×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

airframe wear concern

airframe wear concern

airframe wear concern

(OP)
Just had an incident where a actuator motor housing had been rubbing against part of an welded (4130 chromoly) frame. I've since moved the motor but it left a wear mark about 1/8 inch wide and 1/4 inch long and .006 to .010 deep. the chromoly had an OD of .765 and is .047 thick. I'm wondering if this has substancially weakened the frame that the point of wear? There's about a 60 pound shear load on the frame at that point but it's intermittant.
I can't find any information on this. Any help would be appreciated.

RE: airframe wear concern

I'm a little confused.  You have a chromoly part that is of a circular cross-section, but you have identified the wear rectangular coordinate terms.  If you are suggesting that you have worn a groove into your frame, the stiffness reduction is easily calculated.  To say whether the strength reduction is "substantial" is a bit difficult.

If all you are concerned about is the shear load through the frame, the stress calculation is still P/A, where P is your load and A is now reduced by the area that is worn away.  If it is deflection that you are concerned about, you need to recalculate the area moment of inertia based on the new cross-sectional parameters.

RE: airframe wear concern

wouldn't it be unusual for a tube to carry a shear load ?

doesn't a chrome-moly tube suggest hot environment, maybe an engine support strut ?

what are you doing to ensure that the wearing doesn't continue ?  (maybe adding some tape on the tube to protect it?)

why do you think the wearing started in the first place ? (maybe something else is out of alignment??)

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
yes the chromoly is part of the engine mount. This is a helicopter and the engine mount also services as the tail cone mount. The actuator motor had moved due to vibration and had rubbed against the frame in such a manner as to be not immediately detectable. It was moved to eliminate the rubbing. The tailcone produces a moment about the mast. The location of the mount (and spot of the wear) is aft of the center of rotation putting a bending moment on the tubing at the point of wear. My concern is that the wear mark may have weakened the tubing enough to make it unsafe. There is not cracking or corrision...only the wear mark that's about .006 to .010 inches deep. It's a small mark approxiametly the size of an eraser. It's difficult to give exact dimension because of the location. I'm just wondering if this constitutes a significant loss of strenght.
There's only a total of 300 lbs of torque spread over 5 connecting bolts on five seperate chromoly tubing so at first I was not concerned....but it's best to be sure so I thougth I would ask. I did recalculate the forces on that particular spot and the forces are still well within specs but I'm unsure about what else a "wear" may have done to the metal. Again, any help is greatly appreciated.

RE: airframe wear concern

GM -

As a former airline liaison engineer, here's what I would do:

1.  Check the structural repair manual for allowable damage limits on this component.  If wear damage on this component is addressed, follow the SRM instructions and your're done.

If there is no SRM or if the component is not addressed within the SRM, accomplish the following:

1.  Clean up any sharp edges, taking care not to increase depth.

2.  Do a dye penetrant or HFEC inspection of the damaged area to verify it is free of cracks.

3.  Look for the weakest part of the damaged component and back out the required bending strength.  Compare that to what your damaged component can now withstand.  Sounds like you've already done this.

4.  Apply corrosion protection.

5.  When you put it all back together, make sure the interference condition has been eliminated.

7.  Since it sounds like this part is subject to fatigue loads, contact the manufacturer.  Report what you've done.  They may want repetitive inspections of the area.
 

RE: airframe wear concern

in addition to 3, i'd check the effect on the tube's column strength.

i'd suspect that 20% wear (0.01" is about 20% of the tube wall 0.047") is outside any SRM limits.  this means you'll need an RDC/RDA to cover the damage.

in your favour the damage is very localised, but helicopter parts tend to have low margins

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
Thanks for the info. Can't find an SRM for this ship and FAA 43.13 does not have this either....at least  not that I can find. There is no "dent" to repair this is a wear mark.
The material has been removed by rubbing. What's interesting is that I found it by accident. I was sanding the part for painting and wanted to "feather in" the paint so I expanded the region I was sanding. By sanding of the old paint I revealed this wear mark. Appearently it's been there for years. Nonetheless it is a wear mark. It's quite small and the mathematics show it's still well within stress limits. That is the applied force is approx 60 pounds with this part able to take 2654lbs. (accounting for the wear mark). However there are vibration issues not accounted for. Wish I could find an SRM or some "official" source for guidance. The manufacture gave rough guidelines
of around 6 thousands or so? Any other thoughts? Thanks again.
 

RE: airframe wear concern

ah, so someone painted over the wear in the past, and you've uncovered it ... poor you !

now that the damage is discovered, something has to be done with it (ie, someone has to be responsible for it).  as you say, the SRM doesn't help.  you've done some sums and figure it isn't a big deal, but are you in a position to issue an RDC for it (i don't think so).  who's the inspector responsible for the work being done ? (possibly you are)  if not, make them aware of it (before you paint over it).  otherwise, i'd make the owner aware of it. (sometimes they can be reasonable !?)

RE: airframe wear concern

I would think a " fishmouth" split tubing weld repair would be appropriate. I have seen several engine mounts repaired this way, over the years, from hot exhaust pipe damage &  rubbing generator pulleys. Is this a certificated aircraft? If so, the old "been there for years" justification for no action could get you one day. If it's a homebuilt, well that's another story.

RE: airframe wear concern

i tought of that too, but thought it might be
1st, a ton of work for what sounds like a minor issue, and
2nd, much harder to justify/analyze, and
3rd, substantiating the welds, and
4th, more work than cutting out the tube (presumably it's part of a welded frame) and putting in a new tube.

RE: airframe wear concern

Any hope of finding this being previously addressed in a logbook or repair station release?

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
Thanks again for all the feedback. Yeah it's certified ship and dang if I had just not tried to be to careful I would never had seen the wear mark. It's real smooth and shiny and was covered up really good. It may have even come from the factory this way cause the paint job looked original....not like it had been touched up. Because of where it's located you have to remove:

Tail cone and TR drive shaft
Cooling fan housing
Cooling fan
Actuator assembly

Just to get to the frame where the wear mark is. You can't spray paint in there without removing all this stuff.....to many parts in the way. Can't put a split tube over it either because the actuator will hit that by making the OD to large. It's in a pretty cramped area. So my options are:

1-do nothing and monitor it
2-dye pen it just to be sure and monitor
3-tear the whole thing apart and cut out the old tube and weld in a new one. This particular piece of chromoly is maybe a foot long.

The tailcone has 5 attach points. The wear mark is about 2-3 inches aft of the attach point on the inside of the tube.
The bending moment is inward towards the wear mark not out ward away from it. There's approx 300 lbs force on the 5 attach points in a hover. That's 60 lbs per attach point.
The math works out OK but it does not account for vibration.
I can say without doubt that this wear mark has been there at least 5 years. It bothers me though. Thanks again for all the input. I do appreciate it.


 

RE: airframe wear concern

before embarking on option 3, i'd ...

ask myself if i think there's a real problem (doesn't sound like it)
ask the OEM for an opinion (hey, they might)
point out the issue to the owner and/or pilot
discuss the options with them (pretty much do nothing or rip the guts out and re-build)

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
Right. I'll do a dye pen then talk about it. Tearing the guts out for this seems like over kill...especially since this has been there for years with no issues...at least that I'm aware of. Would it help to rosette weld the spot? That would probably make it weaker? Thanks.

RE: airframe wear concern

i wouldn't weld it

RE: airframe wear concern

I agree with rb - don't put any heat on it.

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
Okey. Just spoke with an expert aircraft welder. He said the same thing. Leave it alone. Since it's smooth no stress riser exists. He said if you can catch your finger nail on it then replace the tube. A crack of notch would be a riser that increases the stress by 4 times! Holy cow...I didn't think it was that much. I'll do the dye pen and keep an eye on it.
Thanks guys!

RE: airframe wear concern

personally i'd be careful getting stress advise from a welder ... likewise i wouldn't ask a stressor for welding advise !

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
I'll dye pen see what the results are. With 75% of the material remaining I suspect it will be ok.
After all it's been there at least 5 years....on the other hand that's 5 years of vibration?? thanks guys!
 

RE: airframe wear concern

One consideration is that if the blend is roughly 1:20 depth:length ratio, then the stress concentration from the blend is very close to 1.  Therefore, the only change is stress is due to the reduction in net section.

Obtain the actual part OD and thickness using ultrasonic measurement, then check against the OEM drawing nominal dimensions.  Most analysis is done on minimum or nominal dimensions.  If your sectiuon area is still larger than that based on the nominal dimensions, then I would not be sweating it.  Just document and record.

If the numbers do not work out in your favour, check to see if the stress based on the 60# is below the endurance limit of the steel.  Some load factor need be applied for fatigue, but I am not sure what that should be.  Maybe someone in this group can provide that info.  If the stress is below endurance, then again don't sweat it.

As previously stated, dye penetrant the part at a minimum, and maybe eddy current or mag particle in addition to ensure no cracks exist.  Not sure which method has the better accuracy.

jetmaker

 

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
Jetmaker,

The depth:length ratio is 1:31.5 where would that put the stress concentration? Last night I went over it very carefully....it's does look like someone had been trying to blend the spot in. It's very shallow only about .006 or less. the spot is elliptical major axis about 3/16 of an inch...maybe a bit longer. It's very difficult to measure because of the location. OD is .764 and thickness .047 inches.
No info from OEM available. Sure looks like someone was determined to fill it in and paint over it. The sanded spot came off in one piece....left rough edges of paint around the wear mark. I'm thinking this happened at the factory during initial installation. There's no evidence the frame has ever been repainted...Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks guys.

RE: airframe wear concern

Check Peterson for the stress concentration.  I think you will find it works out to 1.0.  This is a typical repair for airframe skins and in landing gear components.  Often to save time, we would show that the reworked dimension was still within mfg tolerance of the part and then just sign it off.

jetmaker

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
I filed and sanded the area nice and smooth. There's no evidence of a wear mark left. It was small and the area I smoothed blended very nicely. You can hardly tell it's there at all. The blending did not change the depth and there are no edges. Just a nice smooth blend. I don't think there's any concern about stress risers. The depth is still .006 with a blended area about the size of a dime. I have Petersons but cannot find what you're referring to Jetmaker? Also read that the variation in thickness from the manufacture can be as much as 12% which works out to .00564 inches. Pretty close.

RE: airframe wear concern

ok, pretty close does not fly tho.  However, if you calculate the properties based on minimum drawing dimensions and can show worse than those for the blended condition, then you are good.

As for Peterson, it is in the notched bar section.  It is a chart which shows that the variation in angle of the notch (v-notch vs U-notch).  Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of Peterson available at this time.  If you can not find it, I'll try and get the book.

jetmaker

RE: airframe wear concern

star for you bf109g...

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
Thanks guys. This is very helpful.
I computed the angle to be 178.645...
which corresponds to a stress concentration factor
of 1.05

 

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
dye pen revealed NO cracks, pits or edges. nice and clean.
Can't get the manufactures specs jetmaker.
Did all the steps b109g suggested in an earlier post. The manufacture is not forthcoming with data.
Not much more I can do short of replacement. I have to add that if I do that it's likely to do more damage. If the attachment member is removed and a new one welded in place the new part will have to be exactly where the original one was. Off by as little as a few mils and the tailcone will not go back on. It's that tight. That would require a whole new tailcone or the replacement of the last bay then re-rigging the drive shafts etc. Could take months.

RE: airframe wear concern

i think you've done a thorough job on this ... you've got a very benign blend, possibly from the OEM build; you've looked into a bunch of aspects and considered the damage form a whole bunch of directions.

i don't think you need to install a s/gauge and collect real data.

you think the damage won't get worse with continued ops ('cause you think it is original); that'd be my main concern.

RE: airframe wear concern

(OP)
That's what we think rb1957. Looks like it came from the factory like this. We will never know the truth but by looking at the geometry there's just no explanation for how this
wear mark could have been made. There's nothing there to interfere...not on this helicopter. I think this frame may have come from a different ship that was at the factory being overhauled. Who knows? This isn't the first time something strange like this has happened. They had a crew grinding the shot peen off grips because the crew thought it was a defect.  Thanks again for all your help!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources