Damage tolerance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Fault tolerance. (Discuss) Proposed
since December 2014.

Damage tolerance is a property of a structure relating to its ability to sustain defects safely
until repair can be effected. The approach to engineering design to account for damage
tolerance is based on the assumption that flaws can exist in any structure and such flaws
propagate with usage. This approach is commonly used in aerospace engineering to
manage the extension of cracks in structure through the application of the principles
of fracture mechanics. In aerospace engineering, structure is considered to be damage
tolerant if a maintenance program has been implemented that will result in the detection
and repair of accidental damage, corrosion and fatigue cracking before such damage
reduces the residual strength of the structure below an acceptable limit.
Contents

1 History

2 Safe-Life Structure

3 Damage Tolerance Analysis

4 Non-Destructive Inspections

5 External links

History[edit]
Structures upon which human life depends have long been recognized as needing an
element of fail-safety. When describing his flying machine, Leonardo da Vinci noted that "In
constructing wings one should make one chord to bear the strain and a looser one in the
same position so that if one breaks under the strain, the other is in the position to serve the
same function."[1]
Prior to the 1970s, the prevailing engineering philosophy of aircraft structures was to
ensure that airworthiness was maintained with a single part broken, a redundancy
requirement known as fail-safety. However, advances in fracture mechanics, along with
infamous catastrophic fatigue failures such as those in the DeHavilland Comet prompted a
change in requirements for aircraft. It was discovered that a phenomenon known as
"multiple-site damage" could cause many small cracks in the structure, which grow slowly
by themselves, to join one another over time, creating a much larger crack, and significantly
reducing the expected time until failure [2]

Safe-Life Structure[edit]
Not all structure must demonstrate detectable crack propagation to ensure safety of
operation. Some structures operate under the safe-life design principle, where an extremely
low level of risk is accepted through a combination of testing and analysis that the part will
ever form a detectable crack due to fatigue during the service life of the part. This is
achieved through a significant reduction of stresses below the typical fatigue capability of
the part. Safe-life structures are employed when the cost or infeasibility of inspections
outweighs the weight penalty and development costs associated with safe-life structures.
[3]
An example of a safe-life component is the helicopter rotor blade. Due to the extremely

large numbers of cycles endured by the rotating component, an undetectable crack may
grow to a critical length in a single flight and before the aircraft lands, result in a
catastrophic failure that regular maintenance could not have prevented.

Damage Tolerance Analysis[edit]

In ensuring the continued safe operation of the damage tolerant structure, inspection
schedules are devised. This schedule is based on many criteria, including:

assumed initial damaged condition of the structure

stresses in the structure (both fatigue and operational maximum stresses) that
cause crack growth from the damaged condition

geometry of the material which intensifies or reduces the stresses on the crack tip

ability of the material to withstand cracking due to stresses in the expected

environment

largest crack size that the structure can endure before catastrophic failure

likelihood that a particular inspection method will reveal a crack

acceptable level of risk that a certain structure will be completely failed

expected duration after manufacture until a detectable crack will form

assumption of failure in adjacent components which may have the effect of

changing stresses in the structure of interest

These factors affect how long the structure may operate normally in the damaged condition
before one or more inspection intervals has the opportunity to discover the damaged state
and effect a repair. The interval between inspections must be selected with a certain
minimum safety, and also must balance the expense of the inspections, the weight penalty
of lowering fatigue stresses, and the opportunity costs associated with a structure being out
of service for maintenance.

Non-Destructive Inspections[edit]
Manufacturers and operators of aircraft have a financial interest in ensuring that the
inspection schedule is as cost-efficient as possible. Because aircraft are often revenue
producing, there is an opportunity cost associated with the maintenance of the aircraft (lost
ticket revenue), in addition to the cost of maintenance itself. Thus, this maintenance is
desired to be performed infrequently, even when such increased intervals cause increased
complexity and cost to the overhaul. Crack growth, as shown by fracture mechanics, is
exponential in nature; meaning that the crack growth rate is a function of an exponent of
the current crack size (see Paris' law). A desire for infrequent inspection intervals,
combined with the exponential growth of cracks in structure has led to the development
of non-destructive testing methods which allow inspectors to look for very tiny cracks which
are often invisible to the naked eye. Examples of this technology include eddy
current, ultrasonic, dye penetrant, and X-ray inspections. By catching structural cracks
when they are very small, and growing slowly, these non-destructive inspections can

reduce the amount of maintenance checks, and allow damage to be caught when it is
small, and still inexpensive to repair.

External links[edit]
1.

'Jump up to:^ [1] From 'Safe-Life and Damage-Tolerant Design Approach For
Helicopter Structure, Harold K. Reddick, Jr.

2.

Jump up^ [2] Evaluation and Verification of Advanced Methods to Assess MultipleSite Damage of Aircraft Structure", FAA Report

3.

'Jump up to:^ [3] From 'Safe-Life and Damage-Tolerant Design Approach For
Helicopter Structure, Harold K. Reddick, Jr.

Handbook for Damage Tolerant Design Online handbook by U.S. Air Force
Research Laboratory (PDF format).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_tolerance
http://www.afgrow.net/applications/DTDHandbook/sections/page1_0.aspx