Composite Helicopter

Composite Helicopter Structures
Current and Future Challenges

Mike Overd
AW Head of Structures Design and Development
Copyright 2011 Agusta SpA, Westland Helicopters Ltd, Westland Transmissions Ltd and
AgustaWestland International Ltd. (Collectively known as AgustaWestland)
Copyright and all other rights in this document are vested in AgustaWestland.
This document is supplied on the express condition that it may not be disclosed, reproduced in whole
or in part, or used for any purpose other than for which it is supplied, without the written consent of
AgustaWestland.
Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Challenges - Presentation Outline
Helicopter market
Product Competitiveness
Airframe Construction material and architecture choices
Helicopter Airframe Design Challenges Vibration,
Crashworthiness and Cost of Ownership
NCC and Supply Chain Priorities
Questions
See title page for conditions on use.

Challenges The Market
Global helicopter market is for approximately 1000 1450 airframes per
year
Aircraft prices range from $50k (small civil) to $30M+ (large military with
complex weapon systems)
UK Market ~1000M/yr total value (new build and support)
Airframes account for ~5-10% of the product cost
NH90 500 in the order backlog
AW139 >400 a/c delivered since 2003
Very competitive market

Challenges The Market
Helicopter market also has significant value in the secondary structures
nearly all cowls and doors are composite

Challenges - Product Competitiveness
Productivity
Cost of Ownership
Payload/range
Drag
Vibration suppression
Hover performance
Initial purchase cost

Corrosion
Vibration
Structural fatigue
Crew fatigue
Equipment reliability
Reduced empty weight fraction
Optimised structural design/new materials
Effectiveness/Availability
DNAW
Reduced maintenance
Reduced crew workload
Safety
Cat A Performance
Crashworthiness
Helicopter Airframe
Construction Material and
Architecture choices

Challenges - Material and Architecture Choices
AW do not see that future airframe structures will all adopt a common
material or architecture choice
Use of composite materials has increased - now be levelling off slightly?
Metallic fuselage frames combined with carbon composite skins (a hybrid
architecture) is currently seen as a good choice by AW
The choice between sheet
metal, composite, monolithic
and hybrid structures depends
on a number of factors:
Weight
Cost
Environment
Offset

Helicopter airframes generally feature frame and panel structures
Widely pitched frames and large panels are more weight
efficient
Sandwich panel required for stability but problems:

progressive facing ply delamination (for example caused by hot
exhaust gas impingement)
progressive core tearing failures (caused by water vapour
expansion following moisture ingress into the cells of the core)
failures must be detected cost of ownership penalty

Composite monolithic construction not widely used
weight is only competitive if designed as post-buckled
difficult to analyse
difficult to guarantee bonds (also peel stresses) so AAs require
fasteners
Thermoplastic skins/welded integral stiffeners in a post-buckled design
could be the answer

Our ability to predict the failure strength of composite structures has
improved
This allows less conservative designs and hence improved empty weight
fraction

Conventional sheet metal
+
+
+
Tooling and raw material

cheap
Easy to modify and repair
Post buckled design
structures are very lightweight
High parts count

High direct labour content
Maximum sheet gauge becomes inefficient at high
loads
Monolithic machinings
+
+
+
Tooling cheap
Low parts count

Efficient design possible at
high load
Minimum machining
thicknesses may cost wt
High material wastage

Composite plus points

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Large components with complex surfaces

Reduced parts count can be achieved through single piece
mouldings
Reduced cost if production volumes exceed the break-even
point
Weight saving
Tailored stiffness can be designed if required
Increased fatigue resistance
Increased corrosion resistance
Increased damage tolerance
Improved damping - so noise and vibration are potentially
lower

Composite negative points
Need to account for manufacturing variability

Raw material - costs are high, and epoxy materials have limited shelf lives and require
refrigerated storage
Material strengths incur moisture, temperature and impact damage degradation penalties
There is a higher risk of material obsolescence (requiring requalification) than with metals
Tooling and processing costs are higher (high break-even point)
Costly manufacturing development (spring-back/distortion)
Costly to make variant changes (cost of design and tooling changes)
Quality assurance requires strict process controls with associated cost
Poor electrical conductivity gives a poor ground plane for avionic systems and poor
lightning strike dissipation thus requiring the use of bonding leads or conductive layers
which are effectively parasitic weight and are themselves prone to corrosion
Metallic components, in contact at joints, are at risk of galvanic corrosion (cost of
prevention)
Fire hazard toxic fumes in the event of a fire
Difficult final disposal (no recycling)
NDI techniques for the detection of in-service damage can be difficult and costly for the
operator.

Multiple structural materials are selected
Dependent on design case, failure mode and manufacturing

Thermoplastics
chemically inert lower environmental degradation
good mechanical properties at significantly higher temperatures
than most conventional epoxy resins
tougher - higher compression after impact strength
very difficult to bond using conventional adhesives without the use
of expensive surface treatments such as corona discharge
press or stamp formed from pre-heated flat sheets specific
tooling and techniques required to avoid cracking or fibre wrinkling
resistance and induction welding techniques developed to join
thermoplastic components together. For example, internal ribs
can now be joined to skins to form integrated structures without
the need for fasteners.
Helicopter Airframe Design Challenges

- Vibration and Crashworthiness

Challenges - Vibration
High frequency vibration is the number one technology challenge
Determines cost of ownership

Crew fatigue
Passenger comfort
Equipment reliability
May limit the flight envelope
Vibration suppression can account for significant proportions of the
empty weight fraction

High frequency fatigue loads very difficult to predict
Significant rotor/rotor
and rotor/airframe
interactions
Large Mach
Number range
around the
azimuth in forward
flight
Elastic response of blades

long flexible cantilevers,
rotating, stiffened by CF,
subject to unsteady
distributed loads
Elastic response of
fuselage to all the
different forcings
Transmission
fatigue at gear
meshing
frequencies
Large amplitude high

frequency unsteady
aerodynamics varying
around the azimuth

The dynamic response of the structure is also very hard to predict
Non-linear, varies with load, multiple modes, modal interaction, damping
Can the wider adoption of composites help with modal frequency
placement optimisation and improved structural damping?

Challenges - Crashworthiness
A crashworthy structure maximises the occupants chances of survival in a given
crash scenario
Becoming a key design requirement
The undercarriage,
undercarriage attachments,
structure and the occupant
seating and harnesses all need
to operate as a system of
systems optimised to the same
level
Fuselage provides a protective shell
Interior components do not detach and harm occupants
No penetration of occupied areas by heavy masses (engines, gearboxes etc)
No inward buckling to minimise injury risk to occupants
Seats & harnesses restrain and decelerate occupants within human tolerance

Challenges - Crashworthiness
Crashworthiness requires the structure to deform to absorb energy
Composite materials are generally brittle not well suited to this reqmt
Frangible (progressive crush) composite elements have been designed
but at extra weight, complexity and cost
Good crash design costs weight and requires fundamental configuration
choices
Crushable under-floor structures (generally metallic)
Stroking seats (complex mechanisms)
Strong but relatively ductile frames (generally metallic) supporting
the heavy mass items
Strong attachments so that heavy mass items do not break lose
Long stroke undercarriages with features to optimise crash
performance (such as crash blow-off damping valves)
Fore/aft oriented under-floor members to resist ground ploughing
Helicopter Airframes - Cost of

Ownership

Challenges - Cost of Ownership
Corrosion of metallic structures
Breakdown of surface protections,
water traps, dissimilar metals
No 1 cost of ownership driver (US
Army)
Composites have a clear advantage
De-bonding of bonded structures

Hot gas impingement/high temps,
manufacturing defects, growth from
impact sites
Both composite and metallic are
susceptible
skin debonding

Fatigue cracking
Global and local vibration, pre-stress
during manufacture, usage increases,
in-service abuse, errors or omissions in
qualification
Location 6.14-5r
Lower Right Fitting P/N 3G5350A01853
pad location
Composites have a clear advantage

Location 6.14-5rBIS
pad location
Location 6.14-5rABIS
pad location
Damage
Discrete source damage greater than
the threat allowed for at the design
stage
Composites require particular attention
esp BVID and lightning strike

NCC/Supply Chain Priorities

Challenges Future Priorities
Supply chain
We want the impossible low weight, high quality and low cost
Risk sharing look for suppliers with a technology offering esp weight
Generally make to print but with the manufacturer pre-selected and involved at the
design stage
NCC
Must attack the composite negative points

Lower cost tooling and processing
Simulation of finished shape and processing
New matls must have better degraded allowables at the same cost
Thermoplastics a priority
RTM jury still out
Ultra high temperature (carbon/carbon) materials of interest
Reduce operator NDI through reliable/certified SHM

Challenges Future Priorities
Use of
thermoplastics
to resist
exhaust
impingement
temps and
reduce empty
weight fraction
post buckled
design
Ultra high temp

carbon/carbon
exhausts
Simulation of
manufacturing
processes to
achieve right
first time
Advanced
manufacturing
technology fully
digital, high
speed
machining, rapid
tooling etc
Cabin design optimised for

minimum vibration response
architecture/component
design/active damping
Embedded SHM
to detect defect
growth

Composite Helicopter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Composite Helicopter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Composite Helicopter Structures

Current and Future Challenges

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Initial purchase cost

Reduced empty weight fraction

Optimised structural design/new materials

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Sandwich panel required for stability but problems:

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Tooling and raw material

High parts count

Low parts count

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite plus points

Large components with complex surfaces

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Need to account for manufacturing variability

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Helicopter Airframe Design Challenges

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Determines cost of ownership

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Elastic response of blades

Large amplitude high

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Fuselage provides a protective shell

Interior components do not detach and harm occupants

No penetration of occupied areas by heavy masses (engines, gearboxes etc)

No inward buckling to minimise injury risk to occupants

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Helicopter Airframes - Cost of

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

De-bonding of bonded structures

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Composites have a clear advantage

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

NCC/Supply Chain Priorities

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Must attack the composite negative points

Composite Helicopter Structures Current and Future

Ultra high temp

Cabin design optimised for

You might also like