Explicit dynamic formulation to demonstrate compliance against quasi-static aircraft seat certification loads (CS25.561) – Part I: influence of time and mass scaling

Abstract

A finite element model of an aircraft seat subjected to static certification loads (Certification Specifications CS25.561) involves material, geometric and contact non-linearities. Implicit algorithms can model the physics of such problems appropriately but suffer from shortcomings such as significant finite element modelling efforts, high disk space and memory requirements and unconverged solutions. Explicit finite element schemes offer a more robust alternative for convergence for quasi-static loadcases but may come at an even higher computational cost as smaller solution time steps are required, in addition to unwanted inertial effects. A methodology to apply an explicit formulation for simulating static certification loading for an aircraft seat-structure is presented and validated in this article. The first part reviews the design novelties of the triple seat-structure considered, the safety regulations used in aircraft seat certification. The key theoretical aspects of an explicit solver are presented, together with the numerical challenges faced when applied to solving quasi-static problems. Time scaling, mass scaling and damping are common approaches to assist in artificially reducing the computational time but previous articles provide little insight into how to apply these techniques correctly and the level of checking that is required to ensure the quality of the results are unaffected by these modifications. The main focus of this article is to clearly define the procedure to establish appropriate factors for mass scaling, time scaling and damping. Quality checks, such as ratio of kinetic energy to internal energy and their time-histories have been investigated to ensure a quasi-static solution. finite element analysis results are validated against experimental testing for the 8.6 g downward loadcase. Parameters such as kinematic behaviour and deflections at key locations been used for comparison. An acceptable level of correlation between finite element analysis results and physical tests validates the proposed methodology, which will be extended in a future article (Part II) to consider additional contact complexities with the inclusion of body blocks.