A Review on Bird Strike Capability on Service-Age Aircraft Canopy

*M.T.Ahmad, M.R. Ajir, R. Varatharajoo, F. Mustapha, R. Zahari, A.R. Abu Talib,

M.F.Abdul Hamid
Department of Aerospace Engineering,
University Putra Malaysia,
43400 Selangor, Malaysia
*Email: tarmizi1@eng.upm.edu.my

Identifiers:
High Speed Impact, Bird Strike, Aircraft Transparencies, Pressure Vessel

Abstract:
Bird strikes to aircraft have resulted in major aircraft damages coupled with severe/fatal
pilot injuries. Analysis of operational bird impact statistical data indicates that the trend of
damaging bird impacts on civil and military aircraft is continuing to rise. Impacts to the aircraft
transparency system also continue to rise resulting in a continued flight safety risk to the aircraft
and the aircrew. University Putra Malaysia sponsored by the Air Force had initiated a program to
develop Bird Impact Test Facility to evaluate aircraft transparency system for bird strike
capability. This paper describes the design, fabrication, testing and calibration of the Bird Impact
Test Facility. The baseline test results are presented through the use of post test photographs and
calibration of pressure and impact speed diagram using high speed camera.
 INTRODUCTION

Bird-strike-resistant acrylic/polycarbonate laminate transparencies have become the preferred

materials for many existing aircraft and have been a part of the transparency system design for
new aircraft. Aircraft windshields, canopies, and windows must endure a harsh environment that
includes moisture, extreme temperatures, chemicals, and ultraviolet light, and as a result are
subject to the same age-related issues as other aircraft components [1]. One particular issue that
has affected many polycarbonate and acrylic transparency systems is bird strike capability. In
some cases, particularly fighter aircraft, age-related degradation had caused a reduction in bird-
strike capability. A new F-5 windshield is rated for an impact velocity of 400 knots for a four-
pound bird [2], but the manufacturer of F5 aircraft does not provide information on the bird strike
capability of the F-5 aircraft canopy.

Though there are not many instances on record of crashes that have resulted from large birds
smashing through the canopies of jet aircraft however because the tactics of modern warfare are
increasingly calling for high-speed, low-level attack missions, military aviator is taking a serious
look at the chicken cannon tests in order to evaluate their canopies to withstand such impacts
[3].The bird strike capability of the F-5 canopy is not yet evaluated and the bird impact resistance
system had yet to be tested.

The data is used to evaluate the F-5 canopy, hence providing substantial safety to the aircraft
programs.

OBJECTIVES OF DEVELOPING BIRD-STRIKE TESTING

To assess the bird-strike capability for the F-5 canopy, UPM with support of the Air Force,
performed test and evaluation on service-aged F-5 canopy. The objectives of this effort were to:

a. Conduct bird-strike testing to evaluate the F-5 canopy bird-strike capability.

b. Assess the additional risk for the F-5 fleet due to a decreased level of bird- strike
protection.
c. Develop capability of conducting similar high speed impact test for other purposes.

The test facility was designed in accordance to test facility’s requirement stated in ASTM F330-
89 (2004) Standard Test Method [4] for bird impact testing of aerospace transparent enclosure.
This test method may be used for bird impact testing of aircraft crew compartment transparencies
and supporting structure to verify the design; compilation of test data for use in verification of
future transparency and supporting structure design and analytical methods; and comparative
evaluation of materials. This test method covers conducting bird impact tests under a standard set
of conditions by firing a packaged bird at a stationary transparency mounted in a support
structure.

BIRD IMPACT TEST FACILITY

Air Gun

The design, testing and calibration of the Bird Impact Facility were done at UPM whilst the
manufacturing was out sourced to a local steel fabrication plant. The Bird Impact Test facility
consists of an air gun capable of propelling a 4 lb bird in excess of 500 knots, supporting

2
structures and an enclosure for the test article. The air gun consists of pressure vessel connected
to compressed air supply and a barrel (Figure 1).

The air gun is of 6 in bore and has a 19 ft long barrel. The compressed air reservoir of 30 ft2
capacity can be pressurized to 250 lb/in2 and is separated from the barrel by a butterfly valve. On
operating the butterfly valve release handle high pressure air will be dispensed rapidly to the
barrel and the projectile is accelerated down the barrel towards the target. The gun is fixed and
the target mounted in position to give impact on the desired point. Maximum impact speeds up to
1000 ft/sec (600 knots) can be achieved with birds of 4 lb in weight by extending the barrel to 60
ft as compared to the present capability of 500 knots.

Figure 1 – Bird Impact Test Facility

Timing apparatus

Impact velocity is measured by the bird projectile passing through well drawn marker lines
positioned between the gun muzzle and the target. The time interval between traveling the marker
lines is measured by a high speed camera. The accuracy of the speed measurement is estimated to
be +/-2 %.

Bird projectile

The 4 lb thawed bird projectile is wrapped in a clear plastic material (cling foil). The total weight
of the projectile is adjusted to 4 lb 0 oz immediately before firing by the addition of pieces of
chicken parts. The foam plastic barrel plug is used to ensure an accurate fit of the projectile in the
barrel of the gun and thereby obtain repeatable velocity/gun pressure characteristic which ensures
that the required impact velocity is achieved in the test. The purpose of the cling foil is to prevent
breakup of the bird before it impacts on the target.

3
 Air Gun Test and Calibration

The pressure vessel was first tested at 1.5 x working pressure (250 psi) as required by the local
industry authority. The muzzle velocity of the air gun was calibrated using a high speed camera at
frame rate between 10000 to 20000 frame/sec as shown in table 1 and graph 1.

Total
dist
Start End Frame frame Time Speed,
travel Date Result Press
frame frame taken per travel m/s Test
m
second No.
2852 2606 246 1.5 20000 0.0123 121.9 14/0/09 Test 1 Ok 50psi
Not
2256 1870 386 1.5 20000 0.0193 77.72
14/06/09 Test 2 Satis 100psi
0.0105 Not
3001 2790 211 1.5 20000 142.18
5 21/06/09 Test 3 Satis 100psi
Not
733 621 112 1.5 10000 0.0112 133.93
25/06/09 Test 4 Satis 100psi
1383 1284 99 1.5 10000 0.0099 151.52 12/07/09 Test 5 Ok 100psi
2158 2064 94 1.5 10000 0.0094 159.58 12/07/09 Test 6 Ok 150psi
1473 1448 25 0.5 10000 0.0025 200 19/07/09 Test 7 Ok 200psi

Table 1-Calibration Data

250

200
Velocity, m/s

150
y =0.484x +98
2
R =0.9449
100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pressure, PSI

Graph 1 – Calibration Curve of ‘Chicken Cannon’

The first test was carried out using sabot made of high density polystyrene foam reinforce by two
layers of fiber glass. At higher pressure (>100 psi) the tests were not satisfactory due to failure of
the sabot. Subsequent tests were successfully carried out by using a foam barrel plug (cylindrical
shaped polystyrene foam) and chicken wrapped in clear foil and coated with grease. This method
was adopted for the actual trails. The calibration curve was used to determine the required
pressure for the specified test velocity.

4
The Pressure-Velocity Calibration Curve was compared to calculated values and the result is
shown in Graph 2. The actual calibrated velocity values and the calculated values deviate at
higher pressure. This is due to frictional loss that was not considered in the derived equation.

Muzzle Velocity

350
300
250
Velocity m/s

200 Series1
150 Series2
100 Calc
50 Actual
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Pressure psi

Graph 2 – Velocity Versus Pressure Curve

The equations that were used to calculate muzzle velocity as a function of pressure is shown in
Appendix A.

BIRD IMPACT TEST TRIAL

Description of Test Specimens

Figure 2-F5 Canopy

The canopy (Figure 2) consists of a single, biaxially stretched acrylic plastic panel, Military
specification MIL-P-25690, edged with acrylic resin impregnated fabric laminate and mounted in
a rigid frame structure. The acrylic panel is sealed to the frame at the aft end by a combination
sheet silicone rubber and tetrafluoroethylene film expansion joint and is secured with flushed-
head screws. The panel is attached to the frame side beams by retaining pins inserted thru
matching integral nodes laminated to the panel and side beams. Nylon fabric with chloroprene
coating across the hinge lines is cemented to the side beams and the acrylic plastic panel to form
pressure-tight joints for cabin pressurization requirement. The entirely acrylic panel is stressed.

5
Details of the test specimens are as follows:

Aircraft Pt/No S/No Date TSN Age

Type Manufactured
F5E 14-13300-1 DUM/AF/05/038 Dec 1983 3569.07 15 yrs 7 month
F5F 1560009961399 298 Dec 1983 3816.32 15 yrs 7 month

Both canopies were visually inspected for defects prior to test and followings observation were
made:
a. Optical quality of the transparencies appears good with no sign of internal craze that may
indicate structural failure or material degradation.

b. The holes for screws attachment at the forward and aft end of both canopies appears to be
free of cracks or elongations.

c. The hinge nodes of the canopy hinges appear to be in good condition with no visible
cracks or defects.

The canopies were mounted with the rigid frame sandwiched between two rigid steel channel
structures to simulate the mountings of the canopy to the aircraft frame joints.
The mounting structure was arranged so that the line of fire of the compressed air gun was
parallel to the canopy contour and that the impact was on the highest curvature of the panel under
test. With this arrangement the impact angle of the test canopy corresponded to that with the
aircraft in level flight at low altitude cruise speed. Figure 3 shows the canopies mounted on the
test structures before the test.

Figure 3 Canopy Mounted on Test Structure

Methodology of Bird Impact Test

The ‘bird’ (chicken) had been stored in deep freeze and thawed out for 24 hours at room
temperature (about 25oC) prior to firing. The mounting structure was arranged so that the line of
fire of the compressed air gun was parallel to the canopy contour and that the impact was on the

6
highest curvature of the panel under test. Adequate support is provided by clamping the canopy
frame with steel bars on each side of the canopy. This is essential if the full potential resistance of
the canopy transparency is to be realized. The forward edge is fitted with wooden board to
maintain canopy rigidity similar to its fitment to windshield. Two high speed cameras were used
to record the impact points during the test. Another high speed camera of 10,000 frames/sec was
used to measure the speed of the ‘bird’ projectiles.

Using high-pressure air, technicians fire 4-lb chicken carcasses from a 19-ft long launch tube at
speeds exceeding 350/400 knots to simulate a direct bird-strike. The impact force is estimated at
374 KN [Appendix A]. Videotapes and high-speed motion picture cameras operating at speed of
1000 frames/sec provides visual data on what actually occurs during a simulated bird-strike. This
information is used to determine the ability of the test article to withstand the impact and the
damage caused during the strike.

TEST RESULTS

Figure 4 shows the result of the bird impact test. The results of both bird impact test carried out
on the service-aged canopies showed that both canopies failed the impact test. The failure of the
in-service canopies to withstand the prescribed test condition was probably due to either one of
the following reasons:

a. Age-related degradation that reduces the bird-strike capability of the canopies.

b. Both the F-5 canopies are not design for bird strike capability of 350/400 knots.

The Bird Impact Test Facility was able to conduct bird impact test to a certain degree of success.
The high-speed motion picture cameras operating at speed of 1000 frames/sec provides only the
final picture of the test but visual data on what actually occurs during a simulated bird-strike
could not be satisfactorily replayed. Hence meaningful information on the actual impact damage
mode was not realized.

Figure 4 Canopy Acrylic failed Bird Strike Test

DISCUSSION

The tests were done at vessel of pressure 170 psi impact speed of 350 knots (186 m/s) for the F5-
F and at 220 psi impact speed of 400 knots (206 m/s) for F-5 E canopies respectively. It was

7
observed that both the service-aged canopies failed the impact test. The failure of the in-service
canopies to withstand the prescribed test condition could be due to age-related degradation that
reduces the bird-strike capability of the canopies or alternatively the failure could be due to both
the F-5 canopies not design for bird strike capability of 350/400 knots. The acrylic materials of
the canopies did not exhibit defects due to age-related degradation and previous fatigue tests [5]
show that the material properties of similar service-aged canopy are still within its structural
integrity. Hence age-related degradation can be safely ruled out.

To substantiate the reasoning that the canopy are not designed for bird strike capability of
350/400 knots a literature research was conducted and it was revealed that the windshield
(stretched acrylic) of F-15 aircraft (similar configuration to F5) has a bird-strike capability of 405
knots (600 knots for polycarbonate laminate with cast acrylic) whilst its canopy (stretched
acrylic) bird-strike capability is only 170 knots [6]. Similar reasoning can be applied to the F5
canopies but however this finding needs to be validated by the canopy manufacturer.

With regards to the assessment of the additional risk for the F-5 fleet due to a decreased level of
bird-strike protection the test does not provide any indication of decreased in bird-strike
protection since the test was conducted at higher speed presumably higher than the designed bird
strike capability of the canopy. Hence to determine the risk factor, bird strike information on the
canopy need to be provided by the manufacturer and more test need to be carried on serviced-
aged canopy.

With regards to visual data the high-speed motion picture cameras operating at speed of 1000
frames/sec provides only the final picture of the test but visual data on what actually occurs
during a simulated bird-strike could not be satisfactorily replayed. This shows that the frame rate
of 1000 frames/sec is not suitable to record visual data of the impact point.

CONCLUSIONS

The final test trials exhibit the capability of UPM Bird Impact Test Facility to conduct actual bird
impact test on aircraft canopy. The visual data on what actually occurs during a simulated bird-
strike could not be satisfactorily replayed due to frame rate of 1000 frames/sec is to slow to
exhibit meaningful records of the impact test.

The bird-impact tests carried out on both the F5-E and F5-F in-service canopies show that both
canopies could not withstand the bird strike capability of 4lb bird at 350/400 knots. The possible
cause could be that the canopy is not designed to the bird strike capability similar to that of the
windshield which is either made of stretched acrylic or acrylic sandwiched between
polycarbonate laminate.

In term of aged-related degradation of the canopy, the bird impact test does not provide any data
to substantiate any indication of decreased in bird-strike protection since the test was conducted
at higher speed than the designed bird strike capability of the canopy. Fatigue test result does not
show that the acrylic material of the canopy is adversely affected by environmental condition.

For continuous improvement in flight safety and continuous airworthiness of F5 aircraft fleet, in
order to reduce the potential for damage from a bird-strike, the following principle should be
addressed:

8
 a. The Air Force should continue to evaluate data to ensure that certification standards
reflect real-life bird-strike risks.
b. The OEM should be consulted to continually evaluate and modify testing methods to
ensure that they reflect actual bird-strike scenarios.
c. Details of bird strike capability of F5 canopy need to be obtained from the OEM and
further test may be conducted to validate the bird strike capability of service-aged
canopy.

References

[1] Heath, J B R, Gould, R W. Degradation of the Bird Impact Resistance of Polycarbonate:

National Research Council Of Canada Ottawa (Ontario);1983

[2]Technical Manual TO 1F-5E-36 Chapter 6 Cockpit Enclosure Group Inspection

[3] Richardson, W.J. Serious Bird Strike-Related Accidents to Military Aircraft of Europe and
Israel: List and Analysis of Circumstances. Proceedings and Papers. International Bird Strike
Committee (IBSC) meeting no. 23, May 1996. London, U.K.: IBSC, 1996.

[4]ASTM F330 - 89(2004) Standard Test Method for Bird Impact Testing of Aerospace
Transparent Enclosures

[5] R. Zahari, F. Mustapha. Fatigue Life Prediction of an F5 Canopy. Technical Report No.02/09

[6] Hugh Darsey. ASTM F7.08 Subcommittee on Aerospace Transparent Materials and
Enclosure Technical Seminar, Washington DC, November 2004.

[7] Transport Canada. Annual. Bird Strikes to Canadian Aircraft: 1999 (and previous years)
Summary Report. Transport Canada, Aerodrome Safety Branch. Ottawa: Transport Canada,
1999.

Appendix A:
A.1 Bird Velocity Calculation
A.2 Bird Impact Force Calculation
A.3 F 15 Windshield and Canopies

9
 Appendix A

A.1 Bird Velocity at end of Gun Muzzle

To facilitate bird velocity calculation the following assumptions were made:

a. Full expansion of air occurs at the cannon exit.

b. The average pressure within the barrel is used to propel the bird.

c. The weight of the sabot is negligible small as compared to the weight of the bird.

d. Air and frictional resistance are not taken into account in order to simplify the equation.

e. Outside the barrel disregarding drag and wind the bird is subjected to a projectile motion
trajectory

A.1.1 Bird Velocity Mathematical Equations

The equation was derived as follows:

a. The forces acting on the sabot is equation to mass of bird multiply by bird’s acceleration

b. The muzzle velocity is given by

c. The average pressure is given by

d. The distance traveled by the bird is given by

e. Along the horizontal direction the velocity is

f. The vertical velocity follow the equation of motion for constant negative acceleration g

10
 g. The impact velocity is the

A.2 Bird-impact Forces

A.2.1 Impact-force calculation assumptions

There are a number of factors that affect the impact of a bird strike. These include impact speed,
bird weight, bird density, bird rigidity, angle of impact, impact-surface shape, and impact-surface
rigidity. To simplify the calculation, the following assumptions were made:

a. impact speed is equal to the speed of the aircraft;

b. impact angle is 90 degrees;
c. bird shape is spherical;
d. bird is deformed by one half of its size on impact;
e. aircraft impact surface does not deform; and
f. aircraft impact surface is flat.

A.2.2 Bird-impact force mathematical equations

The bird-strike impact-force equation was obtained from the Advanced Technology Center at
Rockwell Collins [7]. The equation was derived as follows:

a. The energy transfer that results from a bird strike to an aircraft hull can be estimated by
change in bird’s kinetic energy. Assuming the bird is at rest and ‘sticks’ to the aircraft
after the collision the change in a bird’s kinetic energy is

(1)

Where, W is the work, F is the force, d is the distance over which the force is delivered,
m is the mass of the bird and v is the velocity of the aircraft.

b. The force that the bird felt (the same force that the canopy felt) is given by

(2)

11
 The bird’s mass, m, and the aircraft speed v can be estimated. The key parameter then is
the distance d over which the impact is delivered.

a. As a first approximation, assume distance d is half the distance traveled by the aircraft in
moving through the bird-impact event. Another assumption is that the bird can be
represented as a sphere, the impact force is

(3)

b. If we assume the bird is spherical, then the bird’s size depends on its mass according to
the relation

(4)

where ρ is the bird’s density.

c. Combining Equation 3 and 4 gives

(5)

For 4 lb bird r = 7.727 cm (3.042 inch) ρ = 938.5 kg/m3 (0.03391 lb/inch3) the Force F =
11.7349V2 where velocity V is in m/s.

d. The impact point will be at an angle Ө i.e. angle between horizon and line tangent to the
highest point at the leading edge of canopy, hence the impact force will be

T = F Cos Ө = 11.7349 V2 Cos Ө (6)

The angle Ө (Figure 6) varies from 10o (straight and level) to 40o (deep dive and tactical turn).

Knowledge of the impact force and the potential for aircraft damage are critical in the design and
certification of aircraft components. This section summarizes the methodology applied in the
calculation of bird-impact forces.

Aircraft Speed - Knots (m/s)

Bird Species & Weight 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
(lbs.) (57.44) (77.17) (102.89) (128.61) (154.33) (180.06) (205.78) (231.5)
Chicken 4.0 F (KN) 38.7 69.76 124.23 194.10 279.50 380.46 496.92 628.90
Impact Force T(KN)
38.11 68.70 122.34 191.15 275.25 374.68 489.37 619.35
Ө = 10o
Impact Force T(KN)
29.20 52.63 93.72 146.43 210.86 287.02 374.88 474.45
Ө = 40o

12
 Table 1-Approximate Bird-impact Forces (KN.)

Table 1 shows approximate impact forces by bird weight and impact speed. Accordingly, we see
that a four-lb bird striking a windshield at 400 kts generates a direct impact force of up to 497
KN. While the data provide compelling evidence, suggesting more stringent airframe bird impact
certification standards may be required, the potential costs involved in upgrading the bird-
worthiness of the current fleet of legacy aircraft would be enormous.

A.3 F15 Windshield and Canopies

13
14