0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 013 стр.Safe Life Aircraft

Jan 05, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Safe Life Aircraft

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 0

Safe Life Aircraft

© All Rights Reserved

- QT 1300 Tri Fold Sliced
- COMPOSITE MATERIALS 2 MARK QUESTIONS 5 UNITS.docx
- LTS-6-I1
- Fatique on Piston Ring
- Dnv Rp f101 Corroded Pipelines
- Fatigue of CFRP Composites
- European Guideline LRA
- DSTO-TR-1561
- Effect of Spot Welding
- Complying With AASR
- nasa1
- Offshore Oil production Riser Desgn.pdf
- 33_Design (1)
- nchrp_rpt_469-b
- 0046352 Cc 2 f 7546777000000
- Influence of Post Weld Impact Treatment HFMI/PIT on Mechanical Properties of Welded HSLA Steel with Undermatched Filler Material
- Cracks in a powder vibrating
- New Touch Down Zone (TDZ) Solutions for Steel Catenary
- The Low Cycle Fatigue Criterion
- tech67.pdf

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

net/publication/267563386

PROBABILISTIC APPROACHES TO AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE FATIGUE DESIGN

CITATION READS

1 666

1 author:

Roberta Lazzeri

Università di Pisa

7 PUBLICATIONS 24 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a probabilistic methodology for the fatigue design of aerospace components. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roberta Lazzeri on 24 July 2015.

5/02

DAMAGE TOLERANCE

AND PROBABILISTIC APPROACHES

TO AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE FATIGUE DESIGN

Roberta Lazzeri

Pisa University

Via Diotisalvi, 2, 56126 Pisa, Italy

Abstract. The different fatigue design approaches for of the inspecting actions and to a safety factor,

typical aeronautical structures are compared: a computer lower than that used in the Safe-Life case.

code has been used in order to investigate the different

approaches such as Safe Life, Damage Tolerance and

More and more often, the approach to the

probabilistic approaches to analyze two fundamental problem of safety is linked with the probability

aspects: risk of failure and costs. The acceptable that an event happens (risk analysis), so that the

maximum risk level has been established and thresholds use from the beginning of a statistical

and inspection intervals have been found to ensure formulation is advisable, to consider also the

operating life without catastrophic failures.

effective variability of some parameters

involved in the process.

The purpose of the present article is the

1. INTRODUCTION

analysis of the possible design methodologies in

order to compare the costs and/or the safety

The design methods presently used for

level which they produce.

aeronautical structures (Safe Life, Damage

Tolerance) must guarantee the absence of

2. DESIGN METHODS

catastrophic failures for their operating life.

A first method was the Safe-Life

Because of the great number of random

(replacement of the component after an

variables involved in fatigue phenomena, a

established life); this applies a safety factor to

statistical approach is advisable, as has just

the mean life of the structure, but doubts can

been proposed in [2]. In fact, a classic

remain about the number of tests performed to

deterministic approach could lead to the

establish the mean life and about the correctness

implementation of heavy solutions with

of the safety factor because it doesn’t consider

unknown failure probability. In the Safe-Life

the data scatter factor.

case, in fact, the safety factor used can be too

The Damage Tolerance approach (the

low or penalizing, being independent of the

structure must “tolerate” a crack until a planned

situation examined. In the Damage-Tolerance

maintenance action can find and repair it), [1],

case, it is necessary to secure against

is based on the identification of the worst

catastrophic failures, and to identify the worst

among the possible situations; the phenomena

condition for every aspect involved in the

involved have a statistical nature, and the

planning. As the fatigue phenomena have a

structure must be verified under the most

random behaviour, it is necessary to find a

critical condition.

conservative value, for each of the variables

A disadvantage concerned with this

involved in this problem, to transform a

approach is that, by joining the probabilities of

stochastic problem into a deterministic one. The

the more unfavourable events, an excessively

problem is split into two parts: how much the

low probability of failure (POF) results,

worst examined condition is really the most

appreciated from the safety point of view, but

critical and how much this analysis can lead to a

extremely penalising from the point of view of

structural solution with lower probabilities of

weights or costs. The guarantee against

failure, but a much heavier and more expensive

catastrophic events is entrusted to the planning

one.

Aerotecnica Missili e Spazio Vol. 81 – 2/2002

53

R. Lazzeri

Using from the beginning a statistical The third part regards inspection intervals; in

approach it is possible to set free planning from this context, it is important to note that one or

the analysis of the worst case, obtaining more cracks can be undetected during an

answers about the failure probability. inspection, and it is necessary to guarantee that

This way to approach the problem makes they will not grow to the critical length before

useful the creation of numerical models that the successive inspection, in which they will be

allows a great number of simulations of the clearly detected and repaired. In the literature,

behaviour of structures in reasonable several possible methods have been presented;

calculation times, for an interpretation in a these methods are discussed in the following.

probabilistic way of the results obtained.

2.2.1 - PRESENT DAMAGE TOLERANCE

2.1 - SAFE LIFE

A possible approach is that of the ‘present’

According to the Safe-Life methodology, a Damage Tolerance, which involves the plan of

structure is designed in such a way to remain the inspection intervals, so that the structure

free from defect for its whole life. Obviously a can tolerate the presence of a crack without

safety factor is applied to the predicted mean failure. The first inspection can be fixed in two

life, to be sure against unexpected events. This different ways, [3]. The first considers the

safety factor can assume different values, but it number of cycles to failure L1 of the structure

is usually equal to four or five. This method with a flaw produced by manufacturing

entrusts structural safety and reliability to an 'a (“rogue” flaw, equal to 1.27 mm length, [3])

priori' replacement of the components, without and applies to it a corrective coefficient equal to

any check on their further use. This involves 2; the second one considers the possibility of

very high costs and there is no evidence of having a surely detectable crack, calculates the

greater safety, since the structure was never fatigue life necessary to reach this dimension

really checked. and applies a safety factor equal to 5 to the

evaluated life.

2.2 - DAMAGE-TOLERANCE An inspection method must be established,

then the inspection interval is in both cases

The Damage-Tolerance approach tolerates calculated by applying a corrective factor equal

the presence of a defect, also produced by to 3 to the number of cycles L2 between the

manufacturing, and tries to contain the damage failure in components without rogue flaw L0

that this can involve on safety of the structure and the one corresponding to the detectable

until a planned maintenance operation can find crack.

and repair it. The basis of the Damage

Tolerance approach is in the scheduled 2.3 – RISK ANALYSIS THROUGH

maintenance operations, which are planned in PROBABILITY OF FAILURE

such a way as to avoid catastrophic failures, but

without an excessive frequency which could This method defines a level of risk, i.e. the

involve only higher costs and not higher safety. maximum acceptable cumulative POF of

The problem can be divided into three parts. structures. After establishing a minimum

The first one involves the choice of inspecting acceptable safety level (which is in fact

methods: given a defect dimension, each equivalent to a maximum risk level), it is then

method has a different Probability of Detection possible to find out, through a probabilistic

(POD) and obviously different costs. The approach, the number of cycles after which the

second problem regards the first inspection first inspection (threshold) has to take place.

(threshold) taking into account the fact that So, according to the selected inspecting method,

during the nucleation and short-crack phase, inspection intervals are determined considering

cracks are not visible, and so an inspection in the required safety level

this phase would only involve useless costs, [3].

54

R. Lazzeri

PROBABILITY OF FAILURE (POF) WITH distribution of the POF.

'ROGUE' FLAW The present study took into consideration lap

joints (Fig. 1) in 2024-T42 alloy, on which

In recent years, the Airworthiness agencies there were experimental data available in the

have begun to address the problem of 'rogue' DIAP Laboratory, [5]. Tests were carried out

flaw, i.e. the presence, in the new structure, of a under constant amplitude loading, Smax=100

flaw due, for example, to manufacturing. This MPa, R=0.1. The aim was to simulate the

rogue flaw is, of course, a very unlikely event, fatigue behaviour of fuselage panels, subjected

but has still to be taken into account when to one fatigue cycle a flight.

evaluating different safety approaches, [3].

Usually, the Initial Flaw Quality is described 3.1 - SAFETY RESULTS

through the Equivalent Initial Flaw Size (EIFS)

model, [2], i.e. a fictitious flaw distribution 3.1.1 – SAFE LIFE (STRATEGY A)

based on the backward extrapolation to time t=0

of the tests about time to crack nucleation. Due A simulation by the PISA code with 100,000

to its low probability, the rogue flaw cannot be panels, makes it possible to find out the average

described through an EIFS approach, because, value of flights to failure without inspections

during the Time To Crack Initiation (TTCI) under ultimate stress: the result is 142,000

tests, it is unlikely to appear. flights (Fig. 2). It is interesting to compare this

This method is analogous to the previous result from the PISA code with the

one: once the risk level and the inspecting experimental one (Fig. 3) about nucleation and

method are fixed, it is possible to find out the final failure in similar panels, [8]. The

number of cycles after which the first inspection experimental failure data refer to the presence

has to be carried out (threshold) and the number of a 60 mm length crack, but it is well-founded

of cycles between inspections. to believe that they are representative also of

final failure. It is possible to note good

3 – AN EXAMPLE agreement between the PISA failure average

result (142,000 flights) and the experimental

The Department of Aerospace Engineering failure distribution.

of the University of Pisa (DIAP) has developed By applying to flights to failure a safety

a computer code named PISA (Probabilistic factor equal to 5, it can be discovered that, from

Investigation for Safe Aircraft), [4], [5]. The the Safe-Life point of view, it is necessary to

code is able to simulate the fatigue behaviour of replace the part every 28,400 flights. The

joints, from the nucleation of cracks and their cumulative POF corresponding to this number

growth; simulated inspections can be scheduled of flights, is estimated to be smaller then 10-23,

by taking into account different inspection which means an excessively low probability

methods characterized by different POD of compared to the safety needs of the structure,

cracks. The method works on a statistical basis: that could not justify the costs that it involves.

the nucleation of cracks is simulated through This methodology will be referred to as

the TTCI model, [2], the propagation with the ‘Strategy A‘.

Paris law, with the Stress Intensity Factor (SIF),

K, calculated by the compounding method, [6], 3.1.2 – PRESENT DAMAGE TOLERANCE

i.e. by composing a set of appropriate simple (STRATEGIES B1, B2)

solutions to take into account the effects of

different structural boundaries; inspection is According to the present Damage Tolerance

simulated through the corresponding POD, [7]. point of view, the number of cycles after which

In order to implement the statistical the first inspection (threshold) must be

approach, the Monte Carlo method was chosen. executed, can be estimated in two different

The PISA code makes it possible to do a high ways. The first one considers the average

55

R. Lazzeri

number of cycles to failure (obtained with or maintenance) has changed from 28,400

PISA) in panels with a rogue through crack, L1, cycles to 88,000 cycles, which means it has

without inspections (84,000 cycles), and applies tripled, and still remains within the required

to it a safety factor of 2, thus obtaining a safety limit (10-9).

threshold for the first inspection equal to 42,000 The inspection interval is chosen using the

cycles. The second considers the average of the PISA code again in various maintenance

distribution of the times to which it is possible strategies, having established the inspecting

to have in the panel an at least noticeable crack method and the threshold. For example,

of dimension with 90% of probability and 95% choosing a penetrant liquid inspecting method,

of confidence to be seen through inspection fixing the threshold to 88,000 cycles, and

with penetrant liquids (6.25 mm) and it applies executing the simulations at various intervals of

to this a safety factor of 5, thus obtaining a inspection (6,000, 10,000, 14,000, 20,000,

threshold of 25,000 cycles (Fig. 2). 30,000, 50,000 cycles), it is possible to find out

The inspection interval is in both cases the cumulative POF at numbers of flights, as a

calculated by applying a corrective factor equal function of the length of the inspection interval,

to 3 to the number of cycles L2 between the (Fig. 4).

average of the failure in panels without rogue Representing the design life goal in number

flaw L0 and the average of detectable cracks of flights, for example 120,000 flights, the

with the chosen inspecting method (i.e. inspection interval will be the widest between

penetrant liquid), obtaining 6,000 cycles. those that guarantee the expected safety level,

The first methodology will be referred to as in this case it was taken at equal to 10,000

'Strategy B1' and the second as 'Strategy B2'. flights because it surely allows for having the

Strategy B2 turns out to be very 'safe', much required POF also for longer lives.

more than the Safe-Life one, and consequently This methodology will be referred to as

excessively expensive. ‘Strategy C’

(STRATEGY C) 'ROGUE' FLAW –(STRATEGY D)

It is also possible to follow a POF approach In this simulation, each panel had an initial

to the preservation of the structural safety level through crack (arogue) introduced corresponding

using the PISA code. In fact, making a high to a central hole of installation of the fasteners.

number of simulations of panels (100,000 or The Airworthiness Authority assigns to arogue

more), it is possible to find out the POF under the value arogue=1.27 mm, [3]. Executing

ultimate stress, without any inspection, as a various simulations, with the length of

function of the number of cycles (Fig. 2). arogue=1.27 mm, arogue=0.635 mm and

Fixing the acceptable maximum risk level, say arogue=0.127 mm, it is possible to find out the

10-6, it is possible to find that the corresponding POF distribution when inspections are not

cycles to failure is equal to 104,000 flights. carried out. Obviously, the presence of this

If the required POF is very low (this would initial flaw anticipates the failure of the panels

need a high number of panels for the (Fig. 2).

simulation), a linear extrapolation from For each of the three distributions, the

available data to the required one can be used. number of flights with POF equal to 10-9 can be

For example, by assuming POF=10-9, using a found. With a linear extrapolation of the

linear extrapolation of the available data, the available data, the number of cycles can be

threshold is 88,000 cycles. It is interesting to calculated, as shown in Table 1.

compare these results with those obtained with It is also possible to find the POF at 88,000

the Safe-Life method. The number of cycles flights, i.e. the threshold chosen for Strategy C

before any action is taken (either a substitution (see Table 2).

56

R. Lazzeri

1.27 mm 68,000 fortunately, improves the situation. In fact,

0.635 mm 72,000 taking a panel with an arogue of 1.27 mm, in a

0.127 mm 75,000

situation of 'rogue' flaw, at 68,000 cycles the

Table 1 arogue has reached such a dimension as to be

identified during the inspection and then

arogue POF at 88,000 cycles repaired, whilst the remaining part of the panel

1.27 mm 1

is found in an analogous situation to the one

0.635 mm 0.21561

0.127 mm 1.47x10-3 without a rogue flaw. In order to determine the

inspection interval, therefore, it is possible to

Table 2 proceed as in the case without a rogue flaw, and

then gain the cumulative POF as a function of

As can be noticed, if inspections were not the inspection interval amplitude (Fig. 5).

made, the presence of a ‘rogue' flaw in the Representing the design life goal in number of

panel would have an important influence; in flights, say 120,000, the inspection interval will

fact a flaw arogue=1.27 mm could cause the be the widest between those that guarantee the

failure of a “Strategy C-maintained” structure expected safety level, in this case an inspection

before the first inspection. interval of 10,000 flights was taken, because it

These data can also be compared with the surely allows for having the required POF also

Safe-Life results. It is possible to see that the for longer lives.

first action happens after a more than doubled

number of cycles compared to those of the This methodology will be referred to as

Safe-Life approach, still remaining within the ‘Strategy D’

safety limit (POF≤10-9).

The strategies A, B1, B2, C, D are

summarised in Table 3.

Inspection Interval L2/3 = 6,000 cycles

Inspection Interval L2/3 = 6,000 cycles

C RISK LEVEL POF ≤10-9

Insp. Int. = 10,000 cycles

D RISK LEVEL + POF ≤10-9

"ROGUE" FLAW Insp. Int. = 10,000 cycles

Table 3

57

R. Lazzeri

structures (risk level), can be established. So, it

After have been satisfied the unavoidable is possible to schedule the maintenance

requirement of safety, it remains interesting to strategy, i.e. the choice of the inspection

understand how the choice of one approach to method and the number of flights for planned

planning rather than another, can involve inspections, to ensure a safe operating life.

changes in terms of costs. In this context, it is also possible to introduce

At the current state of this job, real costs of the effect of a very unlikely event, like a flaw

inspections, repairs and substitution of produced by manufacturing, as suggested in [3].

structures are not being introduced, because The DIAP has developed a computer code to

they were not available. Relative data were simulate the fatigue behaviour of joints from the

considered taken from [9], that shows that the nucleation of cracks and their growth and also

cost of inspection of one hole is 1, the cost of the effect of maintenance actions, if planned.

repairing a cracked hole turns out to be about Through this code, it has been possible to

100 and panel replacement about 100,000. simulate a high number of panels in order to

At this point, it is possible to simulate, by obtain answers about POF.

using the PISA code, the five strategies In this article five possible maintenance

previously introduced (A, B1, B2, C, D). The strategies (Table 3) with the same inspection

results obtained show that the costs involved in method (penetrant liquid) have been considered.

strategy A, as shown in Fig. 6, are extremely The first (A) is based on the Safe Life

high because of the high costs of panel methodology and entrusts the safety on the ‘a

replacement, but also because panels are priori’ replacement of the structure when it

replaced when they are still fit for use (see reaches its design end of life. A high safety

paragraph 3.1.1). factor forces the replacement at 28,400 flights,

The other strategies B1, C and D do not corresponding to a very low POF (POF≤10-23).

involve panel replacement, and their costs are The second and third are founded on the

relative to the operations of inspection and Damage Tolerance point of view, i.e. the

maintenance, as shown in Figs. 7, 8, 9. Strategy possible presence of a crack that the structure

B2 is rejected, because it presents a too low must tolerate until a planned maintenance

POF at the threshold. operation can find and repair it. Two different

Considering the strategy costs, it can be maintenance strategies can be planned (B1, B2)

noticed that what really influences total costs is in terms of threshold and inspection interval,

the number of the inspections, because the based on different aspects of crack growth.

single maintenance costs are similar in the cases The fourth and the fifth (C, D) are based on

considered, being connected to the number of risk analysis; the D strategy deals with rogue

cracks, which is a function of cycles, and then is flaw, i.e. a possible initial crack, due, for

similar in all cases. example, to manufacturing. In these strategies, a

risk level (POF≤10-9) has been established and,

4 – CONCLUSIONS consequently, a threshold and the inspection

intervals have been found.

The fatigue design of aeronautical structures Once the safety requirements were satisfied,

is usually approached through two deterministic a parametric cost analysis was performed by

methodologies: Safe-Life and Damage using relative data about inspection at one hole,

Tolerance, but fatigue phenomena have a repair of a cracked hole and panel replacement.

stochastic behaviour and so, in both cases, it is It can be seen that Safe-Life strategy causes

necessary to protect against random events very high costs, while the other strategy costs

using high safety factors. are mainly influenced by the number of

Nowadays, some authors are discussing inspections because the repair costs are quite

about the introduction of a “new” methodology similar, being linked with the number of cracks

based on risk analysis. By using it, the as a function of the number of flights.

58

R. Lazzeri

approach to aircraft structure risk assessment”,

1. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 25, Proceedings of the 19th Symposium of the

Paragraph 25.571 – “Damage Tolerance and Fatigue International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue

Evaluation of Structures”, U.S.A. (ICAF), Edinburgh, Scotland, 1997.

2. Yang J.N., Manning S.D., “Demonstration of 6. Kuo A., Yasgur D., Levy M., “Assessment of

Probabilistic-Based Durability Analysis Method for Damage Tolerance Requirements and Analysis”, Task

Metallic Airframes”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No. I; Report Air Force WAL-TR-86-300, Vol. II, March

2, 1990, pp 169-175 1986, ICAF Doc. n. 1583.

3. Swift T., “Verification of Methods for Damage 7. Ratwani M. M. “Visual and non-destructive

Tolerance Evaluation of Aircraft Structures to FAA inspection technologies”, in “Ageing Combat Aircraft

Requirements”, Proceedings of the 12th Symposium of Fleet - Long Term Applications”, AGARD-LS-206,

the International Committee on Aeronautical Fatigue October 1996.

(ICAF), Toulouse, France, 1983. 8. Cavallini G., Galatolo R., Lanciotti A., Lazzeri L.,

4. Lazzeri R., “Sviluppo di un codice di calcolo per la “Nucleazione e propagazione di difetti in giunti

valutazione del livello di rischio in componenti chiodati”, AIDAA Congress, Naples, October 1997.

strutturali aeronautici”, Degree Thesis, Faculty of 9. Burns J.G., Johnson W.P., Berens A.P., “Aging

Aerospace Engineering, University of Pisa. Aircraft Structural Damage Analysis”, Agard

Conference Proceedings 506 “Fatigue Management”,

AGARD CP-506, December 1991.

59

R. Lazzeri

L0=142,000 cycles

0 50000 100000 150000 200000

1.E+00

50%

1.E-01

arogue=1.27 mm TH=68,000 cycles

-9

1.E-02 POF<10 arogue=0.635 mm TH=72,000 cycles

1.E-04

First Detectable Crack (adet=6.35 mm)

P

Failure with arogue = 1.27 mm

1.E-06 Failure with arogue = 0.635 mm

Failure with arogue = 0.127 mm

1.E-07

1.E-09

0 50000 100000 150000 200000

Cycles

Figure 2 – Cumulative probability for different events obtained by the PISA code

60

R. Lazzeri

XXXXX Final failure (2atot=60 mm)

Flights

1.00E+00

1.00E-01

1.00E-02

120000

1.00E-03 130000

140000

1.00E-04 150000

POF

160000

1.00E-05 170000

180000

1.00E-06 190000

200000

1.00E-07

1.00E-08

1.00E-09

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000

Inspection Interval

(Threshold = 88.000 flights)

61

R. Lazzeri

1.00E+00

1.00E-01

120000

1.00E-02 130000

140000

150000

1.00E-03 160000

POF

170000

1.00E-04 180000

190000

200000

1.00E-05

1.00E-06

1.00E-07

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Inspection Interval

(Threshold = 68.000 flights)

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

Cost

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

0 28400 56800 85200 113600

Cycles

62

R. Lazzeri

Inspection Costs

450

400

Strategy B1

350 Strategy C

300 Strategy D

250

Cost

200

150

100

50

106,000

114,000

42,000

50,000

58,000

66,000

74,000

82,000

90,000

98,000

Cycles

Repairs Costs

450

400

350

Strategy B1

300

Strategy C

Costs

250 Strategy D

200

150

100

50

0

106,000

114,000

42,000

50,000

58,000

66,000

74,000

82,000

90,000

98,000

Cycles

63

R. Lazzeri

450

400

Strategy B1

350 Strategy C

300 Strategy D

Costs

250

200

150

100

50

0

42,000

50,000

58,000

66,000

74,000

82,000

90,000

98,000

106,000

114,000

Cycles

64

- QT 1300 Tri Fold SlicedЗагружено:ibrh42
- COMPOSITE MATERIALS 2 MARK QUESTIONS 5 UNITS.docxЗагружено:M.Thirunavukkarasu
- LTS-6-I1Загружено:Manuel Minguez
- Fatique on Piston RingЗагружено:mohanrajjercy71
- Dnv Rp f101 Corroded PipelinesЗагружено:Fabian Muñoz
- Fatigue of CFRP CompositesЗагружено:Kenny Ang Yuh Shin
- European Guideline LRAЗагружено:Abdirahman Deere
- DSTO-TR-1561Загружено:Amjad Khan
- Effect of Spot WeldingЗагружено:faiyazansari
- Complying With AASRЗагружено:VINOD DAMODARAN
- nasa1Загружено:vishal kumar sinha
- Offshore Oil production Riser Desgn.pdfЗагружено:dndudc
- 33_Design (1)Загружено:Dasaka Brahmendra
- nchrp_rpt_469-bЗагружено:Shah Manzoor Ahmed Quadri
- 0046352 Cc 2 f 7546777000000Загружено:abraham silva hernandez
- Influence of Post Weld Impact Treatment HFMI/PIT on Mechanical Properties of Welded HSLA Steel with Undermatched Filler MaterialЗагружено:Noridzwan Nordin
- Cracks in a powder vibratingЗагружено:lrodriguez_892566
- New Touch Down Zone (TDZ) Solutions for Steel CatenaryЗагружено:Krixvic
- The Low Cycle Fatigue CriterionЗагружено:hoomanam
- tech67.pdfЗагружено:shirish
- Structural Strength and Fatique File Calculation of Y32 Bogie Frame by FEMЗагружено:Phillip Miller
- 1. Production and Indus Engg 2010.pdfЗагружено:jimsjohn
- ME 486 EquationsЗагружено:Alfonso Lockherup
- Session 1 all ppts.pdfЗагружено:8273614328
- Gear Crack PropagationЗагружено:Anurag Sharma
- code book 123[1022]edit.rtfЗагружено:Kaashif Baig
- Fatigue and Fracture Test Planning, Test Data Acquisitions and AnalysisЗагружено:UMC
- NAlisis Piping SystemsЗагружено:Erjobemo
- Durability and Damage ToleranceЗагружено:Rick
- 43_4_POLAK.pdfЗагружено:ricardomax2

- LNG TerminalЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- From_fail-safe_to_safe-to-fail_Sustainability_and_.pdfЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- Fail-safe Topology OptimizationЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- tv_22_2015_5_1135_1140Загружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- ChiChiksanMarineLoadingSystemsЗагружено:arifsarwo
- Tire - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- LNG VAPORIZER.pdfЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- PVEliteЗагружено:Sudhanshu Shekhar
- Natural gas storage tankЗагружено:Surya Budi Widagdo
- Doctor ScheduleЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- 173706343-WRC-107-WRC-297-CO-MP-pdf.pdfЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- Load CasesЗагружено:tebodin_319
- ASME B46.1-2009 Surface RoughnessЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- AtlasCopco JC-Carter BrochureЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad
- LNG-ConverstionTableЗагружено:xxxhanz
- 46525842 Tabel KonversiЗагружено:Pras Si Syecher Purwodadi
- CHTRЗагружено:Iqbal Muhammad

- 472_Aircraft Structural Repair for Engineers-Part III 21 Mar 2016Загружено:sebastien
- Case Studies in Fracture MechanicsЗагружено:Benjamin Rohit
- Damage ToleranceЗагружено:cal2_uni
- Damage Tolerance Analysis of a Fuselage Stiffened Panel With a Broken FrameЗагружено:International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- $MP-018-09 sn diagram 2524t3Загружено:Yusvari Harza Irawan
- AMC 20-20Загружено:Haziq Abdul Rahim
- Aircraft Materials-2024Загружено:Manoj Manoharan
- Damage ToleranceЗагружено:cal2_uni
- FAA and USAF Damage ToleranceЗагружено:Denis Lim
- Module 7 (Maintenance Practices) Sub Module 7.18 (Aircraft disassembly, inspection, repair and assembly techniques).pdfЗагружено:shareyhou
- Statistical distribution functions and fatigue of structuresЗагружено:Ajay Kardak
- Aircraft structure analysisЗагружено:Manoj Manoharan
- Aging of Aircraft StructuresЗагружено:Edward Muriithi
- 777 Empennage Certification ApproachЗагружено:garystevensoz
- 04-ValidationandTestingЗагружено:Pedro Félix
- Damage ToleranceЗагружено:tv009334
- LIBCOS Final Report v4 1Загружено:Mohd Shahrom Ismail
- NASA: 90864main M-1587 actuatorsЗагружено:NASAdocuments
- DSTO-TR-1110%20PR.pdfЗагружено:Youn Seok Choi
- MPD Falcon.pdfЗагружено:SN OJHA
- ++++Fatigue Damage.pdfЗагружено:kzmajid
- 04-DesignPhilosophyЗагружено:Jack Azad
- boller_c_chang_f_k_fujino_y_encyclopedia_of_structural_healt.pdfЗагружено:Sevilya
- AW101 VVIPЗагружено:mortenstarck5225
- DTA Guidelines for Antenna InstallationsЗагружено:cthembree
- CompositeStructureDesignAndAnalysis.pdfЗагружено:pfael
- Safarian_Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Requirments of Civil Aviation_2!3!2014Загружено:Olli1974
- Development of Fibre Metal Laminates for Advanced Aerospace Structures - Vogelesang VlotЗагружено:Jimmy Sinkers
- lec1Загружено:Abhishek Arora
- MohagheghValidationAircraftStructuresЗагружено:falconsaftey43

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.