Background
An aerospace parts manufacturer was asked to qualify an existing composite component for a new application involving a wider temperature range and higher vibration loads than the component’s original certification covered.
The Challenge
The manufacturer’s existing test data and analytical models were validated only within the original operating envelope, and it was unclear whether the composite’s failure behaviour under the new conditions could be reliably predicted without new physical testing.
Technological Uncertainty
It was not known in advance whether the existing composite layup would maintain structural integrity under the combined thermal and vibration loading of the new application, or whether a modified layup or bonding approach would be required to achieve certifiable performance.
Experimental Development
The team designed and ran a systematic test program across multiple layup configurations and bonding methods, measuring fatigue life, thermal degradation, and structural response under combined loading conditions representative of the new application.
What Failed?
An initial modified layup passed thermal testing but showed accelerated fatigue cracking under combined vibration loading, requiring the team to investigate an alternative bonding agent and ply orientation.
Technological Advancement
The team developed a validated layup and bonding configuration that met structural and fatigue requirements across the fully expanded operating envelope, generating new engineering knowledge about the composite’s behaviour outside its original certification range.
Potentially Relevant SR&ED Activities
● Systematic testing of layup and bonding configurations under combined thermal and vibration loading
● Fatigue and structural response testing across iterations
● Comparative analysis against original certification data to isolate the new performance envelope
What Would Generally Not Qualify
Producing and installing components using the finalized, certified configuration on subsequent production units would be routine manufacturing and would not itself qualify.
Documentation
Test program records, fatigue and thermal test data across configurations, and engineering analysis comparing predicted versus tested performance would support this claim.
