Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:49:35.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parametric damage tolerance design of metallic aeronautical stiffened panels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

G. Molinari ,
I. Meneghin ,
M. Melega  and
E. Troiani
G. Molinari*
Affiliation:
MaSTeR Lab – Material Structure Technology Research Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bologna, Forli, Italy
I. Meneghin
Affiliation:
MaSTeR Lab – Material Structure Technology Research Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bologna, Forli, Italy
M. Melega
Affiliation:
MaSTeR Lab – Material Structure Technology Research Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bologna, Forli, Italy
E. Troiani
Affiliation:
MaSTeR Lab – Material Structure Technology Research Laboratory, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bologna, Forli, Italy
*
gianluca.molinari2@unibo.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the basis of well-known literature, an analytical tool named LEAF (linear elastic analysis of fracture) was developed by the authors to predict the damage tolerance (DT) proprieties of aeronautical stiffened panels. The tool is based on the linear elastic fracture mechanics and the displacement compatibility method. By means of LEAF, an extensive parametric analysis of stiffened panels, representative of typical aeronautical constructions, was performed to provide meaningful design guidelines. The effects of riveted, integral and adhesively bonded stringers on the fatigue crack propagation performances of stiffened panels were investigated, as well as the crack retarder contribution using metallic straps (named doublers) bonded in the middle of the stringers bays. The effect of both perfectly bonded and partially debonded doublers was investigated as well. Adhesively bonded stiffeners showed the best DT properties in comparison with riveted and integral ones. A great reduction of the skin crack growth propagation rate can be achieved with the adoption of additional doublers bonded between the stringers.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1182 , August 2012 , pp. 815 - 831
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Anonymous. Damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, 1997, FAR Part 25 Sect. 571, Federal Aviation Administration.Google Scholar
2. Poe, C.C. Fatigue crack propagation in stiffened panels, Damage Tolerance in Aircraft Structures, 1971, ASTM STP 486, pp 79–97.Google Scholar
3. Swift, T. The application of fracture mechanics in the development of the DC-10 fuselage, Fracture Mechanics of Aircraft Structures, 1974, AGARD AG-176.Google Scholar
4. Pacchione, M. and Telgkamp, J. Challenges of the metallic fuselage, 2006, 25th International Congress of Aeronautical Sciences.Google Scholar
5. Schijve, J. Crack stoppers and ARALL laminates, 1989, TU Delft Tech Report LR-589.Google Scholar
6. Heinimann, M., Bucci, R., Kulak, M. and Garratt, M. Improving the damage tolerance of aircraft structures through the use of selective reinforcement, 2005, 23th Symposium of the International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue.Google Scholar
7. Broek, D. The Practical Use of Fracture Mechanics, 1989, Springer.Google Scholar
8. Zhang, X., Boscolo, M., Figueroa-Gordon, D., Allegri, G. and Irving, P.E. Fail-safe design of integral metallic aircraft structures reinforced by bonded crack retarders, Eng Fract Mech, January 2009, 76, (1), pp 114–133.Google Scholar
9. Zhang, X. and Li, Y. Damage tolerance and file safety of welded aircraft wing panels, AIAA J, July 2005, 43, (7), pp 1613–1623.Google Scholar
10. Meneghin, I. and Pacchione, M. Investigation on the design of bonded structures for increased damage tolerance, 2009, 25th Symposium of the International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue.Google Scholar
11. Poe, C.C. Stress intensity factor for a cracked sheet with riveted and uniformly spaced stringers, 1971, NASA TR-R-358.Google Scholar
12. Poe, C.C. The effect of broken stringers on the stress intensity factor for a uniformly stiffened sheet containing a crack, 1973, NASA TM X-71947.Google Scholar
13. Swift, T. Fracture analysis of adhesively bonded cracked panels, J Eng Mater Technol, January 1978, 100, (1), pp 10–16.Google Scholar
14. Swift, T. Damage tolerance analysis of redundant structures, Fracture Mechanics Design Methodology, January 1979, pp 5.1-5.34, AGARD LS-97.Google Scholar
15. Paris, P.C., Gomez, M.P. and Anderson, W.E. A rational analytic theory of fatigue, The Trend in Engineering, January 1961, 13, pp 9–14.Google Scholar
16. Swift, T. Fail-safe design requirements and features, regulatory requirements, 2003, AIAA Paper 2003-2783.Google Scholar
17. Swift, T. Damage tolerance capability, Int J Fatigue, 1994, 16, (1), pp 75–94.Google Scholar
18. Schmidt, H.J. and Schmidt-Brandecker, B. Damage tolerance design and analysis of current and future aircraft structure, 2003, AIAA/ICAS international air and space symposium and exposition.Google Scholar