CS 29.573 Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures

• ED Decision 2012/022/R found in: CS-29 Amdt 10 - Large Rotercraft (Jan 2023)

CS 29.573 Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures ED Decision 2012/022/R (a) Composite rotorcraft structure must be evaluated under the damage tolerance requirements of sub-paragraph (d) unless the applicant establishes that a damage tolerance evaluation is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good design practice. In such a case, the composite rotorcraft structure must undergo a fatigue evaluation in accordance with sub-paragraph (e) (b) Reserved (c) Reserved (d) Damage Tolerance Evaluation: (1) Damage tolerance evaluations of composite structures must show that Catastrophic Failure due to static and fatigue loads is avoided throughout the operational life or prescribed inspection intervals of the rotorcraft. (2) The damage tolerance evaluation must include PSEs of the airframe, main and tail rotor drive systems, main and tail rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, and any other detail design points or parts whose failure or detachment could prevent continued safe flight and landing. (3) Each damage tolerance evaluation must include: (i) The identification of the structure being evaluated; (ii) A determination of the structural loads or stresses for all critical conditions throughout the range of limits in [CS 29.309](#_DxCrossRefBm1513259404) (including altitude effects), supported by in-flight and ground measurements, except that manoeuvring load factors need not exceed the maximum values expected in service; (iii) The loading spectra as severe as those expected in service based on loads or stresses determined under sub-paragraph (d)(3)(ii), including external load operations, if applicable, and other operations including high torque events; (iv) A Threat Assessment for all structure being evaluated that specifies the locations, types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue, environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or other accidental damage (including the discrete source of the accidental damage) that may occur during manufacture or operation; (v) An assessment of the residual strength and fatigue characteristics of all structure being evaluated that supports the replacement times and inspection intervals established under sub-paragraph (d)(4); and (vi) allowances for the detrimental effects of material, fabrication techniques, and process variability. (4) Replacement times, inspections, or other procedures must be established to require the repair or replacement of damaged parts to prevent Catastrophic Failure. These replacement times, inspections, or other procedures must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by [CS 29.1529](#_DxCrossRefBm1513259459). (i) Replacement times must be determined by tests, or by analysis supported by tests to show that throughout its life the structure is able to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected in-service. In establishing these replacement times, the following items must be considered: (A) Damage identified in the Threat Assessment required by sub-paragraph (d)(3)(iv); (B) Maximum acceptable manufacturing defects and in-service damage (i.e., those that do not lower the residual strength below ultimate design loads and those that can be repaired to restore ultimate strength); and (C) Ultimate load strength capability after applying repeated loads. (ii) Inspection intervals must be established to reveal any damage identified in the Threat Assessment required by sub-paragraph (d)(3)(iv) that may occur from fatigue or other in-service causes before such damage has grown to the extent that the component cannot sustain the required residual strength capability. In establishing these inspection intervals, the following items must be considered: (A) The growth rate, including no-growth, of the damage under the repeated loads expected in-service determined by tests or analysis supported by tests; and (B) The required residual strength for the assumed damage established after considering the damage type, inspection interval, detectability of damage, and the techniques adopted for damage detection. The minimum required residual strength is limit load. (5) The effects of damage on stiffness, dynamic behaviour, loads and functional performance must be taken into account when substantiating the maximum assumed damage size and inspection interval. (e) Fatigue Evaluation: If an applicant establishes that the damage tolerance evaluation described in sub- paragraph (d) is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, or good design practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation of the particular composite rotorcraft structure and: (1) Identify structure considered in the fatigue evaluation; (2) Identify the types of damage considered in the fatigue evaluation; (3) Establish supplemental procedures to minimise the risk of Catastrophic Failure associated with damage identified in sub-paragraph (e)(2); and (4) Include these supplemental procedures in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by [CS 29.1529](#_DxCrossRefBm1513259459). [Amdt 29/3] CS 29.573 Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures ED Decision 2012/022/R (a) Composite rotorcraft structure must be evaluated under the damage tolerance requirements of sub-paragraph (d) unless the applicant establishes that a damage tolerance evaluation is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good design practice. In such a case, the composite rotorcraft structure must undergo a fatigue evaluation in accordance with sub-paragraph (e) (b) Reserved (c) Reserved (d) Damage Tolerance Evaluation: (1) Damage tolerance evaluations of composite structures must show that Catastrophic Failure due to static and fatigue loads is avoided throughout the operational life or prescribed inspection intervals of the rotorcraft. (2) The damage tolerance evaluation must include PSEs of the airframe, main and tail rotor drive systems, main and tail rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, and any other detail design points or parts whose failure or detachment could prevent continued safe flight and landing. (3) Each damage tolerance evaluation must include: (i) The identification of the structure being evaluated; (ii) A determination of the structural loads or stresses for all critical conditions throughout the range of limits in [CS 29.309](#_DxCrossRefBm1178331792) (including altitude effects), supported by in-flight and ground measurements, except that manoeuvring load factors need not exceed the maximum values expected in service; (iii) The loading spectra as severe as those expected in service based on loads or stresses determined under sub-paragraph (d)(3)(ii), including external load operations, if applicable, and other operations including high torque events; (iv) A Threat Assessment for all structure being evaluated that specifies the locations, types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue, environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or other accidental damage (including the discrete source of the accidental damage) that may occur during manufacture or operation; (v) An assessment of the residual strength and fatigue characteristics of all structure being evaluated that supports the replacement times and inspection intervals established under sub-paragraph (d)(4); and (vi) allowances for the detrimental effects of material, fabrication techniques, and process variability. (4) Replacement times, inspections, or other procedures must be established to require the repair or replacement of damaged parts to prevent Catastrophic Failure. These replacement times, inspections, or other procedures must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by [CS 29.1529](#_DxCrossRefBm1178331852). (i) Replacement times must be determined by tests, or by analysis supported by tests to show that throughout its life the structure is able to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected in-service. In establishing these replacement times, the following items must be considered: (A) Damage identified in the Threat Assessment required by sub-paragraph (d)(3)(iv); (B) Maximum acceptable manufacturing defects and in-service damage (i.e., those that do not lower the residual strength below ultimate design loads and those that can be repaired to restore ultimate strength); and (C) Ultimate load strength capability after applying repeated loads. (ii) Inspection intervals must be established to reveal any damage identified in the Threat Assessment required by sub-paragraph (d)(3)(iv) that may occur from fatigue or other in-service causes before such damage has grown to the extent that the component cannot sustain the required residual strength capability. In establishing these inspection intervals, the following items must be considered: (A) The growth rate, including no-growth, of the damage under the repeated loads expected in-service determined by tests or analysis supported by tests; and (B) The required residual strength for the assumed damage established after considering the damage type, inspection interval, detectability of damage, and the techniques adopted for damage detection. The minimum required residual strength is limit load. (5) The effects of damage on stiffness, dynamic behaviour, loads and functional performance must be taken into account when substantiating the maximum assumed damage size and inspection interval. (e) Fatigue Evaluation: If an applicant establishes that the damage tolerance evaluation described in sub- paragraph (d) is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, or good design practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation of the particular composite rotorcraft structure and: (1) Identify structure considered in the fatigue evaluation; (2) Identify the types of damage considered in the fatigue evaluation; (3) Establish supplemental procedures to minimise the risk of Catastrophic Failure associated with damage identified in sub-paragraph (e)(2); and (4) Include these supplemental procedures in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by [CS 29.1529](#_DxCrossRefBm1178331852). [Amdt 29/3] #### CS 29.573 Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures *ED Decision 2012/022/R* (a) Composite rotorcraft structure must be evaluated under the damage tolerance requirements of sub-paragraph (d) unless the applicant establishes that a damage tolerance evaluation is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, and good design practice. In such a case, the composite rotorcraft structure must undergo a fatigue evaluation in accordance with sub-paragraph (e) (b) Reserved (c) Reserved (d) Damage Tolerance Evaluation: (1) Damage tolerance evaluations of composite structures must show that Catastrophic Failure due to static and fatigue loads is avoided throughout the operational life or prescribed inspection intervals of the rotorcraft. (2) The damage tolerance evaluation must include PSEs of the airframe, main and tail rotor drive systems, main and tail rotor blades and hubs, rotor controls, fixed and movable control surfaces, engine and transmission mountings, landing gear, and any other detail design points or parts whose failure or detachment could prevent continued safe flight and landing. (3) Each damage tolerance evaluation must include: (i) The identification of the structure being evaluated; (ii) A determination of the structural loads or stresses for all critical conditions throughout the range of limits in [CS 29.309](#_DxCrossRefBm1685772257) (including altitude effects), supported by in-flight and ground measurements, except that manoeuvring load factors need not exceed the maximum values expected in service; (iii) The loading spectra as severe as those expected in service based on loads or stresses determined under sub-paragraph (d)(3)(ii), including external load operations, if applicable, and other operations including high torque events; (iv) A Threat Assessment for all structure being evaluated that specifies the locations, types, and sizes of damage, considering fatigue, environmental effects, intrinsic and discrete flaws, and impact or other accidental damage (including the discrete source of the accidental damage) that may occur during manufacture or operation; (v) An assessment of the residual strength and fatigue characteristics of all structure being evaluated that supports the replacement times and inspection intervals established under sub-paragraph (d)(4); and (vi) allowances for the detrimental effects of material, fabrication techniques, and process variability. (4) Replacement times, inspections, or other procedures must be established to require the repair or replacement of damaged parts to prevent Catastrophic Failure. These replacement times, inspections, or other procedures must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by [CS 29.1529](#_DxCrossRefBm1685772317). (i) Replacement times must be determined by tests, or by analysis supported by tests to show that throughout its life the structure is able to withstand the repeated loads of variable magnitude expected in-service. In establishing these replacement times, the following items must be considered: (A) Damage identified in the Threat Assessment required by sub-paragraph (d)(3)(iv); (B) Maximum acceptable manufacturing defects and in-service damage (i.e., those that do not lower the residual strength below ultimate design loads and those that can be repaired to restore ultimate strength); and (C) Ultimate load strength capability after applying repeated loads. (ii) Inspection intervals must be established to reveal any damage identified in the Threat Assessment required by sub-paragraph (d)(3)(iv) that may occur from fatigue or other in-service causes before such damage has grown to the extent that the component cannot sustain the required residual strength capability. In establishing these inspection intervals, the following items must be considered: (A) The growth rate, including no-growth, of the damage under the repeated loads expected in-service determined by tests or analysis supported by tests; and (B) The required residual strength for the assumed damage established after considering the damage type, inspection interval, detectability of damage, and the techniques adopted for damage detection. The minimum required residual strength is limit load. (5) The effects of damage on stiffness, dynamic behaviour, loads and functional performance must be taken into account when substantiating the maximum assumed damage size and inspection interval. (e) Fatigue Evaluation: If an applicant establishes that the damage tolerance evaluation described in sub- paragraph (d) is impractical within the limits of geometry, inspectability, or good design practice, the applicant must do a fatigue evaluation of the particular composite rotorcraft structure and: (1) Identify structure considered in the fatigue evaluation; (2) Identify the types of damage considered in the fatigue evaluation; (3) Establish supplemental procedures to minimise the risk of Catastrophic Failure associated with damage identified in sub-paragraph (e)(2); and (4) Include these supplemental procedures in the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by [CS 29.1529](#_DxCrossRefBm1685772317). [Amdt 29/3]