Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Review
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 February 2010
Accepted 15 August 2011
Available online 9 September 2011
Keywords:
Bird strike simulation
Soft body impact
Fluidstructure interaction
Lagrangian
Eulerian
SPH
a b s t r a c t
Bird strikes are a major threat to aircraft structures, as a collision with a bird during ight can lead to
serious structural damage. Computational methods have been used for more than 30 years for the
bird-proof design of such structures, being an efcient tool compared to the expensive physical certication tests with real birds. At the velocities of interest, the bird behaves as a soft body and ows in a uidlike manner over the target structure, with the high deformations of the spreading material being a major
challenge for nite element simulations. This paper gives an overview on the development, characteristics and applications of different soft body impactor modeling methods by an extensive literature survey.
Advantages and disadvantages of the most established techniques, which are the Lagrangian, Eulerian or
meshless particle modeling methods, are highlighted and further topics like the appropriate choice of
impactor geometry or material model are discussed. A tabular overview of all bird strike simulation
papers covered by this survey with detailed information on the software, modeling method, impactor
geometry, mass and velocity as well as the target application of each study is given in the appendix of
this paper.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Substitute bird materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Test data for bird model validation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bird modeling methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1.
First bird strike simulations: bird as pressure function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.
Lagrangian bird impactor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1.
Characteristics of Lagrangian modeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2.
Application of Lagrangian model for bird strike simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.
Eulerian bird impactor model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1.
Characteristics of Eulerian modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2.
Application of Eulerian model for bird strike simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.
SPH bird impactor model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.1.
Characteristics of SPH modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4.2.
Application of SPH model for bird strike simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.5.
Comparison of different bird modeling methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6.
Summary on bird modeling methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impactor geometry for bird strike simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bird impactor material models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contact calculation in bird strike simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2094
2095
2096
2096
2097
2097
2097
2097
2098
2098
2098
2100
2100
2100
2101
2101
2102
2102
2103
2104
2104
2104
2109
2094
1. Introduction
In January 2009 the bird strike problem became apparent to the
general public after the spectacular landing of the Airbus A320 of
US Airways ight 1549 on the Hudson River in New York after an
engine ingestion of at least two Canadian geese [1]. However, the
threat of bird strikes is not new and present since the early days
of ight 100 years ago, when mankind began sharing the sky with
birds. First records of bird contact were documented by the Wright
brothers in the year 1905 [2]. Although exterior aircraft structures
can be exposed to various scenarios of foreign object damage (FOD)
like hail, runway debris or tire rubber impact, about 90% of all incidences today are reported to be caused by bird strike [3].
Numerous statistics are published each year, illustrating recent
numbers on monetary, material and human losses due to bird
strike in commercial and military aviation. From 1990 to 2008 almost 90,000 bird strikes on commercial aircraft have been reported
to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) solely in the USA [4],
leading to immense monetary losses due to repair, delay and cancellations. Annual cost values from 614 million to 1.28 billion US$
are reported in [46]. It is estimated that a bird strike event occurs
once every 2000 ights [7]. In the period from 1912 to 2008, at
least 103 aircraft and 262 lives have been lost in civil aviation
due to bird strikes, which are only the reported incidents [8,9]. Further statistics are available on species and altitudes involved in
bird strike events, indicating that 72% of all collisions occur near
the ground below 500 ft. and 92% under 3000 ft., making the
take-off and landing phases especially critical [4]. Therefore, also
military ight missions at low altitudes are frequently exposed to
bird strike incidences.
A collision with a bird during ight can lead to serious damage
to the aircraft. All forward facing components are concerned, i.e.
the engine fan blades and inlet, the windshield, window frame, radome and forward fuselage skin as well as the leading edges of the
wings and empennage (Fig. 1). For helicopters the windshield, forward fuselage structure and rotor blades are especially vulnerable
against bird strike.
Consequently, the aviation authorities require that all forward
facing components need to prove a certain level of bird strike resistance in certication tests before they are allowed for operational
use. These requirements are compiled in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), European Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR) and lately
in the Certication Specications (CS) of the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA):
2095
PH q0 u0 us ;
2. Theoretical background
According to [20], the projectile response during an impact can
be divided into ve categories as a function of the impact velocity:
elastic, plastic, hydrodynamic, sonic or explosive. During an elastic
impact, the internal stresses in the projectile are below the material strength so that it will rebound. With increasing impact velocity, plastic response of the impactor begins but the material
strength is still sufcient to prevent a uid-like behavior. A further
increase of impact velocity causes internal stresses to exceed the
projectiles strength and uid-like ow occurs. At this impact
velocity, the material density and not the material strength determines the response of the impactor. This ow behavior of real birds
can typically be observed in high-speed lms of impact tests.
Therefore, the bird impactor is treated as a so-called soft body
at the velocities of interest, since the stresses that develop within
the bird are signicantly higher than its own strength. The load
is spread over a relatively large area during the impact.
Pioneering work on the characterization of bird impact loads on
at targets has been performed by Wilbeck and Barber [2124].
Besides extensive experimental studies to assess the ow behavior
Fig. 2. Illustration of shock and release waves in soft body impactor (according to
[23]).
2096
Fig. 3. Typical pressure curve for normal soft body impact on a rigid plate.
PS
1
q u2 :
2 0 0
tD
L
:
u0
model for realistic impact damages. Soft body impact tests on ber-reinforced composite plates are documented in [4449].
5. Bird modeling methods
Impact simulations of a soft body that is highly deformed during the analysis are a major challenge for FE codes. The following
chapter summarizes the development of different numerical approaches to cope with this challenge and characterizes the modeling methods with their advantages and disadvantages.
2097
Fig. 4. Different nite element modeling methods for soft body projectiles.
2098
elements are compressed to such an extent, since the time step depends on the shortest element length in the model. The element
deformation in a Lagrangian bird model is shown in Fig. 5.
Several choices exist for dealing with the mesh distortion problem, including adaptive remeshing or element erosion. Adaptive
remeshing involves remeshing the region of severe mesh tangling.
According to [16], this mapping procedure often increases the
numerical errors associated with the approximation and may be
computationally expensive. In [80] elements are deleted from the
calculation, when they reach a dened degree of attening, which
is referred to as element erosion. Zhu et al. [81] used a shear failure
criterion for element deletion. The deletion of highly distorted elements prevents numerical problems, and was often adopted in
other studies, with the argument that most of the momentum of
those elements is probably already transferred to the structure
[76,82]. In contrast, Lavoie et al. [31] and Chandra et al. [83] report
that especially for nely meshed Lagrangian impactors with element erosion a large part of the mass is eroded during the simulation, which makes it very difcult to obtain accurate results.
However, the mass can be retained after element deletion by lumping it at the free nodes still interacting with the structure [8486].
With this approach of element erosion even the splitting of a bird
can be modeled with Lagrangian elements [37,84,87,88]. However,
Castelletti and Anghileri [75] remind that the numericalexperimental correlation gets worse, when a failure criterion is introduced, compared to a good correlation without failure criterion,
without providing any further details on the criterion used or its
effect. Another typical problem arising from element erosion is
the articial oscillations in the contact forces due to the discretised
nature of the simulated contact algorithms, especially for coarse
meshes. Once the frontal elements are deleted, the contact force
will decrease dramatically until the impactor comes into contact
again with the target, and this introduces articial noise into the
contact forces [33]. This can only be reduced by using very ne
meshes [3]. A severe inuence of the mesh density in the Lagrangian impactor was also identied in [31,86]. Georgiadis et al. [5]
conclude that the Lagrangian approach remains an impractical
way to model bird strike.
5.2.2. Application of Lagrangian model for bird strike simulations
Lawson and Tuley [89], Schuette [90] and Niering [91] adopted
this approach with Lagrangian elements for the impactor in the
late 1980s and early 1990s for explicit bird strike simulations on
engine fan blades with DYNA3D. The results of Niering [91] indicated that internal friction in the bird material should be
Fig. 5. Bird strike simulation on rigid plate with Lagrangian impactor model.
2099
Fig. 6. Bird strike simulation on rigid plate with Eulerian impactor model.
cost of the Eulerian model is relatively high, due to the high number of elements and the cost-intensive calculation of element volume fractions and interactions [127]. Typically, the element size of
the Eulerian mesh has to be dened very small in order to achieve
accurate results [79]. The Eulerian formulation is also not free from
numerical problems. There are well-known dissipation and dispersion problems associated with the ux of mass between elements
(numerical leakage) [94,101,126129]. McCallum and Constantinou [130] conclude that the total energy decreases by approximately 6% from the starting value, which is associated with a
loss of energy in the contact interface during the bird strike simulation. Lavoie et al. [36] even report a loss of 25% of the bird mass
during the impact simulation.
In contrast to the classical Eulerian modeling with a xed Eulerian mesh, the Arbitrary LagrangianEulerian (ALE) formulation
was adopted to make the simulation more efcient. The ALE method is basically similar to the classical Eulerian method, but the
Fig. 7. Bird strike simulation on rigid plate with ALE impactor model.
2100
2101
Fig. 8. Bird strike simulation on rigid plate with SPH impactor model.
2102
Table 1
Overview of advantages and disadvantages of bird modeling methods.
Advantage
Lagrangian model
Eulerian model
SPH model
Disadvantage
No tensile behavior
No clear outer boundary
Higher CPU time than Lagrangian
model (before mesh distortion)
2103
are typically chosen to reect the principal mass and shape of the
torso of a real bird [130]. The four most established substitute bird
geometries are the cylinder, the cylinder with hemispherical ends,
the ellipsoid and the sphere (Fig. 9). The use of such a simple geometry is also benecial for an easy manufacturing. While the cylindrical shape of the impactor was preferred in early studies, it is
also clearly visible from Table A1 that the cylinder with hemispherical ends is dominating today as the geometry for the substitute gelatin bird. This results from the fact that the rst
experimental studies by Barber and Wilbeck [21,23] were performed with cylindrical projectiles and these tests were often taken as the basis for the numerical model development.
Numerous studies investigated the inuence of the projectile
geometry. Nizampatnam [16] investigated the inuence of the four
typical projectile shapes in Fig. 9 on the shock and steady-ow
pressure. Although all geometries showed rather similar results,
the cylinder with hemispherical ends in both cases was closest to
experimental data. In [86] both a cylindrical impactor and a cylinder with hemispherical ends were compared, with the latter geometry considered as closer to a real bird. These two geometries were
also compared in [194,195] in an impact study on a windshield.
Again, a better correlation to actual bird strike test data were found
for the cylinder with hemispherical ends, which is also stated in
[74]. In older studies [25,107] the ellipsoid was preferred to the
right cylinder since sharp or regular shapes such as a cylinder produced unrealistic impact pressure proles. In the study in [3,34]
the three geometries right cylinder, cylinder with hemispherical
ends and ellipsoid were compared in a numerical study. A strong
inuence especially on the shock pressure was observed, which
is highest for the straight-ended cylinder due to the largest instantaneous contact area. It was 43% higher than with the hemispherical-ended cylinder, which in turn is 30% higher than with the
ellipsoidal projectile. The length-to-diameter aspect ratio of the
bird (1.5:1, 2:1, 2.5:1) was found to have little inuence on the results. Increasing the bird mass from 4 to 6 and 8 lb also slightly increased the pressure peak.
In contrast to these simplied bird geometries, the realistic
shape of a Canadian goose was represented by a multi-material
modeling approach based on biometric data in the study of McCallum and Constantinou [130]. The long neck, torso and wings were
modeled with different densities using the SPH approach in LSDYNA, although still sharing the same material law. In a direct
comparison to the cylinder with hemispherical ends, also modeled
as an SPH impactor, signicant differences in the load curve were
identied. Resulting from the initial neck impact, a noticeable plate
displacement was obtained before the main torso impacted the
target. Therefore, the authors concluded that the target panel is under a state of pre-stress when the torso impacts, which may have a
signicance on the nal level of damage predicted for the structure. The study was yet extended by Nizampatnam [16] for an even
more realistic bird geometry modeling with SPH in LS-DYNA. The
head, neck, torso, bones, lungs and wings with different densities
and different equations of state were included in the model. The
individual peaks in the pressuretime diagram of head, torso, etc.
could clearly be seen, also leading to a slightly different loading
scenario than with the simplied impactor. However, no experimental data of a real bird with a forward neck and wings extracted
as simulated are available for comparison. Still, such studies question the legitimacy of whether the chickens that are typically used
in bird strike certication tests are appropriate at all to represent
the bird strike incident during ight with a real bird with forward
facing head and extracted wings [29].
7. Bird impactor material models
Just like the heterogeneity of projectile shapes, numerous different approaches for the bird impactor material modeling can be
found in the various studies in the literature.
Generally speaking, real birds are mostly composed of water.
Therefore, a water-like hydrodynamic response can be considered
as a valid approximation for a constitutive model for bird strike
analyses [86]. Furthermore, the anatomic structure of birds includes several internal cavities like pneumatic bones, lungs and peculiar air sacs, reducing the bird average density. In order to cover
the effects of these cavities in the numerical model, a homogenized
bird material with an average density between 900 and 950 kg/m3
after elimination of the feathers can be estimated [86,195]. This
corresponds to the void content of 1015% in the porous gelatin
of an articial bird, which is typically used for bird strike tests.
Nizampatnam [16] raises the point that in his study a higher porosity of 3040% gave better overall agreement to Wilbecks experimental results than the typically used 1015%. This study was
based on SPH bird impact simulations on an ideally rigid target,
where the material porosity was varied between 0% and 40%.
Several authors tried to model the bird with a simple elastoplastic material law with a dened failure strain [81,88,99,118],
and some of them highlighted the limitations of this simplied approach [95,113]. It is observed that no uid-like ow response can
be achieved with such an elasto-plastic material law, only if the
shear modulus G is set very low [80]. In [11,93] even a rubber-like
hyperelastic MooneyRivlin material is applied to simulate the
bird behavior during impact. The determination of the material
constants is reported to be difcult and of key importance. However, besides an increase in computational efciency, no comparison to results obtained with traditional bird models is given.
It is much more common to use an equation of state (EOS) for
the constitutive modeling of the bird impactor, dening the pressurevolume relationship with parameters of water at room temperature. In most studies [3,7,32,35,47,77,79,139,141,142,146,
154,165,168,170,178,192,195,196] the polynomial form of the
EOS was used, where the pressure p is calculated by the following
equation:
p C 0 C 1 l C 2 l2 C 3 l3 ;
where C0, C1, C2 and C3 are material constants and l is a dimensionless parameter based on the ratio of current density q to initial density q0:
q
1:
q0
2104
p p0 B
q
q0
c
1 ;
ph
q0 C 2 l 1 1 c20 l 2a l2
size, which should be similar to the nodal area in the model, where
the nodal contact forces are evaluated and converted into a pressure. Almost no paper addresses this topic. Only in a few studies
[46,156,158,170,174] the inuence of selected areas of pressure
evaluation is analyzed. It could be shown that this area has a great
inuence on the peak pressure, which is very high for a small area
and consequently lower with increasing area, as the stress peak in
the impact centre is smeared over a larger area.
i2 c0 alE;
2
3
1 s1 1l s2 ll1 s3 ll1
9. Conclusions
During a bird strike on aircraft structures at the velocities of
interest, the bird behaves as a soft body and ows in a uid-like
manner over the target structure, with the high deformations of
the spreading material being a major challenge for nite element
simulations. In an extensive literature survey the progress in bird
strike modeling over the last 30 years was assessed. The most
interesting conclusion is that no homogeneity or uniformity in
terms of a generally accepted modeling approach exists, neither
with respect to the discretisation method nor the material model,
contact formulation, impactor geometry, size or mass. This makes
such a literature overview especially valuable, as the global picture
in terms of appropriate modeling techniques for bird strike simulations is sometimes difcult to paint due to the high number of
different options.
First simple simulation models in the 1970s and 1980s mainly
used nodal pressure loads to represent the bird impact load. They
were replaced by Lagrangian impactor models in the following
years. However, the main problem in using a Lagrangian impactor
model is the mesh distortion due to the large spreading of the
material, which causes time step and stability problems and the
difculty in modeling splitting of the bird. Therefore, more suitable
methods for the simulation of uid-like ow behavior like the
Eulerian or meshless SPH technique were adopted in recent years.
However, none of these approaches is free of disadvantages, which
is the main reason why none of the methods has established as the
standard modeling technique until today. It often depends on the
specic application, software package and parameter setup to
determine which approach is best suited for the individual problem. The best solution for one case may just be the second best option for another case. It is therefore common practice to adopt
different modeling methods and to assess through validation,
which approach is most benecial for a given problem. Generally
speaking, a trend is visible towards the utilization of Eulerian or
SPH models with an equation of state for the impactor material
using the properties of a waterair-mixture at room temperature.
Very good correlation to experimental results could be obtained
with these models.
Although the certication of bird-proof aircraft components today still depends on real physical tests, proposals are increasingly
put forward to use more simulation techniques instead of experiments during certication in certain well-dened scenarios. In this
context, it would be desirable to increase the uniformity and comparability of bird strike analyses, e.g. in terms of projectile geometry, mass and composition, which was encouraged by many
authorities before but has not been achieved yet. Also the general
availability of reliable up-to-date test data for common bird impactor model validations is desirable for future bird strike analyses.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Table A1
Survey of bird strike simulation papers and modeling data in technical literature.
Table A1 (continued)
2106
2107
Table A1 (continued)
2108
References
[1] Dolbeer RA. Birds and aircraft ghting for airspace in ever more crowded
skies. HumanWildlife Conicts 2009;3(2):1656.
[2] MacCinnon B. Sharing the skies: an aviation industry guide to the
management of wildlife hazards. Report TP 13549, Transport Canada, 2nd
ed., 2004.
[3] Meguid SA, Mao RH, Ng TY. FE analysis of geometry effects of an articial bird
striking an aeroengine fan blade. Int J Impact Eng 2008;35(6):48798.
[4] Dolbeer RA, Wright SE, Weller J, Begier MJ. Wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in
the United States 19902008. FAA National Wildlife Strike Database, Serial
Report Number 15, September, 2009.
[5] Georgiadis S, Gunnion AJ, Thomson RS, Cartwright BK. Bird-strike simulation
for certication of the Boeing 787 composite moveable trailing edge. Compos
Struct 2008;86(13):25868.
[6] Allan JR, Orosz AP. The costs of birdstrikes to commercial aviation. In:
Proceedings of the 2001 bird strike committee-USA/Canada 3rd joint annual
meeting, Calgary, Canada; 2001.
[7] Khan AI, Kapania RK, Johnson ER. A review of soft body impact on composite
structure. In: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics,
and materials conference, Orlando, FL, April 1215; 2010.
[8] Thorpe J. Fatalities and destroyed civil aircraft due to bird strikes 19122002.
In: International bird strike committee, 26th meeting, Warsaw, Poland, May
2003.
[9] Thorpe J. Update on fatalities and destroyed civil aircraft due to bird strikes
with appendix for 20062008. In: International bird strike committee, 28th
Meeting, Brasilia, Brazil, November 2008.
[10] McCarty RE. Computer analysis of bird-resistant aircraft transparencies. In:
Proceedings of the 17th annual SAFE symposium, Las Vegas, NV, December 2
6, 1979. pp. 937.
[11] Gong YN, Xu SQ. Bird impact analysis of aircraft windshield transparency.
Chin J Aeronaut 1992;5(2):10612.
[12] McCarty RE. MAGNA computer simulation of bird impact on the TF-15
aircraft canopy. In: Morolo SA. editor. Proceedings of the 14th conference on
aerospace transparent materials and enclosures, Scottsdale, AZ, July 1114,
1983. pp. 9741008.
[13] Abdi FF. Clark GM. High performance transparency design. Report A654432,
Rockwell International, North American Aircraft Report to US Air Force,
Contract # F33615-86-C-3414; 1990.
[14] Odebrecht H. Vogelschlag-Probleme an iegendem Gert dargestellt am
Beispiel Militrugzeug, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress 2001,
Hamburg, Germany, September 1720; 2001.
[15] Faure JM. Airbus dynamic analysis experiences using Abaqus/Explicit. In:
2011 SIMULIA customer conference, Barcelona, Spain, May 1719; 2011.
[16] Nizampatnam LS. Models and methods for bird strike load predictions. PhD
thesis, Wichita State University; 2007.
[17] John LK. Wing leading edge design with composites to meet bird strike
requirements. In: Strong AB. editor. Composites in manufacturing case
studies, SME, Dearborn; 1991. pp. 318.
[18] Teichman HC, Tadros RN. Analytical and experimental simulation of fan blade
behavior and damage under bird impact. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
1991;113(4):58294.
[19] Petrinic N, Dufn R. Discrete element modeling of soft body impact against
rigid targets. In: 3rd B2000 users workshop, Enschede, The Netherlands,
November 2728; 2000.
[20] Martin NF. Nonlinear nite-element analysis to predict fan-blade damage due
to soft-body impact. J Propul Power 1990;6(4):44550.
[21] Barber JP, Taylor HR, Wilbeck JS. Characterization of bird impacts on a rigid
plate: Part 1. Technical Report AFFDL-TR-75-5, Air Force Flight Dynamics
Laboratory; 1975.
[22] Barber JP, Taylor HR, Wilbeck JS. Bird impact forces and pressures on rigid and
compliant targets. Technical Report AFFDL-TR-77-60, Air Force Flight
Dynamics Laboratory; 1978.
[23] Wilbeck JS. Impact behavior of low strength projectiles. Technical Report
AFML-TR-77-134, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; 1978.
[24] Wilbeck JS, Barber JP. Bird impact loading. Shock Vib Bullet
1978;48(2):11522.
[25] Anghileri M, Sala G. Theoretical assessment, numerical simulation and
comparison with tests of birdstrike on deformable structures. In:
Proceedings of the 20th ICAS congress, Sorrento, Italy, September 813;
1996, pp. 66574.
[26] Iannucci L. Bird strike on composite panels. In: DYNA3D user conference
1992. Manchester, UK, September 2223, 1992.
[27] Iannucci L. Bird-strike impact modeling. In: Mech I, Seminar E, editors.
Foreign object impact and energy absorbing structures. London: Inst. of
Mech. Engineers; 1998.
[28] Guida M, Marulo F, Meo M, Riccio M, Russo S. Fiber metal laminate for bird
impact conditions numerical and experimental analysis. In: Proceedings of
the 6th international conference on composite science and technology. ICCST/
6, Durban, South Africa, January 2224; 2007.
[29] Budgey R. The development of a substitute articial bird by the International
Birdstrike Research Group for use in aircraft component testing, International
Bird Strike Committee ISBC25/WP-IE3, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2000.
[30] Baughn TV, Graham LW. Simulation of a birdstrike impact on aircraft canopy
material. J Aircraft 1988;25(7):65964.
2109
[31] Lavoie MA, Gakwaya A, Nejad Ensan M, Zimcik DG. Validation of available
approaches for numerical bird strike modeling tools. Int Rev Mech Eng
2007;1(4):3809.
[32] Lavoie MA, Gakwaya A, Nejad Ensan M, Zimcik DG. Review of existing
numerical methods and validation procedure available for bird strike
modeling. Int Conf Comput Exp Eng Sci 2007;2(4):1118.
[33] Mao RH, Meguid SA, Ng TY. Finite element modeling of a bird striking an
engine fan blade. J Aircraft 2007;44(2):58396.
[34] Mao RH, Meguid SA, Ng TY. Transient three dimensional nite element
analysis of a bird striking a fan blade. Int J Mech Mater Des 2008;4(1):7996.
[35] Mao RH, Meguid SA, Ng TY. Effects of incidence angle in bird strike on
integrity
of
aero-engine
fan
blade.
Int
J
Crashworthiness
2009;14(4):295308.
[36] Lavoie MA, Gakwaya A, Nejad Ensan M, Zimcik DG, Nandlall D. Birds
substitute tests results and evaluation of available numerical methods. Int J
Impact Eng 2009;36(1011):127687.
[37] Edge CH, Degrieck J. Derivation of a dummy bird for analysis and test of
airframe structures. In: Proceedings of the 1999 bird strike committee-USA/
Canada, First joint annual meeting, Vancouver, Canada; 1999.
[38] Moffat TJ, Cleghorn WL. Prediction of bird impact pressures and damage
using MSC/Dytran. In: Proceedings of ASME turbo expo 2001, New Orleans,
LO, June 47; 2001.
[39] Kamoulakos A. Bird impactor model. In: CRAHVI technical workshop, Bristol,
UK, March 17; 2004.
[40] Smojver I, Ivancevic D. Bird strike damage analysis in aircraft structures using
Abaqus/Explicit and coupled Eulerian Lagrangian approach. Compos Sci
Technol 2011;71(4):48998.
[41] Bertke RS, Barber JP. Impact damage on titanium leading edges from small
soft-body objects. Report AFML-TR-79-4019, Wright Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio; 1979.
[42] Nsiampa NN, Vandeveld T, Dyckmans G, Pirlot M. Numerical investigation of
birdstrike dynamics on airplane structures. In: ISIE2010, 7th international
symposium on impact engineering, Warsaw, Poland, July 47; 2010.
[43] Welsh CJ, Centonze V. Aircraft transparency testing articial birds. Report
AEDC-TR-86-2, US Air Force; April 1986.
[44] Morita H, Tittmann BR. Ultrasonic characterization of soft body impact
damage on CF/PEEK laminates with gelatin projectiles. In: Thompson DO,
Chimenti DE, editors. Review of progress in quantitative nondestructive
evaluation, vol. 16. New York: Plenum Press; 1997. p. 188592.
[45] Cheng J, Roberts GD, Binienda WK. Finite element simulation of soft
projectiles impacting composite targets. In: 35th International SAMPE
technical conference, Dayton, OH, September 28October 2, 2003.
[46] Tischler J. Numerische Simulation des Vogelschlag-Impakts auf eine CFKFlgelvorderkante mit Hilfe der Finite Elemente Methode, Diploma thesis,
Universitt der Bundeswehr Mnchen; 2003.
[47] Azevedo RL, Alves M. Numerical simulation of bird strike impact against
balanced berglass/epoxy composite plates. In: Proceedings of the 19th
international congress of mechanical engineering, Brasilia, Brazil, November
59; 2007.
[48] Hou JP, Ruiz C. Soft body impact on laminated composite materials. Compos
Part A 2007;38(2):50515.
[49] Joosten M, Bayandor J. Coupled SPH-composite cohesive damage modeling
methodology for analysis of soliduid interaction. In: 46th AIAA aerospace
sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada, January 710; 2008.
[50] Cornell RW. Elementary three-dimensional interactive rotor blade impact
analysis. J Eng Power 1976;98(4):4806.
[51] McCarty RE. Finite element analysis of F-16 aircraft canopy dynamic response
to bird impact loading. In: Proceedings of the 21st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS
structures, structural dynamics and material conference. Seattle, WA, May
1214; 1980. pp. 84152.
[52] Engblom JJ. Coupled uid/structure response predictions for soft body impact
of airfoil congurations. In: Vinson JR, editor. Emerging technologies in
aerospace structures design structural dynamics and materials. ASME
Century 2 Publication; 1980, pp. 20923.
[53] Nimmer RP. Nonlinear transient response of turbofan blades due to foreign
object impact. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ADINA conference, Cambridge, MA,
August 1; 1979.
[54] Storace AF, Nimmer RP, Ravenhall R. Analytical and experimental
investigation of bird impact on fan and compressor blading. J Aircraft
1984;21(7):5207.
[55] Nimmer RP, Boehman L. Transient nonlinear response analysis of soft bodied
impact on at plates including interactive load determination. In: 22nd AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS structures, structural dynamics and materials conference.
Atlanta, GA, April 68; 1981.
[56] Zang SG, Wu CH, Wang RY, Ma JR. Bird impact dynamic response analysis for
windshield. J Aeron Mater 2000;20(4):415.
[57] Wu CH, Yang JL, Zang SG, Ma JR. Study of bird impact loading model. J Beijing
Univ Aeron Astronaut 2001;27(3):3325.
[58] Samuelson A, Srns L. Failure analysis of aircraft windshields subjected to
bird impact. In: 15th ICAS Congress, London, UK, September 712, 1986. pp.
7249.
[59] Zhang Q, Xu Z. A study of dynamic response for bird impact on arc
windshields of aircrafts. Acta Aeron Astronaut Sinica 1991;12(2):B1005.
[60] Leski A, Baraniecki R, Malachowski J. Numerical simulation to study the
inuence of the thickness of canopy at a bird strike. In: Proceedings of the 7th
2110
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87] Dobyns A, Federici F, Young R. Bird strike analysis and test of a spinning S-92
tail rotor. In: Proceedings of the 57th AHS international annual forum,
Washington, DC, May 911; 2001.
[88] Hachenberg D, Graf O, Leopold T. Comparison of different approaches for bird
strike simulation. In: 2nd EADS Workshop on crash and impact simulation,
Ottobrunn, Germany, December 11; 2003.
[89] Lawson M, Tuley R. Supercomputer simulation of a birdstrike on a turbofan
aero engine. Finite Elem News 1987;3:101.
[90] Schuette W. Blade behavior during birdstrike. Science and engineering on
supercomputers. In: Proceedings of the fth international conference,
London, UK, October 2224, 1990. pp. 14557.
[91] Niering E. Simulation of bird strikes on turbine engines. J Eng Gas Turbines
Power 1990;112(4):5738.
[92] Brockman RA, Held TW. Explicit nite element method for transparency
impact analysis. Report WL-TR-91-3006, Wright Laboratory, Ohio; 1991.
[93] Gong YN, Qian C. New model of bird impact response analysis and its
engineering solution. In: Proceedings of the 18th ICAS congress, Beijing,
China, September 2025, 1992. pp. 147681.
[94] Wang A, Qiao X, Li L. Finite element method numerical simulation of bird
striking
multilayer
windshield.
Acta
Aeron
Astronaut
Sinica
1998;19(4):44651.
[95] Yang J, Cai X, Wu C. Experimental and FEM study of windshield subjected to
high speed bird impact. Acta Mech Sinica 2003;19(6):54350.
[96] Bai J, Sun Q. On the integrated design technique of windshield against birdstrike. Mech Pract 2005;27(1):148.
[97] Wang FS, Yue ZF. Numerical simulation of damage and failure in aircraft
windshield structure against bird strike. Mater Des 2010;31(2):68795.
[98] Strnad V, Doubrava R. Utilization of air gun and methods of structural test by
ying object strike for test method simulation development. Czech Aerospace
Proc 2009;1(1):113.
[99] Doubrava R, Strnad V. Bird strike analyses on the parts of aircraft structure.
In: ICAS 2010, 27th congress of the international council of the aeronautical
sciences, Nice, France, September 1924; 2010.
[100] Doubrava R. Test and numerical simulation of bird synthetic model. In: 2011
SIMULIA customer conference. Barcelona, Spain, May 1719; 2011. pp. 505.
[101] Frischbier JD. Bird strike investigations in the development process of a
transonic fan blisk. In: International gas turbine and aeroengine congress and
exhibition, Orlando, FL, June 25; 1997.
[102] Chen W, Guan YP, Gao DP. Numerical simulation of the transient response of
blade due to bird impact. Acta Aeron Astronaut Sinica 2003;24(6):
5313.
[103] Frischbier J. Vogelschlag in Flugtriebwerken eine impulsartige FluidStruktur-Wechselwirkung in der Triebwerksauslegung. VDI-Berichte Nr.
1682, VDI-Verlag; 2002.
[104] Guan Y, Zhao Z, Chen W, Gao D. Foreign object damage to fan rotor blades of
aeroengine part II: numerical simulation of bird impact. Chin J Aeronaut
2008;21(4):32834.
[105] Shmotin YN, Chupin PV, Gabov DV, Ryabov AA, Romanov VI, Kukanov SS. Bird
strike analysis of aircraft engine fan. In: 7th European LS-DYNA users
conference, Salzburg, Austria, May 1415; 2009.
[106] Vasko TJ. Fan blade bird-strike analysis and design. In: 6th International LSDYNA users conference, Dearborn, MI, April 911; 2000.
[107] Kari S, Gabrys J, Lincks D. Birdstrike analysis of radome and wing leading edge
using LS-DYNA. In: 5th International LS-DYNA users conference, Southeld,
MI, September 2122; 1998.
[108] Dopker B, Albi M. When bird and plane collide. Catia Solutions Magazine
3(6); 1999 25.
[109] Langrand B, Bayart AS, Chauveau Y, Deletombe E. Assessment of multiphysics FE methods for bird strike modeling application to a metallic
riveted airframe. Int J Crashworthiness 2002;7(4):41528.
[110] Furtado RD. Finite element analysis of birdstrike on aircraft structures. MSc
thesis, Wichita State University, 2000.
[111] Iannucci L, Dechaene R, Willows M, Degrieck J. A failure model for the
analysis of thin woven glass composite structures under impact loadings.
Comput Struct 2001;79(8):78599.
[112] Rueda F, Beltran F, Maderuelo C, Climent H. Birdstrike analysis of the wing
slats of EF-2000. In: Jones N, Brebbia CA, Rajendran AM, editors. Structures
under shock and impact VII. Southampton: WIT Press; 2002.
[113] Kersten T, Mendler J. Numerical bird strike simulation on aircraft structures.
Vogel und Luftverkehr 2002;22(2):515.
[114] Kirtil E, Pestal D, Kollofrath A, Gnsicke N, Mendler J. Simulating the impact
behavior of composite aircraft structures. In: ABAQUS users conference,
Munich, Germany, June 46, 2003. pp. 287301.
[115] Berry D. Abaqus simulates, analyses composites for aerospace. JEC Compos
2007;32:457.
[116] Guida M, Marulo F, Meo M, Riccio M. Analysis of bird impact on a composite
tailplane leading edge. Appl Compos Mater 2008;15(46):24157.
[117] Guida M. Study, design and testing of structural congurations for the birdstrike compliance of aeronautical components. PhD thesis, University of
Naples, Italy, 2008.
[118] Zhang Y, Li Y. Analysis of the anti-bird impact performance of typical beamedge structure based on ANSYS/LS-DYNA. Adv Mater Res 2008;33
37:395400.
[119] Guida M, Grimaldi A, Marulo F, Meo M, Olivares G. Bird impact on leading
edge wing with SPH formulation. In: 17th International conference on
composite materials, ICCM-17, Edinburgh, UK, July 2731; 2009.
2111
2112
[178]
[179]
[180]
[181]
[182]
[183]
[184]
[185]
[186]