Research & Reviews: Journal of Engineering and Technology e-ISSN:2319-9873

Aircraft Fuel Manifold Design Substantiation and Additive

Manufacturing Technique Assessment Using Finite Element Analysis
Prasanna ND, Balasubramanya HS, Jyothilakshmi R*, J Sharana Basavaraja and Sachin Karki
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ramaiah Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Research Article

Received date: 16/10/2017 ABSTRACT

Accepted date: 20/01/2018 An aircraft fuel system allows the crew to pump, manage, and de-
liver aviation- or jet fuel to the propulsion system and Auxiliary Power
Published date: 30/01/2018
Unit (APU) of an aircraft. Fuel systems differ greatly due to different
performance of the aircraft in which they are installed. The fuel system
*For Correspondence is designed to provide an uninterrupted flow of clean fuel from the fuel
tanks to the engine. The fuel must be available to the engine under all
conditions of engine power, altitude, attitude, and during all approved
Dr. Jyothilakshmi R, Assistant Professor,
flight maneuvers. Two common classifications apply to fuel systems in
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ramaiah
small airplanes – gravity-feed and fuel-pump systems and current study
Institute of Technology, Bengaluru 560054,
focuses on the later one. The auxiliary fuel pump provides fuel under
Karnataka, India, Tel: 080 2360 0822.
pressure to the fuel/air control unit for engine starting and/or emergen-
cy use. After starting, the engine-driven fuel pump provides fuel under
E-mail: [email protected] pressure from the fuel tank to the fuel/air control unit. This control unit
which meters fuel based on the mixture control setting, and sends it to
the fuel manifold valve at a rate controlled by the throttle. After reach-
Keywords: Aircraft manifold, Fatigue design, FAA ing the fuel manifold valve, the fuel is distributed to the individual fuel
guidelines discharge nozzles. The discharge nozzles, which are located in each cyl-
inder head, inject the fuel/air mixture directly into each cylinder intake
port. An aircraft's fuel system has a more profound effect on aircraft
performance than any other airframe system. Any failure in the fuel
manifold will lead to catastrophic aircraft damage and it is very impor-
tant to consider all the critical flight mission points for design substa-
tion. The current project work focuses on the design substantiation of
twin engine commercial aircraft engine fuel manifold system to operate
satisfactorily under all conditions, such as acceleration and decelera-
tion, temperature, pressure, and flight attitudes. This work also focuses
on the alternative manufacturing methodology “Additive Manufacturing
Technique” for design optimization using finite element analysis. The
proposed methodology will be verified in order to meet the FAA require-
ments.
Hence in the present investigation attempts have been made on
the following major sections fuel manifold design substantiation for
temperature and pressure requirement, vibration analysis, high cycle
and low cycle fatigue analysis, design optimization using additive
manufacturing technique. A comparative study has been made between
conventional and additive manufacturing. Analysis results has been
correlated based on hand calculated results which indicates less than
five percent deviation to satisfy the FAA guidelines.

The rise in number of vehicles had led to many problems like traffic
congestion, increase in consumption of fuels, rising travel costs.
Considering all these problems we have studied different papers. This
paper introduces bike sharing application which will help people to
travel on one bike and share their expenses and also reduce pollution.

INTRODUCTION
The largest and most important fluid system in an aircraft is the fuel pump system. Hence all aircraft projects involve the de-

RRJET | Volume 7 | Issue 2 | March, 2018 53

Research & Reviews: Journal of Engineering and Technology e-ISSN:2319-9873

sign of a fuel system to some degree. The objective of this work is to describe how the use of design methods may shorten system
development time in the conceptual phase by early introduction of design automation [1]. In this way more concepts can be evalu-
ated in the early stages of aircraft design. Every step in the system development process that can be formalized and automated
reduces the time needed from days to minutes or even seconds. Consequently, there is an enormous potential for improvement.
The objective is also to minimize the number of mistakes by helping the designer increase his or her understanding of how flight
conditions impact the low-level design parameters such as pumps, valves, pipes etc. Fuel pump system mainly used in low and
mid wing single reciprocating aircrafts which cannot utilize gravity feed system as the fuel tanks are not located in the engine.
Instead in this, one or more fuel pumps are used for fuel migration. There are two basic types of aircraft fuel systems gravity feed
system and the pump feed aircraft fuel systems; Gravity feed system is the simplest of fuel systems commonly found in high wing
aircraft with a fuel tank in each wing. A gravity feed system is designed with the fuel tanks above the engine and propulsion sys-
tem, with lines feeding the fuel from the tank to the engine via gravity [2]. Gravity feed fuel tanks do not use any pumps and have
a simple shut-off valve system, with some aircraft having the option to manage fuel feed from either left wing, right wing or both
tanks simultaneously and For low and mid wing aircraft where the fuel tank car cannot be located above the railway locomotive,
a pump feed fuel scheme is necessary, utilizing one or more pump to deliver fuel from the tank to the engine. Usually, this type of
aircraft fuel system has two pumps arranged in parallel - an electric and an engine drive pump - to provide a musical accompani-
ment pump should one fail. As with gravity feed pumps, there is a shut-off valve with selection capabilities.

EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Materials Used
In the present investigation, austenitic stainless steel G321 has been used similar to type 304 but with titanium addition
of at least five times the carbon content. The titanium addition reduces or prevents carbide precipitation during welding [800-
1500°F (427-816°C)] service. It also improves the elevated temperature properties of the alloy. Table 1 gives the mechanical
properties of stainless steel. Table 2 gives the mechanical properties based on additive manufacturing.
Table 1. Mechanical properties of the stainless steel.
DESCRIPTION VALUES
Elastic Modulus 193 GPa
Poisson’s ratio (υ) 0.3
Density (ρ) 8027 kg/m3
Yield Strength (σy) 206 MPa
Tensile Strength 517 MPa
Material Endurance Strength 144.5 MPa

Table 2.Mechanical properties based on additive manufacturing.

DESCRIPTION VALUES
Yield Strength (σy) 103 MPa
Tensile Strength 258.5 MPa
Material Endurance Strength 72.3 MPa
Material Allowable LCF Fatigue Strength for 25,000 Cycles 51.1 MPa
The following steps give the work methodology employed in the present investigation:
• Aircraft fuel manifold has been analyzed for pressure loading conditions and failure criteria is based on material yield
strength.
• Fuel manifold has been substantiated for low cycle fatigue requirement for 25000 cycles.
• Detailed dynamic/vibration analysis including modal analysis is performed to validate the design for engine vibration
loads.
• High cycle fatigue assessment has been performed using SN method to ensure the Aircraft Fuel Manifold design meets
the fatigue life requirement of infinite life. Goodman curve will be plotted to verify the design for infinite fatigue life.
• Aircraft fuel manifold design assessment using additive technology is performed.
Static Analysis
The Static Structural Analysis of Fuel Manifold is carried out for three loading requirements i.e. as per the guidelines of TSO
– C135 Standards. The manifold will be always subjected to internal pressure due to the presence of fluid inside the manifold.
The three loading requirements are:
• Normal Working Pressure Requirement

RRJET | Volume 7 | Issue 2 | March, 2018 54

Research & Reviews: Journal of Engineering and Technology e-ISSN:2319-9873

• Proof Pressure Requirement

• Burst Pressure Requirement
The stress observed in the Fuel Manifold must be within the material yield or ultimate strength limit. Static requirements for
Fuel Manifold are listed in Table 3.
As per FAA:
Proof pressure = 1.33 × Normal Working Pressure
Burst pressure = 2 × Normal Working Pressure

Table 3.Static load requirements.

Static Load Conditions Pressure (MPa)
Maximum Operating Pressure 0.165
Proof pressure 0.220
Burst pressure 0.330

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Static Analysis Results
The fuel manifold tube ends are constrained in all degrees of freedom. The constrained locations are identified based on
the clamping locations of manifold routing [3]. Therefore, the maximum displacement of 0.0001 mm is observed at tube end due
to effect of pressure and plug load as shown in total deformation (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Total displacement plot.

Figure 2. Radial directional deformation.

Analysis–Results Summary – Pressure Analysis
Table 4. Details of pressure analysis.
Material Allowable
Margin of Safety =
Load Case Max Stress Region Max Stress, MPa Yield / Ultimate Factor of Safety
FOS--1
strength, MPa
Normal Working Straight Section 1.44 99.3 98.3
204.8
Pressure Bend Radius 0.49 99.8 98.8
Straight Section 1.92 99.1 98.1
Proof Pressure 204.8
Bend Radius 0.71 99.7 98.7
Straight Section 2.89 99.4 98.4
Ultimate Pressure 517
Bend Radius 0.94 99.8 98.8

RRJET | Volume 7 | Issue 2 | March, 2018 55

Research & Reviews: Journal of Engineering and Technology e-ISSN:2319-9873

Aircraft fuel manifold design is having a maximum stress less than material allowable strength and there by having a sig-
nificant margin of safety [4]. This being the linear analysis, results can be linearly extrapolated from normal working pressure for
proof and ultimate cases. Current Fuel Manifold design meets the Finite Aviation Administration requirements for pressure loading
(Table 4).
Analysis Results Summary with Additive Manufacturing–Pressure Analysis

Table 5. Analysis–results with additive manufacturing-pressure analysis.

Material Allowable
Margin of Safety =
Load Case Max Stress Region Max Stress, MPa Yield / Ultimate Factor of Safety
FOS--1
strength, MPa
Normal Working Straight Section 1.44 71.5 70.5
103.0
Pressure Bend Radius 0.49 210.2 209.2
Straight Section 1.92 53.6 52.6
Proof Pressure 103.0
Bend Radius 0.71 145.1 144.1
Straight Section 2.89 89.4 88.4
Ultimate Pressure 258.5
Bend Radius 0.94 275.0 274.0
Aircraft fuel manifold design is having a maximum stress less than material allowable strength and there by having a signifi-
cant margin of safety based on additive manufacturing (Table 5).
Harmonic Analysis
Fuel manifold vibration analysis
Harmonic analysis is performed for Fuel Manifold design. Base excitation technique is used in the current analysis method-
ology. Acceleration load of 1G (9810 mm/s2) is applied in all three directions lie, X, Y and Z-direction. Global damping ratio of 2%
(0.02) is used in the current analysis based on the prior test correlation study. Mode superposition method is used to solve the
harmonic analysis (Figure 3).

Figure 3.Effect of acceleration.

Fatigue Analysis
The majority of component designs involve parts subjected to fluctuating or cyclic loads. Such loading induces fluctuating
or cyclic stresses that often result in failure by fatigue [5]. About 95% of all structural failures occur through a fatigue mechanism
(Table 6). Fatigue Assessment of Aircraft Fuel manifold at alternating Stress at 251.3 Hz.

Table 6. Fatigue analysis–results summary.

Max Stress Max Alternating Material Endurance Strength Fatigue Factor of Fatigue Strength
Frequency (Hz)
Region Stress, MPa for 1E6 Cycles, MPa Safety Margin
251.3 Bend Radius 112.50 72.30 0.64 -0.36
621.1 Bend Radius 116.85 72.30 0.62 -0.38
743.4 Bend Radius 60.00 72.30 1.21 0.21

RRJET | Volume 7 | Issue 2 | March, 2018 56

Research & Reviews: Journal of Engineering and Technology e-ISSN:2319-9873

Figure 4. Mean stress plot.

• The maximum Von-Mises stress of 70.5 MPa is observed at bend radius (Figure 4).

Mean Stress = 70.5 MPa.

GOODMAN CURVE
As per finite aviation administration requirement, Aircraft Fuel Manifold design needs to have infinite fatigue at maximum
take-off condition [6]. Goodman curve is plotted against alternating stress vs. mean stress to validate the design at maximum
take-off condition as shown in Figure 5. Aircraft fuel manifold design alternating stress falls within the Goodman line and there by
having an infinite design life of more than 1E6 cycles at 251.3 Hz.

Figure 5. Goodman curve.

FATIGUE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

Table 7. Fatigue analysis–results summary.
Fatigue Strength
Max Stress Max Alternating Material Endurance Strength Fatigue Factor of Margin
Frequency (Hz)
Region Stress, MPa for 1E6 Cycles, MPa Safety
=FOS-1
251.3 Bend Radius 112.50 144.50 1.28 0.28
621.1 Bend Radius 116.85 144.50 1.24 0.24
743.4 Bend Radius 60.00 144.50 2.41 1.41
Current fuel manifold design is having a maximum alternating stress less than the material allowable endurance strength for
1E6 cycles. Hence Fuel Manifold design is having a positive fatigue strength margins and meets the fatigue design requirement
(Table 7). Current fuel manifold design is does not meet the fatigue strength requirement based on additive manufacturing tech-
nique. Maximum alternating stress is more than the material allowable endurance strength for additive manufacturing component
and there and having a negative fatigue strength margins.

CONCLUSION
Studies carried out on aircraft fuel manifold design substantiation and additive manufacturing technique assessment using
finite element analysis” indicate the following:
• Baseline design of aircraft fuel manifold meets low cycle fatigue requirement.

RRJET | Volume 7 | Issue 2 | March, 2018 57

Research & Reviews: Journal of Engineering and Technology e-ISSN:2319-9873

• Current aircraft fuel manifold design meets the optimum solution with regards to acceptable low cycle fatigue and high
cycle fatigue as per the FAA design requirements.
• The analysis for the Aircraft Fuel Manifold confirms the design substantiation based on finite element analysis.
• Normal working pressure - Successfully meets material yield requirement.
• Proof pressure loading - Meets the requirements with positive design margins against the material yield limit.
• Burst pressure loading - Meets the requirements with positive design margins against the material ultimate strength.
• Low cycle fatigue - Successfully meets material fatigue strength for 25,000 cycles.
• High cycle fatigue assessment– Aircraft Fuel Manifold is having positive fatigue strength margin and there by having
infinite design life at max take-off condition. Successfully meets Goodman requirement.
• Additive manufacturing technique – Material is reduced by 50% considering the manufacturing unknown variables.
Design meets pressure requirement against the material yield and ultimate strength. However, design can be further
optimized to meet the low cycle and high cycle fatigue strength requirements.

REFERENCES
1. Herbert WL, et al. Characteristics and performance of a fuel cell powered unmanned aircraft. 1960.
2. Samiran D, et al. Development of technological process quality characteristics. Problems of Mechanical Engineering and
Automation. 2005;70-76.
3. Yunlong T, et al. A survey of the design methods for additive manufacturing to improve functional performance. Rapid Pro-
totyping. 1996;22.
4. Stucker B, et al. Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing.
Springer, New York. 2009;299-332.
5. Bradley TH, et al. Strategy for modelling of large A/C fluid systems. 2016.
6. Kobryn P, et al. Aircraft fuel system synthesis aided by interactive morphology and optimization. Aerospace Sciences Meet-
ing and Exhibit. 2007.

RRJET | Volume 7 | Issue 2 | March, 2018 58