MMPDS Handbook – What?, Why?, and How?

– An FAA
Perspective

Robert G. Eastin1, Richard Rice2

1
Federal Aviation Administration, Lakewood, California
2
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio

Abstract: The Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization

(MMPDS) activity is a collaborative effort that involves material and fastener
producers, aircraft manufacturers, Department of Defense agencies, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). The primary objective is to develop and publish
statistically based static design values for metallic aerospace materials and
fasteners. A secondary objective is to publish other material property data (e.g.
fatigue, fatigue crack growth rate, fracture toughness) that meets certain
guidelines.

The importance of the MMPDS effort to the FAA cannot be over emphasized. It
greatly facilitates certification of new aircraft designs and approvals of
subsequent modifications and repairs. Without the MMPDS Handbook, or an
equivalent document, certifications and approvals would require much more time
and effort on the part of both the FAA and Industry. Additionally, there would
be little or no consensus standardization of static strength design values. A
potential outcome could be that for the same material there would be as many
different design values used as there were material users and what was used by
each user would be proprietary information.

The MMPDS effort is accomplished by a collection of steering groups, working

groups and ad hoc task groups. Overall coordination is facilitated by the
MMPDS General Coordination Committee (GCC). Additionally, an unbiased
third party acts as a secretariat to manage meetings, collect and review (typically
proprietary) data against the guidelines, perform statistical evaluations, develop
statistical methods and bring new design data and guidelines forward for
consideration by the GCC for inclusion into the MMPDS Handbook. That
secretariat function has been performed by Battelle since 1954.

The statistical methods used to develop the design values have evolved over the
years and continue to evolve. They are very robust and represent the “gold
standard” for establishing statistically based design values. Consequently the
FAA generally accepts MMPDS statistically based design values without further
showing.

1
 INTRODUCTION

In the United States if a civil aircraft type design is going to be produced, sold and put
into unrestricted operation for profit or personal use it must first have a type certificate
(TC) issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In order to be granted a type
certificate the aircraft design must be shown to meet certain minimum requirements.
These requirements are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR). Parts 23, 25, 27 and 29 of Chapter 1 contain the design
requirements for small airplanes, large airplanes, small rotorcraft and large rotorcraft
respectively.

The 14 CFR requirements cover all aspects of the aircraft design that affect safe
operation. One of these aspects is structural strength. It is required that the aircraft be
designed to have a minimum level of strength. It must be shown that there will be no
permanent deformation due to the maximum loads expected in service. These loads are
often referred to as “limit” loads. It must also be shown that the structure will not fail if
subjected to one and one half times the limit loads. Similar strength requirements are
also applied to military aircraft.

Demonstration that the requirements have been met is typically accomplished by a

combination of analysis and test. However, testing tends to be expensive and time
consuming and therefore a substantial amount of demonstration is done by analysis using
material strength properties that are often referred to as “design values”. When the
strength demonstration is accomplished analytically it is required that there be “enough
tests of material meeting approved specifications to establish design values on a statistical
basis.” Additionally, the requirements specify the statistical probability and confidence
level the design values must possess. For single load path structure a 99 percent
probability of exceedance with 95 percent confidence (T99) is needed. For redundant
structure a 90 percent probability of exceedance with 95 percent confidence (T90) is
needed. The statistical significance of the T99 and T90 values is illustrated in Figure 1.
There is a provision for using design values that haven’t been shown to have the stated
probability and confidence levels but the use of these “other” design values require a
special approval by the Administrator.

There are no requirements that constrain the aircraft designer (hereafter referred to as the
“applicant”) in the selection of materials. Each applicant is free to choose the materials
best suited for a particular design. However, once selected the applicant must use
design values for strength demonstration that meet the applicable 14 CFR requirements
unless Administrator approval is obtained. There is no generic approval of design values.

2
Figure 1 T99 and T90 Values Assuming Data is Normally Distributed

Each applicant for a TC is responsible for submitting data to show that his design meets
the applicable requirements. The design values used for strength demonstrations are
approved as part of the type design data the applicant submits for his particular aircraft
design. Because of this, the design value requirements could result in each applicant
performing their own testing and establishing their own statistically based design values
for their particular aircraft. Due to the sensitivity of statistically based design values to
the number of tests performed, statistical distributions assumed (or not), and other factors
that are not specified in the 14 CFR requirements, it is possible to arrive at different
statistically based design values for the exact same material. This unnecessary
“reinventing the wheel” by individual applicants and the potential for different design
values being used for the same material can be avoided with standardization.
Standardization can be accomplished by using a process that has been fully vetted and
agreed to up-front by all stakeholders and executing the process in an unbiased and
transparent manner with adequate oversight. This is in essence what the MMPDS
process is.

3
 HISTORY

The benefits of design value standardization were recognized early on. The Army-Navy-
Commerce Committee on Aircraft Requirements issued ANC-5, “Strength of Aircraft
Elements” in November of 1937. In explaining the purpose and use of the handbook it is
noted in the introduction that “standardization of the requirements of the various
Governmental procuring or licensing agencies is of direct benefit to the manufacturer.” It
also notes that although military and commercial aircraft can differ greatly “the
requirements for strength of materials have for some time been nearly identical.” It also
states that “With few exceptions…….the material contained herein is acceptable to the
Army Air Corps, Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy and the Bureau of Air Commerce of
the Department of Commerce.” The 1938 version contained design information and
mechanical property design values for wood, steel alloys, aluminum alloys and
magnesium alloys and design allowables for joints, fittings and parts. It consisted of 145
pages and could be purchased from United States Government Printing Office for twenty
five cents. Revisions were issued in 1940, 1942 and 1943. Committee meeting
participation was limited mostly to government representatives until 1947 when a large
industry contingent participated by invitation. Since that time industry participation has
been a critical element of the process.

In 1954 Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle) was awarded a contract by the Materials
Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, to review the field of material-
property-design criteria for metals used in aircraft and missiles and bring up-to-date a
compilation of design information for the design of aircraft and missiles. Battelle
produced a number of reports and much of the information produced was incorporated
into ANC-5. Since then Battelle has been the secretariat for ANC-5, MIL-HDBK-5 and
now MMPDS.

The Air Force assumed the role of lead government agency in August 1956 and in 1958
decided to publish the next revision as a military handbook. MIL-HDBK-5, published in
1959, superseded ANC-5. Under the guidance of the Air Force the handbook continued
to evolve. A significant event in the evolution was publishing of Air Force report
AFML-TR-66-386, “MIL-HDBK-5 Guidelines for the Presentation of Data”, in February
1967. These guidelines represented an important milestone in the utilization of
standardized procedures for the analysis and presentation of data. Prior to this time many
different procedures had been used and documentation was in many different
publications. All the newly documented procedures were approved by the MIL-HDBK-5
Committee and incorporated into the handbook in 1971 as Chapter 9.

Although the MIL-HDBK-5 was initially geared towards military aircraft and missiles
and participation consisted primarily of United States military contractors and their
material and fastener suppliers, over the years the commercial sector increased its
participation in the handbook activities. This was because the data published was
generically applicable and used extensively throughout the commercial aviation industry.
Consistent with this the FAA attended meetings and also provided a portion of the total
funding.

4
In the late 1990’s the Department of Defense decided to terminate maintenance of
military specifications and standards and to stop invoking them for procurement of new
systems. Consistent with this, and because of cuts in the R&D budget, all Air Force
funding for the MIL-HDBK-5 ceased at the end of fiscal year 1999. However, the FAA
determined that continued support of MIL-HDBK-5 was critical for future certification
and continued airworthiness of civil aircraft and funds were allocated to keep the process
going without interruption. Subsequently an Interagency Agreement in 2001 officially
transitioned leadership of the MIL-HDBK-5 from the Air Force to the FAA. Shortly
after this the FAA decided to change the name to the Metallic Materials Properties
Development and Standardization (MMPDS) Handbook. This was done to demilitarize
the handbook and emphasize the development and standardization elements of the effort
required to produce it.

Up to the time of the transition between the Air Force and the FAA the contracted part of
the effort was funded completely with government funds and the handbook was available
for the cost of printing. With the annual cost of development and maintenance being on
the order of several hundred thousand dollars the FAA was unwilling to provide all the
funding in the long term. It was determined that other funding sources had to be found
including commercialization of the handbook. Commercial sales started at the end of
2005. The handbook is now available for sale in several formats from Battelle.

Since the FAA became the lead government agency MMPDS-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05 have
been published in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2010, respectively. Additionally, the
number of participants has increased and now includes a significant number of civil
aircraft manufacturers and companies from outside the United States.

5
 WHAT?

The MMPDS is recognized world wide as an accepted non-proprietary source of

information on metallic materials and fasteners used in aerospace applications. Included
in the MMPDS are,

 Statistically based design values that can be used for strength demonstrations
without any additional effort by an applicant or the FAA relative to validating
the probability or confidence level associated with the values.
 Other design values that can be used with approval of the Administrator.
 Material property data useful in the design and evaluation of aircraft
structures. Examples are fatigue, fatigue crack growth rate, fracture toughness
and stress-strain data.
 Guidelines pertaining to the presentation of all data to be included in the
MMPDS Handbook. This includes statistical methods used to develop design
values.

The MMPDS Handbook is divided into nine chapters. The first chapter contains general
introductory information. Chapters 2 through 7 include data for steel, aluminum,
magnesium, titanium, heat-resistant steels and miscellaneous alloys (e.g. beryllium,
copper, ARALL) respectively. Chapter 8 addresses structural joints. Chapter 9 includes
all the process and procedures used to develop statistically based design values and
accept other material property data for publication in the MMPDS Handbook.

The MMPDS Handbook is continually evolving. The number of changes varies from
year to year; however, on average about 10 new materials, tempers and/or product forms
are added to it annually and existing data are periodically reviewed, updated and
sometimes removed, as appropriate. The methods used to develop statistically based
design values have changed over the years based on “lessons learned”. Current methods
are consistent with the state of the art for statistical data analysis. Additionally,
guidelines needed for acceptance of other material properties are continually established
and subject to revision as deemed appropriate.

The MMPDS is now in electronic format and is over 2500 pages in length. The most
recent version, MMPDS-05, can be purchased in hard copy from Battelle Memorial
Institute for $759.00. It may also be obtained on CD or downloaded. More information
on the MMPDS can be obtained on-line at http://projects.battelle.org/mmpds/.

6
 WHY?

Development and maintenance of the MMPDS requires a significant amount of effort by

many people. Why does the FAA consider it worth the price? Why does the FAA
continue to support it? The short answer is: Standardization.

Standardization of anything serves to “level the playing field” and therefore the FAA
strives for and encourages standardization whenever practical. This includes
requirements and their interpretation as well as analysis and test methods and design
parameters. However, not everything lends itself to standardization. One example is
external design loads which are unique to each aircraft type design and cannot be
standardized. They must be determined by the applicant and are dependant on the
aircraft’s configuration and performance characteristics. Consequently, they can vary
significantly from type design to type design and are almost always considered to be
proprietary data. Because of this each applicant must commit a significant amount of
resources to establish the external design loads for a given type design. The FAA in turn
must spend a significant amount of time to find compliance with the applicable
requirements. The lack of standardization of design loads also impacts approvals of
modifications and repairs designed by third parties. Since third parties do not typically
have access to the loads used for original certification they must establish them on their
own and the FAA must find compliance. This duplication of effort is inefficient and can
be costly but is unavoidable when there is a lack of standardization and data is held as
proprietary.

Fortunately the design values for many metallic materials and fastening systems lend
themselves to standardization. The MMPDS provides a mechanism to accomplish this
and publish them in a publically available document. This is of great benefit to industry
and the FAA.

The FAA determined early on that statistically based design values published in MIL-
HDBK-5 could be accepted as part of the type design data without additional effort on
the part of the applicant or the FAA. In fact, at one time the regulations specified that
MIL-HDBK-5 values had to be used unless other values were approved by the
Administrator. The FAA accepts the published design values because of the process that
is used to establish them. The process is described in more detail in the next section. It is
a disciplined and well documented collaborative process that involves the
material/fastener producers and users and the FAA. It also involves an unbiased third
party that collects and analyzes test data and submits the results to a general coordinating
committee. The committee then votes on whether or not to publish the values. Because
of the process the statistically based design values that are published in the MMPDS are
held in high regard. We are not aware of a single instance when they have been
challenged. This is because of the credibility of the overall process which includes very
rigorous statistical analysis methods and protocols that are fully documented in Chapter 9
of the MMPDS Handbook.

7
Once published the design values can be used by any applicant for demonstration of the
strength of any type design. Additional effort by the applicant or the FAA relative to
showing or finding that the values have the probability and confidence required by 14
CFR is avoided as long as the material used corresponds to the material for which the
design values were established. For many materials this may be as simple as showing
that the public specification for the material used is the same as for the one called out in
the MMPDS Handbook. An example of this might be a wrought product that is not
subject to any user processing (e.g. heat treat). For other materials there may be a need
for certain quality control requirements to ensure that the material that is incorporated
into the aircraft is the “same” as what was tested for standardization. This should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis and is beyond the scope of the MMPDS effort.

The MMPDS Handbook can also be of great benefit when there are materials that don’t
have design values published. As discussed earlier design values must be statistically
based and have specified probability and confidence unless approved by the
Administrator. The procedures documented in Chapter 9 are considered acceptable by
the FAA for use by an applicant for developing their own statistically based design
values. If the applicant chooses to follow those procedures it precludes any effort on the
part of the applicant to develop and submit a procedure and for the FAA to review and
accept it.

Besides offering the potential for simplifying and reducing the effort associated with
design values used for new type design certification the MMPDS Handbook can be of
great value when it comes to third party modifications and repairs. Because it has been
maintained with little interruption since 1937 it contains design values for the majority of
materials that were used in the past for existing operational aircraft. When this is the case
the MMPDS Handbook can be referenced with confidence for the design values that were
used for the original strength demonstration. This information is necessary for design,
analysis and approval of any post production modification or repair. As is the case for
external design loads proprietary design values could make third part modifications and
repairs problematic. The existence of the MMPDS Handbook typically makes this a non-
issue.

HOW?

The MMPDS Handbook’s continued existence and integrity depend on a dedicated and
organized group of participants, funding and rigorous statistical methods.

Organization
The process used to develop and maintain the MMPDS Handbook depends on voluntary
participation by representatives from interested industrial organizations (e.g., airframe
manufacturers, material and fastener producers), government agencies, academic
institutions and the contracted services of a secretariat.

8
The MMPDS General Coordination Committee (GCC) has overall responsibility for
development and maintenance of the handbook. All decisions relating to handbook
changes are made by the GCC at coordination meetings that are typically held on a semi-
annual basis. To be a voting member a representative only needs to register and be in
attendance. For a member to be considered active they must attend at least one
coordination meeting every two years. Currently there are approximately 150 active
members of the MMPDS GCC.

The GCC is supported by a secretariat, four standing steering groups and three standing
task groups as described below.

The secretariat is an unbiased third party representing neither industry nor government.
Since 1954 the secretariat has been Battelle Memorial Institute. The secretariat is under
contract to provide services that include (1) arranging for all meeting facilities, (2) acting
as archivist and meeting facilitator, (3) coordinating and/or performing statistical
analyses, research, testing, etc. required for development and maintenance of the
handbook and (4) acting as secretary for individual task and working groups.

Four steering groups provide advice and direction to the GCC from their own
perspective.

 The Government Steering Group (GSG) provides advice and direction to the GCC
from an airworthiness authority and government procuring activity perspective.
The GSG manages the contract with the secretariat and has veto power over GCC
decisions that were accepted by a vote. A member of the GSG serves as
Chairman of the GCC. GSG meetings are open to representatives from any
interested government agency. Agencies typically in attendance include the FAA,
DLA, Navy, USAF, NASA and the Army. In order to be a voting member annual
membership fees must be paid.

 The Industry Steering Group (ISG) provides advice and direction to the GCC
from an industry perspective. ISG membership is open to aerospace metallic
material suppliers and users worldwide. However, membership requires payment
of an annual membership fee and acceptance of an annual agreement. Currently
there are 31 members as indicated in Table 1.

 The Airframer Steering Group (ASG) provides advice and direction to the GCC
from the perspective of aircraft and aerospace manufacturers. Membership is
only open to representatives from aircraft and aerospace manufacturers.

 The Material and Technical Services Steering Group (MATSSG) provides advice
and direction to the GCC from the perspective of aircraft and aerospace material
suppliers and technical service organizations. Membership is only open to
representatives from aircraft and aerospace material suppliers and technical
service organizations.

9
Table 1. MMPDS ISG Memberships for 2011

Metallic Material Producer or Aircraft Producer

Technical Service Provider (Metallic Material User)
Alcan Airbus
Alcoa Boeing
Aleris Aluminum Bombardier
Allfast Cessna
Alro S.A. GKN Aerospace
ATI Allvac Goodrich
Aubert & Duval Hamilton Sundstrand
Brush Wellman Honeywell
Carpenter Technology ITP Industries
Granta Design Lockheed Martin
Haynes International Northrop Grumman
Kaiser Aluminum Sikorsky
Questek Spirit Aerosystems
Sumitomo Turkish Aerospace
Universal Alloy  
Weber Metals  
Westmoreland  

Task groups focus on subject areas (e.g. materials, fasteners, technical guidelines) and are
needed long term to investigate and make recommendations on tasking assigned to them
by the GCC. There are three standing task groups which include:

 The Guidelines Task Group (GTG) focuses on the development and maintenance
of state-of-the art analytical and experimental methods for the development of
design values and development of criteria to be used for acceptance of other
material properties for inclusion in the handbook.

 The Materials Task Group (MTG) focuses on the development and maintenance
of reliable, up-to-date static strength design properties.

 The Fastener Task Group (FTG) focuses on the development and maintenance of
reliable up-to-date static strength design allowables for aircraft and aerospace
metallic material fasteners and metallurgical joints.

Additional task and working groups may be formed at any time based on the
recommendation of the GCC Chairman or task group respectively and approval by the
GCC. Working groups typically report directly to a task group and focus on specific
technical issues within a subject area.

10
Funding
A significant portion of the cost of developing and maintaining the handbook is absorbed
by the participants and their organizations. This includes the costs associated with travel
to meetings, time spent participating in committee, steering group, task group and
working group meetings and time spent outside of MMPDS meetings reviewing data and
drafting and reviewing proposals. Additionally, testing performed to generate the data
that is submitted for evaluation is almost always paid for by material/fastener producers
or the planned users.

The remainder of the cost of developing and maintaining the MMPDS Handbook is what
is paid to the contracted secretariat. Contracted services include reviewing data,
development of statistically based design values for materials and fastening systems,
coordination with specification and standards groups, development and documentation of
statistical procedures and data acceptance standards, management of coordination
meetings and handbook revisions.

Prior to 2005 the government had always paid for the total cost of the secretariat’s effort.
While different agencies have shared the cost over the years there has never been equal
cost sharing by all benefiting agencies. For example, prior to 1999 the USAF contributed
the majority of the funds. When the FAA became the lead government agency in 2002
they were providing 100% of the funding. This was determined to be unacceptable over
the long term and other funding sources were sought. This included commercialization
of the MMPDS. Currently the FAA still provides the majority of the funding but a
significant amount comes from handbook/database sales, the ISG and other government
agencies.

MMPDS Process
Development of statistically based design values for metallic materials and fastening
systems that meet the probability and confidence levels required by 14 CFR for analytical
strength demonstration is the primary objective of the MMPDS GCC.

The processes used for metallic materials and fastening systems are conceptually the
same and responsibilities are divided is a similar fashion. The process used for metallic
materials is depicted in Figure 2.

The process starts with the material producer developing and maturing a material to the
point that it is considered a production material (i.e., standard manufacturing procedures
must have been established for its fabrication and processing). When this is done the
material may be submitted to the MMPDS GCC for consideration. If the GCC determines
that an acceptable public specification does not exist, Battelle coordinates activities
needed to establish an acceptable public specification. Whether or not one exists, data
generated by material producers is typically submitted to Battelle for initial review. In
most cases Battelle proceeds with database review even if material specifications need
further development.

11
 Production ASTM, Mechanical Property
Material? SAE, etc. Database Generation

Coordinate
Acceptable Public No Creation of
Specification
Acceptable
Available?
Material Producer Specification
MMPDS GCC Yes
Battelle
FAA
Aircraft Manufacturer No Additional Statistical Yes Data Meets No
Data Analysis of Handbook
TC – Type Certificate
Needed? Data Requirements ?
PC – Production Certificate
Yes

Archive Data
Prepare Data Yes
Approve Design Package and Revise Handbook
Package for Handbook and Notices
Values? Meeting
Record Decision and Change
GCC Review Change Notices
Minutes
in Minutes
No

Statistically
Yes Does Design Structural
Aircraft TC Based
Comply with Strength
Production Design
14CFR? Demonstration
Values
PC No

Figure 2 MMPDS Process for Developing Design Values for Metallic Materials

Battelle reviews the database for compliance with the handbook requirements (e.g.,
number of total observations, number of lots tested). The determination of T99 and T90
values requires a substantial quantity of data. At least 100 observations are required
provided the data can be described by a standard distribution function as defined in the
handbook. If the distribution cannot be described by one of the specified distributions,
then at least 299 observations are required so that analyses can proceed without
knowledge of the distribution form, using nonparametric statistical analysis procedures.
Additionally, the sample must include multiple lots, representing at least ten production
heats, casts or melts from a majority of important producers. The sample should be as
evenly distributed as possible over the size range applicable to the tolerance bound for the
mechanical property and the number of observations from each lot must be nearly equal.
If the requirements are not met the GCC is notified along with the material producer.
Additional data must then be generated and all requirements met before the process can
continue.

12
When the database submitted meets all handbook requirements the secretariat performs
the statistical analyses. The details of some of the statistical methods used and issues
encountered are discussed in the next section. In some cases it may be determined that
additional testing is needed and the GCC and material producers will be advised
accordingly. When the statistical analyses are successfully completed the secretariat
prepares a data package for GCC review and approval. Consistent with established
MMPDS Handbook protocol the T90 value is proposed as the “B-basis” value and the
lower of the T99 or the public specification minimum value (i.e. “S-basis”) is proposed as
the “A-basis value”. If approved the secretariat archives the supporting data package,
records the decision and revises the handbook accordingly. The resulting design values
are then made available for use by aircraft manufacturers to demonstrate that 14 CFR
strength requirements are met.

When all applicable 14CFR requirements are found to be met, the FAA can issue a TC.
A TC is one of the prerequisites needed for issuance of a production certificate which is
required for aircraft production.

Statistical Methods
The original parametric statistical analysis procedures incorporated into the MIL-HDBK-
5 guidelines back in the early 1970s were based on the assumption that most collections
of mechanical properties were normally distributed, as shown in Figure 1. Unfortunately,
it has been found, after collecting large quantities of mechanical property data on a wide
variety of aircraft and aerospace materials, that most data distributions are significantly
skewed, either negatively or positively.

For example, Figure 3 shows the variation in skewness of samples of yield and ultimate
strength data collected for a single wrought aluminum alloy. Over 57,000 test results are
represented in Figure 3, with sample sizes ranging from 30 to over 3,000. Over 75% of
the datasets displayed significant skewness, either positive or negative.

Negative skewness is of greatest concern when dealing with lower-bound design

allowable properties. This is especially true with T99 values, because they are developed
from the very lowest strength values and negative skewness “stretches” the distribution
downward on the low side, as shown in Figure 4. The net impact on computed T99 values
can be as much as 3 to 5 %, as shown in Figure 5.

Because of the need to account for skewness in mechanical properties when computing
lower bound design allowables, analysis procedures were developed based on the three
parameter Weibull and Pearson, Type III, distributions. The best choice of a distribution
is made based on an Anderson Darling procedure, which quantifies the degree of fit of
the actual data to a calculated cumulative distribution function, as shown in Figure 6.

13
Figure 3 Skewness of Individual Data Subsets (Each Subset Representing a Specific
Property, Supplier, Orientation and Thickness Range) for a Single Wrought
Aluminum Alloy

500
Skew ness = -1.00
450
Skew ness = -0.60
Mode = 100
Relative Frequency of Occurrence

400 Skew ness = -0.20

Std. Dev. = 5.0
Normal
350 Skew ness = 0.20
Skew ness = 0.60
300 Skew ness = 1.00

250

200

150

100

50

0
75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Normalized Strength
Figure 4 Normalized Distributions of Strength Data with Skewness Values Ranging
from -1.00 to 1.00

14
 6.0%
Estimated Conservatism in Design Allowable Sample Size
n = 20
4.0% n = 30
n = 50
n = 100
2.0% n = 300
n = 1000

0.0%

-2.0%

-4.0%

-6.0%
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
True Skewness

Figure 5 Impact on Computed Design Allowables if the True Distribution is Skewed,

but a Normal Distribution is Assumed

1 10 20 50 80 90 99

Figure 6 Comparison of Actual Distribution of Strength Data with an Assumed

Pearson Distribution

15
In this particular case the lower tail deviations from predicted trends led to rejection of
the Pearson model for this data set. By comparison, the three-parameter Weibull analysis
procedure, which includes an option for upper-tail censoring of the data, provided an
excellent representation of the actual lower-tail trends, as shown in Figure 7.

1 10 20 50 80 90 99

Figure 7 Comparison of Actual Distribution of Strength Data with an Upper-Tail

Censored, Three Parameter Weibull Distribution

The analyses just described did not include the effects of product thickness on lower-
bound strength properties. Product thickness often has a significant effect on the tensile
properties of wrought materials and this effect must be accounted for by regression
analysis or through subdivision of the population into small enough thickness ranges that
the effect of thickness on strength properties is minimal.

For example, Figure 8 shows the distribution of tensile ultimate strength properties of a
titanium bar product ranging from 0.500 to 6.00 inches in thickness. In this case, it was
found that lower bound properties decreased with increasing thickness for products up to
3.00 inches in thickness. Above 3.00 inches, there was a negligible effect of thickness on
lower bound properties.

Special Considerations
In some other situations it is not possible to characterize the variability in mechanical
properties with a parametric distribution. In those situations nonparametric (ranking)
procedures are employed, assuming there are sufficient data.

16
Figure 8 Distribution of Strength Data with Increasing Thickness for a Titanium
Bar Product, With Calculated T90 and T99 Lower Bound Design Allowables Shown
Relative to the Specification Limits

The nonparametric analysis procedures in MMPDS are based on the discrete binomial
distribution. They assume a random selection of test points and use only the ranks of
individual test points and the total number of test results. If test points have been deleted
from a sample, the random basis is violated; consequently, this procedure must not be
used when there is reason to suspect that the sample may have been censored.

As an example, assume that a sample consists of 299 test points selected in a random
manner. The test point having the lowest value has rank 1, the test point having the next
lowest value has rank 2, etc. Thus, an array of ranked test points might appear as follows:

Rank of Test Point Value of Test Point, ksi

1 73.3
2 74.1
3 75.2
4 75.3
5 75.6
299 85.7

17
For each rank from a sample of size, n, it is possible to predict, with 0.95 confidence, the
least fraction of the population that exceeds the value of the test point having rank r.
Since only two fractions, or probabilities, are of interest in determination of T99 and T90
values, only the ranks of test points having the probability and confidence of the T99 and
T90 values are presented in MMPDS look-up tables. To use one of these tables with a
sample size of 299, for example, one would designate the value of the lowest (r=1) test
measurement as the T99 value and the 22nd lowest (r=22) test measurement as the T90
value. For sample sizes between tabulated values, interpolation is allowed. For sample
sizes smaller than 299, the T99 value is smaller than the value of the lowest point and
cannot be determined in this manner.

Another issue that sometimes complicates the development of design allowable

properties on some user-heat treated materials is the fact that lot release is sometimes
based on hardness testing, rather than tensile testing. The correlation between hardness
and tensile strength of these materials is well established (see for example Figure 9,
which shows the relationship between Rockwell C hardness and tensile strength), but
there is significant variability in the actual tensile strength associated with a specific
hardness value. This variability must be taken into account if minimum hardness levels
are to be used to ensure that minimum strength levels are achieved with the desired level
of confidence.

Figure 9 Correlation between Rockwell C Hardness and Tensile Strength for 17-
4PH Steel

18
Acceptance of Other Material Property Data
A secondary objective of the MMPDS GCC is publishing other material property data
useful in the design and evaluation of metallic aerospace structures. This data is
presented as typical or average and has no statistical assurance associated with it.
However before this data is accepted by the MMPDS GCC for presentation in the
handbook it must meet certain criteria. The acceptance criteria are typically developed
by GCC working groups with the assistance of the secretariat. Applicable criteria are
included in Chapter 9 of the handbook. Material property data addressed includes, but is
not limited to, the following,

 Modulus of Elasticity
 Elevated Temperature Curves
 Stress-strain Curves
 Load and Strain Control Fatigue Data
 Fatigue crack Growth Rate Data
 Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Data
 Plane Stress and Transitional Fracture Toughness Data
 Creep and Creep Rupture Data

Because of the acceptance standards established for this other material property data the
FAA considers it of high quality and potentially acceptable. However, if this data is used
to demonstrate compliance with 14CFR requirements there may be additional validation
work required to be performed by the applicant before compliance can be found for a
particular application.

19
 SUMMARY

The MMPDS is recognized world wide as an accepted non-proprietary source of

information on metallic materials and fasteners used in aerospace applications. Most
importantly it includes standardized statistically based design values that can be used to
demonstate compliance with 14CFR strength requirements without further showing by
applicants or finding by the FAA.

Publically available standardized design values help “level the playing field” for aircraft
designers and can save industry and airworthiness authorities significant time and money
since “reinventing the wheel” can be avoided. This is true for new aircraft designs and
third party designed modifications and repairs.

The process used for development and maintenance relies heavily on voluntary and
collaborative participation by all interested parties. It is facilitated by a paid secretariat
who acts as an unbiased third party in the review of data, calculation of design values,
development of methods, management of meetings, etc. All aspects of the process are
well documented and rigorous. The FAA accepts the statistically based design values
that area developed without further showing by the applicant of finding by the FAA.

The FAA considers the MMPDS Handbook a critical resource and strongly supports its
continued development and maintenance without interruption.

20