DuncanGibbons
Involved In Discussions
Hi All,
FAA (and EASA) require different approaches for certification of critical structural aircraft components and systems (AC 23-13A).
The following is an exert from for such requirements for wings, empennages and associated structures:
As it states you have an option of the following three approaches.
Would all of these approaches require fatigue (ASTM E466), crack growth (ASTM E647) and fracture toughness (ASTM E399) tests for substantiation? I am a bit unsure as to which each of these apply.
E.g. Am I correct in saying if the safe-life evaluation approach is taken, that fatigue crack growth data is not needed as such data falls under fail-safe?
FAA (and EASA) require different approaches for certification of critical structural aircraft components and systems (AC 23-13A).
The following is an exert from for such requirements for wings, empennages and associated structures:
For metallic pressurized cabin, wing, empennage, and associated structure in normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes, you have the option of the following fatigue evaluation methods:
(1)
A fatigue strength evaluation, more commonly known as a safe-life evaluation. See § 23.571(a) for pressurized cabin and § 23.572(a)(1) for wing, empennage, and associated structure.
(2)
A fail-safe strength evaluation. See § 23.571(b) for pressurized cabin and § 23.572(a)(2) for wing, empennage, and associated structure.
(3)
A damage tolerance evaluation. See § 23.573(b) and § 23.571(c) for pressurized cabin and § 23.572(a)(3) for wing, empennage, and associated structure.
As it states you have an option of the following three approaches.
Would all of these approaches require fatigue (ASTM E466), crack growth (ASTM E647) and fracture toughness (ASTM E399) tests for substantiation? I am a bit unsure as to which each of these apply.
E.g. Am I correct in saying if the safe-life evaluation approach is taken, that fatigue crack growth data is not needed as such data falls under fail-safe?