Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000
Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

1st International Workshop on Plasticity, Damage and Fracture of Engineering Materials

Materials Selection
1st International foronAircraft
Workshop Plasticity, Skin Panels
Damage by Integrating
and Fracture Multiple
of Engineering Materials

Constraints
Materials Selection Design withSkin
for Aircraft Computational EvaluationsMultiple
Panels by Integrating
Constraints Design with
HandeComputational
Yavuz* Evaluations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Turkish Aeronautical Association, Ankara 06790, Turkey
Hande Yavuz*
Abstract Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Turkish Aeronautical Association, Ankara 06790, Turkey

Among the principal load-carrying parts of an aircraft, the center wing box yields the main mechanical load-carrying area and is
composed of many structural components and elements such as upper and lower skin panels, internal rods, ribs, stringers, front and
Abstract
rear spars. For the structural analysis of such real complex systems, simplified representations of the same sections would be used
alternatively
Among to determine
the principal whether components
load-carrying could withstand
parts of an aircraft, the centerloadings
wing box without
yieldsexperiencing failure, thus
the main mechanical stay in thearea
load-carrying margin
and of
is
safety. Nevertheless,
composed these components
of many structural components should contribute
and elements to weight
such as upperefficiency
and lowerwhile
skin carrying in-plane
panels, internal loads
rods, andstringers,
ribs, distribute out-of-
front and
planespars.
rear loadsFor
to in-plane members
the structural safely.
analysis Materials
of such selectionsystems,
real complex plays a simplified
crucial rolerepresentations
for the determination of such
of the same candidate
sections wouldmaterials
be used
along with their
alternatively material properties
to determine in specific structural
whether components applications.
could withstand loadingsIt without
is usually performed by
experiencing considering
failure, thus stayproper
in theobjectives,
margin of
constraints
safety. and free variables
Nevertheless, with respect
these components to functions
should of the
contribute to components of a system.
weight efficiency Since Composite
while carrying in-plane Material
loads andHandbook
distribute (CMH-
out-of-
17), Metallic
plane loads toMaterials Propertiessafely.
in-plane members Development
Materialsand Standardization
selection (MMPDS),
plays a crucial role forand
thePreliminary
determination Material
of suchProperties
candidateHandbook
materials
(PMP-HDBK)
along with theirdatabases
materialare embedded
properties in in the materials
specific selection
structural softwareIt (CES
applications. Edupack),
is usually best candidate
performed materials
by considering would
proper be easily
objectives,
identified
constraintsbyandusing
free coupling
variables constant(s)
with respectsuch as in multiple-constraints
to functions of the componentsdesigns. In this
of a system. Sincestudy, Ashby’sMaterial
Composite methodology
Handbookwas applied
(CMH-
to determine
17), Metallic best candidate
Materials materials
Properties for constructing
Development skin panels by considering
and Standardization (MMPDS), and themPreliminary
as bending Material
plates. According
PropertiestoHandbook
materials
selection
(PMP-HDBK) approach, continuous
databases fiber in
are embedded reinforced epoxy
the materials composites
selection software was
(CESstipulated
Edupack), as best
onecandidate
of the best candidate
materials wouldmaterials.
be easily
Computational
identified by usingfailure analysis
coupling was thensuch
constant(s) carried
as in out by referring the designs.
multiple-constraints proper material properties
In this study, Ashby’sfrom the materials
methodology wasselection
applied
software.
to determine best candidate materials for constructing skin panels by considering them as bending plates. According to materials
selection approach, continuous fiber reinforced epoxy composites was stipulated as one of the best candidate materials.
© 2019 TheMaterials
Authors. selection;
Published structural
by Elsevier B.V.
Computational
Keywords: failure analysis was then carriedfinite
components; out element
by referring
analysisthe proper material properties from the materials selection
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
software.
Peer-review under responsibility of the 1st International Workshop on Plasticity, Damage and Fracture of Engineering Materials organizers
Keywords: Materials selection; structural components; finite element analysis

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-589-6104; fax: +90-312-324-8460.

E-mail address: hande.yavuz@centraliens.net

2452-3216 © 2019 author.

* Corresponding The Authors. Published by Elsevier
Tel.: +90-312-589-6104; fax:B.V.
+90-312-324-8460.
ThisE-mail
is an open access
address: article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
hande.yavuz@centraliens.net
Peer-review under responsibility of the 1st International Workshop on Plasticity, Damage and Fracture of Engineering Materials
organizers
2452-3216 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Peer-review under responsibility of the 1st International Workshop on Plasticity, Damage and Fracture of Engineering Materials
organizers
2452-3216 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the 1st International Workshop on Plasticity, Damage and Fracture of Engineering Materials organizers
10.1016/j.prostr.2019.12.092
 Hande Yavuz / Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119 113
2 H. Yavuz/Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Design criteria of aircrafts are still evolving due to their complexity and variety of challenges associated with
safety issues (Bristow and Irving 2007). Complexity arises together with safety concerns in the form of several
structural criteria: (1) external loads in terms of flight and ground loads have to be sufficiently defined, (2) internal
loads should be balanced for each components on the account of good structural arrangement, (3) weight efficiency
of structures should be controlled via properly located structural members, (4) material allowable should meet the
design constraints and specifications, and (5) other safety issues would be considered for the protection against
lightning strike, bird strike, and fatigue failure, etc. (Schijve 1994, Wanhill 2018, Degenhardt 2014, de Florio 2016).
According to the published data concerning large transportation aircrafts, mass reduction of 1 kg achieved leads to
decrease in fuel consumption around 120 L/year (Gay 2015). Arguing this fact would come along with the positive
outcome of the use of polymer composites by means of contributing to payload gain and aircraft performance
accordingly (Hinrichsen and Bautista 2001). However, with the increasing use of polymer composites in aircrafts,
employing comprehensive testing issues for the determination of mechanical behavior at coupon-, element-, and
component-level and performing extensive research to analyze their failure and damage characteristics possess the
utmost importance especially prior to full-scale structural testing. Towards the acceptance issues of final composite
product, coupon-level testing covers static strength, fatigue, damage sensitivity, moisture, and temperature effects.
Joints and shear webs are usually grouped under the element-level testing items. Stiffened panels, major joints and
full-scale sections such as nose-radomes are tested at the component-level (Johnson, Thomson, David, Joosten 2015).
For the computational analysis of aircraft sections, idealization approach would also be referred in order to analyze
the failure behavior of the structural components (Kaplan 2017, Dababneh and Kayran 2014).
For the construction of aircraft components, materials selection plays a crucial role for the determination of
candidate materials along with their material properties in specific structural applications. It is usually performed by
considering proper objectives, constraints, and free variables with respect to functions of the components of a system
at the preliminary design stage prior to computational analysis (Ashby 2011). Basically, in Ashby’s methodology, the
components are mainly considered in the form of beam, plate or column, etc. and they are often investigated under
limited load case scenarios. Since widely recognized materials databases (e.g., CMH-17, MMPDS, PMP-HDBK) are
available in materials selection software, best candidate materials would be easily identified using coupling constant(s)
or exchange constant(s) depending on the way constraints and objectives organized (Ashby 2011, CES 2018).
Combining strength and stiffness constraints within a single objective in order to minimize the mass of a component
is regarded as multiple constraints design. Incorporating mass and cost objectives into single solution by defining a
locally linear utility function is identified as conflicting objectives design. Nevertheless, it would worth mentioning
flutter prevention in aircrafts while maximizing stiffness and strength properties of aircraft structures via Ashby’s
methodology. Stiffness increase may not always be beneficial for the aircraft flutter, increase in bending mode
frequency may positively affect bending strength; however, it would cause earlier bending-torsion coupling that may
lead lower flutter speed (Zhu and Qui 1991). In lieu of introducing coupled set of complex design parameters to avoid
panel flutter (Jorgensen 1991, Gou 2007), materials selection using Ashby’s methodology was applied only on a
uniform panel without extending the study towards the analysis of bending-torsion coupling. Besides, the design
methodology may also be reconsidered using polymer composites in the form of dog-bone specimens (Monroy Aceves
2008).
In this study, Ashby’s methodology was applied to determine best candidate materials for constructing stiff, strong,
and light skin panels in an aircraft. According to materials selection approach, continuous fiber reinforced epoxy
composites was found as one of the best candidate materials. Determination of proper mechanical properties of a
material is essential when performing structural analysis on load-bearing components. Thus, elastic and strength
properties of unidirectional continuous fiber reinforced epoxy composites were gathered from CES Edupack Material
Universe Database (CES 2018). Various strength based failure criteria as regards classical lamination theory was also
implemented in MATLAB in order to compare the effect of stacking sequence on the failure behavior of the laminated
composite structures. Among those failure criteria, Hashin’s model was both adopted in MATLAB (Matlab 2015) and
114 Hande Yavuz / Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119
H. Yavuz/Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

Abaqus v6.14 (Abaqus 2012) for the damage evaluations of unnotched laminates. Moreover, the failure behavior of
various notched laminates was also analyzed using Hashin’s built-in model in Abaqus v6.14.

Nomenclature

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CES Cambridge Engineering Selector
CMH-17 Composite Materials Handbook
HSNFTCRT Hashin’s Tensile Fiber Failure Criteria
HSNFCCRT Hashin’s Compressive Fiber Failure Criteria
HSNMTCRT Hashin’s Tensile Matrix Failure Criteria
HSNMCCRT Hashin’s Compressive Matrix Failure Criteria
K1c Fracture toughness, tensile mode of
MMPDS Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization
PEEK Polyether ether ketone
PMP-HDBK Preliminary Material Properties Handbook
QI Quasi-isotropic laminate; [0/+45/-45/90]
SYM Symmetric laminate; [+45/+30/0/90]s
SYMB Symmetric balanced laminate; [+45/-45/0/90]s

2. Materials and Method

2.1. Materials selection for skin panels

The material selection for a skin panel in an aircraft was carried out using Ashby’s multiple constraints
methodology. Since the objective of this design is the minimization of mass, materials selection for a skin panel have
to be considered by covering both limitation cases as strength and stiffness as represented in Table 1.

Table 1. Material selection requirements for a skin panel in an aircraft

Function Skin panel (bending plate)
Objective Minimize mass
Constraints Must not fail (yielding/fracture) under load, F (constraint 1)
Must have specified stiffness, S (constraint 2)
Length L and bending moment M are specified
Must have adequate fracture toughness, K1c> 15 MPa·m1/2
Free variables Choice of material
Panel thickness, t

By introducing relevant equations for constructing stiff, strong, and light panel design, the coupling constant was
used to identify the candidate materials depending on the safety performances using CES Edupack software. K1c for
the structural materials must be higher than 15 MPa · m1/2 (Ashby 2011), thus the materials which have lower
adequate fracture toughness were eliminated from the graph where the families of composites, metals and metal alloys
were included accordingly (Figure 1).
For skin panels, best candidate materials were determined as cyanate ester/carbon fiber, PEEK/carbon fiber,
epoxy/carbon fiber, epoxy/aramid fiber, epoxy/glass fiber. Since epoxy/carbon fiber composites preserve their high
strength and stiffness at low densities, they become highly desirable for such component designs. Among the candidate
materials, elastic and strength properties are readily available for AS4/3502 in CES EduPack software. Thus, these
data were withdrawn from CES Edupack software for the computational damage analysis in various laminated
 Hande Yavuz / Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119 115
4 H. Yavuz/Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

composites under prescribed boundary conditions.

M1=Density / Yield strength (elastic limit)^(1 / 2)

10000 constraint 1 dominant

Metals and alloys

1000

Beryllium, grade I-250, hot isostatically pressed

100
Epoxy/E-glass fiber, UD prepreg, UD lay-up
Beryllium (50-127 micron, f)
Epoxy/aramid fiber, UD prepreg, UD lay-up
BMI/HS carbon fiber, UD prepreg, UD lay-up
Composites BMI/HS carbon fiber, UD prepreg, UD lay-up
Epoxy/HS carbon fiber, UD prepreg, UD lay-up

10 PEEK/IM carbon fiber, UD prepreg, UD lay-up

Cyanate ester/HM carbon fiber, UD prepreg, UD lay-up constraint 2 dominant
100 1000 10000
M2=Density / Young's modulus^(1 / 3)

Fig. 1. Coupling line and best choice of materials for skin panels using multiple constraints design.

2.2. Computational damage analysis for composite laminates

The damage analysis of various unnotched composite laminates were explored by both MATLAB and
Abaqus/Standard v6.14. The built-in Hashin model in Abaqus was chosen to evaluate the ply-level mechanical damage
initiation characteristics of various notched composite laminates. According to Hashin’s theory, four different damage
initiation mechanisms were considered: HSNFTCRT, HSNFCCRT, HSNMTCRT, and HSNMCCRT (Hashin 1980).
Without damage evolution model, Abaqus simply keeps track of the damage initiation variables without adjusting the
strength of the element to account for damage. Hence, this may cause an unrealistic tensile force-displacement
response. Damage evolution model was referred to be based on linear softening by taking into account the fracture
energy data. Besides, in-house developed MATLAB code as regards classical lamination theory would be used to
check failure behavior of such laminates with respect to maximum stress, maximum strain, Tsai-Hill, and Hashin
failure criteria (Duman 2019). Throughout the numerical analysis, all of the specimens were considered as axially
symmetric about its central axis. Lay-up configuration of selected epoxy/carbon fiber composite material used in
numerical analysis were represented in Figure 2.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 2. Stacking sequence of the composite laminates, (a) QI [0/+45/-45/90], (b) SYMB [+45/-45/0/90]s, (c) SYM [+45/30/0/90]s.
116 Hande Yavuz / Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119
H. Yavuz/Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

The first group of preprocessed finite element models were free from holes, slots, notches and cracks. The second
group of preprocessed finite element models were included 1 identical circular bolt hole with 6 mm in diameter for
quasi-isotropic (QI, [0/+45/-45/90]), symmetric balanced (SYMB, [+45/-45/0/90]s), and symmetric (SYM,
[+45/+30/0/90]s) laminates. Concentrated force was defined as a boundary condition for QI, SYMB, and SYM
laminates in both models (Figure 3). To evaluate the damage characteristics of unnotched laminates, both sides of the
parts were clamped and length and width were set to 250 mm and 25 mm, respectively as per ASTM D3039 (ASTM
2014). All the edges of elements have the same dimensions with element seed size of 6.0 mm with total number of
elements of 164. To compare the damage response of various notched laminates as in unnotched ones, both sides of
the notched laminates were clamped and their length and width were set to 200 mm and 36 mm, respectively as per
ASTM D5766 standard (ASTM 2018). The edges of elements have the same dimensions with element seed size of
3.0 mm with total number of elements of 888. All plies were meshed with general purpose S4R shell elements;
quadrilateral stress/displacement with 4-nodes shell element having reduced integration formulation. This element has
6 degrees of freedom per node (three degrees of freedom are node linear displacements; the others are node angular
displacements) and computationally less expensive than S4 elements (Laulusa 2006). Based on the first order shear
deformation theory, transverse shear stress was assumed constant through thickness of the shell. In the formulation of
this element, thickness change as a function of in-plane deformation is allowed, thus it does not suffer from transverse
shear locking (Abaqus 2012). No elements of different orders of shape functions were utilized; same type of elements
was used throughout the whole study. The mesh convergence study was performed in both analyses by gradually
varying mesh density from coarse to fine to count on damage distribution as well. Aspect ratio of elements were kept
controlled to avoid inaccuracy of numerical solution especially around hole in notched laminates.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. Illustration of boundary conditions and loads of (a) unnotched laminate, (b) notched laminate.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Computational damage analysis for QI, SYMB, and SYM laminates

Damage analysis of AS4/3502 composite laminates have been widely studied since 1980s (Witcomb 1988, Martin
1995). Damage initiation and propagation requires intralaminar and interlaminar failure analysis along with properly
defined elastic and strength properties. However, in many of these studies, material properties of unidirectional lay-
ups were not completely matched with each-other regardless of manufacturing details. This may cause an
accumulation of multiple sequential variations through the computational structural design and analysis. In this study,
 Hande Yavuz / Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119 117
6 H. Yavuz/Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

elastic and strength properties have been gathered from CES EduPack software. Among the studied unnotched and
notched laminates, first ply failure (HSNMTCRT) was observed in 90° plies for QI and SYMB laminates whereas it
was detected in 45° plies in SYM laminate. Failure loads were quantified around 18.5 N/mm, 143.8 N/mm, and 123.6
N/mm for notched QI, SYMB, and SYM laminates, respectively. In the frame of referred damage model, normal
force, Nxx, does not cause extension-shear deformations, bending-twisting curvatures, and normal stress-shear strain
coupling in SYMB laminate. However, in SYM laminate, normal stress-shear strain coupling does exist due the effect
of ply orientation which may change initial degradation of stiffness. While keeping the material and layer thickness
identical, replacement of -45° lamina with +30° one caused approximately 14% decrease in the matrix tensile failure
load. In unnotched laminates, the effect of ply stacking sequence on the matrix failure response was found identical
to notched ones. Among the unnotched laminates, the highest matrix failure load was attributed to SYMB laminate
(286 N/mm) which accounts roughly to 17% difference compared to SYM laminate. With respect to maximum failure
stress, Abaqus (e.g., 773.5 MPa for SYMB) and MATLAB (e.g., 755.1 MPa for SYMB) results were found close to
each-other. The computational damage analyses for notched laminates were given in Figure 4. Damage evolves in
AS4/3502 material from hole edge to hole boundary in notched laminates more likely due to high stress concentration.
Additionally, unlike notched SYMB and SYM laminates, damage evolves in matrix from the outer specimen edges
of notched QI laminate. Free edge stresses usually drive the initiation and propagation of failure of such composite
laminates.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 4. Matrix tensile failure (HSNMTCRT) for notched laminates of (a) QI 90° ply 4, (b) SYMB 90° ply 4, (c) SYM 45° ply 1.
118 Hande Yavuz / Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119
H. Yavuz/Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

4. Conclusions

Materials selection plays a crucial role for the determination of candidate materials for a specific engineering
application. CES Edupack software, which ensures prompt visualization of such materials, was used along with
material selection charts. To construct light and safe panels, one of the best candidate materials was identified as
carbon fiber reinforced epoxy composites in the frame of Ashby’s multiple constraints design methodology. The
mechanical damage analysis of various composite laminates were then explored via MATLAB and Abaqus
simulations. Considering Hashin model for damage analysis in unnotched laminates, the highest matrix tensile failure
load was attributed to [+45/-45/0/90]s laminate which indicates ~17% difference with the [+45/+30/0/90]s laminate.
Among the studied notched laminates, which have the same ply orientations as of unnotched ones, the highest matrix
tensile failure load was again determined for [+45/-45/0/90]s laminate which possesses ~14% difference with the
[+45/+30/0/90]s laminate. In all notched laminates, the effect of stress concentration on damage evolution was clearly
detected from hole edge to hole boundary. Moreover, damage initiates and propagates in QI laminate due to stresses
developed near free edges. These results show that either unnotched or notched laminates, [+45/-45/0/90]s
configuration would likely to be prefferred over [0/+45/-45/90] and [+45/+30/0/90]s configuration with respect to
uniaxial tensile loading in the frame of Hashin failure criteria.
In further studies, skin panels may be considered as twisting plates along with multiple objectives such as minimum
mass and minimum cost. In this way, mass and cost objectives can be aggregated into single solution by defining a
locally linear value (or utility) function called penalty function. This function should be used to develop exchange
constant(s) as long as cost and mass objectives considered together. Besides, computational structural analysis may
also be performed on stiffened composite plates having various stacking sequence including mechanical or chemical
fasteners instead of single notched laminates by adjusting various natural and essential boundary conditions. However,
in case the quasi-static behavior of such laminated structures is intended to be researched, determination of the ratio
of kinetic energy to internal energy and evaluations of two energies individually should be realized in order to conclude
whether results are reasonable. These aspects would also be associated with kinetic energy history which indicates
quasi-static behavior. Furthermore, experimental studies would also be embedded in such work in order to validate
finite element analysis for each configuration. Interlaminar failure analysis (e.g., delamination in skin panel) which
may induce decrease of the local moment of inertia of a skin panel due to ply separation would be conducted using
cohesive zone method.

References

ABAQUS v6.14, Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp, Providence, RI, USA.

Ashby, M.., 2011. Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, Butterworth-Heinemann, MA, USA, pp. 197 – 216.
ASTM D3039/D3039-14, 2014. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix Composite Materials, ASTM International, USA.
ASTM D5766/D5766M-11, 2018. Standard Test Method for Open-Hole Tensile Strength of Polymer Matrix Composite Laminate, ASTM
International, USA.
Bristow, J.W., Irving, P.E., 2007. Safety Factors in Civil Aircraft Design Requirements. Engineering Failure Analysis 14, 459 – 470.
CES Edupack, 2018. Granta Design Limited, Cambridge, UK.
Dababneh, O., Kayran, A., 2014. Design, Analysis and Optimization of Thin Walled Semi-Monocoque Wing Structures Using Different Structural
Idealization in the Preliminary Design Phase, International Journal of Structural Integrity 5, 214 – 226.
De Florio, F., 2016. Airworthiness: An Introduction to Aircraft Certification and Operations. Butterworth-Heinemann, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp.
37 – 83.
Degenhardt, R., Castro, S.G.P., Arbelo, M.A., Zimmerman, R., Khakimova, R., Kling, A., 2014. Future Structural Stability Design for Composite
Space and Airframe Structures. Thin-Walled Structures 81, 29 – 38.
Duman, A., Çelensü, B., Öçal, B., 2019. Failure Analysis in Laminated Composites for Aerospace Applications, Senior Design Project, University
of Turkish Aeronautical Association, Ankara, Turkey.
Gay, D., 2015. Composite Materials: Design and Applications. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 161.
Gou, S., 2007. Aeroelastic Optimization of an Aerobatic Aircraft Wing Structure, Aerospace Science and Technology 11, 396 – 404.
Hashin, Z., 1980. Failure Criteria for Unidirectional Fiber Composites, Journal of Applied Mechanics 47, 1083 – 1094.
Hinrichsen, J., Bautista, C., 2001. The Challenge of Reducing Both Airframe Weight and Manufacturing Cost, Air & Space Europe 3, 119 – 121.
Johnson, A.F., Thomson, R. S., David, M., Joosten, M.W., 2015. Design and Testing of Crashworthy Aerospace Composite Components, in
“Polymer Composites in the Aerospace Industry”. Irving P., Soutis C. (Eds.). Woodhead Publishing, Waltham, MA, USA, pp. 261 – 293.
Jorgensen, O., 1991. Optimization of the Flutter Load by Material Orientation, Mechanics of Structures and Machines 19, 411 – 436.
Kaplan, S.S., Çetin, A., Yavuz, H., 2017. Design of Internal Rods in Central Wing-Box of an Aircraft, 8th North American Materials Education
Symposium. Cambridge, MA, USA, paper #2.
 Hande Yavuz / Procedia Structural Integrity 21 (2019) 112–119 119
8 H. Yavuz/Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Laulusa, A., Bauchau, O.A., Choi, J.Y., Tan, V.B.C., Li, L., 2006. Evaluation of Some Shear Deformable Shell Elements, International Journal
of Solids and Structures 43, 5033 – 5044.
Martin, R.H., 1995. Composite Materials: Fatigue and Fracture, STP1230, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
MATLAB vR2015a, The Mathworks Inc., Massachusetts, MA, USA.
Monroy Aceves, C, Skordos, A.A., Sutcliffe, M.P.F., 2008. Design Selection Methodology for Composite Structures, Materials & Design 29, 418
– 426.
Schijve, J., 1994. Fatigue of Aircraft Materials and Structures. International Journal of Fatigue 16, 21 – 32.
Singh, V., Sharma, S.K., 2015. Fuel Consumption in Air Transport: A Review, Classification, Critique, Simple Meta-Analysis, and Future Research
Implications, European Transport Research Review 7:12, 1 – 24.
Wanhill, R.J.H., 2018. Fatigue Requirements for Aircraft Structures, in “Aircraft Sustainment and Repair” in: Jones, R., Baker, A., Matthews, N.,
Champagne, V. (Eds.). Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 17 – 40.
Witcomb, J.D., 1988. Composite Materials: Testing and Design, STP 972, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Zhu, F., Qiu, T., 1991. Experimental Investigation on Flutter Characteristics of Composite Torsion-Box, Acta Aeronautica et Astrosinica 12, 550
– 553.