4.4 Article

Maintenance of Glare structures and Glare as riveted or bonded repair material

期刊

APPLIED COMPOSITE MATERIALS
卷 10, 期 4-5, 页码 307-329

出版社

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025593314780

关键词

repair; Glare; riveted; bonded; fatigue; inspection; maintenance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aircraft structures constructed from new and advanced materials will become more common in the near future, starting with the use of the Fibre Metal Laminate Glare in large parts of the Airbus A-380 fuselage. These materials are primarily used because of their excellent damage tolerance properties. However, questions about maintenance and repair of such structures need to be answered before such new materials can be used. These questions include whether new and advanced materials can be repaired in a conventional way, which would not only be preferable from the operator's point of view ( no change in tools, maintenance procedures, and personnel training), but also from the manufacturer's point of view ( Structural Repair Manuals similar to aluminium structures). A Glare demonstrator panel has been designed and applied to an Airbus A-310 and research into the repairability of Glare has been performed to answer these questions. Apart from looking into the repairability of Glare structures, the material itself is also investigated as material for bonded repair patches. Bonded repair many times proves to be a more viable solution than conventional riveted repair due to its more efficient load transfer. Important aspects of bonded ( Glare) repair are under investigation to show that bonded patch repair is not only working for the ageing aircraft of several Air Forces around the world, but is also a promising candidate for safe and cost-effective repairs to ageing and new ( incidental damage) aircraft of commercial operators. This research is conducted cooperatively by Delft University of Technology and the United States Air Force Academy and has led to two real-life repairs on a C-5A Galaxy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据