Abstract

Corrosion-induced maintenance is a significant cost driver and availability degrader for aircraft structures. Although well-established analyses enable assessing the corrosion impact on structural integrity, this is not the case for fatigue nucleation and crack growth. This forces fleet managers to directly address detected corrosion to maintain flight safety. Corrosion damage occurs despite protection systems, which inevitably degrade. In particular, pitting corrosion is a common potential source of fatigue. Corrosion pits are discontinuities whose metrics can be used to predict the impact on the fatigue lives of structural components. However, a damage tolerance (DT) approach would be more useful and flexible. A potential hindrance to DT has been the assumption that corrosion-induced fatigue nucleation transitions to corrosion fatigue, about which little is known for service environments. Fortunately, several sources indicate that corrosion fatigue is rare for aircraft, and corrosion is largely confined to ground situations because aircraft generally fly at altitudes with low temperature and humidity Thus, it is reasonable to propose the decoupling of corrosion from the in-flight dynamic (fatigue) loading. This paper presents information to support this proposition, and provides an example of how a DT approach can allow deferring corrosion maintenance to a more opportune time.

Highlights

  • LekatouAirframe corrosion maintenance and control are major sustainment cost drivers and availability degraders

  • This is despite good design; corrosion prevention and control plans; and the use of various protection systems, including anodising layers on aluminium, cadmium and chromium plating of steels, special coatings such as ion vapour deposition (IVD) aluminium, corrosion-inhibiting paint primers and topcoats

  • This paper provides examples of fatigue cracking and growth from service-induced corrosion pits, followed by a discussion of managing corrosion pitting in a framework that differs from the ‘find and fix’ method

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Airframe corrosion maintenance and control are major sustainment cost drivers and availability degraders. This paper provides examples of fatigue cracking and growth from service-induced corrosion pits, followed by a discussion of managing corrosion pitting in a framework that differs from the ‘find and fix’ method The purpose of this discussion is to continue support, based on fracture mechanics (note: the USAF damage-tolerant surrogate flaw values and approach may be used if the effective crack-like size of a pit can be shown to be less than these values), e.g., [6,7,8,9], such that detected corrosion is left in service for a short well-defined period, for example until the maintenance. If the removal of corrosion pitting until the planned maintenance is possible, this by itself should save much unnecessary expense while allowing for the continuance of operational capabilities

Corrosion and Fatigue of Airframe Alloys
Typical output from a P-3C
Comparison of Service and Test Crack Growth
Optical colour relativelylarge large crack in the AA7050-T7451 bulkhead
Optical colour fractographofofthe theC1
Fatigue crackcrack growth forfor thethe three
Differences between Crack Growth from Etch Pits and Corrosion Pits
AA7050-T7451
14. Fatigue
Additional
Structural Assessment Methodology
Concluding Remarks
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call