DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING

Report submitted for mini project by students of 6th semester.

Topic: - Evaluation of mechanical properties of composite

materials-based landing gear strut of Boeing 777x aircraft.

Group members: -
1. Tapassu Meshram
2. Vedant Sawarkar
3. Shantanu Gahukar
4. Siddesh Deshmukh

Project Guide HOD (Aeronautical dept.)

Abstract….
The landing gear strut plays a critical role in absorbing impact loads and
providing structural integrity during aircraft landing and taxiing.
Conventional landing gear struts are primarily made of high-strength
steel and titanium alloys, which offer durability but contribute
significantly to the overall weight of the aircraft. The objective of this
project is to design, fabricate, analyse, and evaluate a composite
material-based landing gear strut for the Boeing 777X aircraft.
This study explores advanced composite materials, such as carbon fibre
reinforced polymer (CFRP) and glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP),
to replace traditional metallic components. The material selection is
based on key parameters, including strength-to-weight ratio, fatigue
resistance, and impact absorption capabilities. The design phase
involves computational modelling using CAD software, followed by
structural and aerodynamic analysis using Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) tools like ANSYS and Abaqus. Load simulations are conducted
to assess static and dynamic stress conditions under operational
scenarios, including take-off, landing, and taxiing.
The fabrication process employs modern composite manufacturing
techniques, such as resin transfer moulding (RTM) and autoclave
curing, to ensure optimal material properties and structural performance.
Experimental evaluation is performed through mechanical testing,
including tensile, compression, and impact tests, to validate the
theoretical predictions. Additionally, fatigue and damage tolerance
analysis are carried out to assess long-term reliability and durability.
The results of this study aim to demonstrate the feasibility of using
composite materials for landing gear struts, potentially leading to
significant weight reduction, improved fuel efficiency, and enhanced
structural performance for the Boeing 777X. The findings contribute to
the ongoing advancements in aerospace engineering, providing insights
into the integration of lightweight materials in critical aircraft
components while maintaining safety and performance standards.
Content….

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation
1.2 Objectives of the Study
1.3 Scope of the Project
1.4 Methodology Overview
1.5 Significance of the Study
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Evolution of Aircraft Landing Gear Systems
2.2 Materials Used in Conventional Landing Gear Struts
2.3 Advantages of Composite Materials in Aerospace
Applications
2.4 Review of Composite Materials Suitable for Landing Gear
Applications
2.5 Case Studies of Composite-Based Aerospace Components
Chapter 3: Material Selection and Design
3.1 Criteria for Material Selection
3.2 Comparison of Traditional and Composite Materials
3.3 Selected Composite Materials for the Strut
3.4 Structural Design Considerations
3.5 Load and Stress Analysis Considerations
3.6 CAD Modelling and Preliminary Design
Chapter 4: Fabrication Process
4.1 Manufacturing Techniques for Composite Materials
4.2 Selection of Fabrication Method (e.g., Filament Winding,
Resin Transfer Moulding)
4.3 Prototype Development
4.4 Quality Control Measures
4.5 Challenges in Fabrication
Chapter 5: Structural Analysis and Simulation
5.1 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of Composite Strut
5.2 Load and Impact Analysis
5.3 Fatigue and Durability Assessment
5.4 Buckling and Failure Analysis
5.5 Comparison with Traditional Landing Gear Struts
Chapter 6: Testing and Evaluation
6.1 Experimental Setup for Mechanical Testing
6.2 Load Testing and Strength Evaluation
6.3 Fatigue and Durability Testing
6.4 Impact Resistance Testing
6.5 Environmental and Thermal Stability Testing
6.6 Comparison of Experimental and Simulation Results
Chapter 7: Results and Discussion
7.1 Weight Reduction Achieved
7.2 Strength and Performance Comparisons
7.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
7.4 Challenges and Limitations
7.5 Recommendations for Future Work
Chapter 8: Conclusion and Future Work
8.1 Summary of Findings
8.2 Contributions to Aerospace Engineering
8.3 Future Research Directions
 Chapter 1: - Introduction.

1.1. Background and Motivation.

Background:

Landing gear is a critical component of an aircraft, providing support

during take-off, landing, and ground operations. Traditionally,
landing gear struts are made from high-strength metallic materials
such as steel and titanium due to their ability to withstand high
impact loads and absorb shock. However, these materials contribute
significantly to the overall weight of the aircraft, affecting fuel
efficiency and performance.
In recent years, composite materials have emerged as a viable
alternative in aerospace applications due to their superior strength-
to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and fatigue performance. The
integration of composite materials into landing gear structures offers
the potential to reduce aircraft weight while maintaining or
enhancing mechanical properties. This shift aligns with the
aerospace industry's growing emphasis on lightweight materials to
improve efficiency, reduce emissions, and enhance sustainability.

Motivation.

The motivation behind designing, fabricating, analysing, and

evaluating a composite material-based landing gear strut stems from
several key factors:
1. Weight Reduction and Fuel Efficiency
o Composite materials offer significant weight savings
compared to conventional metallic alloys. A lighter landing
gear system can lead to improved fuel efficiency, increased
payload capacity, and lower operational costs.
2. Enhanced Mechanical Properties
 o Composite materials exhibit excellent fatigue resistance,
impact absorption, and corrosion resistance. These
characteristics can enhance the lifespan and reliability of
landing gear struts, reducing maintenance frequency and costs.
3. Sustainability and Environmental Impact
o The aerospace industry is under increasing pressure to reduce
carbon emissions. Lightweight composite materials contribute
to lower fuel consumption, reducing the environmental
footprint of aircraft operations.
4. Advancements in Manufacturing Technologies
o Recent developments in composite manufacturing techniques,
such as automated fibre placement (AFP) and resin transfer
moulding (RTM), have made it feasible to produce high-
performance aerospace components with greater precision and
efficiency.
5. Performance Evaluation and Structural Integrity
o Conducting a thorough analysis and evaluation of composite
landing gear struts will provide valuable insights into their
mechanical behaviour, failure mechanisms, and potential
advantages over traditional materials, paving the way for their
broader adoption in aviation.

1.2. Objective and Study.

To develop a lightweight, high-strength composite landing gear

strut that enhances performance, durability, and fuel efficiency in
aircraft applications. The study aims to design, fabricate, analyse,
and evaluate the strut using advanced composite materials,
optimizing mechanical properties while ensuring compliance with
aviation safety standards.

Study

 Types of composites (e.g., Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer

(CFRP), Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP), Kevlar
composites).
  Advantages of composites over conventional materials (e.g.,
weight savings, high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance).

 Design requirements: load-bearing capacity, fatigue resistance,

impact resistance.

 Material selection criteria (fibre type, resin matrix, stacking

sequence).

 Structural optimization techniques (finite element analysis (FEA),

topology optimization).

 Manufacturing methods:

 Hand lay-up
 Resin Transfer Moulding (RTM)
 Filament Winding
 Automated Fiber Placement (AFP)

 Challenges in fabrication, including void content, resin

distribution, and fibre misalignment.

 Quality control measures (e.g., Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)

techniques).

 Theoretical modelling of composite structures (e.g., Classical

Lamination Theory, Tsai-Wu failure criterion).

 Computational approaches: Finite Element Analysis (FEA) for

stress, strain, and deformation analysis.

 Experimental validation methods, such as tensile, compression,

and impact testing.

 Mechanical testing (static and dynamic loading, fatigue testing).

  Environmental testing (temperature effects, moisture absorption,
UV degradation).

 Comparison with traditional metallic landing gear struts.

 Review of existing research on composite landing gear

components.

 Case studies on aircraft using composite landing gear elements.

 Failures and lessons learned from previous designs.

1.3. Scope of the project.

The project aims to develop a landing gear strut using composite

materials to reduce weight while maintaining or improving strength
and durability. The scope covers the design, fabrication, analysis,
and evaluation of the strut, comparing it with traditional metallic
landing gear components. In addition to this, the objectives above
also describes slightly about the scope of the project. This project
will contribute to the advancement of lightweight aerospace
components, improving aircraft efficiency while maintaining safety
and reliability. The findings can be used for future commercial and
military aircraft landing gear systems.

1.4. Methodology Overview

This study follows a structured methodology to design, fabricate,

analyse, and evaluate a composite material-based landing gear strut.
The methodology is divided into four major phases: designing,
fabrication, analysis, and evaluation, ensuring a systematic
approach to achieving the research objectives.
1. Designing Phase
 The design process involves the conceptualization and optimization
of the landing gear strut to meet aviation standards and structural
requirements.
 Material Selection:
o Identify suitable composite materials (e.g., carbon fibre,
Kevlar, glass fibre) based on mechanical properties, weight,
fatigue resistance, and impact absorption.
o Compare composite materials with conventional metallic
alloys (e.g., titanium, aluminium).
 Geometrical and Structural Design:
o Use CAD software (e.g., SolidWorks, CATIA) to model the
strut.
o Define key structural features, such as load distribution, stress
concentration zones, and aerodynamic efficiency.
 Design Optimization:
o Conduct topology optimization using finite element analysis
(FEA) tools like ANSYS or Abaqus.
o Determine the optimal layup sequence and fibre orientation to
maximize strength-to-weight ratio.

2. Fabrication Phase
This phase focuses on the actual manufacturing of the composite
landing gear strut.
 Manufacturing Process Selection:
o Choose appropriate fabrication techniques such as vacuum-
assisted resin transfer moulding (VARTM), autoclave curing,
or filament winding.
o Define curing parameters (temperature, pressure, resin
infusion process).
 Prototype Development:
o Prepare composite layers (prepregs or dry fibres with resin
infusion).
o Implement Mold preparation, layering sequence, and resin
application.
o Conduct curing and post-processing, including trimming and
surface finishing.
 Quality Control and Defect Inspection:
 o Use non-destructive testing (NDT) methods like ultrasonic
testing, X-ray inspection, and thermography to detect internal
defects.
o Perform visual and dimensional inspections.

3. Analysis Phase
This phase involves computational and experimental testing to
assess the strut’s structural integrity and performance.
 Finite Element Analysis (FEA):
o Perform structural simulations under different loading
conditions (static, dynamic, impact).
o Evaluate stress-strain response, fatigue life, and failure
mechanisms.
 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Analysis:
o Assess aerodynamic performance and drag forces on the strut.
 Experimental Testing:
o Conduct mechanical testing (tensile, compression, bending)
using a universal testing machine (UTM).
o Perform drop-weight impact tests to simulate landing forces.
o Evaluate fatigue life through cyclic loading tests.

4. Evaluation Phase
The final phase validates the performance of the composite strut and
compares it with traditional materials.
 Comparison with Existing Landing Gear Struts:
o Analyse weight reduction, mechanical strength, and failure
behaviour compared to metallic alternatives.
 Performance Validation:
o Correlate experimental results with FEA simulations.
o Identify any discrepancies and potential improvements.
 Cost and Sustainability Analysis:
o Assess production costs, environmental impact, and feasibility
for large-scale aerospace applications.
By following this methodology, the study ensures a comprehensive
approach to developing a high-performance composite landing gear
strut with enhanced mechanical properties and reduced weight.
1.5. Significance of Study.

The development of a composite material-based landing gear

strut holds significant importance in the field of aerospace
engineering. This study aims to contribute to the advancement of
aircraft landing gear systems by integrating lightweight, high-
strength composite materials that offer superior performance
compared to conventional metallic counterparts. Below are the key
areas where this research holds significance:

1. Advancements in Aerospace Engineering

 This study aligns with the growing trend of using composites in
aerospace structures due to their excellent strength-to-weight ratio,
corrosion resistance, and fatigue resistance.
 The successful development of a composite landing gear strut can
set a precedent for future aircraft designs, reducing dependency on
heavy metal alloys such as titanium and aluminium.

2. Weight Reduction and Fuel Efficiency

 Reducing aircraft weight is a primary concern in aerospace
engineering, as it directly impacts fuel consumption.
 By replacing traditional metal struts with carbon fibre-reinforced
polymer (CFRP) or hybrid composites, the overall weight of the
landing gear can be significantly reduced, leading to improved fuel
efficiency and lower operational costs.

3. Structural Performance and Durability

 The study focuses on the fabrication, analysis, and evaluation of
composite landing gear struts to ensure they meet or exceed the
mechanical performance of conventional materials.
 Composites exhibit superior fatigue life, impact resistance, and
corrosion resistance, making them ideal for harsh operational
environments.

4. Manufacturing and Cost Efficiency

 The fabrication techniques explored in this study, such as autoclave
curing, resin transfer moulding (RTM), or filament winding, aim
 to optimize manufacturing processes for composite landing gear
components.
 By analysing production methods, this study can help reduce
manufacturing costs while maintaining high-performance
standards.

5. Safety and Reliability in Aviation

 The study incorporates finite element analysis (FEA) and
experimental validation to ensure that composite landing gear
struts meet safety regulations and structural integrity standards.
 Evaluating crashworthiness, shock absorption, and failure modes
enhances the safety and reliability of composite-based landing gear
systems.

6. Contribution to Sustainability and Environmental Impact

 The use of recyclable or bio-based composite materials can
contribute to sustainable aviation goals by reducing the
environmental footprint of aircraft manufacturing and operations.
 Lightweight composite landing gear components lead to lower CO₂
emissions due to reduced fuel consumption.

7. Industrial and Commercial Applications

 The findings of this study can be applied to commercial, military,
and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), expanding the scope of
composite material applications in the aviation industry.
 The research can benefit aerospace manufacturers by providing
insights into material selection, fabrication techniques, and
performance evaluation for future aircraft models.
This study is significant as it addresses critical challenges in aircraft
weight reduction, performance optimization, cost efficiency, and
sustainability by developing a composite material-based landing gear
strut. The results of this research have the potential to revolutionize the
aviation industry, making aircraft lighter, more fuel-efficient, and
environmentally friendly while maintaining high safety and reliability
standards.
 Chapter 2: - Literature Review

2.1. Evolution of Aircraft landing gear system.

1. Early Aircraft Landing Gear (1900s–1930s)
 Early aircraft had simple skid-type or fixed landing gear (e.g.,
Wright Flyer, biplanes).
 Materials: Wood and fabric, sometimes reinforced with steel.
 Lack of suspension, relying on pneumatic tires for shock absorption.

2. Introduction of Retractable Landing Gear (1930s–1945)

 Retractable gear was introduced to reduce drag (e.g., Boeing 247, P-
51 Mustang).
 Materials evolved to aluminium alloys for weight reduction.
 Basic oleo struts were introduced for better shock absorption.

3. Post-War Advances & Hydraulic Systems (1945–1970s)

 High-speed aircraft required more robust struts with hydraulic
dampening.
 Development of tricycle landing gear for stability.
 Materials: High-strength steel and aluminium alloys.

4. Advanced Shock Absorption and Redundancy (1970s–1990s)

 Introduction of carbon brakes and active shock dampening.
 Large commercial jets (e.g., Boeing 747) used multi-wheel bogie
landing gear.
 Higher use of titanium alloys for improved strength-to-weight ratio.

5. Modern & Composite-Based Innovations (2000s–Present)

 Development of composite landing gear struts (carbon fibre, Kevlar)
for weight savings.
 Use of smart materials for adaptive damping and real-time load
monitoring.
 Electric and hybrid landing gear systems (e.g., electro-hydrostatic
actuators).
2.2. Materials used in conventional landing gear strut.
Landing gear struts play a crucial role in aircraft performance by
absorbing and dissipating impact loads during landing and taxiing.
Traditionally, landing gear struts have been manufactured using high-
strength metallic materials to ensure durability, load-bearing capacity,
and resistance to fatigue and corrosion. This section explores the
conventional materials used in landing gear struts, their properties, and
the rationale behind their selection.

1. High-Strength Steels
High-strength steels, particularly 300M and 4340 steel, are commonly
used in landing gear applications due to their superior mechanical
properties.
 300M Steel:
o A modified version of 4340 steel with enhanced toughness and
fatigue resistance.
o Tensile Strength: ~1860 MPa
o Yield Strength: ~1600 MPa
o Excellent fracture toughness and resistance to stress-corrosion
cracking.
o Used in military and commercial aircraft due to its high
performance under extreme conditions.
 4340 Steel:
o A low-alloy steel with high tensile and yield strength.
o Tensile Strength: ~1080 MPa
o Yield Strength: ~980 MPa
o Commonly used in older aircraft designs and smaller aircraft.

2. Titanium Alloys
Titanium alloys, particularly Ti-6Al-4V, are widely used in modern
aircraft landing gear struts due to their high strength-to-weight ratio and
excellent corrosion resistance.
 Ti-6Al-4V Properties:
o Density: 4.43 g/cm³ (compared to 7.85 g/cm³ for steel, leading
to significant weight savings).
o Tensile Strength: ~1100 MPa
o Yield Strength: ~950 MPa
o High fatigue resistance and excellent corrosion resistance in
harsh environments.
o Used in advanced commercial and military aircraft (e.g.,
Boeing 787, F-35).

3. Aluminium Alloys
While less common for primary landing gear structures, aluminium
alloys such as 7075-T6 have been used in smaller aircraft and non-load-
bearing components.
 7075-T6 Properties:
o Tensile Strength: ~570 MPa
o Yield Strength: ~500 MPa
o Low density (~2.8 g/cm³), making it suitable for lightweight
applications.
o Good corrosion resistance with anodizing treatments.

4. Nickel-Based Superalloys
Nickel-based superalloys, such as Inconel 718, are used in high-
performance aircraft where extreme temperature resistance and superior
fatigue properties are required.
 Inconel 718 Properties:
 o Tensile Strength: ~1375 MPa
o Yield Strength: ~1100 MPa
o Exceptional high-temperature resistance and corrosion
resistance.
o Primarily used in supersonic and military aircraft.

Comparison of Conventional Landing Gear Strut Materials.

Tensile Yield
Density Fatigue Corrosion
Material Strength Strength
(g/cm³) Resistance Resistance
(MPa) (MPa)

300M
7.85 ~1860 ~1600 Excellent Moderate
Steel

4340
7.85 ~1080 ~980 Good Moderate
Steel

Ti-6Al-
4.43 ~1100 ~950 High Excellent
4V

7075-T6
2.8 ~570 ~500 Moderate Good
Aluminium

Inconel
8.19 ~1375 ~1100 Exceptional Excellent
718

Conventional landing gear struts rely primarily on high-strength steels,

titanium alloys, and nickel-based superalloys due to their ability to
withstand extreme loads, cyclic stress, and environmental conditions.
However, these materials are often associated with high weight and
susceptibility to corrosion (in the case of steels) or high production
costs (for titanium and nickel alloys). This opens the opportunity for
composite materials to offer a lightweight, high-strength alternative,
which is the focus of this project.
2.3. Advantages of Composite Materials in Aerospace Industry.
The application of composite materials in aerospace has revolutionized
aircraft design, particularly in structural components such as the landing
gear strut. The advantages of composite materials over conventional
metals make them highly desirable for modern aerospace applications. The
following are the key benefits:
1. High Strength-to-Weight Ratio
One of the most significant advantages of composite materials is their
superior strength-to-weight ratio compared to metals like aluminium and
steel. This characteristic is crucial in landing gear struts, where weight
reduction directly impacts fuel efficiency, payload capacity, and overall
aircraft performance.
 Composite materials, such as carbon fibre reinforced polymers
(CFRP), can achieve strength levels comparable to or greater than
aluminium while being significantly lighter.
 The reduced weight of the landing gear strut lowers the aircraft's
overall weight, enhancing operational efficiency.
2. Enhanced Fatigue and Corrosion Resistance
Aircraft landing gear is subject to cyclic loading, leading to fatigue failure
in traditional metallic components. Composites offer improved fatigue
resistance, reducing the likelihood of failure over time.
 Unlike metals, which develop fatigue cracks under repetitive stress,
composites exhibit higher damage tolerance and crack propagation
resistance.
 Composites are inherently corrosion-resistant, eliminating the need
for protective coatings and reducing maintenance costs.
3. Tailorable Mechanical Properties
Composite materials can be engineered with specific properties by
adjusting fibre orientation, resin composition, and layer stacking sequence.
This ability to customize mechanical properties is particularly
advantageous for landing gear struts.
  Structural stiffness and strength can be optimized by tailoring fiber
layups to withstand the unique stress distribution in landing gear
applications.
 Unlike isotropic materials such as metals, composites allow
anisotropic property control, leading to superior performance under
varying loading conditions.
4. Vibration and Noise Reduction
Composites provide excellent damping characteristics, reducing vibrations
and noise generated during landing and taxiing operations.
 The inherent damping capacity of composites helps to absorb and
dissipate mechanical energy, reducing stress on aircraft components.
 Lower vibrations enhance passenger comfort and reduce wear and
tear on other structural parts.
5. Improved Impact Resistance and Damage Tolerance
Landing gear components are exposed to high-impact forces during
touchdown, requiring materials with superior impact resistance. Advanced
composite materials offer excellent energy absorption and localized
damage control.
 Composite materials distribute impact loads more effectively than
metals, reducing the risk of catastrophic failure.
 Hybrid composites incorporating different fibre types (e.g., Kevlar
and carbon fibre) enhance toughness and resistance to sudden
shocks.
6. Reduction in Manufacturing Complexity and Cost Efficiency
The ability to manufacture complex geometries with fewer parts is a
significant advantage of composite materials.
 Traditional metal landing gear struts require multiple machining and
joining processes, whereas composites can be fabricated using
automated layup techniques.
 Reduced fasteners and joints lower assembly time and improve
structural integrity.
  Advanced manufacturing processes such as resin transfer moulding
(RTM) and automated fibre placement (AFP) enhance production
efficiency.
7. Environmental and Sustainability Benefits
With increasing emphasis on sustainability, composite materials offer eco-
friendly benefits:
 Lower fuel consumption due to reduced weight contributes to lower
carbon emissions.
 Recyclable and bio-based composite materials are being developed
to enhance environmental sustainability.
 Reduced maintenance and longer service life minimize material
wastage and operational costs.
The use of composite materials in aerospace applications, particularly for
landing gear struts, offers a combination of lightweight, high-strength,
fatigue resistance, and design flexibility. These advantages significantly
enhance aircraft performance, efficiency, and safety, making composites
the preferred choice over conventional metallic structures.

2.4. Review
of Composite Materials Suitable for Landing
Gear Applications.
The use of composite materials in aerospace applications has gained
significant traction due to their high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion
resistance, and superior fatigue performance. Landing gear, being one of
the most structurally demanding components in an aircraft, has
traditionally been made of high-strength metals such as steel and titanium.
However, recent advancements in composite materials have opened new
possibilities for their application in landing gear structures, offering weight
reduction and improved performance.
When selecting composite materials for landing gear applications, several
critical factors must be considered:
 High Strength and Stiffness: The material must withstand high
impact loads and stresses.
  Fatigue and Damage Tolerance: Ability to endure cyclic loading
without failure.
 Weight Reduction: Essential for enhancing aircraft fuel efficiency.
 Corrosion and Environmental Resistance: Resistance to harsh
operational environments.
 Manufacturing Feasibility: Compatibility with advanced
fabrication techniques.
 Cost-effectiveness: Balance between performance and production
costs.
Commonly Used Composite Materials for Landing Gear
1 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
Properties:
 High tensile strength and stiffness
 Lightweight compared to metals
 Good fatigue resistance
 Susceptible to impact damage
Applications in Landing Gear:
 Used in secondary structures and some primary load-bearing
elements
 Hybrid CFRP-metal designs to mitigate impact resistance issues
2 Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)
Properties:
 Lower strength and stiffness than CFRP but higher impact resistance
 Good corrosion resistance
 Cost-effective
Applications in Landing Gear:
 Typically used in non-primary structural components
3 Aramid Fiber Reinforced Polymer (AFRP)
Properties:
 Excellent impact resistance
 High toughness and damage tolerance
 Lower compressive strength than CFRP
Applications in Landing Gear:
 Used in areas requiring high impact resistance, such as shock
absorbers and protective layers
4 Hybrid Composites (Metal Matrix Composites - MMCs)
Properties:
 Combination of metal and polymer-based composites
 Superior impact resistance and damage tolerance
 Higher manufacturing cost
Applications in Landing Gear:
 Used in high-load applications where pure polymer composites may
not be sufficient.

2.5. Case
Studies of Composite-Based Aerospace
Components
The adoption of composite materials in aerospace applications has
revolutionized the design and performance of various aircraft components.
Their high strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and fatigue
performance make them ideal for structural and load-bearing applications.
This section presents case studies of composite-based aerospace
components, focusing on their design, fabrication, analysis, and
evaluation. These cases provide valuable insights for the development of a
composite material-based landing gear strut.
Case Study 1: Airbus A400M Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP) Main Landing Gear Bay.
Overview
The Airbus A400M military transport aircraft employs CFRP in its landing
gear bay to reduce weight and enhance performance.
Design & Material Selection
  Material: Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
   Composite structure used to support the heavy loads during
landing and takeoff
  Optimization through finite element analysis (FEA) to ensure
strength and durability
Fabrication Process
  Automated fiber placement (AFP) technique for precise layup
   Resin transfer molding (RTM) for enhanced fiber-matrix
bonding
  Stringent quality control and non-destructive testing (NDT)
Analysis & Evaluation
  Static and dynamic load testing
   Fatigue analysis to ensure durability over multiple landing
cycles
  Impact resistance evaluation for crashworthiness

Case Study 2: Boeing 787 Dreamliner Composite Wing Spar.

Overview
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner extensively uses composites in its wing
structure, making it lighter and more fuel-efficient.
Design & Material Selection
 Material: CFRP with epoxy resin
 Computational modeling for load distribution optimization
 Layup design to handle aerodynamic and landing forces
Fabrication Process
  Automated fiber placement (AFP) and hand layup for complex
geometries
 Curing in autoclaves to enhance strength
 Ultrasonic and X-ray inspection to detect defects
Analysis & Evaluation
 Extensive fatigue and environmental testing
 Structural integrity validation through real-world load simulations
 Evaluation of impact damage and repair techniques

Case Study 3: Composite Landing Gear for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

(UAVs).

Overview

Many UAVs employ composite landing gear to reduce weight and improve
maneuverability.

Structural design to absorb shock upon landing

FEA-based optimization for weight reduction

Fabrication Process

 Pultrusion and RTM techniques for lightweight structures.

 Post-processing to enhance toughness.

Analysis & Evaluation.

1.Drop tests for impact resistance

2.Fatigue testing under repetitive landing cycles

Evaluation of energy absorption characteristics

 Chapter 3: -Material selection and
design.
3.1. Criteria for material selection.
Material selection is a crucial step in designing a composite-based
landing gear strut, as it directly influences the performance, durability,
and overall efficiency of the aircraft landing system. The following key
criteria should be considered:
Mechanical Properties
 High Strength-to-Weight Ratio – The material must provide high
structural strength while maintaining a low weight to enhance fuel
efficiency.
 High Stiffness (Specific Modulus) – To prevent excessive
deflection under load and ensure structural integrity.
 Fatigue Resistance – Repeated takeoffs and landings subject the
strut to cyclic loading; the material should withstand fatigue stresses.
 Impact Resistance – The strut must absorb high-impact forces
during landing without catastrophic failure.
 Fracture Toughness – Prevents sudden failure in critical conditions.
2. Load-Bearing and Structural Integrity
 Compression and Tensile Strength – The material should be able
to handle compressive loads from the aircraft’s weight and tensile
stresses from dynamic forces.
 Flexural Strength – Determines the ability to resist bending under
load.
 Shear Strength – Essential for handling torsional and lateral forces
during taxiing, landing, and takeoff.
3. Weight Considerations
 Low Density – Reducing weight improves fuel efficiency and
payload capacity.
  Optimized Layup Orientation – Composite fiber arrangement
should be optimized to balance weight and strength requirements.
4. Environmental and Operational Factors
 Temperature Resistance – The material must withstand extreme
temperatures (both high heat during braking and freezing
temperatures at high altitudes).
 Moisture and Corrosion Resistance – Unlike metals, composites
should resist degradation due to environmental exposure.
 UV Radiation and Oxidation Resistance – Ensures long-term
durability when exposed to sunlight and atmospheric conditions.
5. Manufacturability and Fabrication Constraints

 Ease of Processing – The selected material should be compatible

with existing fabrication techniques (e.g., autoclave curing, resin
infusion).
 Adhesive Bonding Capability – Many composite components
require bonding rather than traditional fastening.
 Moldability – Ability to shape into complex geometries without
defects.

6. Economic Feasibility

 Material Cost – Should be economically viable for production at

scale.
 Manufacturing Cost – Lower energy-intensive processes and
reduced labor requirements are preferable.
 Maintenance and Repairability – Should allow for efficient
inspection and cost-effective repairs.

7. Safety and Certification Compliance

 FAA/EASA Regulations – The material must meet aviation safety

and certification standards.
 Crashworthiness – Should have energy absorption capabilities in
case of failure.
  Non-Flammability – The material should be fire-resistant or have
flame-retardant properties.

Common Composite Materials Considered

 Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) – High strength-to-

weight ratio, good fatigue resistance, but expensive.
 Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) – Cost-effective but
lower stiffness than CFRP.
 Kevlar/Epoxy Composites – Excellent impact resistance but lower
compression strength.
 Hybrid Composites – Combination of different fibres (e.g., carbon-
Kevlar hybrid) to optimize properties.

3.2 Comparison of Traditional and Composite Materials

The landing gear strut is a critical component in an aircraft’s landing
system, designed to absorb impact forces and support the aircraft’s weight.
Traditionally, landing gear struts have been made from high-strength
metallic materials like steel and titanium. However, with advancements in
material science, composite materials have emerged as a viable alternative.
This section provides a detailed comparison between traditional metallic
materials and composite materials in the context of designing, fabricating,
analysing, and evaluating a landing gear strut.
 1. Material Properties Comparison

Traditional Materials Composite Materials (Carbon

Property
(Steel/Titanium) Fiber, Kevlar, etc.)

High (Steel: ~7.8 g/cm³,

Density Low (~1.5–2.0 g/cm³)
Titanium: ~4.5 g/cm³)

Strength-to-Weight
Moderate High
Ratio

Fatigue Resistance Moderate to High Very High

Steel requires coatings;

Corrosion
Titanium is corrosion- Naturally corrosion-resistant
Resistance
resistant

Manufacturing Machining and welding Requires advanced layup and

Complexity required curing processes
High (especially Can be high initially but lower in
Cost
titanium) life cycle cost

Can be designed for impact

Impact Resistance High
resistance with hybrid laminates

Easier (welding, Difficult (requires specialized

Repairability
machining) repair techniques)

2. Design Considerations
2.1 Traditional Materials
 Design is typically based on well-established metallic stress-strain
relationships.
 Uses standard structural analysis methods such as finite element
analysis (FEA) with isotropic assumptions.
 Requires thicker sections to meet strength requirements due to lower
strength-to-weight ratio.
 Susceptible to fatigue crack initiation and propagation.
2.2 Composite Materials
  Design is more complex due to anisotropic nature (direction-
dependent properties).
 Laminate stacking sequence plays a significant role in strength and
stiffness.
 Allows for topology optimization, reducing unnecessary weight
while maintaining performance.
 Can be tailored for specific load conditions by adjusting fiber
orientation.

3. Fabrication Process Comparison

3.1 Traditional Materials
 Involves forging, casting, machining, and heat treatment.
 Requires extensive material removal, leading to high material
wastage.
 Assembly via welding, bolting, or riveting.
 High energy consumption during manufacturing.
3.2 Composite Materials
 Uses hand layup, resin transfer molding (RTM), or autoclave curing.
 Requires precise fiber alignment for strength optimization.
 Minimal material wastage due to additive manufacturing techniques.
 Lower energy consumption in processing compared to metals.

4. Structural Analysis and Performance

4.1 Traditional Materials
 Predictable failure modes (yielding, plastic deformation, fatigue
cracks).
 Well-documented stress analysis methods.
 Limited ability to optimize stiffness and weight distribution.
4.2 Composite Materials
 Complex failure modes (delamination, matrix cracking, fiber
breakage).
 Requires advanced computational tools for analysis (e.g.,
progressive damage modeling).
 Allows for improved damping characteristics, reducing vibrations
during landing.

5. Evaluation and Testing

5.1 Traditional Materials
 Standard non-destructive testing (NDT) methods like ultrasonic
testing, radiography, and dye penetrant inspection.
 Load testing is straightforward with known mechanical behavior.
 Fatigue testing can predict crack growth and maintenance cycles.
5.2 Composite Materials
 Advanced NDT techniques required (e.g., thermography, acoustic
emission analysis).
 Need for extensive material qualification due to variations in fiber-
matrix interaction.
 Requires in-depth impact and delamination testing under operational
conditions.

Economic and Environmental Impact

Traditional
Factor Composite Materials
Materials
High (especially High (but cost reduction in long-
Material Cost
titanium) term use)
High due to machining
Manufacturing Moderate due to automated
and energy-intensive
Cost layup and curing techniques
processes
Lower due to corrosion
Maintenance High due to fatigue
resistance and better fatigue
Cost and corrosion
performance
Sustainability Recycling is easier but Difficult to recycle, but lower
 overall environmental impact
energy-intensive due to weight reduction and fuel
efficiency benefits
3.3. Selected composite materials for the strut.
1. Introduction to Composite Material Selection
The choice of composite materials for the landing gear strut is critical to
achieving the desired strength, weight reduction, fatigue resistance, and
impact absorption. The selection process involves evaluating various
composite materials based on their mechanical properties, environmental
resistance, manufacturability, and cost-effectiveness.

2. Key Selection Criteria for Composite Materials

The materials selected for the landing gear strut should meet the following
criteria:
 High Strength-to-Weight Ratio – Ensures structural integrity while
reducing overall aircraft weight.
 Fatigue and Damage Tolerance – The material should withstand
cyclic loading and impact forces.
 Corrosion and Environmental Resistance – Resistance to
moisture, temperature fluctuations, and other environmental factors.
 Manufacturability – Compatibility with manufacturing techniques
such as filament winding, resin transfer molding, or autoclave
curing.
 Cost-Effectiveness – Balance between performance and
affordability.

3. Commonly Used Composite Materials for Landing Gear

Applications
a. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
 Composition: Carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix (e.g.,
epoxy resin).
 Properties:
 o High tensile strength and stiffness.
o Excellent fatigue and impact resistance.
o Lightweight compared to metals.
o Good resistance to environmental degradation.
 Limitations: Brittle behavior under extreme impact; high cost.
 Applications: Used in structural aerospace components requiring
high strength and stiffness.
b. Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP)
 Composition: Glass fibers in a polymer matrix (epoxy, polyester, or
vinyl ester resin).
 Properties:
o Moderate strength with good toughness.
o Good impact resistance but lower stiffness than CFRP.
o More affordable than CFRP.
o Good corrosion resistance.
 Limitations: Lower stiffness and strength compared to CFRP;
susceptible to moisture absorption.
 Applications: Secondary structures in aerospace applications.
c. Aramid Fiber Reinforced Polymer (AFRP) (Kevlar Composites)
 Composition: Aramid fibers embedded in an epoxy or thermoplastic
matrix.
 Properties:
o Excellent toughness and impact resistance.
o High energy absorption capacity.
o Lightweight and resistant to fatigue.
 Limitations: Poor compressive strength; moisture absorption can
degrade properties.
  Applications: Used in areas requiring high impact resistance, such
as helicopter rotor blades.
d. Hybrid Composites (CFRP/GFRP/AFRP Combinations)
 Composition: A combination of two or more fiber types (e.g.,
CFRP-GFRP, CFRP-AFRP).
 Properties:
o Optimized balance of strength, toughness, and cost.
o Improved damage tolerance compared to single-fiber
composites.
 Limitations: Complex fabrication process and design
considerations.
 Applications: Aerospace landing gear components where multi-
functional properties are needed.

4. Matrix Material Selection

The matrix in a composite material plays a key role in load transfer and
environmental resistance. Common matrices include:
 Epoxy Resins – Excellent mechanical and thermal properties;
widely used in aerospace.
 Polyester/Vinyl Ester Resins – More affordable but with lower
mechanical performance.
 Thermoplastic Matrices (PEEK, PPS) – Offer high toughness and
recyclability, though costly.
5. Comparison of selected materials of landing gear struts.

Hybrid
Property CFRP GFRP AFRP
Composites
Strength High Moderate Moderate Optimized
Stiffness Very High Moderate Moderate Optimized
Fatigue
Excellent Good Excellent Optimized
Resistance
Impact
Moderate High Very High High
Resistance
 Weight Low Moderate Very Low Moderate
Low to Moderate to
Cost High High
Moderate High
6. Final Material Selection Justification
Based on the analysis, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) with
an epoxy matrix emerges as a strong candidate due to its high strength,
lightweight nature, and fatigue resistance. However, for improved impact
resistance and cost optimization, Hybrid Composites (CFRP + GFRP or
CFRP + AFRP) could also be considered.
Further validation through mechanical testing and simulations will confirm
the final material choice for the landing gear strut.

3.4. Structural Design Considerations.

The structural design of a landing gear strut made from composite
materials involves multiple critical considerations to ensure its
performance, safety, and reliability under operational conditions. These
considerations encompass material selection, load-bearing capacity, failure
mechanisms, geometric design, and manufacturability. The following
sections provide a detailed examination of key structural design aspects:
1. Load and Stress Analysis
The landing gear strut experiences various loads during aircraft operations,
including:
 Static Loads: Due to aircraft weight when stationary.
 Dynamic Loads: Arising from taxiing, takeoff, and landing impact
forces.
 Fatigue Loads: Resulting from repeated cyclic stresses over
multiple flight cycles.
 Braking Loads: Induced by deceleration during landing.
 Side Loads: Due to crosswind landings and ground maneuvering.
A comprehensive structural analysis must evaluate these loads to ensure
the composite strut can withstand extreme conditions without failure.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is typically used to predict stress
distributions and deformation patterns.

2. Material Selection and Layup Optimization

Composite landing gear struts require careful material selection to achieve
the desired balance of strength, stiffness, and weight reduction. Key
considerations include:
 Matrix Selection: Epoxy, phenolic, or thermoplastic matrices
provide different levels of impact resistance and temperature
stability.
 Fiber Reinforcement: High-performance fibers such as carbon,
glass, or aramid are chosen based on mechanical properties.
 Hybrid Layups: Combining multiple fiber types can optimize
strength, toughness, and cost.
 Fiber Orientation: Strategic layup configurations (e.g., ±45°, 0°,
90°) are essential to withstand multi-axial loads effectively.
Optimization techniques such as Genetic Algorithms (GA) or Machine
Learning (ML) can be used to determine the best layup configurations.

3. Failure Mechanisms and Damage Tolerance

Unlike traditional metal struts, composite materials have unique failure
modes that need careful assessment:
 Matrix Cracking: Due to excessive shear stresses.
 Delamination: Resulting from interlaminar stresses.
 Fiber Breakage: When tensile loads exceed fiber strength.
 Impact Damage: From debris, bird strikes, or ground handling.
Advanced computational models (Progressive Failure Analysis, Cohesive
Zone Models) and experimental tests (Drop Weight Impact Testing,
Compression After Impact) are necessary to validate the strut’s damage
tolerance and residual strength.
4. Structural Optimization and Weight Reduction
The main advantage of composites is weight reduction without
compromising strength. Structural optimization techniques include:
 Topology Optimization: Determines the most efficient material
distribution within the strut.
 Lattice and Sandwich Structures: Improve stiffness-to-weight
ratio using core materials like honeycomb or foam.
 Variable Thickness Design: Reducing material in low-stress areas
while reinforcing critical regions.
Reducing weight enhances fuel efficiency and aircraft performance while
maintaining structural integrity.

5. Manufacturing Constraints and Assembly Considerations

The feasibility of fabricating a composite landing gear strut depends on:
 Manufacturing Processes: Autoclave curing, resin infusion, or
filament winding techniques affect quality and cost.
 Tooling and Molds: Precision in mold design ensures minimal
defects.
 Bonding and Fastening: Adhesive bonding versus mechanical
joining must be evaluated to prevent stress concentrations.
Defect detection methods like Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), including
ultrasonic inspection and X-ray scanning, are crucial for quality assurance.

6. Environmental and Operational Durability

A composite landing gear strut must endure:
 Temperature Variations: Exposure to high-altitude cold and tarmac
heat.
 Moisture Absorption: Can degrade mechanical properties over
time.
  Chemical Resistance: Against hydraulic fluids, de-icing agents, and
aviation fuels.
Protective coatings, nano-reinforcements, and self-healing materials can
enhance long-term durability.

7. Certification and Safety Compliance

Regulatory standards must be adhered to, such as:
 FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and EASA (European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) regulations for structural integrity.
 MIL-STD-810 and ASTM Standards for environmental testing.
 Damage Tolerance and Lifang Analysis to establish maintenance
schedules.
A combination of numerical simulations, laboratory testing, and full-scale
prototype testing ensures compliance with safety requirements.

3.5. Load and Stress Analysis Consideration.

Load and stress analysis is a critical aspect of designing and
evaluating a composite material-based landing gear strut. Since
landing gear struts must endure complex loading conditions, including
impact, static, and dynamic stresses, a comprehensive analysis is
essential to ensure structural integrity, durability, and performance.
This section discusses the key considerations for load and stress
analysis in composite landing gear struts.

1. Types of Loads Acting on the Landing Gear Strut

A. Static Loads
Static loads include the aircraft’s weight and ground forces acting on the
landing gear while the aircraft is stationary. These loads are vital for
evaluating the strut's ability to bear the aircraft's static weight without
failure or excessive deformation.
B. Dynamic Loads
Dynamic loads occur during taxiing, takeoff, and landing, leading to time-
dependent stresses. These include:
 Impact Loads: Generated during touchdown due to sudden
deceleration.
 Braking Loads: Forces due to friction between tires and runway.
 Steering Loads: Lateral forces during ground maneuvering.
 Aerodynamic Loads: Forces due to air resistance and drag during
takeoff and landing.
C. Shock and Impact Loads
One of the most critical loads is the impact force during landing. The strut
must absorb energy efficiently and distribute it without excessive strain or
failure.
D. Fatigue and Cyclic Loads
Landing gear struts experience repeated loading cycles throughout their
service life. Composite materials are susceptible to delamination and
matrix cracking under cyclic loads, making fatigue analysis a crucial factor
in their design.
E. Torsional and Bending Loads
 Torsional Loads: Arise during asymmetric landings or crosswind
conditions.
 Bending Loads: Develop due to uneven weight distribution and
ground interactions.

2. Stress Analysis of Composite Landing Gear Strut

A. Stress Distribution in Composite Structures
Unlike isotropic materials like metals, composites exhibit anisotropic
behavior, meaning stress distribution varies with fiber orientation and ply
stacking sequence. Key stress components include:
 Axial Stress (σx, σy, σz)
 Shear Stress (τxy, τyz, τzx)
  Interlaminar Shear Stress (leading to delamination risks)
B. Failure Modes in Composite Materials
Failure analysis must consider different failure mechanisms such as:
1. Matrix Cracking – Failure within the polymer resin.
2. Fiber Breakage – Rupture of load-bearing fibers.
3. Delamination – Separation of composite layers due to interlaminar
stresses.
4. Debonding – Loss of adhesion at fiber-matrix interfaces.
C. Stress Analysis Methods
1. Analytical Methods
 Classical Lamination Theory (CLT) – Used for stress-strain analysis
of composite laminates.
 First-Ply Failure (FPF) Analysis – Determines the first occurrence of
failure in a composite laminate.
2. Numerical Methods (Finite Element Analysis - FEA)
 Static Structural Analysis – Determines stress-strain response under
different loading conditions.
 Explicit Dynamics Analysis – Simulates high-impact landing events.
 Fatigue Life Estimation – Predicts service life based on repeated
loading cycles.
 Progressive Damage Analysis (PDA) – Evaluates damage initiation
and propagation in composite laminates.
3. Experimental Methods
 Strain Gauge Testing – Measures real-time stress-strain response.
 Digital Image Correlation (DIC) – Captures strain distribution in
composite structures.
 Drop Weight Impact Tests – Evaluates energy absorption capacity
and impact resistance.
3. Load and Stress Optimization Strategies
A. Fiber Orientation Optimization
 Align fibers in the principal load direction to maximize strength.
 Use hybrid fiber arrangements for multi-directional reinforcement.
B. Ply Stacking Sequence Design
 Alternate 0°, ±45°, and 90° plies to balance strength and stiffness.
 Use thicker plies at stress-concentrated regions.
C. Core and Skin Configuration
 Use sandwich structures with lightweight cores for improved energy
absorption.
 Incorporate toughened resin systems to resist delamination.
D. Material Selection
 Carbon fiber composites for high strength-to-weight ratio.
 Kevlar/Aramid fibers for impact resistance.
 Hybrid composites to optimize mechanical properties.

4. Load Testing and Validation

To verify theoretical and numerical analysis results, full-scale and sub-
scale testing is essential. Testing methods include:
 Drop Test – Simulates landing impact forces.
 Full-Scale Fatigue Testing – Mimics real-world cyclic loads.
 Environmental Testing – Evaluates performance under temperature,
humidity, and chemical exposure.

3.6. CAD Modeling and Preliminary Design.

1. Introduction to CAD Modeling and Preliminary Design
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) plays a critical role in the development of
composite-based landing gear struts. It enables precise modeling,
visualization, and optimization before physical fabrication. This section
focuses on the key aspects of CAD modeling, material selection, design
constraints, and preliminary structural analysis.
2. Design Considerations for Composite Landing Gear Strut
The preliminary design phase involves defining the geometric, structural,
and functional requirements. Key considerations include:
 Load Requirements: Maximum takeoff weight (MTOW), landing
impact forces, and fatigue loads.
 Geometric Constraints: Size limitations based on aircraft
configuration.
 Material Selection: Fiber-reinforced composites (e.g., carbon fiber,
Kevlar, or glass fiber).
 Manufacturing Feasibility: Compatibility with fabrication techniques
like filament winding or resin transfer molding.
3. CAD Software and Modeling Techniques
Common CAD software for aerospace structural design includes:
 CATIA (widely used in aerospace for composite design).
 SolidWorks (for parametric modeling and preliminary structural
simulations).
 Siemens NX (integrated with advanced FEA tools).
 Autodesk Fusion 360 (for rapid prototyping and visualization).
Modeling Techniques:
 Parametric Modeling: Enables design modifications and
optimization.
 Surface and Solid Modeling: Used for defining composite layers and
ply orientations.
 Topology Optimization: Improves structural efficiency by reducing
weight while maintaining strength.
4. Structural Analysis and Validation in CAD
 Finite Element Analysis (FEA): Performed using software like
ANSYS or Abaqus to evaluate stress, deformation, and failure
modes.
 Static and Dynamic Simulations: Includes impact resistance, fatigue
analysis, and buckling behavior.
 Material Property Integration: CAD models incorporate composite
layup properties (e.g., ply thickness, fiber orientation).
5. Optimization and Design Iterations
 Weight Reduction Strategies: Reducing unnecessary material while
maintaining strength.
 Multi-objective Optimization: Balancing strength, weight, and cost.
 Iterative Prototyping: Using CAD models for 3D printing or rapid
prototyping before full-scale manufacturing.
 Chapter 4: - Fabrication Process.

4.1. Manufacturing Techniques for Composite Materials.

The manufacturing of composite materials for aerospace applications, such
as a landing gear strut, is crucial for achieving the desired mechanical
properties, durability, and weight savings. The selection of an appropriate
manufacturing process depends on factors such as material type, design
complexity, production volume, and cost considerations. This section
discusses the various manufacturing techniques applicable to composite
material-based landing gear struts.

1. Hand Lay-Up
Hand lay-up is a traditional and simple method for manufacturing
composite structures. In this process, fiber reinforcements (pre-
impregnated or dry) are manually placed into a mold and impregnated with
a resin system.
Advantages:
 Low-cost tooling
 Simple process with minimal equipment requirements
 Suitable for large, low-production components
Disadvantages:
 High labor costs
 Inconsistent quality due to manual variation
 Lower fiber volume fraction, leading to suboptimal mechanical
properties
Application to Landing Gear Struts:
Due to the high strength and precision required for landing gear
components, hand lay-up is not commonly used for primary structural
elements. However, it may be used for secondary structures or
prototyping.
2. Resin Transfer Molding (RTM)
Resin Transfer Molding involves placing dry fiber preforms into a closed
mold, followed by injecting resin under pressure. The mold is then heated
to cure the resin, forming a solid composite structure.
Advantages:
 Higher fiber volume fraction compared to hand lay-up
 Improved consistency and repeatability
 Suitable for complex geometries and medium to high production
rates
Disadvantages:
 High tooling costs
 Requires precise control of resin flow and curing conditions
Application to Landing Gear Struts:
RTM is a viable option for fabricating complex composite landing gear
strut components with high strength-to-weight ratios. The closed-mold
process ensures better quality control and structural integrity.

3. Autoclave Curing (Prepreg Method)

Autoclave curing is a widely used aerospace manufacturing technique in
which fiber reinforcements pre-impregnated with resin (prepregs) are
layered and vacuum-bagged before being cured under controlled heat and
pressure in an autoclave.
Advantages:
 High fiber volume fraction (up to 60-65%)
 Excellent mechanical properties and uniformity
 Low void content, leading to enhanced strength
Disadvantages:
 High equipment and operational costs
  Longer processing times
Application to Landing Gear Struts:
Autoclave curing is ideal for aerospace-grade composite landing gear
struts due to the high structural integrity and performance required. The
process ensures optimal mechanical properties and fatigue resistance.

4. Filament Winding
Filament winding is a process in which continuous fiber tows are
impregnated with resin and wound onto a mandrel in specific orientations
before curing.
Advantages:
 High fiber alignment, leading to superior strength
 Automated process with reduced labor costs
 Suitable for cylindrical or tubular structures
Disadvantages:
 Limited to axisymmetric and rotational parts
 Requires precise fiber tension control
Application to Landing Gear Struts:
Filament winding can be used for manufacturing tubular sections of the
landing gear strut, especially in cases where high axial strength is required.

5. Pultrusion
Pultrusion is a continuous manufacturing process in which fibers are
impregnated with resin and pulled through a heated die to form constant
cross-section profiles.
Advantages:
 High production efficiency and repeatability
 Consistent quality with low void content
 High fiber volume fraction
Disadvantages:
 Limited to uniform cross-section profiles
 High initial tooling cost
Application to Landing Gear Struts:
Pultrusion is rarely used for landing gear struts due to its limitation to
constant cross-section shapes. However, it may be applicable for
reinforcement elements within the strut structure.

6. 3D Printing (Additive Manufacturing of Composites)

Recent advancements in additive manufacturing have enabled 3D printing
of fiber-reinforced composites, either through continuous fiber deposition
or chopped fiber-reinforced polymer printing.
Advantages:
 Complex geometries with reduced material waste
 Rapid prototyping capability
 Customizable material distribution
Disadvantages:
 Lower mechanical properties compared to traditional methods
 Limited material selection and process scalability
Application to Landing Gear Struts:
3D printing can be useful for prototyping and developing customized
composite components for landing gear structures, though its direct use in
primary load-bearing components is still under research.

Selection Criteria for Manufacturing Techniques

For fabricating a composite landing gear strut, the manufacturing process
must be chosen based on:
 Mechanical Properties: High strength, stiffness, and fatigue
resistance
  Weight Optimization: Low-density materials with high specific
strength
 Manufacturing Feasibility: Scalability and consistency in
production
 Cost Considerations: Balance between performance and
manufacturing cost
Typically, autoclave curing, RTM, and filament winding are the most
preferred techniques for aerospace applications like landing gear struts due
to their high-performance characteristics.

4.2. Selection of Fabrication Method (e.g., Filament Winding, Resin

Transfer Molding)
The fabrication method chosen for a composite material-based landing
gear strut significantly impacts its mechanical properties, weight, cost, and
overall performance. This section explores various composite
manufacturing techniques, evaluates their suitability for landing gear
applications, and justifies the selected method based on key design and
performance criteria.
4.2.1 Overview of Composite Fabrication Methods
Composite materials are fabricated using several methods, each offering
distinct advantages and limitations. The primary techniques considered for
landing gear strut manufacturing include:
1. Filament Winding (FW)
o Process: Continuous fibers are impregnated with resin and
wound onto a rotating mandrel in a controlled pattern. The
structure is then cured in an oven or autoclave.
o Advantages:
 High fiber volume fraction and alignment for optimal
strength
 Excellent control over fiber orientation, enhancing load-
bearing capacity
  Automated process, leading to high repeatability and
efficiency
o Limitations:
 Limited to axisymmetric or near-axisymmetric
components
 Difficult to create complex geometries with varying
cross-sections
2. Resin Transfer Molding (RTM)
o Process: Dry fiber preforms are placed in a mold, and resin is
injected under pressure, ensuring uniform impregnation. The
composite is then cured under controlled conditions.
o Advantages:
 Suitable for complex geometries and large structural
components
 Excellent surface finish and dimensional accuracy
 Reduced void content, improving mechanical
performance
o Limitations:
 High tooling costs, making it less viable for low
production volumes
 Longer processing time compared to other methods
3. Autoclave Curing with Prepregs
o Process: Pre-impregnated fiber sheets are layered in a mold
and subjected to heat and pressure in an autoclave for curing.
o Advantages:
 High fiber-to-resin ratio, ensuring superior mechanical
properties
 Minimal void formation, leading to enhanced structural
integrity
 o Limitations:
 High processing cost and energy consumption
 Requires precise handling and storage of prepregs
4. Compression Molding
o Process: A fiber-resin mixture is placed in a heated mold and
compressed to form the desired shape.
o Advantages:
 Suitable for high-volume production
 Good dimensional control and surface finish
o Limitations:
 Limited to relatively simple geometries
 Mechanical properties may be lower than filament
winding or RTM
4.2.2 Selection Criteria for Landing Gear Strut Fabrication
To determine the most suitable fabrication method for the composite
landing gear strut, the following criteria were considered:
1. Load-Bearing Capacity & Strength-to-Weight Ratio
o The method should ensure high stiffness and strength to
withstand landing loads while minimizing weight.
o Filament winding and RTM are preferred for their ability to
tailor fiber orientation for load optimization.
2. Complex Geometry & Structural Integrity
o The strut may have varying diameters, attachments, and
reinforcements requiring precise manufacturing.
o RTM and autoclave curing allow for greater geometric
flexibility compared to filament winding.
3. Manufacturing Cost & Scalability
 o The process should be cost-effective while maintaining high-
quality output.
o RTM offers a balance between cost, quality, and scalability
compared to autoclave curing.
4. Damage Tolerance & Fatigue Resistance
o The chosen method should ensure minimal defects (e.g., voids,
delamination’s) to enhance fatigue life.
o Autoclave curing provides excellent quality control but at a
higher cost.
5. Environmental Considerations & Automation
o Efficient material utilization and reduced waste are desirable.
o Filament winding and RTM offer automated processes with
minimal waste.
4.2.3 Justification of the Selected Method
Based on the evaluation of fabrication methods, Resin Transfer Molding
(RTM) is selected as the most suitable process for manufacturing the
composite landing gear strut.
 RTM allows for precise fiber placement and complex geometries,
making it ideal for the structural requirements of a landing gear strut.
 It provides excellent mechanical properties with reduced void
content, ensuring high fatigue resistance.
 The cost-effectiveness of RTM makes it suitable for both
prototyping and production without excessive investment in
autoclave systems.
 The process is compatible with hybrid reinforcement materials,
allowing for the integration of carbon, aramid, or glass fibers to
optimize performance.
4.2.4 Summary
The selection of the fabrication method is crucial in achieving the desired
performance characteristics for the composite landing gear strut. While
several manufacturing techniques were analyzed, Resin Transfer
Molding (RTM) emerged as the optimal choice due to its ability to
handle complex shapes, high strength-to-weight ratio, and efficient
material utilization. This selection ensures that the landing gear strut meets
aerospace performance standards while maintaining cost-effectiveness
and manufacturability.
4.3. Prototype Development.
Prototype development is a crucial phase in the research and
implementation of a composite material-based landing gear strut. It
involves the translation of design concepts into a tangible, testable model
that allows for functional verification, structural assessment, and
performance validation before full-scale production. This section covers
the key aspects of prototype development, including material selection,
fabrication techniques, assembly, testing considerations, and iterative
improvements.

1. Objectives of Prototype Development

The primary objectives of developing a prototype include:
 Validating the design: Ensuring the theoretical and simulation
models align with real-world performance.
 Evaluating manufacturability: Identifying challenges in
fabricating composite landing gear components.
 Assessing structural integrity: Testing the strength, durability, and
fatigue resistance under loading conditions.
 Optimizing performance: Making necessary design modifications
based on prototype testing.

2. Material Selection and Procurement

The selection of composite materials is fundamental in achieving the
desired mechanical properties for the landing gear strut. The key
considerations include:
 Fiber Reinforcement: Commonly used fibers include carbon fiber,
glass fiber, and aramid fiber, each offering different advantages in
 terms of strength-to-weight ratio, impact resistance, and fatigue
performance.
 Matrix Material: Thermosetting resins (epoxy, polyester, or
phenolic resins) are typically used to bind fibers and provide load
transfer.
 Hybrid Composites: A combination of different fibers (e.g.,
carbon/Kevlar hybrid) may be used to enhance specific mechanical
properties.
 Core Materials: In some cases, honeycomb or foam cores are
introduced for improved stiffness and weight reduction.
Material procurement involves acquiring high-quality raw materials from
trusted suppliers and ensuring consistency in mechanical properties.

3. Fabrication Techniques
The fabrication process determines the structural integrity and
performance of the composite landing gear strut. The most suitable
methods include:
a. Lay-up Process
 Hand Lay-up: Suitable for initial prototyping but prone to
inconsistencies.
 Automated Fiber Placement (AFP): Ensures precise fiber
alignment and reduces defects.
 Resin Transfer Molding (RTM): Enhances uniformity and reduces
voids in composite structure.
b. Curing and Consolidation
 Vacuum Bagging: Used in hand lay-up to remove excess resin and
improve fiber compaction.
 Autoclave Curing: Provides high pressure and temperature
conditions for superior mechanical properties.
 Out-of-Autoclave (OOA) Processing: An alternative to reduce
costs while maintaining acceptable performance.
c. Machining and Assembly
 Waterjet Cutting & CNC Machining: Used for precision trimming
of composite components.
 Adhesive Bonding & Mechanical Fastening: Hybrid joining
methods ensure structural integrity while reducing stress
concentrations.

4. Prototype Testing and Evaluation

After fabrication, the prototype undergoes rigorous testing to verify its
performance under real-world conditions. The key tests include:
a. Structural and Mechanical Testing
 Static Load Testing: Evaluates load-bearing capacity and deflection
under applied forces.
 Fatigue Testing: Simulates repeated loading cycles to assess
durability.
 Impact Testing: Determines resistance to sudden shock loads.
 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT): Techniques like ultrasonic testing,
X-ray, or thermography to detect defects.
b. Functional and Environmental Testing
 Vibration Testing: Simulates in-flight conditions to analyze
dynamic responses.
 Environmental Conditioning: Tests performance under extreme
temperatures, humidity, and corrosive conditions.

5. Iterative Refinement and Design Optimization

Based on prototype test results, modifications are made to improve
performance and manufacturability. Common refinements include:
 Adjusting fiber orientations to enhance load distribution.
 Modifying resin properties for improved toughness.
  Redesigning joint configurations to minimize stress concentrations.
 Reducing weight while maintaining structural integrity.

6. Final Prototype Validation

Once design refinements are complete, a final prototype is developed and
subjected to full-scale testing to ensure compliance with aviation standards
and regulatory requirements. This phase confirms readiness for pre-
production and further certification processes.

4.4. Quality Control Measures.

Quality control (QC) is critical in ensuring the reliability, safety, and
performance of a composite material-based landing gear strut. Since
landing gear components endure high loads and extreme conditions,
stringent QC measures must be implemented throughout the design,
fabrication, analysis, and evaluation phases. The following sections outline
the key quality control measures at each stage of development:

1. Quality Control in Design Phase

During the design phase, QC measures focus on ensuring that the
structural integrity, weight, and durability of the composite strut meet
aviation standards.
 Material Selection Standards
o Compliance with ASTM, SAE, and FAA regulations for
composite materials.
o Selection of aerospace-grade fibers (e.g., carbon, glass,
aramid) and resins (epoxy, thermoplastic).
o Ensuring proper fiber orientation for load-bearing efficiency.
 Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Verification
o Simulation-based validation using Finite Element Analysis
(FEA).
 o Stress and strain analysis to predict failure points.
o Optimization of lay-up sequences to minimize weak spots.
 Compliance with Safety and Certification Requirements
o Adherence to FAA/EASA Part 23 & 25 regulations for aircraft
landing gear.
o Consideration of environmental factors such as temperature
resistance and fatigue life.

2. Quality Control in Fabrication Phase

The fabrication phase requires strict process control to ensure
material consistency, proper bonding, and defect-free production.
 Raw Material Inspection
o Fiber and resin quality checks using spectroscopy, DSC
(Differential Scanning Calorimetry), and FTIR (Fourier-
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy).
o Pre-impregnated (prepreg) material storage and handling under
controlled temperature and humidity.
 Lay-up and Curing Process Control
o Automated fiber placement (AFP) and hand lay-up procedures
verified for precision.
o Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) before curing to detect fiber
misalignment or voids.
o Curing cycle monitoring (temperature, pressure, time) in
autoclaves or ovens.
 Adhesive Bonding and Fastening Inspection
o Ensuring proper surface preparation (abrasion, chemical
treatment) before bonding.
o Ultrasonic inspection of bonded joints to detect delaminations
or weak bonds.
 Dimensional Accuracy and Tolerance Check
 o Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) verification of part
dimensions.
o Use of laser scanning or 3D optical measurement for
composite contour accuracy.

3. Quality Control in Analysis Phase

Post-fabrication analysis ensures that the composite landing gear strut
meets mechanical, fatigue, and environmental resistance requirements.
 Mechanical Testing
o Tensile, Compression, and Flexural Tests: Performed as per
ASTM D3039, ASTM D695, and ASTM D790.
o Impact Resistance Testing: Drop weight impact test to assess
damage tolerance.
o Fatigue Testing: Cyclic loading to simulate landing conditions
and determine lifespan.
 Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Methods
o Ultrasonic Testing (UT): Detects voids, delaminations, and
inclusions in composite layers.
o X-ray and Computed Tomography (CT) Scanning: High-
resolution defect detection.
o Thermography (Infrared Testing): Identifies hidden
delaminations through heat flow anomalies.
 Environmental and Chemical Resistance Testing
o Moisture Absorption Tests: Evaluates the effect of humidity
and water ingress.
o Thermal Cycling and Fire Resistance Tests: Ensures structural
integrity under temperature variations.
o Chemical Exposure Tests: Evaluates resistance to aviation
hydraulic fluids and fuels.
4. Quality Control in Evaluation Phase
The final evaluation phase ensures that the composite landing gear strut
meets all performance and certification standards before deployment.
 Full-Scale Structural Testing
o Drop Test Simulation: Evaluates shock absorption during
landing.
o Static and Dynamic Load Testing: Assesses performance under
real-world operational loads.
o Ultimate Load Test: Determines failure threshold beyond
design load.
 Certification and Compliance Audit
o Third-party verification from aerospace regulatory bodies
(FAA, EASA, MIL-STD compliance).
o Documentation of all QC procedures, test results, and
manufacturing records.
o Flight-worthiness certification from relevant authorities before
implementation.
4.5. Challenges in fabrication.
Fabricating a composite material-based landing gear strut presents
numerous challenges, primarily due to the complex nature of composite
materials, the precision required in aerospace applications, and the need
for superior mechanical performance. The key challenges in fabrication
include:
1. Material Selection and Availability
 High-Performance Requirements: The materials used must have
high strength-to-weight ratios, impact resistance, and fatigue
resistance. Advanced composites like carbon fiber reinforced
polymers (CFRP) or hybrid composites are often required, which
can be expensive and difficult to procure.
  Consistency in Raw Materials: Variability in fiber quality, resin
properties, and prepreg conditions can lead to inconsistencies in the
final product.
2. Manufacturing Process Selection
 Complexity of Fabrication Techniques: Different fabrication
techniques, such as autoclave curing, resin transfer molding (RTM),
and filament winding, have varying impacts on material properties
and costs. Selecting the best method while balancing cost and
performance is a challenge.
 Tooling and Molds: Composite structures require precise tooling
and molds, which can be costly and time-consuming to manufacture.
3. Process Control and Quality Assurance
 Void Formation and Porosity: Improper processing conditions can
lead to voids, which weaken the composite structure and
compromise safety. Maintaining proper resin flow and curing
conditions is essential.
 Curing and Thermal Stresses: Uneven curing can lead to residual
stresses, warping, or delamination. Advanced temperature control
mechanisms are needed for uniform curing.
 Defect Detection: Non-destructive testing (NDT) methods such as
ultrasonic inspection, X-ray, or thermography must be used to detect
internal defects without damaging the structure.
4. Adhesion and Bonding Challenges
 Interlaminar Strength: Weak bonding between layers can lead to
delamination under operational loads. Surface preparation and resin
selection are crucial to ensure proper adhesion.
 Fastening and Joint Design: Traditional fasteners may create stress
concentrations and require alternative joining techniques like
adhesive bonding or co-curing, which have their own challenges.
5. Cost and Production Scalability
  High Manufacturing Costs: Composite materials and fabrication
processes are expensive, making cost-effective production a
significant challenge.
 Production Time: The fabrication of composite landing gear struts
requires precise layup and curing cycles, which can be time-
consuming and impact production rates.
 Scalability for Mass Production: Unlike metals, composites do not
always lend themselves well to mass production due to batch
processing constraints.
6. Environmental and Safety Considerations
 Handling and Health Hazards: The use of carbon fibers, resins,
and curing agents can pose health risks, requiring stringent safety
measures.
 Waste Management and Sustainability: Composite manufacturing
generates material waste, and recycling composites is challenging
due to their thermoset nature.
By addressing these fabrication challenges through advanced
manufacturing techniques, strict quality control, and innovative material
solutions, the performance and reliability of composite landing gear struts
can be optimized for aerospace applications.
 Chapter 5: - Structural Analysis and
Simulation.
5.1. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of composite strut.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a crucial step in evaluating the
performance of a composite material-based landing gear strut. It allows for
virtual testing and optimization before physical fabrication, reducing costs
and improving efficiency. This section will delve into the methodology,
key considerations, and expected outcomes of FEA in the context of the
composite strut.

1. Introduction to Finite Element Analysis (FEA) in Composite

Structures
FEA is a numerical technique used to predict stress distribution,
deformation, and failure mechanisms in engineering structures. For
composite materials, FEA is particularly important due to their anisotropic
behavior, making their analysis more complex than isotropic materials like
metals.
Key Objectives of FEA in Composite Strut Analysis:
 Evaluate the structural integrity and performance of the composite
strut.
 Predict stress distribution under different loading conditions.
 Assess failure modes using composite failure theories (e.g., Tsai-Wu,
Hashin, Puck).
 Optimize the laminate stacking sequence for weight reduction and
strength.
 Compare results with experimental data for validation.

2. Modeling the Composite Strut in FEA Software

2.1 Geometry and Meshing
  The strut’s 3D CAD model is imported into FEA software (e.g.,
ANSYS, Abaqus, or NASTRAN).
 A fine mesh is required in critical regions to capture stress
concentrations.
 Hexahedral elements are preferred for accuracy, but tetrahedral
elements may be used for complex geometries.
 Element size is optimized through a mesh convergence study.
2.2 Material Properties of Composite Layers
Since composite materials exhibit different mechanical properties in
different directions, defining accurate material properties is essential.
 Elastic properties: Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and shear
modulus in different fiber orientations.
 Strength parameters: Tensile and compressive strength in fiber and
matrix directions.
 Density: Critical for weight estimation and dynamic analysis.
A typical composite strut may consist of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer
(CFRP) layers with a layup sequence such as [0°/45°/−45°/90°]s to
balance strength and stiffness.

3. Loading and Boundary Conditions

3.1 Types of Loading Conditions
 Static Loading: Evaluates stress and deformation under a specific
load (e.g., aircraft weight during taxiing and landing impact forces).
 Dynamic Loading: Simulates transient effects such as impact
during landing.
 Fatigue Loading: Examines cyclic loading conditions to assess
long-term durability.
3.2 Constraints and Boundary Conditions
 Fixed boundary conditions at attachment points to simulate aircraft
structure connections.
  Contact definitions if multiple components interact (e.g., interfaces
with damping elements).
 Symmetry conditions applied where possible to reduce
computational effort.

4. Failure Analysis and Optimization

4.1 Failure Theories for Composite Struts
 Tsai-Wu Failure Criterion: Used for predicting failure based on
stress interactions.
 Hashin’s Failure Theory: Identifies fiber and matrix failure
separately.
 Puck Failure Criterion: Provides a detailed assessment of
interlaminar failures.
4.2 Optimization of Laminate Layup
 Iterative simulations adjust the stacking sequence to improve
performance.
 Trade-offs between weight, strength, and manufacturability are
considered.
 Topology optimization may be applied to refine the strut’s shape.

5. Validation and Comparison with Experimental Data

 Physical testing of a fabricated prototype (e.g., three-point bending,
impact tests).
 Correlation between experimental results and FEA predictions to
validate the model.
 Refinement of the simulation based on discrepancies.

5.2. Load and Impact Analysis.

Load and impact analysis is a critical aspect of designing and evaluating
the performance of a composite material-based landing gear strut. Since
landing gear components are subjected to complex loading conditions,
including impact forces during landing, static loads during taxiing, and
dynamic stresses during takeoff and landing, a thorough understanding of
these factors is essential.

1. Types of Loads on Landing Gear Strut

1.1. Static Loads
Static loads refer to forces acting on the landing gear while the aircraft is
stationary on the ground. These include:
 Weight Load: The total weight of the aircraft transmitted through
the landing gear to the ground.
 Ground Maneuvering Load: Loads encountered during taxiing,
braking, and turning.
1.2. Dynamic Loads
Dynamic loads arise due to aircraft movement, acceleration, and
aerodynamic interactions. These include:
 Takeoff Loads: The reaction forces from the runway as the aircraft
accelerates.
 Braking Loads: Forces generated by the brakes acting against the
wheel-ground friction.
1.3. Impact Loads
Impact loads are the most critical for landing gear design and are
associated with touchdown events. They include:
 Vertical Impact Load: Resulting from the vertical descent velocity
during landing.
 Horizontal Load: Induced due to forward motion and deceleration.
 Torsional and Bending Loads: Generated due to uneven landing or
crosswind effects.
2. Impact Analysis of Composite Landing Gear Strut
2.1. Importance of Impact Analysis
Impact analysis helps in understanding how composite materials behave
under sudden forces, which is crucial to ensure safety and reliability.
Composite structures differ from metallic counterparts in terms of:
 Energy Absorption: Composites absorb impact energy differently
due to fiber-matrix interactions.
 Failure Mechanisms: Unlike metals, composites exhibit
delamination, fiber breakage, and matrix cracking under impact.
2.2. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) for Impact Loads
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is widely used to simulate and study
impact forces. The steps involved in FEA for impact analysis are:
1. Modeling of the Composite Strut: Using CAD software to create
the strut geometry.
2. Material Property Assignment: Assigning mechanical properties
such as tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and fracture
toughness.
3. Boundary Conditions and Load Application: Simulating real-
world constraints and impact forces.
4. Solving and Post-Processing: Analyzing stress distributions,
deformations, and potential failure regions.
Common FEA tools for impact analysis include:
 ANSYS
 ABAQUS
 LS-DYNA
2.3. Drop Test Simulation for Composite Landing Gear Strut
To validate the FEA results, drop tests are conducted where a full-scale or
scaled-down landing gear is dropped onto a rigid surface to measure
impact forces, deflections, and failure mechanisms.
3. Load Distribution and Failure Mechanisms in Composite Struts
3.1. Load Distribution in Composites
Composites distribute loads differently compared to metals:
 Fiber-dominated Loads: Tensile and compressive loads are
primarily carried by fibers.
 Matrix-dominated Loads: Shear and interlaminar stresses are
borne by the matrix.
3.2. Failure Mechanisms Under Impact
 Delamination: Layers separate due to interlaminar shear stress.
 Matrix Cracking: Resin fracture occurs under impact.
 Fiber Breakage: Occurs at high-impact loads leading to
catastrophic failure.

4. Experimental and Analytical Evaluation

4.1. Experimental Validation
 Strain Gauges: Used to measure real-time strain under impact
loads.
 High-Speed Cameras: Capture deformation and fracture behavior.
 Ultrasonic and X-ray Inspections: Detect internal damage such as
delamination.
4.2. Analytical Models for Load and Impact Prediction
 Classical Laminate Theory (CLT): Used to predict stresses in
laminated composites.
 Modified Tsai-Wu Failure Criterion: Determines failure initiation
under complex loading.

5.3. Fatigue and Durability assessment.

Fatigue and durability are critical factors in the performance of composite
material-based landing gear struts. The landing gear experiences cyclic
loading during taxiing, takeoff, and landing, making it susceptible to
fatigue failure. Unlike traditional metallic components, composite
materials exhibit different failure mechanisms, requiring specialized
assessment techniques.
1. Importance of Fatigue and Durability Assessment
The structural integrity of a landing gear strut is essential for aircraft
safety. Fatigue and durability assessment ensures that the composite
structure can withstand repeated loading without catastrophic failure. Key
considerations include:
 Prevention of premature failure due to cyclic stress.
 Understanding long-term performance in operational conditions.
 Compliance with aviation safety regulations and certification
requirements.
2. Fatigue Behavior of Composite Materials
Unlike metals, which exhibit a well-defined fatigue limit, composite
materials undergo complex damage evolution, including:
 Matrix cracking: Progressive microcracks in the resin matrix.
 Fiber breakage: Occurs at high-stress regions due to fiber fatigue.
 Delamination: Separation between composite layers due to out-of-
plane loads.
 Environmental degradation: Moisture, temperature variations, and
UV exposure can accelerate fatigue damage.
3. Experimental Fatigue Testing
To evaluate fatigue performance, standard testing methodologies are
employed:
 Constant Amplitude Fatigue Testing: Cyclic loading at a fixed
stress level to determine S-N curves.
 Variable Amplitude Fatigue Testing: Simulates real-world aircraft
load spectra using load sequences from operational data.
  Residual Strength Tests: Determines the remaining strength of the
structure after a given number of cycles.
Common standards followed include:
 ASTM D3479: Fatigue testing of polymer matrix composites.
 ASTM D6873: Open-hole fatigue testing for composite laminates.
4. Fatigue Life Prediction Models
To estimate the lifespan of the landing gear strut, analytical and numerical
models are used:
 Stress-Life (S-N) Approach: Based on experimental fatigue data to
generate S-N curves for different composite layups.
 Strain-Based Approach: Uses strain energy release rates to predict
progressive damage.
 Damage Accumulation Models:
o Miner’s Rule: Linear damage accumulation to estimate failure
life.
o Progressive Damage Models: Tracks damage initiation and
propagation.
5. Numerical Simulation of Fatigue Behavior
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is widely used to simulate fatigue
performance:
 Progressive Fatigue Damage Modeling: Predicts the onset and
growth of fatigue cracks.
 Multiscale Modeling: Combines micro- and macro-level fatigue
behavior to enhance accuracy.
 Cohesive Zone Models (CZM): Simulates delamination growth
under cyclic loading.
Software used for simulation:
 ANSYS Composite PrepPost
 Abaqus FEA
  NASTRAN
6. Durability Assessment and Environmental Effects
The long-term durability of composite landing gear struts is influenced by:
 Thermal Cycling: Expansion and contraction due to temperature
changes.
 Moisture Absorption: Causes matrix swelling and reduced
mechanical properties.
 Corrosion Resistance: Unlike metals, composites do not corrode,
but the adhesive bonds and coatings can degrade.
Accelerated aging tests simulate real-world environmental conditions:
 Hot-Wet Conditioning (ASTM D5229)
 Salt Fog Exposure (ASTM B117)
7. Certification and Standards for Composite Fatigue and Durability
Regulatory bodies such as the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and
EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) mandate fatigue and
durability testing:
 FAA AC 20-107B: Composite aircraft structure guidelines.
 MIL-HDBK-17: Military handbook for composite materials.
 DO-160: Environmental conditions and test procedures for airborne
equipment.

5.4. Buckling and Failure Analysis.

Buckling and failure analysis is a critical aspect of designing and
evaluating composite landing gear struts. Since landing gear components
are subjected to high compressive, tensile, and impact loads, ensuring
structural integrity and resistance to failure mechanisms is essential. This
section of the thesis will focus on understanding, analyzing, and mitigating
buckling and failure in composite struts.

1. Introduction to Buckling and Failure Analysis

  Definition & Importance: Buckling is a sudden deformation of a
structure under compressive stress, while failure analysis involves
identifying conditions leading to material breakdown.
 Relevance to Composite Landing Gear: Composite materials
exhibit unique buckling and failure modes different from metals due
to anisotropy and layered construction.

2. Types of Buckling in Composite Landing Gear Struts

1. Global Buckling
o Occurs when the entire structure bends due to compressive
loads.
o Influenced by strut geometry, boundary conditions, and
stiffness.
2. Local Buckling
o Happens in thin-walled sections of the strut.
o Highly dependent on laminate thickness and fiber orientation.
3. Interlaminar Buckling
o Specific to composites, occurring between layers due to weak
bonding.
o Caused by shear stresses, leading to delamination.

3. Failure Mechanisms in Composite Landing Gear Struts

1. Matrix Cracking
o Develops due to tensile or thermal stresses.
o Leads to reduced load-carrying capacity.
2. Fiber Breakage
o Occurs under excessive tensile loading.
o More catastrophic than matrix cracking.
3. Delamination
 o Separation of composite layers, often due to impact loading or
poor bonding.
o Reduces overall structural integrity.
4. Shear Failure
o Common in joints and connection points of the landing gear.
o Caused by out-of-plane loads or poor shear strength of the
matrix.
5. Fatigue Failure
o Progressive failure due to cyclic loading.
o Important for landing gear components that experience
repeated load cycles.

4. Analytical and Numerical Analysis of Buckling and Failure

1. Analytical Approaches
o Classical Laminate Theory (CLT) for predicting stiffness and
critical loads.
o Euler Buckling Equations for global instability assessment.
o Hashin and Tsai-Wu failure criteria for composite failure
prediction.
2. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Simulation
o Buckling analysis using ABAQUS, ANSYS, or NASTRAN.
o Progressive damage modeling and failure prediction.
o Parametric studies on layup sequences, boundary conditions,
and loading conditions.

5. Experimental Evaluation
1. Compression and Buckling Tests
o ASTM D7137 (Compression after Impact)
 o ASTM D6641 (Combined Loading Compression Test)
2. Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) for Failure Analysis
o Ultrasonic Testing for delamination detection.
o Digital Image Correlation (DIC) for strain measurement.
3. Full-Scale Landing Gear Testing
o Simulating operational loads.
o Verifying FEA predictions with experimental data.

6. Optimization for Buckling and Failure Prevention

1. Material Selection
o Hybrid composite layups to enhance stiffness and failure
resistance.
o Use of nano-reinforcements for improved matrix properties.
2. Structural Design Optimization
o Tapered or stiffened sections to reduce local buckling.
o Multi-scale modelling for better load distribution.
3. Manufacturing Considerations
o Quality control in fabrication to minimize defects.
o Ensuring proper curing cycles to prevent weak interlaminar
bonding.

7. Conclusion
 Summary of findings on buckling and failure mechanisms.
 Correlation between theoretical, numerical, and experimental results.
 Recommendations for improving composite landing gear strut
design.
 5.5. Comparison with traditional landing gear strut.
A critical aspect of designing, fabricating, analysing, and evaluating a
composite material-based landing gear strut is comparing it with
traditional landing gear struts, which are primarily made of metals such as
steel, titanium, and aluminium alloys. This comparison helps determine
whether composite materials provide advantages in terms of performance,
weight, durability, and cost-effectiveness.
Traditional Landing
Composite Landing
Gear
Property Gear (Carbon/Epoxy,
(Steel/Titanium/Alumi
Glass Fiber, Kevlar)
nium)
Low, resulting in
High, leading to
Density significant weight
increased weight
reduction
Strength-to-Weight High, offering superior
Moderate
Ratio load-bearing capability
Prone to corrosion, Excellent resistance,
Corrosion
requiring coatings and reducing maintenance
Resistance
maintenance costs
Moderate (depends on High, better fatigue life
Fatigue Resistance
material and treatment) compared to metals
Complex, requiring
Established, well-
Manufacturability advanced fabrication
understood processes
techniques

2. Weight Reduction and Fuel Efficiency

 Traditional landing gear struts are heavy, adding to the overall
aircraft weight, which affects fuel consumption.
 Composite landing gear struts can offer a 30-50% weight
reduction, leading to improved fuel efficiency, higher payload
capacity, and lower operational costs.
3. Structural Performance and Load-Bearing Capacity
 Metals provide predictable, uniform strength but are susceptible to
fatigue failure and stress concentrations.
 Composites, with their tailored fiber orientation, provide superior
load distribution, vibration damping, and shock absorption,
which is critical for landing impact loads.
4. Manufacturing and Fabrication Process.
 Traditional Composite
Aspect
Landing Gear Landing Gear
Forging, Hand lay-up,
Fabrication
machining, RTM, autoclave
Method
welding curing
Simple for Requires
metals, well- advanced
Complexity established techniques,
industry precise quality
standards control
Longer, but
Production automation can
Faster
Time improve
efficiency
High initial cost,
High due to raw
but long-term
Cost material cost
savings due to
and machining
durability

5. Durability, Maintenance, and Lifecycle Cost

 Traditional materials experience wear and tear, corrosion, and
fatigue cracking, requiring periodic inspections and repairs.
 Composites offer better resistance to corrosion, fatigue, and
impact damage, reducing maintenance frequency and lifecycle
costs.
6. Safety and Impact Resistance
 Metal struts have high toughness but can experience sudden
catastrophic failure due to fatigue or stress overload.
 Composite struts are designed with progressive failure
mechanisms, reducing the likelihood of sudden failure, but require
non-destructive testing (NDT) methods like ultrasonic and
thermographic inspections to detect internal damage.
7. Cost Considerations
 Initial cost: Composites have a higher initial manufacturing cost
due to advanced material processing.
 Lifecycle cost: Lower in composites due to reduced maintenance,
longer service life, and lower fuel consumption benefits.
  Repair cost: Composite repairs require specialized techniques like
resin injection and fiber patching, whereas metals can often be
repaired by welding or replacement.

Chapter 6: - Testing and Evaluation.

6.1. Experimental Setup for Mechanical Testing.

To validate the design, fabrication, and analysis of the composite material-
based landing gear strut, a rigorous experimental testing setup is essential.
The mechanical testing phase ensures that the developed composite strut
meets the required structural integrity, durability, and performance
standards. The key mechanical tests involved in this evaluation include
tensile, compressive, flexural, impact, fatigue, and dynamic loading
tests. The setup for each test is described in detail below.

1. Preparation of Test Specimens

Before testing, standardized test specimens are prepared from the
fabricated composite strut. The preparation follows ASTM (American
Society for Testing and Materials) or ISO (International Organization for
Standardization) standards based on the type of test.
 Cutting and Machining: Precision cutting of samples using a CNC
milling machine or water jet cutter.
 Surface Finishing: Ensuring smooth edges to prevent stress
concentration.
 Dimensional Verification: Using calipers and coordinate measuring
machines (CMM) to verify compliance with test standards.

2. Mechanical Testing Methods and Setup

2.1 Tensile Testing
Objective: Determine the tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and
strain-to-failure of the composite material.
Equipment:
 Universal Testing Machine (UTM) with extensometer and gripping
fixtures.
 Load cell with high precision for force measurement.
 Digital data acquisition system.
Procedure:
1. Clamp the specimen in hydraulic grips of the UTM.
2. Attach an extensometer to measure strain.
 3. Apply uniaxial tensile load at a constant strain rate as per ASTM
D3039.
4. Record force vs. displacement until specimen failure.
Data Output: Stress-strain curves, ultimate tensile strength (UTS),
Young’s modulus, and elongation at break.

2.2 Compression Testing

Objective: Measure the compressive strength and stiffness of the
composite strut.
Equipment:
 Compression testing fixture for composite specimens.
 UTM with compression plates.
 Strain gauges for localized strain measurement.
Procedure:
1. Place the specimen between compression plates.
2. Apply a gradually increasing load in axial direction as per ASTM
D695.
3. Record load-displacement data until failure.
Data Output: Compressive modulus, yield strength, and failure mode
analysis.

2.3 Flexural (Bending) Testing

Objective: Evaluate the flexural stiffness and failure behaviour under
bending loads.
Equipment:
 3-point or 4-point bending test fixture.
 UTM with displacement sensors.
Procedure:
 1. Position the specimen on the support fixture.
2. Apply load at the midpoint (3-point test) or between two loading
rollers (4-point test) as per ASTM D7264.
3. Measure deflection and failure mode.
Data Output: Flexural modulus, flexural strength, and load-deflection
curves.

2.4 Impact Testing

Objective: Assess the composite strut’s energy absorption capacity under
sudden impact loads.
Equipment:
 Drop-weight impact testing machine or Charpy/Izod impact tester.
 High-speed cameras for failure mode analysis.
Procedure:
1. Secure the specimen in the impact fixture.
2. Release a known weight from a specified height.
3. Record impact energy and material response.
Data Output: Energy absorbed before failure, impact toughness.

2.5 Fatigue Testing

Objective: Study the fatigue life of the composite strut under cyclic
loading.
Equipment:
 Servo-hydraulic fatigue testing machine.
 Load frame with dynamic actuators.
Procedure:
1. Apply cyclic tensile-compressive loads.
2. Monitor stress-strain behaviour over multiple cycles.
 3. Identify failure cycles and damage progression.
Data Output: S-N curve (stress vs. number of cycles), fatigue life.

2.6 Dynamic Loading and Drop Testing

Objective: Simulate real-world landing impacts to validate structural
integrity.
Equipment:
 Landing gear drop test rig.
 Accelerometers and strain gauges for data acquisition.
Procedure:
1. Mount the composite landing gear strut onto the test rig.
2. Drop from a predefined height simulating aircraft landing.
3. Record stress-strain response and structural deformation.
Data Output: Shock absorption characteristics, deformation analysis, and
failure behaviour.

3. Data Acquisition and Analysis

All tests utilize data acquisition (DAQ) systems to record real-time force,
displacement, strain, and temperature data. Analysis tools like MATLAB,
ANSYS, or Origin Pro process the collected data for in-depth evaluation.

4. Validation and Comparison with Simulation Results

Experimental results are compared with Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
data to validate the structural predictions. Discrepancies are analysed, and
modifications to material layup or strut design are recommended.

6.2. Load Testing and Strength Evaluation.

Load testing and strength evaluation are crucial aspects of the thesis on
designing, fabricating, analyzing, and evaluating a composite material-
based landing gear strut. This section will cover the fundamental
principles, methodologies, and key parameters involved in ensuring the
structural integrity and performance of the composite landing gear strut
under various operational conditions.

1. Importance of Load Testing and Strength Evaluation

The landing gear strut experiences significant loads during takeoff,
landing, taxiing, and static ground conditions. Composite materials, while
offering superior strength-to-weight ratios, require rigorous validation to
ensure they can withstand these loads without failure. Load testing and
strength evaluation help:
 Verify the structural integrity and mechanical performance of the
composite strut.
 Assess its ability to withstand static, dynamic, impact, and fatigue
loads.
 Ensure compliance with aviation safety standards such as FAA,
EASA, and MIL-STD.
 Identify failure modes such as delamination, fiber breakage, and
matrix cracking.

2. Types of Load Testing for Composite Landing Gear Strut

A. Static Load Testing
Static load testing evaluates the strength and stiffness of the composite
landing gear strut under gradually increasing loads.
Test Parameters:
 Axial compression and tension
 Bending and shear loads
 Load distribution under uniform and point loads
 Maximum deflection and strain limits
Procedure:
 1. The strut is mounted in a testing rig with hydraulic actuators.
2. Loads are applied incrementally up to the expected maximum
operational loads.
3. Strain gauges and displacement sensors measure deformations.
4. Failure points, stress distribution, and safety margins are analyzed.

B. Dynamic Load Testing

Dynamic load testing assesses the behavior of the composite strut under
time-dependent and cyclic loads, simulating real-world flight conditions.
Test Parameters:
 Sudden impact loads during hard landings
 Vibrational effects during taxiing
 Oscillatory behavior due to aerodynamic forces
Procedure:
1. A drop test simulates the impact forces during landing.
2. High-speed actuators apply oscillatory and variable loads.
3. Accelerometers and load cells record dynamic responses.
4. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) validation is performed using
experimental results.

C. Fatigue Testing
Fatigue testing determines the long-term durability of the composite
landing gear strut under repeated loading cycles.
Test Parameters:
 Load cycles (e.g., 10⁶ to 10⁷ cycles to simulate lifespan)
 Stress ratio and amplitude
 Crack propagation and damage tolerance
Procedure:
 1. The strut is subjected to cyclic loading in a servo-hydraulic fatigue
testing machine.
2. Non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques (e.g., ultrasound, X-ray,
or thermography) monitor internal damage.
3. S-N (stress-life) curves are generated to predict service life.

D. Impact Testing
Impact testing evaluates the ability of the composite strut to withstand
sudden and extreme forces, such as bird strikes, debris impacts, or
emergency landings.
Test Parameters:
 Energy absorption capacity
 Crack propagation and damage zone
 Post-impact residual strength
Procedure:
1. The strut is subjected to high-speed impact loads using a drop tower
or gas gun system.
2. Damage is analyzed through visual inspection, microscopy, and
NDT.
3. Residual strength is tested to determine performance after impact.

3. Strength Evaluation Methods

A. Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
NDT methods ensure that defects, delaminations, or voids in the composite
material are detected without damaging the strut. Common techniques
include:
 Ultrasonic Testing (UT): Identifies internal cracks and
delamination.
 X-ray Radiography: Detects fiber misalignment and matrix defects.
  Thermography: Reveals heat-induced stress concentrations and
damage.
B. Destructive Testing
 Tensile and Compressive Strength Testing: Measures ultimate
stress before failure.
 Shear Testing: Determines the interlaminar shear strength of
composite layers.
 Fracture Toughness Testing: Assesses resistance to crack initiation
and propagation.
C. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Validation
Experimental results are validated through numerical simulations.
 Material modeling in software like ANSYS, ABAQUS, or
NASTRAN.
 Comparison of experimental stress-strain data with simulation
results.

4. Key Challenges and Considerations

 Material Anisotropy: Composite materials exhibit different
strengths in different directions.
 Damage Tolerance: Unlike metals, composites may experience
hidden damage, requiring advanced inspection methods.
 Environmental Effects: Moisture absorption, UV exposure, and
temperature variations affect composite performance.
 Manufacturing Defects: Voids, fibre misalignment, and resin-rich
areas impact load-bearing capacity.

6.3. Fatigue and Durability testing.

Fatigue and durability testing are critical aspects of evaluating the
performance of a composite landing gear strut, ensuring its structural
integrity under cyclic loading conditions. Since landing gear struts
experience repeated loading and unloading during takeoff, landing, and
taxiing, understanding their long-term performance is essential.

1. Introduction to Fatigue and Durability in Composite Landing Gear

Struts
 Fatigue refers to the progressive structural damage caused by cyclic
loading over time.
 Durability represents the ability of the material to withstand
environmental and operational conditions while maintaining
structural integrity.
 Composites exhibit different fatigue behaviors than metals due to
their anisotropic nature, requiring specialized testing methods.

2. Importance of Fatigue and Durability Testing

 Ensures safety and reliability of the landing gear throughout its
service life.
 Determines the fatigue life of composite struts under repeated
loading.
 Helps in predicting failure mechanisms such as delamination,
matrix cracking, fiber breakage, or debonding.
 Guides material selection and design improvements for enhanced
performance.

3. Fatigue Testing Methods for Composite Landing Gear Struts

3.1. Constant Amplitude Fatigue Testing
 Used to determine the material’s response under repeated loading at
a fixed stress level.
 Conducted under tensile, compressive, or bending conditions.
 Generates S-N curves (stress vs. number of cycles) to estimate
fatigue life.
3.2. Variable Amplitude Fatigue Testing
 More realistic as it simulates actual flight conditions with varying
load intensities.
 Uses spectrum loading based on aircraft operational data.
 Helps in understanding fatigue damage accumulation through
damage models like Miner’s Rule.
3.3. Impact Fatigue Testing
 Evaluates resistance to impact-induced fatigue failure, which is
crucial for landing gear components.
 Simulates shock loads experienced during rough landings or pothole
impacts on runways.
 Assesses delamination resistance and crack growth rate in
composites.
3.4. High Cycle vs. Low Cycle Fatigue Testing
 High-cycle fatigue (HCF): Low stress levels but millions of cycles
(e.g., taxiing loads).
 Low-cycle fatigue (LCF): High stress levels with fewer cycles (e.g.,
hard landings).

4. Durability Testing Considerations

4.1. Environmental Testing
 Temperature and Humidity Exposure: Simulates varying climatic
conditions (extreme cold/hot environments).
 Moisture Absorption Testing: Composites may absorb moisture,
affecting mechanical properties.
 UV Radiation Exposure: Evaluates degradation due to prolonged
sun exposure.
4.2. Corrosion and Chemical Resistance Testing
 Unlike metals, composites do not corrode, but bonding agents and
resins may degrade over time.
  Exposure to hydraulic fluids, fuels, and de-icing chemicals to
assess compatibility.
4.3. Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) for Durability
 Use of embedded sensors (e.g., Fiber Bragg Gratings - FBGs) to
detect internal damage.
 Acoustic Emission (AE) techniques for early crack detection.
 Non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methods like Ultrasonic Testing
(UT) and Thermography.

5. Fatigue Damage Mechanisms in Composite Struts

 Delamination: Separation between composite layers due to repeated
stress.
 Matrix Cracking: Micro-cracks in the resin matrix affecting load
transfer.
 Fiber Breakage: Ultimate failure mode leading to catastrophic
failure.
 Debonding: Weakening at bonded joints leading to detachment.

6. Life Prediction and Modelling Techniques

 Finite Element Analysis (FEA): Simulates stress distribution and
failure points.
 Fatigue Damage Models:
o Paris Law: Predicts crack growth in composites.
o Hashim’s Failure Criteria: Used to analyse composite failure
mechanisms.
 Experimental vs. Computational Validation: Combining test
results with simulations for accurate life prediction.
6.4. Impact Resistance Testing.
Impact resistance is a crucial parameter in evaluating the performance and
reliability of a composite material-based landing gear strut. Aircraft
landing gear is subjected to various impact loads during landing, taxiing,
and takeoff, making it essential to assess the ability of composite materials
to withstand sudden and high-energy impacts. This section explores the
methodologies, standards, and considerations involved in impact resistance
testing.

1. Importance of Impact Resistance in Landing Gear Strut

 Shock Absorption: The landing gear absorbs significant impact
energy during landing and must prevent catastrophic failure.
 Fatigue & Damage Tolerance: Repeated low-energy impacts may
cause internal damage leading to premature failure.
 Structural Integrity: Ensures the strut maintains its load-bearing
capability under dynamic loading conditions.
 Crashworthiness: In case of hard landings or emergency situations,
the strut should deform in a controlled manner without complete
failure.

2. Types of Impact Loading in Landing Gear

 Low-Velocity Impact (LVI): Simulates minor impacts such as tool
drops, ground debris, and minor operational shocks.
 High-Velocity Impact (HVI): Represents bird strikes, debris during
landing, or hard landings.
 Repeated Impact: Studies fatigue effects of multiple low-energy
impacts over time.

3. Impact Testing Standards & Methods

3.1. Standardized Testing Methods
  ASTM D7136/D7136M: Standard for measuring damage resistance
of fiber-reinforced polymer composites under drop-weight impact
conditions.
 ASTM D3763: High-speed puncture testing for composite materials.
 ISO 6603-2: Multiaxial impact testing of plastics and composites.
 MIL-STD-810: Military standard for environmental testing,
including impact resilience.
3.2. Experimental Testing Approaches
 Drop-Weight Impact Testing:
o Uses a guided free-falling weight to simulate controlled low-
velocity impact.
o Measures energy absorption and visible damage.
 Charpy & Izod Impact Tests:
o Determines fracture toughness by assessing energy absorbed
by a notched specimen.
 Ballistic Impact Testing:
o Evaluates high-velocity impact resistance using projectiles to
simulate real-world scenarios.
 Pendulum Impact Test:
o Simulates impact force using a swinging pendulum, commonly
used for crashworthiness evaluation.
 Hopkinson Bar Test:
o Used for high-strain rate testing to study dynamic response
under sudden loading.

4. Numerical & Analytical Approaches

4.1. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) for Impact Modeling
 Explicit Dynamic Simulations (LS-DYNA, ANSYS, Abaqus)
 o Models stress wave propagation, material failure, and impact
force distribution.
o Simulates progressive damage in composites (delamination,
fiber breakage, and matrix cracking).
 Cohesive Zone Modeling (CZM):
o Predicts interlaminar fracture mechanics in composite
structures.
 Damage Criteria for Composites:
o Hashin Failure Criterion – Predicts fiber and matrix failure.
o Puck’s Criterion – Accounts for interlaminar and intralaminar
failure modes.
o Tsai-Wu Failure Theory – Evaluates failure envelope for
anisotropic materials.
4.2. Analytical Models for Impact Behavior
 Energy Balance Method:
o Compares kinetic energy of impactor with energy absorbed by
the composite.
 Spring-Mass-Damper System Modeling:
o Represents landing gear as a dynamic system under impact
loads.
 Wave Propagation Theory:
o Analyzes stress wave transmission through composite layers.

5. Evaluation of Impact Damage in Composite Landing Gear Strut

 Visual Inspection: Surface damage assessment using cameras or
magnifiers.
 Ultrasonic Testing (UT): Detects internal delaminations and voids.
 X-ray & CT Scanning: Provides 3D imaging of internal damage.
  Thermography: Uses infrared imaging to identify subsurface
defects.
 Digital Image Correlation (DIC): Measures strain and deformation
during impact tests.

6. Case Studies & Experimental Findings

 Comparative Study of Composite vs. Metal Landing Gear
Impact Resistance.
 Effect of Fiber Orientation on Impact Strength.
 Hybrid Composites for Improved Impact Toughness.
 Damage Tolerance of Bio-Inspired Composite Structures.

7. Design Strategies for Enhanced Impact Resistance

 Use of Toughened Resin Systems: Reduces crack propagation in
composites.
 Hybrid Fiber Reinforcement: Combines carbon, glass, or aramid
fibres for better energy absorption.
 Layered & Graded Materials: Optimizes stacking sequences for
impact load distribution.
 Self-Healing Composites: Incorporates microcapsules for
autonomous damage repair.
 Embedded Energy-Absorbing Structures: Includes honeycomb
cores or foam-filled cavities for shock absorption.
6.5. Environmental and Thermal Stability Testing.
Environmental and thermal stability testing is crucial in evaluating the
performance, durability, and reliability of composite materials used in
landing gear struts. Since these components are subjected to extreme
environmental conditions, assessing their behavior under various thermal
and environmental stresses ensures safe and long-term operational
performance.
1. Introduction
The landing gear strut experiences extreme operational conditions,
including high mechanical loads, temperature variations, humidity,
chemical exposure, and UV radiation. Composite materials, while
lightweight and high-strength, can exhibit degradation under prolonged
exposure to such conditions. Therefore, environmental and thermal
stability tests are necessary to validate the composite strut’s suitability for
aerospace applications.

2. Environmental Stability Testing

2.1 Moisture Absorption and Humidity Testing
 Composite materials absorb moisture over time, leading to swelling,
matrix softening, and interfacial weakening.
 Test Methods:
o ASTM D5229: Measures moisture absorption in polymer
composites.
o Procedure: Samples are exposed to high humidity (e.g., 85%
RH at 70°C) for an extended duration. Weight gain,
dimensional changes, and mechanical degradation are
recorded.
2.2 UV Radiation Exposure Testing
 Prolonged UV exposure can degrade the polymer matrix, leading to
surface cracks, discoloration, and reduced mechanical integrity.
 Test Methods:
o ASTM G154: Accelerated weathering using UV lamps to
simulate long-term sun exposure.
o Procedure: Specimens are subjected to cyclic UV radiation
and condensation cycles, and mechanical properties are
evaluated post-exposure.
2.3 Chemical Resistance Testing
  The strut is exposed to aviation fluids such as hydraulic oils, de-
icing fluids, and fuels. Composite degradation due to chemical
diffusion can affect mechanical strength.
 Test Methods:
o ASTM D543: Immersion in aggressive fluids followed by
mechanical property evaluation.
o Procedure: Samples are soaked in aviation fluids at
operational temperatures, and weight changes, mechanical
property variations, and microstructural integrity are analyzed.
2.4 Salt Fog and Corrosion Resistance
 Composite materials are more corrosion-resistant than metals but
may suffer from galvanic corrosion when in contact with metallic
components.
 Test Methods:
o ASTM B117: Salt fog exposure simulating marine
environments.
o Procedure: Samples are placed in a chamber with continuous
salt mist exposure (5% NaCl solution), and surface
degradation is examined.

3. Thermal Stability Testing

3.1 High-Temperature Resistance
 Composites must withstand high operational temperatures without
softening, thermal expansion, or fiber-matrix debonding.
 Test Methods:
o ASTM D3850: Thermal analysis of composites using
Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC).
o Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) to measure weight loss
due to decomposition.
 o Procedure: The material is heated at controlled rates, and
changes in thermal properties, softening temperatures, and
decomposition thresholds are recorded.
3.2 Low-Temperature Testing
 Landing gear struts must function in sub-zero temperatures,
preventing matrix embrittlement and reduced impact resistance.
 Test Methods:
o ASTM D746: Brittleness temperature determination.
o Procedure: Samples are cooled to temperatures as low as -
60°C to -100°C, and mechanical properties such as
toughness, impact resistance, and flexural strength are
evaluated.
3.3 Thermal Cycling and Fatigue Testing
 Continuous temperature fluctuations can cause microcracking,
residual stress buildup, and fatigue failure in composites.
 Test Methods:
o ASTM D3045: Simulated aging of composite materials under
cyclic thermal stress.
o Procedure: Samples undergo repeated heating and cooling
cycles (-55°C to 100°C) for thousands of cycles, and
mechanical integrity is assessed.

4. Mechanical Testing Under Thermal and Environmental Conditions

 Compression, tensile, flexural, and impact tests are performed on
conditioned specimens to determine mechanical property
degradation.
 Fatigue Testing: Evaluates long-term durability under cyclic loading
at varied temperatures.
 Microstructural Analysis: Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
and X-ray Tomography are used to examine damage mechanisms,
fiber-matrix adhesion, and crack propagation.
6.6. Comparison of Experimental and Simulation result.
Introduction
The accuracy of a designed composite material-based landing gear strut is
validated by comparing experimental results with simulation data. This
comparison ensures that the theoretical models and computational analyses
align with real-world performance, verifying the effectiveness of the
design and fabrication process.
Methodology for Comparison
To effectively compare experimental and simulation results, the following
approach is adopted:
1. Simulation Setup
o Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is performed using software
such as ANSYS, Abaqus, or NASTRAN.
o The composite strut is modeled based on its material
properties, geometry, boundary conditions, and expected loads.
o Key outputs from the simulation include stress distribution,
strain, deflection, and failure modes.
2. Experimental Testing
o A prototype of the landing gear strut is fabricated using
composite materials, following the designed specifications.
o The strut undergoes various mechanical tests, such as:
 Static Load Testing: Measures deflection and stress
under applied loads.
 Fatigue Testing: Evaluates performance under cyclic
loading conditions.
 Impact Testing: Assesses the response to sudden impact
forces.
 Modal Analysis: Determines natural frequencies and
damping characteristics.
 o Strain gauges, load cells, and high-speed cameras are used to
capture real-time data.
3. Data Analysis and Correlation
o The experimental data is processed and compared with
simulation outputs.
o Discrepancies are analyzed, and possible reasons such as
material defects, boundary condition differences, or fabrication
inconsistencies are identified.
o Error percentage between simulation and experimental results
is calculated to assess model accuracy.
Key Comparison Metrics
1. Stress and Strain Distribution
o Simulated stress and strain values are plotted against
experimental measurements.
o Regions of peak stress and potential failure points are
evaluated.
2. Deflection and Stiffness
o The simulated deformation of the strut is compared to the
actual measured deformation under the same loading
conditions.
3. Failure Prediction
o The predicted failure modes in FEA (e.g., fiber breakage,
delamination) are validated against observed failure patterns in
experiments.
4. Fatigue Life
o The number of cycles to failure in fatigue tests is compared
with theoretical life predictions.
Sources of Discrepancy
 Material Variability: Differences in actual composite material
properties from assumed values in simulations.
  Manufacturing Defects: Imperfections such as voids, fiber
misalignment, or resin inconsistencies affecting mechanical
performance.
 Boundary Condition Assumptions: Slight variations in clamping,
load application, or constraints affecting real-world results.
 Environmental Effects: Temperature, humidity, and testing
conditions may introduce variations not accounted for in
simulations.

Chapter 7: - Result and Discussions.

7.1. Weight Reduction Achieved.
Weight reduction is a critical factor in aerospace engineering, particularly
in landing gear design, where it directly influences fuel efficiency, payload
capacity, and overall aircraft performance. This section explores the
weight reduction achieved by using composite materials in landing gear
struts, focusing on the key design, fabrication, analysis, and evaluation
aspects.

1. Importance of Weight Reduction in Landing Gear Struts

Landing gear struts are traditionally made of high-strength metallic
materials such as steel and titanium, which provide excellent mechanical
properties but contribute significantly to the aircraft's overall weight.
Reducing the weight of the landing gear system offers multiple
advantages, including:
 Improved fuel efficiency
 Increased payload capacity
 Enhanced maneuverability and performance
 Lower operational costs
 Reduced environmental impact (lower CO₂ emissions)

2. Composite Material Selection for Weight Reduction

To achieve significant weight reduction, advanced composite materials
such as Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) and Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) are used. The selection criteria for composite
materials include:
 High strength-to-weight ratio: Composites provide superior
strength with lower density compared to metals.
 Fatigue and corrosion resistance: Composites offer better
durability, leading to lower maintenance requirements.
 Tailorable mechanical properties: The fiber orientation and resin
matrix can be optimized for specific load conditions.
A comparison of conventional and composite materials in terms of density
and strength is presented below:

Densit Tensile Specific

Materia
y Strength Strength
l
(g/cm³) (MPa) (MPa/g/cm³)

Steel 7.8 1000 128

Titanium 4.5 900 200
CFRP 1.6 1500 937
GFRP 2 1100 550

3. Design Considerations for Weight Reduction

The design process plays a crucial role in minimizing weight while
maintaining structural integrity. Key strategies include:
 Topology Optimization: Removing unnecessary material while
ensuring load-bearing capacity.
 Hybrid Material Approach: Combining composites with
lightweight metal inserts for enhanced performance.
 Layered Laminate Design: Using optimized fiber orientations to
maximize strength in critical load directions.
 Hollow Structures: Utilizing hollow composite sections to further
reduce mass without compromising strength.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is employed to simulate stress distribution
and optimize the structure before fabrication.

4. Fabrication Techniques for Lightweight Composite Struts

The weight reduction also depends on the fabrication methods used.
Common techniques include:
 Autoclave Curing: Provides high-quality composite structures with
uniform resin distribution.
 Resin Transfer Molding (RTM): Suitable for complex geometries
with consistent fiber impregnation.
 Filament Winding: Used for tubular structures, optimizing fiber
alignment for maximum strength.
Each method impacts the final weight and performance of the landing gear
strut.

5. Analysis and Evaluation of Weight Reduction

To validate the weight reduction achieved, both computational and
experimental evaluations are performed:
 Computational Analysis
 o Finite Element Analysis (FEA): Simulates stress, strain, and
deformation under landing loads.
o Aeroelastic Simulations: Examines the interaction between
aerodynamic forces and landing gear structure.
 Experimental Validation
o Weight Measurements: Comparing composite strut mass with
conventional metal counterparts.
o Load Testing: Verifying the strength and fatigue resistance
under real-world landing conditions.
o Drop Tests: Assessing impact resistance and energy
absorption capabilities.
Results indicate a significant weight reduction of approximately 30–50%
compared to traditional metallic landing gear struts, without compromising
performance.

6. Impact of Weight Reduction on Aircraft Performance

The weight reduction achieved with composite struts translates to tangible
improvements in aircraft efficiency, such as:
 Fuel Savings: A lighter aircraft consumes less fuel per flight.
 Increased Payload: More passengers or cargo can be
accommodated.
 Extended Component Life: Reduced stress on aircraft structure
leads to longer service life.

7.2. Strength and Performance Comparisons.

This subtopic focuses on evaluating the mechanical properties and overall
performance of composite material-based landing gear struts in
comparison to traditional metallic counterparts. The analysis will help in
understanding the viability of composites for aerospace applications,
particularly in landing gear systems.
1. Strength Comparisons
1.1 Tensile Strength
 Composites such as carbon fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRPs)
typically exhibit higher strength-to-weight ratios than aluminum and
steel.
 Tensile tests can be conducted using ASTM D3039 standards to
determine ultimate tensile strength (UTS).
 Comparison with traditional materials such as 300M steel and
titanium alloys.
1.2 Compressive Strength
 Landing gear struts experience significant compressive loads during
landing and taxiing.
 Composites tend to fail through buckling, matrix cracking, or fiber
micro-buckling.
 ASTM D695 can be used for compression testing, comparing failure
modes with metallic materials.
1.3 Fatigue Strength
 Aircraft landing gear undergoes cyclic loading; thus, fatigue
performance is critical.
 Fatigue tests (ASTM D3479) will evaluate the number of cycles to
failure for composite vs. metallic struts.
 Metals tend to develop fatigue cracks, while composites degrade
through delamination and matrix failure.
1.4 Impact Strength
 Composite materials must withstand high-impact forces (e.g., during
hard landings).
 Impact resistance tests (ASTM D7136) determine the energy
absorption capacity.
 Comparison of damage tolerance in composites vs. traditional
materials under sudden loads.
1.5 Shear and Interlaminar Strength
 Composite structures are prone to interlaminar shear failure.
 Short-beam shear (ASTM D2344) and in-plane shear (ASTM
D5379) tests will assess shear strength.
 Comparison with isotropic metals that fail through yielding rather
than delamination.

2. Performance Comparisons
2.1 Weight Reduction and Fuel Efficiency
 Composite landing gear struts provide significant weight savings (up
to 30-50% compared to steel).
 Reduction in aircraft overall weight improves fuel efficiency and
payload capacity.
 Weight-to-strength ratio comparison between composite and metallic
struts.
2.2 Durability and Corrosion Resistance
 Composites exhibit superior resistance to environmental
degradation, unlike metals prone to corrosion.
 Corrosion tests (salt spray, humidity chamber) compare the
durability of composites and metals in harsh conditions.
2.3 Manufacturing Complexity and Cost
 Composites require specialized fabrication processes (e.g., autoclave
curing, vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding).
 Metallic struts, while easier to manufacture, may require additional
corrosion protection treatments.
 Cost-benefit analysis of initial production, maintenance, and
lifecycle costs.
2.4 Repairability and Maintenance
 Composite structures require advanced repair techniques (patching,
resin injection).
  Metals can be repaired through welding and machining, offering
easier field maintenance.
 Evaluation of long-term maintenance costs and feasibility of
composite repairs.
2.5 Crashworthiness and Energy Absorption
 Composite struts can be designed for controlled failure to absorb
impact energy.
 Metal struts tend to plastically deform, offering different crash
behavior.
 Experimental drop tests to analyze energy dissipation characteristics.

3. Experimental and Simulation-Based Analysis

3.1 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Comparisons
 Structural analysis using software like ANSYS or ABAQUS.
 Simulation of static and dynamic loading conditions.
 Stress-strain response, fatigue life predictions, and impact
simulations.
3.2 Experimental Validation
 Physical testing of composite landing gear prototypes under
controlled conditions.
 Comparison of experimental results with FEA predictions.
 Evaluation of real-world performance in simulated landing
scenarios.

7.3. Cost benefit analysis.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a crucial aspect of your thesis on
designing, fabricating, analyzing, and evaluating a composite
material-based landing gear strut. It helps in assessing the economic
feasibility of replacing traditional metallic landing gear struts with
composite materials by weighing the benefits against the costs incurred.
Below is a detailed breakdown of the Cost-Benefit Analysis as a subtopic:

1. Introduction to Cost-Benefit Analysis in Composite Landing Gear

Struts
 Definition of CBA and its relevance in aerospace engineering.
 Importance of economic evaluation in composite materials adoption
for landing gear.
 Objectives of conducting a cost-benefit analysis for composite
landing gear struts.

2. Cost Analysis
This section focuses on identifying and analyzing the costs associated with
designing, fabricating, and implementing composite landing gear struts.
2.1. Material Costs
 Comparison of composite materials (carbon fiber, glass fiber,
hybrid composites, etc.) vs. conventional materials (steel,
aluminum, titanium, etc.) in terms of:
o Raw material price per unit mass.
o Procurement and supply chain logistics.
o Material wastage and recycling potential.
2.2. Manufacturing and Fabrication Costs
 Tooling costs: Molds, autoclaves, vacuum-assisted resin transfer
molding (VARTM), filament winding, etc.
 Labor costs: Skill requirements and workforce expenses for
composite fabrication.
 Processing time: Comparison of machining time between metals
and composites.
 Inspection and quality control: NDT (Non-Destructive Testing)
costs specific to composite structures.
2.3. Structural Analysis and Testing Costs
 Cost of simulation and computational modeling (FEA software,
validation through experiments).
 Physical testing: Fatigue, impact, load-bearing capacity,
environmental exposure tests.
 Certification costs: Regulatory compliance with FAA, EASA, or
MIL-STD standards.
2.4. Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO) Costs
 Lifecycle comparison: Composite struts vs. Metallic struts in
terms of:
o Corrosion resistance: Lower maintenance costs for
composites.
o Repairability: Challenges in repairing composites vs.
traditional materials.
o Inspection requirements: Frequency and cost of inspections
over the lifetime.
2.5. End-of-Life Costs
 Recycling challenges and disposal of composite materials.
 Potential environmental regulations and penalties.

3. Benefit Analysis
This section highlights the financial, operational, and environmental
benefits of using composite materials in landing gear struts.
3.1. Weight Reduction and Fuel Efficiency
 Mass reduction percentage compared to traditional metal struts.
 Impact on fuel savings per flight and over the aircraft's lifespan.
 Reduction in carbon emissions due to improved fuel efficiency.
3.2. Performance Improvements
 Higher fatigue resistance, leading to extended service life.
  Improved damage tolerance in composite landing gear designs.
 Reduction in vibration and noise, improving passenger comfort.
3.3. Maintenance and Lifecycle Benefits
 Lower corrosion susceptibility, reducing maintenance frequency.
 Fewer replacements needed over an aircraft’s operational lifetime.
 Cost comparison of repair techniques (patch repairs vs. full
replacements).
3.4. Market and Competitive Advantages
 Attractiveness to aerospace manufacturers due to long-term cost
savings.
 Compliance with next-generation aviation sustainability goals.
 Potential to enhance aircraft resale value due to advanced
materials.

4. Cost-Benefit Comparison and Break-Even Analysis

 Comparison of total costs vs. total benefits over the aircraft's
operational lifespan.
 Break-even point calculation:
o How many flight cycles are needed to recover the additional
cost of composite fabrication?
o Payback period through fuel savings and reduced maintenance.
 Sensitivity analysis to determine:
o How variations in material costs or fuel prices impact cost
savings.
o Influence of technological advancements on cost efficiency.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

 Summary of key findings from the cost-benefit analysis.
  Decision-making framework: When does it make financial sense to
switch to composite landing gear struts?
 Recommendations for future research and industry adoption.

7.4. Challenges and Limitations.

1. Challenges in Design
 Material Selection Complexity: Composites have various fiber and
matrix combinations, making it difficult to choose an optimal
material with the required strength, stiffness, and weight properties.
 Load-Bearing and Impact Resistance: Landing gear struts undergo
extreme loads during takeoff, landing, and taxiing. Ensuring the
composite material can handle high dynamic stresses without failure
is challenging.
 Fatigue and Damage Tolerance: Unlike metals, composites exhibit
complex failure mechanisms such as delamination and matrix
cracking, which are difficult to predict and design against.
 Integration with Existing Aircraft Structures: Traditional landing
gear is designed with metals, so replacing it with composites may
require redesigning attachment points and surrounding structures.
 Cost vs. Performance Trade-offs: While composites offer weight
savings, the increased design and manufacturing costs can be a
limitation for widespread adoption.

2. Challenges in Fabrication
 Manufacturing Process Complexity: Composite structures require
precise control over layup sequences, curing processes, and resin
infusion techniques to ensure quality and consistency.
 Defect Formation: Common issues like voids, fiber misalignment,
and resin-rich areas can significantly reduce structural integrity.
  Repeatability and Scalability: Unlike metals, composites require
specialized production techniques that may not be as easily scalable
for mass production.
 Tooling and Equipment Costs: Advanced composite fabrication
methods, such as autoclave curing and filament winding, require
expensive equipment.
 Quality Control and Inspection: Non-destructive testing (NDT)
methods like ultrasonic testing and X-ray imaging are necessary to
detect internal defects, increasing production costs.

3. Challenges in Analysis
 Complex Failure Modes: Unlike isotropic metals, composites
exhibit anisotropic behavior, making stress and strain analysis more
difficult.
 Accurate Simulation and Modeling: Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) of composite structures requires advanced modeling
techniques, including progressive damage modeling and
micromechanics-based approaches.
 Lack of Standardized Data: Unlike metals, which have well-
documented mechanical properties, composite material properties
depend on fiber orientation, resin type, and processing conditions,
making standardization difficult.
 Environmental Effects: Composites can degrade due to moisture
absorption, UV exposure, and temperature variations, requiring
additional environmental testing and modeling.

4. Challenges in Evaluation and Testing

 Certification and Regulatory Compliance: Aerospace agencies
like FAA and EASA have strict certification requirements for new
materials, which can be time-consuming and expensive to meet.
  Full-Scale Testing Limitations: Physical testing of landing gear
struts under realistic load conditions is expensive and requires
specialized test rigs.
 Repeatability of Experimental Results: Since composite
manufacturing processes can introduce variations, ensuring
consistent test results across multiple samples is challenging.
 Crashworthiness and Energy Absorption Testing: Unlike metals
that exhibit plastic deformation before failure, composites fail
abruptly, requiring extensive impact testing to validate
crashworthiness.
 Long-Term Durability and Aging Effects: The long-term
performance of composite landing gear struts under cyclic loading
and environmental exposure is not as well understood as traditional
metal counterparts.

Key Limitations
 Higher Initial Costs: Development, manufacturing, and
certification costs for composite landing gear struts are significantly
higher than for traditional metallic designs.
 Limited Repairability: Unlike metals that can be welded or
reshaped, composite materials require specialized repair techniques
that may not be feasible in all operational environments.
 Manufacturing Time: Composite parts often have longer
production cycles due to layup, curing, and post-processing steps.
 Material Recycling and Disposal: Unlike metals, which can be
recycled efficiently, composites have limited recyclability, raising
sustainability concerns.

7.5. Recommendations for Future Work.

1. Advanced Material Optimization
 Explore hybrid composite structures by integrating different fiber
types (e.g., carbon/Kevlar or carbon/basalt) to enhance performance.
  Investigate nanomaterial reinforcement (e.g., graphene, CNTs) to
improve strength, toughness, and fatigue resistance.
 Study resin systems with self-healing capabilities to enhance damage
tolerance.
2. Enhanced Fabrication Techniques
 Implement automated fiber placement (AFP) and automated tape
laying (ATL) for higher precision and reduced defects.
 Explore additive manufacturing (3D printing) of composite struts for
rapid prototyping and improved structural efficiency.
 Investigate resin transfer molding (RTM) or vacuum-assisted resin
infusion for better fiber impregnation and void reduction.
3. Advanced Structural and Finite Element Analysis
 Perform multi-scale modeling (micromechanical and macro-
mechanical) for more accurate property predictions.
 Study crashworthiness and impact resistance using explicit dynamic
FEA tools like LS-DYNA or ABAQUS.
 Investigate multi-physics simulations, including thermal and
vibrational effects, for extreme operational conditions.
4. Fatigue, Damage Tolerance, and Lifecycle Assessment
 Conduct long-term fatigue testing under simulated operational
conditions to assess durability.
 Evaluate progressive damage modeling and failure modes in
composite landing gear structures.
 Perform a life cycle cost analysis to compare composites with
traditional metal-based struts.
5. Experimental Validation and Testing Improvements
 Develop real-time structural health monitoring (SHM) techniques
using embedded fiber optic sensors or piezoelectric sensors.
 Conduct drop-weight impact tests to simulate hard landings and
compare results with FEA predictions.
  Explore non-destructive testing (NDT) methods like ultrasonic C-
scan and digital image correlation (DIC) for better defect detection.
6. Environmental and Sustainability Considerations
 Investigate the recyclability and reusability of composite materials to
improve sustainability.
 Study bio-based resins and natural fiber composites for potential
eco-friendly alternatives.
 Assess the environmental impact of composite manufacturing and
disposal compared to conventional materials.

Chapter 8: - Conclusion and Future

Work.

8.1. Summary of Findings.

This study investigated the feasibility, performance, and structural
integrity of a composite material-based landing gear strut. The findings are
categorized based on the four major aspects of the research: design,
fabrication, analysis, and evaluation.
1. Design Findings
 The landing gear strut was designed considering weight reduction,
load-bearing capability, fatigue resistance, and impact absorption.
 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulations indicated that an optimal
blend of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) and epoxy resin
provided superior strength-to-weight ratio compared to conventional
aluminum or steel struts.
  The strut’s geometry was refined through iterative simulations to
minimize stress concentrations while ensuring manufacturability.
 A hybrid composite layup (woven carbon fiber with reinforcement
layers of Kevlar or glass fiber) was found to enhance impact
resistance and damping properties.
2. Fabrication Findings
 The fabrication process involved resin infusion molding to achieve a
uniform fiber distribution and minimize void content, ensuring
higher mechanical integrity.
 A curing process at controlled temperature and pressure was
implemented to enhance matrix bonding and structural stability.
 Challenges encountered during fabrication included fiber
misalignment, resin voids, and matrix cracking, which were
mitigated using optimized vacuum bagging techniques and precise
process control.
 The fabricated strut was subjected to non-destructive testing (NDT),
revealing that fiber continuity and adhesion quality met aerospace
structural standards.
3. Analysis Findings
 Mechanical testing demonstrated that the composite strut exhibited
higher specific strength, better fatigue life, and lower density
compared to conventional materials.
 Static and dynamic load tests confirmed that the strut could
withstand operational loads and impact forces typically experienced
during landing cycles.
 Computational analysis indicated that the composite material
effectively dissipated stress, reducing stress concentrations and
potential failure points.
 Thermal and environmental exposure tests revealed that the
composite structure maintained its mechanical properties within
acceptable ranges under temperature variations and moisture
conditions.
4. Evaluation Findings
 A comparative study between the composite strut and traditional
metallic struts showed a 30-50% weight reduction without
compromising structural integrity.
 The damping characteristics of the composite material were found to
be superior, leading to improved shock absorption and reduced
vibrations during landing impact.
 Cost analysis indicated that while the initial fabrication cost was
higher due to material expenses and processing complexity, lifecycle
costs were significantly lower due to reduced maintenance needs and
extended service life.
 Overall, the composite landing gear strut met aviation industry
safety standards, indicating strong potential for real-world
implementation in aircraft landing systems.

8.2. Contributions to Aerospace Engineering.

1. Advancing Structural Materials for Aerospace Applications
 Composite materials (e.g., CFRP, GFRP, hybrid composites) offer
superior strength-to-weight ratios compared to traditional metallic
alloys.
 Your research could contribute to the material selection and
optimization of landing gear components, which are critical for
reducing aircraft weight and improving fuel efficiency.
 This work aligns with aerospace trends shifting towards lightweight,
high-performance materials.
2. Enhancing Aircraft Performance and Efficiency
 Reduced landing gear weight lowers overall aircraft weight,
leading to better fuel efficiency and lower emissions.
 Lighter landing gear could enable increased payload capacity
without affecting aircraft safety or structural integrity.
3. Extending Fatigue Life and Durability
  Composite materials generally exhibit better fatigue and corrosion
resistance than metals like aluminum or steel.
 Your study’s fatigue analysis and impact resistance testing could
provide insights into improving the longevity and maintenance
cycles of landing gear components.
 This could lead to lower lifecycle costs for aerospace operators.
4. Advancing Manufacturing and Fabrication Techniques
 The transition from metallic to composite landing gear struts
requires innovative fabrication methods such as filament winding,
automated fiber placement (AFP), resin transfer molding
(RTM), and 3D printing.
 Your research on fabrication process optimization could contribute
to cost-effective, high-quality composite manufacturing in the
aerospace industry.
5. Improving Structural Analysis and Simulation Techniques
 Composite materials have anisotropic properties, making their
structural behavior complex to predict.
 Your work in finite element analysis (FEA), computational
modeling, and experimental validation could help refine damage
prediction models, leading to better safety assessments.
 This can aid aircraft manufacturers in optimizing design
methodologies for future composite structures.
6. Enhancing Safety and Crashworthiness
 Composite landing gear must absorb high-impact forces during
landing.
 Your research on energy absorption characteristics, impact
resistance, and crashworthiness will improve landing gear safety,
making future aircraft more reliable.
7. Supporting Sustainability in Aerospace Engineering
  Composite-based landing gear reduces fuel consumption and
carbon emissions, aligning with the industry’s push for eco-
friendly aviation solutions.
 Your research could explore recyclable or bio-based composites,
contributing to sustainable aerospace engineering.
8. Industry and Regulatory Contributions
 Your findings could inform aviation regulatory bodies (e.g., FAA,
EASA) on composite material adoption for primary landing gear
structures.
 It may also contribute to new certification standards for composite
landing gear in commercial and military aircraft.

8.3. Future Research Directions.

The study of composite material-based landing gear struts is an evolving
field with significant potential for further advancements. Future research
can focus on various aspects of design optimization, material innovation,
manufacturing techniques, and performance evaluation. The following key
areas provide potential directions for future research:
1. Advanced Material Development
 Nano-reinforced Composites: Investigate the incorporation of
carbon nanotubes (CNTs), graphene, and nanoclays into composite
matrices to enhance mechanical properties, fatigue resistance, and
impact absorption.
 Hybrid Composite Materials: Explore combinations of different
fiber types (e.g., carbon/Kevlar/glass hybrid composites) to achieve
an optimal balance of strength, weight reduction, and durability.
 Self-healing Composites: Develop and test self-healing polymer
matrices that can autonomously repair microcracks, improving the
longevity and reliability of the landing gear strut.
2. Structural Design and Optimization
 Topology Optimization: Implement advanced computational
techniques such as topology optimization and artificial intelligence
 (AI)-based algorithms to refine the geometry of the landing gear
strut for maximum strength-to-weight efficiency.
 Multi-Functional Design: Investigate the feasibility of integrating
sensors and actuators into composite struts for real-time health
monitoring and adaptive performance.
 Crashworthiness and Energy Absorption: Further study how
different composite layups and configurations affect energy
dissipation during hard landings and emergency scenarios.
3. Advanced Manufacturing Techniques
 Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) and 3D Printing: Explore
advanced manufacturing techniques like AFP, automated tape laying
(ATL), and additive manufacturing to improve fabrication efficiency
and consistency.
 Out-of-Autoclave (OoA) Processing: Research new resin systems
and curing methods to enable cost-effective, scalable production
without relying on traditional autoclave-based curing.
 Quality Control and Defect Detection: Integrate machine learning-
based non-destructive testing (NDT) methods such as digital image
correlation (DIC) and infrared thermography for real-time defect
identification during fabrication.
4. Enhanced Performance Evaluation Methods
 Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Studies: Conduct long-term
fatigue life testing under realistic loading conditions, including
variable amplitude loading and environmental effects such as
temperature variations and moisture absorption.
 Impact and Crash Testing: Perform high-fidelity simulations and
experimental tests to understand how composite struts behave under
extreme impact conditions, including bird strikes and debris
collisions.
 Comparative Analysis with Traditional Materials: Carry out
extensive experimental and computational studies to benchmark
composite landing gear struts against conventional metal-based
systems in terms of strength, weight reduction, and lifecycle cost.
5. Sustainability and Lifecycle Assessment
 Recyclability and End-of-Life Strategies: Investigate novel
recycling methods for composite materials, such as pyrolysis and
chemical recycling, to address environmental concerns.
 Sustainable Resin Systems: Develop bio-based or recyclable
thermosetting resins to improve the sustainability of composite
landing gear struts.
 Lifecycle Cost and Environmental Impact Studies: Conduct
comprehensive lifecycle assessments (LCA) to evaluate the long-
term economic and environmental benefits of composite landing
gear over traditional materials.
6. Integration with Smart and Digital Technologies
 Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) Systems: Explore the
incorporation of fiber optic sensors, piezoelectric actuators, and
wireless monitoring systems for real-time health assessment and
predictive maintenance.
 Digital Twin and AI-based Predictive Modeling: Develop digital
twin models using AI and machine learning to predict performance
degradation and optimize maintenance schedules.
 Automation in Maintenance and Repair: Investigate robotic-
assisted inspection and repair techniques to enhance the efficiency
and accuracy of composite landing gear maintenance.
By addressing these future research directions, composite material-based
landing gear struts can achieve greater performance, safety, and
sustainability, ultimately revolutionizing the aerospace industry.
References
 Academic Papers on Composite Landing Gear Applications
 Boeing 777X Technical Specifications
 Finite Element Analysis and Testing Reports
 Aerospace Standards and Regulations

This report aims to demonstrate the potential of composite materials in

landing gear design while addressing key challenges such as impact
resistance, fatigue performance, and manufacturability. The findings can
contribute to future advancements in aerospace engineering and
sustainable aircraft development.