Fatigue Resistance of 787-composites
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatigue Resistance of 787-composites
Just an interesting short video of how many cycles completed on 787 simulating a fight- takeoff - landing, etc
Testing the 787, looking for cracks
Testing the 787, looking for cracks
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do have composite aircraft around for half a century now, not a single accident so far could be attributed to fatigue.
Nevertheless we have seen cracks developing and growing when the fibre orientation has been poorly selected. Those result from unintended stresses, because otherwise there would be fibres in that direction. The funny thing with composites is, sometimes you need to make it softer, not stronger to prevent cracking. With metal you can not do that, hence many designers are not used to this.
Simulating real in-flight environment in the laboratory is a real challange, but so far no relevant influence could have been identified. We are however still quite conservative with these materials (this is why there is no revolutionary weight saving), it will be interesting to see how far we can push the boundaries without getting hurt.
Nevertheless we have seen cracks developing and growing when the fibre orientation has been poorly selected. Those result from unintended stresses, because otherwise there would be fibres in that direction. The funny thing with composites is, sometimes you need to make it softer, not stronger to prevent cracking. With metal you can not do that, hence many designers are not used to this.
Simulating real in-flight environment in the laboratory is a real challange, but so far no relevant influence could have been identified. We are however still quite conservative with these materials (this is why there is no revolutionary weight saving), it will be interesting to see how far we can push the boundaries without getting hurt.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All new technologies require guinea-pigs.
That is just a fact of life.
You can try things out in the lab, but eventually you need to try it with real people.
Seat belts had Guinea-pigs. Airbags. ABS. Parachutes. ILS. TCAS.
Man up.
That is just a fact of life.
You can try things out in the lab, but eventually you need to try it with real people.
Seat belts had Guinea-pigs. Airbags. ABS. Parachutes. ILS. TCAS.
Man up.
OLD RED DAMASK
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lancashire born. In Cebu now
Age: 70
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do have composite aircraft around for half a century now, not a single accident so far could be attributed to fatigue.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lasernigle
The fuselage is just a pressure vessel and wound fiber pressure vessels have been fitted to airliners since the late seventies, composite fuselage technology has been around for even longer. The 787 is simply a combination of a number of well understood technologies.
All this composite technology is only new to the more inward looking people in what is a very conservative industry.
All this composite technology is only new to the more inward looking people in what is a very conservative industry.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But isn't that just wings
The fuselage is generally more critical on metallic designs because of the potentially instable crack growth (aka the balloon pop). We find more fatigue cracks in other areas of the aircraft, the big difference is that we have some time to find them, as they grow slowly and controlled.
One detail I sometimes think about, is the fact that in metal aircraft design standard fasteners are never the fatigue critical components. Cracks start in the structural parts, typically at fastener holes. If the structural parts become fatigue resistant, are we going to experience fatigue to bolts and rivets some day?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Composite fuselage? How would it react to explosive decompression? And would it be stronger against explosive devices than an all metal one?
It won't exactely crack like metal would, and could be more durable in those situations, but do we have an idea?
It won't exactely crack like metal would, and could be more durable in those situations, but do we have an idea?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE composite ' fuselages '
Composite fuselage? How would it react to explosive decompression? And would it be stronger against explosive devices than an all metal one?
Check with mythbusters as to what happens when an reasl explosive is used to blow out a significant portion of skin.
AS to the never ending bit re composite ' tanks' barrels, tubes, fuselages, et ad infinitum ' exploding or being somehow ' magical " and or "new"
In the 1960's ( and possibly earlier) composite rocket motor cases were used on solid propellant missiles such as Minuteman. Such rocket motor cases are subject to higher pressure, higher temperature, and flight stresses well above aircraft parameters.
Yet still they myth of "fiberglass" car bodies ( corvette ?) bodies exploding on impact still persist. No doubt due to the condition of stretched and broken fibers of the broken parts. Knowledge and materials have improved somewhat over the last 50 years
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In theory a composite fuselage could be able to stretch enough to withstand the tearing apart that is seen with metals.
In theory that is. I don't know if we ever will see such a thing in flight.
Reason for this is that if you place the fibers in the correct angle to the air flow, the fibres can stretch pretty far without breaking. The limiting factors would be the properties of the resin and the true length of the fibre. This is related to what Volume said about making the composite softer to get more strength.
However, since decompression can happen anywhere there is no catch-all possibility regarding the fiber position relative to the air flow and thus it is very unlikely that we will ever see a decompression resistant fuselage. I'm guessing it would be possible for those boxes transporting cargo in some distant future though. Afaik the boxes from the Lockerbie testing were metal and thus very heavy, that's why no airline wanted them. Composite cargo boxes would be much lighter.
In theory that is. I don't know if we ever will see such a thing in flight.
Reason for this is that if you place the fibers in the correct angle to the air flow, the fibres can stretch pretty far without breaking. The limiting factors would be the properties of the resin and the true length of the fibre. This is related to what Volume said about making the composite softer to get more strength.
However, since decompression can happen anywhere there is no catch-all possibility regarding the fiber position relative to the air flow and thus it is very unlikely that we will ever see a decompression resistant fuselage. I'm guessing it would be possible for those boxes transporting cargo in some distant future though. Afaik the boxes from the Lockerbie testing were metal and thus very heavy, that's why no airline wanted them. Composite cargo boxes would be much lighter.
We are however still quite conservative with these materials (this is why there is no revolutionary weight saving), it will be interesting to see how far we can push the boundaries without getting hurt.
The funny thing with composites is, sometimes you need to make it softer, not stronger to prevent cracking.
One is reminded of about 50 years ago in the auto industry how new glass manufacturing processes arrived at windshields were less likely to shatter: you could say the glass was less stiff in the newer windshields.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Caterham
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The highest profile material failure in recent times was cracking of the new 7449 aluminium alloy in A380 wing ribs, luckily this was not catastrophic. It is quite likely that this alloy (which is from the late 90s) is less well studied than the composite in the 777 wing.
I am curious as to why there should be any suspicion about the use of composites. How many metallic crash helmets are there? How much safer are modern formula 1 cars then their metallic forebears? How often do you hear of composite hulled boats breaking up?
Oh and why isn't this thread in Tech Log
I am curious as to why there should be any suspicion about the use of composites. How many metallic crash helmets are there? How much safer are modern formula 1 cars then their metallic forebears? How often do you hear of composite hulled boats breaking up?
Oh and why isn't this thread in Tech Log
Composites do not 'fatigue' in the same way that metals do. Metals such as steel have a nearly infinite fatigue life, so long as you stay away from the plastic deformation area - aluminum is somewhat unique it that it does eventually fatigue even if you are operating well away from the plastic deformation area. Corrosion is a different matter - many fatigue failures in metal structures are really due to corrosion. In contrast, composites are pretty immune to corrosion, what eventually happens is the binding resin start to break down (which can sometimes be more of an 'age' issue than 'stress' issue - the resin gets old and brittle)
The one big area of concern with composite structure is that it basically does not plastically deform. Over the years, several aircraft have been able to land safely after exceeding structural limits because the metal structure bent but didn't break. Composites will simply break when the structural limit is exceeded, so composite structure need to be designed with that in mind. This was demonstrated rather dramatically when Formula 1 first started using composite constructions - in a big wreck the chassis would pretty much shatter. Now they design for that and the result is the safest race cars ever built.
The one big area of concern with composite structure is that it basically does not plastically deform. Over the years, several aircraft have been able to land safely after exceeding structural limits because the metal structure bent but didn't break. Composites will simply break when the structural limit is exceeded, so composite structure need to be designed with that in mind. This was demonstrated rather dramatically when Formula 1 first started using composite constructions - in a big wreck the chassis would pretty much shatter. Now they design for that and the result is the safest race cars ever built.
Composite fuselage? How would it react to explosive decompression? And would it be stronger against explosive devices than an all metal one?
After all, how does any fuselage react to explosive decompression? It just relaxes and goes, "Aah!" doesn't it? Is that dramatic in some way?
A bit more engineering/science please, a bit less inaccurate media induced technical (in)expertise?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do they incorporate the additional stresses caused by excessive external temperature ranges experienced in-flight and on the ground?
So we become the guinea pigs?
Previous loss of a composite aircraft
I had the pleasure of driving the Lak test pilot in South Africa a decade ago.
He was partially crippled after a high speed, low level composite wing failure (flutter) which was due to fatigue.
He stated that they used Russian composites at the time but had based their structural calculations on the West's research figures.
The glider had passed all of the flight testing but the structure had failed iirc after two years of heavy use.
He was partially crippled after a high speed, low level composite wing failure (flutter) which was due to fatigue.
He stated that they used Russian composites at the time but had based their structural calculations on the West's research figures.
The glider had passed all of the flight testing but the structure had failed iirc after two years of heavy use.
But if you think simply avoiding plastic deformation will protect your steel structure from fatigue failure, then high cycle fatigue will come as a nasty surprise.
Aluminium is not at all unique; it is steel which is unusual in exhibiting a fatigue limit, a stress level about half that required for plastic deformation, below which it does not accumulate fatigue damage.
Typically if a steel structure will withstand over about 10 million cycles, it is not loaded past its fatigue limit and should last indefinitely:
When you consider that an engine running at, say, 1700 RPM, will accumulate about 100,000 cycles per hour, 10,000,000 cycles in 100 hours (roughly 2000 miles for a car in city traffic), you begin to appreciate why we don't make crankshafts in aluminium.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one that beat itself to death at Culdrose from the hover is well worth a look at. It's failure mode looks closer to glass than anything else...
