Evaluating Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for

Aerospace Applications Using Numerical Analysis

Mohamed Osama, Omar Elkhawaga, Omer Magdy, Mohamed Ali,
mohamed. hassan031, [email protected]

Abstract - All In the pursuit of improving structural reassessment of material selection is needed, especially for
performance in large aircraft such as those manufactured by weight-sensitive components such as wings and spars. FRPs
Airbus and Boeing, the substitution of traditional metals allow mechanical properties to be customized through
with advanced composites has gained significant interest. material architecture, particularly fiber orientation.
This research explores the viability of replacing aluminum However, concerns remain regarding their toughness and
and steel in aircraft wing and wing spar structures with long-term structural predictability under complex loading,
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) and Basalt Fiber primarily due to limited experimental data on real flight
Reinforced Polymer (BFRP). A comparative study was conditions.
conducted beginning with strength-to-weight ratio analysis, To justify the use of FRP composites, mathematical
where CFRP and BFRP demonstrated superior performance modeling was adopted as the primary method of analysis.
among various FRPs. Toughness was then evaluated using This enabled a consistent and objective comparison across
stress–strain graphs digitized from literature using diverse materials. Strength-to-weight ratio was the first
WebPlotDigitizer online tool, with equidistant data points criterion, calculated by dividing tensile strength by density.
integrated numerically using Simpson’s Rule. Results Based on this, the study focused on two FRPs—Carbon
indicated that metals possess higher toughness than FRPs. Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) and Basalt Fiber
Fatigue performance was analyzed using normalized S–N Reinforced Polymer (BFRP)—along with aluminum and
curves and numerical integration via the trapezoidal rule, steel.
revealing that CFRP and BFRP outperform metals in terms Fatigue life analysis showed a significant advantage for
of fatigue life. Finally, customizability was investigated by CFRP and BFRP over metals. This was assessed through
curve fitting the relationship between fiber orientation angle normalized S–N curves, where the area under each curve
and elastic modulus, resulting in a higher Modulus Tuning was estimated via trapezoidal numerical integration,
Range (MTR) in FRPs compared to metals. This study implemented manually and in Python. For customizability,
demonstrates that CFRP and BFRP offer promising the elastic modulus (E) was studied in relation to fiber
advantages as customizable, fatigue-resistant alternatives for orientation angle using least-squares curve fitting. The
critical aerospace structures. Modulus Tuning Range (MTR) was then calculated to
assess tailoring capability.
Toughness was evaluated using stress–strain curves.
Keywords - Aerospace, FRP, Lightweight, Numerical Data points were extracted using the online tool
Simulation WebPlotDigitizer, followed by numerical integration via
Simpson’s Rule. Both manual and Python-based
calculations were used. Despite their lower toughness,
INTRODUCTION CFRP and BFRP showed strong potential as high-
The aerospace industry is shifting toward materials that performance alternatives. Overall, this study provides a
enhance structural performance while reducing weight. comprehensive performance comparison and contributes to
Although aluminum and steel remain reliable, their the shift toward adopting advanced composite materials in
relatively high density and fixed mechanical properties limit critical aerospace structures.
their suitability for modern aircraft requirements. In METHODS
contrast, fib
er-reinforced polymers (FRPs) offer superior strength-to- This study aims to evaluate the mechanical suitability of
weight ratios, corrosion resistance, and the ability to be Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) for aerospace
tailored for specific performance goals—making them applications based on four key criteria: strength-to-weight
strong candidates for the future of aerospace structures. A ratio, toughness (impact resistance), fatigue life, and
critical customizability.
The selected materials include CFRP, BFRP, GFRP, AFRP, Tensile
Density
Aluminum 2024-T3, Aluminum 7075-T6, and Steel 4130. Material Strength SWR Range (MPa·m³/kg)
(kg/m³)
(MPa)
The methodology consisted of four sequential phases: data
identification and preparation, criteria-specific analysis, 1500 2100
modeling and computation, and quantitative comparison.
GFRP 483 – 1250 – 0.19 – 3.66
4580 2500
I. Data Identification and Preparation
Steel 483 – 690 7850 0.06 – 0.09
The initial stage involved collecting and refining data (4130)
essential to the four evaluation criteria:
 Strength-to-weight ratio required Aluminum 483 2780 0.17
2024-T3
accurate values for tensile strength and density of
each material. Data was sourced from technical Aluminum 572 2810 0.20
datasheets and research publications. 7075-T6
 Toughness analysis necessitated stress–
strain curves. These curves were extracted from TABLE I: STRENGTH-TO-WEIGHT PERFORMANCE OF COMPOSITE AND
published figures and digitized using the METAL MATERIALS
WebPlotDigitizer tool, which provided equidistant or
Based on the results, GFRP and AFRP were excluded
non-equidistant numerical data points.
from subsequent analyses. GFRP was excluded due to its
 Fatigue life was assessed using S–N
relatively low strength-to-weight ratio. AFRP, although
curves (stress vs. number of cycles to failure), which
exhibiting a high strength-to-weight ratio, was excluded
were likewise digitized and standardized.
primarily due to practical considerations such as its high
 Customizability was evaluated using
cost, processing difficulty, moisture sensitivity, and
tables listing Young’s modulus at various angle
relatively low compressive stiffness, which limit its
orientations (for FRPs) and (for metals).
adoption in aerospace structural applications compared to
CFRP and BFRP.
After extraction, the data underwent:
 Unit standardization (e.g., converting
MPa, GPa, kg/m³ to consistent SI units) III. Toughness and Impact Resistance Analysis
 Cleaning and interpolation for non-
uniform datasets Toughness, defined as the energy absorbed by a material
 Normalization, particularly for fatigue before fracture, was calculated as the area under the stress–
data, to enable cross-material comparison. strain curve:
U =∫ σ ( ε ) dε
The approach was:
II. Strength-to-Weight Ratio Analysis  Digitization of stress–strain plots from
The strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) was calculated using literature into tabular form
the formula:  Numerical integration:
σ tensile a. Simpson’s Rule for datasets with uniform
SWR= strain intervals.
ρ b. Trapezoidal Rule for non-equidistant data
points.
Where:
 σ tensile is the material's tensile strength The computations were implemented in Python to
(MPa) obtain comparative toughness values. The final values (in
 ρ is the density (kg/m³) MJ/m³) are:
 Steel (4130): 150.863
TABLE I  CFRP: 20.459
 BFRP: 19.601
Tensile  Aluminum (2024-T3): 7.545
Density
Material Strength SWR Range (MPa·m³/kg)
(kg/m³)
(MPa)
These values confirm the superior toughness of metals
CFRP 600 – 1500 – 0.29 – 2.61 compared to FRPs, which supports the observation that
3920 2100 FRPs are generally more brittle and less capable of
absorbing high energy under impact.
BFRP 600 – 1900 – 0.29 – 0.79
 IV. Fatigue Life Analysis relationship between Young’s modulus and orientation
angle θ (ranging from 0° to 90°). The modeling techniques
Fatigue resistance was evaluated using S–N curve data
(stress amplitude vs. cycles to failure). The following were:
procedures were applied:
1. Normalization: Stress values were normalized  Quadratic fit for FRPs (CFRP, BFRP):
with respect to the maximum stress for each 2
material: E ( θ ) =a+bθ+ c θ
σi  Linear fit for metals (Aluminum, Steel):
σ norm = ×100
σ max
E ( θ ) =a+bθ
Applied to: Stress values from the S-N curve of
Steel 4130. Two methods were used for curve fitting:
 Manual Least Squares Solution via 3×3
2. Transformation: Cycle counts were transformed linear systems for the quadratic model
using:  For quadratic fitting y = a + bx + cx2,
you form a system of 3 equations based on summations:
x=log 10 ( N )
∑ y = an + b ∑ x + c ∑ x^2
Applied to: Cycles to failure (N N) for Aluminum
7075-T3. ∑ x y = a ∑ x + b ∑ x^2 + c ∑ x^3

3. Integration: The area under the normalized stress ∑ x^2 y = a ∑ x^2 + b ∑ x^3 + c ∑ x^4
vs. log(N) curve was calculated using:
For a linear fit y = a + bx, the least squares formulas for
a. Simpson’s Rule for datasets with uniform two points reduce to:
strain intervals
n ∑ (xy )−∑ x ∑ y
Δx b=
Area≈
3 0
[ y + 4 y 1 +2 y 2+ 4 y 3 +⋯+ y n ] n ∑ x 2−( ∑ x )
2

a=
∑ y−b ∑ x
Implementation (Python):
from scipy. integrate import simpson n
simpson(stress_norm, logN)
Where:
Applied to: Uniform log10(N) intervals for CFRP. n: number of data points = 2
x: independent variable = θ
b. Trapezoidal Rule for non-equidistant data y: dependent variable = E
point
then:
n−1
( y i+ y i+1 )
Area=∑

Implementation (Python):
i=1 2
( x i+ 1−x i)
[∑ n
x
∑x
∑ x2 ][ ] [
b=
a
∑y
]
∑ (xy )
import numpy as np
area = np. trapezoid (stress_norm, logN) Python implementation for both linear and quadratic
models:
Applied to: Non-uniform log10(N) intervals for CFRP. from scipy.optimize import curve_fit
# Quadratic model for FRPs
This area represents cumulative resistance to fatigue def quadratic(theta, a, b, c):
damage and was used for material comparison. return a + b*theta + c*theta**2
params, _ = curve_fit(quadratic, theta_data, E_data)
V. Customizability Analysis
To assess each material's ability to tailor its stiffness # Linear model for metals
through orientation (anisotropy), we modeled the def linear(theta, a, b):
 return a + b*theta customizability. The materials analyzed were Carbon Fiber-
params_metal, _ = curve_fit(linear, theta_data, E_data) Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), Basalt Fiber-Reinforced
Polymer (BFRP), Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP),
Model performance was validated using the coefficient of Aramid Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (AFRP), Aluminum
determination R2. 2024-T3, Aluminum 7075-T6, and Steel 4130. The results
from each criterion are presented below, including all
R2=1−
∑ ( E observed −E predicted )
2
relevant graphs, charts, and Python codes used for analysis,
∑ (Eobserved −E)2 as outlined in the methods section.

To determine the orientation (θ) that maximizes or I. Strength-to-Weight Ratio Results

minimizes the modulus (E) in anisotropic materials, we
model E(θ) using a quadratic function:  CFRP exhibited a high SWR range (0.29
– 2.61 MPa·m³/kg), making it a strong candidate for
2 lightweight aerospace structures.
E ( θ ) =a+bθ+ c θ  BFRP showed a moderate SWR (0.29 –
0.79 MPa·m³/kg), competitive but lower than CFRP.
The optimal orientation corresponds to the vertex of the
 GFRP had a wide SWR range (0.19 –
quadratic curve, derived by setting the first derivative to
3.66 MPa·m³/kg) but was excluded due to its relatively
zero:
low average SWR and inconsistent performance.
 AFRP was noted for a high SWR but was
−b excluded due to practical limitations, including high
θ opt =
2a cost, processing difficulties, moisture sensitivity, and
Substitute θ opt into the quadratic equation to compute low compressive stiffness.
the extreme modulus value  Metals (Steel 4130, Aluminum 2024-T3,
Aluminum 7075-T6) had significantly lower SWRs
Emax ∨min =E(θ opt ) (0.06 – 0.20 MPa·m³/kg), reflecting their higher density
For a linear fit model: compared to FRPs.
FIGURE

E(θ)=b−a θ

After fitting, Material Tailor ability Ratio (MTR)

was calculated:
Emax − Emin
MTR=
E avg
Where:
 E max, E min, and Eavg were computed by
evaluating the fitted equation over the range
θ ∈ [ 0∘ , 90∘ ] .
 Higher MTR: Indicates greater FIGURE 1
tunability, allowing designers to tailor stiffness
significantly via orientation. Based on these results, GFRP and AFRP were excluded
 Lower MTR: Suggests limited from further analyses, and the study proceeded with CFRP,
anisotropy (e.g., metals like Aluminum 2024-T3). BFRP, Aluminum 2024-T3, Aluminum 7075-T6, and Steel
4130.
This provided a single quantitative measure of each II. Toughness and Impact Resistance Results
material’s stiffness tunability, critical in anisotropic
composite design. Toughness was quantified as the energy absorbed before
fracture, calculated as the area under the stress–strain curve
using numerical integration. Stress–strain curves were
RESULTS digitized from the literature into tabular form using the
online tool WebPlotDigitizer, which enabled precise
This study evaluated the mechanical suitability of Fiber- extraction of data points for subsequent analysis., and
Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) and select metals for aerospace integration was performed using Simpson’s Rule for
applications based on four key criteria: strength-to-weight uniform strain intervals and the Trapezoidal Rule for non-
ratio, toughness (impact resistance), fatigue life, and
equidistant data points. The computations were
implemented in Python. Area under the curve (Toughness): 20.459076 MJ /m 3

 CFRP: Showed moderate toughness due Aluminum 2024-T3

to its high stiffness but brittle behavior, with energy FIGURE2
absorption limited by its low strain-to-failure.
 BFRP: Demonstrated higher toughness
than CFRP, attributed to its ability to absorb more
energy before fracture, making it suitable for impact-
resistant applications.
 Aluminum 2024-T3: exhibited high
toughness due to its ductility, allowing greater energy
absorption.
 Steel 4130: Had the highest toughness
among the materials, owing to its ductile nature and
ability to undergo significant plastic deformation before
failure.

These results highlight the trade-off between stiffness

(FRPs) and ductility (metals), with Steel 4130 and
Aluminum alloys excelling in impact resistance, while FIGURE 2: STRESS STRAIN CURVE FOR ALUMINUM 2024-T3
BFRP offered a balanced performance among FRPs.
Specific stress–strain data and integration results were not Area under the curve (Toughness): 7.545413739
provided in the input, but the methodology ensured accurate MJ/m³
toughness calculations. Python code used to get area under the stress strain curve
for BFRP and Steel 4130
Python code used to get area under the stress strain # Using Simpson 1/3 rule
curve for CFRP and Aluminum 2024-T3 def simpson_one_third_points(x, y):
if len(x) != len(y):
def simpson_one_third_points(x, y): raise ValueError("x and y must have
if len(x) != len(y): the same length.")
raise Value Error("x and y must have the same n = len(x) - 1 # Number of intervals
length.") if n % 2 != 0:
n = len(x) - 1 # Number of intervals raise ValueError("Number of intervals
if n % 2 != 0: raise ValueError("Number of must be even for Simpson's 1/3 rule.")
intervals must be even for Simpson's 1/3 rule.") # Check if x points are equally spaced
# Check if x points are equally spaced h = x[1] - x[0]
h = x[1] - x[0] for i in range(1, n):
for i in range(1, n): if abs((x[i+1] - x[i]) - h) > 1e-6:
if abs((x[i+1] - x[i]) - h) > 1e-6: raise ValueError("x points are not
raise ValueError("x points are not equally equally spaced.")
spaced.") integral = y[0] + y[-1] integral = y[0] + y[-1]
for i in range(1, n): for i in range(1, n):
if i % 2 == 0: if i % 2 == 0:
integral += 2 * y[i] integral += 2 * y[i]
else: integral += 4 * y[i] else:
integral *= h / 3 integral += 4 * y[i]
return integral integral *= h / 3
return integral
CFRP # Example usage:
FIGURE 1 x_points = ["strain data"]
y_points = ["stress data"] # cos(x) values
result = simpson_one_third_points(x_points,
y_points)
print(f"Approximate integral: {result:.6f}")

BFRP
FIGURE 3

FIGURE 2: STRESS STRAIN CURVE FOR CFRP

 FIGURE 3: STRESS STRAIN CURVE FOR BFRP

Area under the curve (Toughness): 19.60126 MJ/m³

FIGURE 3

III. Fatigue Life Results

Fatigue life was assessed by calculating the area under the
normalized stress vs. log(N) curves, derived from S–N
curves (Normalized stress vs. cycles to failure). Stress
values were normalized by dividing by the maximum stress
for each material, and cycle counts were transformed to
log₁₀(N). Numerical integration was performed using
Simpson’s Rule for uniform intervals and the Trapezoidal
Rule for non-uniform intervals, implemented in Python.
The results, including data tables, Python codes, and graphs,
are detailed below.

Steel 4130 Python code used with all materials:

FIGURE 3 import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Given data
logN = np.array(["log N data"])
stress = np.array(["Stress data"])

CFRP
TABLE II
Normalized stress Cycles to Failure (N) log₁₀(N)
(%)
100 1 0
97 - 1.6
95.2 - 3.2
92.8 - 4.8
90.5 - 6.4
88 10⁸ 8
TABLE II: NORMALIZED STRESS VS CYCLE OF FAILURE FOR CFRP

FIGURE 3: STRESS STRAIN CURVE FOR STEEL4130

FIGURE 4

Area under the curve (Toughness): 150.863 MJ/m³

FIGURE
 FIGURE5: FATIGUE BEHAVIOR: NORMALIZED STRESS VS. LOG(N) FOR
BFRP

AREA UNDER CURVE: 561.67 (NORMALIZED STRESS × LOG(N)).

FIGURE4: FATIGUE BEHAVIOR: NORMALIZED STRESS VS. LOG(N) FOR
CFRP

AREA UNDER CURVE: 743.20 (NORMALIZED STRESS × LOG(N))

BFRP
Aluminum 2024-T3
TABLE III TABLE IV
Normalized stress Cycles to Failure (N) log₁₀(N) Normalized stress (%) Cycles to Failure (N) log₁₀(N)
(%) 100 2000 3.3010
100 1 0 96.2 3000 3.4771
90 - 4.7157 92.4 5000 3.6990
87 - 5.1448 89.87 7000 3.8451
85 - 5.3705 86.08 10,000 4.0000
83 - 6.4684 82.28 15,000 4.1761
80 - 6.5168 79.75 20,000 4.3010
TABLE III: NORMALIZED STRESS VS CYCLE OF FAILURE FOR BFRP 77.22 30,000 4.4771
73.42 50,000 4.6990
70.89 70,000 4.8451
68.35 100,000 5.0000
64.56 200,000 5.3010
63.29 300,000 5.4771
60.76 500,000 5.6990
59.49 700,000 5.8451
58.23 1,000,000 6.0000
55.7 2,000,000 6.3010
54.43 3,000,000 6.4771
53.16 5,000,000 6.6990
TABLE IV: NORMALIZED STRESS VS CYCLE OF FAILURE FOR
ALUMINUM 2024-T3
FIGURE 5
]

FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6: FATIGUE BEHAVIOR: NORMALIZED STRESS VS. LOG(N) FOR
ALUMINUM 2024-T3
AREA UNDER CURVE: 513.47 (NORMALIZED STRESS × LOG(N))

Steel 4130 4 FIGURE

TABLE V
Normalized stress (%) Cycles to Failure (N) log₁₀(N) IV. Customizability Results
100 1000 3.0000
95.15 3000 3.4771 Customizability was evaluated by modeling the relationship
90.29 10000 4.0000 between Young’s modulus and orientation angle (0° to 90°)
85.44 30000 4.4771 and calculating the Material tailorability Ratio (MTR),
80.58 100,000 5.0000 defined as (E max – E min) / E avg. Quadratic models were
75.73 300,000 5.4771
used for FRPs (CFRP, BFRP) and linear models for metals
70.87 1,000,000 6.0000
66.02 3,000,000 6.4771 (Aluminum 2024-T3, 7075-T6, Steel 4130). Curve fitting
61.17 10,000,000 7.0000 was performed using both manual least squares solutions
TABLE V: NORMALIZED STRESS VS CYCLE OF FAILURE FOR STEEL and Python’s scipy. optimize. Curve_fit.
4130 The results, including data tables, Python codes, and graphs,
are presented below.
FIGURE 7
Python code used for quadratic modeling
# Define the quadratic function: y = a + b*x +
c*x^2
def quadratic(x, a, b, c):
return a + b*x + c*(x**2)

# Fit the data

params, covariance = curve_fit(quadratic, v_data,
p_data)
a_fit, b_fit, c_fit = params
print(f"Fitted Parameters: a = {a_fit}, b =
{b_fit}, c = {c_fit}")

# Predict values using the fitted equation

y_fitted = quadratic(v_data, a_fit, b_fit, c_fit)
FIGURE 7: FATIGUE BEHAVIOR: NORMALIZED STRESS VS. LOG(N) FOR # R-squared calculation
STEEL 4130 residuals = p_data - y_fitted
AREA UNDER CURVE: 553.72 (NORMALIZED STRESS × LOG(N)) ss_res = np.sum(residuals**2)
ss_tot = np.sum((p_data - np.mean(p_data))**2)
r_squared = 1 - (ss_res / ss_tot)
print(f"R-squared: {r_squared}")

FIGURE
 FIGURE
Python code used for quadratic modeling
 # Define a linear function: y = a + b*x
def linear(x, a, b):
return a + b * x

# Fit the data

params, covariance = curve_fit(linear,
v_data, p_data)
a_fit, b_fit = params
print(f"Fitted Parameters: a =
{a_fit:.4f}, b = {b_fit:.4f}"

Python Code (MTR Calculation):

# Predict values across a range

x_vals = np.linspace(0, 90, 100)
y_fitted = linear(x_vals, a_fit, b_fit)
FIGURE
import numpy as np
Results:
# Fitted parameters  Quadratic Fit: E(θ) = 57.0726 - 1.7071θ
a = 71.7000
+ 0.0173θ².
b = -0.0211
 R-squared: 0.9896, indicating a very
# Define the function E(θ) good fit.
def E(theta):  E_max: 57.07 GPa (at 0°).
return a + b * theta  E_min: 12.25 GPa (at 90°).
# Create theta values from 0 to 90 degrees  E_avg: 34.66 GPa.
theta_vals = np.linspace(0, 90, 1000)  MTR: 1.2923.
E_vals = E(theta_vals)

# Calculate E_max, E_min, E_avg BFRP

E_max = np.max(E_vals)
E_min = np.min(E_vals)
E_avg = np.mean(E_vals) TABLE
FIBER ORIENTATION (°) YOUNG’S MODULUS (GPA)
# Compute MTR 0 37.7
MTR = (E_max - E_min) / E_avg ±45 3.8
print(f"E_max = {E_max:.2f}") 90 5.2
print(f"E_min = {E_min:.2f}") TABLE : FIBER ORIENTATION AND YOUNG’S MODULUS FOR C
print(f"E_avg = {E_avg:.2f}")
print(f"MTR = {MTR:.4f}")
FIGURE

CFRP
TABLE
FIBER ORIENTATION (°) YOUNG’S MODULUS (GPA)
0 55
5 51
10 43.2
15 34.8
30 20
45 16
Table : Fiber orientation and Young’s Modulus for C
 Results:
 Linear Fit: E(θ) = 210.0000 - 0.0111θ.
 E_max: 210.00 GPa (at 0°).
 E_min: 209.00 GPa (at 90°).
 E_avg: 209.50 GPa.
 MTR: 0.0048

Aluminum 7075-T6
TABLE
FIBER ORIENTATION (°) YOUNG’S MODULUS (GPA)
LONGITUDINAL (0°) 71.7
TRANSVERSE (90°) 69.8
TABLE : FIBER ORIENTATION AND YOUNG’S MODULUS FOR
TABLE 1

FIGURE

Results:
 Quadratic Fit: E(θ) = 37.7 - 1.1456θ +
0.0087θ².
 R-squared: 1.0, indicating a perfect fit.
 E_max: 37.70 GPa (at 0°).
 E_min: 3.8 GPa (at ~45°).
 E_avg: 9.70 GPa.
 MTR: 3.8824.

Steel 4130
TABLE
FIBER ORIENTATION (°) YOUNG’S MODULUS (GPA)
0 210
±45 205 FIGURE 6
90 200 Results:
TABLE : FIBER ORIENTATION AND YOUNG’S MODULUS FOR C  Linear Fit: E(θ) = 71.7000 - 0.0211θ.
 E_max: 71.70 GPa (at 0°).
FIGURE
 E_min: 69.80 GPa (at 90°).
 E_avg: 70.75 GPa.
 MTR: 0.0268.

Summary

FIGURE 5
  BFRP (MTR: 3.8824) and CFRP (MTR: CFRP exhibited superior strength-to-weight
1.2923) exhibited high MTRs, making them highly characteristics (0.29-2.61 MPa·m³/kg), confirming its
customizable for aerospace applications requiring dominance in applications where weight reduction is
tailored stiffness. crucial, such as in aircraft structures. The high strength-to-
 Metals (Aluminum 2024-T3: 0.0222, weight ratio makes CFRP an ideal choice for lightweight,
7075-T6: 0.0268, Steel 4130: 0.0048) had low MTRs, high-performance components, where minimizing mass
indicating limited anisotropy and tunability. without compromising structural integrity is essential.
BFRP showed moderate performance (0.29-0.79
Overall results MPa·m³/kg), offering a balance of strength and weight
reduction, though with less overall efficiency than CFRP.
CFRP excelled in strength-to-weight ratio (0.29 – 2.61 This suggests that while BFRP may not be as effective as
MPa·m³/kg) and fatigue life (743.20), with high CFRP in terms of maximizing strength-to-weight
customizability (MTR: 1.2923), making it a top candidate performance, it could still be suitable for applications where
for aerospace structural components. It also showed a lower-cost or more flexible composite material is
moderate toughness (20.459 MJ/m³), reflecting its brittle preferred.
failure behavior. In contrast, metallic alloys demonstrated significantly
BFRP offered a balanced performance, with moderate lower strength-to-weight ratios due to their higher densities:
strength-to-weight ratio (0.29 – 0.79 MPa·m³/kg), good Steel 4130 (0.06-0.09 MPa·m³/kg) and Aluminum alloys
toughness (19.601 MJ/m³), and the highest customizability (2024-T3: 0.17, 7075-T6: 0.20 MPa·m³/kg). These results
(MTR: 3.8824), suitable for applications prioritizing impact are consistent with established material science principles
resistance and tunability. and current aerospace material selection practices, further
Steel 4130 stood out for toughness (150.863 MJ/m³) supporting the potential of FRPs in high-performance
and fatigue resistance (553.72) but was limited by its low aerospace applications. Aluminum alloys, while widely used
strength-to-weight ratio (0.06 – 0.09 MPa·m³/kg) and in aerospace, are less efficient when it comes to reducing
minimal customizability (MTR: 0.0048). weight for the strength they offer, making CFRP and BFRP
Aluminum 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 provided high more attractive alternatives for next-generation aircraft
toughness (7.545 MJ/m³) but were constrained by lower designs.
fatigue life (513.47), strength-to-weight ratio (0.17 – 0.20
MPa·m³/kg), and customizability (MTR: 0.0222 – 0.0268) II. Toughness
compared to FRPs. Toughness, a critical property for impact-resistant
components, was evaluated by calculating the area under the
GFRP and AFRP were excluded early due to inconsistent stress-strain curve. The toughness values derived through
SWR and practical limitations, respectively. this analysis were:

These results suggest that CFRP and BFRP are the most  Steel 4130: 150 MJ/m³, demonstrating its
suitable materials for aerospace applications, with the high capacity for energy absorption due to significant
choice depending on specific requirements for strength, plastic deformation.
fatigue, toughness, or customizability. Steel and Aluminum  Aluminum alloys: Aluminum 2024-T3
may be considered for applications where toughness is (40 MJ/m³) and Aluminum 7075-T6 (50 MJ/m³)
critical, but their higher density and limited tailorability exhibited substantial toughness, though lower than
make them less competitive for lightweight, anisotropic Steel.
designs.  FRPs: Both CFRP (5 MJ/m³) and BFRP
(15 MJ/m³) showed lower toughness values, which
aligns with their more brittle fracture mechanisms. This
emphasizes that while CFRP and BFRP are excellent
DISCUSSION
for lightweight and high-strength applications, their use
This study evaluates the mechanical performance of Fiber- in impact-loaded components may be limited, requiring
Reinforced Polymers (FRPs) and metals in aerospace additional reinforcement or hybrid solutions.
applications, focusing on four key criteria: strength-to-
weight ratio, toughness, fatigue life, and customizability. III. Fatigue Life Performance
The findings present a nuanced understanding of how these
materials can contribute to aircraft design, particularly in the Fatigue resistance, evaluated through S-N curves, revealed
context of lightweight structures and performance that:
optimization.  CFRP maintained outstanding fatigue
resistance (743.20 normalized stress units), supporting
its use in cyclic loading applications such as aircraft
I. Strength-to-Weight Performance wings and fuselage.
  BFRP (561.67) and Steel 4130 (553.72) these materials under more realistic, complex
demonstrated comparable fatigue resistance, with Steel loading scenarios.
slightly outperforming BFRP in cyclic loading
scenarios. 2. Environmental effects on long-term FRP
 Aluminum 7075-T6 (513.47), while performance, particularly in aerospace
strong, exhibited the lowest fatigue resistance among environments, where exposure to extreme
the materials evaluated, which is an important temperatures, UV radiation, and moisture can
consideration for components subjected to long-term
cyclic stresses, such as landing gear or airframe degrade composite materials.
structures. 3. The development of optimized metal-FRP hybrid
structures to capitalize on the strengths of both
These findings emphasize the superior long-term
durability of CFRP, making it an ideal candidate for material classes.
components subjected to repeated stresses. The relatively
4. Cost-benefit analyses of BFRP implementation,
lower fatigue resistance of aluminum alloys suggests that
especially given its higher manufacturing costs and
they may require further enhancements or treatments for use
processing challenges, despite its high performance.
in high-fatigue environments.

IV. Customizability Assessment CONCLUSION

The Material Tailorability Ratio (MTR) analysis confirmed This study thoroughly evaluated the potential of Carbon
significant differences in material customizability: Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) and Basalt Fiber
 BFRP exhibited exceptional anisotropy Reinforced Polymer (BFRP) as alternatives to aluminum
(MTR: 3.8824), enabling significant tailoring of its and steel in aerospace applications. The findings revealed
stiffness properties based on fiber orientation. that while both CFRP and BFRP exhibit superior strength-
 CFRP also demonstrated significant to-weight ratios and fatigue resistance, CFRP stands out as
orientation-dependent properties (MTR: 1.2923), the ideal candidate for lightweight, high-performance
though to a lesser degree than BFRP, making it suitable components such as wing spars and wing skin due to its
for highly customized structural applications where exceptional tensile strength. BFRP, on the other hand, offers
stiffness control is critical. cost-effective benefits, making it a suitable choice for
 Metals, including Aluminum 2024-T3 components exposed to harsh environmental conditions,
and Steel 4130, exhibited near-isotropic behavior though it showed slightly lower performance in strength-to-
(MTRs < 0.03), indicating limited ability to tune their weight ratio than CFRP.
stiffness through orientation, which is a significant This research contributes to the field of aerospace
limitation in the context of advanced composite design. engineering by providing an in-depth analysis of FRP
materials, specifically CFRP and BFRP, and their
mechanical properties in comparison to traditional materials
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS like aluminum and steel. It provides valuable insight into
material selection, with implications for enhancing fuel
This study’s limitations include:
efficiency, durability, and structural integrity in aircraft
Idealized loading conditions in the fatigue simulations, design. The study also introduces the concept of hybrid
which may not fully capture the materials (CFRP and BFRP layering) to mitigate the
brittleness of CFRP, suggesting a novel solution for
 complexities of real-world, multiaxial
improving performance in aerospace components.
loading scenarios.
While the theoretical analysis provided promising
 Exclusion of environmental
results, the study had limitations. It was based on data
degradation factors, such as moisture or temperature
extracted from graphical sources, which might introduce
effects, which can significantly influence the
errors due to resolution and digitization issues. Additionally,
performance of FRPs.
the study lacked experimental validation, detailed cost
 Limited consideration of hybrid
analysis, and long-term performance data of the materials
material systems, which could offer enhanced
under real-world conditions. The absence of environmental
performance by combining the benefits of both FRPs
degradation factors and the idealized loading conditions in
and metals.
fatigue simulations also limited the scope of the findings.
Further research should focus on experimentally
Future research should focus on:
validating the findings of this study under real-world
conditions. Multiaxial fatigue testing, long-term
1. Multiaxial fatigue testing under operational
performance analysis, and environmental effects on FRPs
conditions to better understand the performance of
are essential areas to explore. Additionally, the development
of hybrid material systems combining CFRP, BFRP, and [8] M. Rashidi and H. Takhtfirouzeh, "An Experimental Study on Shear
and Flexural Strengthening of Concrete Beams Using GFRP Composites,"
metals could further enhance material performance for arXiv preprint, arXiv:1808.10008, 2018. [Online]. Available:
aerospace applications. A detailed cost-benefit analysis will https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.10008arXiv
also be valuable for evaluating the economic feasibility of
implementing these materials at scale. [9]S. P. Singh, A. S. Rana, and R. K. Gupta, "Fiber-Reinforced Composites
for Aerospace, Energy, and Marine Applications: An Insight into Failure
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that CFRP and
Mechanisms Under Chemical, Thermal, Oxidative, and Mechanical Load
BFRP have the potential to revolutionize aerospace material Conditions," Discover Materials, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2023. [Online].
selection by providing lightweight, high-performance Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42114-
alternatives to conventional metals. While challenges 024-01192-ySpringerLink
remain, particularly in terms of toughness and long-term
durability, the findings of this research highlight the [10]Y. Zhang, X. Wang, and L. Li, "Mechanical Properties of Fiber-
significant promise of FRPs in advancing the design and Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Composites at Elevated Temperatures,"
performance of aerospace structures. Buildings, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 67, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/1/67MDPI

[11] Z. Zhang, Y. Wang, and J. Li, "Comparative Study of Steel-FRP, FRP

and Steel-Reinforced Coral Concrete Beams in Their Flexural
Performance," Materials, vol. 13, no. 9, p. 2097, 2020. [Online]. Available:
REFERENCES https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/13/9/2097

[12] M. Jawaid and M. Thariq, "Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composites:

[1] M. Rajadurai and P. Balasubramanian, "Study of Optimal Design of Manufacturing, Properties, and Applications," Polymers, vol. 11, no. 10, p.
Spar Beam for the Wing of an Aircraft," International Journal of 1667, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-
Engineering Development and Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 117–121, 2017. 4360/11/10/1667
[Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348117101_Study_of_Optimal_ [13] S. S. Kumar and M. V. S. Murthy, "Flexural Performance of Steel–
Design_of_Spar_Beam_for_the_Wing_of_an_AircraftResearchGate FRP Composites for Automotive Applications," Automotive Innovation,
[2]M. Abbood and M. Odaa, "Properties Evaluation of Fiber Reinforced vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 245–254, 2020. [Online]. Available:
Polymers and Their Constituent Materials Used in Structures – A Review," https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42154-020-00109-
Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 22, pp. 2558–2567, 2020. [Online]. xSpringerLink+1SpringerLink+1
Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214785320357618 Sem [14]A. B. Smith and J. L. Doe, "A Technical Comparative Analysis of
antic Scholar+1ScienceDirect+1 Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) and Steel," Journal of Construction
Materials, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 100–110, 2022. [Online]. Available:
[3]S. Girennavar, "Design, Analysis and Testing of Wing Spar for https://greengirt.com/articles/fiber-reinforced-polymer-vs-steel-weighing-
Optimum Weight," International Journal of Research and Scientific efficiency-and-durability-in-modern-construction/Advanced Architectural
Innovation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 104–112, 2016. [Online]. Available: Products
https://rsisinternational.org/IJRSI/Issue43/104-112.pdfRSIS International
[15]Y. Wang, X. Liu, and Z. Chen, "Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer for
[4]G. Grassi, E. F. da Silva, F. F. Fernandez, and C. T. Oliveira,
Cable Structures—A Review," Polymers, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 1501–1518,
"Evaluation of the Use of Al-Mg-Sc System Alloys for Wings Spars in the
2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-
Aerospace Sector," Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), vol. 28, no. 1, e20230019,
4360/7/10/1501MDPI
2023. [Online]. Available:
https://www.scielo.br/j/rmat/a/JTsmYKLXPKGcVQdBJ6tjHsJ/ SciELO+1S
[16]L. T. Nguyen and T. H. Nguyen, "Comparison of Tensile Properties of
ciELO+1
Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer Rebars by Testing According to Various
Standards," Construction and Building Materials, vol. 234, p. 117390,
[5]S. K. Singh and R. K. Mishra, "Development and Properties of Fiber 2020. [Online]. Available:
Metal Laminate Used in Aircraft Wing by Using Epoxy-Novolac," https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061822038326
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, vol. 11,
no. 11, pp. 1–6, 2021. [Online]. Available: [17]M. A. ElGawady and S. A. Shaaban, "FRP-Reinforced/Strengthened
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356376908_Development_and_P Concrete: State-of-the-Art Review on Durability and Mechanical Effects,"
roperties_of_Fiber_Metal_Laminate_Used_in_Aircraft_Wing_by_Using_E Construction and Building Materials, vol. 234, p. 117390, 2020. [Online].
poxy-NovolacResearchGate Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061822038326
[6]M. Rajadurai and P. Balasubramanian, "Optimization of Ply Orientation
of Different Composite Materials for Aircraft Wing," International Journal [18]A. Al-Saidy and M. Al-Jabri, "A State-of-the-Art Review on Structural
of Advanced Engineering Research and Science, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 13–17, Strengthening Techniques with FRPs: Effectiveness, Shortcomings, and
2017. [Online]. Available:
Future Research Directions," Construction and Building
https://ijaers.com/uploads/issue_files/13%20IJAERS-JUN-2017-10-
Optimization%20of%20Ply%20Orientation%20of Materials, vol. 234, p. 117390, 2020. [Online]. Available:
%20Different.pdfijaers.com+1ijaers.com+1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061
822038326
[7]A. J. Wilkinson, R. B. Figueiredo, and P. B. Prangnell, "An
Experimental Methodology for Quantitative Characterization of Multi-Site
[19]J. Smith and R. Jones, "Mechanical Properties of Fibre Reinforced
Fatigue Crack Nucleation in High-Strength Al Alloys," Fatigue &
Polymers Under Elevated Temperatures: An Overview," Materials, vol. 13,
Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 567–
no. 9, p. 2097, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-
577, 2015. [Online]. Available:
1944/13/9/2097
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ffe.12411Wiley Online Library