• Sérgio M. O. TavaresEmail author
  • Paulo M. S. T. de Castro
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)


High strength/density ratio and toughness, ease of manufacture, long term performance, joinability by riveting and welding, and recyclability, justify the long period of preeminence of aluminum as the main material for structures of aircraft, Merati [1]. Facing competition from composite fiber reinforced plastics, aluminum producers are trying to reduce weight and improve performance developing new alloys. In parallel, joining techniques as laser beam welding (LBW) or friction stir welding (FSW) originate integral structures, with manufacturing weight and part count advantages vis a vis traditional riveting. The dominance of Al was challenged with the Boeing 787 with increased use of titanium alloys and almost 50% by weight of aircraft structure constructed from composites, and by Airbus with even more 53% of structure composites weight in the A350 XWB.


  1. 1.
    A. Merati, Materials replacement for aging aircraft, in Corrosion Fatigue and Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Aging Military Vehicles, RTO AGARDograph AG-AVT-140, pp. 24.1–24.22 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F.C. Campbell, Structural composite materials. ASM Int. (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Hinrichsen, C. Bautista, The challenge of reducing both airframe weight and manufacturing cost. Air Space Europe 3(3/4), 119–121 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Weiland, Low cost manufacturing and assembly of composite and hybrid structures. Skyline 18, 9 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.M.O. Tavares, P.P. Camanho, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Materials selection for airframes: assessment based on the specific fatigue behavior, in Structural Connections for Lightweight Metallic Structures eds. by P. Moreira, L. da Silva, P. de Castro (Springer, 2012), pp. 239–261Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Smith, The Boeing 777. Advanc. Mater. Proc. 41–44 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.C. Williams, E.A. Starke Jr., Progress in structural materials for aerospace systems. Acta Materialia 51, 5775–5799 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    UK Ministry of Defence–MoD, Defence standard 00-970 part 1 section 3, leaflet 34 ’fatigue–material selection’ issue 5 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Tzamtzis, A.T. Kermanidis, Improvement of fatigue crack growth resistance by controlled overaging in 2024–T3 aluminium alloy. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 37, 751–763 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Jin, P. Cai, Q.B. Tian, C.Y. Liang, D.J. Ke, G. Wang, T. Zhai, An experimental methodology for quantitative characterization of multi-site fatigue crack nucleation in high-strength al alloys. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 39, 696–711 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.C. Newman Jr., K.F. Walker, M. Liao, Fatigue crack growth in 7249–T76511 aluminium alloy under constant amplitude and spectrum loading. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 38, 528–539 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    United States Air Force-USAF, Structures Bulletin EZ-SB-13-001 (Product form, and Process Substitution Guidelines for Metallic Components, Material, 2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Ramsden, The geriatric jet problem. Flight Int. 112, 1201–1204 (1977)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    UK Department of Trade Accidents Investigation Branch, Boeing 707 321C G-BEBP: Report on the Accident Near Lusaka International Airport, Zambia, on 14 May 1977 (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E.A. Starke Jr., J.T. Staley, Application of modern aluminum alloys to aircraft. Prog. Aerospace Sci. 32, 131–172 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    N.E. Prasad, A. Gokhale, R.J.H. Wanhill, Aluminum-Lithium Alloys: Processing, Properties, and Applications (Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, 2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P.M.G.P. Moreira, A.M.P. de Jesus, M.A.V. de Figueiredo, M. Windisch, G. Sinnema, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Fatigue and fracture behaviour of friction stir welded Aluminium-Lithium 2195. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 60, 1–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    S.M.O. Tavares, J.F. dos Santos, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Friction stir welded joints of Al-Li alloys for aeronautical applications: butt-joints and tailor welded blanks. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 65, 8–13 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O. Hatamleh, A comprehensive investigation on the effects of laser and shot peening on fatigue crack growth in friction stir welded AA 2195 joints. Int. J. Fatigue 31, 974–988 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Papadopoulos, S. Tavares, M. Pacchione, S. Pantelakis, Mechanical behaviour of AA 2024 friction stir overlap welds. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 4(1), 108–120 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    F.F. Duarte, V.I.V. Infante, P.M.G. Moreira, M. de Freitas, P.M.S.T. de Castro, The effect of welding direction in the fatigue life of aluminium FS welded lap joints. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 6(6), 775–786 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. Infante, D.F.O. Braga, F. Duarte, P.M.G. Moreira, M. de Freitas, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Study of the fatigue behaviour of dissimilar aluminium joints produced by friction stir welding. Int. J. Fatigue 82, 310–316 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.R. Boyer, Attributes, characteristics, and applications of titanium and its alloys. JOM 62(5), 21–24 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    F. Berto, A. Campagnolo, P. Lazzarin, Fatigue strength of severely notched specimens made of Ti-6Al-4V under multiaxial loading. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 38, 503–517 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Institute of Standards Technology–NIST, Measurement Science Roadmap for Metal-Based Additive Manufacturing–Workshop Summary Report, May 2013Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Kabbara, M. Gorelik, FAA perspectives on additive manufacturing, in On-Demand Mobility and Follow Up Workshop, (Lockheed Martin Global Vision Center, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 8–9 Mar 2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Veiga, J.P. Davim, A.J.R. Loureiro, Properties and applications of titanium alloys: a brief review. Rev. Advanc. Mater. Sci. 32(2), 133–148 (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Edwards, M. Ramulu, Fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth in Ti-6Al-4V friction stir welds. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 38, 970–982 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Edwards, M. Ramulu, Effect of build direction on the fracture toughness and fatigue crack growth in selective laser melted Ti-6Al-4V. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 38, 1228–1236 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    P. Sander, Printing the future with revolutionary additive layer manufacturing. Airbus Fast Mag. 55, 4–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. Marsh, Metals shed weight to compete. Mater. Today 4(1), 25–29 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. Pleitner, Airbus customers benefit from fiber metal laminates—application of smart structures in the aircraft industry, in ILA Berlin Air Show, (Berlin, Germany, 2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. Thévenin, Airbus composite structures—perspectives on safe maintenance practice, in Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee (CACRC) and related FAA/EASA/Industry Workshop on Composite Damage Tolerance and Maintenance, (Amsterdam, Netherlands, 7–11 May 2007Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    O.H.P.M. Fontes, F.L. Bastian, E.M. Castrodeza, Crack growth resistance curves of glare 3 5/4 0.3 fiber-metal laminates at low temperature. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 38, 268–275 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Y. Huang, J.Z. Liu, X. Huang, J.Z. Zhang, G.Q. Yue, Fatigue crack growth and delamination behaviours of advanced Al-Li alloy laminate under single tensile overload. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 39, 47–56 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Hale, Boeing 787 from the ground up, Boeing Aero magazine, vol. 24, quarter 04, pp. 15–23 (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    G. Ferrer, C. Chamfroy, S.S. Dupouy, A350 XWB composite repairs: analysis and repair of in-service damage to composite structure. Airbus Fast Mag. 57, 16–21 (2016)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. Warren, R. Heslehurst, E. Wilson, Composites and MIL-STD-1530C. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 5(1), 2–16 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M. Price, A. Murphy, J. Butterfield, R. McCool, R. Fleck, Integrating digital manufacturing, processing, and design of composite structures, in 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conference, (Fort Worth. Texas, USA 13–15, 9068 (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    W. Sippel, M. Gruber, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) tasking on 25.571, in FAA/Bombardier/TCCA/EASA/Industry Composite Transport Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Workshop, (Dorval, Montreal, Canada, 15–17 Sept 2015)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Federal Register, Notice of new task assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory, pp. 4029–4032 (2015)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Federal Aviation Administration–FAA, Advisory circular AC No. 20-107B, Composite aircraft structure (2009)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    European Aviation Safety Agency–EASA, Composite aircraft structure, AMC 20–29 (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    W. Seneviratne, Fatigue life determination of a damage-tolerant composite airframe. Ph.D. thesis, Wichita State University (2008)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Federal Aviation Administration–FAA, Advisory circular ac no. 25.571-1d, damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. Fawcett, Composite structure fatigue and damage tolerance experience, in FAA/Bombardier/TCCA/EASA/Industry Composite Transport Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Workshop, Dorval, Montreal, Canada, (Dorval, Montreal, Canada, 15–17 Sept 2015)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    J. Tomblin, W. Seneviratne, Determining the fatigue life of composite aircraft structures using life and load-enhancement factors, Report DOT/FAA/AR-10/6, Federal Aviation Administration (2011)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    J. Rouchon, Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Evaluation Of Structures: The Composite Materials Response, Report NLR-TP-2009-221 (NLR, Netherlands Aerospace Centre, 2009)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    J.W. Giancaspro, W. Taam, Computational Method for Load Enhancement Factors, July 31 2012. US Patent 8,234,093Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    W. Seneviratne, J. Tomblin, Load-life-damage hybrid approach for substantiation of composite aircraft structures, FAA JAMS, Technical Review Meeting (Seattle. USA, May, WA, 2010)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    L. Ilcewicz, Composite damage tolerance and maintenance safety issues, in FAA/EASA/Industry Workshop on Composite Damage Tolerance & Maintenance, (Amsterdam, Netherlands, 9–11 May 2007)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    V. Faivre, E. Morteau, Damage tolerant composite fuselage sizing: Characterisation of accidental damage threat. Airbus Fast Mag. 48, 10–16 (2011)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    L. Ilcewicz, High energy wide area blunt impact HEWABI as related to safety and certification, in FAA/Bombardier/TCCA/EASA/Industry Composite Transport Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Workshop, (Dorval (Canada, Sept, Montreal, 2015), pp. 15–17Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    L. Ilcewicz, L. Cheng, FAA composite plan. Aviation safety (AVS) initiatives of interest, in Composite Safety Meeting & Workshop, (Wellington, NZ, 1–4 Mar 2016)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    P.J. Withers, Presentation to the Workshop on Materials State Awareness, August 6–7, 2014, in rapporteur, Applying Materials State Awareness to Condition-Based Maintenance and System Life Cycle Management: Summary of a Workshop, ed. by R.J. Katt The National Academies Press (2016)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    D. Westlund, The FAA: Keeping up with aerocomposites evolution, CompositesWorld– CW Magazine (2016)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    L. Ratier, C. Fualdes, Airbus composite fatigue and damage tolerance certification experiences, in FAA/ Bombardier/TCCA/EASA/Industry Composite Transport Damage Tolerance and Maintenance Workshop (Montreal, Canada, Sept, Dorval, 2015), pp. 15–17Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    R.S. Whitehead, H.P. Kan, R. Cordero, E.S. Saether, Certification testing methodology for composite structure, DOT/FAA/CT-86/39, vols I and II. Federal Aviation Administration (1986)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    W. Seneviratne, J. Tomblin, Certification of composite-metal hybrid structures using a single full-scale test article, in 12th International Conference on Durability of Composite Systems—DURACOSYS, (Arlington, TX, USA, 12–15 June 2016)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    A. Gilioli, C. Sbarufatti, A. Manes, M. Giglio, Compression after impact test (CAI) on NOMEX honeycomb sandwich panels with thin aluminum skins. Compos. Part B Eng. 67, 313–325 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sérgio M. O. Tavares
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paulo M. S. T. de Castro
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations