7 views

Uploaded by Yvess

Optimization Analysis on the Crashworthiness of Light Aircrafts

- Rule: Airmen certification: U.S. military and civilian personnel assigned outside United States in support of Armed Forces operations; relief
- QM1
- boarding-pass (1).pdf
- Notice: Advisory circulars; availability, etc.: Airport Lighting Equipment Certification Program
- boarding-pass.pdf
- Umenberger2013_ICRA_Paramotor
- Bicriterion Stochastic Scheduling on One or More Machines
- SWAMIDADA CV
- TIE Ln
- 2018 aug report
- Final Interim Report
- Curso PT6A – Small Series
- NASA Aeronautics
- Notice: Aeronautical land-use assurance; waivers: Chickasha Municipal Airport, OK
- SENATE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - AIRPORT SECURITY
- Cultural Algorithm Toolkit for Multi-objective Rule Mining
- Future of drones
- part 66 leg mcq
- Mb00 48operaton Research
- OS-4010_ Size Optimization of a Welded Bracket

You are on page 1of 30

of Light Aircrafts

Pu-Woei Chen

Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

Yung-Yun Chen

Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan

ABSTRACT

To protect passengers, large aircraft are equipped with multiple mechanisms to

absorb impact energy during a crash. However, light aircraft rely only on the cabin

structure to withstand the compression and energy generated during a crash. This

study performed a topology optimization analysis on the model structure by using

Abaqus/optimization and used strain energy as the objective function and cabin

volume as a constraint to develop the optimal model. Subsequently, this work

performed dynamic crash simulations based on the optimal and original models by

using Abaqus/explicit. Compared with the original model, the optimal model

yielded a 12% increase in the safety zone of the diagonal beams, a 13% increase in

the X-direction safety zone, and a 10% increase in the overall safety zone. The

results confirm that topology optimization can be used to effectively improve the

crashworthiness of light aircraft.

Impact Angle, Impact Energy, Impact Velocity, Light Aircraft, Optimization

Analysis, Safety

INTRODUCTION

With the increasing complexity involved in developing industrial products,

determining the optimal design of a product is vital to ensuring product

competitiveness. Optimization is crucial in designing products because it involves

ensuring that products meet their functional requirements under existing constraints.

This has led to the wide use of design-optimization technologies in various

engineering fields. Technological advancements and increased public demand for

safe and comfortable aircraft have contributed to the development of increasingly

complex aircraft systems. When designing aircraft, engineers must consider

numerous factors, such as aerodynamics, aircraft structure, aircraft performance,

manufacture cost, and subsequent maintenance costs. Previous optimization

techniques for aircraft primarily involved improving the aerodynamic configuration

of wings and fuselage, and also to enhance the structural strength as well as reduce

the overall weight. In the field of aircraft engineering, design optimization and

various novel algorithms have proven to be reliable technologies in aircraft design

and relevant simulations. Airbus designed its A350 XWB by using optimization

software that analyzed the structural load of the aircraft and removed any

unnecessary structural components, thereby reducing the overall weight of the

aircraft by 30%. In addition, optimization simulation facilitated a structural

redistribution that increased the structural strength, improved the aircraft

performance by 30%, and reduced the production costs by 50% (Gardiner, 2011).

Because aircraft design involves large and complex systems, various constraints must

be considered. Thus, in 2009, the Collaborative and Robust Engineering using

Simulation Capability Enabling Next Design Optimization project was established in

Europe with the aim of developing an optimization analysis technique for

aerodynamics-structures interaction in airframe design (CRESCENDO, 2013). In the

1990s, Dassault Aviation began using optimization techniques to simulate the

aerodynamics of new aircraft during the early stages of development. However, the

process necessitates the use of high-speed computers to solve grid-computing

systems with millions of nodes (Quang et al., 2012) The company used an

optimization technique to develop the FALCON 5X 16-passenger business jet,

resulting an optimised aerodynamics and fuselage performance that facilitated 15%

reduction in fuel consumption.

Small business jets are classified as general aviation (GA) aircraft. In general, GA

aircraft is used to describe all non-military aircraft and aircraft not used by

commercial airlines. In 2013, GA aircraft shipment worldwide grew by 4.3% from the

previous year (GAMA, 2013). Currently, there are 6,645 light sport aircrafts (LSAs) in

the United States (FAA, 2013), and this is expected to grow 2% annually. Compared

with general commercial airlines that have regular flight schedules, the rapid growth

in GA aircraft sales is primarily because flights via GA aircraft are more convenient,

enabling passengers to avoid delays and the need to transfer flights. LSA and other

types of light aircraft are also used for short trips and personal leisure purposes.

However, safety issues remain the primary factors that hinder the rapid development

of GA. Therefore, in this study, we investigated the safety of light aircraft by

integrating crashworthiness and topology optimization of the aircraft structure. In

November 2013, the United States government successfully introduced the Small

Airplane Revitalisation Act, demanding that the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) improve their certification mechanisms to reduce the costs and time required

for new aircraft to enter the market. Concurrently, the bill stipulates that the FAA

improve the safety of small aircrafts because it was the biggest concern of potential

consumers. For example, from 1998 to 2007, there were 4.03 fatalities per million

flight hours for regular flights, but there were 22.43 fatalities per million flight hours

for GA flights. The National Transportation Safety Board reported that the fatality

rate for aircraft accidents in 2012 was 18% for regular flights and 97% for GA aircraft

(NTSB, 2012). Therefore, using optimization techniques while complying with the

regulations, satisfying safety conditions, and meeting market demand is crucial to

ensuring the continuous development of small aircraft.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Structure topology optimization is to achieve the optimal structural redistribution of

a structure by optimizing a design objective within the constraint limits. This method

enables companies to effectively improve the primary design and conceptual analyze

of their products during the early stages of product development. Current topology

optimization techniques have evolved from the conceptual design stage to one that

also includes analyzing the feasibility of manufactured products. Such feasibility

analyzes focus on the shape symmetry and optimal design for products of various

thicknesses (Zhou et al., 2011). However, most of the current studies on aircraft

design optimization have used for large transport aircraft. For example, the wing

boxes of the Fairchild Dornier regional jet (Schuhmacher et al., 2002) were designed

using MSC/NASTRAN SOL 200 and finite element software while considering the

aeroelastic demand and structural stress. The wing boxes fulfilled various design

requirements and minimized the weight of the aircraft. Mattos and Hernandes (2010)

analyzed the structure of the frame where the vertical empennage meets the fuselage

in T-tail type aircraft by using the Genesis optimization software. That study used

bending and torsion of the structural components as the primary load conditions, and

the results showed that the optimization process strengthened the inertia of the

frame and created diagonal arm connection from the centre of the frame to its sides.

These results indicated that topology optimization can provide crucial reference

information for designers.

Nukman, Dawal, Chandra, and Sofia (2010) analyzed the fuselage structure of very

light jet aircraft by using Abaqus. They changed the components of the fuselage by

using various configurations of frames, stringers, longerons, and floor beams to

maximize the structural safety of the aircraft while minimizing its weight. Yoon et al.

(2010) proposed incorporating multidisciplinary designs into airworthiness

requirements and feasibility analysis as part of the conceptual design of aircraft

during the early stages of development. They used three types of small four-passenger

aircraft as test samples and showed that multidisciplinary design optimization

(MDO) and the multidisciplinary feasible (MDF) method can reduce the takeoff

weight by 12.4%. Ahamed, Kumar, and Sravani (2014) used ANSYS software to

compare the optimization of the empennages of the Zenith STOL 750 LSA. In that

study, three aluminium–carbon empennages with distinct shapes were used, which

reduced the weight of the empennages by approximately 30%; however, no clear

improvement was observed in terms of maximum stress and maximum strain. The

structural optimizations performed in these studies were primarily aimed at reducing

the takeoff weight while maintaining the structural strength and size of the fuselages.

However, numerous aviation accidents have shown that only by ensuring the

structural integrity of the cabin and its ability to absorb energy can the passengers’

survivable space be protected from being compressed and ensure that escape routes

and spaces remain intact during impact.

occupants from fatal injuries during impact condition and the capability of the

aircraft structure to ensure that there is sufficient space around the occupants which

increases the chance of survival in an aircraft crash (Shanahan, 2005). In other

words, collapse and damage to the aircraft structure are permissible as long as they

do not threaten the survival space of passengers. When designing an aircraft,

structures that absorb energy by becoming damaged or deformed are designed to

prevent the force of impact from exceeding the limits of the human body. Since 1982,

NASA has worked with the FAA in analyzing commercial transport aircraft crashes.

Because the civil aviation industry began using wide-body aircrafts extensively, NASA

performed drop tests on Boeing 720 and 707 aircrafts to collect damage data.

Between 1980 and 1996, the FAA founded the General Aviation Safety Panel (GASP),

which is an informal organization responsible for investigating safety issues related to

the GA industry and providing recommendations to the FAA. Such recommendations

have included investigations of aircraft crashworthiness. However, current Federal

Aviation Regulations (FAR) for mandatory crashworthiness design remain absent. In

1990, the National Research Council in Canada proposed using software packages to

analyze the damage to cabins and fuselages during impact to determine the

crashworthiness of small aircraft composed of composite materials and to assess the

feasibility of developing such aircraft (Poon, 1990).

In 1994, NASA and FAA created the Advanced General Aviation Transport

Experiments (AGATE) project. The project was aimed at building a hub-and-spoke

Small Aviation Transportation System (SATS) and using light aircraft to decentralize

the congested ground transportation system by replacing other methods of

transportation with the SATS for travel distances between 150-700 miles. This shows

the high development potential for small aircraft in the future. To strengthen the

fuselage structure of light aircraft, AGATE added stringers along the two sides of the

fuselage (Henderson et al., 2002). Furthermore, to prevent the aft fuselage from

compressing the cabin because of inertial forces, which reduces the survival space of

passengers, the engine mount, firewall, and fuselage frame connecting to the stringer

must also be reinforced to enhance the overall strength of the fuselage.

When a large transport aircraft crashes, most of the impact energy is sustained by the

fuselage floor, subfloor, and struts. Numerous researches have already been

conducted in this subject. For example, analyzes were performed to determine the

energy absorbed by the fuselage structure dropped vertically (Kumakura et al., 2002;

Adams et al., 2010; Xue et al., 2014). However, for light aircraft crashes, most of the

impact energy is absorbed by the engine mount, firewall, landing gear, and cabin

structure, and with most passenger casualties resulting from the compression of

cabin space. In 2013, the German Ministry of Economic Affairs funded a research

project (Safety Box) on cabin safety for light aircraft to provide a comprehensive

protection system to protect occupants during a crash. The project involved

developing superior energy-absorption mechanisms and strengthening the aircraft

structure, and restraint systems. These endeavours indicate that the aviation industry

in both the United States and Europe anticipate strong growth in the small aircraft

market over the next 20-30 years. However, current research on crashworthiness

optimization for GA aircraft and light aircraft remains limited. Regarding the

protection of light aircraft passengers, current regulations and standards on light

aircrafts, such as the LSA of FAR Parts 1 and Part 103, ASTM F2245-13b (ASTM,

2013), the CS-LSA(EASA, 2011)/CS-VLA (EASA, 2009) of EASA, and DS 10141E

(LAMAC, 2002) continue to rely on the use of seats and restraining devices only.

Despite confirmation of the importance of favourable crashworthiness designs in

protecting passenger safety in small aircraft (Hurley et al., 2002) the regulation that

demands the aircraft design meet the crashworthiness requirements remain

insufficient. Therefore, in this study, we used topology optimization in designing the

aircraft structure and performed dynamic crash simulations to investigate the

crashworthiness of light aircraft.

This study used Abaqus topology optimization module to investigate the optimization

design of the cabin structure of a light aircraft under dynamic impact loading.

Concerning the boundary conditions for the simulations, we used those stipulated in

the AGATE and ASTM (i.e., an impact angle of 30° (Hopper et al., 2002) and an

impact speed of 1.3 Vso (ASTM, 2013) to perform the optimization the

crashworthiness of light aircraft subjected to impact loading. In addition, we adopted

the MIL-STD-1290A {Light Fixed and Rotary-Wing Aircraft Crash Resistance, 1988}

as the minimum safety standard, which requires that cockpit reduction no more than

15% when aircrafts is subjected to longitudinal, lateral, or vertical impact. For the

topology optimization, we set the minimized strain energy as the objective function

that is the minimum cabin space required for satisfying a reasonable survivable

volume for occupants.

The 3D fuselage model of a Zenith STOL CH 701 (Figure 1) was constructed by using

Pro/E and simulation analyzes were performed using the finite element analysis

software Abaqus. Subsequently, we performed topology optimization by using

Abaqus/optimization to obtain an optimal configuration for the structure. Next,

dynamic crash simulations were conducted using Abaqus/explicit in which the 15%

compression ratio stipulated in the MIL-STD-1290A was employed as the safety limit.

We compared the optimal model with the original model to determine the differences

in the amount of reduction and the safety zone of the cabin during a crash.

In this study, a 3D hollow cube model (30x30x30 mm) for cabin design region was

constructed for optimization process as shown in Figure 2. The model is composed of

6061-T6 aluminium alloy. Table 1 lists the material properties of the aluminium alloy.

Figure 3 shows the simulated impact loading condition as the aircraft crashed into

the ground. We applied a load of 1,000 MPa to the bottom-left corner of the model

while fixing the right side of the model. The optimization results show in Figure 4

depict a cabin firewall-like shape formed at the front of the model, and the diagonal

beams installed along the two sides of the fuselage enhanced its ability to sustain

external forces exerted at a 30° inclined angle. However, the optimization result

failed to produce a complete cross section of the back end for connecting with the

fuselage. Therefore, to improve the feasibility of the cabin design, we set a constraint

in which a 1-mm thickness was reserved for each side of the hollow cube model

(Figure 5), ensuring that the shape of the cabin remained unchanged, thereby

preserving the cabin space. Subsequently, we performed the optimization and

obtained a model (Figure 6) that met the basic design requirements (i.e., passenger

seating space, fortified diagonal beams, and the ability to be connected to the

fuselage). Thus, these settings were subsequently applied in the structural

optimization simulations for the CH701.

Figure 2. Cross-sectional view of the hollow cube model used in the topology

optimization

Table 1. The material properties of aluminium alloy 6061-T6

Density 2.7 g/

Tensile Strength 276 MPa

Figure 3. Load and boundary conditions for the hollow cube model

Figure 4. Topology optimization results obtained using the hollow cube model

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of the hollow cube model (with a side thickness of 1

mm) used in the topology optimization

Figure 6. Optimal result obtained using the hollow cube model (with a side thickness

of 1 mm)

After completing the optimization simulation and analysing the results of the hollow

cube model, we simulated the structural optimization of the CH 701 cabin and then

compared it with the original model. The topology optimization procedure used for

the light aircraft cabin is as follows: (1) The top and sides of the CH701 cabin were

filled using Pro/E and were used as the model for the optimization simulation. The

original cabin floor and cabin door designs were preserved to provide a seating area

for passengers and access to the cabin (Figure 7). (2) The top and side of the cabin

were set as the design area for the topology optimization simulation (Figure 8). (3) To

preserve the shape of the model during the optimization process, the configuration of

the cabin frame was set as a constraint. (4) Minimised the strain energy of the two

side frame structure of the cabin was set as the objective function (Figure 9). (5)

Simulations involving various volumes were used to show that removing more than

76% of cabin volume would result in the structural discontinuity of the cabin.

Therefore, the maximum removal rate during the optimization process was

constrained at 75%. (6) To simulate the reduction rate of cabin when aircrafts impact

the ground, the fuselage was fixed while an external force of 744 MPa was applied to

the nose of the aircraft; the external force of 744 MPa was the load measured from

the aircraft nose of the original model when a crash simulation was performed at an

impact angle of 30° (as stipulated in the AGATE) and at a landing speed of 18.05 m/s

(as stipulated in the ASTM).

Figure 9. The two side of cabin frame structure as the objective function used in the

topology optimization

Figure 10 shows the model after the topology optimization. Figures 11 and 12 are

shown to facilitate a comparison between the original and optimal model of cabin and

fuselage. The figures show that the diagonal beam at the top of the cabin was

removed and the structure of the two sides was rearranged in the optimal model. The

diagonal beam thickness of the two sides was increased from 40 mm to 60-70 mm. A

comparison between the optimal and original models revealed that the model weight

decreased from 303 kg in the original model to 298 kg in the optimal model.

Figure 11. Comparisons between the original and optimal models

Figure 12. Comparisons between the original and optimal models (side view)

In this study, we designed an optimized structure that enabled light aircraft cockpit to

sustain impact loads to comply with current standards. The impact angle stipulated

in the AGATE and impact speed specified in the ASTM was used as boundary

conditions for the crash simulation. In an aircraft design, the allowable reduction in

cabin space stipulated in the MIL-STD-1290A was set as the minimum

crashworthiness safety standard, the allowable reduction in cockpit length

(X direction) and cockpit height (Y direction) must be within 15% during a crash. We

developed a topology optimization model for the cockpit by using Abaqus, and then

compared the optimal and original models in terms of the safety envelope and the

amount of cabin reduction at various impact angles and velocities.

The simulation results were exported using the Abaqus post processing module.

Dynamic simulation analysis involved using the following methods to verify the

experimental results: (1) the total energy was conserved when kinetic energy was

reduced and potential energy increased and (2) the penalty work remained positive,

indicating that no penetration occurred when the object impacted the ground; and (3)

the Hourglass energy was less than 5% of the internal energy. Figures 13 and 14 show

the energy change upon impact for the original and optimal models, respectively.

Both figures show that during the crash, the kinetic energy decreased, potential

energy increased, the total energy remained constant, and that the Hourglass energy

was less than 5% of the internal energy. Figures 15 and 16 show the changes in

penalty work upon impact for the original model and the optimal model, respectively.

A positive penalty work value indicates that no penetration occurred when the object

crashed into the surface of the ground. The results in Figures 13-16 confirm that the

simulation results for both the original and optimal models were reasonable. We then

increased the impact speed to observe the fuselage deformation upon impact, and

found that as the impact speed increased, the diagonal beams connecting the firewall

and the cockpit deformed substantially (Figure 17). Because the diagonal beams are a

crucial structural component of the cockpit critically influencing the survival space

for occupants, they were included in this discussion concerning the amount of cockpit

reduction.

Figure 13. Energy change chart when the original model crashed

Figure 14. Energy change chart depicting when the optimal model crashed

Figure 15. Changes in penalty work when the original model crashed

Figure 16. Changes in penalty work when the optimal model crashed

Figure 17. Amount of deformation in the diagonal beams at varying impact

velocities

Figures 18 and 19 show the relationship between velocity and reducing rate for the

original and optimal models when the aircraft crashed at a 30° impact angle,

where A represents the amount of reduction in the diagonal beams, X denotes the

amount of cabin reduction in the Xdirection, and Y represents the amount of cabin

reduction in the Y direction. Figure 18 shows that for the original model, no

dramatically changes were observed in any of the three directions at an impact angle

of 30° and impact velocity less than 18.05 m/s. The amount of reduction in diagonal

beams increased sharply when the impact velocity reached 20 m/s, exceeding the 15%

safety limit at 41.73 m/s. The amount of reduction in the X and Ydirections increased

gradually with the impact velocity, reaching 8% and 11% at 90 m/s, respectively.

Similarly, for the optimal model, the amount of reduction began to increase only after

the impact velocity reached 20 m/s; however, the amount of reduction exceeded the

safety limit only when the velocity reached 72 m/s (Figure 19). These results show

that the crashing velocity that could be tolerated by the diagonal beams in the optimal

model was 72% higher than that of the original model. Regarding the relationship

between velocity and the amount of reduction in the X direction, the results for the

optimal model were similar to those of the original model; a gradual increase was

observed in the amount of reduction when the velocity reached 20 m/s. At 90 m/s,

the amount of reduction was 8%. Regarding the amount of reduction in

the Y direction in the optimal model, a sharp increase was observed when the velocity

reached 40 m/s, exceeding the 15% safety limit at 80 m/s. This result was inferior to

that of the original model. The results from these two figures show that under the

boundary condition in which the impact angle was fixed at 30°, the diagonal beams

are crucial structural components, indicating that enhancing the diagonal beams

facilitates can improve the survival rate of passengers.

Figure 18. The cockpit reducing rate for the original model at various impact

velocities

Figure 19. The cockpit reducing rate for the optimal model at various impact

velocities

Figures 20 and 21 respectively show the relationship between the impact angle and

amount of reduction for the original and optimal models at a fixed impact velocity of

18.05 m/s. The two graphs show no significant deformation in the diagonal beams for

both the original and optimal models when the impact angle ranged between 0° and

20°, and that the amount of deformation gradually increased when the impact angle

reached 20°. The greatest deformation (3%-5%) was observed at an impact angle of

60°, decreasing as the impact angle increased. For the original model, the amount of

reduction in the X direction increased sharply when the impact angle reached 30°;

the amount of reduction exceeded the safety limit when the impact angle was 60°. By

contrast, for the optimal model, the amount of reduction in the X direction slowly

increased when the impact angle was between 0° and 60°; however, it increased

rapidly once the impact angle exceeded 60°. The amount of reduction exceeded the

15% safety limit when the impact angle reached 80°.

Figure 20. The cockpit reducing rate for the original model at various impact angles

Figure 21. The cockpit reducing rate for the optimal model at various impact angles

The impact angle in the X direction at which the optimal model remained within the

safety limit was 80°, therefore, the ability of the optimal model in terms of impact

angle to tolerate impact in the X direction exhibited an improvement of 33%.

Conversely, both the original and optimal models exhibited approximately 4% of

deformation when the impact angle was 0° in the Y direction; this occurred because

of cockpit reduction caused when the cockpit floor directly sustained the load during

vertical crashes. No significant reduction was observed in the Y direction when the

impact angle exceeded 15° for both the original and optimal models. These results

indicate that for the original model, the amount of reduction in the X direction

exceeded the safety limit and rapidly increased at impact angles larger than 30°,

which is consistent with the statistical results reported in the AGATE. Regarding the

crash scenarios where the velocity remains constant while the impact angle varies, we

confirmed that the strength of the structural components of the fuselage in

the X direction was the key to passenger survival. Therefore, increasing the strength

of stringers would improve aircraft crashworthiness.

Using the results obtained from the impact velocity and impact angle simulations as

well as the 15% reduction standard stipulated in MIL-STD-1290A, we established the

safety zone of the diagonal beams, X direction, and Y direction in the original and

optimal models (Figures 22-24). The safety zones of diagonal beams in the original

model (51%) and optimal model (63%) are shown in Figure 22, demonstrating an

increase of 12%. The critical impact angle for both the original and optimal models

was 60°. Figure 23 shows the safety zone of the Xdirection in the original and optimal

models. The safety zone of X direction in the original model (54%) and optimal model

(67%) was increased by 13%. In addition, the figure revealed that the safety zone of

the X direction decreased rapidly when the crash angle reached 30° for the original

model, whereas that of the optimal model exhibited a gradual decline. The safety

zones of the Y direction in the original and optimal models are shown in Figure 24.

The safety zone of the Y direction was 92% in the original model and 86% in the

optimal model, in which the optimal model yielded a smaller safety zone compared to

that in the original model; this occurred because the tolerance to velocity when the

cabin crashed vertically (at 0°) was 30 m/s for the optimal model, which was less

than that of the original model at 40 m/s. Another reason for the poorer performance

of the optimal model was revealed by comparing the structure of the two fuselage

structures shown in Figure 12; because a impact angle of 30° was used as the

boundary condition in the optimal model, the frames below the cabin in

the Y direction were removed during optimization simulations, which diminished the

ability of the cabin to withstand vertical load. The safety zones of diagonal

beams, Xdirection, and Y direction are shown in Figure 25; the overall safety zone of

the original and optimal models was 37% and 47%, respectively, indicating an

increase of 10% for the optimal model.

Figure 23. Safety zone of the X direction during a crash

CONCLUSION

In this study, we used topology optimization and crash simulations for light aircrafts

by using the finite element method. The boundary conditions for the crash

simulations were based on an impact angle of 30° (as stipulated in the AGATE) and

an impact speed of 18.05 m/s (as stipulated in the ASTM). We compared the

differences in amount of cockpit reduction between the optimal and original models

at varying impact velocities and angles, and followed a crashworthiness design

standard MIL-STD-1290A, which states that the amount of deformation must be less

than 15% in all cockpit directions during a crash. We also investigated the amount of

deformation in the cabin diagonal beam, and the X and Ydirections of the fuselage

when the optimal model was subjected to varying impact loads. Our conclusion is

summarized as follows:

light aircraft crashworthiness and occupant’s safety at impact situation.

We performed crash simulations based on test conditions stipulated in the

AGATE and ASTM. The results indicated that the diagonal beams connecting

the firewall to the top of the cabin were crucial for the survival space of

passengers. For aircrafts crashing at a fixed impact angle but at varying impact

velocities, the optimal model was able to improve the safety zone by 72% at

high impact velocities. Although the thickness of the diagonal beams in the

optimal model was 20-40 mm thicker, they were able to increase the safety

zone of the original model by 12%.

No remarkable changes were observed in the amount of cabin reduction along

the Xdirection of the fuselage when the aircraft crashed at an impact angle of

30° and various impact velocities; however, noteworthy changes were

observed in the amount of reduction along the X direction of the cabin at fixed

velocity and varying impact angles. For the original model, the amount of

deformation increased sharply when the impact angle reached 30°, which is

consistent with the results shown in the AGATE. Through topology

optimization, the critical impact angle in the X direction of the model was

improved from 60° to 80°. In addition, the optimal model enhanced the

overall safety zone of the X direction by 13%.

The optimal model removed of the struts below the cabin, thereby reducing the

cabin’s ability to withstand low impact angles (< 15°) crash. In addition, when

the impact angle was fixed, the amount of cabin reduction exceeded the 15%

safety limit at impact velocities higher than 80 m/s, and the amount of cabin

reduction for the various impact velocities were greater than those in the

original model. Therefore, the safety zone of the Ydirection in the optimal

model decreased by 6% compared with that of the original model.

The optimized cabin model of light aircraft used in this work can effectively

analyze the amount of deformation of all the structural components during

impact loading. The results revealed the effect of the key components at

various impact velocities and impact angles. Improving the key structural

components can effectively increase the survival rate of passengers during a

crash.

REFERENCES

Adams, A., Thorbole, C. K., & Lankarani, H. M. (2010). Scale Modelling of Aircraft

Fuselage: An Innovative Approach to Evaluate and Improve

Crashworthiness. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 15(1), 71–82.

doi:10.1080/13588260903047663

Empennage of Light Weight Aircraft. International Journal of Scientific &

Technology Research, 3(4), 40–57.

ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (2013), Standard Specification for

Design and Performance of a Light Sport Airplane (ASTM F2245-13b).

Enabling Next Design Optimisation (2013), D0.3.3 - Results exploitation beyond

CRESCENDO, Retrieved from http://cordis.europa.eu/docs/results/234344/final1-

crescendo-d017-final-report-20130430-r1.pdf

EASA, European Aviation Safety Agency (2009), Certification Specifications for Very

Light Aeroplanes (CS-VLA, Amendment 1).

EASA, European Aviation Safety Agency (2011), Certification Specifications for Light

Sport Aeroplanes (CS-LSA, Amendment 1).

FAA, Federal Aviation Administration. (2013), FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years

2013-2033. Retrieved

from http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forec

asts/aerospace_forecasts/2013-2033/media/2013_Forecast.pdf

Statistical Databook & 2014 Industry Outlook. Retrieved

from http://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA%202013%20Databook-Updated-

LowRes.pdf

Henderson, M., & Hooper, S. J. (2002). Estimation of Firewall Loads due to Soft Soil

Impact(AGATE-WP3.4-034026-087, Rev. A). National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

Hopper, S. J., Henderson, M., & Seneviratne, W. (2002). Design and Construction of

a Crashworthy Composite Airframe (AGATE-WP3.4-034026-089, Rev. A). National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Guide(AGATE-WP3.4-034043-036). National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

Kumakura, I., Minegishi, M., Iwasaki, K., Shoji, H., Yoshimoto, N., Terada, H., &

Akaso, T. (2002), Vertical Drop Test of a Transport Fuselage Section, SAE Technical

Paper 2002-01-2997. doi:10.4271/2002-01-2997

Standards for Advanced Ultra-Light Aeroplanes (DS 1014E Amendment 002).

(AV), Department of Defense. Washington, DC.

Frame Based on Symmetrical and Unsymmetrical Load Cases, Applications of

Computational Mechanics in Aerospatiale Technology (A). Associatión Argentina de

Mecánica Computacional, XXIX(49), 4907–4913.

NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board. (2012), Review of U.S. Civil Aviation

Accidents – Review of Aircraft Accident data 2010 (NTSB/ARA-12/01). Retrieved

from http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Documents/ARA1201.pdf

No. 31276). Ottawa, Canada: National Research Council Canada.

Quang, D., Ravachol, M., Rogé, G., & Herskovits, J. (2012), An Interior Point

Gradient-Based Optimizer for Aircraft Design. Paper presented at the EngOpt 3rd

International Conference on Engineering Optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Schuhmacher, G., Murra, I., Wang, L., Laxander, A., O'Leary, O., & Herold, M.

(2002), Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Regional Aircraft Wing Box,

Paper presented at the 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis

and Optimization AIAA 2002-5406, Atlanta, Georgia. doi: doi:10.2514/6.2002-5406

and Associated Biodynamics in Aircraft Accident Investigation (RTO-EN-HFM-113),

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Retrieved

from http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/EN/RTO-EN-HFM-

113///EN-HFM-113-07.pdf

Xue, P., Ding, L., Qiao, F., & Yu, X. (2014). Crashworthiness Study of a Civil Fuselage

Section. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 11(9), 1615–1627.

doi:10.1590/S1679-78252014000900007

Yoon, J., Nguyen, N., Choi, S., Lee, J., Kim, S., & Byun, Y. (2010), Multidisciplinary

General Aviation Aircraft Design Optimizations Incorporating Airworthiness

Constraints, Paper presented at the 10th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and

Operations (ATIO) Conference, Fort Worth.

Yusuf, K., Nukman, Y., Dawal, S. Z., Chandra, D., & Sofia, N. (2010), Conceptual

Design of Fuselage Structure of Very Light Jet Aircraft, Mastorakis, N. E., Mladenov,

V., & Bojkovic Z. (Eds.), HEAPFL’10 Proceedings of 2010 International Conference

on Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, and 2010 International Conference on Fluid

Mechanics and Heat & Mass Transfer (pp. 100-106), World Scientific and

Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), Stevens Point, Wisconsin.

Zhou, M., Fleury, R., Patten, S., Stannard, N., Mylett, D., & Gardner, S.

(2011), Topology Optimization – Practical Aspects for Industrial Applications, Paper

presented at the 9th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary

Optimization, Shizuoka, Japan.

Copy

Add Highlight

Add Note

- Rule: Airmen certification: U.S. military and civilian personnel assigned outside United States in support of Armed Forces operations; reliefUploaded byJustia.com
- QM1Uploaded byKV Rao
- boarding-pass (1).pdfUploaded byAnonymous l0qmdvqe6
- Notice: Advisory circulars; availability, etc.: Airport Lighting Equipment Certification ProgramUploaded byJustia.com
- boarding-pass.pdfUploaded byVicente Sesmero Pozo
- Umenberger2013_ICRA_ParamotorUploaded bysudhirm16
- Bicriterion Stochastic Scheduling on One or More MachinesUploaded bybiz
- SWAMIDADA CVUploaded byswamidada
- TIE LnUploaded byRoyce A R Porter
- 2018 aug reportUploaded byapi-306925607
- Final Interim ReportUploaded byukameh
- Curso PT6A – Small SeriesUploaded byfernandofrmorae1987
- NASA AeronauticsUploaded byBob Andrepont
- Notice: Aeronautical land-use assurance; waivers: Chickasha Municipal Airport, OKUploaded byJustia.com
- SENATE HEARING, 107TH CONGRESS - AIRPORT SECURITYUploaded byScribd Government Docs
- Cultural Algorithm Toolkit for Multi-objective Rule MiningUploaded byAnonymous lVQ83F8mC
- Future of dronesUploaded byKarthikJayakumar
- part 66 leg mcqUploaded bymike
- Mb00 48operaton ResearchUploaded byDevendra Kachhi
- OS-4010_ Size Optimization of a Welded BracketUploaded byr1c4rd0f3r
- Proposed Rule: Area navigation routesUploaded byJustia.com
- T8 B15 FAA Subpoena Compendium Fdr- FAA Doc Index 10-14-03 and FAA Subpoena 10-16-03 (Copy)Uploaded by9/11 Document Archive
- Credit Assignment in Adaptive Evolutionary AlgorithmsUploaded byJames Whitacre
- Notice: Airport noise compatibility program: Noise exposure maps—Uploaded byJustia.com
- 9A02709 Optimization TechniquesUploaded bysivabharathamurthy
- Manpower Planning ProposalUploaded bySharifMahmud
- Phantom 2 Vision User Manual v1.8 EnUploaded bycamiloo7777
- ac-700-005Uploaded bypedati
- Mur ThuenteUploaded bymihailo
- 03 569-970-1-SM.pdfUploaded byTole Sutikno

- 701 Construction Manual Intro 18pagesUploaded byYvess
- 701 Construction Manual Intro 18pagesUploaded byYvess
- Drag Reduction PossibilitiesUploaded byYvess
- Selecting a Homebuilt Design 02Uploaded byYvess
- The Anatomy of the AirplaneUploaded bynimiano
- Laminar MagicUploaded byYvess
- 285428710Xmecanique1Uploaded byalioueche
- Buying an Airplane 01Uploaded byYvess
- 1624-6262-1-PBUploaded byYvess
- Conception Aero Aero Dynamism e 2015Uploaded bymechmaster4u
- Selecting a Homebuilt Design 03Uploaded byYvess
- Minimizing Fuselage DragUploaded byYvess
- schrenk approximation.pdfUploaded byYvess
- Flybetter Book_One_4th_Edition.pdfUploaded byYvess
- Selecting a Homebuilt Design 01Uploaded byYvess
- Chronique Technique - Partie 4 - Les Composites Renforces de Fibres de Carbone_0Uploaded byYvess
- Desgrandschamps-Calcul Et Construction Avions LegersUploaded byYvess
- Le Décrochage. Revenir Aux Incidences de VolUploaded byYvess
- BIA (C) - Profil d’aile, portance, trainéeUploaded byxavier
- Aerodynamic optimization and mechanism design of 1-s2.0-S1000936117300754-main.pdfUploaded byYvess
- 223412215-Schaufele-Elements-of-Aircraft-Preliminary-Design.pdfUploaded byYvess
- PAV.fuselage.drag.GalvaoUploaded byVictor Padilla
- Small airplane Crashworthiness Design Guide AGATE.pdfUploaded byYvess
- Guillenchmidt_Elements_de_calcul_de_construction_aeronautique_2e_partie.pdfUploaded byYvess
- Cours complet mécanique du volUploaded bytmeyer9
- Roncz-Design-Articles.pdfUploaded byYvess
- Optimizing Blended Winglet Radii on Homebuilt Canard Aircraft.pdfUploaded byYvess
- Optimizing Blended Winglet Radii on Homebuilt Canard Aircraft.pdfUploaded byYvess
- Propeller Design Workshop Part IUploaded byJasoos Parrier
- Utilisation Des Systemes Epoxy West System.pdfUploaded byYvess

- NTSB LJ 020830 FactualUploaded bybombardierwatch
- ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSELS, 2006Uploaded byTomash Verbitsky
- HWY17MH009 PrelimUploaded byAnonymous GF8PPILW5
- Airplane Crash Investigation -NTSBUploaded bykoiralarp
- ASME B31Q-2016Uploaded byAlberto León
- SOAR Report ReleasedUploaded byLas Vegas Review-Journal
- Sustainability, Organizational Learning, And Lessons Learned From Aviation OKUploaded bychrysobergi
- HWY18MH009 PrelimUploaded byduda_seka
- CARB InstructionUploaded byJim Howe
- 51783681-ewisUploaded byManos Charalampakis
- Classification of Human Errors in Gounding and Collision Accidents Using TRACEr TaxonomyUploaded byinfo sme india
- Rollover of a Truck-Tractor and Cargo Tank SemitrailerUploaded byfacu1984
- Guideline Rail Resource Management 2007Uploaded bySHERIEF
- Final NTSB report on Lockhart crashUploaded byAnonymous QUzIACmcB
- ReferencesUploaded byPrakash Saraswat
- 10-23-13 EditionUploaded bySan Mateo Daily Journal
- WP3.4-034043-036Uploaded byPeter Lee
- CPUC Fines PG&E $1.4 Billion in San Bruno InvestigationUploaded byKQED News
- T8 B14 Domestic Cases Workfile- Kennedy (JFK Jr) Tab- Entire Contents- Media Reports- 1st Pgs for Reference 885Uploaded by9/11 Document Archive
- NTSB Parasailing Safety ReportUploaded byHonolulu Star-Advertiser
- Runway Safety Team Handbook 2nd Edition 2015 REV2Uploaded bychemoxiaoxia1
- ICAO Safety RecommendationsUploaded bySigit Sasono
- NTSB BAC 041229 FactualUploaded bybombardierwatch
- NTSB Investigation General Joseph Brown IVUploaded byJohnny Cirucci
- Similarities & Differences Between International Law & Municipal LawUploaded byChetan Thaker
- Arff GuideUploaded byJesus M. Espinosa Echavarria
- NTSB Molokai Helicopter Crash Preliminary ReportUploaded byHawaii News Now
- Red Line reportUploaded byAdam Vaccaro
- Effects of Commuting on Pilot Fatigue (2013) 13201Uploaded bydasmith100
- Amtrak PD 2015 Annual ReportUploaded byLeegal Counsel