Some Thoughts on Shared Databases Stephen Ward SW Composites Taos, NM

8/6/2002SW Composites2 Shared Databases Why What How Who Issues Workshop Expectations

8/6/2002SW Composites3 Shared Databases A Definition: For a unique resin/fiber/weave combination, a collection of property data for the uncured prepreg material and for laminates cured under one or more “equivalent” curing processes that can be used by multiple end users for FAA certification programs.

8/6/2002SW Composites4 Shared Databases - Why? Reduce cost to end users Shorten development times Expand market for material Improve ability of FAA to monitor material Improved population statistics: –Higher allowables, higher reliability –Better chance of successful re-qualifications and equivalency demonstrations.

8/6/2002SW Composites5 Shared Databases - What? Market driven database Prepreg physical/chemical properties Cure kinetics, cure process sensitivity Cured laminate physical/chemical properties Mechanical properties (batch acceptance tests, additional minimum qualification tests) Add’l mechanical tests - laminate, sandwich, joints, impact, durability, fatigue, environment

8/6/2002SW Composites6 Shared Databases - What? Database Material Spec “Baseline” cure process Used for batch accept. & material change equivalency testing Alternate cure process Equivalent Alternate cure process Equivalent Alternate cure process Not Equivalent New Database Material Control options: - Use “baseline” material spec, process - New material, process specs

8/6/2002SW Composites7 Shared Databases - What? Database Time Supplier - prepreg/laminate physical, chemical data - minimum “qualification” data - additional characterization data End User - equivalency demonstration data Consortium - additional mechanical property data (design driven) Supplier - batch test data, additional periodic data - equivalency data (resite, ingredient change, PCD change) Supplier - addition mechanical property data (market driven)

8/6/2002SW Composites8 Shared Databases - How? Supplier initiated based on marketing and initial user interest –Determine key properties, cure characteristics –Possible additions to “qualification” matrix Stable material and process FAA approved test plans Data reduction per Mil-Handbook-17, AGATE –Review by FAA/3rd party/Industry committee?

8/6/2002SW Composites9 Shared Databases - Who? Supplier Supplier + End User Consortium End User Consortium

8/6/2002SW Composites10 Shared Databases - Issues? MAINTENANCE

8/6/2002SW Composites11 Shared Databases - Issues? Maintenance –Data collection –Data analysis and review –SPC analysis and review –Material change equivalency evaluations –Fabricator equivalency evaluations –Equivalency evaluations for alternate processes –Dissemination (Supplier, Mil-Handbook-17, ?)

8/6/2002SW Composites12 Shared Databases - Issues? Non-Prepreg Materials –RTM, VARTM, Wet-Layup, etc. Database is mostly for cured laminate properties –The raw materials (resin, fiber, preform) could come from different suppliers –At what level(s) should there be material control? –Which supplier(s) “own” the database?

8/6/2002SW Composites13 Shared Databases - Issues? 1 Material Specification = 1 Material –Only way to effectively implement a shared database NOT multiple materials => 1 specification NOT 1 material => multiple specifications

8/6/2002SW Composites14 Workshop Expectations Comments and suggestions on how and/or whether to implement shared databases Suggestions on how to implement shared databases for newer material forms such as RTM/VARTM processed materials Thanks in advance for your help

8/6/2002SW Composites15 Shared Databases Questions?