The A380 wing ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Trindade
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A380 wing ?
The A380 has just flown with passengers from Singapore to Sydney.
I remember a news item that during testing the wing failed at 1.47 struture test, it should have passed at 1.5 - Was this resolved ?
I remember a news item that during testing the wing failed at 1.47 struture test, it should have passed at 1.5 - Was this resolved ?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, the max bending load on the wing is a function of ZFW (including any fuselage or CWT fuel).
Thus one possible solution for early series airplanes is to reduce ZFW by 2% (the amount of the ultimate test shortfall) - until the wing structure is upgraded and retested. It's a problem, certainly an economic one, but not insurmountable.
Thus one possible solution for early series airplanes is to reduce ZFW by 2% (the amount of the ultimate test shortfall) - until the wing structure is upgraded and retested. It's a problem, certainly an economic one, but not insurmountable.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rural Virginia
Age: 70
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the break-point analysis is done, the CAD/CAM design & methods, and hence the structure, are revised for strengthing the area of breakage. Standard procedure nowadays. The authorities analyse and accept this.
Cheers, y'all.
Cheers, y'all.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To expand on Mudfoot's cryptic contribution:-
Airbus used the failed breakage test to calibrate the codes they used for the design. Using the established level of accuracy (say \alpha), they redesigned the structure at the breakpoint and validated the redesigned wing using the codes to a level of at least (1.5 + \alpha) times design load, and provided all this evidence to the certification authorities, which accepted it as equivalent to a wing test.
PBL
Airbus used the failed breakage test to calibrate the codes they used for the design. Using the established level of accuracy (say \alpha), they redesigned the structure at the breakpoint and validated the redesigned wing using the codes to a level of at least (1.5 + \alpha) times design load, and provided all this evidence to the certification authorities, which accepted it as equivalent to a wing test.
PBL
Not a contribution to this discussion; just thanks and congratulations to Mudfoot and PBL for explaining something, about which I knew nothing until I read those two posts, so succintly and clearly!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, for some reason, Airbus was not asked to build a second wing reinforced as planned, and actually break it at more than 150 % ultimate load.
If Airbus did not have to break a second wing, why did they have to break the first one, instead of simply showing analysis?
If Airbus did not have to break a second wing, why did they have to break the first one, instead of simply showing analysis?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ONB, you've basically got it. Although the static test was deemed a failure because it didn't make 150%, it was mostly successful because it provided plenty of data up to the 147% point.
These data, coupled with post-test reconstruction of the exact failure mode, give plenty of reason to believe that minor upgrades and modern analytic processes (and several tonnes of paperwork) will result in certification at the desired TOGW (ZFW actually) level.
And in service, it will be low-cycle fatigue (TO & landing cycles) that will be the telling criteria.
These data, coupled with post-test reconstruction of the exact failure mode, give plenty of reason to believe that minor upgrades and modern analytic processes (and several tonnes of paperwork) will result in certification at the desired TOGW (ZFW actually) level.
And in service, it will be low-cycle fatigue (TO & landing cycles) that will be the telling criteria.
When it comes to certification single tests like "jump this high" and you pass, ......a failed test with data if far more substantiating then just passing a high-jump test.
Unfortunately those with little scientific knowlege see things only as black and white like turning on and off a light switch, rather than the dawn of real understanding.
Unfortunately those with little scientific knowlege see things only as black and white like turning on and off a light switch, rather than the dawn of real understanding.
