Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787 Fatigue Test Frame  
User currently offlineflyingcello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 139 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4293 times:

Quick question...is the fatigue test frame still under test, or has it been retired? How many cycles has it completed?

Also, did Boeing ever break the wing of the static test frame?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4203 times:

Quoting flyingcello (Thread starter):
is the fatigue test frame still under test, or has it been retired?

Yes, it is still in test.

Quoting flyingcello (Thread starter):
How many cycles has it completed?

I believe Boeing stated some time ago the frame had passed 1xDSO. It will ultimately be tested to 3xDSO

Quoting flyingcello (Thread starter):
did Boeing ever break the wing of the static test frame?

No. But Boeing did break a static test wing (no fuselage attached). They released a video at the time. You may be able to find it on YouTube.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 1):
No. But Boeing did break a static test wing (no fuselage attached). They released a video at the time. You may be able to find it on YouTube.

It looks from the video that the fuselage was attached. It broke at 154% of design load limit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2295 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4170 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 2):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0

Sir, I think your link is showing the 777 wing break test.

The 787 wing break test is here (no fuselage attached): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sA9Kato1CxA



David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

Is 154% about standard for fail rates of wings during testing? I know some of those wings get bent quite high but how did the carbon fiber wing compare to say, the wing on the 777 when it broke?

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4108 times:

Quoting KC135Hydraulics (Reply 4):
Is 154% about standard for fail rates of wings during testing? I know some of those wings get bent quite high but how did the carbon fiber wing compare to say, the wing on the 777 when it broke?

Designers shoot for failure with a very small amount of margin above 150% of Limit Load. I doubt it is +4%, which means a great deal more margin than is needed. I would guess the goal is something closer to 151% or 152%. Just enough to remove the risk of failing the test.

You could argue the 787 failed well short of 150%, which was when the side-of-body issue was discovered. The second time around, the test exceeded 150% without breaking. I am unaware of Boeing making the test data public from the wing ultimate load test where they broke a solo 787 wing.

The only other wing where I know of the results from the static test is the A380. That wing broke at 147% of limit load.


User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 868 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4104 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 1):
I believe Boeing stated some time ago the frame had passed 1xDSO. It will ultimately be tested to 3xDSO

I've read that it passed 1xDSO as well. For those not familiar with the jargon, DSO = design service objective and represents one lifetime. The certification requirement is 2xDSO, but in this case Boeing has set a higher standard of 3xDSO.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 5):
You could argue the 787 failed well short of 150%, which was when the side-of-body issue was discovered. The second time around, the test exceeded 150% without breaking. I am unaware of Boeing making the test data public from the wing ultimate load test where they broke a solo 787 wing.

Seems I remember it didn't fail, but showed unexpected damage at that point. It may have passed the break test if they'd kept going, but since it wasn't responding as predicted they needed to wring out the problem to certify the model.
Not trying to contradict the most knowlegable source of Boeing procedures in this asylum. Just meandering.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30548 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3857 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing chose not to push the 787 wing to the actual breaking point (once Ultimate Load had been achieved) due to the clean-up issues (CFRP shards and dust),

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3850 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 7):
Seems I remember it didn't fail, but showed unexpected damage at that point.

It probably depends on how we define the word "fail". The requirement of the ultimate load factor test is to achieve 150% of limit load factor without structural failure. Permenent deformation of the structure is permitted. By the standards of passing the test, the 787 wing failed. It was not, however, a spectacular failure in the sense of the wing breaking, as we've all seen from the 777 video.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 9):

Bit of a sidenote - Anyone remember the China Airlines flight where a 747SP went into an uncontrolled dive, went briefly supersonic, and recovered with a 5G pullout?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006

The plane continued service for many years and still exists today, and I remember reading that after the incident the wings always had a couple of degrees more dihedral than normal due to the wings having been bent up so hard.

Let's hear it for good old-fashioned 1960's over-engineering.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Globa...d=c1afa7b554b907865ab557e3a9c01ef0



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1828 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3548 times:

I'm guessing the only way you'd survive 5Gs is if it was lightly loaded. I doubt if the wings went to 200%.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):
Quoting CM (Reply 9):


Bit of a sidenote - Anyone remember the China Airlines flight where a 747SP went into an uncontrolled dive, went briefly supersonic, and recovered with a 5G pullout?

I can't find any reference in the official NTSB accident report stating that the aircraft went supersonic. Where do you see that?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8785 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):
I can't find any reference in the official NTSB accident report stating that the aircraft went supersonic. Where do you see that?

I can't find it either. I believe I recall reading it in one of MacArthur Job's Air Disaster books, but I don't have it in front of me. I could be wrong...

But in looking for it I found this page about the DC-8 that went over Mach 1 on a test flight, in a shallow dive.

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 6):
I've read that it passed 1xDSO as well. For those not familiar with the jargon, DSO = design service objective and represents one lifetime. The certification requirement is 2xDSO, but in this case Boeing has set a higher standard of 3xDSO.

If this is not public information please do NOT post it here. However, if it is public information, does anyone know how Boeing has been handling thermal fatigue on the 787 fatigue test frame? The interaction of two materials with different coefficients of thermal expansion across a wide temperature range, I would imagine, is tested somehow either large scale or small scale.



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 14):
Boeing has been handling thermal fatigue on the 787 fatigue test frame?

Thermal fatigue is a material dependent property that can be tested in larger batches at smaller scale. In fact, it would have been tested at the beginning of the program when they characterized the material to obtained material properties.

Usually, those testing will result in a "knock-down" factor at is included in the analysis to account for thermal stress/cycling.

FYI: typically, hot wet have more detrimental effect on composite than cold/freezing (unless when you have freezing water in honeycomb cell).

The test frame itself sees only the general environment impact of being out doors at the test facility just north of the main Everett factory. Right now it is seeing driving rain and 40mph wind gusts.   

An no propriety information have been released in the above information.

bt  



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineamccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 15):
Thermal fatigue is a material dependent property that can be tested in larger batches at smaller scale. In fact, it would have been tested at the beginning of the program when they characterized the material to obtained material properties.

Usually, those testing will result in a "knock-down" factor at is included in the analysis to account for thermal stress/cycling.

Thanks for the information, I was very curious.   I kind of assumed it was either a coupon test or small assembly test and resulted in an analytical knockdown.

I tried a quick Google search of the issue and found only the following article;

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...o-another-787-modification-342219/



What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2064 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2644 times:

Quoting amccann (Reply 16):

I tried a quick Google search of the issue and found only the following article;

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...o-another-787-modification-342219/

I think the issue in the article has more to do with the dissimilar coefficient of thermal expansion between the composite skin and the aluminum shear tie.

This thesis gives you a glimpse of what composite do at lower temperature.

http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/view...ontent.cgi?article=1169&context=td

Shear strength goes up. But I would bet brittleness would also go up which would result in more prone to impact damage. But I guess at 40,000 ft, you are not going to hit a ground cart or have a wrench drop on your wing.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 787 Fatigue Test Frame
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
787 Fatigue Airframe posted Wed Mar 31 2010 07:25:17 by justloveplanes
787 Emergency Oxygen Test posted Tue Sep 28 2010 19:52:37 by kearnet
EIS 787 Could Be 2011 After Trent 1000 Test posted Mon Aug 23 2010 03:48:31 by keesje
787 Test Airplane In California? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 21:16:59 by ProPilot83
787 Wing Load Test posted Sat Jul 28 2007 23:45:48 by Flexo
Boeing May Not Test 787 Wing To Destruction posted Tue May 29 2007 19:22:40 by Stitch
Landing Gear Length On The 787-10 Inadequate? posted Fri Nov 16 2012 16:35:34 by Max Q
Boeing 787 Pax Window W/ Cracked Layer posted Wed Nov 14 2012 13:24:41 by MikeM2648
Cones On The Wings: 787 posted Wed Nov 14 2012 00:06:41 by dlramp4life
787 And A350 Engines And Electrical Systems posted Tue Nov 6 2012 12:22:08 by Mayohoo

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format