2003, P.

Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Analysis alone is generally not considered adequate
for substantiation of composite structural designs.
Instead the building block approach to design
development testing is used in concert with analysis
(first applied to aircraft qualification in the 1950s.)
This approach is often considered essential to the
qualification/certification of composite structures due
to the sensitivity of composites to out-of-plane loads,
the multiplicity of composite failure modes and the
lack of standard analytical methods.
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Design substantiation is often called
qualification in DoD applications and
certification in civilian applications
including FAA.

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Materials Qualification Process

Design with structural metals is a mature
technology (too comfortable?)
The designer can take materials properties from a
handbook, specify the alloy and heat treatment and,
with little or no testing, move on to initial designs for
the metallic component.
Tests are performed to verify that the alloy, process and
resulting material properties are as specified; design,
manufacture and qualification of the prototype
component follow.

The Building block approach has evolved for

composites because of their unique characteristics.
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Building Block Approach
Generate material basis values and preliminary design
allowables.
Based on the design/analysis of the structure, select
critical areas for subsequent test verification.
Determine the most strength-critical failure mode for
each design feature.
Select the test environment that will produce the
strength-critical failure mode.
Matrix-sensitive failure modes (compression, out-of-plane
shear, and bondlines)
Potential hot-spots caused by out-of-plane loads
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Building Block Approach
Design and test a series of test specimens, each one of
which simulates a single selected loading condition and
failure mode, compare to analytical predictions, and
adjust analytical models or design allowables as
necessary.
Design and conduct increasingly more complicated
tests that evaluate more complicated loading situations
with the possibility of failure from several potential
failure modes. Compare to analytical predictions and
adjust models as necessary.
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Building Block Approach
Design and conduct, as required, full-scale
component static and fatigue testing for final
validation of internal loads. Compare to analysis.
Component qualification is often complicated by the fact that critical design
conditions include hot, wet environments. This is often accomplished by
overloading a test article that is in ambient conditions, or by analysis of
failure modes coupled with strain measurements related back to
subcomponent hot/wet tests.
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process

2003, P. Joyce

Schematic of building block approach

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Building Block Approach
Major purpose of this approach is to reduce program
cost and risk while meeting technical, regulatory and
customer requirements.
Cost-efficiency is achieved by
testing greater numbers of less-expensive small specimens,
(each level involves fewer test articles than the one below.)
assessing technology risks early in the program and
using analyses in place of tests where possible.

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Test levels can be defined in two basic
ways:
Structural Complexity Level
Data Application Category

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Five levels of Structural Complexity (each
geometry or form-based)
Constituent
Lamina
Laminate
Structural element
Structural subcomponent

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

The material form(s) to be tested, and the relative
emphasis to be placed on each level, should be
determined early in the material data development
planning process and will likely depend upon
many factors:
Manufacturing process
Structural application
Corporate practices
Procurement or certification agency
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Most applications require at least two levels

It is common to use all five levels
A single level may suffice in rare instances
Regardless of the level selected, physical and chemical
property characterization of the prepreg (or the matrix if
RTM) is necessary to support physical and mechanical
property test results.

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Constituent testing
Evaluates the individual properties of fibers,
fiber forms, matrix materials, and fiber-matrix
preforms.
Key properties, for example, include fiber and
matrix density, and fiber tensile strength and
tensile modulus

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Lamina testing
Evaluates the properties of the fiber and matrix together
in the composite material form.
Prepreg properties are often included in this level,
sometimes broken out in a separate level.
Key properties include fiber areal weight, matrix
content, void content, cured ply thickness, lamina
tensile strengths and moduli, lamina compressive
strengths and moduli, and lamina shear strengths and
moduli.
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Laminate testing
Characterizes the response of the composite
material in a given laminate design.
Key properties include tensile strengths and
moduli, compressive strengths and moduli,
shear strengths and moduli, interlaminar
fracture toughness and fatigue resistance.

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Structural element testing
Evaluates the ability of the material to
withstand common laminate discontinuities.
Key properties include open and filled hole
tensile strengths, open and filled hole
compressive strengths, compression after
impact strength, joint bearing and bearing
bypass strengths.
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Subcomponent testing
Evaluates the behavior and failure mode of
increasingly more complex structural
assemblies (application specific.)

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Material property testing can also be
grouped by data application into one or
more of the following categories:
Screening
Qualification
Acceptance
Equivalence
Structural substantiation
2003, P. Joyce

Reproduction

Full Scale

Verification

Laboratory
EMD Aircraft

Material/Process and Design

Development

Certification
Tests

Components

Elements/
Subcomponents
Material
Properties
Manufacturing
Process

Material
Selection

2003, P. Joyce

Building Block Test Program

10

Composite Material Qualification Process

Material and Process Selection
Must look at both material and process together
Need to evaluate part requirements and cost goals
Material and process maturity are a factor
Material allowables and process reproducibility will be required
Experience from other programs can be used

Outcome: Candidate Materials and Processes

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Process Development
Define process limits
Develop mechanical properties at upper/lower limits

Demonstrate reproducibility within limits

Define critical steps/tools/equipment
Develop necessary inspection/QC tools/process
Outcome: Process Specifications
2003, P. Joyce

11

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Process Development
Often composite materials must receive limited
requalification every time a process parameter s
altered at least to show equivalency.
Due to the statistical variability inherent in composites,
even relatively smal changes during manufacturing can
alter the load path or failure mode and produce
statistically significant changes in composite properties.

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Currently qualified processes
Hand lay-up
Filament winding
Resin transfer molding
Fiber placement

Potential processes
Resin film infusion
Vacuum assisted RTM
Sheet Forming
Pultrusion
2003, P. Joyce

12

Composite Material Qualification Process

Material Properties
Physical and Chemical property determination
Density
Viscosity
Cure kinetics
Out time
Tack
Glass transition temperature

Environmental sensitivity
Moisture resistance
Solvent attack
Upper use temperature
2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Material Properties
Mechanical Properties
Strength, Modulus, Notch Sensitivity, Fatigue
Resistance, Damage Tolerance, etc.

Examine all critical modes and environments

Develop design allowables
B basis confidence

Outcome: Material Specifications, Design Allowables

2003, P. Joyce

13

Composite Material Qualification Process

Material Properties
Defect/Damage Sensitivity
Mechanical effect of defects
Voids
Delamination
Wrinkles

Damage tolerance
Low velocity impact
FOD

Repair
Develop repair materials and processes
Demonstrate utility

Outcome: Repair Procedures and Specifications

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification

Process
Currently Qualified Materials (partial list)
Carbon fibers: AS4, IM6, IM7, both uni and woven
Glass fibers: E and S
Resins: 3501-6, 977, 8552, 8551, E773
Core materials: Korex

Potential Material Systems

Resins: PR-500, 5250-4
Core: Syncore, Rohacell
Adhesives
2003, P. Joyce

14

Composite Material Qualification Process

Elements and Subcomponents
Fabrication of design details
Validation of analysis
Refined definition of inspection and repair
requirements
Risk reduction for manufacturing and assembly

Outcome: Reduced Risk, Selection of Final M&P

2003, P. Joyce

Composite Material Qualification Process

Components
Fabrication of actual components
Manufacturing demonstration
Destructive evaluation

Demonstration of repairs
Demonstration of componentlevel mechanical
performance
Validation of analysis
Demonstration of systems interfaces
Demonstration of damage tolerance

Outcome: Low risk materials, process design, and

manufacturing process
2003, P. Joyce

15

Composite Material Qualification Process

Certification Tests
Static
Dynamic
Fatigue

Flight Test
Flight clearance given based on data package of
building block test results.

2003, P. Joyce

Rotorcraft
The building block approach for rotorcraft differs from that
for fixed-wing aircraft in several ways.
Limited NDE must accommodate larger defect sizes
Must consider complex set of dynamic components
Static fatigue and damage-tolerance requirements are addressed
separately in rotorcraft.
As with fixed-wing aircraft, design allowables usu. generated at the
coupon level
As with military aircraft the number and types of tests dependent
upon component criticality.
Damage-tolerance requirements for the rotor and drive systems are
handled only at the full-scale level.
Tailboom and roof beams/pylon support are fatigue critical and
require full-scale testing and qualification, as a results these
components undergo less coupon and subcomponent testing.
Airframe testing is similar to that for fixed wing aircraft, except that
fatigue is of more concern and thus receives more compete
characterization at a lower level.
2003, P. Joyce

16

General Aviation
The situation for general aviation is very different from
that of the large aerospace contractors.
Take kit aircraft, they have already designed, built and
flown their aircraft; now they want FAA certification.
General aviation in general is equipped to produce aircraft
quickly, in perhaps one year from project inception to
production. As a result, large subcomponents can be
produced sooner and much more economically argues for
inverted building block approach.
The concept is that one should test the largest structure that
is economically viable, allows such concerns as
manufacturing induced defects to be addressed early in the
design process. . .
2003, P. Joyce

General Aviation
Large scale articles should be used to identify the areas of critical
concern and to develop element or subcomponent test plans for
determining design allowables for the critical conditions.
Coupon tests would be used primarily to establish the equivalency of
the material to existing data, for environmental evaluation and for QA.
Except in the case of truly new materials with no pre-existing data, the
test matrix for coupon testing should be limited in scope. . .
Changes in processing should only be accepted if equivalency of
properties can be established (approach taken in qualifying RTMprocessed parts for the F-22.)
AGATE program for sharing design allowables changes the landscape
for GA in a very positive manner. . .
2003, P. Joyce

17

References
Composite Material Qualification Process, Roland Cochran
Quantifying qualification: the building block approach to
designing composite structures, High-Performance Composites,
July/August 1999, pp. 20-24.
Mil-Hdbk-17 Composite Materials Handbook, 1997.
Material Qualification and Equivalency for Polymer Matrix
Material Systems, FAA Technical Report, Tomblin, J.S., Ng,
C.Y. and Raju, K.S., 2000.

2003, P. Joyce

18