CEAS Aeronaut J (2011) 1:83–103

DOI 10.1007/s13272-011-0004-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Virtual testing of aircraft structures

Morten G. Ostergaard • Andrew R. Ibbotson •

Olivier Le Roux • Alan M. Prior

Received: 28 April 2010 / Revised: 23 March 2011 / Accepted: 30 May 2011 / Published online: 26 July 2011
 Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V. 2011

Abstract This paper will focus on the prediction of air- challenges and enablers for future successful virtual testing
craft structural strength using virtual testing analysis demonstrations in an industrial context.
methods. Virtual testing is a concept with several attributes
and is to be understood as the simulation of aircraft Keywords Virtual testing
Aircraft structures

structure using advanced nonlinear finite element analysis. Non-linear analysis
Strength predictions
Industrial
It will involve the combination of analysis software, requirements
The wishbone analysis framework
methods, people skills and experience to predict the actual
aircraft structural strength with a high level of confidence.
This is achieved through the creation and execution of a 1 Introduction
detailed nonlinear finite element analysis model of an air-
craft structure, which represents as accurately as possible Historically, the use of structural analysis in commercial
the actual physical behaviour when subjected to a wide aircraft design and certification has been focussed on linear
range of loading scenarios. Creating a virtual representa- finite element analysis for the calculation of internal load
tion of an aircraft structure presents the analysts with distributions and on the use of analytical stressing methods,
several significant challenges, including the creation of the both for initial sizing and then more detailed calculations
complex finite element model that accurately represents the for final certification. This stressing approach, when com-
global aircraft structure, and then adding the significant bined with structural testing both to demonstrate the air-
detail in terms of material and construction required to craft structure integrity and to demonstrate the adequacy of
make accurate failure predictions with confidence. An stressing methods, has proven itself to be highly reliable in
overview will be provided of the general principles used in the development of safe aircraft structures.
the process of virtual testing of both metallic and com- The above approach is based on demonstrating the
posite aircraft structures. The paper will focus on the key adequate strength of the aircraft structure, which is ensured
through conservative assumptions in both the methods and
material properties used.
M. G. Ostergaard (&)
A. R. Ibbotson In recent years, advanced nonlinear analysis methods
Airbus in the UK, Bristol BS997AR, UK have been used increasingly to obtain more accurate
e-mail: morten.ostergaard@airbus.com
assessments of the actual strength of aircraft test structures,
A. R. Ibbotson both for risk mitigation prior to test and subsequent to a
e-mail: andy.ibbotson@airbus.com
failure event [1]. Nonlinear finite element analysis has been
O. L. Roux employed with great effect to increase confidence in the
Airbus in France, 31060 Toulouse Cedex 9, France large-scale and expensive structural tests that are required
e-mail: olivier.le-roux@airbus.com before certification, as well as to understand in more detail
the likelihood, causes and consequences of structural failure.
A. M. Prior
Dassault Systèmes Simulia Limited, Warrington WA3 7PB, UK There is an important distinction between predicting
e-mail: alan.prior@3ds.com actual and adequate structural strength. For the design and

123
84 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

certification of aircraft structures, adequate and conserva- (i) Robust analysis

tive strength assumptions must be employed, irrespective (j) A380 wing certification
of the methods used; whereas, for predictions of the actual (k) Summary
strength of an aircraft structure, the analyst must make use
The principles outlined in this paper will be illustrated
of methods that are as accurate as possible.
using the A380 wing certification experience, where
Due to the highly competitive nature of the aircraft
advanced nonlinear finite element analysis was used suc-
manufacturing industry and the need to meet customer
cessfully in the process to certify the wing structure. More
expectations in terms of efficiency, aircraft structures are
recent models used to support Airbus aircraft programmes
highly optimised for weight and strength.
will illustrate today’s best practice in Airbus and the rapid
Most of an aircraft structure is typically constructed of
and organic evolution in the nonlinear analysis technology
thin-walled stiffened panels. Predicting the strength and
made possible through innovative approaches and
failure mode of such structures which, especially for
improved software and hardware capabilities.
metallic structures, are often designed to allow buckling,
presents the analyst with many challenges. Failure can
occur due to buckling alone, but it is usually the conse-
2 Best practice in virtual testing
quences of buckling that can lead to critical failure modes in
joints and materials and interactions between these failures.
Finite element models used for virtual testing can be
In addition to the complex design and nonlinear defor-
extremely complex. The application of best practice is
mation behaviour of the aircraft structure, the analyst is also
therefore paramount in order to instil confidence at all
faced with the problem of understanding and analysing both
levels. The analyst must be confident in the methods and
metallic and composite aircraft constructions, where each
software being used; the principal FEA engineer must be
new type of material presents new and different challenges
confident in the skills, expertise and experience of the
with respect to detailed failure predictions [2, 3].
analysts; and the aircraft manufacturer (and ultimately the
The increased use of composite materials has presented
Airworthiness Authorities) must be confident that the vir-
the analyst with a raft of new difficulties, largely due to the
tual testing approach is valid and safe and therefore can be
highly complex failure modes of composite materials and
used for the purpose of demonstrating the actual strength of
associated adhesive joints [4]. The analysis of composite
the aircraft structure.
materials has undoubtedly also increased awareness of the
In principle, confidence must be ensured in all of the
many uncertainties that can exist in component manufac-
following three areas:
ture, uncertainties which may significantly affect the reli-
ability of actual strength predictions based on analysis 1. analysis software,
methods. It is inevitable therefore that today composite 2. methods and analysis processes,
structures are designed with more conservatism than 3. people skills and experience.
metallic aircraft structures.
It might be argued that the most important of these
Advanced nonlinear analysis has in recent years been
confidence factors is the skills, expertise and experience of
used very successfully to predict the actual strength of
people, without which the process would not work and the
metallic and composite aircraft structures in Airbus.
detailed analysis understanding could not be gained.
Examples of detailed nonlinear finite element models of
However, the functionality of the analysis software is also
composite fuselage and wing box structures are shown in
critical and confidence must exist in the methods and
Figs. 1 and 2.
analysis processes used.
To provide a structured overview of virtual testing, the
The analysis software must be both capable and feature
following topics will be discussed in the following
rich to enable the analyst to predict actual strength for a
sections:
wide range of potential failure modes. In addition, the
(a) Best practice in virtual testing solver must be highly efficient, given the tendency in
(b) Analysis software recent years towards increasingly large analysis models.
(c) Multi-scale analysis Computations running over several days on high-perfor-
(d) Composites mance computing platforms are now commonplace.
(e) Modelling details and structural idealisations It is of fundamental importance, and an airworthiness
(f) Detailed failure predictions authority requirement [5], that the analysis methods and
(g) Analysis framework for virtual testing using nonlin- processes used have been fully validated against test data
ear analysis from similar aircraft structures and materials. As for con-
(h) Implicit and explicit finite element methods ventional stressing techniques, the methods used for virtual

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 85

Fig. 1 Detailed nonlinear FE

model of composite fuselage
structure

Fig. 2 Detailed nonlinear FE

model of composite wing box
structure

testing based on nonlinear analysis must also be demon- correlation between methods and test data must be
strated to provide accurate predictions of actual behaviour demonstrated.
for various levels of structural testing, from component or It should be noted that virtual testing is and always will
system level (e.g. wing or fuselage sections), to detailed be an approximation to reality. Actual aircraft structures
coupon level (e.g. material specimens and fasteners). will always have imperfections in materials, variations in
In order to build confidence, the nonlinear finite element manufacturing processes, and a range of assembly toler-
methods must be fully validated against test data at all ances that will give rise to built-in stresses and variability
levels of the testing pyramid. For virtual testing purposes, in stiffness and strength. Composite materials, in particular,
where actual strength predictions are considered, a close can exhibit significant variability in the actual lay-up and

123
86 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

quality of the laminate. These variabilities lead to uncer- products (Abaqus software, Dassault Systèmes SIMULIA,
tainty regarding the actual response of the structure. Tests Providence, USA). The tools allow for a wide range of
on several identical physical structures would not result in nonlinear finite element analysis, which means that simu-
identical results. lations can include nonlinear material responses (plasticity,
In a virtual testing program, however, uncertainty and damage and failure), nonlinear boundary conditions (con-
variability need to be added—they do not arise naturally. tact), and nonlinear geometric effects (stress-stiffening,
For virtual testing of a baseline structure, such as a Type large rotations and displacements).
Certificate Aircraft, the analysis model would normally be The majority of analyses are carried out using the
constructed to the nominal geometry and property; sub- implicit FE method, which provides an incremental-itera-
sequent strength assessments should then take into account tive solution to a quasi-static loading problem. There are
the likely variation in properties and construction. some applications where explicit solutions are appropriate,
Analytical or conventional stress analysis methods are such as transient dynamic events, including birdstrike,
usually based on a set of assumptions with respect to debris impact and crash, though these are carried out less
structural behaviour, loading and constraint systems. These frequently. There are advantages in offering both implicit
assumptions make conventional methods less flexible, and and explicit solvers with the same model definition used for
less able to reflect the details of the actual structural design. both analysis techniques for complex failure simulations of
They also require that the results are treated as approxi- static test structures.
mations with a degree of conservatism. The direct solver technology provided with Abaqus/
The progression to detailed and advanced nonlinear Standard has improved significantly in recent versions and,
finite element methods has allowed some of that conser- today, the direct sparse solver remains the standard solution
vatism to be addressed. Modern finite element analysis for this type of finite element model. The thin-walled,
methods are general-purpose and highly flexible. stiffened structure common to modern aircraft is prone to
By validating the fundamental modelling and analysis buckling and also exhibits highly nonlinear material
methods, (i.e. the idealisation principles and the models for behaviour together with rapid changes in both geometry
materials and joints), these ‘building blocks’ can be used to and boundary condition due to mechanical contact. Direct
construct full models of most types of aircraft structure. The solvers have proven to be more effective than iterative
validation of numerical models of materials and structures solvers for the solution of this type of ill-conditioned
at detailed structural levels is more efficient and less costly system.
than validating against more complex structural tests.
This means that less validation against actual test data will
be required at complex and large-scale structural levels than 4 Multi-scale analysis
is the case for analytical methods. This is one of the most
important advantages of advanced nonlinear finite element In the context of virtual testing of aircraft structures, the
analysis compared to conventional stressing methods. term multi-scale analysis describes the process of sequen-
A significant challenge in the coming years will be to tially coupling different analysis models at different scales
validate all aspects of virtual testing methods against all and levels of fidelity.
levels of structural testing, from coupon to component and This multi-scale approach requires a Level 1 prediction
full aircraft scales. This validation will need to address the of the behaviour of the complete structure through a non-
increased levels of structural complexity and the full range linear finite element model. This is then used to define the
of materials in use today and in the near future. driving boundary conditions for the next models at the
The objective should be to increase progressively the more refined modelling scales, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
level of confidence in virtual testing methods, to the extent Modelling detail is increased as successive analyses
that they can be used for reliable up-front predictions of ‘zoom in’ on structural regions, identified as being poten-
structural testing and, ultimately, can be considered for use tially strength-critical. At each level of model refinement,
in the certification of aircraft structures. different modelling idealisation principles, element types
This will only be possible through the continued appli- and even material and joint models might be employed.
cation of best practice principles. However, the underlying principle is to maintain a con-
sistent interface and link between the different modelling
scales used. All modelling and analysis methods used must
3 Analysis tools be fully validated against structural testing. It is important
to understand that, unlike traditional modelling techniques,
The virtual testing methods and simulations discussed and where direct links between model scales are provided using
presented in this paper are carried out using the Abaqus built-in detail meshes or super-elements, the multi-scale

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 87

analysis process discussed in this article are based on sub- approach is also of use when the Level 1 model is used to
modelling technology available in the Abaqus software. define input data to other simulation techniques such as
This technology enables model data to be transferred parametric modelling or analytical methods.
between modelling scales through a parent–child type However, from a virtual testing point of view, it is the
relationship, enabling far-reaching future opportunities for second approach that has by far the most significance.
integration of CAD and CAE processes. For this approach, it is not necessary to have a prede-
It is important that the Level 1 model is nonlinear. termined understanding of the critical structural response;
Previous work using a linear Level 1 model has shown that instead, screening methods are applied to the analysis
the assumptions and approximations inherent in the linear results in a systematic process in order to identify the
approach will not provide a sufficiently accurate base level critical structural regions to be analysed subsequently in
from which to launch more detailed nonlinear analysis more detail.
models. A fundamental requirement for this analysis approach is
In principle two different approaches exist: that the Level 1 model must be capable of predicting the
overall nonlinear behaviour and have sufficient detail to
(a) The analysis zooms in on predetermined structural
calculate the local nonlinear behaviour, such as panel
zones that are then modelled to the required detail
buckling, nonlinear deformation due to structural eccen-
(such as in the A380 wing example). The purpose of
tricities, and locations of joint failure. The geometrical size
the global model is purely to provide the definition of
of a family of sequentially refined sub-models used within
boundary conditions for lower scale models.
the multi-scale analysis process is directly linked to the
(b) The high level analysis results, using the Level 1
accuracy of the Level 1 model. As a general guideline, the
model, are used to predict zones of interest for more
structural domain covered by these must ensure that
detailed analysis, so that at each modelling scale the
the interfaces between the Level 1 model and subsequent
results are screened in order to identify regions for
sub-models are sufficiently away to avoid influencing the
subsequent strength analysis.
accuracy of analysis predictions. This is a particular con-
Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. cern where the analysis objective is to predict the propa-
The first (predetermined) multi-scale analysis approach gation of structural damage and failure. Here the analyst
can be used only where the critical area of interest is fairly must ensure that local stiffness change due to local damage
well known, but can benefit from a relatively coarse Level and failure propagation does not invalidate the sub-mod-
1 model. However, the coarser the Level 1 model, the elling analysis process.
bigger the lower scale sub-models must be to ensure that This presents a very significant challenge to the analyst,
the correct loading is applied to the area of interest. This the analysis software, and the computational resources.

Fig. 3 Multi-scale analysis

processes

123
88 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

5 Composites The following example (Fig. 4) illustrates the use of

screening processes to check for interfacial forces in
For composite aircraft structures in particular, it is impor- adhesive joints between stringers and skins in a detailed
tant to consider the uncertainties introduced as a result of virtual testing process applied to a composite wing struc-
manufacturing processes. Many of the failure mechanisms ture. This enables areas with high interface forces in the
that occur in composites are so localised that it is not adhesive joints to be identified so that more refined analysis
possible to capture them at a global model scale. Engi- can be carried out. The adhesive joints are modelled using
neering judgement and best practice is therefore required. the cohesive contact capability and the fasteners are
In addition, the manufacturing processes used today will modelled using the mesh-independent fastener feature
introduce variability in the composite lay-ups in terms of available in Abaqus/Standard.
resin/fibre volume fractions, ply waviness, resin pockets,
inconsistent adhesive layer thicknesses, etc. Such factors
must be considered in the analysis either through the 6 Modelling details and structural idealisations
imposition of conservative assumptions or the use of
‘robust analysis’ methods. These particular aspects of The importance of the detailed modelling techniques to be
composite construction methods mean that the accurate used, even at the Level 1 modelling scale, must not be
prediction of the strength of composite structures will underestimated: successful simulation in a virtual testing
remain a significant challenge for many years to come. framework is entirely dependent on the way the structure is
New advanced constitutive models for laminated com- modelled and how the interactions between structural parts
posites which include coupled damage and failure capa- are represented.
bilities are being developed and may provide a framework The finite element model must represent as closely as
for the screening process for material failure at global possible the actual structure being investigated, and all
model scale. approximations and idealisations must be carefully
Material models available today that are based on considered.
physical composite failure modes and fracture mechanics For example, it is not sufficient to make an accurate
principles are computationally too expensive for use at representation of the in-plane stiffness of an aircraft panel:
most model scales, but are necessary for the accurate the local and global torsion and bending stiffness of the
simulation of complex failure modes at lower scale levels, panel must also be represented accurately. For local
where they can be used to consider through- thickness buckling to be predicted, it is essential that the support
failure and in-plane interaction modes. provided by stringers to suppress skin buckling is modelled
The maturity of reliable composite failure modes for all accurately. For metallic aircraft structures, it is therefore
modelling scales and, in particular, for detailed failure necessary to include fasteners (including pre-tension) and
predictions, is still to be demonstrated. mechanical contact in order to accurately simulate

Fig. 4 Use of Abaqus cohesive

contact modelling

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 89

buckling. To some extent, composite structures that are

adhesively bonded are easier to model and to analyse,
because the bonds can be represented using geometrical
constraints or cohesive contact models.
It is the responsibility of the analyst to fully understand the
level of certainty associated with a given strategy to be used
for the idealisation and modelling of an aircraft structure.
Existing constraints on solvers and high-performance
computing mean that there is always a compromise
between model refinement and analysis efficiency. At one
extreme the mesh might be too coarse to capture any useful
Fig. 5 Wing box—lower cover removed, ribs and stringers
response, and at the other the model may be too large to run
on even the largest computers.
The analyst must therefore deploy a consistent and well-
understood strategy for meshing and modelling all the
standard aircraft structures that will be encountered, so that
the solution of the large-scale and multi-scale analysis
program can be completed effectively.
Numerous studies must be carried out to fully define the
best practice for modelling these structures. The best
practice will define the types of element to be used, the use
of element off-sets, the use of structure mid-planes for
meshing, the number of elements in part segments such as
stringer webs, flanges and between stringers.
For virtual testing of large-scale aircraft structures it is
essential to ensure that such best practice is followed pre-
cisely and consistently, particularly where many individu-
Fig. 6 Stringers and skin mesh
als in several teams and even external suppliers are
involved.
In such cases, the adherence to best practice for meshing beam elements are of less practical importance, even at
and modelling quality can only be controlled through the global model scales.
rigorous application of detailed specifications and stringent Shell elements have many different formulations and not
quality checks. all are suitable for nonlinear calculations. The Abaqus
Although the final assembly and execution of the large- software includes efficient and robust element types such
scale models will typically be carried out by highly expe- as S4 and S4R which are recommended for most applica-
rienced analysts, it will not be possible to assign any level tions of nonlinear analysis on aircraft structures.
of confidence to the final results unless the modelling Continuum solid elements, such as C3D8, C3D8I,
approach for all the systems, subassemblies and compo- C3D10M and C3D10I are used mostly at the lower mod-
nents has been consistently checked against the best prac- elling scales.
tice guidelines. An element that is of particular interest for modelling
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the above principle, through composite structures from CAD geometry data is the
the example of a composite wing top cover. It is important continuum shell element (SC8R). This element is based on
to note the highly consistent meshing approach, which is standard shell theory but has the 3D topology of a solid
applied irrespective of who built the particular model hexahedral element. This offers certain advantages when
components. checking and visualising complex assemblies of aircraft
structure parts, in particular when defining and checking
6.1 Elements contact interactions.
The continuum shell has been shown to be efficient when
Another challenge facing the analyst is the choice of ele- modelling composite parts from CAD geometry (CATIA
ment to use for a given analysis problem. The principal V5) as this data contains all the lay-up information defined
choice is between beam, shell and solid elements. from the tooling surface, which can be assigned to the
For most virtual testing purposes, where the objective is continuum shell element properties using the element
to determine the accurate strength of the aircraft structures, thickness direction vector orientation (stack direction).

123
90 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

Fig. 7 Stringers on panel

Another notable advantage with the continuum shell

element is that it makes the transition between shell-like
Fig. 8 Continuum shell stringer detail
structures and continuum solid elements relatively
straightforward. This is advantageous when using Abaqus/
Standard sub-modelling methods for multi-scale analysis. This section will discuss the usage of material and joint
Figures 7 and 8 show the usage of continuum shell failure models.
elements for modelling of composite aircraft structures.
There is a substantial time, effort and cost involved in 7.1 Material damage—metals
creating fit-for-purpose virtual testing models. A future
challenge to both the aircraft manufacturers and the sup- The modelling of the elastic–plastic behaviour of metals is
pliers of the analysis software is to make such processes as well established and most modern simulation tools offer a
automatic as possible. This requires much more than just variety of plasticity models for specific applications. For
automatic mesh generation, which is in any case available example, some components made of high-strength alu-
in most commercial modelling packages today. The suc- minium may have orthotropic properties because they are
cessful implementation of best practice principles also milled from rolled billets which have an orientated grain
requires modelling of CAD parts based on appropriate structure within the material. This processing method,
idealisations, which are consistently applied. which is used for aluminium wing spars, can lead to a
variation in yield stress in the principal material directions
that can be accounted for using Hill’s plasticity model
7 Detailed failure predictions (a non-cylindrical 3D yield surface) rather than a standard
von Mises plasticity model that is based on the assumption
As outlined in the previous sections, the purpose of the of isotropic material properties.
virtual testing and multi-scale analysis processes is to Capabilities to model material behaviour beyond initial
enable reliable strength assessments to be made, and this yield, taking into account ductile or brittle damage and
requires accurate, reliable and robust failure models for failure, have progressed in recent years. A generalized
materials and joints. framework for damage and failure modelling is built into
It is accepted that currently some modelling techniques the Abaqus tools (Fig. 9), and provides a relatively
are more mature than others and that more confidence exist straightforward approach.
in those failure models used with metallic components than It allows the definition of a damage initiation state,
those in composite aircraft structures where significant followed by some form of degradation in the yield stress
development and research still is to be carried out. which is accompanied by a reduction in elastic modulus,
For most static strength analyses, predicting the initia- down to a failure state where the material can carry no
tion of failure is adequate. However, more recent failure further load. This approach is an approximation to the
modelling capabilities like the X-FEM method is allowing physical response of the material, but allows for relatively
for more accurate simulation of the propagation of failure straightforward fitting to test data and can be implemented
within a material [13, 18–20]. In addition, this capability is in such a way as to minimize mesh dependence.
potentially providing a bridging capability across different More complex physically based material models are
types of materials and failure modes. available, for example those that include a consideration of

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 91

This complex set of potential damage and failure

mechanisms could in theory occur simultaneously in any
number of combinations. This makes it very difficult to
produce a constitutive model that is capable of simulating
the overall behaviour, and very difficult to test the material
in order to derive suitable parameters for the constitutive
model. A result of these difficulties is that the development
of comprehensive constitutive models for laminated com-
posites continues to attract significant effort in academia.
Currently, constitutive models can include most of the
fibre and matrix failure modes [10–12, 14, 15, 17]. How-
ever, because many structural models employ plane stress
shell theory, the delamination effect has to be taken into
account separately. This means that the inter-laminar bond
strength must be modelled explicitly, either with cohesive-
type elements [6, 16], a cohesive contact formulation, or
fracture mechanics techniques such as the virtual crack
closure technique (VCCT) [7–9]. Again, it is difficult and
Fig. 9 Abaqus damage and failure framework expensive to derive appropriate parameters for a delami-
nation model from a suitable test; however, obtaining
void nucleation and coalescence for ductile failure. How- accurate test data can lead to a more sophisticated and
ever, it is inevitable that the more complex the model accurate model enabling reliable failure assessments to be
becomes, the more parameters are required and the more made.
difficult it is to obtain the necessary data from material
coupon tests. 7.3 Joint damage—fasteners

7.2 Material damage—non-metals For metallic airframe structures, the most common fastener
is the rivet. Rivets are relatively straightforward to model
For aerospace applications, the majority of non-metallic in a finite element analysis: they are often idealized to a
materials are laminated composites of carbon-fibre and the simple constraint between two plates, with no preload, no
modelling of such materials is still very much an area of stiffness of their own, and no potential for damage or
development. failure. Similar techniques have been used for many years
Analysis models of laminated composites are usually in the automotive industry for the simulation of spot-welds.
built-up in modern pre-processing tools that are capable of A natural extension to this approach is to model the rivet
constructing complex lay-ups with different thicknesses, as a point-to-point constraint but to augment the behaviour
materials and orientations at each ply. These can either be with some elastic stiffness, a plasticity response and, ulti-
condensed into a single equivalent anisotropic elastic mately, damage initiation and damage evolution to failure.
behaviour, or kept as a distinct set of ply properties. The A combination of axial, shear and bending loads can be
latter approach aids ply-based post-processing and also included in the failure envelope for this type of constraint.
offers the extension of ply-by-ply damage modelling dur- At a high level, therefore, the rivet can be modelled as a
ing a nonlinear solution. point-to-point connection with relatively complex behav-
The initiation and evolution of material damage in iour. The overall behaviour can be implemented through
laminated composites is highly complex. It depends not the generalized framework of damage initiation and evo-
only on the behaviour of the individual constituents but lution to failure as described above. This is useful for
also the interfaces between them. Damage can occur in the models that might contain many thousands of rivets, where
fibres themselves, either in a compressive buckling mode it is important to consider the state of the connection as the
or as a tensile failure. Compressive or tensile damage can load increases, but where it is not possible to model every
also occur in the matrix surrounding the fibres, leaving the rivet as a 3D component.
fibres intact and able to carry tensile load, but likely to For some types of fastener, a point-based connection
buckle under compressive load. Additional failure mecha- may not be sufficient, so some form of coupling is needed
nisms include the fracture of the bond between the fibre to simulate the effect of the ends of the fastener (bolt head
and the matrix, as well as the delamination of adjacent or nut) on the surrounding material. Modern analysis tools
plies. include capabilities to construct large numbers of fasteners

123
92 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

at varying levels of complexity, based on the fastener adhesive layer is unlikely to be a key variable in the overall
‘map’ for the structure, and including the coupling between structural response.
the bolt head and plate material where appropriate. For more complex cases, it is important to consider the
At a more detailed level, full 3D continuum models of possible failure of adhesive joints, particularly in areas
riveted joints, including the rivet, the plates, the holes and where ‘peeling’ can be initiated. A common area for
perhaps even the tools used in the riveting process itself attention is at stringer run-outs where failure may also be
can be used to simulate the local behaviour under various driven by high interfacial shear stresses in the adhesive
loading conditions. Ideally, the study of the fastener joint.
behaviour should include pure shear, pure tension and The failure of the adhesive bond requires a modification
various combinations of loading angle in between. Such of the standard tied constraint, either via an extension to a
models are important for correlating the fastener failure basic contact algorithm, or through the use of some kind of
envelope described previously with physical test results. zero-thickness cohesive-type element, so that the bond
An important consideration is the degree to which the between the surfaces can be progressively weakened under
high-level constraint method can take into account the local increasing load. The most straightforward approach is to
behaviour of the joint. In general, it is not possible to use another form of the generalized damage framework
include effects such as pre-load, hole-deformation, fastener described previously: the bond has an elastic stiffness
rotation, pull-through etc., unless the specific combination which is applicable up to a limit value of stress or strain, at
of fastener and plates is correlated carefully with test. For which point the properties are degraded down to ultimate
complex fasteners which might have countersunk heads, failure. In general, for zero-thickness adhesive bonds, these
inserts and pre-loads, even this level of correlation is properties are defined through a traction–separation law
unlikely to be sufficient. The combination of the fastener, with a damage phase evolving into failure.
the hole and the parent material is a complex system. The Such approaches can be correlated to peel tests, but it is
behaviour can depend on the relative strengths of the fas- not always straightforward to separate the normal and shear
tener and the surrounding material, as well as on the form responses, which in the physical bond are very closely
of the loading. It is not uncommon to see a transition in the coupled.
failure mode of a joint as the angle of loading varies from The adhesive joint might also be modelled as a layer of
normal to pure shear, leading to fastener failure in tension material which has a finite thickness and which has its own
through to failure of the local material around the hole. constitutive law that includes an elastic–plastic response
The complexity is increased yet further if a single fas- with failure. The layer is then modelled as a 3D continuum
tener is used to join more than two plates, because addi- using conventional solid finite elements. This can be
tional failure modes can arise. effective, but has several potential difficulties. The ele-
Much has been achieved in recent years, with notable ments are 3D continuum, but may need to be thin in
success in several large scale simulations. However, the comparison to other structural dimensions, which presents
detailed modelling of fastener failure continues to evolve, problems both in meshing and in obtaining a converged
with aircraft manufacturers carrying out more extensive finite element solution. Also the material behaviour of the
investigations into the correlation with test and software adhesive layer can be extremely complex—the strength
developers seeking more efficient ways to replicate the properties of the adhesive may vary significantly with the
physical behaviour. thickness of the layer and may also be highly dependent on
the curing process. As a consequence, it is not easy to
7.4 Joint damage—adhesives develop an analysis approach that can produce reliable
results for a finite thickness adhesive modelled with con-
Adhesive joints are becoming more common in aerospace tinuum elements and a full constitutive model.
structures because of the increasing use of laminated Another analysis method available in Abaqus for anal-
composites. In some cases the joint is made entirely with ysis of failure propagation in adhesive joints is the VCCT.
adhesive, while in others the adhesive is used to augment a This methodology is based on linear fracture mechanics
joint fastened with bolts. As with other forms of fastening, theory and can be used to predict the stability of existing
the analyst can employ a range of techniques to model the cracks in adhesive joints and for simulation of crack
effect of the adhesive bond, depending on the level of propagation but will not cope with more complex failure
fidelity required in the particular simulation. propagation like crack ply-jumping or complex failure
At its simplest, an adhesive joint might be considered as interaction between adhesive joints and adjacent adherents.
a tied surface constraint with zero thickness between the Notably, the method can be used with significantly larger
tied surfaces. In general this is adequate for all but the most element sizes at the crack front compared to cohesive
detailed analyses, since the elastic stiffness of a thin element methods typically requiring much smaller element

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 93

sizes to provide accurate results but cannot be used to density, methods and properties at each level of coupon
predict the initiation of failure. test/analysis correlation.
For an accurate assessment of adhesive joint damage This methods validation framework is illustrated in
and failure, the interaction between failure modes, or mode Fig. 10, using the example of adhesive joint modelling.
openings I, II and III must be included in the analysis. The process starts with simple coupon tests where the
Again, such interactions must be well correlated against actual loading and crack opening mode is well understood;
test data. Several types of interaction models are available extends to a more complex 7-point bend test where the
in Abaqus for both cohesive contact and VCCT analysis initial flaw in the bondline is subjected to complex loading
methods, where the Benzeggagh–Kenane (BK) mixed and mixed mode crack behaviour; and concludes with a
mode fracture criterion is often used [21]. coupon test of an actual aircraft structure. A fundamental
requirement is to demonstrate that the detailed analysis and
modelling methods employed will provide consistent
8 Analysis framework for virtual testing using accuracy and correlation with test results at all three levels
nonlinear analysis of structural complexity.
Combining the multi-scale analysis process as shown in
The preceding discussion on detailed methods leads to the Fig. 3 with the methods validation framework in Fig. 10
requirement to ensure that the modelling and analysis provides a general analysis framework for advanced non-
methods are fit-for-purpose and validated against test. linear analysis of aircraft structures, as depicted in Fig. 11.
The topic can therefore be addressed through the fol- The analysis framework is named after the shape of the
lowing three nonlinear analysis building blocks: wishbone found in common birds.
It is vital to ensure that at the point of confluence
1. material modelling (metallic and composite),
between the upper and lower arms of the wishbone analysis
2. fastener modelling,
framework there is a consistent set of analysis and mod-
3. adhesive joint modelling.
elling methods and processes that are used. In practice this
To build confidence in each of these analysis categories, means that for detailed failure predictions in the multi-scale
a range of structural coupon tests with increased com- analysis framework, validated methods from the lower arm
plexity must be carried out and close correlation with of the wishbone must be used. By ‘validated’ we mean that
analysis models must be demonstrated. This implies using the methods have been demonstrated to provide accurate
exactly the same type of element types, mesh topology and results at different structure complexity levels.

Fig. 10 Methods validation

framework

123
94 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

Fig. 11 General analysis

framework—the wishbone

In order to enable this integrated analysis framework to (a) manufacturing process simulations,
be developed and deployed, there is a requirement for it to (b) residual strength calculations where the static strength
be based on the consistent use of a common, feature-rich of impact damage initially can be assessed using
analysis tool that in turn creates the opportunity for future Abaqus/Explicit for impact damage and subsequently
analysis developments and wide collaboration with exter- using Abaqus/Standard for residual strength,
nal partners to Airbus. (c) simulation of failure propagation and assessment of
The wishbone analysis concept has proven to provide a local failure.
robust analysis framework for the development and
Abaqus/Explicit can be used to understand the likely
deployment of advanced nonlinear analysis methods and
failure sequence and final result after the initial failure
processes. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, the
has been predicted using Abaqus/Standard. It is possible
analysis framework provides a structured, logical and
to simulate the structural failure by taking the implicit
unified basis for exploitation and deployment of the virtual
solution close to the predicted failure load level and,
testing technology in an industrial context.
using compatible material, fastener and contact models
in both solvers, to import the solution to Abaqus/
9 Implicit and explicit finite element methods Explicit in order to complete the ultimate failure pre-
diction. This is illustrated in Fig. 12 for a metallic box
Implicit nonlinear finite element analysis methods are beam structure used for the testing of wing compression
currently the standard for static virtual testing simulations. panels [22].
Explicit methods are normally too expensive computa- It can be difficult to use implicit solvers to model the
tionally for use in quasi-static type analysis problems. If progressive damage and failure of both materials and
dynamic effects and numerical noise are to be eliminated joints, because of the instabilities and bifurcations that can
then run times become unmanageable. occur in the solution. Some form of damping or stabilisa-
There are, however, certain cases where explicit finite tion is frequently required. Explicit solvers, on the other
element analysis methods are of significant importance in hand, do not have any such instability issues.
static type calculations and where implicit and explicit In the near future, explicit finite element methods are
methods can be used together. The Abaqus software has likely to play an increasingly important role in the simu-
interfaces between the implicit and explicit solvers that lation of progressive structural failure events. The explicit
enable the same analysis model to be used for both types technique provides an improved understanding of the effect
and analysis. Examples include: of initial local failures which might result only in local load

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 95

Fig. 12 Box-beam test and

analysis

redistribution effects rather than catastrophic failure of the Unfortunately, in some cases, small variations in mate-
aircraft structure. rial properties can have a significant effect on the response
of the model as well as the actual structure, particularly if
the effects of plasticity, damage and failure are included.
10 Robust analysis This high level of sensitivity to key failure parameters
means it is very important to carry out a range of analyses
It is important to understand that increasing the complexity to fully explore the effect of variability.
of material models by adding capabilities to simulate Simulation of a structural test up to and including
plasticity, damage and failure, does not necessarily by itself damage and failure requires extensive modelling of the
improve the accuracy of the simulation; nor does increas- behaviour of both materials and joints. The more complex
ing the precision of the input data. the model, the more data is required to represent the
Improved simulations arise through careful construction complexity and the more correlation work is needed.
of a realistic analysis model that represents as closely as Another consequence of the addition of more complex
possible the real structure under real-world conditions. The failure behaviour is that the initial state of the structure
preceding sections have highlighted the importance of becomes more important. There is little benefit in model-
using appropriate test data, appropriate levels of abstrac- ling the failure of fastened joint more accurately, if the
tion, and correlating models against experiment before starting point of the analysis differs markedly from the
embarking on predictive virtual tests. initial state of the real structure. Therefore, when increas-
Another major consideration for the analyst is the level ing the accuracy of analysis models it is necessary, as far as
of uncertainty in the model. Uncertainty arises because is practical, to take into account initial stresses arising from
many aspects of the real structure, including material component manufacture and assembly, together with the
properties, dimensions, and the initial ‘state’ of the dimensional tolerances, variation in material properties and
assembly, cannot be known with absolute certainty, and imperfections arising from the assembly process.
also because the physical structure will have some vari- Simple sensitivity studies can be used to gain adequate
ability in both properties and state, from location to loca- insight into the likely sensitivity of the structural response
tion within the structure, and from batch to batch. and failure mode to variations in properties and geometric
It is unlikely that an analysis model could be constructed imperfections. However, it is important to note that before
that replicates the true property and state of the physical considering any type of robust analysis, be it based on
structure at every point, even if that data could be measured stochastic or other types of probabilistic methods or simple
in the first place. Therefore, it is important for the analyst sensitivity studies, best practice principles must be fol-
to take account of uncertainty and variability in the simu- lowed in the modelling process. The baseline analysis
lation work. This is usually achieved by running several model should be constructed to nominal, or if fully known,
analyses to explore the effects of uncertainty, rather than actual geometry data and actual measured material and
running one single deterministic analysis. fastener properties. If the baseline analysis model is not fit

123
96 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

Fig. 14 Sub-model with loading pads

Fig. 13 A380 wing in test structure
then used to drive the boundaries of the detailed model at
the in-board and out-board cut-sections.
for purpose, then not even the most advanced probabilistic The Abaqus model of the detailed wing box section is
methods will deliver adequate results. shown in Fig. 14 and includes all discrete load inputs
(rubber loading pads) within the domain of the wing box
section.
11 A380 wing certification The global analysis process used is illustrated in Fig. 15.
This figure also shows that due to the coarseness of the
Advanced nonlinear finite element analysis methods were global wing model, the detailed model had to include
used to solve several issues during A380 certification. The additional structure away from the zone of interest. This
most significant was to identify the root cause of the wing was required in order to introduce the loading correctly into
structural failure during the final ultimate static test trial in the detailed model of the section where the failure was
Toulouse in 2006. The aircraft wing test structure is shown expected to have initiated (a zone of approximately 3 rib
in Fig. 13. bays and from rear to front spar). Very little information
In order to illustrate the scales of deformation involved was available about likely cause or location of the failure
in this test, it is interesting to note that the maximum other than that the failure was unlikely to have occurred in
deflection of the wing tip at ultimate load level is the lower cover as this was largely intact at the end of the
approximately 8 m. test.
Both wings broke simultaneously, at the same location, Every structural part within the zone of the wing box
at about 3% below the ultimate design load. The ultimate was modelled from nominal CAD geometry, mostly using
design load is defined as 1.5 times the maximum load that Abaqus shell elements (S4 or S4R). For the top cover about
the aircraft structure will experience during in-service 8,000 fasteners (rivets and bolts) were included in the
flight conditions (in turn defined as the Limit Load). model using the Abaqus mesh-independent fastener ele-
Despite the fact that the test was so close to demonstrating ment as depicted in Fig. 16. The mechanical contact
the ultimate load strength capability, a large investigation between skins and stringers and between top cover and rib
was launched to identify the reason for the wing failure and feet was also modelled.
to design a structural modification to achieve the certifi- Significant effort was put into meshing the upper skin
cation of the A380 aircraft structure. Amongst other efforts and stringers as consistently as possible using best practice
launched, it was decided to create a detailed nonlinear modelling techniques as illustrated in Fig. 17. Likewise
finite element model of a section of the A380 wing box, Figs. 18 and 19 show the meshing details used for spar and
bounded by both spars and with a span of 7 rib bays. rib panels.
There was no detailed nonlinear model of the complete Material and fastener properties were modelled using
A380 wing structure available, so it was decided to trans- actual measured properties for the wing structure. Exten-
late a global, but relatively coarse, linear MSC Nastran sive material coupon testing was carried out to fully
model (MSC Nastran, MSC Software Corporation, Santa characterise the properties for the upper skin and stringer
Ana, CA, USA) of the wing structure into an Abaqus finite materials in particular. Detail coupon tests were machined
element model suitable for nonlinear analysis. This was from the test structure and used to characterise the stringer

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 97

Fig. 15 Analysis process—

global and sub-model of wing

Fig. 16 Rivets between skin and stringers

Fig. 18 Spar and detail meshing

meshing strategy as used in the detailed sub-model of the

wing box structure.
The coupon test programme also allowed the physical
nonlinear shear and tension stiffness characteristics of the
rivets to be determined. These were subsequently included
in the detailed wing box model together with an interaction
to describe the relationship between the shear and tension
Fig. 17 Mesh of cleat, rib-feet and Stringers failure behaviour.
As explained in previous sections, it is a fundamental
and rivet properties as shown in Fig. 20. Detailed Abaqus requirement that all analysis methods are fully validated
models were used to correlate the analysis properties against test data. Extensive correlations were therefore car-
against the coupon test data using the same modelling and ried out between measured and calculated wing deflections

123
98 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

data, measured strain levels at all strain gauge locations in the

wing box section of interest and other information available
such as known permanent deformation.
Figure 21 shows the correlation between the measured
Rib-Foot & Boom wing deflections along the wing front spar and the results
of the global nonlinear finite element model that was used
to drive the detailed sub-model. It illustrates that the global
wing model provides an excellent representation of the
global wing stiffness.
All strain gauges used on the test structure were mod-
elled explicitly as depicted in Fig. 22, which enables a

Rib-Web
Front Spar Vertical Deflection
8000

Vertical Displacement (mm)

7000

6000
ES deflection at 1.45LL
5000
Abaqus global FEM
Nastran global FEM
4000

3000

2000

1000
Stiffeners 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Distance along wing from wing -root (mm)

Fig. 19 Mesh of rib-foot and beam, rib web and stiffeners Fig. 21 Front spar vertical deflection, test and analysis comparison

Fig. 20 Rivet shear and tension

coupon modelling, plus photo of
test rig

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 99

Fig. 22 Modelling method for

strain gauges

and detailed model, respectively, located on the outer skin

surface and stringer flange as shown in Fig. 22.
The strain gauge correlation clearly shows that the
global finite element model is capable of calculating the
skin strain levels accurately up to the point where signifi-
cant buckling occurs in the top cover. However, after that
point the model is not capable of capturing the detailed
local post-buckling response.
The detailed sub-model, however, does calculate the
buckling correctly and is able to predict the strain levels
very well in the outer skin surface as well as on the stringer
free flange. It should be noted that due to the highly
complex buckling taking place in the top cover near ulti-
mate load, the detailed strain correlation is sensitive to the
Fig. 23 Outer skin strain correlation—global FEM actual location of the strain gauge and some deviation from
intended location is possible during installation.
Overall, all the available evidence verified that the
detailed sub-model and global wing nonlinear finite ele-
ment model represented the actual A380 wing box struc-
ture very well and that the detailed model could be used to
calculate the nonlinear deformation behaviour, including
the effects of post-buckling.
Once it had been established that the detailed wing box
model was fit for purpose, the investigation focussed on the
identification of the root cause of the structural rupture. Every
possible stress concentration in the structure modelled was
identified and investigated using refined meshes and detail. An
example is shown in Fig. 25 for one of the rib panels.
However, all evidence suggested that the rupture had
Fig. 24 Outer skin and stringer strain correlation—detailed sub-
model
occurred in the top cover as this was where the highest
stress and plastic strain levels were present. The top cover
straight forward correlation between measured and calcu- was subjected to extensive skin buckling resulting in very
lated strain levels. complex post-buckling behaviour. This is shown in Fig. 26
The following two figures (Figs. 23, 24) show an at ultimate load level, i.e. 3% above the actual wing
example of correlation against strain gauges for the global structural failure load level.

123
100 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

Fig. 25 Local stress

concentration on rib stiffener

Fig. 26 Top cover buckling, sub-model

The buckling calculated is shown in more detail in

Fig. 27 using a scale factor equal to 5. The analysis carried
out confirmed that global panel buckling (from rib to rib)
would occur at ultimate load exactly, which was as pre-
dicted by the conventional stressing methods used for
design of the structure. Fig. 27 Detail of top cover buckling at 1.5 9 LL
As it was now confirmed that the root cause could not be
explained by material rupture or global buckling, the
attention was now focussed on the rivets and bolts used in the rivets, as shown in Fig. 29. It can be seen that initially
the top cover. the shearing force carried by the rivet is increasing linearly
Figure 28 shows that as a consequence of the skin with the load as the rivet resist in-plane shear forces in the
buckling, very localised separation or gapping occurred panel (wing torsion) and that the tension force is constant
between skin and stringers (shown at 1.449 Limit Load) and equal to the small preload defined in the rivet model.
and for one zone in the top cover in particular. At the onset of initial skin buckling, the local buckling
Screening all the fasteners in this region for shear and results in separation forces between skin and stringers,
tension loads, it became evident that the local skin buckling which can be seen as a sudden increase in the rivet ten-
resulted in additional nonlinear shear and tension forces in sion. Additional shearing forces in the rivets are also

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 101

Fig. 28 Contact opening in

stringer attached flange

Tension and shear forces for a failed rivet It clearly shows that the local buckling resulted in
1.4
Rivet failure at gapping between skin and stringer. A design modification,
1.44 X LL 1.2 using straps along the stringer feet both sides, was therefore
Circular interaction

1.01
Tension
Onset of local 1 designed to avoid the separation and the rivets were
skin buckling
Shear replaced locally with bolts.
Force (N)

0.8
Circular Interaction The preceding section provides only a brief description
0.6
of the analysis models and processes used to identify the
0.4 reason for the A380 wing structural failure. It is not pos-
0.2 sible to fully detail, in this paper, the many different
0
analyses and sensitivity studies carried out during the
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 intense investigations. However, it is important to state that
Load (LL) advanced nonlinear finite element analysis had been used
Fig. 29 Tension and shear forces for failed rivet
successfully to identify and explain an extremely compli-
cated industrial structural analysis problem and to con-
observed after onset of buckling, which are caused by tribute to the process to achieve the certification of the
the complicated buckle patterns resulting in curvature A380 wing structure.
changes both span-wise and chord-wise in the top cover
panel. These local changes in curvature will sometimes
increase the rivet shear forces and sometimes reduce 12 Summary
them, depending on the rivet position in relation to the
local buckles in the panel. This paper has provided an overview of the virtual
Screening all fasteners showed that more than one rivet, testing technology of aircraft structures in Airbus sub-
on one stringer, was predicted to fail at about 1.44 to 1.459 jected to static loading conditions. The importance of
Limit Load. This was in good agreement with the actual confidence and best practice associated with a virtual
wing rupture at 1.459 Limit Load. No other plausible testing approach has been discussed. A general frame-
failure mode was predicted below 1.59 Limit Load and the work—the wishbone—for working with multi-scale
root cause of the rupture had therefore been identified as analysis methods and the various challenges facing the
being caused by rivet failures. analyst have been presented, with particular focus on
Not only was it possible to identify the cause of the detailed failure prediction methods for materials and
rupture but it was also possible to fully understand fasteners.
the underlying issues that had to be considered for the The construction of FE models to include plasticity,
structural modification to demonstrate adequate strength. damage initiation, damage evolution and ultimate failure
Figure 30 shows the local panel deformation in cross sec- requires careful consideration of the behaviour of the
tion A–A indicated in Fig. 28 and illustrates the level of underlying materials as well as of the joints and fasteners
detail considered and captured in the analysis. between components. Modern FE tools are capable of

123
102 M. G. Ostergaard et al.

Fig. 30 Cross-section showing

fasteners

simulating complex damage processes, but increasing the • fit-for-purpose detailed failure models for materials and
level of complexity requires additional parameters, which joints and in particular for composite materials,
need to be obtained from tests and correlated against • robust quality processes.
experimental results.
Airbus has developed strong partnerships with both
There are therefore significant trade-offs to be consid-
software providers and research institutes, including vari-
ered in relation to the expediency of running many rela-
ous European universities, in order to make progress on the
tively simple analyses, the difficulty of obtaining and
above key enablers.
correlating complex material behaviour, and the potential
The EU FP7 research project MAAXIMUS (more
risk of generating misleading results from apparently
affordable aircraft structure through extended, integrated,
advanced simulations that have not been properly validated.
and mature numerical sizing) is an example of a major
However, there is no doubt that when used carefully,
project designed to make progress on virtual testing
with due regard to the derivation and validation of model
methods, which has both Airbus and Dassault Systèmes
data and the trade-offs of complexity against efficiency, the
SIMULIA as partners [23].
use of nonlinear FE analysis can have a significant impact
Many of the analysis short-comings discussed in previ-
on the development and structural strength assessment of
ous sections are addressed in the frame of MAAXIMUS. It
advanced aircraft structures.
is expected that within the timeframe of the project, the
A number of key enablers have been identified in order
size of the models that can be handled in a nonlinear finite
to improve virtual testing capabilities still further. These
element approach can be increased by between 1 and 2
include:
orders of magnitude. The Giga-DOF model (10^9 DOF) is
• detailed modelling and meshing methods, the figure being used as a target for the developers in the
• automatic meshing and modelling methods from CAD project.
definition based on consistent meshing rules, In recent years, significant progress has been made in
• automatic composite property and lay-up capabilities exploiting virtual testing methods for the solution of
from CAD to CAE, complex industrial structural issues, such as the A380 wing
• large-scale computations and increased use of detailed certification described in this paper. However, it must be
modelling, based on continuous improvements to high- acknowledged that virtual testing methods of composite
performance-computing capabilities, aircraft structure are still being developed and will continue
• efficient multi-scale analysis methods and screening to provide the analyst, the software developers and aca-
processes to identify critical structures, demia with significant challenges.

123
Virtual testing of aircraft structures 103

In addition, it is important that particular attention is in notched CFRP laminates under longitudinal compression.
paid to the development of best practice in methods and Compos. Sci. Technol. 70, 1223 (2010)
11. Pinho, S. T., Dávila, C. G., Camanho, P. P., Iannucci, L.,
processes in order to enable industrial deployment. Robinson, P.: ‘‘NASA/TM-2005-213530’’ NASA (2005)
The correct combination of skills, tools and processes 12. Camanho, P.P., Dávila, C.G., Pinho, S.T., Iannucci, L., Robinson,
used within the wishbone analysis framework can then be P.: Prediction of in situ strengths and matrix cracking in com-
used to maximise the benefit of the virtual testing tech- posites under transverse tension and in-plane shear. Compos. Part
A: Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37, 165 (2006)
nology in an industrial context and to provide a shared 13. Moës, N., Dolbow, J., Belytschko, T.: A finite element method
platform for future collaboration between industry, aca- for crack growth without remeshing. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
demic partners and software providers. 46(1), 131–150 (1999)
14. Ladeveze, P., Le Dantec, E.: Damage modelling of the elemen-
tary ply for laminated composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 43, 257
(1992)
15. Ladevèze, P., Lubineau, G., Marsal, D.: Towards a bridge
References between the micro- and mesomechanics of delamination for
laminated composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 66(6), 698–712
1. Imbert, J.F.: Airbus, challenges in aircraft structure analysis. (2006)
ESA/NAFEMS Seminar on Engineering Quality, verification and 16. Camanho, P.P., Dávila, C.G., Pinho, S.T.: Fracture analysis of
validation. Noordwijk, 6 December 2007 composite co-cured structural joints using decohesion elements.
2. Prior, A.: Dassault Systèmes, nonlinear simulation of large scale Fatigue Fracture Eng. Mater. Struct. 27(9), 745–757 (2004)
aircraft structures—implications for certification methodology 17. Pinho, S.T., Dávila, C.G., Camanho, P.P., Iannucci, L., Robinson,
and high performance computing infrastructure, NAFEMS World P.: Failure models and criteria for FRP under in-plane or three-
Congress, June 2009 dimensional stress states including shear non-linearity, NASA/
3. Prior, A.: Dassault Systèmes, simulating damage and failure in TM-2005-213530. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton,
aircraft structures, RAeS Conference: challenges for the next (2005)
generation-concept to disposal, October 14–16, 2008 18. Moes, N., Belytschko, T.: Extended finite element method for
4. Brown, T.: Airbus, working to meet the challenges of next gen- cohesive crack growth. Eng. Fract. Mech. 69(7), 813–833 (2002)
eration composite wing structural design. RAeS Conference: 19. Meschke, G., Dumstorff, P.: Energy-based modeling of cohesive
challenges for the next generation—concept to disposal, 14–16 and cohesionless cracks via X-FEM. Comput. Methods Appl.
Oct 2008 Mech. Eng. 196(21–24), 2338–2357 (2007)
5. European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications 20. Hettich, T., Hund, A., Ramm, E.: Modeling of failure in com-
for Large Aeroplanes CS-25 Amendment 5. 5 Sept 2008 posites by X-FEM and level sets within a multiscale framework.
6. Dávila, C., Camanho, P.P., Turon, A.: Effective simulation of Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 197(5), 414–424 (2008)
delamination in aeronautical structures using shells and cohesive 21. Kenane, M., Benzeggagh, M.L.: Mixed-mode delamination
elements. J. Aircr. 45, 663–672 (2008) fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites
7. Krueger, R.: Virtual crack closure technique: history, approach, under fatigue loading. Compos. Sci. Technol. 57(5), 597–605
and applications. Appl. Mech. Rev. 57(2), 109–143 (2004) (1997)
8. Krueger, R., Ratcliffe, J.G., Minguet, P.J.: Panel stiffener 22. FP6 MUSCA non-linear static multi-scale analysis of large aero-
debonding analysis using A shell/3D modeling technique. structures: http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=FP6_PROJ&
Compos. Sci. Technol. 69, 2352–2362 (2009) ACTION=D&DOC=15&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=0125d43f7184:
9. Krueger, R.: An approach to assess delamination propagation 23ab:79c5c95f&RCN=75782
simulation capabilities in commercial finite element codes, 23. FP7 MAAXIMUS—more affordable aircraft through extended,
NASA/TM-2008-215123 (2008) integrated and mature numerical sizing: http://www.maaximus.eu/
10. Gutkin, R., Pinho, S.T., Robinson, P., Curtis, P.T.: On the tran-
sition from shear-driven fibre compressive failure to fibre kinking

123