Numerical analysis with experimental data of the joint of fuselage with main landing gear and wing‐strut, of a two‐seat aircraft built with composites
Source abstract
Abstract
An analysis of the strut‐to‐fuselage and main‐landing‐gear‐to‐fuselage joint is realized in order to evaluate the zones with a high probability of failure. The whole section is analyzed using the finite element method in order to estimate static resistance behavior, therefore it becomes necessary to create a numerical model of the section, to measure the mechanical properties of the C‐Ep composite material, and to calculate the loads applied onto the section. The section is digitized with photogrammetry. Mechanical characterization is achieved with instrumented standardized tensile tests. Results of the analysis show that the zones with higher probability of failure are found around the wing strut and the fuselage joint, with a safety factor higher than necessary even for the most critical condition, and lower in comparison with the average safety factor used on aircrafts built mostly with metals. POLYM. COMPOS., 36:1072–1083, 2015. © 2015 Society of Plastics Engineers
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research · Mechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation · Vehicle Noise and Vibration Control
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Instituto Politécnico Nacional ESIME Ticomán, Distrito Federal 07340 México
Aeromarmi SA de CV, San Luis Potosí 78340 México
Funding
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. 1997 · 6.1
2. Jackson K.
3. Tomblin J.
4. Collombet F. · Solid Mech Appl · 2006 · 135 · 141
5. 10.3166/rcma.15.33-5110.3166/rcma.15.33-51 ↗
6. Morales‐Hernández A. · 2008
7. Martínez C. · 2010
8. Bello‐Olvera O.E. · 2010
9. ASTM D 3039M‐00
10. ASTM D 3518M‐94
11. Camarena‐Arellano D. · 2009
12. Gay D. · 2003
13. Daniel I. · 1994
14. ASTM Standard D 3171‐76
15. ASTM Standard D 2734‐91
16. ASTM Standard D 792‐91
17. Camarena‐Arellano D. · 595
18. Niu M. · 1999 · 612
19. Bruhn E. · 1958
20. 2005
21. FAR Part 23. Airworthiness standards: Normal utility acrobatic and commuter category airplanes.
22. Abbott I. · 1959
23. 10.7208/chicago/9780226060934.001.000110.7208/chicago/9780226060934.001.0001 ↗
24. DeGroot M. · 1986
25. Rhinoceros 4.0 user's guide.
26. ANSYS Release 10.0 documentation.
27. ANSYS Structural analysis guide. Information for users of ANSYS Academic Teaching at STU Bratislava. Retrieved on January 9th 2015.
28. Schubel P.M.
29. Berthelot J.‐M. · 2012
30. Measurement of axial compression properties of composite laminae using a redesigned standardized testing device. XVIII IMRC
31. López‐Melo L.A. · 2011
32. Frasker D. · 1991
33. G.Crees Design Criteria.ASM Handbook: Vol. 21. Materials Park OH ASM International.p.353–359.