![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 24, 7:48*pm, wrote:
It is incorrect to say that all metallic materials have a finite fatigue life. There are indeed metals that have effectively infinite fatigue lives. Many steel and titanium alloys have that property. Though even among those there is some evidence that the stress/cycle graph never goes entirely asymptotic, I agree that it is fair to say that their fatigue lives are essentially infinite. Aluminum, however, does not have the "knee" in the stress/cycle graph that takes it effectively parallel with the X axis. With aluminum, the curve heads inexorably towards the X axis. Metal structures have been certified with an infinite fatigue life. That is almost always true for aircraft certified under the old CAR 3 regulations which did not address fatigue. It is even true for some aircraft certified under the more modern Part 23 and JAR22 regulations. Unfortunately, the map is not the territory: Just because the CAA or whoever certified that it is so doesn't mean it is actually so. There is an EXCELLENT, plain language discussion of the design considerations and fatigue calculations in the Blanik repair and overhaul manuals published in the mid 70's. That sounds like valuable material, I would definitely like to read it. How can I get a copy of that documentation? Corrosion is the real intractable issue with metals, and causes much more [cumulative] damage in aircraft structures than fatigue alone. I completely agree there. Corrosion is and should be a far more pressing concern that fatigue alone. Very often, failures that initially appear to have resulted from fatigue are actually more directly caused by corrosion that reduces the effective cross- sectional area and causes stress risers that result in local yielding and accelerated fatigue. Thanks, Bob K. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I completely agree there. Corrosion is and should be a far more pressing concern that fatigue alone. Very often, failures that initially appear to have resulted from fatigue are actually more directly caused by corrosion that reduces the effective cross- sectional area and causes stress risers that result in local yielding and accelerated fatigue. Thanks, Bob K. Corrosion and fatigue work hand in hand. Corrosion begets fatigue and fatigue begets corrosion. Together, they can cause mayhem. Bill D |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Aluminum, however, does not have the "knee" in the stress/cycle graph that takes it effectively parallel with the X axis. With aluminum, the curve heads inexorably towards the X axis. I see that for some Al alloys and with unnotched coupons, but most all aircraft metallic structure are notched because of fastener holes. I am looking at one notched curve now that goes parallel at 10^7 cycles. No glider is going to see the 60-80000 hr life that large aircraft have proven by service and test. For example, the rewinged C-5b has an expected service life of 100,000 hrs, validated by fatigue test. After the test they cut one panel, notched another, and were unable to get a failure. Metal structures have been certified with an infinite fatigue life. That is almost always true for aircraft certified under the old CAR 3 regulations which did not address fatigue. It is even true for some aircraft certified under the more modern Part 23 and JAR22 regulations. Unfortunately, the map is not the territory: Just because the CAA or whoever certified that it is so doesn't mean it is actually so. I was referring to among other things, rotor blades cetified in the 70's, that had fatigue, DADT anaylysis and full scale test tests done with simulated damage. There is an EXCELLENT, plain language discussion of the design considerations and fatigue calculations in the Blanik repair and overhaul manuals published in the mid 70's. That sounds like valuable material, I would definitely like to read it. How can I get a copy of that documentation? I believe the manuals that came with our blanik are available on the Blanik America site. I think you will find them of great interest, esp since the EASA AD now is also a US AD as of this Friday. aerodyne |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blanik L-23 Super Blanik Manual -F.C.F.S. | Joel Flamenbaum | Soaring | 2 | April 14th 10 03:29 PM |
Mandatory ELT | [email protected] | Soaring | 9 | March 8th 05 03:01 PM |
ELT Mandatory ? | Jim Culp | Soaring | 20 | June 19th 04 06:40 PM |
New security bulletin | gatt | Piloting | 28 | June 9th 04 10:33 PM |
Grob 103 bulletin becomes AD | Mike Borgelt | Soaring | 0 | October 3rd 03 12:47 AM |