Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Failure mechanism analysis and reliability assessment of an

aircraft slat
Huan Pang , Tianxiang Yu, Bifeng Song
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, P.O. Box 120, No. 127, West Youyi Road, Beilin, Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province, PR China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 July 2015
Received in revised form 10 November 2015
Accepted 16 November 2015
Available online 1 December 2015
Keywords:
Aircraft slat
Failure mechanism
Parametric simulation model
Reliability analysis
Failure assessment

a b s t r a c t
A slat is one of the most importance high-lift devices on an aircraft, whose performance inuences the safety of an aircraft directly, and its failure may lead to serious consequence. This
study focuses on the failure mechanism analysis and reliability assessment of the slat. Firstly,
based on the work principle, FTA (failure tree analysis) and FMEA (failure modes and effect
analysis) are used to analyze the potential failure modes and mechanism of failure modes. Secondly, simulation model is established using LMS Virtual.Lab and it is validated based on test
data and mathematic model. Finally, the reliability and failure cases are assessed based on
the results of dynamic simulation. The reliability analysis results show that transmission
shaft fracture and motion seizure are the main failure modes. Failure assessment shows that
the safety margin decreases to a very low value if transmission shaft fracture occurs, while a
roller seized can lead to slat motion seizure.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
When designing a wing for an aircraft, one should consider the performance of the wing during cruise, landing and takeoff
periods. Therefore, high-lift devices must be used on the original surface of the wing.
According to the installation position of the wing, high lifting devices can be divided into leading edge devices and trailing
edge devices. A typical cross section of the wing is shown in Fig. 1 [1], in which the leading edge slats and a trailing edge
aps exist. During the cruise, the aps and slats retract to reduce the resistance of the aircraft; and during the takeoff and landing
periods, they spread out to increase the camber and the area of the wing to improve the lift coefcient.
Slats are aerodynamic surfaces at the leading edge of the wings for a xed-wing aircraft, which, when deployed, allow the
wing to operate at a higher angle of attack. A higher lift coefcient is produced as a result of angle of attack and speed, so by
deploying slats an aircraft can y at a lower speed, or take off and land in a shorter distance. They are usually used while landing
or maneuvering which take the aircraft close to the stall, but are usually retracted in cruising to minimize drag [2].
There are three types of slats: 1) Automatic slat the slat lies ushed with the wing leading edge until reduced aerodynamic
forces allow it to extend by way of aerodynamics when needed, sometimes referred to as Handley-Page slats; 2) Fixed slat the
slat is permanently extended. This is sometimes used on specialist low-speed aircraft (these are referred to as slots) or when
simplicity takes precedence over speed. 3) Powered slat the slat extension can be controlled by the pilot, which is commonly
used on airliners.
The performance of slats inuences the reliability and safety of an aircraft directly. Once its movement mechanism fails and
the slat can't deploy or retract, the aerodynamic performance will be greatly affected. Even worse, slat failure can lead to a

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: p.huan.ang@163.com (H. Pang), Tianxiangyu@nwpu.edu.cn (T. Yu), Bfsong@nwpu.edu.cn (B. Song).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2015.11.032
1350-6307/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

262

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

Notation
fi
Fri.
Fi
G
GIPslat
GIPshaft
I
li

L()
Mi
Ni
Pi
q

rin
rout
rr
Rin
Rout
SG
SL
Tin
Tout
Tin
Tout
shaft
slat
yi
y
g(x)
Pf
If(x)
N
Nf
u

friction coefcient
friction force
reaction force between ith support and related rollers
gravity of the slat
torsional rigidity of the slat
torsional rigidity of the transmission shaft
inertia moment of the slat cross section
distance of each support
deploy angle of the slat
aerodynamic load when the slat deploy angle is
drag moment at each support (i = in, mid and out)
contact between track and rollers
contact force between pinion and rack
distribution aerodynamic load on slat
normal pressure angle of the gear
pitch radius of the inside pinion
pitch radius of the outside pinion
radius of the rollers
pitch radius of the inside rack
pitch radius of the outside rack
the arm of the gravity G
the arm of the Aerodynamic load L
torque acted on inside gear
torque acted on outside gear
torque acted on inside track
torque acted on outside track
torsion angle between two sides of the transmission shaft
the difference of the rotate angle between the inner and outer side
offset of ith support relative to inner support
equivalent deection
performance function
failure probability
indicating function
total number of the samples
number of the failure samples
mean value of the random variable
standard deviation of the random variable
wear depth of the rollers

crash of an aircraft. According to the statistics of aviation accidents, from 1956 to 2004, accidents caused by slat mechanism failure
had occurred more than forty times [3].
FMECA and FTA methods have been used to analyze the failure modes of high-lift devices [46] and tests have been carried
out for the EMB170, A380 and ARJ21 high-lift devices to verify the work principle and expose potential failure [7,8].

Fig. 1. Typical wing cross section with high-lift devices [1].

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

263

Although tests have been done, it is not enough to assess the reliability of the high-lift mechanism since test-based reliability
assessment should base on large number of tests, which is very time consuming and expensive. Therefore reliability test methods
[811] and small-trails reliability methods [12] were studied, but the existing methods were still not mature enough.
The reliability of the high-lift devices is affected by manufacturing errors, aerodynamic loads, component damage and other
factors. In the test, randomness of which are difcult to take into consideration, but it is easy to consider in simulation models.
So high-lift mechanisms were analyzed combining test data and simulation technology in recent years. As drive strut rupture is
the main failure mode of the ap, Janos Zierath, Hauke G, Winter E and Yoshida T build the parametric model of the high-lift system using MSC Adams. After validating the simulation model based on the test data, dynamical response of the normal case and
fault case were analyzed [1,7,13,14]. Motion seizure is another failure mode of the ap, and it was studied in [1517]. In Ref. [18],
randomness of the elastic modulus, shear modulus and aerodynamic loads were considered, and important sampling method was
used to analyze the structure reliability of the ap. As to the slat mechanism, researches are focused on wear and motion accuracy. In Ref [19], wear of the rollers and the track were analyzed and the wear reliability was obtained, and in Ref [10], the evolution law between motion accuracy reliability and time was obtained. Besides reliability analyses for single failure mode, both
reliability of structure and control mechanism are analyzed in [20], and failure probability of the entire ap system is solved by
synthesis failure probability of the structure and control mechanism. In addition, reliability-based design of a slat-track fatigue
life using mesh morphing technology was studied by Roberto d'Ippolito [21].
Although slat mechanism has caused several accidents, its failure mechanisms have not been investigated completely. In order
to reduce the risk and analyze the failure mechanism and reliability of the slat clearly, in this paper, the failure modes and mechanism are fully analyzed using FMEA and FTA; then the simulation model of the slat is built using LMS Virtural.Lab and it is
validated by mathematical model. Finally, based on the simulation model, reliability and failure cases are analyzed.
2. Working principle of the slat
Three slats are installed on both sides of the aircraft wing. Slats are independent except that their transmission shafts are end
to end. For the reason that slats share the same structural form, failure modes and failure mechanism, in this paper, only the inner
slat is taken into consideration while interaction between each slat is not taken into consideration.
As shown in Fig. 2, the inner slat is 4 m long. In order to prevent excessive deformation during the ight, three tracks are arranged. At the leading edge of the wing, there are three corresponding supports assembled, each of them has four rollers. The
track and the four rollers make contact with each other to constrain the slat from dropping. Two racks are fastened in the
inner track and outer track, respectively. Also, two gears assembled on the inside support and outside support, and they form
two gear pairs with the racks in the tracks. The slat mechanism is mechanically actuated by means of transmission system including hydraulic motor and transmission shafts. The motor rotation makes inside gear, shafts, outside gear rotates compliably. With
the effects of the gear pair, the slat mechanism can be deployed or retracted. According to the boundary conditions, the maximum
rotation angle of the slat is 20.85 in 20 s. The working principle is shown in Fig. 3.
There are two typical work cases for the slat: one is deploying and retracting on the ground and another is deploying and
retracting during ight. As to the rst case, the aircraft remains stationary, there's no aerodynamic load acting on the wing surface. The only load acting on the slat mechanism is gravity, so the assembly position of the three supports doesn't change and
neither is there an aerodynamic load acting on the slat. While in the second case, large aerodynamic load acts on both wing
surface and slat surface, bending the wing upwards and changing the assembly position of the supports.
3. Failure modes and failure mechanism analysis
3.1. Failure mode analysis
In applying FTA and FMEA methods to the slat mechanism, six potential failure modes are obtained. A detailed information is
listed in Table 1.

Fig. 2. Diagram of slat mechanism.

264

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

Fig. 3. Work principle of the slat.

In the slat mechanism, the main components which bear large loads are gears, racks, transmission shaft and the tracks. The
motion drag increases with the aerodynamic load, wing deformation and friction coefcient between the roller and track,
which results in component load increase. Once the load of any component exceeds its strength limitation, it will fracture.
Since component fracture leads to slat mechanism failure, the severity is dened to level I.
Contact fatigue is likely to occur in two areas. One is the contact surface of gear and rack, and the other is contact surface of
roller and track. These two areas bear larger load when slat mechanism is deploying and retracting. Contact fatigue becomes more
and more likely to occur on these surfaces with working time. In a general way, the sequence of contact fatigue of contact surface
is not very serious, so the severity is dened to level III. Even though, it must be avoided.
It is required that the slat deployed and retracted to 20.85 in 20 s; the time tolerance is 3 s. The aerodynamic performance
may decrease once the motion time exceeds its limitation, which is mainly caused by the hydraulic motor, which is not analyzed
in detail in this paper.
When the hydraulic motor works, power transfers to the inner pinion directly. Driving torque of the outside gear comes from
the transmission shaft, which holds the same rotation speed with the inside gear.
The motion accuracy means whether the actual rotation angle of the slat can reach the design value or not. The actual value is
mainly inuenced by a gap between the roller and track and the clearance between pinion and rack. The clearance is composed of
initial clearance and wear depth. A long time of work leads to wear depth increase and it may result in slat mechanism lacking
motion accuracy.
Motion seizure failure mode occurs when the maximum torque that hydraulic motor can provide is insufcient to overcome
the motion drag moment. Since this paper doesn't pay more attention to the performance of hydraulic motor, the maximum
torque is regarded as constant. In this way, the direct factor that inuences this failure mode is drag force.

3.2. Failure mechanism analysis

Failure mechanism of the failure modes is shown in Fig. 4; it can be seen that the reliability of the slat is mainly affected by the
deformation of the wing. Once aerodynamic load acts on the wing surface, deformation of the wing occurs, which leads to the
supports deviating from their normal position and the contact forces between rollers and tracks increase to make the slat hold
the same deformation with the wing. On the other hand, since there are three supports assembled on the wing, deformation
of the wing leading to nonaxiality of the three supports increases, which also results in contact force increase. The contact forces
increase with the friction force. Additionally, the wear rate of the metal and the friction coefcient increase with the contact force.
The torsional torque in transmission shaft increases with the drag moment at outside support, as torsional rigidity of the shaft
is constant, torsion angle increases with the drag moment, when angle difference exceeds its limitation; failure mode 4 occurs. If
Table 1
Failure modes of the slat mechanism and corresponding failure critical and severity level.
No.

Failure modes

Failure critical

Severity level

1
2
3
4

Structure fracture
Contact fatigue
Retractable speed out of range
Motion disharmony

I
III
II
II

5
6

Lack of accuracy
Motion seizure

The actual load is greater than the threshold

Working time is greater than fatigue life
Control system failure, causing retractable time out of range
Working resistance is too large and too large torsion deformationresult in angle
difference exceeding its limitation
Component wear makes gap increase, causing the angle deviation to go out of range
Component wear and deformationcauses work resistance increase and when the
resistance is too large, motion seizure occurs

II
I

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

265

Fig. 4. Failure mechanism analysis for failure modes.

drag moment increases continually and torque in shaft exceeds its strength limitation, a fracture may have occurred in transmission shaft.
As can be seen from Fig. 4, kinematics precision of the slat is affected by two factors, one is backlash of gear pairs and the other
is the gap between the rollers and tracks. While contact forces between the wheel and the tracks increase, the wear of their surface increases the gap between wheels and tracks. On the other hand, gear surface wear also makes backlash of the gear increase.
Thereby the kinetic precision decreases, once the precision degrades below to the requirement, the slat fails.
Assuming that the maximum torque the hydraulic motor can offer is constant, when drag moment is too large, driving torque
may not be enough to overcome the drag moment, in this case, motion seizure will occur.

4. Slat modeling and validation

4.1. Simulation model building of the slat
For complex mechanisms, establishing and solving their dynamical equations are quite difcult or even impossible, especially
when too many contacts exist. So applying multi-body dynamic simulation platform to simulate the dynamic response of mechanism becomes more and more popular. In this paper, LMS Virtual.Lab is used. The theoretical background of multi-body simulation can be found in [22,23].
Modeling process based on LMS Virtual.Lab is shown in Fig. 5. The detail steps are illustrated as follows:
Step 1: Preparation for modeling.
Before establishing the multi-body model, complete the CAD models of the components using CATIA and obtain the aerodynamic load by CFD software or wind-tunnel test.
Step 2: Rigid model building.
Rigid model is built in MOTION platform. After reasonable simplication is carried out for the mechanism, e.g. bolts and nuts
are ignored and components that have no relative motions are regarded as one part, joints, forces, contacts and drives are dened
in the model;
Step 3: Finite element models (FEM) building and CraigBampton mode calculation.
Finite element models of the ex bodies are built in STRUCTURE platform. Re-use the CAD model of the components to build
the nite element models (FEM), with the boundary conditions obtained by rigid model, CraigBampton (C-B) modes are
calculated;
Step 4: Rigid-ex coupling model building.
Replacing the part in rigid model by corresponding FEM and C-B modes, then ltering the C-B modes and set up the damping
constant;

266

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

Fig. 5. Methodology of modeling.

Step 5: Hydraulic model and united model building.

As most of the aircraft mechanisms are driven by hydraulic system, in order to take the coupling effects of machine and
hydraulics into consideration, the model of hydraulic system is built in AMESim platform, and then through establishing the
interface of the two platforms, co- simulation model is established;
Step 6: Parametric model building.
In order to make the parameter study and sampling convenient, dene the parameters which are going to be studied, and use
the parameters to replace the corresponding value in the model so that the parametric model is established.
As to the slat mechanism, slat structure and transmission shaft are chosen as exible bodies. Their stiffness is smaller than that
of supports, gears and tracks. On the other hand, when assemble position of slat supports changes, deformation will occur on the
slat structure and the torsion angle of the transmission shaft inuences angle difference, which is an important performance index
of slat. The slat model is shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. Slat simulation model.

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

267

4.2. Mathematic model of the slat

Since there's no physical experiment data, in order to validate the simulation, mathematic model is established. By qualitatively comparing the simulation results with mathematic model, the simulation model is proved to be reasonable.
According to the working principle of the slat, the main performance parameters are the driving torque, gear contact force,
contact force between the roller and track and angle difference between the inside and outside of the slat. In order to deduce
the mathematical model of the slat performance parameters, force analysis is presented rstly.
4.2.1. Reaction force analysis between supports and tracks
As shown in Fig. 7, the slat device can be regarded as a beam whose inertia moment varies with the distance to the wing root.
It is supported by three racks; when the aerodynamic load acts on the wing, the wing is deformed, as shown in Fig. 7(b), which is
an over-constrained problem. Taking the inside support as the basement, the offset of the middle support and outside support are
y2 and y3 respectively. The deformation of the slat is produced by both aerodynamic load on the whole surface of the slat and
the contact force between rollers and tracks Fi.
As aerodynamic load changes with the deploying angle and the distance to the wing root x, distributed aerodynamic load on
the slat can be expressed as q(x,), which is obtained by CFD or wind-tunnel test. In addition, yi can be obtained by analyzing
the deformation of the wing.
Since three racks can be regarded as three movable hinges, Fig. 7(b) can be translated into Fig. 7(c), in which slat is hinged at
racks A and C, and a load is acted at rack B. Thus, over-constrained problem is translated into a constraint problem. The only
unknown parameters are the reaction force between supports and tracks. It can be seen that the contact force increases with
the equivalent deection y, where y

l2
l2 l3

y3 y2 is the equivalent deection.

In order to obtain the contact forces, the bending moment along the slat is analyzed rst.
Z x
8
>
>
xaqa; da
l1 x l 1 l 2
< F 1 xl1
0
Z l l l l
Mx
1
2
3
4
>
>
: F 3 l1 l2 l3 x
axqa; da
l1 l 2 x l1 l 2 l 3

where x is the distance from the aerodynamic load applying point to the wing root, is the deploying angle of the slat, and li is
the length of each segment.
According to the differential equation of the deection curve [24]
d2 y M x

dx2 EIx

where I(x) is the inertia moment of the slat cross section. The angle of rotation and the deection of the slat can be described
as
8
Z
dy
>
>

< 1
dx Z
dy
>
>
: 2

dx

M x
dx c1
EI x
M x
dx c2
EI x

l1 x l1 l2
l 1 l 2 x l1 l 2 l 3

Fig. 7. Contact force analysis sketch.

268

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279


8
Z Z
Mx
>
>
dx dx c1 x d1
< y1
Z Z EIx 
Mx
>
>
: y2
dx dx c2 x d2
EIx

l1 x l1 l2

l1 l 2 x l1 l2 l3 :

The integral constants in Eqs (3) and (4) can be determined by the following boundary conditions,
8
y1 l1 0
>
>
>
>
< y2 l1 l2 l3 0
y1 l1 l2 y
>
>
> y2 l1 l2 y
>
:
1 l1 l2 2 l1 l2

Furthermore, Eqs. (6) and (7) can be obtained from the equilibrium conditions.
X

Z
FY 0 : F1 F2 F3

l1 l2 l3 l4
0

Z
MA 0 : F 2 l2 F 3 l2 l3

qx; dx 0

l1 l2 l3 l4
l1

Z
xl1 qx; dx

l1
0

l1 xqx; dx 0

There are seven unknowns in Eqs. (3), (4), (6) and (7), and the number of equations is also seven. So combine these equations, integral constants of c1, d1, c2, and d3 and the contact forces of F1, F2, and F3 can be obtained.
4.2.2. Drag moment analysis during motion
Fig. 8 shows force analysis on the side view. Since slat and tracks are fastened together, they are regarded as one part during
force analysis, There are eleven forces acting on the slat, they are aerodynamic load L(), gravity G, torque acted on the rack T,
four normal contact forces Ni and four friction forces Fri., where Fri = fi Niand fi is the friction coefcient between rollers and tracts.
From the direction of the forces, it can be seen that the direction of Ni passes through the rotation center O, so they do not
produce a moment when slat rotates; The force arm of the gravity force G is SG, it produces a positive moment in the deploying
process and produces negative moment in the retracting process; the aerodynamic load L() and friction forces Fri. produce
negative moments when slat is deployed. On the contrary, it produces positive moments when slat is retracted. In both deploying
and retracting processes, the only driving moment is T, which is produced by gear contact force P.

Fig. 8. Motion drag moment analysis sketch (deploy period).

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

269

According to the above analysis, during the deploying process, the total moment besides T is
Mi Fr 1 Fr 2 R Fr 3 Fr4 r LSL G  SG F i



Ri r i
LSL G  SG
2

i 1; 2; 3 :

And during the retracting process, the directions of driving torque T and friction forces fi change and the total moment besides
T is


R ri
Mi Fr 1 Fr 2 R Fr 3 Fr4 r G  SG LSL F i i
G  SG Li SL i 1; 2; 3
9
2
where Mi is the drag moment at ith support.
4.2.3. Performance parameter analysis
The most important performance parameters of the slat mechanism are driving torque T, angle difference slat, gear contact
force P and torque in transmission shaft Tout. In this section, these parameters are to be analyzed. The force transfer path of
the slat is shown in Fig. 9.
From the force transfer path, it can be seen that the slat bear three drag moments Mi at the supports and two driving moment
Tin relative to the rotation center. As the slat moves slowly and uniformly during the motion process, the driving force and the
drag force can be regarded equal to each other at any moment, as Tin and Tout out are the driving torques and Mi are the drag
torques, so the kinematics model can be described in Eq. (10).
0

T in T out M in M mid Mout

10

Among the slat components, deformation of transmission shaft and slat is larger than deformation of others, so they are
regarded as exible bodies and others are regarded as rigid bodies. According to the torsional equation, the torsion angle of
the shaft and the slat can be expressed as follows:
shaft

T out l2 l3
GIpshaft

Z
slat

Mmid Mout T 0out

dx
GIpslat x
l1
l2

11

Mout T 0out
dx
l2 GIpslat x
l3

12

where shaft and slat are the torsion angles of shaft and slat, respectively, and GIpslat(x) and GIpshaft are the torsional rigidity of the
slat and transmission shaft respectively. l is the length of the transmission shaft.
In order to make the derivation process convenient, assuming that GIpslat is constant along X direction, and l2 = l3 = l/2, then
Eq. (12) can be written as
slat



Mmid Mout T 0out M out T 0out l M mid 2M out 2T 0out l

2
2
GIpslat
GIpslat
GIpslat

Fig. 9. Force transfer path of the slat mechanism.

13

270

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

In Eq. (11), the torque in transmission shaft is

T out

GIpshaft shaft
:
l

14

Representing the gear normal force of both inside and outside by Pin and Pout, the torques acting on gear and track are
0

T in P in  rin  cos ; T in P in  Rin  cos

15

T out P out  r out  cos ; T out P out  Rout  cos

16

where is the normal pressure angle of the gear pair; Rin and rin are the pitch radius of inside rack and gear; Rout and rout are the
pitch radius of the outside rack and gear; Tin and Tout are the torques acting on the inside and outside gear; Tin and Tout are the
torques acting on the inside and outside tracks. Then in Eqs. (15) and (16), the torque on gear and track satises the following
relationship.
0

T in

Rin
T
r in in

T out

17

Rout
T :
rout out

18

As the linear velocity of the contact point on gear and rack is equal to each other, it yields
shaft  r out slat  Rout :

19

In order to make the following equations look simple, Rout and rout in the following are written as R and r. According to
Eq. (19), the following relationship existed:
shaft

R
:
r slat

20

Then, substituting Eq. (14) to Eq. (18), the torque acting on the track is the function of shaft:
0

T out

R  GIpshaft shaft
R
T
:
r out
rl

21

In order to deduce the torsional angle of the slat, rstly, substitute Eq. (21) into Eq. (13), yielding

slat

R  GIpshaft shaft
0
Mmid 2Mout 2T out l M mid 2M out 2
l
rl

2
2
GIpslat
GIpslat

22

Then, substitute Eq. (20) into Eq. (22) to replace shaft by slat and simplify the equation; torsional angle of the slat can be
obtained as
slat

M mid 2M out l
2 GIpslat

R2
GIpshaft
r2

!:

23

Eq. (23) shows that on the precondition of GIp, r, R, l are determinate, angle difference of the slat is determined by Mmid and
Mout, while Min does not affect the angle difference. Moreover, the effect of Mout is more obvious than Mmid.
According to Eq. (20), shaft can also be obtained in Eq. (14). Tout is the function of shaft, so in order to obtain Tout, substituting
Eqs. (20) and (23) into Eq. (14), Eq. (24) is obtained.
T out

GIpshaft shaft GIpshaft R

 
r
l
l

Mmid 2M out  l
2

2 GIpslat

R
GIpshaft
r2

M mid 2M out GIpshaft  R

!
R2
2 GIpslat 2 GIpshaft  r
r

24

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

271

Tout is the torque acting on the outside gear and it is also the torque acting on transmission shaft. The same situation as
Eq. (23), Tout is determined by Mmid and Mout, while Min does not affect the angle difference. Moreover, the effect of Mout is
more obvious than Mmid.
According to Eq. (10), torque acting on inside track can be expressed as follows:
0

T in M in M mid M out T out M in M mid Mout

R M mid 2M out GIpshaft  R

!
r
R2
2 GIpslat 2 GIpshaft  r
r

2r 2 GIpslat Min M mid M out R2  GIpshaft 2Min M mid

!
:
R2
2r 2  GIpslat 2 GIpshaft
r

25

As driving torque is the sum of torques acting on both inside and outside gears, it can be described as

T T in T out

2r 2 GIpslat Min Mmid Mout 2R2  r  GIpshaft M in Mmid Mout

r2
!
Min M mid M out :
2
R
R
2r 2  GIpslat 2 GIpshaft
r

26

Eq. (26) shows that driving torque is proportional to the total drag moment. According to Eqs. (15) and (16), contact forces of
the gears are

P in

2r 2 GIpslat M in Mmid Mout R2  GIpshaft 2M in Mmid

T in
!

2
r in  cos
R
2R  r  GIpslat 2 GIpshaft  r in  cos
r

P out

T out

r out  cos

M mid 2Mout GIpshaft  R

!
:
R2
2 GIpslat 2 GIpshaft  r  r out cos
r

27

28

Substituting Mi in Eq. (8) or (9) into Eq. (23) to Eq. (28), performance parameters of the slat can be obtained.
4.2.4. Coupling effect analysis of slat torsion and bending deformation
The above analysis shows that the slat's bending makes the motion drag and slat torsion increase, but it does not take the coupling
effect between torsion and bending into consideration. In fact, slat torsion also makes slat bending increase as shown in Fig. 10.
The initial offset difference of the inside support and outside support is y3, when the inside of the slat rotates at , due to the
motion drag effect, the slat torsion angle is slat, which means the outside of the slat lags slat compared to the inside. From the
geometry relationship, the actual deection can be expressed as
0

y3 y3 y y3 R cosslat cos:

29

According to Eq. (29), when slat is small, the torsion effect can be ignored, that is to say, performance parameters obtained by
Eq. (23) to Eq. (28) can represent the actual value. While slat is large, the torsion effect cannot be ignored, so Mi in Eq. (23) to
Eq. (28) is also a function of slat, and iteration method should be used to solve the equations.
It's convenient to promote the mathematic model of the slat to the slats system. As shown in Fig. 10, when exerting an addition motion drag moment to the outside support, the model of slats system is obtained, where the addition motion drag moment
is the driving moment of the next slat.
There are also some difculties in modeling and solving the mathematic model. In the deduction, slat is regarded as a variable
stiffness beam, but in practical, it is difcult to obtain the exural rigidity and torsional rigidity because of the complex structure.
4.3. Simulation model validation
Simulation model validation includes: 1) deterministic simulation model validation, which is used to validate that the simulation
model is valid at the normal case; 2) inuence factor validation, which is used to validate that the simulation model still reasonable
when values of the factors change. Since there's not enough test data and the mathematic model is simplied, deterministic simulation model is validated based on the test data, while inuence forces are validated based on the mathematic model.

272

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

Fig. 10. Sketch of coupling effect between torsion and bending.

4.3.1. Validation of the deterministic simulation model based on slat test

Test rig is done for certicating the high-lift mechanism, as shown in Fig. 11, which is located at the Aircraft Strength Research
Institute (ASRI) in Xi'an. The test rig consists of a wing, inner ap and inner slat. In order to simulate air dynamic load, six
hydraulic cylinders are installed on both ap and slat, respectively, and three hydraulic cylinders are installed at the wingtip to
make wing deformation.
In order to validate the deterministic simulation model, according to the related parameters (aerodynamic load and wing deformation) in the test. Parameters of the simulation model are dened, then the driving torque and shaft torque are compared
between the test measurement and simulation. The results are shown in Fig. 12, which shows that the driving torque and the
shaft torque resulting from the simulation are mapped with the torques resulting from the test.

4.3.2. Inuence factors validation of simulation model based on mathematic model

Wing deformation, friction between rollers and tracks, torsional rigidity of the transmission shaft and the radius of the roller
are the inuencing factors of reliability, so except that the deterministic simulation model should be validated, when values of the
inuence factors change, the relationship between the inuence factors and the dynamic response should also be coincident with
the reality. Since some factors (friction coefcient, torsion rigidity et al.) are difcult to change, there's no enough test data to
validate the simulation model and mathematic model is used instead. Giving three values to each parameter and keeping others
in normal value, then running the simulation model and change rate of each case is shown in Table 2 and the comparison is
shown in Fig. 13.

Fig. 11. Test rig for slat certication.

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

273

Fig. 12. Comparison of the dynamic results.

As Fig. 13(a) shows, when the wing deformation increases from 17 mm to 20 mm, the rate of change is about 0.22. While it
increases from 20 mm to 23 mm, the rate of change is larger than 0.3. So it can be seen that the relation of wing deformation and
slat performance parameters is nonlinearity. According to the mathematic model shown in Fig. 7, it is obvious that reaction forces
of Fi increase with the wing deformation, and from Eqs. (8) and (9), motion drag moment increases also. In Eqs. (23) to (28), the
performance parameters of slat are the linear function of Mi, the coupling effect results in the nonlinear relationship.
Fig. 13(b) shows that when the friction coefcient increases from 0.03 to 0.05, the rate of change is about 0.3, while it increases
from 0.05 to 0.07, the rate of change is also about 0.3. So the relation of friction coefcient and the slat performance parameters are
approximately linear over the rate of the factor. According to the mathematic model, motion drag moment Mi is the linear function of
friction coefcient, and from Eqs. (23) to (28), the performance parameters of slat are the linear function of Mi.
Fig. 13(c) shows that the increasing shaft torsional rigidity will lead to the inside gear force decreases and the outside gear
force increases, but the change is not obvious, while the increase of shaft torsional rigidity will greatly decrease the angle difference. According to Eq. (23), it is obvious that the torsion angle decreases with the torsion rigidity of the transmission shaft, and
when the torsion angle decreases, a larger force will act on the outside rack, so the gear force of outside increases. In addition,
from the coupling effect analysis between slat torsion and bending deformation shown in Eq. (29), as the torsion angle of slat
decreases, equivalent deection of the slat decreases also, then the driving torque will decrease slightly.
Fig. 13(d) shows when the radius of the rollers increases from 15.3 mm to 15.5 mm, the rate of change is about 0.3, while it
increases from 15.5 mm to 15.7 mm, the rate of change is larger than 1.6, which indicates that the relation of radius of rollers and
slat performance parameters is nonlinear. According to Eqs. (2) to (7), it can be seen that the contact force of Fi is a function of
wing deformation which is affected by roller radius. While the relationship of them is expressed by several differential equations,
the relationship is nonlinear.
From the above qualitative comparison of the results from both simulation model and mathematic model, it can be seen that
change trends of performance parameters which are obtained by simulation model are coincident with that obtained by mathematic model, so the simulation is proved to be reasonable, and it can be used for reliability analysis and failure assessment.

Table 2
Results of parameter studies.
Inuence factors

Value

Rate of change
Driving torque

Shaft torque

Angle difference

Inside gear force

Outside gear force

Equivalent deection
y/mm

17
20
23
0.03
0.05
0.07
4000
4600
5200
15.3
15.5
15.7

0.768809
1
1.387543
0.721792
1
1.308364
1.002419
1
0.997433
0.651335
1
2.611887

0.788544
1
1.327902
0.681486
1
1.341337
0.992821
1
0.99934
0.695174
1
2.644239

0.788444
1
1.328
0.681778
1
1.341333
1.141333
1
0.885333
0.695111
1
2.645333

0.760618
1
1.415835
0.739419
1
1.296414
1.008104
1
0.998406
0.633316
1
2.60262

0.788593
1
1.327907
0.681505
1
1.341319
0.992922
1
0.999334
0.695243
1
2.644012

Friction coefcient
f
Torsion rigidity
GIp/Nm/rad
Radius of rollers
rr/mm

274

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

Fig. 13. Results of parameter study.

5. Reliability analysis and failure assessment based on dynamical analysis

The simulation of typical cases shows that the ight case is much more serious than ground case, so ignoring the failure probability of the ground case, the following reliability analysis and failure assessment are focused on the ight case.
The changes of inuence factors affect the performance of the slat. It may lead to reliability problems, as the inuence factors
are not constant but random variables.
It is difcult to analyze the reliability by test-based method, because it is difcult to change the values of the random variables,
while it is much easier to achieve in parametrical simulation model. In this section, reliability analysis and failure assessment are
studied based on the dynamical simulation results. The owchart is show in Fig. 14.
5.1. Reliability assessment based RSM and MC
According to the failure mechanism analysis and parameter studies, equivalent deection, friction coefcient between roller
and track, and roller radius are the main factors which inuence the performance of the slat mechanism. The random parameters
are presented in Table 3.
The strength analysis results show that the maximum contact force that gear can bear is 108 kN and the maximum torque that
transmission shaft can bear is 600 Nm. According to the performance of the hydraulic motor, the maximum driving torque that

Fig. 14. Flowchart of reliability and failure assessment based on dynamical analysis.

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

275

Table 3
Random parameters of the inuence factors.
No.

Inuence factors

Type

Mean, u

Standard deviation,

1
2
3

Equivalent deection y/mm

Friction coefcient f
Roller radius rr/mm

Normal
Normal
Normal

20
0.05
15.5

1
0.0067
0.067

hydraulic motor can provide is 1100 Nm. It is required that the angle difference of the inside and outside slat must be less than 2.
So from the above, the failure criterions can be dened as:
Failure
Failure
Failure
Failure

mode
mode
mode
mode

11: Gear fracture: Z11(x) = 108 kN P(x) b 0.

12: Transmission shaft fracture: Z12(x) = 600 Nm T2(x) b 0.
4: Motion disharmony: Z4(x) = 2 slat(x) b 0.
6: Motion seizure: Z6(x) = 100 Nm T(x) b 0.

In order to improve computational efciency and accuracy, quadratic RSM is used to approximate simulation model. The error
analysis results are shown in table 4.
Based on the RSM model, 106 samples are simulated to obtain the failure probability of each failure mode, the results are listed
in table 5.
The reliability analysis shows that motion seizure and transmission shaft fracture are the main failure modes, while gear fracture and motion disharmony failure modes are not likely to occur. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor the driving torque and
shaft torque during the ight.
As for the failure mode 5 (lack of motion accuracy), according to the design requirement, the angle difference should be less
than 1. According to the failure mechanism analysis, the inuence factors of the motion accuracy are the clearance between the
roller and track and the clearance between gear pairs. The clearance between the roller and track is determined by the radius of
the rollers rr and the wear depth h; the clearance between gear pairs is determined by the initial backlash and wear depth h. In
order to know how wear depth affects the motion accuracy, ve values are given to h, and the standard deviation is assumed to
be 0.1, the detail distribution parameters are listed in Table 6.
Through analyzing, the angle difference distribution at different wear depths is shown in Fig. 15; it can be seen that with the
increase of wear depth, the mean value of magnitude of the angle difference increases.
Failure probability of motion accuracy at the four wear depths are calculated and scatter points are tted by Gaussian function,
the tting curve is shown in Fig. 16. The following relationship can be found between wear depth and failure probability,
 
 
h0:5379 2
P f 0:5845 exp
0:1081

32

From the trend of the failure probability, when wear depth is less than 0.25 mm, the failure probability of motion accuracy is
close to zero and steady. While when wear depth grows larger than 0.25 mm, the failure probability of motion accuracy increases
sharply. The phenomenon can be explained by the probability density curve of normal distribution, when wear depth increases
from 0 to 0.25 mm, the mean value of the angle difference is far from the failure threshold, the probability density grows very
slowly. While the mean value of the angle difference gradually approaches the failure threshold, the probability density grows
fast. As the failure probability should be less than 10E 7, the wear depth should be less than 0.12 mm.

5.2. Failure assessment based on dynamic analysis

From reliability analysis, transmission shaft fracture and motion seizure are the two most possible failure modes. To provide
more former information before failure modes occur, these cases are simulated and the performance of these cases is obtained.

Table 4
Error analysis results of the RSM model.
No.

Responses

1
2
3
4
5

Driving torque T
Shaft torque Tout
Inside gear force P1
Outside gear force P2
Angle difference

Error type
R-squared

Root mean square

0.98966
0.9874
0.99277
0.98727
0.98741

0.03306
0.03692
0.02756
0.03692
0.03691

276

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

Table 5
Failure probability of each failure mode.
Failure mode

Motion seizure

Probability of failure

8.65 10

Shaft fracture

3.20 10

Inside gear fracture

Outside gear fracture

Motion disharmony

Table 6
Distribution parameters of the random variables and the corresponding failure probability.
No.

Wear depth h/mm

Variables

Mean u/mm

Standard deviation /mm

Failure probability Pf

0
0.25

0.375

0.5

15.5
1
15.25
1.25
15.125
1.125
15
1.5

0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1

2.26 1012

rr
d
rr
d
rr
d
rr
d

0.001
0.0602
0.517

5.2.1. Failure assessment of shaft fracture case

Transmission shaft is a critical component of the slat; normally, driving torque of outside gear comes from transmission shaft.
As studied in Section 4.2, the torsion torque increases with the wing deformation, friction coefcient, torsion rigidity and roller
radius. And reliability analysis shows transmission shaft fracture is likely to occur.
In order to obtain the performance of the slat in the transmission shaft failure case, the failure case is simulated. As the shaft
may fail at any time, two different failure times are given and their comparison is shown in Fig. 17.
As Fig. 17(a) shows, torsion torque in shaft disappears when shaft fracture occurs (assuming that failure occurs at t = 10 s or t =
15 s). When the output time step is set to 0.01 s, it can be seen that a short vibration occurs when the shaft is fractured and soon the
stationary value is reached. Before failure, the angle difference of inboard and outboard is very small, while after failure, the angle difference increases (Fig. 17(c)). Similarly, the outside gear force disappeared and the inside gear force increases sharply, the max magnitude changes from 8450 N to 28,500 N (Fig. 17(b)). Fig. 17(d) shows, when there is a shaft fracture, driving torque decreases; right
off, it increases to a larger value compared with the normal case. The maximum value increases from 304 Nm to 722 Nm; it is about 2.5
times higher than the max driving torque before failure (Fig. 17(d)). The angle difference between the inside and outside increases
from 1.12 deg. to 33 deg., which is close to the failure boundary. At the same time, the slat is twisted, the stress result shows the maximum stress of slat increases from 92 MPa to 179 MPa when transmission shaft is broken.
The change can be explained by the mathematic model. When transmission shaft fracture, GIpshaft vanished. Then Eq. (23)
changes into Eq. (33).
slat

Mmid 2M out  l
2

2 GIpslat

R
GIpshaft
r2

Mmid 2M out  l
2GIpslat

Fig. 15. Histogram of angle difference at different wear depths.

33

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

277

Fig. 16. Relationship between failure probability and wear depth.

It can be seen that the angle difference increases greatly when transmission shaft is broken. At this rate, the torsion effect cannot be
ignored anymore, as it leads to Mi increase. In this way, although the expression of driving torque does not change, the magnitude
increases. Expressions of gear contact force also changes from Eqs. (27) and (28) to Eqs. (35) and (36) respectively.

r 2 Min M mid M out

R

P in

2r 2 GIpslat Min M mid M out R2  GIpshaft 2Min M mid

T in
!

rin  cos
R2
2R  r  GIpslat GIpshaft  r in  cos
r

2r 2 GIpslat M in M mid M out

2R  r  GIpslat  r in  cos

Fig. 17. Comparison of normal case and transmission shaft fracture case.

34

35

278

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

P out

T out

r out  cos

M mid 2Mout GIpshaft  R

!
0
R2
2 GIpslat 2 GIpshaft  r  r out cos
r

36

According to Eqs. (15) and (16), driving torque can be expressed as

T T in T out P in  r in  cos P out  r out  cos :

37

From Eqs. (34) and (35), Pout decreases to zero and T increases, so according to Eq. (37), Pin increases greatly. The reason why
inside gear force and driving torque increase so much is that when shaft fracture occurs, slat mechanism is only driven by the
inside gear pair. In this case, the outboard of the slat is lagged relative to the inboard; the lag makes the slat surface distortion.
The distortion brings additional drag force to the slat motion process, which leads to load on gear pair and driving torque increase.
And the large drag moment also leads to a large lagging angle, which is a vicious circle.
5.2.2. Failure assessment of roller seized case
Normally, rollers assembled on support can rotate smoothly relative to their rotation shafts, that is to say, rollers can roll on
the track surface. But when roller seized with its shaft, it slides on the track surface, this change leads to the increase of friction,
then inuences performance of the slat mechanism. According to Eqs. (23)(28), it can be seen that all the performance parameters increase when friction coefcient between roller and track increases.
The roller seized failure case is simulated and the results are shown in Fig. 18.
According to Fig. 18(a), when a roller seizes, the motion drag force of friction increases, which leads to gear contact force increase; the inside gear force increases from 8430 to 8907 N and 36,325 N and the outside gear force increases from 3954 N to
8203 N and 18,088 N. The torque in transmission shaft increases with the outside gear force, Fig. 18(b) shows that the torque
in transmission shaft increases from 90 Nm to 188 Nm and 416 Nm. Fig. 18(c) shows the angle difference increases from
1.12 deg. to 2.33 deg. and 5.14 deg., the driving torque increases from 303 Nm to 413 Nm and 1332 Nm respectively.
Fig. 18(d) shows once the outside rollers or all the rollers seized, maximum driving torque increases from the normal value of
303 Nm to 413 Nm or 1331 Nm respectively.
Combining with the failure criterion of each failure mode, safety margins are analyzed. The results are listed in Table 7.
Table 6 shows that when there is shaft fracture, the safety margin of angle difference decreases to 1.2, which means that the slat is
close to failure. When all the rollers seized, the safety margin of driving torque decreases to 0.8, which is less than 1, it means the driving torque exceeds the maximum torque that hydraulic motor can provide, so when rollers seized, the slat cannot move.

Fig. 18. Slat performance of roller seized case.

H. Pang et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 261279

279

Table 7
Results of safety margin analysis.
Failure criterion

P/kN
T2/Nm
T/Nm
/deg.

108
600
1100
40

Normal case

Shaft fracture case

Roller seized case

Value

Margin

Value

Margin

8.4
90.3875
304
1.12

12.7
6.6
3.6
35.7

28.5
0
722
33

3.8

1.5
1.2

Value

Margin

36.3
188
1332
2.33

2.9
3.1
0.8
2.3

6. Conclusions and discussion

The present study focuses on the failure mechanism analysis and reliability assessment of the slat mechanism. Failure modes
and failure mechanism are fully analyzed, and simulation model, which is validated by test and mathematic model is used to
analyze the reliability problems. The important conclusions are:
1) Reliability analysis results show that transmission shaft fracture and motion seizure are the main failure modes, so it is
necessary to monitor the driving torque and shaft torque.
2) Failure assessment shows that the safety margin decreases to a very low value if transmission shaft fracture occurs, while
roller seized can lead to slat motion seizure.
The advantage of the study is that failure modes and failure mechanism are fully discussed. What's more, deformation of the
wing is considered during slat modeling; the boundary condition is more close to the actual and the results are more accurate.
However, a single slat is studied currently and the correlation between the slats has been ignored. In addition, gust has not
been considered. In the future, in order to obtain more accurate results of the slats system, the model still needs to be improved.

Role of funding source

This work is nancially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (310201401JCQ01008) and
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11402204).

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]

J. Zierath, C. Woernle, Elastic multibody models of transport aircraft high-lift mechanisms, J. Aircr. 46 (5) (2009) 15131524.
A.M.O. Smith, High-lift aerodynamics, J. Aircr.(AIAA) 12 (6) (1975) 501530.
Important events of aircraft in recent yearsCent. Aviat. Saf. Technol., CAAC 9 (2005).
Z.W. Liu, Reliability Design and FMECA for the Flap System. M.S. Dissertation. Xi'An, Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2004.
P.F. Chen, Reliability Method and Software Development for the Flap System. M.S. Dissertation, Nan jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 2009.
H.L. Sun, S.X. Guo, Y.A. Jia, Reliability analysis of flap systems of a certain type of aircraft, J. Air Force Eng. Univ. 7 (4) (2006) 810 (Natural Science Edition).
T. Yoshida, Y. Mizusaki, T. Taki, Analysis and rig test in EMB170 Flap Mechanism Development, 24th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences(ICAS),
Jaoan, Yokohama 2004, pp. 14 (29 August- 3 September).
Z.C. Sun, Research on the reliability test of complex mechanism of aircraft considering multi-factors, Ph.D. Dissertation. Xi'An, Northwestern Polytechnical
University, 2014.
D.Y. Bao, Research on reliability problems and test method for civil aircraft flap mechanism, M.S. dissertation, Nan jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Nanjing, 2008.
K.P. Zhu, Research on the reliability test of flap mechanism, M.S. dissertation, Nan jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 2011.
X.W. Wang, Research on the reliability verification test and life test for the flap system of L8 aircraft, M.S. dissertation. Xi'An, Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2011.
B. Efron, Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife, Ann. Stat. 7 (1) (1979) 126.
H. Guelzan, Flexible multi-body Modelling and simulation of flap systems in determination of dynamics and failure loads, MSC.Software VPD Conference,
Huntington Beach California, July 1719, 2006.
E. Winter, C. Woernle, Multibody modelling of high-lift mechanisms of modern transport aircraft, New Trends in Mech. Mach Sci. 7 (2013) 609617.
L.J. Cui, L.V. ZZ, F. Zhang, et al., Dynamic response reliability analysis of airplane inner-flap mechanism, High Technol. Lett. 19 (12) (2009) 12991304.
B.C. Pang, D.K. Dong, W.K. Chang, et al., Reliability analysis of control system for flap, Aviat. test and tesing technol. 32 (2013) 531533.
H. Pang, T.X. Yu, H. Wang, et al., Reliability analysis of the flap mechanism with multi-pivots, Inf.-An int. interdisciplinary j. 15 (B) (2012) 56515658.
Z.C. Tang, Z.Z. Lv, J. Feng, et al., The applications of an importance sampling method to reliability analysis of the inside flap of an aircraft. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G, J. Aerosp. Eng. 227 (6) (2012) 916932.
B.C. Pang, Y.B. Lv, G. Liu, et al., Reliability analysis of roller slide mechanism of a slat [C], 23th National Conference of Structure Engineering, Lanzhou, China 2014,
pp. II483II487.
Y.S. Feng, Reliability analysis of structure and control mechanism of aircraft flap, Comput. Struct. 38 (1) (1991) 2124.
R. d'Ippolito, S. Donders, M. Back, et al., Reliability-based design of a slat-track fatigue life using mesh morphing technology, AIAA J. 46 (1) (2008) 154165.
Roberson and Schwertassek, Dynamics of Multibody System, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1988.
Shabana. Dynamics of Multibody Systems, second ed. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998.
W.X. Gou, Mechanics of Materials, Northwestern Polytechnical University Press, Xi'an, 2000.