Determining the effect of bird parameters on bird strikes to commercial passenger aircraft using the central composite design method

Öz

Today, bird strike is one of the most threatening problems to flight safety. A bird strike damage in flight can result in serious structural damage or even fatal accidents. A bird strike model requires high computational power for model preparation and nonlinear explicit analysis because of composite materials, contact definitions and other complex analysis parameters. Investigating the effects of design parameters on bird strike is a costly and time-consuming practice. The influence of various parameters such as bird velocity and impact angle has been also evaluated on a composite target in this research. Investigation of the effects of bird parameters on a composite target provides a clearer definition of the strength limits and energy transfer of composite materials exposed to bird strikes. Real bird strike tests are in good agreement with Ls-Dyna analysis results in this study. The unique aspect of this research is that the Central Composite Design (CCD) method, one of the Design of Experiment (DOE) methods, is one of the first applications in the bird strike problem. Bird strike simulations were performed in different analysis parameters based on the Central Composite Design (CCD) method and the effects of the parameters on bird strike were found with the regression equations obtained from Minitab.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bird strike
• Central composite design (CCD)
• Design of experiment (DOE)
• Impact test
• Smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH)

Kaynakça

1. Dolbeer, R. A., Begier, M. J., Miller, P. R., Weller J. R. and Anderson, A. L., 2018. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990 – 2018.
2. FAA Wildlife Strike Database, 2019. U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Some Significant Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990 – 2019.
3. Dolbeer, R. A. and Wright, S. E., 2007. FAA Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1990 – 2007.
4. News: [Online], Available: https://artigercek.com/haberler/thy-ucagi-kus-surusune-carpti . (27 December 2020).
5. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), 2016. Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes, EASA / CS-25.631, Amendment 18.
6. Lavoie, M. A., Gakwaya, A., Ensan, M. N. and Zimcik, D. G., 2007. Review of existing numerical methods and validation procedure available for bird strike modeling, ICCES, vol.2, no.4, 111-118.
7. Wilbeck J. S., 1978. Impact behavior of low strength projectiles, U.S. Air Force, Report AFML-TR-77-134.
8. Heimbs, S., 2011. Computational methods for bird strike simulations: A review, Computers and Structures 89, 2093–2112.

9. Johnson, A. F., Holzapfel, M., 2003. Modelling soft body impact on composite structures, Composite Structures, 61, 103–113.
10. McCarthy, M. A., Xiao, J. R., McCarthy, C. T., Kamoulakos, A., Ramos, J., Gallard, J. P., Melito, V., 2004. Modelling of Bird Strike on an Aircraft Wing Leading Edge Made from Fibre Metal Laminates – Part 2: Modelling of Impact with SPH Bird Model, Applied Composite Materials, 11, 317-340.
11. Ensan, M. N., Zimcik, D. G., Lahoubi, M., Andrieu, D., 2008. Soft Body Impact Simulation on Composite Structures, Transactions Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering.
12. Lavoie, M. A., Gakwaya, A., Ensan, M. N., Zimcik, D. G., Nandlall, D., 2009. Bird’s substitute tests results and evaluation of available numerical methods, Int. J. Impact Eng. 36, 1276–1287.
13. Zhou, Y., Sun, Y. and Huang, T., 2020. Bird-strike resistance of composite laminates with different materials, The Journal of Materials, 13, 129.
14. Smojver, I., Ivančević, D., 2010. Numerical simulation of bird strike damage prediction in airplane flap structure, Composite Structures, 92, 2016–2026.
15. Chelladurai, S. J. S. and Ray A. P., 2020. Optimization of process parameters using response surface methodology: A review, Materials Today: Proceedings.
16. Joardar, H., Das, N. S., Sutradhar, G., Singh, S., 2014. Application of response surface methodology for determining cutting force model in turning of LM6/SiCP metal matrix composite, The Journal of Measurement, 47, 452–464.
17. Gopalakannan, S., Senthilvelan, T., 2013. Application of response surface method on machining of Al–SiC nano-composites, The Journal of Measurement 46, 2705–2715.
18. Arokiadass, R., Palaniradja, K., Alagumoorthi, N., 2012. Prediction and optimization of end milling process parameters of cast aluminum-based MMC, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 22, 1568-1574.
19. Oktem, H., Erzurumlu, T., Kurtaran, H., 2005. Application of response surface methodology in the optimization of cutting conditions for surface roughness, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 170, 11–16.
20. Chelladurai, S. J. S., Selvarajan, R., Ravichandran, T. P., Ravi, S. K. and Petchimuthu, S. R. C., 2018. Optimisation of dry sliding wear parameters of squeeze cast AA336 aluminum alloy: copper-coated steel wire-reinforced composites by response surface methodology, International Journal of Metalcasting.
21. Palanikumar, K., Muthukrishnan, N. and Hariprasad, K. S., 2008. Surface roughness parameters optimization in machining A356/SiC/20p metal matrix composites by PCD tool using response surface methodology and desirability function, Machining Science and Technology: An International Journal, 12(4), 529-545.
22. Minitab 18 Support Training Document [Online], Available: https://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/18/help-and-how-to/modeling-statistics/doe/supporting-topics/response-surface-designs/response-surface-central-composite-and-box-behnken-designs . (27 December 2020).