Goudagari Raghavender, et. al.

International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications

www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

Static and Fatigue Analysis on Repaired Fuselage Skin

Goudagari Raghavender *, Saroj Sahoo
Department of Technical Education, Hyderabad-500085, Telangana, India
Corresponding Author*: Goudagari Raghavender
1
Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering, Department Of Tchnical Education, Hyderabad
2
Senior Design Engineer, Cyient, Hyderabad

ABSTRACT OF PROJECT WORK

This project focuses on Static and Fatigue Analysis of repaired fuselage skin at the pitot tube location.
The fuselage is an aircraft's main body section. Skin is damaged around the pitot tube on fuselage. It is removed
by trimming out cracked area and installing the repair doubler to the skin.
As part of the certification process, an aircraft manufacturer performs tests or analysis to demonstrate
compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations 25.571. This analysis is generally based upon an implicit
assumption of isolated cracking, i.e., the effect of a single crack is considered with respect to the issues of
detectable or initial size, fracture-critical size, and rate of growth. The subject repairs need to be evaluated for
Static strength and fatigue evaluation. Fatigue analysis is performed for the subject repair and fatigue life is
evaluated based on High Cycle Fatigue (HCF), through S-N curves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Submission: 05-07-2021 Date of Acceptance: 18-07-2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. INTRODUCTION airplane damage tolerant fail safe structure is

This report evaluates the static and fatigue subjected to repair /modification, the airplane needs
strengths for repair /rework performed on airplanes. to be evaluated for the two main stages static
The analysis carried out for the repair uses generic strength and fatigue as a part of airworthiness
fatigue and fracture methods obtained from standard compliance, structural fleet safety and passenger
books as well as public domain data. safety which are the important criteria for any
The satisfactory performance of an aircraft aerospace industry standards.
requires continuous maintenance of aircraft
structural integrity. It is important that metal 1.1 Damage Description
structural repairs be made according to the best Operator found damage to the skin around
available techniques because improper repair the pitot tube on aircraft as shown in the
techniques can pose an immediate or potential
danger. Figure 1and Figure 2. The distortion starts
Damage to metal aircraft structures is often about 75 mm behind the radome and extends back
caused by corrosion, erosion, normal stress, and 110 mm. Two cracks were identified at the aft end
accidents and mishaps. Sometimes aircraft structure of the skin at the pitot mount cut out. No distortions
modifications require extensive structural rework. were found on the internal stringers below or above
The problem of repairing a damaged section is the pitot tube attached. Skin thickness is 0.8 mm
usually solved by duplicating the original part in made of Al 2024-T3 Clad Sheet and Fasteners are
strength, kind of material, and dimensions. 1000 flush head MS20426D aluminum rivets
The purpose of this report is to provide
repair evaluation for fleet safety which comprises
Static and Fatigue analysis. In general, when an

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 45 | P a g e

 Goudagari Raghavender, et. al. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

Figure 1: Damage Description and Repair Location on Fuselage Skin

Figure 2: Repair Sketch for the Crack Damage

II. OBJECTIVES  It evaluates the Static strength at the critical

This repair is mainly divided into two stages in detail.
terms of Static strength & Fatigue evaluation II. Fatigue Evaluation - (Stage II) :
calculations mentioned below.  It evaluates the repair life at the critical detail
I. Static strength Evaluation - (Stage I) : where it is subjected to cyclic loading.

III. DAMAGE EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF REPAIR METHODS.

Figure 3: Figure showing the Damage Evaluation and selection of Repair Methods.

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 46 | P a g e

Goudagari Raghavender, et. al. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

3.1 REPAIR INSTRUCTIONS skin. The size of the doubler depends on the
3.1.1 General Repair Instructions to Pressurized number of rows, edge distance, and rivets
Area: spacing.
The skin of aircraft that are pressurized during flight 4. Fabricate an insert of the same material and same
is highly stressed. The pressurization cycles apply thickness as the damaged skin. The skin to insert
loads to the skin, and the repair to this type of clearance is typically 0.4mm to 1mm.
5. Drill the holes through the doubler, insertion,
structure requires more rivets than a repair to a non-
and original skin.
pressurized skin (See 6. Spread a thin layer of sealant on the doubler and
secure the doubler to the skin with Clecos.
Figure 1) and [3, 6] 7. Use the same type of fastener as in the
1. Remove the damaged skin section. surrounding area, and install the doubler to the
2. Radius all corners to 12.5mm. skin and the insertion to the doubler. Dip all
3. Fabricate a doubler of the same type of material fasteners in the sealant before installation
as, but of one guage greater thickness than, the

Figure 4: Pressurized Skin Repair

Assumptions  Fabricate a repair doubler made of

 The damage is in the skin, there is no 1.143mm thick and 2024-T3 clad aluminum sheet of
damage to adjacent structure. 215mm X 165mm as shown in Figure 2
 Internal pressurization effects are the  For pressurized fuselage cabins and lower
dominant cause of stresses in the pitot tube region. wing skins - two areas particularly prone to fatigue
 Airplane is subjected to constant amplitude through the long-continued application and
loading. relaxation of tension stresses - the standard material
is an aluminum alloy designated 2024-T3.
3.1.2 Repair Instructions for Subject Crack  Do not use the repair doubler on a stringer
Damage: or other structure. If the last row of a fastener comes
 Trim out the damage in the skin as shown over a stringer then add an additional fastener row to
in the Figure 2. HFEC inspect the edge of each trim have a better internal inspectability and repair
and enlarge and maintain a minimum radius to avoid durability.
any sharp edges. Maintain a minimum of 2D  Install all repair fasteners at all repair
minimum edge margins to the trim edges. doubler corners.
 HFEC inspect all the existing fastener  Pre-form the repair doubler to the fuselage
holes common to the skin repair to ensure no crack contour. Drill the appropriate fastener holes. Use a
exist. drill stop to restrict penetration through skin.

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 47 | P a g e

Goudagari Raghavender, et. al. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

IV. GEOMETRY AND MATERIAL DETAILS

Geometry and material properties are shown in Table 1 and [6, 8]
Table 1: Geometric and Material Details
S. No. Part Geometry Thickness (mm) Material
1 Skin 0.80 Al 2024-T3 Clad Sheet
2 Repair Doubler 1.143 Al 2024-T3 Clad Sheet

4.1 Material Properties

Material Allowable is listed in below Table 2

Table 2: Material Allowable1

Material Al 2024-T3 CLAD SHEET
Fty (Tensile Yield Strength) 324MPa
Ftu (Ultimate Strength) 469MPa
KA (Fracture Toughness) 37 MPa-m1/2
E (Young’s Modules) 73.1 GPa

4.3 Fastener Details

Fasteners: 1000 flush head aluminum rivets are used [6, 8]
Table 3: Fastener Details

Fastener Diameter Material Young’s Modulus

MS20426D 4mm Al 2017-T3 72 GPa

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 48 | P a g e

Goudagari Raghavender, et. al. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

V. LOAD DATA EVALUATION: pressurization system is set to the design settings,

In order to predict the crack-growth based on the maximum cabin altitude selected for
behavior of an aircraft structure, the designer needs passenger comfort and the maximum operating
to know the sequence of stress cycles applied during altitude selected for aircraft performance, ensuring
the life of the structure. This stress history for a new that the design cabin differential pressure will not be
design is developed from the service life exceeded in service.
requirements and the mission profile information The stress spectrum is considered to have a
specified by the procurement activity. Based on this remote stress due to cabin pressurization. Cabin
information a repeated load history due to ground pressurization primarily causes hoop tension in the
handling, flight maneuvers, gusts, pressurization, fuselage shown in Figure 9. The GAG
landing, store ejection, and any other load source is pressurization load is based on Federal Aviation
developed. Regulations 25.571. Hence for the subject deviation
location, generation of load spectrum is avoided and
5.1 Types of Load Cases assumed only to loaded by hoop stress.
Airplanes are being subjected to a variety
of types of loading, such as pull-up manoeuvres, The circumferential stress acting in the Fuselage is
rolling manoeuvres, gusts, taxi loads etc. Each of calculated as follows:
these types of loading can be associated with a The atmospheric pressure at sea level =101 kPa
variety of airplane and flight conditions with regard Air pressure at the altitude of 16000m =10.1kPa
to airplane configuration, weight, speed, altitude etc. (10% of Atmospheric pressure) [11]
The occurrence of a specific type of loading with It is assumed that the cabin pressure of airplane is
specified magnitude in a fully defined flight maintained at 1520m when cruising at 16000m. The
condition may be indicated as a loading case [9]. pressure inside the cabin is calculated is as follows:
Air pressure at the altitude of 1520m = 85 kPa [11]
To define a loading case, for a certain aircraft, the Cabin pressure = Air pressure at the altitude of
following data has to be set: 1520m - Air pressure at the altitude of 16000m
• Payload and its distribution Cabin pressure = (85-10.1) kPa
• Fuel load and its distribution Cabin pressure = 75 kPa
• Speed
• Altitude VI. STATIC STRENGTH EVALUATION -
• Acceleration (linear and rotational) (Stage I):
• High lift devices setting This analysis evaluates whether proposed repair
• Primary and secondary flight control angles configuration restores the production strength in line
with the standard repair instructions.
Cabin Pressure Case: All standard strength checks will be performed to
Cabin Pressure Case [9, 10]: The cabin insure positive (+ve) Margin of Safety (MoS)
pressure is not an external load for the airplane
taken as a body. However for the structure, the cabin Static Analysis
pressure is a significant external load source Subject repair is installed as per the instructions
creating internal hoop load and longitudinal load in provided in text book [3], the repair doubler is
its members. The hoop load is always more considered 1.143 mm thick.
important than the longitudinal load. For a perfect Material replacement:
cylindrical fuselage, the running loads are: Hoop The doubler is thicker and larger than the cutout.
load and Longitudinal load The materials are same. The minimum margin
Where p is the cabin differential pressure safety factor is:
and R is the fuselage radius. The regulations states MS = 1.143/0.080 – 1 =0.4285 (+)
that a maximum cabin altitude of 1520m must be The repair area and load capability are restored.
maintained at the maximum operating altitude of the
aircraft. What it means is that at the maximum Fastener and joint capability
operating altitude of the aircraft, the cabin pressure Hoop Direction:
must be equivalent to the ambient air at 1520m. F hoop = PR/t = (75×0.864)/0.82×10-3 = 80×103
Most of the pressurized aircraft have their cabin kN/m2 =80 MPa
pressurization system designed exactly for that Where
requirement. Very few aircraft have a more R = Fuselage radius = .864 m [14]
stringent design standard providing a more P = Cabin Pressure =75 MPa (Refer section 7; for
comfortable environment for the passengers. load calculation)
Therefore the relief pressure valve of the t = Thickness of skin

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 49 | P a g e

Goudagari Raghavender, et. al. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

A loss = 15.875*0.812=12.9 mm2 S max = 80×103 kN/m2

P req = fhoop*A loss S min = 0 kN/m2 [Assuming]
P req = 80*12.9 =1031 N S max  S min
Assumed there are 3 MS20426D fasteners, Sm 
Pallow = 2668*3 =8000 N 2
M.S. = (Pallow/Preq-1) 80  10 ^ 3  0
Sm 
M.S. = (8000/1031-1) 2
=7.8 (+) = 40×103 kN/m2 or 40 MPa
VII. FATIGUE ANALYSIS
Durability is the ability of structure to resist
fatigue and environmental damage during the
airplane’s expected operational service use.
Fatigue calculations are performed by
evaluating based on reference “Airframe Stress
Analysis and sizing [12]. Following are the steps for
calculating fatigue life.
1. Severity Factor (SF), which accounts for
 Fastener type, method of installation,
interference, hole preparation, etc
 Detail Design Severity Factor (SF):
 Fastener load distribution to avoid ‘peaking The severity factor (SF) is a fatigue factor that
effect’ accounts for local peak stress caused by load
 Minimization of the stress concentration transfer through fastener and by pass load transfer
caused by both local load transfer at a fastener and through plate.
bypass load (   )
SF = 
  1
 2


2. Discrepancy Factor Re f

3. Fatigue quality index  K tb   P K tg  P 

4. Finally fatigue life from S-N Curve.   =   
1 2  Dt Wt 
 
Fatigue loading considering as ‘Constant Amplitude Where:
loading’: α - Surface Condition Factor
Subject repair is installed as per the instruction β - Hole Filling factor
provided in text book [3], the repair doubler is Ktb - Bearing Stress Concentration
considered 1.143mm thick. Factor
Hoop Direction: Ktg - Stress Concentration Factor
F hoop = P R/t = (75×0.864)/0.82×10-3 = 80×103 θ - Bearing distribution factor
kN/m2 =80 MPa D - Diameter of the fastener
Where t - Thickness of the skin
R = Fuselage radius = 864mm [14] W - Width of the plate
P = Cabin Pressure =75kPa (Refer section 6 for load
calculation) Bearing distribution factor ϴ = 1.25
t = Thickness of skin

(   )  K   P   K tg  P  
SF       
tb

  
Re f   Dt   Wt  


(1  0 . 75 ) 1 . 2  0 . 35 P   3 . 1  0 . 65 P 
SF      1 . 25   
 P    0 . 00396  0 . 000812   0 . 0240  0 . 000812 
 
W  t 

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 50 | P a g e

Goudagari Raghavender, et. al. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

 1 . 2  0 . 35   3 . 1  0 . 65 
SF  1  0 . 75  0 . 0240  0 . 000812     1 . 25   
  0 . 00396  0 . 000812   0 . 0240  0 . 000812 
SF = 3.89
Discrepancy factor is assumed to be 1.2.
K = 1.2×3.89 = 4.662

S-N Curve based on mean stress for Kt = 5 surfaces are subjected to repeated or varying loads
The classical approach to fatigue also of specified magnitude while the stress reversals are
referred to as Stress Controlled Fatigue or High counted up to the destruction point. The number of
Cycle Fatigue (HCF), through S-N curves. In order the stress cycles to failure can be approximated by
to determine the strength of materials under the the WOHLER or S-N DIAGRAM.
action of fatigue loads, specimens with polished

Figure 2: Life Cycles for Kt=5

80MPa=11.6 ksi VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Calculated Life Cycles = 5, 50,000 Flight Cycles.  Two cracks were identified at the aft end of
Scatter factor - A factor used to reduce the calculated the skin at the pitot mount cut out. No distortions
fatigue life, time interval of crack growth, or were found on the internal stringers below or above
verification testing of a safe-life structure (it is the pitot tube attached.
generally 3.0-5.0). The scatter factor is affected by  The repair is checked for static strength to
the following factors: insure production strength is restored.
 A confidence level factor due to the size of  Fatigue life is determined at the critical
the test sample establishing the fatigue performance detail by using standard procedures and
 Number of test samples methodologies and found to be 1, 25,000 flight
 An environmental factor that gives some cycles.
allowable for environmental load history  As per the results shown, installed repair is
 A risk factor that depends on whether the good at two aspects i.e. static strength & Fatigue.
structure is for safe-life or fail-safe capability
Scatter Factor = 4.0 Further Work
Estimated life cycles = N4.66 /4= (5, 00,000)/4 Good details design is the most important mean to
= 1, 25,000 Flight Cycles. decrease the stress concentration factor which will
significantly increase the fatigue life of the joint.
Below are the parameters that can be looked in to for
better fatigue strength.
 Reduce Stress Concentration

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 51 | P a g e

Goudagari Raghavender, et. al. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications
www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 11, Issue 7, (Series-IV) July 2021, pp. 45-52

 Interference-fit fastener hole condition [15]. Elements of Fracture Mechanics by Prasant

 Reduce end fastener load Kumar (pg.no. 65,192).
 Cold work fastener hole [16]. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Advisory_Circular/AC_25_571-1D_.pdf
It is with great pleasure and profound sense
of gratitude that I express my most cordial and
humble thanks whole heartedly to my esteemed
guide, SAROJ SAHOO, Senior Design Engineer,
CYIENT, Hyderabad, for the moral support,
guidance, keen interest, unflinching inspiration and
encouragement, which were fruitful for shaping my
ideas in this research.

REFERENCES
[1]. Damage Summary Information.
[2]. Repair Options for Airframes by Mohan M.
Ratwani, Ph D.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/hand
books_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_
[3]. handbook/media/ama_Ch04.pdf-Aircraft
Metal Structural Repair, Chapter 4.
[4]. Airframe Structural Design by “Michael Chun
–Yung Niu” Second Edition, Jan 1989(Chapter
15)
[5]. Damage Tolerance Analysis of Aero Structural
Components by tcs.aerospace
[6]. Airframe Stress Analysis and sizing by
“Michael Chun –Yung Niu”, Second Edition,
Jan 1999 (pg. no.696)
[7]. Material Property; www.matweb.com
http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.asp
x?MatGUID=781ce4adb30c4d548320b0ab262
a5d28
[8]. Fracture Toughness;
https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-
properties/2024-T3-Aluminum
http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMateria
l.asp?bassnum=MA2024T3
[9]. MECH 6471 Aircraft Structures External
Loads By Dr. Mohammed Abdo
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/hand
books_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_
[10]. handbook/media/ama_Ch04.pdf-Aircraft
Metal Structural Repair, Chapter 4.
[11]. Pressure Altitude:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Air_pressure
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/p41
.html
[12]. Airframe Stress Analysis and sizing by
“Michael Chun –Yung Niu”, Second Edition,
Jan 1999 (Chapter 9.12, page 382)
[13]. Elementary Engineering Fracture mechanics
by “David Broke” 3rd printing, 1984.
[14]. Airplane Information:
http://www.aviamarket.org/reviews/civil-
aircraft/515-cessna-560xl-citation-excel.html

www.ijera.com DOI: 10.9790/9622-1107044552 52 | P a g e