Professional Documents
Culture Documents
, +/45
, and 90
Thermal conductivities
Thermal oxidative stability
Combustion products/smoke
toxicity
C (50
C (235
C (65
C (160
F) 95
C (203
F)
Gun bay 85
C (185
F) 99
C (210
F)
Nose wheel well 71
C (160
F) 95
C (203
F)
Cockpit area 93
C (200
F) 54
C (130
F)
Conditioning compartment 102
C (215
F)
External skin 85
C (185
F) 99
C (210
F)
Engine bay and tail cone 121482
C (250900
F)
Drag chute container 85
C (185
F) 121
C (250
F)
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 433
The resistance of materials to chemicals used to service, maintain, and operate
vehicles including solvents, cleaners, fuels, hydraulic uids, lubricating oils,
and anti-icing uids can be ascertained on small coupon specimens. As part of
the material test program, it is important to establish the specic list of uids and the
exposure conditions (temperatures and exposure durations) to be tested. Tradition-
ally, the hot/wet environment has proven to be the most degrading for composite
strength, thus designing to the hot/wet allowables usually covers the detrimental
effects from other uids; however, this must be validated through testing. However,
some synthetic bers such as Kevlar
Ply off-axis loading Onset of rst ply cracking 3,000 mcm/cm (1.5 3,000)
4,500
Fatigue testing (quasi-
isotropic laminates)
Tensioncompression cycles
R 0.5 to 1.0
10
5
to 10
6
cycles at
3,300 mcm/cm
(1.5 3,300)
5,000
Non-detectable impact
damage
Hail, tool drops, etc. 3060% strength
reduction
(0.55 9,000)
5,000
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 437
not be used as a general rule-of-thumb because specic limitations are material and
application dependent. Many of the tests performed in materials qualication
programs (notched strength, fastener bearing and pullout, compression strength
after impact and un-notched fatigue) provide material-specic design strain
limitations. However, it is worth noting the clear penalty paid in structural design
for the inclusion of stress concentrations and for the incorporation of damage-
tolerant and durable features. Interestingly enough, many of these considerations
are not penalties at all. In the design of modern aircraft, many of which have
composite skins and metallic substructure, it is important to moderate the design
strains of the skins so as not to rapidly accelerate fatigue damage in the substruc-
ture. From this perspective, the 3,0004,000 me skin strain region often provides a
balance of capability against weight growth in substructure.
The ultimate strain levels, susceptibility to impact damage, tolerance to
manufacturing defects, resistance to fatigue damage, manufacturability, and
durability are some of the considerations for selecting the minimum gage
thicknesses for sandwich skins, fuselages, etc. For sustainment, repairability can
also drive minimum design thicknesses to allow for notched strength reductions,
fastener bearing, and pull-through for bolted joint repairs [7]. Of all these
considerations, the most critical will be used to establish the minimum structural
thickness requirements.
11.2.3 Manufacturing and In-Service Inspection
Residual strength substantiation of damage-tolerant designs requires demonstration
by either test or analysis supported by test, that safety-of-ight structure is capable
of carrying ultimate load when it contains damage or manufacturing aws up to the
threshold of detectability [18]. Inherent in the residual strength requirement is that
it must be met when the structure is subjected to the worst case combined service
temperature and moisture conditions. Additionally, durability substantiation
requires that the structure be designed for two lifetimes of loading with the
maximum size of undetectable damage without the damage growing to a critical
size. Durability and damage tolerance design requirements are closely linked to the
capability and delity of the Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) equipment and
procedures that dene the range of detectable damage. High-delity inspection
capability with demonstrated high probability of detecting small-size damage can
potentially result in higher design allowables and lighter structure. If the inspection
capability is limited to detecting relatively large size damage, the damage tolerance
design requirements will lead to lower design ultimate strain allowables resulting in
heavier structure. Therefore, structural designs and part geometries conducive to
the type of inspection equipment and techniques used for eld inspections are
desirable to maximize probability of damage detection. Although large unitized
structures may be desirable from a manufacturing and cost standpoint, unitized
designs must be tempered with the need to inspect critical interfaces and locations
438 G.A. Schoeppner and M.S. Tillman
that could have limited inspectability within the structure [19]. In many cases, the
need for post-manufacture and in-service inspections of interior structure drives
the inclusion of access covers, selection of fastener types, and structural inter-
changeability requirements all of which add weight to the structure.
The extent of initially detectable damage used for durability and damage toler-
ance designs should take into consideration the manufacturing processes and
manufacturability of the components. Inherent manufacturing aw sizes vary
with manufacturing processes and dening acceptable aw sizes less than the
expected inherent aw size may lead to low manufacturing yields and increased
actions to disposition parts. Also, the maximum permitted aw size should be
consistent with inspection methods used by trained inspectors during scheduled
maintenance in conditions representative of operational maintenance environments.
The vehicle system maintenance plan should include an inspection program that
establishes inspection intervals, methods, and extent of inspections. Consistent with
metallic structures, inspection intervals should be established such that the damage
will be reliably detected between the time it initially becomes detectable and the
time at which the damage extent reaches the requirement limits for residual strength
capability [7]. Data and analysis of the probability of detection and probability of
occurrence for different damage sizes and location on the structure helps dene this
inspection interval.
11.2.4 Corrosion Prevention and Control
Corrosion is the environmental deterioration of materials. Common types of corro-
sion for metals include pitting, erosion, uniform, galvanic, and crevice corrosion.
Galvanic corrosion is the most frequently encountered form of corrosion associated
with polymer matrix composites. The basic mechanism of galvanic corrosion is
illustrated in Fig. 11.4. Materials with higher electrochemical potential are consid-
ered to be more noble, whereas materials with lower potentials are considered to be
Fig. 11.4 Basic galvanic corrosion
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 439
more active. When the materials are electrically connected in the presence of an
electrolyte (a solution with capability to conduct electricity), the noble material acts
as the cathode and the active material acts as the anode [20]. The anode
(i.e., aluminum) is dissolved during this electrochemical process causing it to
become brittle and crack. Water typically contains dissolved ionic compounds
such as salts that can make it an excellent electrolyte. Therefore, the presence or
absence of water and its soluble contents can greatly affect galvanic corrosion.
The galvanic series, such as that shown in Fig. 11.5, is a listing of metals and
alloys based on their order and tendency to independently corrode in a particular
electrolyte solution. The tendency for corrosion is related to the electric potential of
the metal. Metals closely positioned in the series have electric potential nearer one
another whereas the greater the difference in potential, the more signicant the
corrosion effects. Methods such as that found in ASTM G82 can be used to predict
the rate of corrosion [21]. Graphite and composites containing graphite bers
behave as noble materials and when in electrical contact with a less noble metal
such as aluminum alloys, can cause substantial corrosion damage to the aluminum.
Galvanic corrosion can occur between carbon ber composites and a metal, even
when no bers are initially exposed on the surface of the composite. Corrosion
occurs when moisture is absorbed by the composite in-service, thereby affecting
electrolytic resistance of the resin and transporting ions to the graphite bers. It was
estimated that after 200 days of seawater exposure, 15% of the planar area of a
graphite/epoxy composite specimen contained seawater-exposed graphite bers
[22]. Galvanic corrosion between dissimilar materials can be controlled by one or
more of the following:
C (65 to 250
F) with short-term
capabilities to 178
C (350
C (500
angle to vertical
surfaces
Uniform
density
20.3 mm
on center
No functional
impairment or
structural repair
required for two
design lifetimes
No visible
damage
Structures in path of
debris
Runway debris
12.7 mm diameter
Sp. Gr. 3.0
Velocity appropriate
to system
N/A No functional
impairment after
two design
lifetimes and no
water intrusion
after eld repair if
damage is visible
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 447
for in-ight hail damage vary amongst manufacturers and are discussed in more
detail in the Impact Damage of Composites chapter of this book. The runway
debris size was chosen to include most of the potentially damaging objects found
in ground operations such as broken pavement, aircraft or ground vehicle parts,
and garbage. The velocity of the runway debris is dependent on the category
of aircraft.
There is little guidance on the effects of repeated low-level impacts such as hail
impact, tool drop, or damage caused by walking on the structure. Although damage
caused by a single impact incident may not be apparent, repeated impact for a given
area over the structural service life may affect the durability of the structure.
If the durability of an area proves to be sensitive to a repeated damage source,
consideration should be given to simulating the damage on the full-scale test article
to verify the effects of the damage.
An impact survey consists of a series of impact tests representing a wide range
of conceivable impacts applied at various locations to a structure. The goal is to
dene the relationships between impact energy, damage detectability, damage
characteristics, and residual strength for representative structure subjected to bound-
ary conditions characteristic of the real structure. Typical coupon level residual
strength measurements are based on compression strength after impact tests. Impact
surveys with representative structure are required to establish critical damage
scenarios and to identify structural elements that are particularly susceptible to
impact damage (e.g., stiffener terminations). As mentioned earlier, assessing the
impact susceptibility and effects on stiffened structure using representative
specimens is key to determining how impacts to the external surfaces that may
produce non-visible surface damage can have signicant effects on underlying
structure. The results of the survey are used to identify structural features crucial
to integrity and to establish the impact variables (energy, location, etc.) to be applied
to full-scale test articles used to determine residual strength [4].
Due to the large number of material, structural, and extrinsic variables affecting
damage, impact surveys have been found to provide the most consequential results
when applied to large structural test articles with design detail and boundary
conditions representative of production structure. Many different impact scenarios
and locations should be considered in the survey, with a goal of identifying the most
critical impacts possible (i.e., those causing the most serious damage but are the
least detectable). The survey should include blunt and sharp impactors and
the entire range of potential impact energy levels. Although large test articles are
expensive, such studies are practical because numerous impacts can be applied to
a single test article [7], and in many cases, this work can be done at the conclusion
of a static or fatigue test with a full-scale test article. Service data collected
on structures over time can better dene impact threats and design criteria for
structures with similar applications, as well as establish more rational inspection
intervals and maintenance practices. Impact surveys should be conducted when
there is insufcient service experience to make good engineering judgments on
energy and impactor variables. In review of service experience databases, it should
be understood that the most severe and critical impact damages that are possible
448 G.A. Schoeppner and M.S. Tillman
may not be part of the database. This consideration is important to the assumptions
needed for use of probabilistic damage threat assessments in dening design
criteria, inspection methods, and repeat inspection intervals for maintenance.
11.3.2.2 Damage Classication
The damage threat assessment and the impact survey should account for an
extensive range of damage levels with varying levels of detectability, ranging
from non-visible to clearly evident. The various levels of damage and detectability
for the impact survey are critical in dening damage tolerance and residual strength
substantiation requirements. Damage classication for safety-of-ight structure can
be derived from the impact survey based on different levels of detectability.
Detectability or probability of detection of damage is dependent on the type
of inspection, inspection equipment, skills of the inspector, structural details,
damage size, and the inspection interval. Both the FAA and DOD have categorized
damage according to levels of detectability and dened the residual strength
requirements for each category of damage.
In Advisory Circular 20-107B released by the FAA in 2009, ve categories
of damage for safety-of-ight structures are dened [7]. Figure 11.8 shows the
damage levels and residual strength requirements for each of the ve categories.
The damage levels for the rst four categories should be based on the threat
Fig. 11.8 Residual strength requirements vs. categories of damage [7]
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 449
assessment and impact survey for the particular platform of interest. The fth
category is based on extensive damage events not covered in the design criteria.
Residual strength substantiation by component or subcomponent testing or by
analysis supported by testing should be performed for the various categories of
damage. It should demonstrate that the environmentally compensated residual
strength of the structure will reliably be equal to or greater than the strength
required for the specied design loads considered as ultimate. The statistical
signicance of reliable subcomponent and detail residual strength assessments may
include conservative methods and engineering judgment [7].
The degrees of detectability and the residual strength required for categories 14
damage are shown in Table 11.6. For category 2, the residual strength requirement
for a given damage depends on the scheduled inspection interval and delity of the
inspection method. Substantiation of the requirement ensures that the structure will
sustain sufcient residual strength until damage is found during scheduled
inspections. Category 2 damages should not grow or, if slow or arrested growth
occurs, the level of residual strength retained for the inspection interval is
sufciently above limit load capability. Category 3 damage should be such that it
can be reliably detected or indications of potential damage are readily detectable
during walk-around inspections. The primary difference between categories 2 and
3 damage is that category 3 requires demonstration of limit or near limit load
capability for larger damages, albeit for a shorter inspection interval. Category 4
damage is presumed to be caused by either in-ight or ground evident events that
limit ight maneuvers. Likewise, category 5 damage results from known events
that may include collisions with aircraft ground equipment, maintenance errors,
anomalous ight overload conditions, abnormally hard landings, maintenance
jacking errors, and loss of aircraft parts in ight.
The JSSG-2006 similarly classies damage based on detectability, but bases
residual strength requirements on the upper bound spectrum loading developed for
durability testing [10]. While the Air Force and Navy have used the JSSG-2006
requirements for xed-wing aircraft, the Army has recently utilized modied AC
20-107B damage categories for rotorcraft. The modications by the Army are (1)
category 2 damage must retain ultimate load capacity and (2) category 3 damage
must be repaired before next ight. The JSSG-2006 residual strength requirements
are given in the rst four columns of Table 11.7. Although a precise correlation
of the AC 20-107B damage categories to the damage classication in JSSG-2006
Table 11.6 AC 20-107B damage categories
Category Degree of detectability Residual strength requirement
1 Undetectable Retain ultimate load capability for lifetime
2 Reliably detected scheduled inspection Retain above limit load capability
3 Reliably detected walk-around visual
inspection
Retain limit or near-limit capability
4 Discrete source-known event Retain continued safe ight capability
450 G.A. Schoeppner and M.S. Tillman
is open to interpretation, the fth column of Table 11.7 shows a correlation based on
detectability of the damage.
For DOD xed-wing manned aircraft, all safety-of-ight structure including
doors and door/ramp mechanisms must meet the residual strength requirements
given in Table 11.7. The minimum required residual strength is specied in terms of
the internal member load P
XX
which the airframe must be able to sustain with
damage present for the specied period of unrepaired service usage. The magnitude
of this load is based on the overall degree of damage detectability and is intended
to represent the maximum load the internal member might encounter during a
specied inspection interval or during a life time for non-inspectable structure.
To account for the fact that any individual aircraft may encounter loads consider-
ably in excess of the average during its life, the required residual strength must be
equal to or larger than the maximum load expected during a given interval between
inspections. This is accomplished by magnifying the inspection interval. For
example, the P
XX
load for in-ight evident damage is the maximum load that
could be expected once in 100 ights (see Table 11.7). A direct comparison of
residual strength requirements for AC 20-107B and JSSG-2006 for each of the
damage categories is difcult since JSSG-2006 requirements are based on
the inspection interval and spectrum loading and AC 20-107B is based on limit
and ultimate loads.
11.3.3 Non-Impact Damage Sources
A preponderance of service damage concerns are related to impact, however
environmental degradation and damage are principal causes for maintenance.
Damage is often a result of improper characterization or underestimation of service
environments during early design phases leading to the selection of materials with
inadequate performance. Damage sources are highly dependent on the application
and service environment and vary greatly between sea-, land-, air-, and space-based
Table 11.7 Residual strength load [10]
P
XX
a
Degree of inspectability Typical inspection interval
Magnication
factor, M
AC 20-107B
category
P
FE
In-ight evident One ight
b
100 4
P
GE
Ground evident One day (two ights)
b
100 34
P
WV
Walk-around visual Ten ights
b
100 3
P
SV
Special visual One year 50 2
P
DM
Depot or base level 1/4 lifetime 20 2
P
LT
Non-inspectable One lifetime 20 1
a
P
XX
is the maximum average internal member load (without clipping) that will occur once in M
times the inspection interval. Where P
DM
and P
LT
is determined to be less than the design limit
load, the design limit load should be the required residual strength load level
b
Most damaging design mission
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 451
platforms. The varieties of potential degradation and damage sources that should be
considered during design include:
Acidic atmosphere
Lightning strike/P-static discharge
Acoustic noise
Rain (erosion)
Cyclic temperature
Salt fog
Dust
Sand (erosion)
Fluid contamination
Shock
Fungus
Solar radiation
Humidity
Temperature hot/cold
Immersion
Temperature shock
Low/high pressure
Vibration
Out-gassing
The susceptibility of materials to damage sources should be evaluated
on small-scale test articles as part of the material qualication process. When
small-scale article tests are not sufcient to demonstrate durability and damage
tolerance against these sources, larger scale developmental test articles
are required.
Figure 11.9 shows frequently encountered types of in-service damage and their
causes. Aircraft leading edges and radomes must endure the erosive effects
of sand and rain during ight that can erode standard coating systems and
underlying materials. Flexible, durable polyurethane rain erosion-resistant
coatings and elastomeric tapes can often be used to alleviate such erosion
problems. Polymer composites are particularly susceptible to overheating from
hot gas impingement, re, repair over-temperature, and lightning strike. Over
temperature due to exhaust from engines and auxiliary power units is most often
a result of poor predictions of the service environment because materials are
often selected before enough design detail is established to provide sufcient
service temperature predictions. Design temperatures can potentially be derived
from operational use temperature from similar platforms. For such cases, the
designer could conservatively select a high-temperature composite material,
such as a polyimide, that has a service temperature well above that required
for most applications. However many polyimides are more expensive and
more difcult to process than traditional epoxy systems and may require
DAMAGE CAUSE OF DAMAGE
Abrasion Rain/sand/grit erosion
Surface Oxidation Lightening strike
Thermal damage/oxidation Overheat
Hole elongation Overload/bearing failure
Delamination Freeze/thaw (moisture expansion)
Blistering Thermal spike (steam formation)
Honeycomb panel disbond Freeze/thaw (moisture expansion)
Core corrosion Moisture penetration into honeycomb
Surface swelling Solvent damage
Fig. 11.9 Typical nonimpact service environment damage [31]
452 G.A. Schoeppner and M.S. Tillman
specialized manufacturing facilities. Therefore, a cost-benet assessment of the
risk associated with selecting a lower temperature material having a threat of
overheating with increased cost of higher temperature materials should
be conducted.
Metallic aircraft have an inherent resistance to damage caused by the electrical
current and electromagnetic forces generated by lightning strikes and p-static
discharges because the conductive skins permit the current to remain on
theexterior of the structure. Graphite ber composites are signicantly less con-
ductive than metals and berglass/quartz composites are minimally conductive.
The effects of electromagnetic discharges on composites include delamination
and possible burn-through of the laminate in the immediate strike area, potential
arcing at nonconductive gaps and burning with delamination at fasteners and
connectors. Arcing is a potential ignition source in fuel tanks. Lightning strike
zones such as wing tips and trailing edges are regions with high probability
of lightning strike occurrence. The SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice pub-
lication ARP 5414 provides information for aircraft lightning zoning [32].
Protection of composite structure by conductive materials is required on
and around lightning strike zones to provide conductive paths away from the
attachment zones [7].
The strategy to prevent lightning strike damage includes providing a continuous
conductive path so the electrical current dissipates and remains on the exterior of
the aircraft and arcing is prevented by elimination of nonconductive gaps. Even
though lightning strike zones may only be on the end of wing tips, all-composite
wings may require a conductive layer over their entire surface. A continuous
conductive path across the exterior of the aircraft gives the current numerous
paths to safely exit the aircraft. Conductive layers may include bonding aluminum
foil to the outermost ply, bonding aluminum or copper mesh as an external ply or
embedded one ply from the outer mold line, or incorporate strands of conductive
material in laminate [33]. Aluminum foils and meshes can readily be used with
glass ber composites, however due to galvanic corrosion concerns, their use is not
recommended with graphite ber composites. The relative locations of graphite and
copper in the galvanic series (see Fig. 11.5) make copper less susceptible to
galvanic corrosion; however, the density of copper is 3.3 times that of aluminum,
resulting in a signicant weight penalty.
There is signicant interest in the aerospace community in the development of
lighter weight lightning strike protection solutions for graphite ber composites.
Owing to the propensity for maintenance and in-service damage for composites,
lightning protection systems should be designed to be easily repairable using
replaceable conductive materials and designs that ensure that all conductive path
attachments are easily accessible. To prevent arcing between metallic fasteners
and composite skins, encapsulating fastener nuts with plastic caps or polysulde
coatings should be considered. FAA advisory circulars AC20-53 and AC20-136
as well as MIL-STD-1795, MIL-STD-1757, and MIL-B-5087 provide means of
compliance with lightning strike design requirements [3438].
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 453
11.4 Durability Analysis and Testing
Full-scale durability tests are the primary indicators of compliance to the structures
durability requirements. However, durability analyses support the design by
establishing design stress levels, aiding in denition of structural details, and
reducing risk relative to testing [10]. Commercially available nite element
programs have successfully been used by the aerospace industry to accurately
calculate the linear elastic stress, strain and displacement elds for laminated
composites subjected to thermal and in-plane mechanical loading. For potential
areas of concern that may involve out-of-plane loading or complex structural
geometries, three-dimensional nite element methods can be employed to estimate
local stress and strain elds. However, the current composite structural design and
analysis methods used by industry are largely semi-empirical due to the fact that
accurate predictions of failure modes, ultimate strength, residual strength,
and fatigue life are limited [29]. Importantly, it has become common practice in
the aerospace industry to design to allowable stress levels in composite structures
that have validated condence level offsets from actual failure data. Unlike metallic
designs, this methodology may produce structure that has no reasonable chance
of failure (barring dramatic error in method) for a room temperature static or
durability test. The inability to predict damage initiation and growth is a major
design consideration for addressing durability and damage tolerance. For
composites, neither fatigue crack growth and life nor stable damage progression
prior to ultimate failure can be rigorously predicted because of the lack of robust
generalized failure criteria and the complexity of the interacting non self-similar
growth failure modes. The relevance of this statement precedes denition of the
broad range of mechanical, hygrothermal, and chemical environments pertinent to
durability and damage tolerance concerns.
The prediction of damage initiation and growth is further complicated by
additional factors. It is well documented that failure stresses and strains are
dependent on localized residual curing stresses and models to predict these residual
stresses for complicated geometries and ber architecture are lacking [16]. Nonlin-
ear structural response characteristics such as buckling, postbuckled strengths,
crippling, and pressurized structure deformations are more difcult to predict for
composite structures than they are for metallic structures [29]. For particular
environments, polymer composites are known to chemically degrade (hydrolysis,
oxidation, etc.) throughout their service life. Models to predict environmental
degradation of polymer composites and their subsequent material properties for
failure analysis are lacking [39]. Since there is a clear lack of ability to predict
damage growth and initiation, design methods are based on limited coupon tests
and full-size test articles to either substantiate the design or indicate hot spots that
need to be reworked. While the initial design process is fairly mature, less progress
has been made in understanding the long-term response of composite structures
subjected to adverse in-service loading or environmental inuences [40].
454 G.A. Schoeppner and M.S. Tillman
Repair concepts for composite structures include doubler and scarf patches
attached using mechanical fasteners and adhesive bonding. The purpose of repairs
is to restore the original strength, stiffness, and/or fatigue capability of the
damaged structure. The source data for the original design must be used to design
the repair to insure that the repaired structure conforms to the original design
requirements. Strict material and process controls for repair installation should be
established as part of the structures maintenance plan. Following the discussion
above, the capability to predict the long-term response of repairs for composite
structures is lacking. Therefore, structural repair substantiation should be part of
the overall structural substantiation program that includes sufcient testing to
ensure the long-term integrity of the repair. This can be achieved by including
structural repairs on the full-scale durability and static strength test articles.
11.4.1 Safe-Life Analysis
Fixed-wing manned aircraft manufacturers have in general adopted damage
tolerance design philosophy for both military and commercial aircraft.
Historically, helicopter rotor system components and Naval xed-wing aircraft
were designed and qualied using safe-life approach. Beginning in 1989, the FAA
has required damage tolerance substantiation for all commercial rotorcraft
composite rotors. However, there are still aircraft, rotorcraft, wind turbine,
pressure vessel, and composite y wheel manufacturers using the classical safe-
life approach or a modication thereof. One reason for this is that there are no
clearly dened damage tolerance design criteria for composite structures
operating in high-cycle loading environments due to difculties with analysis
and testing [41]. When properly used, the safe-life design approach places
statistically predictable failures at an extremely remote probability of occurrence.
However, early rotorcraft operational experience showed that the safe-life
approach by itself is not adequate because of unpredictable failures resulting
from such sources such as manufacturing defects and service-induced damage [8].
Furthermore, review of this operational experience has shown these unpredictable
failures far outnumbered the predictable ones as shown in Fig. 11.10. The classical
safe-life analysis assumes a aw-free structure, whereas modied safe-life
approaches (Flaw-tolerant safe-life or Enhanced safe-life) have been developed
to account for manufacturing and service-induced damage. The modied safe-life
approaches provide an estimate of the life of components that contain defects that
may have been introduced during the manufacturing (scratch, ply distortion,
embedded material) or generated during operation (impact, pitting) but are
not specically load-induced aws (such as fatigue cracks or load-induced
delaminations) [42].
11 Composite Structures Durability Design and Substantiation 455
The methodology for the fatigue design of rotorcraft primary structural
components is shown in Fig. 11.11 [8]. The three basic elements of safe-life design
include: