No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Evolving fuselage designs by incorporating SHM technologies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2016
Abstract
Research efforts at Bombardier Aerospace have investigated design constraints that need to be addressed when considering the design of a future unconventional fuselage concept. Using a composite design platform integrated with structural health monitoring (SHM) technologies, the design space is broadened and there are many more unknowns to investigate from our current knowledge of the subject to date. The principal idea is to identify structural zones and quantify stress levels in areas of concern, referred to as ‘hot-spots’, by integrating an SHM system at a conceptual design level. This new concept would require an assessment of benefits and detriments in order to evaluate the certification processes, impact on maintenance, operation, and ownership costs.
The integration of an SHM system using onboard sensors introduces many challenges, such as the requirement for multiple sensors in the structure and additional systems weight. The investigation shows how the aircraft structural design would be impacted and how design, stress, supply-chain, manufacturing, and the systems departments need to be harmonised in order to design a feasible and integrated SHM-structural fuselage concept.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2011
References
1.
Smith, M.A. and King, H.F.
Comet engineering, Flight and Aircraft Engineer, 1953, LXIII, (2310), pp 551–556.Google Scholar
2.
Niu, M.C.Y.
Airframe Stress Analysis and Sizing, 1st edition, 1997, pp 197–202, Hong Kong Conmilit Press Ltd..Google Scholar
3.
Mason, W.H. Configuration aerodynamics; aircraft configuration design options, 2006, Aerospace and ocean engineering course 4124 notes Chapter 4, pp 1–23. Website last accessed 5 October 2010: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAero.html
Google Scholar
4.
Mistry, S., Smith, H. and Fielding, J.P.
Novel design concepts for aircraft with reduced noise and global warming characteristics, 2008, Paper 561, 26th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, Alaska.Google Scholar
5.
Kroo, I.
Nonplanar wing concepts for increased aircraft efficiency, 2005, VKI lecture series on innovative configurations and advanced concepts for future civil aircraft, Brussels.Google Scholar
6.
Hileman, J.I., Spakovszky, Z.S., Drela, M. and Sergeant, M.A.
Airframe design for a silent aircraft, 2007, 45th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada, AIAA 2007-453.Google Scholar
7.
Yovanof, N.P., Velicki, A. and Li, V.
Advanced structural stability analysis of non circular BWB shaped vehicle, 2009, 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference. Palm Springs, California, AIAA 2009-2452.Google Scholar
8.
Bradley, K.R.
A sizing methodology for the conceptual design of blended wing body transports, 2004, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA, NASA/CR-2004-213016.Google Scholar
9.
Sankrithi, M.K.V. and Retz, K.
Weight optimized pressurizable aircraft fuselage structures having near elliptical cross sections, 2009, US Patent Documents, United States Patent No. US 7,621,482 B2, Chicago.Google Scholar
10.
Maia, L.G. and Andrade de Oliveira, P.H.I.
Crashworthy composite fuselage section concept for next generation general aviation, 2005, Advanced Composite Solutions, Paper ACD-2005-01, last accessed 5 October 2010, http://www.acs-solutions.com.br/acs-paper-2005-01.pdf, Brussels.Google Scholar