Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available
Available online
online at at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural
Structural IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia300
(2017) 553–561
(2016) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

XXIV Italian Group of Fracture Conference, 1-3 March 2017, Urbino, Italy

Failure Investigation: in Flight Loss of a Main Landing Gear Door

XV Portuguese Conference on Fracture, PCF 2016, 10-12 February 2016, Paço de Arcos, Portugal
of a Transport Aircraft.
Thermo-mechanical G. Zucca, V. modeling
di Francesco, of M.Bernabei,
a high pressure F. De Paolis* turbine blade of an
airplane gas turbine engine
Italian Air Force, Flight Test Centre, Chemistry Department, Military Airport M. De Bernardi, via Pratica di Mare, 00040 Pomezia (RM), Italy

P. Brandãoa, V. Infanteb, A.M. Deusc*

AbstractaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Portugal
b
IDMEC, Department
An executive of Mechanical
transport military Engineering,
aircraft Instituto
experienced the Superior Técnico,
loss of the Universidade
left main landingdegear
Lisboa,
doorAv.during
Roviscoa Pais, 1, 1049-001
standard flight. Lisboa,
In the
Portugal
aftermath
c of this serious occurrence, at the Chemistry Department of the Flight Test Center of the Italian Air
CeFEMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Force (IAF), a
technical investigation started to identify the root causes of the Portugal failure and to prevent other similar incidents.
The investigation was carried out jointly with the representative of the manufacturing company and was focused on the fracture
surfaces of the hinges connecting the door to the fuselage.
This paper shows the results obtained by fractographic (optical and electronic microscopy), metallographic, chemical analysis
Abstract
and numerical simulation: the root cause of the cracks was a phenomenon of pitting corrosion mainly located on the door back
During
hinge theirtooperation,
and due a local lossmodern aircraft
of coating. This engine components
made possible arefracture
a fatigue subjected to increasingly
mechanism demanding
under normal operating
operative conditions,
cyclic loads.
especially the high pressure turbine (HPT) blades. Such conditions cause these parts to undergo different types of time-dependent
Copyright © 2017oneTheofAuthors. Published bymodel
Elsevier B.V. the
Thisfinite
is an open access article(FEM)
under the CCdeveloped,
BY-NC-NDinlicense
© degradation,
2017 The Authors. which is
Published creep. A
by Elsevier using
B.V. element method was order to be able to predict
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
the creep behaviour of HPT blades. Flight data records (FDR) for a specific aircraft, provided by a commercial aviation
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific
the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co.
company, wereresponsibility
used to obtainof thethermal and Committee
mechanicalof ECF21.
data for three different flight cycles. In order to create the 3D model
needed Transport
Keywords: for the FEM analysis,
aircraft, a HPT Corrosion
Fatigue Fracture, blade scrap wasAluminum
Pitting, scanned,7075,
and landing
its chemical composition
gear, FESEM, and material
Finite Element properties
Analysis, Failure were
obtained.
Analysis The data that was gathered was fed into the FEM model and different simulations were run, first with a simplified 3D
rectangular block shape, in order to better establish the model, and then with the real 3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
overall expected behaviour in terms of displacement was observed, in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
model can be useful in the goal of predicting turbine blade life, given a set of FDR data.
1. Introduction
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
An executive
Peer-review undertransport military
responsibility of theaircraft assigned
Scientific to of
Committee thePCF
14th2016.
Support Wing, Pratica di Mare Air Force Base,
experienced loss of the main landing gear (MLG) left door during a standard flight (Fig. 1). In the aftermath of this
serious occurrence,
Keywords: theTurbine
High Pressure Chemistry
Blade;Department of the Method;
Creep; Finite Element Italian Air ForceSimulation.
3D Model; (IAF) Flight Test Center was tasked to lead a
technical investigation aimed to clarify the root causes for the failure and to recommend how to prevent similar

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 91292536.

E-mail address: fabrizio.depaolis@am.difesa.it

2452-3216 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review underauthor.
* Corresponding responsibility
Tel.: +351of218419991.
the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co.
E-mail address: amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt

2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of ECF21.
10.1016/j.prostr.2017.04.040
2554 G. Zucca
Author name et al. / Procedia
/ Structural IntegrityStructural
Procedia Integrity
00 (2017)3 000–000
(2017) 553–561

accidents.

 
Fig. 1: Location of Main Landing Gear left Door. 

The investigation was carried out in agreement and collaboration with the representatives of the manufacturing
company (OEM) and with the Support Wing maintenance personnel. The activity was focused on the hinges fracture
surfaces connecting the door to the fuselage. In particular, the rear hinge is actuated through a leverage directly
linked to the landing gear opening mechanism, while the forward one is only hinged to the fuselage (Fig. 2).

 
Fig. 2: Detail of Main Landing Gear Door. 
 G.name
Author Zucca/ et al. / Procedia
Structural Structural
Integrity Integrity
Procedia 3 (2017)
00 (2017) 553–561
000–000 5553

2. Instruments

Optical examination was carried out using a Leica M 205 C microscope. Micro - Fractographical evidences were
acquired by a Gemini Ultra Plus Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) equipped with an INCAx-
Sight Oxford Instruments XrayEnergy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) to perform a semi-quantitative microanalysis.
A PerkinElmer Optima 2100DV Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) was used
to determine the chemical composition. Microstructural examination was performed using a Leica CTR 6000
metallographic microscope, whereas a scale B Rockwell Hardness test were carried out with a Galileo Hardness
Tester. FEA was carried out using ANSYS 14.0 software program.

3. Results

3.1. Visual and Optical examination

A preliminary visual examination was performed on both the forward and rear hinge. Forward hinge showed a
clean crack at the red dotted line of Fig. 3. Related fracture surface was characterized by 45° oriented planes and by
dull and coarse grains (Fig. 4), a morphology typical of an instantaneous fracture due to overload.

   
Fig. 3: Forward Hinge. Fig. 4: Forward Hinge Fracture.

More interesting the cracks occurred to the rear hinge (dotted red line in Fig. 5 and red box in Fig. 6) showed
different morphologies compared with the forward hinge.

   
Fig. 5: Rear Hinge. Fig. 6: Rear Hinge Fracture.
556 G. Zucca et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 553–561
4 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

In particular, the rear hinge portion affected by the fracture (red arrow in Fig. 7) was carefully removed in order
to obtain a small piece. This was done to facilitate the observation/assessment of the fracture. In order to obtain both
fractographic and metallographic specimens two cuts were executed following the dotted red lines in Fig. 7.

 
 

Fig. 7: Cuts on Rear Hinge. Fig. 8: Rear Hinge Fracture Analysis.

Optical microscopy on the crack showed two different morphologies:

 the first, surrounded by the dotted red line in (Fig. 8), is basically flat and has an extension of about 5 mm in the
direction of fracture propagation. It showed a smooth and bright grain, without relevant plastic deformations (Fig.
8).

 the second one was characterized by dull and coarse grain (dotted yellow line in figure Fig. 8), typical of silky
fracture surface due to an instantaneous phenomenon.

Taking into consideration the first part, following the radial marks until convergence, it is possible to recognize
the initial point of fracture (Fig. 9). Observing this region from the outside it is possible to note lack of external
protective layer near the initiation (dotted red circle in Fig. 10).

   

Fig. 9: Initial Point. Fig. 10: External layer damage at the crack initial point.
 G. Zucca et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 553–561 557
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5

3.2. Electronic Microscopy

Fracture surface FESEM observation showed four different morphologies (letters A to D in Fig. 11) for four
different stage of crack propagations.

 
Fig. 11: Overview of fracture surface. 

The initial point of fracture is located in the A zone (red region of the Fig. 11) where, at high magnification it is
possible to observe two corrosion pit (red dotted lines in Fig. 12)

   

Fig. 12: Corrosion Pits. Fig. 13: First Fatigue Region.

In the B and C zone is possible to notice the clear presence of fatigue mechanism: it originally proceeds from the
initiation to the upper side tilted of about 45° (B zone Fig. 13), than it changes its path from the left to the right (C
zone Fig. 14), following the hinge shape and the enlargement of its resistant section.
558 G. Zucca et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 553–561
6 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

   

Fig. 14: Second Fatigue Region. Fig. 15: Ductile Fracture Region.

At the end of the fatigue region in the D zone, the crack showed also dimples and micro-voids (Fig. 15). These
are typical evidences of unstable propagation phase in a fatigue mechanism, when the reduction of the resistant
section produces fracture areas characterized by overload morphology, ASTM (1994).
In addition, FESEM examination allowed to measure distance between each mark, obtaining a mean value of
1µm which suggests a high cycle fatigue mechanism.

3.3. Chemical Analysis

ICP-OES and EDS analysis were carried out in order to confirm both alloy (AA7075) and anodized protection
layer in compliance to the design requirements provided by the OEM. Results show a complete conformity, ASM
(1993), (Fig. 16 and Fig. 17).

   

Fig. 16: EDS Spectrum of Alloy. Fig. 17: EDS Spectrum of Coating.

3.4. Microstructural Analysis and Hardness Test

In order to gain further information about material characteristics possibly affecting the development of
investigated cracks, a microstructural examination by polishing and etching with Keller reagent was performed on
two sections of the hinge:
 G.name
Author Zucca/ et al. / Procedia
Structural Structural
Integrity Integrity
Procedia 3 (2017)
00 (2017) 553–561
000–000 5597

 near crack cross section

 crack cross section

Internal microstructure near the crack showed the typical features of the aluminum alloy AA7075 with thermal
treatment T7351 (Fig. 18), compatible with the expected technical specifications. The etching highlights an oriented
microstructure, heat solution treated, Nicodemi (2000), with clear precipitates on the grain boundaries. A pattern of
10 indentations HRB gives the mean value of 78 and a standard deviation of 1. No microstructural alterations were
found, ASM (2004).
In addition, metallographic analysis of the edges of the same specimen showed an irregular thickness of the
external protective layer, with zones characterized by lack of the layer itself and or presence of corrosion pit.
Moreover, metallographic section of the crack shows a corrosion pit phenomenon, with the deepest one of about
100 µm and the total absence of anodized protection layer (Fig. 19).

   

Fig. 18: near crack cross section. Fig. 19: crack cross section.

3.5. Finite Element Analysis

A FEA model was performed in order to obtain a qualitative stress map around the crack region. Geometry 3D
model of hinge was reproduced using design drawings and real item measurements. 96363 tetrahedrons elements
were applied to provide the suitable mesh for mathematical model (Fig. 20).

Fig. 20: Geometry. Fig. 21: Load Conditions.

8560 G. Zucca
Author name et al. / Procedia
/ Structural IntegrityStructural
Procedia Integrity
00 (2017)3 000–000
(2017) 553–561

The load conditions were obtained from calculation report issued by OEM and applied to the aerodynamic center
of the door (Fig. 21), whereas two cylindrical support that allow the rotation around X axis, were used to simulate
the hinge and the leverage. The contribution to stress absorption due to the honeycomb of the MLG door was
simulated combining a partial geometry of the panel with a constrain condition that not allows X axis translation, as
shown in (Fig. 23).

Fig. 22: Cylindrical Constraint Fig. 23: Door Constraint.

Von Mises Equivalent Stress, Vergani (2006) and Gugliotta (2002), failure criteria were used in stress field
evaluation. Static stress map obtained from a mean stress condition shows how the fatigue limit for AA7075, issued
at 150 MPa, website (2016), is exceeded of an irrelevant quantity (9 MPa) in a position far from fracture initiation
(Fig. 24). Near the crack the value of Maximun Equvalent Stress is of 110 MPa (Fig. 25).

Fig. 24: Stress Map of Rear Hinge. Fig. 25: Stress Map of Crack initiation.

4. Discussion

The fracture surface examination showed a fatigue mechanism. It started from two corrosion pits and initially
propagated normal to them until the crack pass through the initial section (zone B Fig. 11). Afterwards the
propagation changed its path longitudinally respect the cross section (zone C Fig. 11). In turns first crack
propagation acted as initiation for the second one.
The corrosive phenomenon is the result of the combination of protective layer separation and saline atmospheric
exposure. The protective layer separation in the initiation region was probably caused by an incorrect painting cycle,
as suggested by the hinge status observed on other similar aircrafts (Fig. 26).
 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9
G. Zucca et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 553–561 561

Fig. 26: Hinge of a similar aircraft.

In addition, numerical model showed that is necessary a stress concentrator (i.e. corrosion pit) to obtain a stress
value above fatigue limit for AA7075 in the region where fatigue started.

Conclusion

Hinge failed because of fatigue cracks due to corrosion pit phenomena generated by an incorrect surface
protection. Although the investigated parts had been visually inspected for the presence of corrosion, as scheduled
by the maintenance manual, that did not prevent from the occurred hinge failure, probably because of the limited
reliability of a simple visual exam not able to detect incipient cracks under the worn painting layer. For these
reasons, following the investigation, a more reliable Non-destructive Test was recommended; in details, an Eddy
Current inspection of the MLG door hinges was issued in order to prevent other similar incidents.

References

Aerospace Specification Metals Inc., 27 12 2016. [Online]. http://asm.matweb.com/search/GetReference.asp?bassnum=MA7075T73.

ASM, 2004. Metals Handbook, in Atlas of microstructures of industrial alloys, 8th edition, p. 251.
ASM, 1993. Specialty handbook, in Aluminum and aluminum alloys.
ASTM, Case Studies for Fatigue Education, Ralph I. Stephens, 1994.
Gugliotta, A., 2002. Introduzione alla Meccanica della Frattura Lineare Elastica, Torino: Levrotto & Bella,.
Nicodemi, W., 2000. Acciai e leghe non ferrose, Zanichelli.
Vergani, L., 2006. Meccanica dei Materiali, Milano: McGraw-Hill.