CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF RRA

TECHNOLOGY FOR APPLICATION ON RAAF

HERCULES FLEET
Dr. Madabhushi Janardhana1, Mr. Chris Loader2 &
Mr. Joe Thomas3
1. Directorate General Technical Airworthiness, RAAF Williams, Laverton, VIC 3027
2 Defence Science and Technology Organisation
2.
Organisation, PO Box 4331
4331, Melbourne
Melbourne, VIC 3001
3. Air Lift Systems Program Office, RAAF Base Richmond, Richmond NSW 2755

C-130 Hercules

The C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft is a tactical airlift aircraft.

Introduced in the mid 1950s, over 2200 C-130s have been produced and there are still about
1660 in service in more than 65 countries.

Twelve C-130H aircraft (Model No. 382C) entered service with the RAAF in 1978 at 36 Squadron
based in Richmond.

In addition, twelve C-130J 30 entered service with RAAF starting in 1998 at 37 Squadron based
in Richmond.

Corrosion Issues in the C-130

The Hercules airplane is essentially of aluminium alloy construction, although steel is used in
numerous structural assemblies. Magnesium alloys are used sparingly.
The most commonly used aluminium alloy in early Hercules was 7075-T6. This alloy has a Al-ZnMg-Cu
Mg
Cu composition and aged to the peak aged temper to attain highest strength.
Aluminium alloy 7075-T6 has limited resistance to stress corrosion cracking and exfoliation.
During the production of Hercules, there has been an evaluation of material and heat treatment
changes.

Corrosion Issues in the C-130

7075-T73 is one such alloy which has higher stress corrosion cracking and exfoliation corrosion
resistance as compared to 7075-T6.
LM Aero (Manufacturer of C-130) has a continuous Critical Structural Material Improvement
program to prevent stress
stress-corrosion
corrosion cracking and exfoliation. In a number of areas, 7075-T6
7075 T6 has
been substituted by 7075-T73.
DSTO has undertaken a study of RAAF C-130H and, vide their report 2/04 dated 23 Dec 04,
have identified 53 corrosion prone areas of the C-130 aircraft. 49 out of 53 areas have
applications of aluminium alloys and 23 areas still use 7075-T6.
Marshall Aerospace has compiled a report providing a comprehensive summary of all structural
components changed on C-130H during R3, R4 & R5. The summary indicates that out of 699
components changed on all 12 aircraft, 239 (34%) were due to corrosion.

Hercules components made from 7075-T6

Cargo compartment wheel well pressure skin panel.
Fuselage underfloor structure.
Lower longeron fitting.
Upper longerons at BL 20.
F
Fuselage
l
tto wing
i pressure skin
ki (FS 477 to
t 617).
617)
Main landing gear wheel wells.
Beams (FS 196, 212,228 and 245 at WL 146).
Power plant upper longerons.
Firewall frame and nacelle structure.
Pylons for external fuel tanks.
Vertical stabiliser flush antenna.
Engine-mount drag angles, lower surface of wing.

Hercules components made from 7075-T6

Chine caps.
Longeron Fitting under rear entry doorsill.
Lower aft longeron in area under urinals.
Lower longeron doubler (FS 737 to 770) (fly swat fitting).
M i llanding
Main
di gear fframes (FS 517 and
d 597).
597)
Flight deck chine plates.
Static line support beam (H beam) Web (FS 245 at WL 228).
Power plant lower longerons.
QEC support fitting for engine rear mount beam.
Vertical stabiliser longeron fittings.
Windshield retainers and inserts.

Need for a Technological Initiative

Since the LM Aero material improvement program does not include the above listed components,
a technological
t h l i l initiative
i iti ti was needed
d d to
t extend
t d their
th i useful
f l life.
lif
ALSPO was advised by DSTO of Retrogression and ReAging (RRA) Technology which is a two
stage heat treatment process. The principal benefit of RRA is that it increases the corrosion
resistance
i t
off peak
k aged
d aluminium
l i i
alloys,
ll
such
h as the
th 7075-T6
7075 T6 used
d in
i the
th C-130,
C 130 without
ith t
reducing their mechanical properties below certified values.
This is in contrast to material substitutions, such as replacing 7075-T6 with 7075-T73, which lead
t a 10 15%
to
15% reduction
d ti in
i certified
tifi d tensile
t
il strength
t
th values.
l
Th
There
i therefore
is
th f
th opportunity
the
t it to
t
use RRA on replacement parts for the C-130 H and J without the need to conduct or obtain a
redesign from the OEM.
The National Research Council
Co ncil of Canada Institute
Instit te of Aerospace Research (NRCC-IAR)
(NRCC IAR) have
ha e
undertaken a trial of RRA on a C-130 Sloping Longeron and concluded that the process
increased resistance to Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) and Exfoliation Resistance to levels
comparable to those of 7075-T73.

Cooperative Development Process

DGTA approved a DSTO activity to undertake Stage 1 certification of RRA in 2003.
DSTO proposed a cooperative approach with ALSPO & DGTA for demonstration of RRA process on an aircraft
component (Stage 2).
The Lower Cap of Fuselage Station 737 of C-130 aircraft has been selected for Stage 2 to be undertaken at the
heat treat facility of Boeing- Hawker de Havilland at Fishermans Bend.
DSTO, DGTA and ALSPO have successfully participated in a 3 staged development program.
The program commenced in November 2007 and planned completion of stage 3 is end August 2011.
Following the final Critical Design Review planned in August 2011, ALSPO plans to fit one RRA treated
component on a C-130
C 130 aircraft.
aircraft
Following the success of stage 1, DGTA continued to facilitate the development of stage 2 and 3 as Subject
Matter Expert. Dr. Jana will now elaborate DGTA involvement in the development program.

DGTA ((Technologies
g Sponsor)
p
)
ASI-DGTA PRESENTATION

Business Case
Initial/Secondary
Sponsorships
TT WRT TRLs

(Tech Readiness
Levels)

DGTA-ADF

Retention
D
Demonstrator
t t to
t
Shelf Ready Entity

ASI-DGTA Roles: Sponsorship, IV&V, SME

Support
pp and Transitional Regulation
g
ASI-DGTA
Pi
Primary
role
l is
i
to act as
Technologies
Sponsor

Past Projects : Bonded

Repairs (F-111,
(F 111 C
C-130)
130)
[Successfully Applied]

Currentt
C
Technologies
Sponsor : RRA
(This
presentation at
AASC)

TRLs 1 to
TRL
t 3 Completed
C
l t d (with
( ith
DSTO, QAS and ALSPO)

(
(Note:
DSTO Support
pp C-141
Bonded Repairs)

p
(with
(
TRLs 3 to 6 Completed
DSTO, ALSPO, and ALSPO
Contractors)
TRLs 6 to 9 In Progress
(ALSPO, DGTA, and ALSPO
Contractors)

DGTA-ADF

Stages of Technology Transfer

Knowledge, Persuasion, Decision,
Implementation
p e e tat o aand
d Co
Confirmation
at o

ASI-DGTAs Future Aspects : RRA and Other

Technologies
g ((Some Examples)
p )

RRA

Demonstrator to Fleet Level

Transitioning

Metallic and Materials

Technologies

(1) EDMS Technologies Management and

Sponsorships with ASD (started in 2010)
(Note: EDM TIM Workshop 28 Jul 11)

Other Technologies

(2) Laser Technology Based Repairs to

Metallic Structures (working with AEOs
Rosebank))
Initiation of Concepts to Life Managed
Composite Structures within ADF.

D-LM Approach to
Composites

DGTA-ADF

Challenges for ALSPO

Selection of suitable component of C-130 for RRA application.

Producibility of the RRA process for cost effective application on C-130 component.

R
Repeatability
t bilit off RRA process with
ith high
hi h reliability
li bilit for
f costt effective
ff ti implementation.
i l
t ti

Process proving in industrial environment.

Impact on structural strength.

Process Proving Trials

Selection of venue for process proving.

Use of frozen process and actual component.
Unsuccessful first trial.
Reasons for failure of first process proving trial.
N compliance
Non
li
off critical
iti l process specification
ifi ti
Furnace calibration
Defective heating element
Lack of suitable holding devices
Corrective actions by stakeholders.
Second process proving trial.
Outcome of second process proving trial.
Impact on conductivity post RRA treatment.
Impact on structural properties post RRA treatment.
Impact on structural factor of safety post RRA treatment.

Results of Process Proving Trial

The component average conductivity measured prior to RRA was 33.4 and the average conductivity achieved
after the RRA heat treatment was 37.8.
37 8 The target conductivity post RRA was 37.62
37 62 to 39.39.
39 39

Achievement of average conductivity of 37.8 post RRA heat treatment has been deemed as successful
application on C-130 actual component.

AMO has prepared test specimens from the RRA treated component for ascertaining the impact of RRA
treatment on structural properties of the component.

The result of tensile test specimen of process proving trial indicated that there is no reduction of proof stress,
tensile strength and elongation after RRA treatment.

The result of shear test specimen of process proving trial indicated that the shear strength reduced by 3.83%
after RRA treatment.

The result of compression test specimen of process proving trail indicated that there is no reduction of proof force
after RRA treatment.

The result of bend test specimen of process proving trail indicated that there is no change of degree of bending
and bend test N factor after RRA treatment.

Results of Structural Substantiation

The structural substantiation concluded that the component has adequate margin of safety in the
critical load case after RRA treatment.

The structural substantiation concluded that the component has adequate margin of safety in
maximum bearing stress case after RRA treatment.

The structural substantiation concluded that the component has adequate margin of safety in
fatigue life cycles after RRA treatment.

UNCLASSIFIED

RRA Process: Technical Overview

Performed on Peak Aged
Aluminium Alloys
(T6, T651, T6511)

T6 ageing process

RRA process

Temp
perature

Solution
treatment

Two-Stage Heat Treatment:

Retrogression at 195 C
(< 2 hours)
Re Ageing at 120 C
Re-Ageing
(24 Hrs)
Retrogression
reduction in hardness
Re-Ageing
return of hardness

Retrogression
Peak
ageing

Re-ageing

Time

Retrogressed
and re-aged

H
Hardness

T6

Retrogressed

Increasing Electrical Conductivity

with increasing retrogression time
Retrogression Time

UNCLASSIFIED

* Approved for public release

UNCLASSIFIED

RRA Process: Certification Overview

DGTA - Sponsor and Compliance Findings Agency

DSTO - Subject Matter Experts
ALSPO - Stakeholder and Acceptance through PDAS

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Certification Stages
Stage I: Material Qualification
TRL 4, Validation in a laboratory environment
Stage II: Industrial Demonstrator
TRL 5, Application in an industrial setting
g Compliance
p
with required
q
p
properties
p
TRL 6,, Demonstrating
Stage III: Reliability Trials
TRL 7 and 8, Demonstration and proving on an actual aircraft

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage I: Material Qualification

Severe exfoliation

2010: 7075-T6 + RRA

Minor exfoliation
pitting
Untreated severe

Strength

Strength

Severe exfoliation

2010: 7075-T6

Strength

1950s: 7075-T6

A-Basis Allowable

A-Basis Allowable

1950s

Now (2010)

A-Basis Allowable

RRA Treated minor pitting Now + RRA

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage I: Material Qualification II

Use of National Research
Council (NRC Canada) data
Verification resulted in
large time penalty
Locked in material form
Large reduction in primary property
testing required
Little reduction in secondary
property testing

Optimisation for improved

Corrosion Resistance
Ftu and Fty within 1 ksi of required
value
Very tight final conductivity range

Mechanical
Properties

Required
q
NRC tests
number of tests available

Additional
Tests
required

Tensile
(T direction)

40

Bearing

20

10

10

Compression
(L direction)

20

14

Compression
(T direction)

20

20

Shear

20

20

Fatigue Life
(T direction)

36

36

20

11

Fracture
Toughness

(LT)

Total

UNCLASSIFIED

113

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage I: Material Qualification III

Results of comparative
testing of fatigue life
Longitudinal R = 0.1
01

Property
Tensile L

Longitudinal R = -0.3
-0 3

(yield stress, UTS, elongation to failure)

1

0.8

0.8

Cumulative P robability

0.6

0.4

0.2

RRA

Bearing

0.6

(e/D = 2, yield and ultimate)

0.4

0.2

50000

C
Compression
i -T

Shear

Fatigue Life

Fracture Toughness

S
Susceptibility
tibilit tto
Exfoliation Corrosion
Susceptibility to Stress
Corrosion Cracking
g

NON

0
0

Compression L

RRA

NON
0
15000

100000 150000 200000 250000

17500

Fatigue Life

20000

22500

25000

Fatigue Life

Longitudinal R = 0.4
1

Cum
m ulative P robability

Cumulative P robability

Tensile T
(yield stress, UTS, elongation to failure)

Passed Certification
Yes
No
TBD

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

RRA
NON

0
20000

30000

40000

50000

Fatigue Life

60000

70000

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage I: Material Qualification IV

Limitations:
7075-T6511 (extrusions)
Qualification of a single as-extruded thickness range 0 25-1.00
0.25
1 00
No use of surface stress modifications
Limited in-service temperature
p
range
g

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage II: Industrial Demonstrator

Component Selection

from the components identified through the business case.

Limitations noted above.
Technical Demonstrator
Not selected for maximised cost benefit
R

Cap

FS737 Lower Cap

2.64in
67.06mm

0.312in
7.92mm

1.375in
3493mm
34.93m

1.375in
3493 m
34.93m

Web

R
0.25in
6.35mm

UNCLASSIFIED

0.125in
3.18mm

0.06in
1.52mm

0.06in
1.52mm

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage II: Industrial Demonstrator II

Technical Challenges

60

200

50
150
40

Oven at 195C, test bar diagonal

Mean Temperature
Max and Min Temperature
Temperature Delta

30

100
Oven air temperature
returned to 195C
50

20

Burners fired
10

0
00:00

UNCLASSIFIED

00:15

00:30
Elapsed Time (hh:mm)

00:45

01:00

Temperature Delta (C)

Furnace Size Constraint

Temperature Profile
f change:
Laboratory to industrial
Revision of the definition of Retrogression Time.
Temperature Differential
Not captured by Furnace Classification
Addition of furnace assessment to Process Specification

Temperature (C)

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage II: Industrial Demonstrator III

Demonstration of compliance:
Process
P
Compliance
C
li
Can the Specification be interpreted and
followed?
Component Compliance
Is the treated component fit for service?
Dimensional stability compliance criteria
difficult to ascertain.
Re-evaluation
R
l ti
off R
Roles:
l
DGTA initially to provide endorsement, the
role of DGTA as a compliance finding agency

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage III: Reliability Trials I

200

Temperature (C)

Held at Boeing Aircraft Component

Repair (BACR)
Process Control tight

195

Final Conductivity definition simplified

remove operator uncertainty
Statistical value
Return to certification basis used in
Stage I.
Determine the sensitivity of the
retrogression time estimates to new data.
Performing reliability estimates

Component enters
quench bath at
23.08 minutes

190
4
End of Retrogression
Phase att 23.67
Ph
23 67 minutes
i t
(last data above 181 C)

185

180

0
0

10
0
15
5
Time above 181C (minutes)

20
0

25
5

6.5
6.2% IACS

Initial mean
(5.78% IACS)

)
S 6.0
C
IA
%
(
ty
i
v
it
c
u 5.5
d
n
o
C
in
e
g
n
a
h 5.0
C

5.66% IACS

Repeat mean
(5.70% IACS)

Expected mean change

(4.99% IACS)
Initial Web Reading
Repeat Web Reading

4.5
A

UNCLASSIFIED

C
D
position along
g component
p
Measurement p

Compone
ent Temperature Range
e (C)

Three trials successfully conducted by

DSTO.

10
Component 2 Thermocouples
Position A
Between C & D
Position F
Comp Temp Range
Note: Markers are sparse

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage III: Reliability vs. Optimisation

Increased corrosion resistance
Decreased Structural Properties
Decreased Final Conductivity Range
Required Process Control

Reliability

Optimisation

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Stage III: Reliability Trials II

SPO Acceptance and Beyond
Business Case Development
Extension of product form
EDM Toolbox
Questions?

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

RRA: Stage I Certification II

Materials Property Compliance Matrix (partial)

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

RRA: Stage I Certification III

Materials Property Compliance Matrix (partial)
Direct Calculation

Indirect Calculation
(ratioed from longitudinal tensile)

Longitudinal Tensile Properties

Yield Strength

Transverse tensile properties

Compressive properties

Tensile Strength
Ductility
Fatigue
g life

L and T orientations
Shear strength
B
Bearing
i
strength
h

L and T orientations

e/D = 2.0

Fracture toughness

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

MIL-HDBK-5J Guidelines I
Certification standards
A-Basis
99% exceedences,
95% confidence
B-Basis
90% exceedences,
95% confidence
S-Basis
Minimum
Mi i
off 30 tests
Typical
Used for non-numerical

Certification method
Direct Calculation
For A-Basis, only used for
tensile properties
Tensile yield, ultimate
strength, ductility etc.
Indirect Calculation
Calculated using ratio from
directly properties
Properties
P
i related
l d to a
directly calculated property

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

MIL-HDBK-5J Guidelines II
The Basis and Method
determine the number of tests
required:
299 results required for
Direct Calculation if the
distribution is unknown.
100 results for Direct
Calculation required if the
distribution is defined.
20 results required for
Indirect Calculation
30 results for S-Basis.

UNCLASSIFIED