Opportunities for Polymeric-Based Composite Applications for Transport Aircraft

  • J. C. Halpin
Conference paper


Airframes operate in a variety of discreet threat environments. Composite airframes have different capabilities than metallics; capabilities that enhance air vehicle performance. However, composites also have increased sensitivity to a variety of impact threats. These threats include bird strike, hail, runway debris, tool drop, tire rupture, and incidental contact with ground vehicles and panels lost in-flight. Airframe certification is focused on these threats in addition to the legacy structural requirements. The following points will be emphasized: (1) Aircraft operate in common threat environments with the potential to compromise the Durability (economic) and Damage Tolerance (safety) and in-service safety management of the air vehicle. (2) Laminate sizing techniques using “Damage Thresholds” are evolving to address these sensitivities. Damage Thresholds should be the bases for the dimensioning of laminates exposed to impact threats (the damage thresholds will depend on the nature of the threat, FOD is different than hail ice, than bird strike, than rubber puck for tire damage, etc.). The Damage Threshold concept offers failure-criteria sensitive to matrix-dominated toughness limitations—damage tolerance. (3) The need for enhanced toughness materials, design features, and processing technologies is limiting weight optimization for new airframes. (4) As new commercial airframes convert to polymeric based composite technology there is an increasing interest in the replacement of cast metallic parts with molded discontinuous parts and components. Potential weight savings, inconsistent quality, and the corrosion incompatibility of cast metallics with graphite laminates are creating this application interest. (5) Transition of new or enhanced polymeric technologies to industrial airframe products is challenging—Requiring Cooperative Development between the technology provider, a Tier 3 (three) supplier (typically) and the OEM or Prime. In the “global supply chain” the lower Tier suppliers are expected to address the complexities outlined above.


Terminal Velocity Face Sheet Carbon Fiber Reinforce Plastic Damage Tolerance Foreign Object Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Composite Materials Handbook MIL-HDBK17, (now CMH-17) (2002) The composite materials handbook. ASTM, ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gates D (2008) Seattle Times aerospace reporter. Bair pilots Boeing effort to replace best-selling 737, The Seattle Times, Thursday, July 17Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poe CC (1992) Impact damage and residual tension strength of a thick graphite/epoxy rocket motor case. J Spacecr Rocket 29:394–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halpin JC (1980) UCLA lecture notes(Unpublished)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dost EF, Ilcewicz LB, Avery WB, Coxon BR (1991) Effects of stacking sequence on impact damage resistance and residual strength for quasi-isotropic laminates. In: O’Brien TK (ed) Composite materials: fatigue and fracture, vol 3, ASTM STP 1110, American, pp 476–500Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis GAO, Robinson P (1992) Predicting failure by debonding/delamination. In: Debonding/delamination of composites, AGARD-CP-530, vol 5, pp. 1–28Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olsson R (2001) Analytical prediction of large mass impact damage in composite laminates. Compos Part A 32:1207–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olsson R, Donadon MV, Falzon BG (2006) Delamination threshold load for dynamic impact on plates. Int J Solid Struct 43:3124–3141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davies GAO, Zhang X, Zhou G, Watson S (1994) Numerical modeling of impact damage. Composites 25:342–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davies GAO, Zhang X (1995) Impact damage prediction in carbon composite structures. Int J Impact Eng 16:149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schoeppner GA, Abrate S (2000) Delamination threshold loads for low velocity impact on composite laminates. Compos Part A Appl Sci 31:903–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson WC, Poe CC (1993) The use of impact force as a scale parameter for the impact response of composite laminates. J Compos Technol Res 15:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Timoshenko S, MacCullough GH (1935) Elements of strength of materials. Van Nostrand Company, New York, pp 326–329Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang X (1998) Impact damage in composite aircraft structures experimental testing and numerical simulation. Proc Inst Mech Eng G: J Aerosp Eng 212:245–259Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aktay L, Johnson AF, Holzapfel M (2005) Prediction of impact damage on sandwich composite panels. Comput Mater Sci 32(3–4):252–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith PJ, Thomson LW, Wilson RD (1986) Development of pressure containment and damage tolerance technology for composite fuselage structures in large transport aircraft. NASA contractor report 3996Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gokhale N (1975) Hailstoms and hailstone growth. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim H, Kedward KT (2000) Modeling hail ice impacts and predicting impact damage initiation in composite structures. AIAA J 38:1278–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim H, Kedward KT, Welch DA (2003) Experimental investigation of high velocity ice impacts on woven carbon/epoxy composite panels. Compos Part A 34:25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim H, Nightingale J, Park H (2008) Impact damage resistance of composite panels impacted by cotton-filled and unfilled ice. In: ICCM16, Kyoto JapanGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clarkson E, Ng Y (2008) Comparison of various material acceptance criteria. J Adv Mater 40:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.JCH Consultants, Inc.DaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations