AC_25.571-1A
AC_25.571-1A
AC_25.571-1A
US.Oepatmeot·
Advisory
.ot ia1sportation
Federal Avlotlon
Admlnlstrotion
Circular
5. INTRODUCTION.
a. The contents of this advisory circular are considered by the FAA in
determining compliance with the damage-tolerance and fatigue requirements of
§ 25.571.
the operational life of the airplane, the rema1n1ng structure can withstand
reasonable loads without failure or excessive structural deformation until the
damage is detected. Included are the considerations historically associated
with fail-safe design. The evaluation should encompass establishing the
components which are to be designed as damage-tolerant, defining the loading
conditions and extent of damage, conducting structural tests or analyses, or
both, to substantiate that the design objective has been achieved, and
establishing data for inspection programs to ensure detection of damage.
Although this evaluation applies to either single or multiple load path
structure, the use of multiple load path structure should be given high priority
in achieving damage tolerant design. Design features which should be considered
in attaining a damage-tolerant structure include the following:
{I) Multiple load path construction and the use of crack stoppers to
control the rate of crack growth, and to provide adequate residual static
strength;
{2) Materials and stress levels that, after initiation of cracks,
provide a controlled slow rate of crack propagation combined with high residual
strength;
(3} Arrangement of design details to ensure c sufficiently high
probability that a failure in any critical structural element will be detected
before the strength has been reduced below the level necessary to withstand the
loading conditions specified in§ 25.57l(b), so as to allow replacement or
i
repair of the failed elements; and
(4) Provisions to limit the probability of concurrent multiple damage,
particularly after long service, which couid conceivably contribute to a common
fracture path. Examples of such multiple damage are:
(i) A number of small cracks which might coalesce to form a
single 1on g crack;
(ii} Failures, or partial failures, in adjacent areas due to the
redistribution of loading following a failure of a single element; and
(iii) Simultaneous failure, or partial failure, of multiple load
path discrete elements, working at similar stress levels.
b. Normally, the damage tolerance assessment consists of a deterministic
evaluation of the above design features. This paragraph provides guidelines
for this approach. In certain speci fie in stances, however, damage-tolerant
design might be more realistically assessed by a probabilistic evaluation
employing methods such as risk analysis. They are routinely employed in
fail-safe evaluations of airplane systems and have occasional Jy been used where
structure and systems are interrelated. These methods can be of particular
value for structure consisting of discrete isolated elements where damage
tolerance depends on the ability of the structure to sustain redistributed 10ads
after failures of discrete elements resulting from fatigue, corrosion, or
accidental damage. Where considered appropriate on multiple load path
structure, probabilistic analysis may be used if it can be shown that loss of
[ '.
-·
3/5/86 AC 25.571-lA
the airplane is extremely improbable and the statistical data employed in the
analysis is based on tests or operational experience, or both, of similar
structure. ·
c. Identification of principal structural elements. Principal structural
elements are those which contribute significantly to carrying flight, ground,
and pressurization loads, and whose failure could result in catastrophic failure
of the airplane. Typical examples of such elements are as follows:
( 1) Wing and empennage.
(i) Control surfaces, slats, flaps, and their mechanical systems
and attachments {hinges, tracks, and fittings);
(ii) Integrally stiffened plates;
(iii) Primary fittings;
(iv) Principal splices;
(v} Skin or reinforcement around cutouts or discontinuities;
(vi) Skin-stringer combinations;
(vii) Spar caps; and
(viii) Spar webs.
(2) Fuselage.
(i) Circumferential frames and adjacent skin;
(ii) Door frames;
(iii) Pilot window posts;
(iv) Pressure bulkheads;
(v} Skin and any single frame or stiffener element around a
cutout;
(vi) Skin or skin splices, or both, under circumferential loads;
(vii} Skin or skin splices, or both, under fore and aft loads;
( ix) Skin and stiffener combinations under fore and aft loads;
f\
made with a fine saw, sharp blade, guillotine, or other suitable means. If
·, sawcuts in primary structure are used to simulate sharp fatigue cracks,
sufficient evidence should be available from ~lement tests to indicate
equivalent residual strength. In those cases where bolt failure, or its
equivalent, is to be simulated as part of a possible damage configuration in
joints or fittings, bolts can be removed to provide that part of the
s i mu1ation .
i. Inspection.
(1) Detection of damage before it becomes critical is the ultimate
control in ensuring the damage tolerance characteristics of the structure.
Therefore, the applicant should provide sufficient guidance information to
assist operators in establishing the frequency, extent, and methods of
inspection of the critical structure. This kind of information must, under
§ 25.57l(a}(3} of the FAR, be included in the instructions for continued
airworthiness required by § 25.1529 of the FAR.
3/5/86 AC 25.571-lA
1. FATIGUE EVALUATION.
a. General. The evaluation of structure under the following fatigue
(safe-life) strength evaluation methods is intended to ensure that catastrophic
fatigue failure, as a result of the repeated loads of variable magnitude
expected in service, is extremely improbable throughout the structure • s
operational life. Under these methods, loading spectra should be established,
the fatigue life of the structure for the spectra should be determined, and a
scatter factor ·should be applied to the fatigue life to establish the safe-life
for the structure. The evaluation should include the following; however~ in
,. some instances it might be necessary to correlate the loadings used in the
analysis with flight load and strain surveys:
(1) Estimating or measuring the expected loading spectra for the
structure;
(2) Conducting a structural analysis including consideration of the
stress concentration effects;
(3) Fatigue testing of structure which cannot be related to a test
background to establish response to the typical loading spectrum expected in
service;
(4) Determining reliable replacement times by interpreting the loading
history, variable load analyses, fatigue test data, service experience, and
fatigue analyses; and
(5) Pr·oviding data for inspection and maintenance instructions and
guidance information to the operators.
b. Scatter Factor for Safe-life Determination. In the interpretation of
fatigue analyses and test data, the effect of variability should, under
§ 25.57l{c), be accounted for· by an appropriate scatter factor. Relating test
results to the r·ecommended safe-life is extremely difficult since there are a
number of considerations peculiar to each design and test that necessitate
evaluation by the applicant. H1ese cor,siderations will depend on the number of
representative test specimens, the matE'rial, th".: typ•:' nf specimen employed, ttlc
type of repeated load test, the load levels, and environm·:ntal conditions.
AC 25.571-IA 3/5/86
(
c. Replacement times. Replacement times should be established for parts
with established safe-lives and should, under§ 25.57l(a}{3), be jncluded in the
information prepared under § 25.1529. These replacement times can be extended
if additional data indicates an extension is warranted. Important factors which
should be considered for such extensions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) Comparison of original evaluation with service experience.
(2} Recorded load and stress data. Recorded load and stress data
entails instrumenting airplanes in service to obtain a representative sampling
of actual loads and stresses experienced. The data to be measured includes
airspeed, altitude, and load factor versus time data; or airspeed, altitude, and
strain. ranges versus time data; or similar data. The data, obtained by
instrumenting airplanes in service, pr~pvides a basis for correlating the
estimated loading spectrum with the actual service experience.
(3) Additional analyses and tests. If test data and analyses based on
repeated load tests of additional specimens are obtained, a reevaluation of the
established safe-life can be made.
(4) Tests of parts removed from service. Repeated load tests of
replaced parts can be utilized to reevaluate the established safe-life. The
tests should closely simulate service loading conditions. Repeated load testing
of parts removed from service is especially useful wi1ere recorded load data
obtained in service are available since the actual loading experienced by the (
part prior to replacement is known.
{5) Repair or rework of the structure. In some cases, repair or rework
of the structure can gain further 1i fe.
d. Type design developments and changes. For design developments or design
changes involving structural configurations similar to those of a design alr·eady
shown to comply with the applicable provisions of§ 25.57l(c), it might be
possible to evaluate the variations in critical portions of the structure on a
comparative basis. Typical examples would be redesign of the wing structure for
increased loads, and the introduction in pressurized cabins of cutouts having
different locations or different shapes, or both. This evaluation should
involve analysis of the predicted stresses of the redesigned primary structure
and correlation of the analysis with the analytical and test results used in
showing compliance of the original design with § 25.57l(c).
e. Environmental effects such as temperature and humidity should be
considered in the damage tolerance and fatigue analysis and should be
demonstrated through suitable testing.
8. OI SCRETE SOURCE DAt·lAGE.
Page 10
' .• 3/5/86 AC 25.571-lA
.·'
in showing compliance with§ 25.57l(e), Damage-tolerance (discrete source)
evaluation. The intent of these guidelines is to define load conditioos that
will not be exceeded with a satisfactory level of confidence on the flight
during which the specified incident of§ 25.571(e) occurs. In defining these
load conditions~ consideration has been given to the expected damage to the
airplane, the anticipated response of the pilot at the time of the incident, and
the actions of the pilot to avoid severe load environments for the remainder of
the flight consistent with his knowledge that the airplane may be in a damaged
state. With these considerations in mind, the following ultimate loading
conditions should be used to establish residual strength of the damaged
structure.
b. The maximum extent of immediately obvious damage from discrete sources
(§ 25. 571(e}) should be determined and the remaining structure shown, with an
acceptable level of confidence, to have static strength for the maximum load
(considered as ultimate load) expected during completion of the flight.
c. The ultimate loading conditions should not be less than those developed
from the following conditions:
{1) At the time of the incident:
{i) The maximum normal operating differential pressure,
multiplied by a 1.1 factor, plus the expected external aerodynamic pressures
during 1 g level flight, combined with 1 g flight loads.
{ii} The airplane, assumed to be in 1 g level flight, should be
shown to be able to survive any maneuver or any other flight path deviation
caused by the specified incident of§ 25.57l(e), taking i~to account any likely
damage to the flight controls and pilot normal corrective action.
(2) Following the incident:
(i) Seventy percent {70%)
limit flight maneuver loads and,
separately~ 40 percent of the limit gust
velocity (vertical or lateral) at the
specified speeds, each combined with the maximum appropriate cabin djfferential
pressure (including the expected external aerodynamic pressure).
(ii) The airplane must be shown by analysis to be free from
·'"\
flutter up to Vo/~1o with any change in structur·al stiffness resulting from the
incident.
L
·---- y--1
~ t/
Cv ,._~
-zy_
'l,. ·")
LEROY A. KErTH
t-lanager·, Aircraft Certification Division, J\NI-1-100