Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 474–479

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Fatigue fracture of a nose landing gear in a

military transport aircraft
a,b,*
L.A.L. Franco , N.J. Lourenço a, M.L.A. Graça a, O.M.M. Silva a,
P.P. de Campos a, C.F.A. von Dollinger a
a
C.T.A, I.A.E, AMR. Pça. Mal Ar. Eduardo Gomes, 50, Vila das Acácias, Sã José dos Campos, SP CEP 12228-904, Brazil
b
Minho University, Engineer School, Mechanical Department, Campus Azurém, 4800058 Guimarães, Portugal

Received 12 July 2004; accepted 14 December 2004

Available online 31 March 2005

Abstract

This paper analyses the rupture of a nose landing gear of a military transport aircraft collapsed during take-off pro-
cedure. Examining the fracture surface, it was observed that the failure was due to growth of fatigue crack. Beach marks
followed by a final fast fracture surface due to overload were observed.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Landing gear; Fatigue failure

1. Introduction

Landing gears are usually subjected to severe environmental conditions, such as temperatures, climates
and operational situations such as runway conditions among others. Several works showed fracture in land-
ing gear in parts such as cylinder attachment lugs manufactured from aluminium alloy [1], landing gear
assembly manufactured in a die forging aluminium alloy [2] and nose landing gear structure [3] among oth-
ers. This paper analyses the rupture of a nose landing gear of a military transport aircraft, EMB 121 –
Xingu, which collapsed during take-off procedure. Since this component is considered to be critical to
aircraft safety, the Brazilian Air Force requested a failure analysis investigation.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 253 510220; fax: +351 253 516007.
E-mail address: leandroaugusto@iae.cta.br (L.A.L. Franco).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2004.12.025
 L.A.L. Franco et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 474–479 475

Table 1
Chemical analysis
Element Composition (%)
Iron Bal
Carbon 0.13
Sulphur 0.002
Phosphorus 0.012
Silicon 0.11
Manganese 0.86
Chromium 1.30
Nickel 0.26
Molybdenum 0.83
Vanadium 0.24

Fig. 1. As received nose landing gear.

Fig. 2. Crack surface.

476 L.A.L. Franco et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 474–479

2. Experimental examination

Chemical analysis results are shown in Table 1. A comparison of its composition within the range of
commercial alloys available indicated that the material is a microalloyed vanadium steel. The as-received
failed landing gear component is shown in Fig. 1.
The experimental procedure consisted in the characterisation of fracture aspects of the failed nose land-
ing gear. Visual examination was carried out by means of unaided eye and stereoscopy. Fractographic
examinations were made using a Leo 435VPi – Oxford scanning electron microscope (SEM). Metallo-
graphic examination was made using a Leica – DMRXP optical microscope (OM).

3. Results and discussion

The crack surface was initially observed with the unaided eye (Fig. 2) and stereoscopy. The fractured
nose landing gear showed surface corrosion as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Stereographic microscopy showed

Fig. 3. Corrosion at landing gear surface.

Fig. 4. Corrosion and peeled surface.

 L.A.L. Franco et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 474–479 477

Fig. 5. Fracture surface showing paint mark.

Fig. 6. SEM macrograph of the fracture surface showing fatigue striations.

Fig. 7. SEM micrograph of the fracture surface showing fatigue striations.

478 L.A.L. Franco et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 474–479

clearly the fatigue fracture surface, as well as paint in the fracture surface (Fig. 5). Paint in the fractured
surface indicates that the microcracks were not identified during previous maintenance process.
In order to analyse the different fracture aspects involved, a SEM was used. Fig. 6 shows SEM of the
fractured surface with two fatigue sites. Fig. 7 shows striations and Fig. 8 shows with bigger magnification
a detail of a striation showing an oxidation state. The device shows secondary cracks that can be observed
in Fig. 9 as well surface corrosion. The corrosion surface is seen in higher magnification in Fig. 10.

Fig. 8. Oxidation aspect in a striation.

Fig. 9. Microcrack near to failed surface.

Fig. 10. Corrosion aspect.

 L.A.L. Franco et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 13 (2006) 474–479 479

4. Conclusions

The initial crack growth in the landing gear was due to fatigue. A secondary initiation site was also ob-
served and corrosion pits were identified, suggesting that corrosion was the main cause of fatigue initiation.
The paint mark with 1-mm depth approximately in the fractured surface suggests that the crack was not
identified during previous maintenance. Thus, a non-destructive test such as high-quality dye penetrant
inspection is recommended to detect cracks.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Mr. Jefferson Rodrigues Tavares and Mr. Rogério Duque Gonçalves.

References

[1] Azevedo CRF, Hippert Jr EG, Gerardi PE. Aircraft landing gear failure; fracture of outer cylinder lug. Eng Fail Anal 2002;9:1–15.
[2] Hong-Chul L, Young-Ha H, Tae-Gu K. Failure analysis of nose landing gear assembly. Eng Fail Anal 2003;10:77–84.
[3] Barter SA, Athiniotis N, Clark G. Cracking in an aircraft nose landing gear strut. In: Esaklul KA, editor. ASM International,
Handbook of case histories in failure analisys, vol. 2. OH: Materials Park; 1996. p. 11–4.