General Aviation (GA) aircraft crashworthiness of the vehicle when it hits the ground after the parachute deployment is an important issue. The current dynamic emergency landing regulation (CS 23.562) defines the maximum human tolerant accelerations under both vertical and horizontal directions. This article aims to compare two different aircraft configurations: metal low-wing and composite high-wing ones. Both are two-seats and single-engine GA aircraft. The purpose of the analysis is to check whether the seats and restraint systems met human injury tolerance standards and to determine the possible impact on passengers in the cabin space due to shock loads. Finite element analysis of the fuselage sections for both configurations is performed using the commercial LS-Dyna solver. An extensive campaign of experimental tests has been performed on the composite samples for tuning and validating the model and to find the transition from an undamaged up to totally collapsed sample. The material of the composite fuselage has been characterized through experimental tests. The adopted material model has been refined to match with the performed experimental analysis, allowing high-fidelity modeling. A parametric analysis has been performed to determine the optimal impact angle in terms of lumbar injuries and loads transmitted by the seat belt due to aircraft contact with the ground, thereby increasing the level of safety. The investigations carried out may be an important indicator of the design of the parachute system.
SaxenaS. Whole plane parachutes: towards safer aviation. New Delhi: NISCAIR-CSIR, 2011, pp.30–31.
2.
MaydewRCPetersonCWOrlik-RueckemannKJ. Design and testing of high-performance parachutes (la conception et les essais des parachutes a hautes performances). Neuilly-Sur-Seine: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, 1991.
3.
NTSB. Review of U.S. Civil Aviation Accidents, calendar year 2011. Report No.: NTSB/ARA-14/01, 2014. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
4.
VeronneauSJRicaurteEM.Aircraft accidents: investigation and prevention. Philadelphia, PA: Fundamentals of aerospace medicine, 2008. pp.560–566.
5.
WiegmannDATanejaN. Analysis of injuries among pilots involved in fatal general aviation airplane accidents. Accid Anal Prev2003; 35(4): 571–577.
6.
NTSB. Safety report, general aviation crashworthiness project: phase two – impact severity and potential injury prevention in general aviation accidents. Report No.: NTSB/SR-85/01, 1985. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
7.
AlazizMStolfiAOlsonDM. Cirrus airframe parachute system and odds of a fatal accident in Cirrus aircraft crashes. Aerosp Med Hum Perform2017; 88(6): 556–564.
8.
ThomasRThomasD.Design analysis of an aircraft parachute recovery system for very light jets. In: The 26th Congress of ICAS and 8th AIAA ATIO, 2008.
9.
YeakleJLingardJUnderwoodJ, et al. Computer simulation of a whole-aircraft parachute recovery system. In: The 20th AIAA aerodynamic decelerator systems technology conference and seminar, 2009.
10.
OverendSUnderwoodJYeakleJ. Testing of a two-stage reefed 27m polyconical parachute for the Cirrus Jet. In: The 21st AIAA aerodynamic decelerator systems technology conference and seminar, 2011.
11.
WinterSRFanjoyROLuCT, et al. Decision to use an airframe parachute in a flight training environment. J Aviat Technol Eng2014; 3(2): 28.
12.
KnackeTW. Parachute recovery systems design manual. China Lake, CA: Naval Weapons Center, 1991.
13.
EASA. Certification specifications for normal, utility, aerobatic and commuter category Aeroplanes CS-23. European Aviation Safety Agency, Cologne, 2003.
14.
KindervaterCMGeorgiH. Composite strength and energy absorption as an aspect of structural crash resistance. In: JonesNWierzbickiT. (eds) Structural crashworthiness and failure. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1993, pp.189–235.
15.
GuidaMLamannaGMaruloF, et al. Review on the design of an aircraft crashworthy passenger seat. Prog Aerosp Sci2022; 129: 100785.
16.
TitaVde CarvalhoJVandepitteD. Failure analysis of low velocity impact on thin composite laminates: Experimental and numerical approaches. Compos Struct2008; 83(4): 413–428.
17.
GuidaMMaruloFBelkhelfaFZ, et al. A review of the bird impact process and validation of the SPH impact model for aircraft structures. Prog Aerosp Sci2022; 129: 100787.
18.
CairnsDSLagacePA. A consistent engineering methodology for the treatment of impact in composite materials. J Reinf Plast Compos1992; 11(4): 395–412.
VicenteJLSBeltranFMartınezF.Simulation of impact on composite fuselage structures. In: Proceedings of THE European congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering (ECCOMAS), Barcelona, 2000.
21.
KindervaterCMJohnssonAFKohlgrüberD, et al. Crash and impact simulation of aircraft structures-hybrid and FE based approaches. In: Proceedings of the European congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering (ECCOMAS), Barcelona, 2000.
22.
KostopoulosVMarkopoulosYPGiannopoulosG, et al. Finite element analysis of impact damage response of composite motorcycle safety helmets. Composites B2002; 33: 99–107.
23.
BelingardiGGugliottaAVadoriR. Fragmentation of composite material plates submitted to impact loading: comparison between numerical and experimental results. Key Eng Mater1998; 144: 75–88.
24.
GottesmanTGirshovichS. Impact damage assessment and mechanical degradation of composites. Key Eng Mater1998; 141-143(1): 3–18.
25.
De MoraisWAMonteiroSNd'AlmeidaJRM. Evaluation of repeated low energy impact damage in carbon–epoxy composite materials. Compos Struct2005; 67: 307–315.
26.
NaikNKShriraoP. Composite structures under ballistic impact. Compos Struct2004; 66: 579–590.
27.
CollombetFLalbinXLatailladeJL. Damage prediction of laminated composites under heavy mass-low velocity impact. Key Eng Mater1998; 141-143(1): 743–776.
28.
MikkorKMThomsonRSHerszbergI, et al. Finite element modelling of impact on preloaded composite panels. Compos Struct2006; 75: 501–513.
29.
MamalisAGManolakosDEIoannidisMB, et al. The static and dynamic axial collapse of CFRP square tubes: finite element modelling. Compos Struct2006; 74: 213–225.
30.
ZhaoGPChoCD. Damage initiation and propagation in composite shells subjected to impact. Compos Struct2007; 78: 91–100.
31.
FarleyGLJonesRM. Prediction of the energy-absorption capability of composite tubes. J Compos Mater1992; 26(3): 388–404.
32.
LoprestoVCaprinoG. Elastic response of circular CFRP plates under low-velocity impact. In: Proceedings of The European conference on composite materials (ECCM), Brugge, 2002.
33.
KimJSChungSK. A study on the low-velocity impact response of laminates for composite railway bodyshells. Compos Struct2007; 77: 484–492.
34.
GuidaM. Validity and applicability of the scaling effects for low velocity impact on composite plates. Materials2021; 14(19): 5884.
35.
CantwellWJ. Impact damage in carbon fibre composites. PhD Thesis, University of London, London, 1985.
36.
BroutmanLJRotemA. Impact strength and toughness of fibre composite materials. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). West Conshohocken, 1975, pp.114–133.
37.
CaputoFLamannaGPerfettoD, et al. Experimental and numerical crashworthiness study of a full-scale composite fuselage section. AIAA J2021; 59(2): 700–718.
38.
PerfettoDLamannaGManzoM, et al. Numerical and experimental investigation on the energy absorption capability of a full-scale composite fuselage section. Key Eng Mater2020; 827: 19–24.
39.
RussoPGuidaMMaruloF, et al. Analysis of integrated fuselage composite seat for small aircraft in crashworthiness applications. J Mater Eng Perform2019; 28(8): 4856–4862.
40.
AbrateS. Impact on composite structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
41.
ChoiHIChangFK. A model for predicting damage in graphite/epoxy laminated composites resulting from low-velocity point impact. J Compos Mater1992; 26(14): 2134–2169.
42.
BelingardiGGugliottaAVadoriR. Numerical simulation of fragmentation of composite material plates due to impact. Int J Impact Eng1998; 21(5): 335–347.
43.
BelingardiGVadoriR. Low velocity impact tests of laminate glass-fiber-epoxy matrix composite material plates. Int J Impact Eng2002; 27(2): 213–229.
44.
ASTM D7136: Standard test method for measuring the damage resistance of a fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composite to a drop-weight impact event. ASTM, 2007.
