Investigation of C-5 Honeycomb Floor Panel Dent Limits: David Wilkinson Kevin Reid Chad Demontfort Gregory Wood

Investigation of C-5 Honeycomb
Floor Panel Dent Limits
Chad deMontfort David Wilkinson

Gregory Wood Kevin Reid
Mercer Engineering Research Center Warner Robins Air Logistics Center
Warner Robins, GA 31088 Robins AFB, GA 31098
2014 Aircraft Structural Integrity Conference

2 - 4 December 2014
San Antonio, TX
DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
4 December 2014 2014 ASIP Conference, San Antonio, TX Slide 1
Overview
• Background/Motivation
• Sensitivity testing
• Expansion testing
• Finite Element Analysis
• Results and Conclusions

Background/Motivation
• Previous study by MERC lead to identification of dented honeycomb
as high driver of maintenance manhours (MMH)
• Field/depot –
repair/replacement
• 107/202 TARs
• Goal: Reduce MMH by safely expanding allowable dent sizes and

proximity
• Methodology: Physical testing and analysis

Areas of Focus
• Project focused exclusively on the floor panels of the relief crew compartment
and troop compartment (primary structure)
• Panel construction:
• Core: 3.1-1/8-7N 5056 aluminum, .625” thick
• Facesheets: .030”-.032” thick 7075-T6 aluminum
F.S. 1106
F.S. 2101
F.S. 524 F.S. 1383

Limits and Loads
• Current dent limits
- 1.35” dia., 0.040” depth, 6.0” spacing (no repair required)
- 3.00” dia., 0.100” depth, 12” spacing (repair required)
- Ambiguity for dent sizes between these limits
Cross-section of
dented panel
• Worst-case ultimate loads in areas of focus

Tensile Shear Compression Bending
Stress Stress Stress Stress
68.7 ksi 8.3 ksi 11.0 ksi 30.2 ksi
• Residual panel strength margin of safety > 0.1

Testing Methodology
Tension and
• Determine residual strength of Shear
Compression
dented panels for each loading
scenario (sensitivity testing)
• Expansion of allowable dent
limits and separations
• Dents applied with cylindrical
indenters with 22 kip load
frame
Bending
• Residual geometry measured
with dial indicator

Tension and Compression
Sensitivity Testing
• Undented tension ultimate strength = 76 ksi (7075-T6)
• Single dent coupon (3.0”  x 0.1” depth) failed at 87 ksi.
• Compression coupon unaffected by dent. Displayed identical
load-displacement curve as undented coupon.
3.0” diameter
0.10” depth
σult = 68.7 ksi

Shear Sensitivity Testing
• Baseline undented shear coupon reached 51 ksi before

tearing at one of the fixture bolts.
• The dented coupon test was stopped at 36 ksi shear stress
- no failure
3.0” diameter σult = 8.3 ksi
0.10” depth
Load vs. Deflection for Dented Shear

Panel
60000
Machine Load (lbf)

50000
40000
30000
20000 With Dent
10000
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Deflection (in.)

Bending Sensitivity Testing
• Typical 4-point bend test. Constant moment/stress between

upper load arms.
• Failure mode is instantaneous buckling.
• Undented baseline tests all failed under load arms.
• Noticeable decrease in dented panel residual strength
90.0
Facesheet Stress vs. Dent Depth
FS Stress @ Failure (ksi) 80.0
70.0
Mandatory repair
60.0
limit 3.0 dia x .10
50.0
40.0
30.0
M.S. = 0
20.0
10.0
σult = 30.2 ksi 0.0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Dent Depth (in.)
Sensitivity Testing Result
• MERC concluded from the baseline testing that the bending scenario
was most “sensitive” to the presence of a dent
• Single dent failure M.S. = 0.68.
• Validate dent separation requirement.

Multi-dent Testing
• Validate existing separation requirement
- How much more margin lost from multi-dent scenario?
• Most panels rarely have a single dent. Current tech order guidance
allows 6”-12” separation depending on the dent severity.
Failure Stress vs. Dent Spacing (3.0" dia x 0.1" depth)
• M.S. = 0.26 with spacing 42000
40000
of 1*Diameter
38000
Failure Stress (psi) 36000
34000
32000
30000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Center-to-center spacing (in.)
• σfail = f(dia., depth, spacing)

Physical Test Results Summary
• Test dent diameters: 2.4” < D < 5.4”

• Test dent depths: .065” < d < 0.16”
• No test points failed below M.S. = 0.1
Multi-Dent Spacing Ratio vs. Failure Stress
60000
50000
40000
Failure stress (psi)
30000
M.S.=0.1
20000
10000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Spacing Ratio

Fatigue Testing
• Following determination of larger dent sizes, the configuration with

the lowest failure stress was fatigue tested on both new and
condemned panels
- Fatigue testing at limit loads with 1155 pressure cycles per year
for estimated remaining fleet life (27 years).
- Intermittent inspections for damage growth at major ISO intervals.
- Final static residual strength test
• No damage growth detected, no decrease in static residual strength

Finite Element Analysis
• Limited number of panels • Non-linear, large displacement,

available for physical test transient analysis with plasticity
• Practical limits for sizes and and contact
quantities of coupons to test • Honeycomb material has non-
Hence, a need for linear anisotropic properties, and
simulating tests with finite LS-Dyna had material card
element analysis (FEA) formulated
Validate FEA with • Bending tests to be focus of

remaining available finite element models (FEM)
physical test coupons

FEM Construction
• Nominal 0.1” element size.

• Core modeled as a continuum with solid elements.
• Facesheet modeled with shell elements
• Coincident facesheet and core nodes merged.

Honeycomb properties
• Honeycomb material is fully anisotropic

𝜎𝐿,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 = 𝜎𝑊,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 ≅ .05𝜎𝑇,𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝
Example Honeycomb Crush Response
Curve (T-direction)
400
Pressure (psi)
300
200
100
0
strain (ε)
Compressive Compressive Crush Strength Plate Shear Plate Shear

Strength (T-dir) Modulus (T-dir) (T-dir) L Direction W Direction
320 psi 97 ksi 170 psi 45 ksi 20 ksi

Fine-tuning the FEA
• As test program increased dent sizes, FEA showed decreasing correlation (over predicting
failure stress)
• MERC IR&D efforts created proprietary material representation to improve correlation to test
- Necessary to account for unpublished, hysteretic behavior of damaged core during
successive crush events
- Improved honeycomb material model also improved residual dent geometry and failure
stress for large dents
• MERC created Matlab programs to automate modification, execution, and limited post-
processing of each analysis. The program automates:
- Setup of analysis deck
- Indenter geometry and positioning
- Panel width
- Post-processing / Iterations
- Summarizes failure stresses
- Adjusts dent spacing in subsequent analysis deck seeking a failure with M.S. = 0.1

FEA Load Sequence
• Model denting process identical to physical test process
Dent Rebound
• Model load application used applied moments
• Physical test buckling phenomenon duplicated in model
Buckling Failure

FEA Validation
• Some FEMs built to match test parameters exactly and aid

validation
• Other FEMs built to analyze un-testable geometries (big
dents with big spacing) and increase data points.
• 40+ analyses used for final characterization with residual
dent diameters from 2.4” to 7.0” and depths from 0.080” to
0.260”.

FEA Validation
• Image correlation used to FEA Physical Test
verify behavior of
honeycomb model
- Residual dent geometry
and facesheet strains
- Facesheet stress at
failure
• Stress concentrations
around dent important to
buckling behavior
- Interactions between
adjacent dents

FEA Validation
• Compare FEA failures with matching physical test failures
• Good correlation for

smaller dents FEA Correlation to Test
55000
• Under predicting 10%

50000
failure stress for 10%
σFEA (psi)
45000
large dents
Conservative
40000
35000
30000
30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000
σTEST (psi)

Characteristic Equation 262
• Statistical analysis to develop characteristic equation which

related dent diameter, depth, and center-to-center spacing
RC and TC floors only
0 < D < 7.0

Sample Test Results and Predictions 0.0 < d < 0.26
60000 1 < x/D < 6
50000
R2 0.9954
Adjusted R2 0.9946
Failure Stress (psi)
40000 Standard Error 2863
30000
Physical Test
20000 Prediction
10000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Spacing ratio
Predictions
• Predictions based on
characteristic equation
Predicted Failure vs. Test Failure
shown for all test points 65000
60000
• Trends similar 55000
σPREDICTION (psi)
• Conservative failure 50000
45000
predictions 40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
σTEST (psi)

Characteristic Equation as a
Surface
• Set the stress equal to an M.S. = .1 and solve the

characteristic equation for the spacing ratio,
• Result is all
acceptable dent
configurations
• Problem bounded
by puncture line
determined by
physical test.
Example: 6.3” x 0.18” dent requires x/D > 1.5 to maintain M.S. > 0.1
Conclusions
• Field shouldn’t have to solve equation, and can’t use 3D surface

from static image.
- Contour line corresponding to required x/D > 1
Recommended T.O. Change SPO Engineering Tool

Conclusions
• Remove multiple limit ranges from tech repair data
• Increased maximum allowable dent diameter by 83%
• Increased maximum allowable dent depth by 150%
Old Limits
Future Efforts
• Customize damage limits on a per-panel basis based on

ultimate loads
• Expand methodology to additional panel constructions
(thicker facesheets, different core specs and thicknesses)
• Application to other failure mechanisms (delaminations,
cracks)
• Modified honeycomb material representation is key to
extending the capability

Questions?


Investigation of C-5 Honeycomb Floor Panel Dent Limits: David Wilkinson Kevin Reid Chad Demontfort Gregory Wood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation of C-5 Honeycomb Floor Panel Dent Limits: David Wilkinson Kevin Reid Chad Demontfort Gregory Wood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigation of C-5 Honeycomb

Floor Panel Dent Limits

Chad deMontfort David Wilkinson

2014 Aircraft Structural Integrity Conference

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Goal: Reduce MMH by safely expanding allowable dent sizes and

• Methodology: Physical testing and analysis

F.S. 524 F.S. 1383

• Worst-case ultimate loads in areas of focus

• Residual panel strength margin of safety > 0.1

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

σult = 68.7 ksi

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Baseline undented shear coupon reached 51 ksi before

Load vs. Deflection for Dented Shear

Machine Load (lbf)

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Typical 4-point bend test. Constant moment/stress between

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Failure Stress (psi) 36000

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Test dent diameters: 2.4” < D < 5.4”

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Following determination of larger dent sizes, the configuration with

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Limited number of panels • Non-linear, large displacement,

Validate FEA with • Bending tests to be focus of

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Nominal 0.1” element size.

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Honeycomb material is fully anisotropic

Compressive Compressive Crush Strength Plate Shear Plate Shear

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Model denting process identical to physical test process

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Some FEMs built to match test parameters exactly and aid

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Compare FEA failures with matching physical test failures

• Good correlation for

• Under predicting 10%

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Statistical analysis to develop characteristic equation which

RC and TC floors only

0 < D < 7.0

40000 Standard Error 2863

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

• Set the stress equal to an M.S. = .1 and solve the

• Field shouldn’t have to solve equation, and can’t use 3D surface

Recommended T.O. Change SPO Engineering Tool

• Customize damage limits on a per-panel basis based on

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

You might also like