA.
The elevator and rudder are also constructed
from CFRP sandwich panels, ribs, and spars,
and are hinged from the stabilizer or fin-fixed
trailing edge. The rudder incorporates a lower
tab of CFRP sandwich construction. The rud-
der is fabricated in Australia by ASTA and
Hawker DeHaviland fabricates the elevators.
A more detailed description of the 777 empen-
nage components can be found in Schreiber and
Quinlivan (1993).
6.07.3.3.4 Type certification approach
Boeing's approach to certification is based on
analysis supported by test evidence in compli-
ance with guidelines issued by the FAA and
JAA. The test program validated analysis meth-
ods, material design values, and manufacturing
processes. Full-scale testing of production em-
pennage structure together with other test data
formed the basis by which joint FAA/JAA
certification was granted. The test program
developed to support analysis and certification
for the 777 empennage was part of an
overall approach reviewed with the regulatory
authorities.
Materials
Fabrication methods
Material strength properties
and design values
Design properties
Special factors
Strength and deformation
Proof of structure
Fatigue evaluation
Residual strength
Discrete source damage
Lightning protection
Protection of structure
Discussion of the certification approach fol-
lows based on the regulations and means of
compliance. The topics of internal loads, envir-
onment, static strength, damage tolerance, and
fatigue are further discussed. The regulatory
requirements applicable to the 777 aircraft are
defined in FAR Part 25 and JAR Part 25. The
principal requirements for structural strength,
design, and construction are summarized in
Table 2. In addition to the regulations, the
FAA and JAA have identified an acceptable
means of compliance for certification of com-
posite structure (FAA AC 20-107A, 1984, JAA
ACJ 25.603, 1986). The advisory circular in-
cludes requirements in the following areas:
(i) Effects of environment (including design
allowables and impact damage).
(ii) Static strength (including repeated loads,
test environment, process control, material
variability, and impact damage).
(iii) Fatigue and damage tolerance evalua-
tion.
(iv) Other items such as flutter, flammabil-
ity, lightning protection, maintenance, and
repair.
Experience with similar structures was
important in developing the 777 certification
program. The 7J7 horizontal stabilizer (Takaki
et al., 1993a, 1993b) and the 777 preproduction
horizontal stabilizer programs validated analy-
tical methods, design allowables, and fabrica-
tion and assembly processes applied to the 777
empennage structure.
The FAA and JAA were involved in the
certification approach for the 777. They parti-
cipated through direct discussion and approval
of the certification plan, and indirectly through
Boeing designated engineering representatives
(DER). FAA representatives were present to
witness nearly all significant subcomponent
and full-scale production component tests.
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
Loads models based on finite element analy-
sis (FEA) were used to determine internal load
distributions. Elevators and the rudder are
modeled and attached to the main structure
with the control surface position corresponding
to the load condition being analyzed. External
loads representing airplane aerodynamic and
inertia loads are applied as nodal loads to the
entire FEA model of each respective stabilizer
and control surface. Hygrothermal loads are
also determined by use of the FEA model for
superposition with mechanical loads. The
horizontal stabilizer model is a stand-alone
analysis; the vertical stabilizer includes the in-
teraction effects with the fuselage as a boundary
condition at the fin base obtained from the
airplane major finite element model.
Analyses were performed to determine the
most critical environment expected in airline
service. In areas away from local heat sources,
the thermal analysis predicts a maximum in-
flight temperature of 71 8C (160 8F) and a mini-
mum temperature of 754 8C (765 8F). Studies
on the effect of moisture were performed for the
material systems applied in the empennage.
They determined that it is highly unlikely that
a moisture content of 1.1% by weight will be
exceeded in service.
The substantiation of static strength begins
by establishing material properties and design
values utilizing coupon, element, and subcom-
ponent data. Concurrently, methods of analysis
are established. Stress analysis follows where
the design is analyzed using ground, flight,
thermal, and inertia loads accounting for the
configuration, dimensions, and properties of
the structure. The analyses employ a variety
of semiempirical methods, continuum me-
chanics, and special finite element solutions.
The resulting calculated strains are compared
with design values to show positive margins of
safety for all critical load conditions. The ana-
lysis results are confirmed by conducting strain
surveys to verify the accuracy of the internal
loads model and limit load testing on the full-
scale airplane test. Additional evidence with
ultimate load and repeated load testing includ-
ing damage and environment is obtained from
elements, subcomponents, and the preproduc-
tion stabilizer.
A test program was conducted to provide
laminate-level allowable design strain values
covering each failure mode and environmental
condition. These were corrected for material
variability following MIL-Handbook 17 ap-
proved procedures. Laminate configurations
typical of the 777 empennage structure were
covered by the testing. Detailed design values
are verified by representative subcomponent
tests accounting for the effects of environment.
21
Laminated composites are susceptible to the
effects of impact damage. The 777 empennage
design recognizes this by the use of toughened-
resin CFRP materials, and by limiting design
strains. Subcomponent tests to establish design
strains include the presence of impact damage.
As a result, the composite structure was de-
signed to be capable of sustaining ultimate
load with isolated impact damage, inflicted by
any likely energy source, that cannot be de-
tected visually. This type of damage is fre-
quently referred to as barely visible impact
damage (BVID). Visibility studies using a
range of damages applied to several structural
components were conducted to determine the
threshold of detectability.
There are two primary damage tolerance re-
quirements described in FAR and JAR 25.571
and the advisory circulars (FAA AC 20-107A,
1984; JAA ACJ 25.603, 1986): damage growth
characterization and residual strength capabil-
ity. As in the case of static strength, damage
tolerance certification is based on analysis sup-
ported by tests at element and subcomponent
levels. Considering the applied strains, a no-
growth approach was selected for the 777
empennage similar to that used for the 737
program (Johnson et al., 1981). This approach
states that any damage which is visually unde-
tectable is not critical. Structures with this type
of damage must be capable of carrying ultimate
load for the operational life of the airplane.
This no-growth behavior was exhibited in
numerous subcomponent tests and two full-
scale cyclic tests: the 7J7 horizontal stabilizer
(Takaki et al., 1993b) and the preproduction
777 horizontal stabilizer. In each case, barely
visible damage was inflicted on the test article,
which then underwent spectrum-type repeated
loading. Damage sites were inspected for
growth during the test sequence. Full-scale
tests have further demonstrated the following:
(i) Manufacturing anomalies allowed per the
process specifications will not grow for the equi-
valent of more than two design service lives.
(ii) Visible damage due to foreign-object
impact will not grow for the duration of two
inspection intervals.
(iii) The structure can sustain specified resi-
dual strength loads with damage that can rea-
sonably be expected in service.
(iv) The structure can sustain specified static
loads (ªcontinued safe flight loadsº) after
incurring in-flight discrete-source damage.
In the case of fatigue, the 777 structure is
designed to meet or exceed the safety and eco-
nomic maintenance standards of current com-
mercial transport aircraft. The design service
objective is the equivalent of 40 000 flights of
1.5 hours duration, 25 000 flights of 3 hours
22 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures

Table 3 Analysis and supporting tests for the 777 empennage skin panels.

Analysis Supporting tests

Stiffness checks Coupons

Bearing/bypass and Multitude of coupon and element
bolt bending tests to develop the analysis curve.
Verified through element test
Crippling and local Element tests
instability
Euler column Classical analysis
Column/crippling Classical analysis supported by
interaction element testing.
Lateral instability Element testing to establish
analysis method verified
by subcomponent tests
Laminate bending Coupon testing
Stringer pulloff Element testing
Cut skin Element and subcomponent data
Cut stringer Load redistribution analysis
Cut skin and stringer Subcomponent testing
Visible damage Subcomponent testing
Skin buckling Classical analysis which is adjusted
due to subcomponent panel testing
Peak strains Coupon and element tests
Bolted repair Utilizes coupon through full-scale testing.
Usually analyzed with bearing/bypass
data at the skin, stringer flange, and
cap locations
Bonded repair Subcomponent testing
Segment check Subcomponent testing
forpanel design (this is used to understand
curve CAI and manufacturing
anomalies for the ultimate static check)
Continuous beam Classical analysis used to establish
column check strain levels for repair,
crippling, local instability,
stringer cap CAI, and far-field
strains for peak strain checks

duration, or 10 000 flights of 9 hours duration,
whichever is critical.
Fatigue evaluation of the metal structure is
based on established Boeing methods. The fa-
tigue behavior of the composite structure has
been characterized in tests at coupon, element,
and subcomponent levels, as well as full-scale
tests. The full-scale component tests have ver-
ified that deliberately inflicted damage does not
grow under operating loads.
The 777 structural inspection plan will pre-
vent catastrophic failure during the operational
life of the airframe by detecting fatigue, corro-
sion, or accidental damage. An initial structural
inspection and maintenance plan was estab-
lished based on the procedures of the Airline/
Manufacturer Maintenance Planning Docu-
ment. This approach analyzes the airplane
structure in terms of environmental and acci-
dental damage potential with consideration for
material, location, inspectability, and past ser-
vice experience.
6.07.3.3.5 Building block development test
program
The required testing to support an analysis
method should take advantage of established
coupon data and then pick the level of addi-
tional tests required for the detail being ana-
lyzed. More complex testing is used to
represent complicated details which cannot
be analyzed using coupon data or the conser-
vative assumptions used to gain confidence are
cost and performance handicaps. The goal is
to find the most economical way to gain sta-
tistical confidence and achieve safety, cost, and
performance goals. Skin panels relied on a
multitude of analyses supported by all levels
of testing, which made up the building block
approach for the 777 empennage structure. In
this section, skin panel analyses and the sup-
ported level of testing given in Table 3 will
be used as an example of building block
approaches.
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
Coupon level testing typically benefits all de-
sign areas that are fabricated using the material
of interest. In contrast, larger scale testing typi-
cally benefits only one particular part or groups
of parts such as skin panels. The benefits the
panels receive from coupon testing include ma-
terial stiffness and unnotched properties as well
as open hole compression strength (OHC) and
filled hole tension strength (FHT) values used
to size for repair. In the absence of compression
after impact strength (CAI) values, they can
also be used for BVID residual strength approx-
imations and provide the effects of various en-
vironments on design values.
Element tests take coupon testing to a more
complex level. They typically involve details
that are repeated on a certain part or a similar
group of parts. Element testing supporting skin
panel design and other similar details may in-
clude crippling tests, tabout strain concentra-
tions, stiffener pull-off, and simplistic one and
two fastener joint tests to help establish bear-
ing/bypass curves. Element testing is also done
in various environments, and can include many
variables (especially joint testing) depending on
the use of the particular design detail being
sized.
Subcomponent testing is done to help estab-
lish design values and support methods of
analysis for a particular part. An important
subcomponent test article that supports the
main box skin panels is a five-stringer com-
pression panel that is approximately four rib
bays long. The size of this test article should be
large enough to simulate load redistribution
due to skin buckling and inflicted damage. It
should represent true geometrical (such as
column) and environmental effects on
strength. It should also be large enough to
incorporate a major bolted or bonded repair.
Finally, the panel simulates simply supported
boundary conditions at the ribs. Subcompo-
nent compression panel testing is first used to
establish panel ultimate static strength design
values. The tests incorporate BVID and man-
ufacturing anomalies that the engineering
community does not expect will be found
with production NDI methods. The tests are
done in both room temperature/ambient and
hot/wet environments with the impacts on the
outer mold line (OML) as well as the inner
mold line (IML). IML impacts simulate fac-
tory damage during assembly. Damage toler-
ance is verified through residual strength
testing. This involves features such as visible
impact damage, disbonded stringer, and cut
skin and stringer. Some testing is performed
on repaired panels to validate both bonded
repair design values and the analysis used to
size bolted repairs.
23
Full-scale testing is used to demonstrate the
accuracy of the analysis tools and that there are
no nonlinear deformations prior to limit load.
It is also used to demonstrate durability, da-
mage tolerance (verify possible no-growth ap-
proach), and repair concepts. When new
structural concepts and materials are used, ul-
timate load verification may be required. When
the full-scale box is taken to failure, failure
analysis can be verified and correlated to the
methods of analysis used and derived from the
building block design values.
The contribution of the full-scale test to
panel design usually comes past the develop-
ment stage but is applied to subsequent airplane
derivatives. In the case of the 777 empennage,
the effect of actual boundary conditions sup-
plied at the main torque ribs was used to adjust
the five stringer panel design curves. The five
stringer panel deflections simulate simply sup-
ported boundary conditions while full-scale box
panels simulate a continuous beam column
which results in lower overall moments and
load to buckling load ratio (P/Pcr) effects.
CAI for the stringer caps, which are sensitive
to moments due to their distance from the
panel's neutral axis, can be the most critical
detail in a five-stringer panel compression test.
Moving the CAI cap strain check from the
panel design curve to the continuous beam
column check predicted the cap strain much
more accurately. As a result, this saved weight
and cost on subsequent derivatives.
6.07.3.3.6 Experiences in structural size scaling
An extensive coupon and element level test
program was conducted in support of the new
777 composite structure applications. These
tests were conducted to establish material stiff-
ness properties, statistical allowables and
strength design values, and to validate analyti-
cal methods. Laminate level statistical allow-
ables were established for unnotched and
notched conditions following recommended
procedures from MIL-Handbook-17. Testing
covered laminate, joint, and structural config-
urations typical of the 777 empennage, tem-
peratures from 754 8C to 82 8C, moisture
conditioned laminates, and the effects of man-
ufacturing variations and defects allowed
within the process specifications. A limited
amount of impact damage testing was per-
formed at the element level. Test article config-
urations ranged from simple rectangular
coupons to bolted joint, angle-section, I-sec-
tion, and shear panel element tests. A summary
of the testing is shown in Table 4.
24 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Table 4 Summary of toughened CFRP coupon
and element tests.
Test type Number of tests
Ply properties 235
Long-term environmental exposure 200
Laminate strength 2334
Interlaminar strength 574
Radius details 184
Crippling 271
Stress concentrations 118
Effects of defects 494
Bolted joints 3025
Durability 385
Bonded repair 239
Total 8059
Subcomponent tests were conducted to es-
tablish point design values and to validate
methods of analysis for skin panel, spar, rib,
trailing edge beam, horizontal stabilizer center-
line splice joint, and vertical stabilizer root joint
structure. These design values accounted for the
effects of environment, the presence of BVID,
and large damages. The subcomponent test
results comprise a significant portion of the
test evidence required to validate analytical
methods and demonstrate the required levels
of static strength and damage tolerance for the
777 empennage.
A major focus of the empennage subcompo-
nent test program involved the main torque box
skin panels. These panels consist of an inte-
grally stiffened solid laminate skin with I-sec-
tion stringers. A series of 10 five-stringer, three
rib-bay compression panels with small impact
damages were used to establish the panel design
strain curve. The design strain values were de-
rived from the panel failure loads using a mod-
ification of the classical effective width analysis
technique. Tests were conducted at room tem-
perature and hot-wet conditions, and included
BVID and typical manufacturing flaws.
Eight five-stringer panels were tested to vali-
date repair concepts. Three tests contained
bolted repairs using titanium doubler plates;
five tests contained bonded prepreg scarf joint
repairs. All panels demonstrated ultimate load
capability. Six of the panels were tested in
compression; one panel of each repair type
was tested in tension. Two bonded repair com-
pression panels were tested in a hot-wet condi-
tion. The bonded repair tension panel
contained impact damages and was fatigue
cycled for two lifetimes of operational loads
without damage growth or disbond of the re-
pair. A typical bolted repair is shown in
Figure 14. Figure 15 shows a compression
panel with a bonded repair under load; the
moire image clearly shows the buckle pattern
of the skin panel and the location of the repair.
Another 10 five-stringer compression panels
and two five-stringer tension panels were used
to demonstrate capability for various large da-
mages. Damage configurations included dis-
bonded stringers, clearly visible impact
damages, and saw cut damages to the skin
and to a skin/stringer element. The first two
damage types validated capability for regula-
tory fail-safe (FAR 25.571b) damage tolerance
evaluations, while saw cut damages validated
capability for discrete source (FAR 25.571e)
evaluations.
Five-stringer panels loaded in combined
shear and compression were used to validate
the shear-compression design envelope. Six pa-
nels with small damages were tested in a spe-
cialized test machine at several shear/
compression load ratios. Additional stiffened
panel tests were conducted to validate specific
design details, including stringer runouts, the
stabilizer centerline splice joint, and trailing-
edge rib-to-skin joints.
Two large subcomponent tests were con-
ducted to evaluate the primary joint of the
777 vertical stabilizer root attachment to the
fuselage. The main objective of the tests was to
validate the analysis and load distribution as-
sumptions for the joint. These tests also satis-
fied requests by the FAA and JAA for
demonstrating ultimate load capability (FAR/
JAR 25.305 and 25.307) and durability (FAR/
JAR 25.571) of this CFRP/titanium joint.
These objectives were accomplished by fab-
ricating two test articles representative of the
777-200 design, each composed of a four bay
section of CFRP skin panel with two titanium
root fittings (see Figure 16). The first article was
subjected to static testing in a series of limit and
ultimate load conditions in tension and com-
pression, culminating in a destruction test
under tension loads. The final tension test
loaded the article to 1.5 times DUL when the
shear fasteners at the stabilizer±body interface
failed. The skin and fittings remained intact as
did the tension bolt/barrel nut connection.
The second test article was tested with cyclic
loads at a constant amplitude followed by a
tensile residual strength test. The objective of
the fatigue test was to find potential fatigue
critical areas and investigate crack growth be-
havior. The fatigue test article was tested at
four times the maximum vertical stabilizer fati-
gue loads. Cracks in titanium clips and fittings
developed. The most detrimental crack to the
overall structure began well after two equiva-
lent design service objectives. The fatigue test
was followed by residual strength tests in com-
pression to limit load and in tension to failure.
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications 25

Figure 14 Typical bolted repair on CFRP skin panel: (a) interior view, (b) exterior view.

The panel failed under tension loading at ap-
proximately 1.5 times DUL caused initially by
failure of the shear fasteners at the stabilizer±
body interface, followed by a two-piece failure
in the CFRP skin panel.
Several test types were used to demonstrate
no-growth of small damages under operational
repeated loading. These tests complemented
results from the full-scale component fatigue
testing, and involved:
(i) axially loaded flat panels
(ii) shear loaded flat panels with cutouts
(iii) stiffened panel with a bonded repair
(iv) spar shear beams with web cutouts
(v) centerline splice joint stiffened panel.
The following critical design values and
methods of analysis were validated by subcom-
ponent tests.
(i) Compression ultimate strength design
value curve for stiffened skin panels.
26 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures

(ii) Shear-compression ultimate strength

interaction curve for stiffened skin panels.
(iii) Compression and tension damage toler-
ance analysis for stiffened skin panels.
(iv) Strength of bolted and bonded repair
designs for stiffened skin panels.
(v) Bolted joint analysis and design values
for the skin panel-to-trailing edge rib joints.
(vi) Static compression and tension strength,
and tension fatigue performance of the hori-
zontal stabilizer centerline splice joint.
(vii) Analytical methods for spar strain dis-
tributions, web stability, and peak strains at
cutouts.
(viii) Analytical methods for rib shear tie
and chord strength and stiffness.
(ix) Peak strain design values for rib shear tie
cutouts.
In summary, the subcomponent testing pro-
vided data to support the development of spe-
cific design values and to validate analytical
methods. These design values and methods
were then used to support findings of compli-
ance with FARs 25.307, 25.571, 25.603, 25.605,
and 25.613. This supporting data was devel-
oped using procedures that follow the guide-
lines in the composite structure advisory
circulars (FAA AC 20-107A, 1984; JAA ACJ
25.603, 1986).

Figure 15 Bonded repair on CFRP skin panel 6.07.3.3.7 Preproduction tests

under load.
The 777 preproduction horizontal stabilizer
test article was nearly identical to the produc-
tion component. The test article was a partial

Figure 16 777 vertical fin root joint test article.

 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
Figure 17 Preproduction horizontal stabilizer test setup.
span box. The minimum gage outboard sec-
tions were eliminated for cost considerations
and replaced with load application fixtures.
The test article included typical, specification-
allowed process anomalies, as well as low-velo-
city impact damage up to and beyond the visual
threshold. The test article is shown in Figure 17.
The test load sequence included strain surveys,
two design service objectives of fatigue loading
with a load enhancement factor, and demon-
stration of ultimate load capability. The test
article was then damaged to a ªvisibleº level
and fatigue cycled for two inspection intervals
followed by fail-safe (limit) load application.
Next, element damage was inflicted and ªget-
homeº loads applied. These loads were
approximately 70% of the limit loads. Follow-
ing this, the element and visible damages were
repaired and ultimate load capability was again
demonstrated with the repaired structure.
Finally, the test article was loaded to destruc-
tion. A more detailed description including the
test setup is contained in Schreiber and Quinli-
van (1993).
One of the test objectives was to validate the
ªno-growthº design philosophy for damage
(FAA AC 20-107A, 1984; JAA ACJ 25.603,
1986). To do this, impact damages were in-
flicted on the test box at the barely visible
level. Fatigue testing was conducted for load
cycles representative of two design service ob-
jectives. Periodic ultrasonic inspection revealed
an absence of significant damage growth. This
test included a 15% load enhancement factor to
account for possible fatigue scatter associated
27
with the flat S±N curves typical of composite
materials.
Limit load strain surveys and initial ultimate
load testing results demonstrated the predictive
capability of the FEA internal loads model.
Measured strains were at or below predicted
strains. There was no indication of permanent
deformation in any component.
To demonstrate residual strength capability,
the test box was further damaged with visible
impacts. Visible damages are those that are
easily detected by scheduled maintenance in-
spections. Fatigue testing representative of
two inspection intervals again verified the no-
growth approach. Limit load testing verified
that the structure was capable of carrying the
required loads (FAR 25.57 1b) with these da-
mages existing in the structure. The test box
was then inflicted with major damage in the
form of saw cuts to the front and rear spar
chords and a completely severed stringer/skin
segment. Capability to sustain continued safe
flight load (approximately 70% of limit load for
stabilizer structure) was demonstrated (FAR
25.571e). Again, the deliberately inflicted
damages were ultrasonically inspected and
showed no detrimental growth. Residual
strength testing substantiated the analytical
predictions and empirical results based on sub-
component test characterization.
Upon completion of the damage tolerance
testing, the cut element damages and the
major through-penetration impact damages
were repaired using bolted, titanium sheet
metal repairs. Repairs were performed with
28 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Figure 18 777 horizontal stabilizer test setup.
external access only, simulating in-service re-
pair conditions. The test article was subjected
to design ultimate loads (DUL) with the repairs
in place.
The test article was loaded to destruction
using a symmetric down-bending load case. A
two-piece rupture occurred in the lower surface
skin panel, between ribs one and two. Final
failure occurred above the required load level.
The skin panel failure was predicted using the
analytical methods and design values derived
from five-stringer compression panel subcom-
ponent tests.
In summary, the preproduction test substan-
tiated:
(i) The ªno damage growthº behavior.
(ii) The strength, durability, and damage
tolerance of the 777 CFRP empennage design.
(iii) The methods of analysis, material prop-
erties, and design values used to design and
analyze a CFRP empennage.
(iv) The capability of the Elfini internal
loads model for predicting strain distributions
and deflections.
(v) Design and application of mechanically
fastened repairs.
6.07.3.3.8 Production component tests
The primary objective of full-scale produc-
tion component tests for the 777 horizontal and
vertical stabilizers was limit load substantiation
in compliance with FAR/JAR 25.305 and
25.307. A further objective is to verify the
load distribution and analytical methodology.
Previous experience from ultimate load and
failure testing of the 737, 7J7, and 777 prepro-
duction horizontal stabilizer test boxes re-
moved the need to test the 777 production
structure beyond limit load for certification.
The 777 horizontal stabilizer and elevators
were tested separately from the airplane be-
cause the attachment to the body is determi-
nate. The test specimen was a structurally
complete production article (Figure 18). Non-
structural components and systems not essen-
tial to the structural performance or induced
loading of the stabilizer were omitted. The
strakelet and tip fairings were not installed,
and the elevator actuators were replaced by
rigid links. The test specimen was fabricated
by the same construction methods and gov-
erned by the same specification requirements
as other production structures. FAA confor-
mity was maintained on the majority of parts
via inspection prior to testing.
Test loads were computed for each static load
condition to match the required shear, moment,
and torsion values. These test loads were ap-
plied to the stabilizer using hydraulic actuators
connected to attachment fittings mounted on
the stabilizer structure. The stabilizer was
mounted in the test fixture at the pivot and
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications 29

Figure 19 777 horizontal stabilizer test sequence.

Figure 20 777 horizontal stabilizer test, predicted vs. actual deflection.

jackscrew fittings, as it would be in an airplane.
The test article was instrumented with strain
gages, electronic deflection indicators (EDIs),
and calibrated load-cells at selected locations.
Instrumentation was used to monitor structural
responses and provide data for correlation to
analytical predictions during all strain surveys.
Testing was conducted outdoors at ambient
conditions.
Three critical static load conditions were in-
cluded in the test: up, down, and unsymmetric
bending. Figure 19 depicts the loading
sequence. As in the preproduction test box,
limit load strain survey results were used to
demonstrate the predictive capability of the
FEA model. Measured strains and deflections
(Figure 20) were accurately predicted. There
were no signs of permanent deformation.
Additional testing was performed which was
not required for certification. This included
fatigue, ultimate load, and destruction testing.
The horizontal stabilizer was subjected to
120 000 flights of spectrum fatigue loading to
satisfy the program objectives. This test was
primarily intended to verify the fatigue charac-
teristics of the metallic portion of the stabilizer.
Composite structure was verified by the pre-
production test box described earlier. Ultimate
load and destruction testing was meant to sup-
plement the data that was acquired as part of
the certification program and to verify future
growth capability. Three load cases were run
representative of up, down, and unsymmetric
bending. The critical down-bending load case
was used for the destruction run. The test box
was subjected to BVID and loaded to failure.
30 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
Figure 21 777 vertical stabilizer test setup.
The failure location was accurately identified
and the failure load was predicted within 3%.
Final failure occurred above the required load
level.
The 777 horizontal stabilizer test program
met the following goals.
(i) Verified compliance with FAR/JAR
25.305 and 25.307. The test article sustained
limit load for critical conditions without per-
manent deformation.
(ii) Verified the predictive capability of ana-
lysis methods coupled with subcomponent
tests. Strains and deflections closely matched
the analysis.
(iii) Verified the design service goals of the
777 horizontal stabilizer.
(iv) Verified the absence of widespread
damage due to fatigue.
The 777 vertical stabilizer including the rud-
der was tested as part of the airplane full-scale
test (Figure 21). Again, the purpose was to
show limit load capability and verify accuracy
of analytically calculated strains and deflec-
tions. Tests began in June 1994 as part of the
full-scale airplane test and were completed in
April 1995. A second airplane with vertical
stabilizer and rudder was used in the major
fatigue test, which began in January 1995.
The static test article was the second produc-
tion airplane built. The aft portion of the air-
craft was structurally complete with the
exception of nonstructural components and sys-
tems. A load fixture attached at the pivot bulk-
head and jackscrew attachment replaced the
horizontal stabilizer. The leading edge and tip
were not installed on the vertical stabilizer, and
rudder actuators were replaced by rigid links.
As described for the horizontal stabilizer test,
loads were computed for critical cases based on
the external load conditions and applied
through a series of actuators, fixtures, and
pads. The test article was fully instrumented
to monitor behavior and collect data for com-
parison with the analysis. Testing was con-
ducted indoors at ambient conditions.
Three critical conditions tested included
maximum bending (engine-out), maximum tor-
sion (hinge moment), and maximum shear (lat-
eral gust). Other test conditions were applied as
part of the overall airplane test sequence, but
were not critical for the vertical stabilizer. In
comparison with the analysis, measured strains
were accurately predicted. Measured deflection
along the span of the fin correlated well with the
FEA loads model (Figure 22). There were no
signs of permanent deformation.
 Composite Transport Airframe Applications
Figure 22 777 vertical stabilizer test, predicted vs. actual deflection.
A completely separate test using another
production airframe was conducted to verify
the fatigue behavior of the 777. As a part of
this test, the vertical stabilizer and rudder were
subjected to 120 000 flights of spectrum fatigue
loading.
The 777 vertical stabilizer test program was
successful in exceeding the same goals as de-
scribed for the horizontal stabilizer test.
6.07.3.3.9 Production and product support
Boeing's commitment to the 777 composite
empennage has provided valuable data from
their first large commercial production run.
Since 1993, the 777 production program has
made significant advances, which will benefit
future composite applications at Boeing. The
Boeing Composite Manufacturing Center was
brought on-line within cost projections and an
aggressive schedule, indicating successful pro-
duct scaling by the 777 IPT. Large reductions in
the fabrication and assembly labor content for
early shipsets indicate learning curve improve-
ments which are steeper than previous military
experiences.
The numerous process and quality improve-
ments which have occurred since the start of
777 empennage production indicate that a pro-
duction application can accelerate the develop-
ment of new technology. Boeing was well aware
of this from previous experiences. Several ad-
vances for the composite 777 empennage were
achieved in I-stiffened panel and spar fabrica-
tion processes. The toughened material used for
31
stiffened skin panels and spars has been reliably
produced in quantity, with very small varia-
tions in thickness. The rigorous size scaling
approach used for certification also yielded a
database, which combined with process and
material advances, eliminated some drawing
changes and assembly tooling costs for deriva-
tives in the 777 family of aircraft.
Continuous efforts are being made to reduce
production costs. Minor drawing changes,
which show added value, are a major part of
the airplane's sustaining effort. Process changes
handled through ªprocess control drawingsº
have become an efficient way of improving
part quality and these drawings provide a better
understanding of what is an acceptable level of
quality for individual detail parts. For more
complex changes, which demonstrate accepta-
ble levels of value, a group has been set up called
Design for Manufacturing (DFM). This group
handles the redesign of parts and assemblies,
which help facilitate the production process.
Material options and changes are always ex-
plored to reduce material costs while minimiz-
ing the impact to the design and certification.
The size scaling approach was also utilized to
help support production. Stress liaison activ-
ities must be supported to ensure adequate and
timely response to production problems. Sev-
eral factors on allowables exist. These include
short end and edge margins, porosity, delami-
nation (static and durability), oversized and
ovalized holes, fiber breakout, scarf repairs,
and impact damage. This data also leads to
allowable damage and repair limits for struc-
tural repair manuals which are used by the
airlines.
32 Composite Applications in Commercial Airframe Structures
6.07.4 SUMMARY
Advanced composite technologies must earn
their way into future commercial aircraft appli-
cations by adding value to the product and
gaining customer acceptance. To date, the
main benefits of composites over metals tech-
nology have been structural weight savings,
fatigue resistance, and corrosion suppression.
Other increases in value, such as reduced man-
ufacturing and maintenance costs, appear pos-
sible through future IPT efforts focused on such
issues.
Discussions on two types of scaling, size and
product, which are important to integrated
product development, were introduced and
used to explain the early development and ap-
plication of composites to Boeing commercial
transport structure. Early NASA prototype ap-
plications provided the database and service
experience to allow eventual production appli-
cation of composites to secondary structures,
critical control surfaces, and empennage (hor-
izontal stabilizers and vertical fins). The 777
aircraft was the first production program at
Boeing to implement the latter. Chapter 6.08,
this volume, is dedicated to discussions on the
evolution of size and product scaling efforts in a
Boeing development program for fuselage
structure.
The 777 empennage structural properties
were derived from a size scaling approach,
which correlated analysis with a balance of
tests at the coupon, element, and subcompo-
nent levels. Some structural behavior was pre-
dicted using reliable analysis methods and basic
material properties, reducing or eliminating the
number of element and subcomponent tests.
Difficult strength predictions used additional
element and subcomponent tests. The subcom-
ponent tests helped relieve overly conservative
analysis assumptions, which result in cost and
performance penalties. This approach also
proved to be more cost effective than develop-
ing sophisticated analysis methods and testing
many coupons at the lower level.
Data from the 777 composite empennage
program showed compliance with FAA and
JAA regulations. These results also added to a
confidence in the use of composite materials in
large primary structures for Boeing commercial
transport aircraft. The necessary steps leading
to this conclusion for structure technology were
fourfold. First, an early certification plan was
developed, by working together with the FAA/
JAA. Second, a dedicated material character-
ization program was executed. Third, static
strength substantiation was achieved by analy-
sis, accounting for the effects of damage and
environment, and the supporting tests. Finally,
damage tolerance verification was achieved
with a no-growth approach and the supporting
test data. The resultant composite airplane
components have proven to be safe and reli-
able. Ensuing production and product support
efforts have led to further increases in product
value.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the
many and diverse contributions of the 777 em-
pennage design-build team members and sup-
port staff. The hard work of other Boeing
composite groups described in the chapter
were crucial to the introduction of composites
in prototype and production applications since
the 1970s. We acknowledge D. R. Wilson, K.
H. Schreiber, and J. T. Quinlivan for their
leadership in the 777 certification process. We
are also thankful to S. Wood, of the FAA, for
his oversight during the course of the 777 pro-
gram. The IPT efforts of Boeing development
groups, which have built on past experiences to
guide a path to future improvements in the
value of composite structure, were essential to
documenting the concepts of size and product
scaling. S. Metschan's insights on product value
and design cost are worthy of special note.
6.07.5 REMEMBRANCE OF ERNEST F.
DOST
The authors would like to dedicate this chap-
ter to the memory of Ernest F. Dost, who
passed away on September 18, 1995. He had
numerous achievements prior to his tragic
death at the young age of 34. In less than a
decade, he solved many difficult problems in
composite structural design, manufacturing,
and maintenance as an aeronautics engineer at
Boeing. Ernie had a critical role in developing
insights for composite scaling and supported
some of the Boeing composite programs,
which were described in this chapter. His pio-
neering efforts to quantify the effects of impact
damage on composite structural performance
are also worthy of special note.
6.07.6 REFERENCES
R. B. Aniversario, S. T. Harvey, J. E. McCarty, J. T.
Parsons, D. C. Peterson, L. D. Pritchett, D. R. Wilson
and E. R. Wogulis, `Full-Scale Testing, Production, and
Cost Analysis Data for the Advanced Composite Sta-
bilizer for Boeing 737 Aircraft Volume IÐTechnical
Summary', NASA CR-3649, December 1982.
K. Armstrong and R. T. Barrett, `Care and Repair of
 References
Advanced Composites', SAE International, 1998.
Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee
(CACRC), `Design of Durable, Repairable, and Main-
tainable Aircraft Composites', SAE International, AE-
27, 1997.
R. L. Coggeshall, `Boeing/NASA Composite Components
Flight Service Evaluation', NASA Contractors Report
181 898, November 1989.
D. V. Chovil, S. T. Harvey, J. E. McCarty, O. E. Desper,
E. S. Jamison and H. Syder, `Advanced Composite
Elevator for Boeing 727 Aircraft Volume IÐTechnical
Summary', NASA CR 3290, November 1981.
H. B. Dexter, `Long Term Environmental Effects and
Flight Test Evaluation of Composite Materials', NASA
TM 89 067, January 1987.
Code of Federal Regulations, Aeronautics and Space,
Part 25 - Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category
Airplanes, 1999.
E. F. Dost, L. B. Ilcewicz, W. B. Avery, S. R. Finn, D. B.
Scholz, D. P. Murphy and B. R. Coxon, Composites
Part A, 1999, in press.
A. Fawcett, J. Trostle and S. Ward, 777 Empennage
Certification Approach, Presented at the Eleventh In-
ternational Conference for Composite Materials',
Queensland, Australia, 1997.
FAA Advisory Circular 20-107A, Composite Aircraft
Structure, 1984; and, companion document by the
JAA, ACJ 25.603, Composite Aircraft Structure (Ac-
ceptable Means of Compliance), 1986.
L. B. Ilcewicz, Composites Part A, 1999, 30A(3), 385±393.
L. B. Ilcewicz, G. E. Mabson, S. L. Metschan, M. R.
Proctor, D. K. Tervo, H. G. Fredrikson, T. G. Gu-
towski, E. T. Neoh and K. C. Polger, `Cost Optimiza-
tion Software for Transport Aircraft Design
EvaluationÐDesign Cost Methods', NASA Contractor
Report 4737, August, 1996.
L. Ilcewicz, A. Miller and H. Loken, in `Applied Hygro-
thermal Characterization and Analysis of Composites,
Presented at the Gorden Research Conference on Com-
posites: Interrelating Design, Manufacturing, and
Chemistry', Santa Barbara, CA, Jan. 12±16 1987.
L.B. Ilcewicz, P.J. Smith, C.T. Hanson, T.H. Walker, S.L.
Metschan, G.E. Mabson, K.S. Willden, B.W. Flynn,
D.B. Scholz, D.R. Polland, H.G. Fredrikson, J.T.
Olson and B.F. Backman, `Advanced Technology Com-
posite FuselageÐProgram Overview', NASA Contrac-
tor Report 4734, April, 1997.
L. Ilcewicz, P. Smith and R. Horton, in `Third NASA/
Copyright # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in any
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
33
DOD Advanced Composite Technology Conference',
NASA, CP-3178, 1992, pp. 97±156.
L. B. Ilcewicz, T. H. Walker and B. Dopker, Composites
Part A, 1999a, in press.
L. B. Ilcewicz, T. H. Walker, K. S. Willden, G. D.
Swanson, G. Truslove and C. L. Pfahl, `Application
of a Design-Build-Team Approach to Low Cost and
Weight Composite Fuselage Structure', NASA Con-
tractors Report 4418, November 1991.
L. B. Ilcewicz, K. S. Willden and S. L. Metschan,
Composites Part A, 1999b, in press.
R. W. Johnson, J. E. McCarty and D. R. Wilson, in
`Damage Tolerance Testing for the Boeing 737 Gra-
phite-Epoxy Horizontal Stabilizer, Presented at the 5th
DoD/NASA Conference on Fibrous Composites in
Structure Design', NADC 81 096-60, New Orleans,
1981 Jan.
Joint Aviation Requirements, JAR-25, Large Aeroplanes,
1999.
G. E. Mabson, L. B. Ilcewicz, D. L. Graesser, S. L.
Metschan, M. R. Proctor, D. K. Tervo, M. E. Tuttle,
and Z. B. Zabinsky, `Cost Optimization Software for
Transport Aircraft Design EvaluationÐOverview',
NASA Contractor Report 4736, August, 1996.
J. E. McCarty, R. W. Johnson and D. R. Wilson, 737
Graphite-Epoxy Horizontal Stabilizer Certification',
AIAA paper number 82-0745, 1982.
S. Metschan, K. Willden, G. Sharpless and R. Andelman,
in `Third NASA/DOD Advanced Composite Technol-
ogy Conference', NASA, CP-3178, 1992, pp. 323±340.
Mil-Handbook- 17E, `Composite Materials Handbook',
US Department of Defense, 1999.
K. H. Schreiber and J. T. Quinlivan, in `The Boeing 777
Empennage, Presented at the Ninth International Con-
ference for Composite Materials', Madrid, 1993.
J. Takaki, J. Kimura, J. Berner, M. Hirahara and A.
Yahata, in `CFRP Horizontal Stabilizer Developmental
Test Program, Presented at the Ninth International
Conference for Composite Materials', Madrid, 1993a.
J. Takaki, J. Kimura, J. Berner, M. Hirahara and A.
Yahata, in `Fatigue Test for CFRP Horizontal Stabi-
lizer, Presented at the 17th International Committee on
Aeronautical Fatigue', Sweden, June, 1993b.
US National Research Council, meeting with Boeing
Commercial Airplane Group on Dec. 10 and 11,
1991, published in `Computer-Aided Materials Selection
During Structural Design', NMBA-467, National Acad-
emy Press, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 11±17.
Comprehensive Composite Materials
ISBN (set): 0-08 0429939
Volume 6; (ISBN: 0-080437249); pp. 87±119