Probabilistic Method to Determine Widespread Fatigue Damage Average Behavior of Fleet

Abstract:

Widespread Fatigue Damage (WFD) issue is a major threat to the structural integrity of the aging aircrafts, So WFD assessment is a key measurement and necessary task to ensure the continuing airworthiness. A methodology using probabilistic framework to assess WFD was developed. The major feature of this method is that a stochastic process which is introduced to crack initiation and crack growth as well as yield stress and fracture toughness. Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) was incrementally calculated using Finite Element Method (FEM). Numerical studies were performed for panels with five holes using Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). The WFD Average Behavior, include inspection, monitoring and repair period, was presented, and the convergence of the MCS was also discussed. The effectiveness of this methodology was verified by comparing the experimental data. This approach simulated and evaluated the WFD behavior and got the relative statistic data, which provided a practical engineering method for WFD evaluation.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 444-445)
• Pages: 1508-1516
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.444-445.1508
• Online since: October 2013
• Authors: Fu Yu Zhan, Wei Yang, Zhi Xian Zhang
• Keywords: Crack Initiation, Failure Criteria, Monte Carlo Simulation, Plastic Zone, Probabilistic Method, Widespread Fatigue Damage

References

[1] Federal Aviation Administration. Part 25-airworthiness standards: transport category airplane. (2008).

[2] Federal Aviation Administration. Aging aircraft program: widespread fatigue damage, final rule. Federal Register, 2010, 75(219): 69746-69789.

[3] Federal Aviation Administration. Advisory circular 120-104: establishing and implementing limit of validity to prevent widespread fatigue damage. (2011).

[4] YaZhi Li, Qiang Li, PeiLiang Shen. An overview of airworthiness requirements for transport category airplanes to prevent widespread fatigue damage. Advances in Aeronautical Science and Engineering, 2011, 2(4): 373-382.

[5] Moukawsher EJ, Grand Jr AF, Neussl MA. Fatigue life of panels with multiple site damage. Journal of Aircraft, 1996, 33(5): 1003-1013.

DOI: 10.2514/3.47047

[6] David Y. Jeong, Pin Tong. Onset of multiple site damage and widespread fatigue damage in aging airplanes. International Journal of Fracture, 1997, 85: 185-200.

[7] ZhenYu Feng, Kai Li, HongZeng Du. Progress of research on widespread fatigue damage of aging aircrafts. Journal of Civil Aviation University of China, 2004, 22(5): 1-4.

[8] Yang, J. N., Manning, S. D, et al. Stochastic crack growth models for applications to aircraft structures. Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics and Reliability, 1987: 171-211.

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-2764-8_4

[9] Y. Xiong, G. Shi. Stochastic damage growth model for fuselage splices with multisite damage. AIAA JOUR NAL, 2001. 3, 39(3): 498-503.

DOI: 10.2514/3.14758

[10] C. Proppe. Probabilistic analysis of multi-site damage in aircraft fuselages. Computational Mechanics, 2003, 30: 323-329.

DOI: 10.1007/s00466-002-0408-x

[11] Sergey Shkarayev, Roman Krashanitsa. Probabilistic method for the analysis of widespread fatigue damage in structures. International Journal of Fatigue, 2005, 27: 223-234.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2004.07.005

[12] ChuanSheng Wang, JianYu Zhang, Rui Bao, et al. Reliability analysis on structure with multiple site damage. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006, 32(8): 899-902.

[13] Federal Aviation Administration. Destructive evaluation and extended fatigue testing of retired transport aircraft, Volume 5: data analysis Report. (2007).

[14] Yongming Liu, Sankaran Mahadevan. Probabilistic fatigue life prediction using an equivalent initial flaw size distribution. International Journal of Fatigue, 2009, 31: 476-487.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.06.005

[15] JSC-22267A. Fatigue crack growth computer program NASA FLAGRO. Version 2. 0, Revision A, (1994).

[16] Swift T. Damage Tolerance Capability. International Journal of Fatigue, 1994, 16(1): 75-94.

[17] Ching-long Hsu, el at. Residual strength analysis using CTOA criteria for fuselage structures containing multiple site damage. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2003, 70: 525-545.

DOI: 10.1016/s0013-7944(02)00135-2

[18] Swift T. Widespread fatigue damage monitoring–issues and concerns. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Structural Airworthiness of New and Aging Aircraft, Hamburg, Germany, (1993).