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


This book concisely reviews the different design philosophies which have been employed in fatigue design of aircraft structures and the recent evolution of the subject. Figure 1.1 contrasts percentage of failures in general engineering components and in aircraft components, and shows that fatigue is the main source of failure in aircraft structures. Diversification of airframes, from completely metallic to the current high interest on composites and use of a variety of materials may impact the percentile distribution of failure cases, but the predominance of fatigue will certainly continue for metallic materials. Of course the figures cited correspond to a certain universe of cases; Nishida, reporting on the experience of failure analysis of mechanical components in his laboratory, mentions an even greater percentage attributable to fatigue, see Table 1.1, from Nishida (Failure analysis in engineering applications. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992.)


  1. 1.
    S. Nishida, Failure Analysis in Engineering Applications (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S.J. Findlay, N.D. Harrison, Why aircraft fail. Mater. Today 5(11), 18–25 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Gorelik, Additive manufacturing and risk mitigation—a regulatory perspective, in FAA-AF Additive Manufacturing Workshop, DOT/FAA/TC-16/15 (Dayton, OH, USA, 1–3 Sept 2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.C. Miedlar, A.P. Berens, A.Gunderson, J. Gallagher, USAF Damage Tolerant Design Handbook: Guidelines for the Analysis and Design of Damage Tolerant Aircraft Structures. AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2003-3002 (University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, OH, 2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    US Department of Defense—DoD, Joint Service Specification Guide—JSSG-2006—Aircraft Structures (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Federal Aviation Administration—FAA, 14 CFR Part 25: US Airworthiness Standards for Transport Category Airplanes (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Brot, Using probabilistic simulations in order to minimize fatigue failures in metallic structures, in 45th Israel Annual Conference on Aerospace Sciences, (Tel Aviv, Israel, 23–24 Feb 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Federal Aviation Administration—FAA, Chapter 12: ‘Publications, forms, & records’, in Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook—General (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Aviation Safety Agency—EASA, Certification specifications and acceptable means of compliance for large aeroplanes CS-25, amendment 18 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. De Florio Airworthiness: An Introduction to Aircraft Certification (EASA, and FAA Standards, Elsevier, A Guide to Understanding JAA, 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Pacchione, J. Telgkamp, Challenges of the metallic fuselage, in Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences-ICAS (Hamburg, Germany, 3–8 Sept 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Schmidt-Brandecker, H.-J. Schmidt, The effect of environment durability and crack growth, in RTO AVT Workshop on ’Fatigue in the Presence of Corrosion’, (Corfu, Greece, 7-8 Oct, 1998), pp. 11-1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Bucci, Advanced metallic & hybrid structural concepts, in USAF Structural Integrity Program Conference (ASIP 2006), (San Antonio, Texas, USA, 29 Nov 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.F.O. Braga, S.M.O. Tavares, L.F.M. da Silva, P.M.G.P. Moreira, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Advanced design for lightweight structures: review and prospects. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 69, 29–39 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.W. Bristow, P.E. Irving, Safety factors in civil aircraft design requirements. Eng. Fail. Anal. 14, 459–470 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.G. Goranson, Fatigue issues in aircraft maintenance and repairs. Int. J. Fatigue 20(6), 413431 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P.M.S.T. de Castro, S.M.O. Tavares, V. Richter-Trummer, P.F.P. de Matos, P.M.G.P. Moreira, L.F.M. da Silva, Damage tolerance of aircraft panels. Mecânica Exp. 18, 35–46 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Boller, M. Buderath, Fatigue in aerostructures–where structural health monitoring can contribute to a complex subject. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 561–587 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A.F. Grandt Jr., Fundamentals of Structural Integrity: Damage Tolerant Design and Nondestructive Evaluation (Wiley, 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.F. Grandt Jr., Damage tolerant design and nondestructive inspection–keys to aircraft airworthiness. Proc. Eng. 17, 236–246 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    UK Ministry of Defence—MoD, Defence Standard 00-970 Part 1 Section 3, Leaflet 36 ‘Fatigue—Inspection-Based Substantiation’ issue 5 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Swift, Damage tolerance capability. Int. J. Fatigue 16(1), 75–94 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    United States Air Force—USAF, MIL-A-83444, Military Specification—Airplane Damage Tolerance Requirements, Cancelled in 1987 (1974)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R.J.H. Wanhill, Milestone case histories in aircraft structural integrity, in Comprehensive structural integrity, eds. by I. Milne, R.O. Ritchie, B. Karihaloo, vol. 1 (Elsevier, 2003), pp. 61–72Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R.J.H. Wanhill, L. Molent, S.A. Barter, E. Amsterdam, Milestone case histories in aircraft structural integrity—update 2015, Report NLR-TP-2015-193 (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    US Department of Defense—DoD, Aircraft structural integrity program (ASIP), MIL-STD-1530C (USAF) (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R.G. Eastin, Contrasting FAA and USAF damage tolerance requirements, in USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Conference (ASIP 2005), 29th November to 1st December (Memphis, Tennessee, USA, 2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Swift, ICAF 2011 structural integrity: influence of efficiency and green imperatives, in Proceedings of the 26th Symposium of the International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue, book section Sticks and stones (could the words of aeronautical fatigue hurt us?) (Springer, 2011), pp. 26–37Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P.J. Long, J.E. Ellis, A comparison of Air Force versus Federal Aviation Administration airframe structural qualification criteria: MIL-A-87221 (USAF) vs. FAR parts 23 and 25, Report ASD-TR-86-5018 (1986)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    R.G. Eastin, W. Sippel, The ‘WFD rule’: have we come full circle?, in USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Conference (ASIP 2011) (San Antonio, Texas, USA, 29 Nov–1 Dec 2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Swift, Gnats and camels: 30 years of regulating structural fatigue in light aircraft, in 20th International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue Symposium (Ohio, USA, July, Dayton, 1999), pp. 14–17Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    H.J.K. Lemmen, R.C. Alderliesten, J.J. Homan, R. Benedictus, The influence of fatigue crack initiation behaviour of friction stir welded joints on the design criteria, in 26th Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (Alaska, USA, Anchorage, Sept 2008), pp. 14–19Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Federal Aviation Administration—FAA, Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook, Vol. II Airframe Damage Tolerance Evaluation, DOT/FAA/CT-93/69.II (1993)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    P. Horst, The significance of the interaction of stability and damage propagation in metallic and composite panels. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 6(6), 737–758 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    U.G. Goranson, M. Miller, Structural Integrity of Aging Airplanes, book section Aging jet transport structural evaluation programs (Springer, 1991), pp. 130–140Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    U.G. Goranson, Damage tolerance facts and fiction, in USAF Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP 2006) (San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    U.G. Goranson, Damage tolerance facts and fiction, in International Conference on Damage Tolerance of Aircraft Structures, (Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 25–28 Sept 2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    G.I. Nesterenko, Designing the airplane structure for high durability, in AIAA/ICAS International Air and Space Symposium and Exposition (Ohio, USA, Dayton, 2003), pp. 14–17Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Nesterenko, B. Nesterenko, Ensuring structural damage tolerance of Russian aircraft. Int. J. Fatigue 31(6), 1054–1061 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    National Transportation Safety Board—NTSB, “B733 depressurisation while en-route,” Report DCA11MA039, 24 Sept 2013Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    P. Safarian, Fatigue and damage tolerance requirements of civil aviation, in Master of Aerospace Engineering Colloquium, Winter (Washington University, Seattle, WA, USA), 2 March 2014Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. Brot, Developing strategies to combat threats against the structural integrity of aircraft, in 52nd Israel Annual Conference on Aerospace Sciences (Tel Aviv/Haifa, Israel, 29 Feb–01 March 2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    S. Chisholm, Panel 3: design requirements and validation, in NTSB Airplane Fuselage Structural Integrity Forum (USA, Washington, DC, 2011)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    M. Pacchione, J. Telgkamp, N. Ohrloff, Design of pressurized fuselage structures under consideration of damage tolerance requirements, in 40. Tagung des DVM-Arbeitskreises Bruchvorgänge (40th meeting of the DVM fracture processes working group), (Stuttgart, Germany, 19–20 Feb 2008)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    S.M.O. Tavares, P.M.S.T. Castro, An overview of fatigue in aircraft structures. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 40(10), 1510–1529 (2017)Google 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