Material Selection

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3 Current Developments .....................................................................................................................3 Evolution of Structural Requirements .............................................................................................4 Material Performance Requirements ...............................................................................................6 Wing Structural Requirements.........................................................................................................6 Fuselage Structural Requirements ...................................................................................................8 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................10

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

17-1

Infotech, August 2007

Material Selection

This page intentionally left blank.

Infotech, August 2007

17-2

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

Material Selection
Introduction Historically, aluminum materials have been the primary material for aircraft construction. Today, structural strength and stiffness requirements, weight considerations, and highperformance expectations have demanded innovative use of new materials. As a result composite materials have continually replaced more aluminum structures. The design must be fully defined for resistance to environmental exposure, repair, electromagnetic effects, and aircraft systems interface requirements. Extensive development programs were introduced at Boeing aimed at a step-wise introduction of CFRP into larger and larger structures. Material usage by Boeing airplane model is shown in Figure 1.

747
Misc. S teel Titanium Composie t Aluminum

767

757

777

7E7

Figure 1. Structural Materials on Selected Boeing Commercial Aircraft This paper will discuss the evolution and future potential of structural materials. It shows how the relationship between the airframe designer, material scientists and manufacturing engineer is becoming closer and more integrated as the need for improved weight/cost performance grows. This approach to aircraft material development is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Integrated Design/Manufacture/Material Development Current Developments Currently, the major aluminum producers are working to commercialize a completely new set of advanced aluminum alloys, designed to be weight competitive with current CFRP. The target properties for these alloys are published in Boeing documents (referred to as D6 alloys) that have been made available to the participants. The damage tolerant lower wing surface plate is targeted to be 40 percent stronger than 2024-T351, while the upper wing surface plate

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

17-3

Infotech, August 2007

Material Selection
will be 25 percent stronger than 7178-T651. Figure 3 shows the development of strength and toughness of structural aluminum alloys.
Fracture toughness (kapp), ksi/in
250 200 250 100 50 0 40 2024-T3 2024-T351 2324-T39 Type II

2524-T3

o Adv G anc ed alum inu mt 2324-T39 arg 197 ets 0's - 19 193 90's 0's - 19 7055-T7751 60' s
7075-T651 7150-T651 T651

n od

s es

60 80 Typical yield strength, ksi

100

Figure 3. Aluminum Alloy Evolution Composites have excellent fatigue and corrosion resistance. Development of new materials and processes for fabrication of large structure as well as improvement to the design and analysis tools is ongoing. The most significant coupon tests to evaluate critical performance of composite materials consist of hot/wet compression and compression after impact damage. Figure 4 shows the developments of open hole residual compression strength versus compression after impact strength for various generations of composite materials.
Residual compression strength after impact, ksi

60 3rd Generation (Mid-1990s to present) 2nd Generation (Early 1980s (Mid 1980s technology) technology) Goodness

50

40

30

1st Generation (1970s technology)

20

10 0 50 100 150 Hot/wet compression strength, ksi 200

Figure 4. Composite Matrix Improvements Evolution of Structural Requirements Discussion to this point has focused primarily on the evolution of material development and continuing attempts to improve properties. This section will attempt to relate evolution of basic material property data such as Fcy/Fty/Fsu to design values, which are used to design aircraft structures, see Table 1.

Infotech, August 2007

17-4

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

Material Selection
Table 1. Critical Material Design Properties
Design Property Static strength Tension Structure must remain elastic to limit load and carry Ultimate Load. For composite materials, manufacturing flaws and Barely Visible Impact Damage (BVID) must be included Fty, Ftu, Fbru OHT, FHT, NT Fcy, Ec OHC, FHC, NC Fty small hole out OHT open hole tension Ftu large hole out FHT filled hole tension Fbru Joint strength NT notched tension Fcy short columns Ec long columns OHC open hole compression FHC filled hole compression NC notched compression Ftu45, Fty45 thin web Fsu thick web NT notched tension NC notched compression Low load and high load transfer joint coupons data most reliable for material evaluation For composite, cycling to validate no growth. Criteria Property Critical Material Property Property Evaluation

Compression

Shear

Ftu, Fty, Fsu NC, NT

Durability Fatigue Design service objective with high level of reliability Corrosion Fatigue strength, open hole, notched specimen, low load & high load transfer joint coupons K1scc, SCC threshold and exfoliation rating

Heavy reliance on service experience

Damage Tolerance Crack Growth Damage must be found before becoming critical. For composite material, structure must demonstrate no detrimental growth with visible flaw. Must carry limit load with large damage Fatigue crack growth characteristics CAI compression after impact Inspection intervals & methods

Residual Strength

Kapp, Fty, elongation H, - Composite fracture toughness CAI Density, material costs

Kapp for low Toughness or wide panels, Fty for high toughness narrow parts Hc for wide panels, CAI for local areas

Weight/Cost Minimize within constraints Fabrication and maintenance costs must be accounted for

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

17-5

Infotech, August 2007

Material Selection
Material Performance Requirements Wing Structural Requirements Boeing is at the beginning of the introduction of the next generation of highly efficient and quieter airplanes. The 777 was a culmination of design solution that over the years had pushed the static, fatigue, and damage tolerance performance of the wing structure to a point that maximized the capability of the 2324 skins, 2224 extruded stringers on the lower surface and the 7055 skins and stringers on the wing upper surface. Table 2 identifies the material usage and rationale for its selection for the upper and lower surface of the wing. In addition, the figure below illustrates the various design drivers that reflect the balance of properties for the upper and lower surfaces of the wing. Table 2. Critical Considerations for Wing Design
a. Aluminum wing Lower surface Skin (2324 Plate) Residual strength, fatigue, damage tolerance, static strength (tension Stringer (2224 and shear) extrusion) Upper surface Skin (7055 Plate) Static strength (compression and shear), residual strength, damage Stringer (7055 tolerance extrusion) Spar Spar Static strength, damage tolerance (tension/ compression/shear) b. Carbon fiber wing panels and spars Upper/lower surface Skin (CRFP tape) Static strength, residual strength, damage tolerance (tension/ compression) Stringer (CFRP tape) Spars Spar (CFRP tape) Static strength, residual strength, damage tolerance (tension/ compression/ shear)

Figure 5 presents the typical margins of safety versus wing station for various wing load conditions. Each of these margins is established using allowables from coupon, element, and subcomponent tests.
Shear/ compression Shear Damage tolerance Fatigue Tension Shear Damage tolerance Fatigue

Margin

Margin

Wing station

Wing station

a. Wing upper surface

b. Wing lower surface

Figure 5. Criticality of Wing Failure Modes

Infotech, August 2007

17-6

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

Material Selection
It is essential to improve material properties of new candidate materials in a balanced fashion. Understanding the material property interrelationships is very important in achieving the requisite balance. A useful means of providing material suppliers with the correct balance is to plot these relationships against one another. In this manner, materials can be selected which will allow for structural weight reduction. Figure 6 illustrates the typical relationship between fracture toughness and tensile strength, fatigue stress to tensile strength, and crack growth rates to tensile strength. These relationships are absolutely necessary for deciding if a material is an acceptable candidate for the wing lower surface.

Required fatigue strength Resistance to crack growth Residual strength

Fatigue Crack growth Residual st rength

Panel tension design value

Figure 6. Wing Lower Panel material Relationships A similar approach is being undertaken with carbon fiber reinforced plastic materials due to the potential weight savings offered by these laminate materials. Figure 7 illustrates the evolution of upper panel strength; it includes the actual compression strength for 2024, 7075, 7055-T7751, the potential next generation advanced aluminum properties, and graphite materials ratioed by density for equal comparison with aluminum.
Advanced aluminum Graphite (crit) 7150 7055 7075

Compression design value

2024

Smeared panel thickness

Figure 7. Wing Upper Panel Strength Evolution Figure 8 illustrates the evolution of lower panel material design values. Again, for comparison purposes, the graph includes properties for 2024, 2324, the best-case projection for advanced aluminum alloys and carbon fiber materials ratioed by density. The lower panel figure is presented differently from the upper panel because unlike the upper panel where compression strength is the dominant property in terms of determining weight, the lower panel has tension strength, residual strength, and fatigue as combined design drivers.

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

17-7

Infotech, August 2007

Material Selection
Tension

Residual strength t = 0.260 t = 0.370

Fatigue

2324

Adv AL

2024

CFRP

Figure 8. Wing Lower Panel Strength Evolution Approximately 10 percent lighter wing structure, compared to existing wing designs, can be achieved through the use of the new alloys that are being developed through Boeing guidance. In addition to metallic wing structure, much emphasis has been placed on understanding the design, fabrication methods, systems integration and cost of carbon fiber structure. State-ofthe-art carbon fiber designs are thought to save more weight relative to the advanced aluminum alloys when all systems integration features are considered in the complete design solution. One of the major challenges facing carbon fiber reinforced plastic materials has been the cost of fabrication methods and materials. Strides have been made in development of nonconventional laminates, reducing raw material cost, improving material lay-down rates, minimization of material waste, and simplifying systems integration. As these improvements realized, carbon fiber was selected as a viable material of choice for wing primary structure. Fuselage Structural Requirements The 777 was a culmination of design evolution that over the years had pushed the static, fatigue and damage tolerance performance of the fuselage structure to a point that maximized the capability of the 2524 skins and 7150 extruded stringers. Table 3 identifies the traditional material usage and rational for their selection in the general Monocoque structure.

Infotech, August 2007

17-8

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

Material Selection
Table 3. Critical Considerations for Fuselage Design
a. Aluminum fuselage Skin (2524 Sheet) Stringer (7075 Sheet, 7150 Extr) Frames (7075 Sheet, Extr) Beams (7075 Sheet, Extr) Seat Tracks (7150 Extr. Ti-6AI-4V Extr) Monocoque Fatigue, damage tolerance, corrosion Fatigue, static tension, compression strength Stiffness, fatigue, compression strength Floors Corrosion resistance, static strength

b. Carbon fiber fuselage Monocoque Skin (CFRP tape and/or fabric) Static strength (compression), damage tolerance (tension / compression) Stringer (CFRP tape and/or fabric) Static compression strength (after impact), stiffness Frames (slit tape or braided textile) Stiffness, stability, static compression strength Floors Beams (CFRP tape, Reinforced Corrosion resistance, static strength Thermoplastic Laminate (RTL), titanium) Seat tracks (7150 Extr. Ti-6AI-4V Extr)

The increased use of composites creates a competitive challenge for aluminum alloys. Figure 9 shows the relative axial stress capability for past composites and current toughened composites relative to conventional and future alloys. Weight savings on the order of 20 to 30 percent can be achieved with the use of composites when compared to current aluminum alloys. Alloy development for future aircraft is being challenged more than ever to improve performance as well as reduce overall life cycle costs of aircraft ownership for the airlines.

Future alloys

Allowable axial st ress

State of the art composite "brittle" composite

Material Fty

2524-T3 2024-T3 Material toughness

Figure 9. Allowable Operating Stress Based on Axial Residual Strength There have been significant attempts to reduce the cost of major assemblies by machining them from a single piece of metal with the benefit being the elimination of assembly time and labor. Specific examples include spars on some Airbus products, wing center section cover panels on the Lockheed C-130, and wing ribs on the 737NG airplanes. This is not always a clear cost savings as sometimes this practice causes a high degree of waste and the increased

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis

17-9

Infotech, August 2007

Material Selection
raw material cost more than offsets the savings. This can be especially true if a large component is produced in a location where labor is not an expensive commodity. In addition, limitations on ingot size and forming have generally prevented the large cover panels on the outboard wing from being integrally machined. Primary structure, fabricated from composite materials, tend to be more monolithic than traditional aluminum designs. This is due to the raw material form and the method in which the parts are tailored as well as the ability to co-cure or co-bond components together in a common cure cycle. The 787 fuselage is an excellent case in point. The 787 fuselage will be fabricated using advanced filament placement processes as shown in Figure 10. This will be accomplished on barrel tooling allowing for loading of stringer hat sections prior to placing the skin. The entire assembly will be cured in a single process.

Automatic fiber placement Completed fuselage sections Figure 10. Composite Fuselage Barrel Summary Material development and selection is of paramount importance in designing a new airplane. Safety, affordability, and performance, are all affected by the choice of materials. Over the years, Boeing has evolved an integrated approach taking into account the design requirements, critical failure modes, controlling material properties and manufacturing processes. This is a process that requires extensive and detailed trade studies looking at all these critical factors as well as what materials can be developed in a given time frame. The 787 material development and selection is the culmination of the development and refinement of this approach over the earlier Boeing airplane programs. Future programs will benefit from breakthroughs that are anticipated in all areas of structural materials.

Infotech, August 2007

17-10

Aircraft Structures Design and Analysis