The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceJune 21st, 2006
Aging Effects Evaluation of A Aging Effects Evaluation of A BeechcraftBeechcraftStarship and a Decommissioned Boeing Starship and a Decommissioned Boeing
CRFP 737CRFP 737--200 Horizontal Stabilizer200 Horizontal Stabilizer
2The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Research Team (Beechcraft Starship)
Principal Investigators & ResearchersDr. John Tomblin, Wichita State UniversityLamia Salah, Wichita State University
FAA Technical MonitorCurtis Davies
Other FAA Personnel InvolvedPeter Sheprykevich, Larry Ilcewicz
Industry ParticipationRic Abbott
3The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Objective/ Methodology
To evaluate the aging effects of a beechcraft starship after 12 years of service (1827 hours)
Non-Destructive Inspection to identify flaws induced during manufacture/ service (delamination, disbonds, impact damage, moisture ingression, etc…)Coupon level static and fatigue testing to investigate any degradation in the mechanical properties of the material.Physical and thermal tests to identify possible changes in the chemical composition of the material
4The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Status to Date
Engineering Report Review (Ongoing)LH wing has been cut and is currently being inspected using Through Transmission ultrasonics for flaws induced during either manufacture or serviceDurability and Damage Tolerance test set-up on the RH wing is in progress
Wiffletrees have been installed on the wing for load applicationWing spectrum has been built to simulate gust, maneuver and taxi loads.
Loads match those used for certification at all wing stations except at the root since the wing is cantilevered.
Strain gage locations have been defined. Strain gages will be installed after completing the baseline NDI inspection
Meeting with the OEM to establish NDI procedures and requirements to conduct the first inspection
Reference standards are being built from LH wing to conduct the baseline NDI on the RH wing
5The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Research Team (B737)
Principal Investigators & ResearchersDr. John Tomblin, Wichita State UniversityLamia Salah, Wichita State University
FAA Technical MonitorCurtis Davies
Other FAA Personnel InvolvedPeter Sheprykevich, Larry Ilcewicz
Industry ParticipationDr. Matthew Miller, The Boeing CompanyDan Hoffman, Jeff kollgaard, Karl Nelson, The Boeing Company
6The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Objective/ Methodology
To evaluate the aging effects of a (RH) graphite-epoxy horizontal stabilizer after 18 years of service
Non-Destructive Inspection to identify flaws induced during manufacture or service
Mechanical testing on coupons extracted from the structure to investigate any degradation in the mechanical properties of the material
Physical and thermal analysis to quantify porosity and moisture levels in the structure and characterize its thermal properties after 18 years of service
7The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Background
The purpose of the NASA ACEE (Aircraft Energy Efficiency) program was to develop new technologies to reduce fuel consumption in aircraft structures
The ACEE program was subdivided into four development areas: laminar flow systems, advanced aerodynamics, flight controls and composite structures
The ACEE Composites program focused on redesigning existing structural components using lighter materials
A building block approach was followed where composite structure development would startwith lightly loaded secondary components followed by medium primary components and finally wing and fuselage development
8The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
DC-10 Upper Aft RudderDC-10 Upper Aft Rudder
B 727 ElevatorL1011 Inboard AileronDC-10 Vertical Stabilizer
L1011 Vertical Fin
B-737 Horizontal stabilizer
L1011 Inboard AileronDC-10 Vertical Stabilizer
L1011 Vertical Fin
B-737 Horizontal stabilizer
DC-10 Vertical Stabilizer
L1011 Vertical Fin
B-737 Horizontal stabilizer
DC-10 Vertical Stabilizer
L1011 Vertical Fin
B-737 Horizontal stabilizer
DC-10 Vertical StabilizerDC-10 Vertical Stabilizer
L1011 Vertical FinL1011 Vertical Fin
B-737 Horizontal stabilizerB-737 Horizontal stabilizer
Background
Six aircraft secondary and medium primary components were redesigned using composite materialsACEE program was ended before the implementation of advanced materials in wing and fuselage components
9The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Boeing redesigned, manufactured, certified, & deployed five shipsets of 737-200 horizontal stabilizers using graphite-epoxy compositesCertification was achieved in 1982 and all shipsets were introduced into commercial service in 1984Boeing closely monitored the performance of the stabilizers for 7 years. Outstanding performance was demonstrated with no in-service incidents attributed to aging of the composite structure
Background
10The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Boeing 737 Fleet Status
Shipset / ProductionLine #
Entry into Service
Airline Status as of March, 2006
1 / 1003 2 May 1984 A In service (60000 hours, 45000 flights)2 /1012 21 March 1984 A In service (61000 hours, 46000 flights)3 / 1025 11 May 1984 B Damaged beyond repair 1990; partial teardown
completed in 1991 (17300 hours, 19300 flights)4 / 1036 17 July 1984 B & C Stabilizers removed from service 2002 (approx.
39000 hours, 55000 flights); partial teardown of R/H unit at Boeing
5 / 1042 14 August 1984 B & D Stabilizers removed from service 2002 (approx. 52000 hours, 48000 flights); teardown of L/H unit at Boeing; teardown of R/H unit at NIAR, Wichita State
DSO of 75000 flightsUpper Skin Inboard Delaminations at Stringer Runouts due to maintenance personnel walking on a no-step zone
11The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Horizontal Stabilizer Description
Designed such that maximum commonality is achieved with respect to the existing structureInterchangeable with its metal counterpart 21.6% weight savings/ metal structureMaterial: NARMCO T300/5208Stiffened Skin Structural box arrangement with co-cured I stiffenersHoneycomb ribs for cost efficiencyRoot lugs used titanium platesbonded and bolted to a pre-cured graphite epoxy chord
12The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Corrosion/ Lightning Protection Scheme
Corrosion Protection SchemeCorrosion protection by co-curing a fiberglass ply onto the graphite-epoxy structure or painting the surface with primer and epoxy enamelAll aluminum structure was anodized or alodine treated, primed and enameledFasteners were installed with wet polysulfide sealant
Lightning Protection SchemeBonding Straps connecting the Aluminum leading edge, the aluminum rib cap of the outboard closure rib and the aluminum elevator spar were used to provide an electrical path around the entire perimeter of the structural boxAn Aluminum flame spray was used to protect the stabilizer’s critical strike areaThe outboard skin panels were insulated using a layer of fiberglass co-cured to the parent structure prior to applying the conductive coating
13The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Disassembly
Upper skin assembled using Inconel “Big Foot” blind fastenersLower skin assembled using titanium Hi-Lokfasteners with corrosion resistant steel collars and washersThe upper skin was disassembled first by drilling out the blind fasteners using a Monogram fastener removal kit: the fastener head was drilled out until the shank could be driven out of the structureOnce the upper skin was dismantled, the lower skin’s Hi-Lok fasteners were disassembled
14The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Disassembly/ PreliminaryFindings
Upper Skin (RH)
15The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Disassembly/ PreliminaryFindings
Lower Skin (RH)
16The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Disassembly/ PreliminaryFindings
Center Box (RH)
Structure held very wellNo evidence of pitting or corrosion as would be observed in a metal structureNo residual strains compared to the LH
17The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Visual Inspection
Evidence of Shimming
18The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Visual Inspection
A few corroded fasteners due to sealant deterioration
19The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Visual Inspection
Degradation of Tedlar Moisture Barrier film
20The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Non-Destructive Inspection
Pulse-echo and through-transmission non-destructive methods were used to inspect the stabilizer using 2.25 Mhz frequency transducersBoth methods confirmed the large amounts of porosity in the upper skin Pulse-echo results obtained confirmed the existence of delaminated stringers and demonstrated the increased accuracy/ sensitivity of the current inspection methods compared to those used in the 1980’s
1980’s sensitivity Today’s sensitivity
21The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Non-Destructive Inspection
Manual Pulse-echo was performed to inspect the skin/ stringer co-cured bonds and identify areas with delaminated stringers
Upper skin Inboard delaminations at stringer runouts
22The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Destructive Evaluation
Destructive evaluation has been conducted on sections of the stabilizer identified as disbonds from the NDI inspection to verify the existence of these delaminations. Destructive evaluation confirmed the results
23The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Non Destructive Inspection prior to teardown (RH Lower Skin RapidScan, SNL)
A
B
C
D
NDI/ DE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Grid Reference Suspected flaw
A3 – A4 Disbond of the stringer
B3 – B4 Disbond of the stringer
B8 Possible delamination
C11 Delamination above the stringer
D13 - D14 Scattered porosity
C15 Delamination above the stringer
A16 Disbond of the stringer
24The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Non-Destructive Inspection
NDI pulse echo inspection showed significant levels of porosity in the upper skin compared to the lower skin (tooling and process variability)Porosity levels have been quantified using image analysis/ physical testsVery porous repair between rib stations 2 and 3 (str 5 and 8)
25The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Physical Tests Results
LS Max Void Content = 1.83%
US Max Void Content = 5.38%
( )
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5
2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 4-5 5.0 above
Physical tests were conducted per ASTM D3171 to quantify porosity levels in both skins
26The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Moisture Content Evaluation
Moisture content in the aged structure has been quantified per ASTM D5229: specimens were extracted from different locations in the upper skin and lower skins of the stabilizer and have been dried to evaluate the moisture content of the structure. The results showed that the moisture content in the upper skin is slightly higher than the moisture levels found in the lower skin but overall the percent moisture varied from 0.5 to 0.9% (design moisture level of 1.1%)
CONDITIONING HISTORY - LOWER SKIN
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (days)
% W
eigh
t Gai
n (T
otal
)
Rib7Str1
Rib7Str4
CONDITIONING HISTORY - UPPER SKIN
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.00 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (days)
% W
eigh
t Gai
n (T
otal
) Rib7Str1
Rib7Str6
27The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Thermal Analysis
DMA technique to determine the glass transition temperature of the aged material for coupons extracted from both the upper and lower skins
Thermal analysis was conducted on coupons with actual in-service moisture content and dried coupons to compare the difference between the in-service Tg with respect to the dry Tg.
Storage Modulus is an indication of the stiffness of the material, tanδ is a measure of the damping of the material
DMA curves with a shallow storage modulus transition and a narrow tanδ indicate a highly cross linked material
28The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Thermal Analysis
Tg values consistent but lower than LH Results (Courtesy the Boeing Co)Average values (174°C/215°C (RH))DMA test parameters vary/ Tg obtained is a “wet” Tg (at least 0.6% moisture content) Dry Tg (205°C/225°C)
Glass Transition Temperature (DMA)
020406080
100120140160180200220240260
Upper Skin
Tg
(deg
-C)
Onset of Storage ModulusPeak of Tan d
29The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Thermal Analysis/ DSC
Non-Reversing heat flow curves reveal exotherms/ chemical reactionsDSC heat of reaction values are extremely small (<6J/g) indicating a highly cross linked material (fully cured)Reversing heat flow curves reveal TgDrying the specimen increased the cure onset (water acts as a plasticizer)Water content does not affect the degree of cure
DSC, Rib 7, as extracted DSC, Rib 7, dry
30The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Microscopy/ Image Analysis
Image analysis was performed to detect porosity/ micro-cracking and any evidence of aging in the structure. Both images show evidence of porosity embedded in the laminate. The flange cross section also shows evidence of microcracking initiating in the void areas.
X-section of stringer 2, rib station 2 at a magnification of 50xstringer web (left image) and flange (right image).
31The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Mechanical Tests
Tested Upper Skin Compression Coupons
Compression Test Set-up
Mechanical Tests were conducted according to the 1980’s requirements/ standards
32The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Mechanical Tests Results
Upper Skin Compression Test Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
102-1
Bas
eline
102-2
Bas
eline
US_R1_
STR9_
10_C
1US_R
1_STR
9_10
_C2
US_R1_
STR9_
10_C
3US_R
2_STR
4_5_
C1US_R
2_STR
4_5_
C2US_R
2_STR
4_5_
C3US_R
6_STR
0_1_
C1US_R
6_STR
0_1_
C2US_R
6_STR
0_1_
C3
Ulti
mat
e C
ompr
essi
ve S
tres
s (K
si)
Mechanical Data - MeasuredMechanical Data - Normalized
33The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Mechanical Tests Results
Lower Skin Compression Test Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
102-1
Bas
eline
102-2
Bas
eline
LS_R2_
STR4_5_
C1LS_R
2_STR4_
5_C2
LS_R2_
STR4_5_
C3LS_R
4_STR2_
3_C1
LS_R4_
STR2_3_
C2LS_R
4_STR2_
3_C3
LS_R6_
STR0_1_
C1LS_R
6_STR0_
1_C2
LS_R6_
STR0_1_
C3
Ulti
mat
e C
ompr
essi
ve S
tres
s (K
si)
Mechanical Data - MeasuredMechanical Data - Normalized
34The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Mechanical Tests
Tested Lower SkinTension CouponsTension Coupon Test Set-up
Mechanical Tests were conducted according to the 1980’s requirements/ standards
35The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Mechanical Tests Results
Lower Skin Tension Test Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
101-1
Bas
eline
101-2
Bas
eline
LS_R2_
STR4_5-T
1LS_R
2_STR4_
5-T2
LS_R2_
STR5_6-T
1LS_R
4_STR3_
4-T1
LS_R6_
STR0_1-T
1LS_R
6_STR0_
1-T2
LS_R6_
STR1_2-T
2
Ulti
mat
e Te
nsile
Str
ess
(Ksi
) Mechanical Data-MeasuredMechanical Data-Normalized
36The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Mechanical Tests Results
Upper Skin Tension Test Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
101-1
Bas
eline
101-2
Bas
eline
US_R1_
STR8_9-T
1
US_R1_
STR9_10
-T1
US_R2_
STR4_5-T
1
US_R2_
STR5_6-T
1
US_R2_
STR5_6-T
2
US_R3_
STR3_4-T
1
US_R6_
STR0_1-T
1
US_R6_
STR0_1-T
2
US_R6_
STR1_2-T
1
Ulti
mat
e Te
nsile
Str
ess
(Ksi
) Mechanical Data - MeasuredMechanical Data - Normalized
37The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
On-Going Efforts
Mechanical test Evaluation to identify possible changes in the static and fatigue properties of the material
Testing of current T300/5208 to evaluate the possible differences between the material 25 years ago and the current material and to establish baseline for mechanical test
Additional physical tests to further quantify porosity in the structure and correlate mechanical test results with physical test data
38The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Conclusions/Value of the results
Structure held extremely well after 18 years of service: no obvious signs of aging to the naked eye such as pitting and corrosion as would a metal structure with a similar service history exhibitPhysical tests showed moisture levels in the structure after 18 years of service as predicted during the design phaseThermal analysis results very consistent with those obtained for the left hand stabilizer Significant improvements in composite manufacturing processes and NDI methodsTeardown provides closure to a very successful NASA program and affirms the viability of composite materials for use in structural components
39The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Conclusions/Value of the results
Understand the aging mechanism of composite structures (current aging studies focused on metal structures)
Producibility large co-cured assemblies reduce part and assembly cost, however other costs should be taken into account, for example, when disposing of non-conforming assemblies Supportability needs to be addressed in design. Composite structures must be designed to be inspectable, maintainable and repairable
most damage to composite structures occurs during assembly or routine aircraft maintenance
SRM’s, engineering information needed for in-service maintenance and repair