F-35 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Overview: 28 November 2006

LM JSF Team Program Information Doc. No.
_______________
Non-Technical Data – Releasable to Foreign Nationals Date: _______________
F-35 Aircraft Structural Integrity

Program Overview
28 November 2006
Joseph B. Yates Robert J. Burt

Senior Manager, F-35 ASIP IPT F-35 Chief Structures Engineer & Director
Structural Development and Integrity Structural Development and Integrity
Copyright 2006 by Lockheed Martin Corporation.
CURRENCY NOTICE: A hard copy of this document may not be the document currently in effect.
The current version is always the version in the Lockheed Martin Network.
Use or disclosure of the information contained herein is subject to the restrictions on the Cover Page
LM JSF Team Program Information
Non-Technical Data – Releasable to Foreign Nationals
F-35 – Many Programs in One

P&W F135
Interoperability
CTOL GE/RR F136
CV STOVL
3 Services
8 International
Partners
Global Sustainment
2 Security Cooperation
Domestic / International
Participants
Suppliers
Team F-35
LM Aero
NGC BAES
Autonomic 3 Flight Test Training

Logistics Facilities
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
2
Introduction
• The F-35 Program Offers An Unprecedented Opportunity

To Leverage The Fundamental Concepts Of ASIP To
Supply Each Of Our Government’s Service Branches An
Airframe That Meets Their Unique Structural Integrity
Requirements At An Affordable Price.
• Meeting These Varied Requirements In The Concurrent
Development Of The Three Aircraft Variants Presents A
Unique Challenge Of Identifying Opportunities For
Commonality, Reaching Consensus With Multiple
Customers, And Execution Of The Variant Tasks Within
The Reduced Cost And Schedule Goals That Form The
Vision Of The Joint Strike Fighter Concept.
• The 5 Pillars Of ASIP Provide The Roadmap To Both
Identify These Opportunities And Meet These Challenges
LM JSF Team Program Information 3
Outline
• Program Overview
• Pillar 1 - Design Information & Development Planning
• Pillar 2 - Design Analysis and Development Test
• Pillar 3 - Full Scale Testing
• Pillar 4 - Certification and Force Management
Development
• Pillar 5 - Force Management
• Summary
• Q&A
F-35 Background
• The F-35 Program Consists of 3 Air Vehicle Configurations or
Variants and the Autonomic Logistic System that Will
Support Them
– F-35A is a Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Variant
– F-35B is a Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Variant
– F-35C is a Carrier Variant (CV)
Unique Opportunities Unique Challenges

• “Commonality Benefit” • Performance Based Specification
• Structural Similarity Versus Certification Authority
– Building Blocks • “Joint” Requirements
– Full Scale Tests • Multiple Customers
• Three Variant Certification – Life Management
– Shared Flight Test Pts – Certification Approaches
F-35 Variant Comparison
STOVL CTOL CV
240B-4.3 240A-4.4 240C-4.5
240A-4.4
Span (ft) 35 Span (ft) 35 Span (ft) 43
Length (ft) 51.2 Length (ft) 51.4 Length (ft) 51.5
Wing Area (ft2) 460 Wing Area (ft2) 460 Wing Area (ft2) 667
F-35 Integrity Program
Air System Integrity Program

MIL-HDBK-515
Aircraft Propulsion Mechanical Autonomic Low

Structural Systems & Electrical Logistics Observables
Integrity Integrity Systems Integrity Integrity
Program Program Integrity Program Program
(ASIP) (PSIP) Program (AutoLog IP) (LOIP)
(MESIP)
MIL-STD-1530 MIL-STD-1798 MIL-STD-1789
C-17 Program
F-22 Program
F-35 Program
F-35 ASIP Is Structured Conventionally per MIL-STD-1530

ASIP Task Overview

ATP PDR CDR LRIP LL LRIP FF IOC
Task I Task II Task III Task IV Task V
Design Info Design Analyses Full Scale Testing Force Management Force Mgmt,
& & and Certification Data Package Production and
Sustainment
Development Development
Planning Tests
Production Go-
CDR to Production Ahead to
Timeframe ATP to PDR PDR to CDR On-going
Go-Ahead Operational Life
Management
Planning &
Initial Update Update Update
Coordination
Design & Analysis
Criteria
Characterize
Environment
Characterize Materials Initial Update Update Update

Characterize
Initial Validate Execute
Production & Quality
Critical Items Initial Update Update Update
Structural Analysis Initial Update Validate

Coupons & Element to Sub- Component to
Test Elements Component Full Scale
Life Management Initial Update Update Validate Execute

Performance Based Specification
• Few Direct Structural Specification Requirements

Are Included In Joint Contract Specification
– Structural Requirements Are Derived From
Performance Requirements
– Principal Structural Requirements:
• 90% Of The Aircraft Delivered Must Meet The
Service Life Requirement
• The Air System Must Be Durable, Damage
Tolerant, Fault Tolerant, Fatigue Resistant,
Corrosion Resistant…
• With Few Direct Specification Requirements, A
Rigorous ASIP Plan Is The Principal Means Of
Certification And Contractual Verification.
Pillar 1 – Design Information &

Development Planning
• Many Of The Challenges Of The PBS Environment Are

Associated With The First Pillar Of ASIP
– Ambiguous Performance Based Requirements Rather
Than Detailed Specifications
– Multiple Customers With Varying Traditional
Approaches to Development Process & Certification
– Disconnect Between PBS Approach And Customer
Certification
– JPO Customers As IPT “Partners”
• As a Result, Significantly Greater Effort Was Required
During the Planning Stage to Establish Common
Expectations Between the Customer and Contractor
Teams
Structural Materials Selection
• F-35 Selected Mature Materials For Structural Applications

– Composite Materials IM7/977-3 and IM7/5250-4
Characterized on other Lockheed Programs
– 2124 and 7050 Plate Products Well Established In
Military Applications
– 7085 Forgings New, But Supplier had Complete MMPDS
Database
– Ti 6-4 BA Plate and Forgings Well Characterized on
Other Military Programs
Approach Minimized Static Coupon Level Tests and Specification

Development and Enabled Focus on Fracture/Fatigue Properties
and Corrosion Behavior
Structural Material Distribution
Airframe Structure Only
CTOL STOVL CV
Material Percent Percent Percent
ALUMINUM 43.4% 45.7% 33.4%
GRAPHITE/EPOXY 13.7% 12.1% 15.1%
GRAPHITE/BMI 21.4% 21.3% 20.0%
TITANIUM 15.4% 13.6% 25.4%
Only Wing Assembly Shown
Pillar 1 – Design Information &

Development Planning
• The Overall Status Of This Pillar Of The ASIP Plan Is Very
Mature.
– The Planning, Coordination And Establishment Of
Design And Analysis Criteria Are Now Maturing In Step
With The Program Needs.
– The Characterizations Of The Materials, Joints,
Environment Are Nearing Completion.
– The Identification And Control Of Critical Items Is
Proceeding In Concert With The Development Of Each
Variant And Is Complete For CTOL & STOVL.
– The Test Program To Establish The Material & Joint
Allowables, Corrosion Prevention Methods And To
Evaluate New Construction Techniques Is Nearing
Completion. The Remaining Test Are For Confirmation
Of Limited Data Sets Or Validation Or Full Scale Test
Truncation Levels.
– The Life Management Concept Of Operations Was
Developed Early In The Program And Is Being Matured
As Part Of The Following Tasks Of ASIP.
Pillar 2 – Design Analysis and

Development Test
• The Overall Status Of This Pillar Of The ASIP Plan Depends
On The Variant Under Consideration.
– The Updates To The Certification Plans Are Maturing As
The Details Regarding Critical Loadings And Failure
Modes Are Revealed By The Structural Analysis
– The Structural Analysis Of The CTOL And STOVL
Variants Are Nearly Complete.
– Sizing Of CV Variant Structure Is Well Under Way With
CDR Scheduled For Late Spring ’07.
– The Element And Sub-component Tests To Reduce Risk
Or Validate Design Details And Structural Analysis
Methods Are Nearing Completion.
– The Life Management Plans Are Maturing With
Development of the Infrastructure for Data Collection
Under Way and Locations of the SPHM Strain Gages
Defined for STOVL & CV Variants
Non-Technical Data for ITAR
Structural Analysis
• Structural Analysis Methods and Tools Established and

Validated
– Common Methods Used Throughout Multi-Company, Multi-
National Team
• Internal Loads and Spectra Developed and Deployed
Simultaneously to All Sites
– Rigorous Go/No Go Process Incorporated To Review And
Concur With All Air Vehicle FEMs Prior To Release
• Structural Analyses Performed In a Detailed and Methodical
Manner and Vaulted in Common Databases
– Stress Analysis
– Durability and Damage Tolerance Analysis
– Acoustic Analysis
– Flutter Analysis
– Vibration Analysis
– Buffet Analysis
– Thermal Analysis
Detailed and Rigorous Structural Analysis Performed

External Loads Development

F-35 Loads Wind Tunnel Tests
Model Objective
L-2: Full Span; 12% Scale CTOL/STOVL external
CTOL/STOVL Pressure Model. aerodynamic pressure
L-3: New Model (240A/B-4.1) distributions.
L-2.1: Full Span; 12% Scale CV CV external aerodynamic
Pressure Model. pressure distributions.
L-3C: New Model (240C-4.5)

CFD analysis by AEDC Store Loads For External
Carriage of A-A Missiles.
A-5.1: Full Span; 1/15 Scale Store Loads For External
External Store Airloads Model Carriage of A-A and A-G
Weapons. WT Pressure Model
S-2: Part Span; 1/15 Scale Store Loads For Internal
Weapons Bay Model Carriage of A-A and A-G
Is Rigid Aero Source
Weapons. Weapons Bay Door
Pressures.
• Balanced Aircraft Load Conditions For Air

Vehicle FEM Application
– Critical Maneuver Loads
Mapped to
– Critical Dynamic Loads (buffet, store eject, etc) 3-D Integration
Model
– Critical Ground Handling Loads
– Deflection Critical Load Conditions
– Pressurization Loads (cockpit, inlet, fuel tanks) Combined with
2-D flexible aero.
– "Parent" Conditions For Component Loads Increment data
• Full aircraft balance for superposition of critical
component loads; e.g. weapon bay doors.
Empennage Buffet Loads Development
Water Tunnel Tests Show Vortex Interaction Wind Tunnel Tests:

• 1/40th Scale Water Tunnel Test
Vortexes Interact and
"Burst" Forward of
the Tails
• Early HT Tests
• VT Test
• Buffet Fences
Vortex From
Inlet Lip • 1st Wing Buffet Test
Vortex From
• STOVL/CTOL Database
Wing LE Fillet
Component Loads From
Turbulent Flow Field Calculated Buffet Response
Can Couple w/
Structural Modes Dynamics Group develops Grid point forces mapped to
grid point forces to achieve the Air Vehicle FEM to get
buffet mode shapes internal loads.
• Buffet Environment Defined For Initial

Design Of All Variants
– Maximum Combined Maneuver Plus
Buffet Loads
Incremental
– Design Load Spectra Include Buffet internal buffet CTOL Design-To Rudder Hinge Moment Exceedance Buffet Comparison
Design-No Buffet, Design-W/Buffet, New Buffet WIP
loads added to 10,000,000
Load Cycles Consistent With Usage

Data Per 1000 Flight Hours
Includes 5% MSS Filtering
1,000,000
corresponding 100,000
No. of Exceedances
– Vibration Environment For Systems static loads 10,000
yielding strength,
1,000
And Installations
100
service loads. 10
1
-50,000 -40,000 -30,000 -20,000 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
Hinge Moment (in-lbs)
CTOL-Mean CTOL-Mean W/Buffet CTOL-Mean W/Buffet WIP
Air Vehicle Finite Element Models For

Internal Loads
High Fidelity Models Include:
STOVL BTP FEM: • 2.5D Mesh In Key Areas
• 162K Nodes
• Mesh Density Established To
• 221K Elements
• 21,329 Load
Facilitate Future Test Correlation
Combinations Examples:
Bulkhead
CTOL BTP FEM:
• 158K Nodes
• 213K Elements
• 14,555 Load
Combinations
HT Hinge Spar
CV BTP FEM: • Complete Air Vehicle Structural

Representations
• 175K Nodes • Moveable Control Surfaces and Major
• 240K Elements In-Flight Opening Doors
• 25363 Load • Overlapping Assumptions for
Combinations Removable Panel Effectivity
• Structural Sizing Provided By Stress
Analysts
Air Vehicle Finite Element Analysis

Internal Loads Data Storage And Delivery
• Storage & Distribution Of Internal Loads Datasets
– Includes Finite Element Models, Applied Loads, And Internal Load
Databases
– Configuration Controlled On Dedicated Loads Data Server
– Accessed By Structural Analysts Worldwide Through Encrypted
Network
• Internal Loads Data Released In Fort Worth Is Instantaneously Available
To Partners And Suppliers
Flutter And Aeroservoelastic Analyses

Aft Fuse/Empennage Wind Tunnel
STOVL/CTOL Clean Aircraft Flutter Margins
Model Installed In NASA LaRC TDT
1200
CTOL Flutter
1100 Boundary
1000
STOVL Flutter
900 Boundary
KEAS
800
700 CTOL Envelope
600
STOVL Envelope
500 1.15 VL
• WT Testing To Verify Transonic Empennage
VL
Characteristics And Free Play Requirements 400
• Clean Aircraft Flutter Analyses 30

0
– Set Structure, Systems Stiffness Requirements 200
– All Variants Meet Flutter Requirements
100
– All Surfaces Free From Divergence
• External Store Flutter Analyses 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
– Establish Stiffness Requirements
MACH
– Weapon, Pylon, And Hardpoint Geometry
• Aeroservoelastic Analysis
– Structural Filters For Flight Controls
Durability And Damage Tolerance Analysis
• Differing AF And Navy DADT Philosophies Require

Development Of Service Unique Repeated Load Spectra
• CTOL DADT Analyses Are Based On Mission Based Spectra
– Durability Uses 90th Percentile Spectrum
• Based On Crack Growth Analysis
– Damage Tolerance Uses Mean Spectrum
– Average Crack Growth Rate And Strain Life Curves Used
– Critical Crack Sizes Based On Guaranteed Minimum
Fracture Toughness (Spec Min)
• STOVL & CV DADT Analyses Are Based On CPITS Spectra
– Both Durability And Damage Tolerance Analyses Use The
Severe “Critical Point In The Sky” (CPITS) Spectrum
– Durability Analysis Based On Crack Initiation
• DADT Analyses Accomplished Using IMAT Tool At All Sites
Structural Temperature Definition

• Parts Identified By Airframe Stress Analysts and/or Thermal
Detailed Thermal Model Of Analysts
Representative Part
• 74 Parts for AA-1; 239 Parts for STOVL; 430 Parts for CTOL
• Detailed Models Of Parts Generated:
– Results zoned by location; e.g. upr flange, web, etc.
– Max temps corresponding to structural load conditions
Discrete Zones Identified – Temp spectrum including maintenance for 8000 hrs
C • Results To M&P For Knockdown Calculations
• Temperatures Calculated and Supplied in AV FEM for Overall
Airframe Thermal Stress and DADT Evaluations
A B
Max Temps Within Required Envelope Expected Lifetime Time-At-Temperature
l
eria
l eria
Mat owns Mat owns
ckd ckd E
Kno M&P
E Kno M&P
m
Fr om Fro
Tests and Demonstrations
• F-35 Structural Test Program Follows

Traditional Building Block Approach
• Tests Include
– Building Block Tests
– 6 Dedicated Static & Durability
Articles
– 1 Combined Drop Test/
Barricade/Live Fire Test
– Ground Tests (SCT/GVT/Etc)
• Tests Address:
– Material Characterization
– Effects Factors
– Development/Risk Reduction
– Structural Analysis
Correlation/Calibration
– Allowables
– Qualification
– Certification
Building Block Test Approach

Structures Development Ground & Flight Tests Manufacturing Development
Allowables Material Qualification
Components
Analysis Calibration Process Development
Risk Reduction & Verification
Fuel Sealing Risk Reduction
Structural Certification ~ 34 Fabrication & Assembly Dev
& Verification
Sub-Components
BL 0.00
FS 518
Legacy Metallics FS 496
Legacy Non-Metallics
Design Allowables
~ 27
FS 472
BL 72.0
Design Allowables
Aluminum, Titanium,
Epoxy & BMI
Steel, Etc.
Elements
A A
~ 5300
Coupons
~ 8000
Structural Certification Tests
Canopy Verification
– Electrostatic Discharge Inlet Duct
– Birdstrike – Hammershock
– Latch/Unlatch – Birdstrike
– Pressurization
– Thermal Fatigue
– Lightning Strike
Engine Mounts
– Fwd Upper Mount
up
– Fwd Side Mount
– Aft Thrust Mount
fwd
– Aft Sidelink
Loading
Direction
Lift Fan (STOVL)

– Fwd Mount
– Aft Mount & Back Up
– Vane Box & Back Up
Vane Box
Box &
Vane
Use or disclosure of the information contained herein is subject to the restrictions on the Cover Page & Back
Back Up
Up

BMI Nacelle Skin Fire Resistance Lightning Strike Verification
Lightning
Lightning Strike
Strike Composite
Composite Skin
Skin Damage
Damage
Fire
Fire Resistance
Resistance Test
Test Set
Set Up
Up
Acoustic Fatigue
– Wing Spar Box
– Weapons Bay Sidewall
– Horizontal Tail
– Control Surfaces
Wing Acoustic Box Internal Structure
Wing
Use or disclosure of the information contained herein is subject to the Acoustic
restrictions Box
Structure
on the Cover Internal
Page
Pillar 3 - Full Scale Tests

• Full Scale Ground Tests
– One Static Article per Variant
– One Durability Article per Variant
– One Combined Drop Test, Barricade Test, and Live
Fire Article for the CV Variant
• On Aircraft Tests
– Proof Tests
– Freeplay Tests
– Ground Vibration Tests
– Structural Coupling Tests
• Common Test Arrangements Support Affordability
– Full Scale Fixtures Designed to be Common
– Common Data Acquisition Systems Selected
– Tests to be Conducted at Multiple Locations to
Support Program Schedule
• Design of Loading Arrangement Enables Rapid
Reconfiguration Between Loading Conditions
• Automated Structural Analysis Tools Developed to
Enable Rapid Evaluation of Test Load Arrangement
Pillar 4 – Certification and Force

Management Development
• The Certification Plans Which Document The Means

To Provide The Evidence Needed To Support
Certification Of The Aircraft Structure Are In Work
For All Three Variants.
– STOVL & CTOL Plans Are Released For Initial
Reviews
– CV Is Currently In Draft Form
• The Force Management Package Development Is Not
Yet Started Due To The Maturity Of The Three
Variants.
Pillar 5 – Force Management
• The Development Of The Force Management System

Started Earlier On The F-35 Program Than On Recent
Legacy Programs.
• The Autonomic Logistics Portion Of The F-35 Program
Will Provide A Robust System For Storing, Retrieving
And Presenting The Usage Data For Each Aircraft,
Squadron Or Mission Type In A Useful Format For
Decision Makers.
– The Prognostics Health Management (PHM) And
Structural Prognostics Health Management (SPHM)
Data Will Be Resident Within This System
– Ten Percent Of The Fleet Is Planned To Be
Instrumented During The Production Phase With
SPHM Strain Gages
• 100% of SDD Aircraft are Instrumented
Force Life Management
• Plan for F-35 Force Life Management Established Early in

Program
Baseline Operational
• Plan Establishes Design
Integrity
Usage
Advice
Manage
– Organizational Manage Operations
Design
Structure For Design Operational
Usage &
Improvements
Logistics Support Force Life
Environmental
Data
Initial
Management
– FLM Operational Configuration
Data
Maintenance
Program
Concept Manage Manage
Production Maintenance
– Direction For Quality
Effective Aircraft Production Maintenance
Data
Process
Management Improvement
F-35 Life Cycle Support

Overall ASIP Status
• Pillar 1 – Essentially Complete

• Pillar 2 – Nearing Completion for STOVL & CTOL,
Under Way for CV
• Pillar 3 – Detailed Planning in Place for AA:1,
Detailed Planning In Work For STOVL & CTOL
• Pillar 4 – Plan In Place for Development of Data
Package, Detailed Plans Maturing
• Pillar 5 – Planning for Force Management System
In Place Early, Development of System In Work.
Summary
• A Rigorous & Disciplined ASIP Program Led By a

Centralized Structures Group Remains the Best
Means of Ensuring Structural Integrity and Providing
Certification and Verification Evidence in a
Performance Based Specification Environment
• The F-35 ASIP Program is Currently In The Midst of
Pillars 2 & 3, with Groundwork Laid for Pillars 4 & 5,
and is Progressing Toward Flight Certification.
Bob Wants to Know –

Yous Guys Got Any Questions?

F-35 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Overview: 28 November 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F-35 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Overview: 28 November 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F-35 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Overview: 28 November 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LM JSF Team Program Information Doc. No.

F-35 Aircraft Structural Integrity

Joseph B. Yates Robert J. Burt

Copyright 2006 by Lockheed Martin Corporation.

F-35 – Many Programs in One

Autonomic 3 Flight Test Training

• The F-35 Program Offers An Unprecedented Opportunity

Unique Opportunities Unique Challenges

F-35 Variant Comparison

240B-4.3 240A-4.4 240C-4.5

F-35 Integrity Program

Air System Integrity Program

Aircraft Propulsion Mechanical Autonomic Low

F-35 ASIP Is Structured Conventionally per MIL-STD-1530

ASIP Task Overview

Characterize Materials Initial Update Update Update

Critical Items Initial Update Update Update

Structural Analysis Initial Update Validate

Life Management Initial Update Update Validate Execute

Performance Based Specification

• Few Direct Structural Specification Requirements

Pillar 1 – Design Information &

• Many Of The Challenges Of The PBS Environment Are

Structural Materials Selection

• F-35 Selected Mature Materials For Structural Applications

Approach Minimized Static Coupon Level Tests and Specification

Structural Material Distribution

Airframe Structure Only

Material Percent Percent Percent

ALUMINUM 43.4% 45.7% 33.4%

GRAPHITE/EPOXY 13.7% 12.1% 15.1%

GRAPHITE/BMI 21.4% 21.3% 20.0%

TITANIUM 15.4% 13.6% 25.4%

Only Wing Assembly Shown

Pillar 1 – Design Information &

Pillar 2 – Design Analysis and

• Structural Analysis Methods and Tools Established and

Detailed and Rigorous Structural Analysis Performed

External Loads Development

L-3C: New Model (240C-4.5)

• Balanced Aircraft Load Conditions For Air

Empennage Buffet Loads Development

Water Tunnel Tests Show Vortex Interaction Wind Tunnel Tests:

• Buffet Environment Defined For Initial

loads added to 10,000,000

Load Cycles Consistent With Usage

CTOL-Mean CTOL-Mean W/Buffet CTOL-Mean W/Buffet WIP

Air Vehicle Finite Element Models For

CV BTP FEM: • Complete Air Vehicle Structural

Air Vehicle Finite Element Analysis

Flutter And Aeroservoelastic Analyses

700 CTOL Envelope

• Clean Aircraft Flutter Analyses 30

Durability And Damage Tolerance Analysis

• Differing AF And Navy DADT Philosophies Require

Structural Temperature Definition

Max Temps Within Required Envelope Expected Lifetime Time-At-Temperature

Tests and Demonstrations

• F-35 Structural Test Program Follows