aerospace

Article
An Insight on the Crashworthiness Behavior of
a Full-Scale Composite Fuselage Section at Different
Impact Angles
Aniello Riccio 1,† , Salvatore Saputo 1, *,† , Andrea Sellitto 1,† , Angela Russo 1,† ,
Francesco Di Caprio 2,† and Luigi Di Palma 2,†
1 Department of Engineering, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa CE, Italy;
aniello.riccio@unicampania.it (A.R.); andrea.sellitto@unicampania.it (A.S.);
angela.russo@unicampania.it (A.R.)
2 Italian Aerospace Research Centre (CIRA), via Maiorise snc, 81043 Capua CE, Italy;
f.dicaprio@cira.it (F.D.C.); l.dipalma@cira.it (L.D.P.)
* Correspondence: salvatore.saputo@unicampania.it; Tel.: +39-081-5010407
† These authors contributed equally to this work.




Received: 16 May 2019; Accepted: 16 June 2019; Published: 18 June 2019


Abstract: In the present paper, advanced numerical methodologies have been adopted to investigate
the influence of impact angle on the crashworthiness behavior of a composite fuselage section. The
analyzed fuselage section, made of unidirectional fiber-reinforced material, woven fabric material,
and aluminum material, is representative of a regional aircraft fuselage. Two different angles of
impact with rigid ground have been investigated and reported: Perpendicularly to the ground and
with a pitch angle of 3 degrees with respect to the ground. The adopted numerical models have been
preliminarily validated with experimental data from a drop test on a full-scale fuselage section, in
terms of deformations and failure location and progression. The correlation between the numerical
model and the experimental test has enabled evaluation of the effect of the impact angle on the
deformation and damage in the sub-cargo floor area.

Keywords: crashworthiness; finite element analysis (FEA); composites; progressive failure analysis (PFA)

1. Introduction
The increasing use of civil aircraft transport requires more and more attention to aircraft
design to ensure occupant safety and structural integrity by means of controlled kinetic energy
absorption, ensuring a level of deceleration within a given threshold [1–4] under an impact event. This
design approach, also known as the crashworthiness design, is deeply influenced by the geometrical
conditions, impact parameters, and material interactions [5,6] related to the impact phenomena’s great
complexity [7–10]. In order to design a structure capable of absorbing the impact load transmitted
between the ground and the fuselage, guaranteeing a satisfactory level of occupant safety in accordance
with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards [1], several robust numerical models
have been developed in order to reduce the costly experimental tests, which are often affected by
uncertainty due to boundary conditions, such as the material characteristics, impact velocity, and actual
dimensions [11]. Energy absorption in conventional metal structures occurs as plastic deformations
lead to collapse. The use of numerical models allows, with good approximation, to predict the degree
of dissipated energy and to achieve an optimal fuselage sub-components design. As an example,
good approximation between experimental tests and finite element numerical analyses for a subfloor
helicopter structure has been reported in Reference [12]. Other authors demonstrate the integrity
of a fuel tank during a crash condition [13]. In recent decades, composite materials are replacing

Aerospace 2019, 6, 72; doi:10.3390/aerospace6060072 www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace

Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 2 of 14

conventional metal materials, due to their characteristics of high specific stiffness and strength. Fiber
composite materials with epoxy matrix do not have a plastic deformation phase [14], leading to more
complex kinetic energy absorption mechanisms during the impact events involving the interaction
between the different composite phases. Complex structures, such as fuselages, transmit the load
from the impact point to the whole structure, resulting in a more extended and difficult to predict
absorption of the kinetic energy [15–20]. Several works on civil transport aircraft crashworthiness have
highlighted the influence of the stiffness of the floor of the cabin and of the cargo subfloor components
on the energy absorption behavior [21–24]. Indeed, the cargo subfloor area first experiences the impact
with the ground, absorbing most of the kinetic energy. In particular, the impact energy is absorbed by
the frame and the hinges [24–33]. The fuselage frame can dissipate almost half of the impact energy
during the impact. Therefore, fiber-reinforced composite structures such as sandwich panels can be
adopted to increase energy absorption [34,35]. The bars between the cargo area and the cabin, although
first designed as a cabin primary structures, could be used as a kinetic energy absorber without
changing the aircraft structural characteristic. As already remarked, the study of the energy absorption
in the form of damage energy or plastic deformation energy assumes a prominent role during the
crashworthy design. However, investigations on the whole airplane structure crashworthiness are
still very limited nowadays. To understand the energy dissipation mechanism occurring during a
crash event, reliable numerical tools and methods are needed to be used, due to the airplane structure
complexity. Indeed, accurate numerical modeling requires the appropriate selection of the element
type [36]. As a matter of fact, three-dimensional elements are mandatory to study the complex stress
distribution, including shear stress, arising from the impact event [37,38].
In this work, a drop test of a composite fuselage section is investigated, focusing on the impact
angle with the rigid ground. During the experimental test, an impact angle has been generated by the
pitch rotation of the fuselage during the descending phase due to unbalanced masses on the floor beams.
This effect can be considered representative of an impact on a non-plane surface. In particular, the focus
of this work is to investigate the effect of such an impact angle on the structural deformations and the
failure of the sub-cargo floor. In order to better analyze the impact phenomenon under investigation,
numerical simulations have been performed by using the commercial Finite Element Method (FEM)
software ABAQUS explicit, and the pitch angle has been taken into account by imposing a rotation
angle to the rigid plate simulating the ground. The fiber-reinforced composite fuselage components
have been modeled by means of three-dimensional continuum shell elements. Despite these elements
having a shell formulation, they are characterized by a three-dimensional shape. Hence, it is possible
to take into account the effects of transverse shear deformation and the thickness change, providing a
more refined through-the-thickness response.
In Section 2, a brief theoretical background on the damage models adopted in the frame of
numerical simulations is given. In Section 3, the geometrical and numerical modeling activities on the
fuselage subcomponents are introduced, while the obtained numerical results for the two investigated
impact angles (90◦ and 87◦ ) and comparisons with experimental data are reported in Section 4. Finally,
in Section 5, the influence of impact angle on the failure onset and propagation within the sub-cargo
fuselage area is discussed.

2. Theoretical Background
In this section, the intra-laminar progressive damage models adopted for the numerical simulations
are described in detail. Hashin’s failure criteria have been adopted to predict fiber breakage and matrix
cracking onset. Moreover, conventional ductile criteria joined with a bilinear material model have
been adopted to simulate the damage progression [39].
Hashin’s failure onset criteria, adopted in this work, enable prediction of the fiber and matrix
failure onsets in compression or tension for each mode. The criteria reported in Equations (1)–(4)
Aerospace 2019, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 3 of 14

introduce four different limit parameters: Fft fiber tensile, Ffc fiber compressive, Fmt matrix tensile, and
F mc matrix compressive.
introduce four different limit parameters: F fiber tensile, F fiber compressive, F matrix tensile, and
ft fc mt
Fmc matrix compressive. 𝜎̑ 𝜎̑
𝐹 = σ !2 + σ !2 = 1 (1)
Fft = 𝑋
11
+ 𝑆 =112
(1)
XT SL
𝜎̑ !
𝐹 = σ11 2 = 1 (2)
Ffc = 𝑋 =1 (2)
XC
𝜎̑ !2 𝜎̑ !2
𝐹 == σ22 ++ σ12 ==1 1 (3)
YT𝑌 SL𝑆
Fmt (3)

σ 𝜎̑ Y𝑌 2 σ 𝜎̑ σ𝜎̑
!2 "   # !2
𝐹 == 22 ++ C −−1 1· ⋅ 22 ++ 12 ==11
Fmc (4)
2S2𝑆
T 2S2𝑆T YC𝑌 SL𝑆
where σ̂𝜎11 , σ̂𝜎22 , , σ̂12
𝜎 are
arethe
thecomponents
componentsofofthe theeffective
effectivestress
stress tensor
tensor along
along fiber
fiber direction,
direction, matrix
direction, and shear; XTT, XCC,, Y YTT, ,YYCC, ,SSL,L ,and
andSSTTare,
are,respectively,
respectively,thethefiber
fiber tensile,
tensile, fiber
fiber compressive,
compressive,
matrix tensile, matrix compressive, shear strength in in longitudinal
longitudinal and
and transversal
transversal direction.
direction. The
evolution of the damage for separate failure modes is explained in Figure Figure 1.
1.

σeq
A Dissipated Damage Energy
σ0eq
B
Kd
(1-di)Kd Recoverable Energy

C
O δ0eq δteq δeq
Figure 1.
Figure Constitutive relation
1. Constitutive relation (damage
(damage evolution).
evolution).

The point A in Figure 1 identifies the point in which Hashin’s criteria are satisfied. K is the
The point A in Figure 1 identifies the point in which Hashin’s criteria are satisfied. Kdd is the
undamaged material stiffness. The segment AC is the damage evolution phase up to point C, where
undamaged material stiffness. The segment AC is the damage evolution phase up to point C, where
the element is completely damaged. The partially damaged phase (point B) is evaluated with a gradual
the element is completely damaged. The partially damaged phase (point B) is evaluated with a
stiffness material degradation. The material stiffness degradation coefficient di is calculated for each
gradual stiffness material degradation. The material stiffness degradation coefficient di is calculated
mode in according with Equation (5):
for each mode in according with Equation (5):
𝛿 , δt𝛿 , δ − 𝛿−, δ0
 
𝑑 = i,eq i,eq i,eq; 𝛿 ≤ 𝛿 , ≤ 𝛿 ; 𝑖 ∈ 𝑓 ,𝑓 ,𝑚 ,𝑚 (5)
di𝛿=, 𝛿 ,  − 𝛿 ,  ; δ0i,eq, ≤ δi,eq ≤ δti,eq ;, i ∈ ( fc , ft , mc , mt ) (5)
δi,eq δti,eq − δ0i,eq
The maximum equivalent displacement reached in point C is calculated in accordance with
Equation (6):
The maximum equivalent displacement reached in point C is calculated in accordance with
Equation (6): 2𝐺 ,
𝛿, =2G (6)
𝜎i,c
δti,eq = 0 , (6)
σi,eq
where 𝜎 , and 𝛿 , are, respectively, the equivalent stress and displacement at the Hashin limit
where σ0i,eqGand
condition. δ0i,eqmaterial
i,c is the fracture toughness
are, respectively, of the i-th
the equivalent stressfailure
and mode, which isat
displacement equal
the to the area
Hashin of
limit
the triangleGi,c
condition. OAC,
is theshown in fracture
material Figure 1.toughness
Finally, the area
of the i-thoffailure
the triangle OBC corresponds
mode, which is equal to thetoarea
the
recoverable
of the triangle energy,
OAC,whileshowntheinarea of the
Figure 1. triangle
Finally, theOABarea is related to the area
of the triangle OBCdissipated due to the
corresponds
damages.
recoverable In energy,
Table 1, while
the equations
the areatoofevaluate
the trianglethe equivalent
OAB is related stressto
and
thedisplacement are due
area dissipated reported.
to the
damages. In Table 1, the equations to evaluate the equivalent stress and displacement are reported.
AerospaceAerospace
2019, 6,2019,
72 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14 4 of 14

Table 1. Equivalent stress and displacement definitions.

Table 1. Equivalent stress and displacement definitions.
Failure Equivalent Stress Equivalent Displacement
Failure 𝐿 ⟨𝜎 ⟩⟨𝜀 Stress
Equivalent ⟩+𝜎 ⋅𝜀 Equivalent Displacement
q 𝐿 ⟨𝜀 ⟩ + 𝜀
Fiber tension
𝛿
Lc (hσ11 ihε11 i+σ12, ·ε12 )
Fiber tension 𝐿δ⟨−𝜎 ⟩⟨−𝜀 ⟩ Lc hε11 i2 + ε212
Fiber compression f t,eq
𝐿 ⟨−𝜀 ⟩
Fiber compression
Lc h−σ11 ih−ε 𝛿 11, i Lc h−ε11 i
δ f c,eq
⟨𝜎ihε ⟩⟨𝜀
Lc𝐿(hσ22 ⟩+𝜎 ⋅𝜀
22 i+σ12 ·ε12 )
q
Matrix
Matrix tension
tension δmt,eq𝛿 , Lc hε22𝐿i2 + ⟨𝜀 ε2⟩ + 𝜀
12
L𝐿 ⟨−𝜎 22 i+σ12⟩·ε+
⟩⟨−𝜀 12 )𝜎 ⋅𝜀
q
c (h−σ 22 ih−ε
Matrix compression δmc,eq Lc h−ε22 i + ε212
2
Matrix compression 𝐿 ⟨−𝜀 ⟩ + 𝜀
𝛿 ,
where LC and < > are, respectively, the element characteristic length and the Macauley bracket operator [39].
where LC and < > are, respectively, the element characteristic length and the Macauley bracket
operator [39].
3. Geometrical Model and Numerical FEM Model Description
In3.this
Geometrical Model and Numerical FEM Model Description
section, a brief description of the investigated fuselage section and general specifications
In
of the adopted thismaterials
section, a are
briefprovided,
descriptionfocusing
of the investigated fuselage section
on the sub-cargo area. and general
Figure specifications
2 shows the fuselage
of the adopted materials are provided, focusing on the sub-cargo area.
section with all subcomponents. The components with the same geometry and material Figure 2 shows the fuselage
have been
section with all subcomponents. The components with the same geometry and material have been
grouped and reported with a different color. The considered fuselage section has a radius of 1811 mm
grouped and reported with a different color. The considered fuselage section has a radius of 1811 mm
and a length of 4926 mm.
and a length of 4926 mm.

Figure 2. Whole fuselage section.

Figure 2. Whole fuselage section.
The area of the fuselage most subjected to the kinetic energy absorption during the ground
The area of the fuselage most subjected to the kinetic energy absorption during the ground impact
impact phenomenon is the sub-cargo floor area. Figure 3 shows the components of this section to
phenomenon is the sub-cargo
better appreciate the design floor
of thisarea.
area. Figure 3 shows the components of this section to better
appreciate the design of this area.
Aerospace 2019, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

Figure3.3.Subsection
Figure Subsection cargo
cargofloor.
floor.

Three different materials (unidirectional fiber-reinforced composite, woven fabric, and

aluminum material) have been used to manufacture the sub-cargo area. The materials employed to
manufacture the subcomponents are clearly identified in Figure 4.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 5 of 14
Figure 3. Subsection cargo floor.

Three different
Three materials
different (unidirectional
materials fiber-reinforced
(unidirectional composite,composite,
fiber-reinforced woven fabric, and aluminum
woven fabric, and
material) have been used to manufacture the sub-cargo area. The materials employed to manufacture
aluminum material) have been used to manufacture the sub-cargo area. The materials employed to
themanufacture
subcomponents are clearly identified
the subcomponents in Figure
are clearly 4.
identified in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Sub-cargo
Figure components
4. Sub-cargo andand
components materials.
materials.

TheThe
mechanical properties
mechanical of the adopted
properties of the material
adoptedsystems are systems
material reported in
areTable 2 (unidirectional
reported in Table 2
Composite Fiber Reinforced Plastic—CFRP), Table 3 (woven fabric), and Table 4 (aluminum).
(unidirectional Composite Fiber Reinforced Plastic—CFRP), Table 3 (woven fabric), and Table 4
(aluminum).
Table 2. Unidirectional fiber composite material mechanical properties.
Table 2. Unidirectional fiber composite material mechanical properties.
Unidirectional CFRP
Young’s Modulus, EUnidirectional
11 [MPa] CFRP 137,500
Young’s Modulus,
Young’sEModulus,
22 [MPa] E11 [MPa] 8200
137,500
Shear Modulus, G12 [MPa] 3950
Young’s Modulus, E22 [MPa] 8200
Shear Modulus, G13 [MPa] 3950
Shear Modulus,
Shear Modulus, G23 [MPa] G 12 [MPa] 3950
3950
Poisson’s ratio, ν12 =Modulus,
Shear ν13 = ν23 [-]G13 [MPa] 3950
0.35
Fiber Tensile Shear
Strength, F
Modulus,
1t [MPa] G23 [MPa] 1890
3950
Fiber Compressive Strength,
Poisson’s ratio,F1cν12
[MPa]
= ν13 = ν23 [-] 1008
0.35
Matrix Tensile Strength, F2t [MPa] 86.5
Fiber Tensile Strength,
Matrix Compressive Strength, F2c [MPa] F1t [MPa] 1890
112
Fiber
In-Plane ShearCompressive Strength, F1c [MPa]
Strength, S12 [MPa] 1008
95
Out-Plane Matrix
Shear Strength,
TensileSStrength,
23 [MPa] F2t [MPa] 100
86.5
ρ [ton/mm3 ] Strength, F2c [MPa] 1.9 ×112
Density,Compressive
Matrix 10−9
Ply thickness, tp [mm] 0.129
 Out-Plane Shear Strength, S23 [MPa] 100
Density, ρ [ton/mm3] 1.9 × 10−9
Ply thickness, tp [mm] 0.129

Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 Table 3. Woven fabric material mechanical properties. 6 of 14

Woven Fabric
Young’s
Table 3. WovenModulus, E11 [MPa]
fabric material 55,000
mechanical properties.
Young’s Modulus, E22 [MPa] 55,000
Woven Fabric
Shear Modulus, G12 [MPa] 3363
Young’s Modulus,
Shear E11 [MPa]
Modulus, G13 [MPa] 336355,000
Young’s Modulus, E22 [MPa] 55,000
Shear Modulus, G23 [MPa]
Shear Modulus, G12 [MPa]
3363 3363
Poisson’s
Shear Modulus,ratio,
G13 ν[MPa]
12 = ν13 = ν23 [-] 0.303363
Fiber
Shear Tensile G
Modulus, Strength,
23 [MPa] F1t [MPa] 6503363
Poisson’s ratio, ν12 = ν13
Fiber Compressive = ν23 [-] F1c [MPa]
Strength, 6500.30
Fiber Tensile Strength, F1t [MPa] 650
Matrix Tensile Strength, F2t [MPa] 650
Fiber Compressive Strength, F1c [MPa] 650
Matrix
Matrix Compressive
Tensile Strength, FStrength,
2t [MPa]
F2c [MPa] 650650
In-Plane Shear
Matrix Compressive Strength,
Strength, S12 [MPa]
F2c [MPa] 150650
In-Plane Shear Strength,
Out-Plane S12 [MPa]
Shear Strength, S23 [MPa] 150150
Out-Plane Shear Strength, S23 [MPa] 150
Density, ρ [ton/mm3] 1.97 × 10 −9
Density, ρ [ton/mm3 ] 1.97 × 10−9
Ply thickness,
Ply thickness, t [mm]tp [mm] 0.250.25
mmmm
p

Table
Table4.4.Aluminum
AluminumAl2024
Al2024mechanical
mechanicalproperties.
properties.
Al2024
Al2024
Young’s Modulus, E [MPa] 70,000
Young’s Modulus, E [MPa] 70,000
Poisson’s ratio, ν [-]
Poisson’s ratio, ν [-]
0.330.33
Yield
Yield stress, stress, σy [MPa]
σy [MPa] 369 369
Ultimate
Ultimate Tensile Tensile
stress, stress, σf [MPa]
σf [MPa] 469 469
[ton/mm3 ]ρ [ton/mm3] −9
Density, ρ Density, 2.72.7× ×
1010
−9

The
Thewhole
wholefuselage
fuselagesection
sectionhad
hadaaweight
weightof of 533.77
533.77 kg.
kg. Before
Beforethe
thedrop
droptest,
test,some
someadditional
additional
masses were added,
masses were added, as as shown in Figure 5: 185 kg were added due to the dummies and
Figure 5: 185 kg were added due to the dummies and the seats;the seats;
186186
kg
kg due
due toto boththe
both thedata
dataacquisition
acquisitionsystem
systemand
andthe
the balancing
balancing mass; and 22.80
22.80 kg
kgdue
duetotothe
theharnesses.
harnesses.
In
Inparticular, theharness
particular, the harnessmasses
masses were
were composed
composed of four
of four steelsteel
beamsbeams
with awith a square
square section section area
area clamped
clamped on the four central windows with rigid support to avoid the window
on the four central windows with rigid support to avoid the window hole deformation. hole deformation.

Figure
Figure5.5.Position
Positionofofseat
seatdummies
dummiesand
andadded
addedmasses
massesbalancing.
balancing.

Despite the masses fixed on the cabin floor were balanced respect to the pitch and roll axes, the
fuselage section impacted the ground with a pitch angle of 3 degrees. Although a mass acting on a small
area may cause local force intensification, this effect was assumed as almost negligible as a consequence
of the masses locations and the cabin floor stiffness. Indeed, an approximate 940 kg weight for the
section fuselage was achieved, by introducing ad hoc density values to obtain a total mass similar
 Despite the masses fixed on the cabin floor were balanced respect to the pitch and roll axes, the
fuselage section impacted the ground with a pitch angle of 3 degrees. Although a mass acting on a
small area may cause local force intensification, this effect was assumed as almost negligible as a
consequence
Aerospace 2019, 6,of
72 the masses locations and the cabin floor stiffness. Indeed, an approximate 940 7 ofkg
14
weight for the section fuselage was achieved, by introducing ad hoc density values to obtain a total
mass similar to the test distributed over the whole geometry to avoid imbalance. Two analyses were
to the test distributed
performed, consideringover the awhole
firstly, geometryimpact
perpendicular to avoid imbalance.
between Two analyses
the ground and thewere performed,
fuselage section
considering firstly, a perpendicular impact between the ground and
and further simulation with an approximate pitch angle of 3°. The whole model was composed the fuselage section and further
of
simulation with an approximate pitch angle of 3 ◦ . The whole model was composed of 1,976,157 nodes
1,976,157 nodes and 995,858 elements; the struts that connect the cabin floor to the cargo area were
and 995,858
realized with elements; the struts
beam section that connect
elements. the cabin
The section floorhad
beam to the
an cargo arearadius
internal were realized
of 18 mm withandbeaman
section elements. The section beam had an internal radius of 18 mm
external radius of 20 mm. The metal subcomponents were modeled with an eight-node three- and an external radius of 20 mm.
The metal subcomponents
dimensional element andwere modeledintegration
a reduced with an eight-node
scheme.three-dimensional element and a reduced
The composite subcomponents were
integration scheme. The composite subcomponents were
modeled with reduced integration scheme continuum shell elements according modeled with reduced integration scheme
to the
continuum shellelement
Abaqus/Explicit elements according
library. to theplane
The rigid Abaqus/Explicit
was 4600 × element
5500 mmlibrary. The rigid
2 dimensions plane
in-plane andwas1
4600 × 5500 mm 2 dimensions in-plane and 1 mm out-of-plane. Furthermore, the plane was considered
mm out-of-plane. Furthermore, the plane was considered rigid to better simulate the ground effect
rigidfixed
and to better
in thesimulate
space. the
On ground
each nodeeffect
ofand
the fixed
fuselage in the space.an
section, Oninitial
each node of the
velocity of fuselage
9900 mm/s section,
was
an initial velocity of 9900 mm/s was applied. This velocity was evaluated
applied. This velocity was evaluated by considering a drop height of 5000 mm. The model was by considering a drop height
of 5000 mm.
simplified byThe model
deleting was simplified
physical by deleting
connections, such asphysical
rivets andconnections, such as rivets
bolts and replacing theirand bolts
effect and
with a
replacing their effect with a multipoint
multipoint constrain tie available in Abaqus. constrain tie available in Abaqus.

4. Results
4. Results
The experimental test was performed at the Crash Laboratory owned by the Italian Aerospace
The experimental test was performed at the Crash Laboratory owned by the Italian Aerospace
Research Centre (CIRA) named “Laboratory for Impact testing of Structures in Aerospace field (LISA)”.
Research Centre (CIRA) named “Laboratory for Impact testing of Structures in Aerospace field (LISA)”.
The test article impacted the ground with a pitch angle of about 3◦ , as highlighted by Figure 6, where
The test article impacted the ground with a pitch angle of about 3°, as highlighted by Figure 6, where
some frames of the drop test are shown. In particular, in Figure 6b the fuselage section pitch angle can
some frames of the drop test are shown. In particular, in Figure 6b the fuselage section pitch angle
be appreciated just before the impact with the ground. Therefore, in this section, numerical analyses
can be appreciated just before the impact with the ground. Therefore, in this section, numerical
are presented to assess the influence of the pitch angle on the damage behavior of the fuselage section.
analyses are presented to assess the influence of the pitch angle on the damage behavior of the
As a preliminary study, qualitative comparison in terms of failure onset and propagation between the
fuselage section. As a preliminary study, qualitative comparison in terms of failure onset and
experimental drop test and the numerical analyses has been reported. In this preliminary study, the
propagation between the experimental drop test and the numerical analyses has been reported. In
numerical model has been validated by means of comparisons with the deformations arising from the
this preliminary study, the numerical model has been validated by means of comparisons with the
experimental drop test.
deformations arising from the experimental drop test.

Figure 6. Fuselage section drop test: (a) Before the drop test; (b) during the fall.
 Aerospace2019,
Aerospace 2019,6,6,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 88ofof1414
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 8 of 14
Figure6.6.Fuselage
Figure Fuselagesection
sectiondrop
droptest:
test:(a)
(a)Before
Beforethe
thedrop
droptest;
test;(b)
(b)during
duringthe
thefall.
fall.

Figure
Figure777shows
Figure shows
shows the
theimpact
the impact
impact initiation
initiationbetween
initiation between
between the the
fuselage section
thefuselage
fuselage and the
section
section ground.
and
and FigureFigure
theground.
the ground. 7a shows
Figure 7a
7a
the experiment
showsthe
shows test
theexperiment picture
experimenttest of the
testpicture fuselage
pictureofofthe section
thefuselage touching
fuselagesection the ground,
sectiontouching
touchingthe while Figure
theground,
ground,while7b illustrates
whileFigure
Figure7b 7b
the numerical
illustrates
illustrates the simulation
thenumerical considering
numericalsimulation a 3 degree sloped
simulationconsidering
considering rigidsloped
aa33degree
degree plane. As
slopedrigid highlighted
rigid Asin
plane.As
plane. Figure 7, the
highlighted
highlighted inin
unbalance of
Figure7,7,the
Figure section
theunbalance fuselage
unbalanceofofsectionled to impact
sectionfuselage initiation
fuselageled on
ledtotoimpact a very
impactinitiation small
initiationon area.
onaavery
verysmall
smallarea.
area.

Figure7.7.First
Figure Firstphase
First phaseof
phase ofthe
of thefuselage
the fuselagesection
fuselage sectionimpact
section impactwith
withground:
ground:(a)
(a)Experimental
(a) Experimentaltest;
Experimental test;(b)
test; (b)numerical
(b) numerical
simulation(units
simulation (unitsininmm).
mm).

Figure
Figure888compares
Figure compares
comparesthethe experimental
theexperimental test
experimentaltest picture
testpicture taken
picturetaken when
takenwhen the
whenthe rear
therear section
rearsection
sectionofof the
ofthe fuselage
thefuselage
fuselage
section part
sectionpart
section touches
parttouches the
touchesthe ground
theground (Figure
ground(Figure 8a)
(Figure8a) with
8a)with the
withthe numerical
thenumerical simulation
numericalsimulation state
simulationstate in the
stateininthe same
thesame condition
samecondition
condition
(Figure
(Figure8b).
(Figure 8b).This
8b). Thisimage
This shows
image
image excellent
shows
shows agreement
excellent
excellent betweenbetween
agreement
agreement the numerical
between model
the numerical
the and model
numerical the experimental
model and the
and the
test in terms
experimental of general
test in subfloor
terms of deformation.
general subfloor deformation.
experimental test in terms of general subfloor deformation.

Figure8.
Figure
Figure 8.8.Frame
Frameof
Frame ofthe
of thefuselage
the fuselagesection
fuselage sectionimpact
section impactwith
impact withground:
with ground:(a)
ground: (a)Experimental
(a) Experimentaltest;
Experimental test;(b)
test; (b)numerical
(b) numerical
numerical
simulation(units
simulation
simulation (unitsin
(units ininmm).
mm).
mm).

Asalready
As already
already remarked,
remarked,
remarked, ananan additional
additional
additional numerical
numerical
numerical analysis
analysis simulating
simulating
analysis the impact
the impact
simulating the impact between
between between the
the fuselage
the
fuselage
section and section
the and
ground the ground
with no with
pitch no
angle pitch
was angle
carried was carried
out. out.
Deformations Deformations
fuselage section and the ground with no pitch angle was carried out. Deformations achieved duringachieved achieved
during during
impact at
impact
the same
impact atattime
thesame
the sameneeded
step timestep
time step needed
theneeded therear
rear section
the rear section
of the
section ofthe
real of thereal
fuselage real fuselage
barrel barrel
to touch
fuselage the
barrel toto touchthe
ground
touch theground
ground
during the
duringthe
during theexperimental
experimental experimental
test (showntesttest
in (shown
Figure
(shown 9).inin Figure9).
According
Figure 9).toAccording
Figure 9b,toto
According Figure
rather
Figure 9b,rather
uniform
9b, rather
damageuniform
uniform damage
on all on
the lower
damage on
allthe
thelower
frames
all lowerframes
and framesandandreinforcements
reinforcements reinforcementscould
could be couldbe
observed inbeobserved
the observedininthe
perpendiculartheperpendicular
perpendicularimpact
impact between impactbetween
the betweenthe
rigid the
ground
rigid
and
rigid ground
the fuselage
ground andsection.
and thefuselage
the fuselagesection.
section.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 9 of 14
Aerospace 2019, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Figure 9. Fuselage section impact parallel to the ground: (a) Frontal view; (b) rotated view (units in
mm).

Figure 10a summarizes the damage energy graphs for both configurations computed by the
Abaqus code. The damage energies were evaluated as the sum of the dissipated damage energy (see
Figure 1) of each element, for each failure mode. As can be observed from Figure 10a, the 10 kJ
damage energy threshold (traced line in Figure 10a), was reached at different time steps by the two
analyzed configurations. Indeed, the configuration with no impact angle reached the 10 kJ damage
energy at about 9 ms, while the configuration with a 3° impact angle reached the 10 kJ damage energy
at about 14 ms. These trends were expected, since the damaged area in the case of the perpendicular
impact was much more extended, leading to a fast dissipation of energy as the fracture energy.
The graph in Figure 10b shows the trend of the force vs. time for the two analyzed
configurations. The force was obtained asparallel
a reaction theforce on (a)
theFrontal
rigid plane in rotated
the z-direction. (unitsFor
FigureFigure 9. Fuselage
9. Fuselage section
section impactimpact
parallel to ground:
to the ground:(a) Frontal view;view;
(b)(b)
rotated view view(units in
the zero-impact
mm). angle configuration, a maximum force value of about 200 kN was reached, while for
in mm).
the configuration with an impact angle of 3°, a maximum force value of about 150 kN was achieved.
This behavior
FigureFigure
10awas representative
summarizes
10a summarizes ofthe
the damagethedamage
deformations
energy graphs
energy occurring
for both
graphs toconfigurations
for the two
both configurations.
computed
configurations Indeed,
computed by theby the
the configuration
AbaqusAbaqus Theundergoing
code. code. damage
The damage theenergies
energies perpendicular
were were
evaluated impact
as theexperienced
evaluated sum
as theofsumtheof athe
more
dissipated gradual
damage
dissipated deformation,
energy
damage (see (see
energy
being that
FigureFigurethe impact
1) of each energy
1) ofelement, was
for each for
each element, distributed
failure
eachmode. all
failure along
Asmode. the
can be Aswhole
observed fuselage
can befrom length.
Figurefrom
observed Hence,
10a, the the residual
10 kJ10a,
Figure damage
the 10 kJ
stiffness
energy at the energy
threshold
damage beginning
(traced of the
line
threshold inimpact
Figure event
(traced 10a),
line in was
was still 10a),
reached
Figure relevant,
atwas leading
different
reached timeto
atasteps
forcebypeak,
different the
time which
two could
analyzed
steps by the two
be appreciated
analyzed in
configurations. the force
Indeed, the
configurations.vs.configuration
time graph
Indeed, the (Figure
with 10b).
no On with
impact
configuration the
angleother hand,the
noreached
impact the fuselage
10
angle kJ impacting
damage
reached 10 kJthe
theenergy at
damage
ground with
aboutenergy an
9 ms, while angle
at about of 3° experienced
the 9configuration
ms, while thewith a sudden
◦
a 3 impact
configuration deformation
angle
with on
a 3°reached one
impact theangleedge, which
10reached
kJ damage caused
theenergy a sudden
at about
10 kJ damage energy
degradation
14 ms.atThese
aboutoftrends
thems.
14 stiffness,
were leadingwere
Theseexpected,
trends to the
since absence
the damaged
expected, of force
since peaks
area
the in the
in the
damaged case first
area stage
of in
thethe of theofimpact
perpendicular
case event
impact
the perpendicular
and, hence,
was much
impact aswas
more it could
muchbemore
extended, observed
leading in athe
to
extended, fastforce vs.
to time
dissipation
leading graph
a fastof energy(Figure
dissipation of10b).
as the fractureasenergy.
energy the fracture energy.
The graph in Figure 10b shows the trend of the force vs. time for the two analyzed
configurations. The force
Damage Energywas obtained as a reaction force onForce the rigid plane in the z-direction. For
vs Time
35 the zero-impact angle configuration, a maximum force value of about 200 kN was reached, while for
Impact 3° 700
30 the configuration with an impact angle of 3°, a maximum force value of about 150 kN was3° achieved.
Impact
Impact 0° 600
25 This behavior was representative of the deformations occurring to the two configurations. Impact 0° Indeed,
500
Energy [kJ]

Force [kN]

20
the configuration undergoing the perpendicular400impact experienced a more gradual deformation,
15
being that the impact energy was distributed all along 300 the whole fuselage length. Hence, the residual
10 200
5
stiffness at the beginning of the impact event was still relevant, leading to a force peak, which could
100
0
be appreciated in the force vs. time graph (Figure 10b). On the other hand, the fuselage impacting the
0
ground
0 0.002 with
0.004 an0.006
angle of 3°0.01experienced
0.008 0.012 0.014 a 0.016
sudden deformation
0 0.005on one edge,
0.01 which0.015caused 0.02a sudden
Time [s] Time [s]
degradation of the stiffness, leading to the absence of force peaks in the first stage of the impact event
and, hence, as it could a)be observed in the force vs. time graph (Figureb) 10b).

Damage
Figure
Figure 10. Energy
10. (a)
(a)Damage
Damageenergy
energygraph;
graph; (b)
(b) force
force vs.
vs. time Force vs
timegraph.
graph. Time
35
700
The graph
30 inImpact 3°
Figure 10b shows the trend of the force vs. time for the two analyzed configurations. Impact 3°
Impact 0° 600
The force 25was obtained as a reaction force on the rigid plane500in the z-direction. For the zero-impact Impact 0°
Energy [kJ]

angle configuration, a maximum force value of about 200 kN 400 was reached, while for the configuration
Force [kN]

20

with an impact
15 angle of 3◦ , a maximum force value of about 300 150 kN was achieved. This behavior
10
was representative of the deformations occurring to the two configurations. 200 Indeed, the configuration
5 100
undergoing the perpendicular impact experienced a more gradual deformation, being that the impact
0 0
energy was0 distributed
0.002 0.004 all along
0.006 0.008the0.01
whole
0.012 fuselage
0.014 length. 0 Hence, the
0.016 0.005 residual0.01 stiffness at the 0.02
0.015
Time [s]
beginning of the impact event was still relevant, leading to a force peak, which could be appreciated in
Time [s]

the force vs. time graph (Figure 10b).

◦
a) On the other hand, the fuselage impacting b) the ground with an
angle of 3 experienced a sudden deformation on one edge, which caused a sudden degradation of the
Figure 10. (a) Damage energy graph; (b) force vs. time graph.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 10 of 14

Aerospace 2019, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14

Aerospace 2019, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 14
stiffness, leading to the absence of force peaks in the first stage of the impact event and, hence, as it
Figure 11 shows the section of the deformed fuselage section evaluated, respectively, at 14 ms
couldFigure
be observed in the
11 shows the force vs. of
section time
thegraph (Figure
deformed 10b). section evaluated, respectively, at 14 ms
fuselage
for the configuration with a 3° impact angle (Figure 11a) and 9 ms for the configuration with normal
Figure
forground
the 11 shows with
configuration the section of theangle
a 3° impact deformed
(Figure fuselage
11a) andsection
9 ms evaluated,
for respectively, atnormal
the configuration 14 ms
impact (Figure 11b). In these conditions,
◦ impact angle (Figure 11a) as it can be appreciated from Figurewith 10a, the same
for the
ground configuration
impact with
(Figure a 3
11b). was
In these conditions, and 9 ms for the configuration with normal
amount of fracture energy dissipated (10 kJas it can be
energy). Asappreciated from Figure
already remarked, from 10a, the same
the comparison
ground
amount impact
of (Figure
fracture 11b).
energy wasIn dissipated
these conditions,
(10 kJ as it canAs
energy). bealready
appreciated from Figure
remarked, from 10a,
the the same
comparison
between Figure 11a and Figure 11b, it can be observed that the damaged area was much more
amount
between ofFigure
fracture energy
11a was dissipated
and Figure (10 kJ
11b, itthecan be energy).
observed As already remarked,area fromwasthe comparison
extended in the configuration with normal impact, that the damaged
if compared to the configurationmuchwithmorethe
between
extended Figure
in the 11a,b, it can
configuration be observed
with the that
normal the damaged
impact, if area
compared was much
to the more extended
configuration in the
with the
impact at 3°. ◦.
configuration
impact at 3°. with the normal impact, if compared to the configuration with the impact at 3

Figure 11. Initial phases of sub-cargo area impact: (a) 3° impact angle; (b) normal angle (units in
Figure
Figure 11. Initial
mm).11. Initial phases
phases of
of sub-cargo
sub-cargoarea
areaimpact:
impact:(a)
(a)33° impactangle;
◦ impact angle;(b)
(b)normal
normalangle
angle(units
(unitsininmm).
mm).
From
From Figure
Figure12,12,where
wherea section
a sectionof of
thetheimpact
impactfuselage section
fuselage sectionhashasbeen
been reported forfor
reported thethe
From Figure a12,◦
3 a where a impact,
section of the impact fuselage section has asbeen
configuration
configurationwithwith angle impact,
3° angle fourfour
different nodes
different havehave
nodes been identified
been identified asreported
control for thefor
pointspoints
control for the
configuration
accelerations. with
The a
same3° angle impact,
locations were four
takendifferent
as nodes
control have
point been
also in identified
the fuselage
the accelerations. The same locations were taken as control point also in the fuselage model as control
model points
undergoingfor
the accelerations.
theundergoing
perpendicular The same locations
impact, in order
the perpendicular were
to compare
impact, taken
in order as control
thetoeffects of the
compare point
theimpactalso in
effects angle the
of theon fuselage model
the acceleration
impact angle on the
undergoing
distribution thedistribution
along
acceleration perpendicular
the fuselage
along impact,
length. in order
the fuselage to compare the effects of the impact angle on the
length.
acceleration distribution along the fuselage length.

Figure
Figure 12.12. Node
Node positions.
positions.
Figure 12. Node positions.
Aerospace 2019,6,6,72
Aerospace2019, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of
11 of 14
14
Aerospace 2019, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

In Figure 13, the acceleration along z-direction vs. time has been plotted at the control points
In
In Figure
Figure13, 13,the
theacceleration
accelerationalong alongz-direction
z-directionvs. vs. time
time has
has been
been plotted
plotted at at the
the control
control points
points
locations (defined in Figure 12) for analysis of the two impact configurations. Indeed, Figure 13a
locations
locations (defined in Figure 12) for analysis of the two impact configurations. Indeed, Figure 13a
(defined in Figure 12) for analysis of the two impact configurations. Indeed, Figure 13a
reports the accelerations predicted for the 3° ◦ impact angle
angle configuration, while Figure 13a reports the
reports
reportsthe
theaccelerations
accelerationspredicted
predictedfor forthe
the33°impact
impact angleconfiguration,
configuration,whilewhileFigure
Figure13a13areports
reportsthethe
accelerations predicted for the perpendicular impact configuration. In the first stage of the impact
accelerations
accelerations predicted
predicted for for the
the perpendicular
perpendicular impactimpact configuration.
configuration. In the the first
first stage
stage of of the
the impact
impact
event, the acceleration of the first control point (identified with a yellow point in Figure 12) in the
event,
event, the
the acceleration
acceleration of of the
the first
first control
control point
point (identified
(identified with
with aa yellow
yellow point
point in
in Figure
Figure 12)12) in
in the
the
case of the 3°◦ impact angle (Figure 13a), was different from zero, while the other control points, not
case
caseof
ofthe
the33°impact
impactangle
angle (Figure
(Figure 13a),
13a), was
was different
differentfrom
fromzero,
zero,while
whilethetheother
othercontrol
controlpoints,
points,notnot
touching the ground, showed zero acceleration. This trend confirmed, for this configuration, that the
touching
touchingthetheground,
ground,showed
showedzero zeroacceleration.
acceleration. This
This trend
trendconfirmed,
confirmed,for forthis
thisconfiguration,
configuration,that thatthe
the
impact force acted on a very small impact area at the beginning of the impact event. On the other
impact
impactforce
forceacted
actedonon a very
a verysmall impact
small areaarea
impact at the
at beginning
the beginningof theofimpact event.event.
the impact On theOn other
the hand,
other
hand, in the frame of the normal impact event, all the control points showed non-zero acceleration
in the frame
hand, in theofframe
the normal
of the impact
normal event,
impactallevent,
the control
all thepoints
controlshowed
pointsnon-zero acceleration
showed non-zero from the
acceleration
from the beginning. This trend confirmed, for this configuration, that as expected, the impact force
beginning. This trend confirmed, for this configuration, that as expected, the
from the beginning. This trend confirmed, for this configuration, that as expected, the impact force impact force acted all
acted all along the fuselage length from the beginning of the impact event.
along
acted the fuselage
all along thelength
fuselagefrom the beginning
length of the impact
from the beginning event.
of the impact event.
3° Impact angle Normal Impact
1.5 × 1010
1.5E+10 2.0 × 1010
2.0E+10
3° Impact angle P4
Normal Impact P4
1.5 × 1010
1.5E+10 2.0 × 1010
2.0E+10
× 1010
1.0 1E+10 1.5 × 1010
1.5E+10 P4
P3
P3
P4
× 1010 1.5 × 1010
1.5E+10 P3
P1
1.0 1E+10 P1
P3 1.0 × 1010
1.0E+10
2] 2]

× 109
5.05E+09

2] 2]
[mm/s

P2
P1 × 1010 P1
P2

[mm/s
1.0
1.0E+10
× 109
5.05E+09 5.0 × 109
5.0E+09
[mm/s

P2 P2

[mm/s
0
5.0 × 109
5.0E+09
Acceleration

0 Acceleration 0.0E+000
× 109
Acceleration

- 5.0
-5E+09 0.0E+000
Acceleration
5.0 × 109
--5.0E+09
- 5.0 × 109
-5E+09
× 1010
- 1.0-1E+10 5.0 × 109
--5.0E+09
× 1010
-1.0E+10
- 1.0
× 1010
- 1.0-1E+10
- 1.5 × 1010
-1.5E+10 × 1010
-1.0E+10
- 1.0
-1.5E+10
- 1.5 × 1010
- 1.5 × 1010
-1.5E+10 -1.5E+10
- 1.5 × 1010
× 1010
- 2.0-2E+10 -2.0E+10
- 2.0 × 1010
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
× 1010
- 2.0-2E+10 -2.0E+10
- 2.0 × 1010
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 Time [s]
0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008Time[s]
0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018
Time [s] Time[s]
a) b)
a) b)
Figure 13. Acceleration of four different points: (a) 3° impact angle; (b) normal impact.
Figure13.
Figure 13.Acceleration
Accelerationof
offour
fourdifferent
differentpoints:
points:(a)
(a)33° impactangle;
◦ impact angle;(b)
(b)normal
normalimpact.
impact.
Finally, a qualitative comparison between the two models is presented in Figure 14, where the
Finally, aqualitative
qualitativecomparison
comparison between the thetwo
twomodels
models isispresented
presented ininFigure
Figure14,
14,where
wherethe the
lower regiona of
Finally, the fuselage section inbetween
both the numerically simulated impact configurations (a 3°
lowerregion
lower regionofofthe
thefuselage
fuselage section
in in both the numerically simulated impact configurations ◦ (a 3°
and perpendicular impact) section both
are reported. Inthe numerically
particular, simulated
Figure impact
14a shows theconfigurations (a 3with
fuselage section and a
and perpendicular
perpendicular impact)impact)
are are reported.
reported. In In particular,
particular, Figure
Figure 14a 14a shows
shows the the fuselage
fuselage section
section withwith
a 3◦a
3° impact angle, while Figure 14b shows the fuselage section perpendicularly impacted on the
3° impact angle, while Figure 14b shows the fuselage section perpendicularly impacted on the
impact
ground.angle, while Figure 14b shows the fuselage section perpendicularly impacted on the ground.
ground.

Figure14.
Figure 14. Sub
Sub cargo
cargo area:
area: (a)
(a) Sloped
Sloped impact;
impact; (b)
(b) normal
normal impact
impact (units
(units in
in mm).
mm).
Figure 14. Sub cargo area: (a) Sloped impact; (b) normal impact (units in mm).
In the
In thecase
caseof ofaanon-perpendicular
non-perpendicularimpact
impactwith
withthe
the rigid
rigid ground,
ground, considering
considering thethe
samesame amount
amount of
In the case of a non-perpendicular impact with the rigid ground, considering the same amount
of damage energy (see Figure 10a), the main amount of kinetic energy was absorbed
damage energy (see Figure 10a), the main amount of kinetic energy was absorbed only by the most only by the most
of damage energy (see Figure 10a), the main amount of kinetic energy was absorbed only by the most
external front
external front frames
frames andand reinforcements.
reinforcements. This caused more relevant relevant deformations
deformations in thisthis area,
area, ifif
external front frames and reinforcements. This caused more relevant deformations in this area, if
comparedto
compared to the
the perpendicular
perpendicular impact,
impact, where
where the
the damage
damage in in the
the sub-cargo
sub-cargo area
area seemed
seemed to to be
be almost
almost
compared to the perpendicular impact, where the damage in the sub-cargo area seemed to be almost
uniformly distributed
uniformly distributed along
along the
the fuselage
fuselage section
section length
length but
but concentrated
concentrated inin the
the central
central area
area of
of the
the
uniformly distributed along the fuselage section length but concentrated in the central area of the
subfloor with
subfloor with smaller
smaller deformations.
deformations. The absorbed kinetic energy,
energy, dissipated
dissipated by
by the
the structure
structure inin the
the
subfloor with smaller deformations. The absorbed kinetic energy, dissipated by the structure in the
form of
form of fracture
fracture energy,
energy,seemed
seemedto toproduce
producemore
moredangerous
dangerousdamage,
damage, which
which extended
extended beyond
beyond the the
form of fracture energy, seemed to produce more dangerous damage, which extended beyond the
subfloor area and potentially affected in a more significant way the passenger area when a pitch angle
subfloor area and potentially affected in a more significant way the passenger area when a pitch angle
was present.
was present.
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 12 of 14

subfloor area and potentially affected in a more significant way the passenger area when a pitch angle
was present.

5. Conclusions
In this paper, a numerical/experimental study on a composite fuselage section of a commercial
aircraft was introduced. An advanced numerical model was presented, able to predict—in the initial
phases—the behavior of the sub-cargo floor area when subjected to impact with the ground. In order to
take into account the complex stress distribution, including shear stress, arising from the impact event,
three-dimensional elements were used to discretize the finite element model. The numerical analyses
were preliminarily correlated to experimental data from a drop test on a full-scale composite fuselage
section in terms of deformation and failure onset and propagation. Then, numerical comparisons
between a 3◦ pitch angle impact and a no pitch angle impact were presented, to understand the
influence of the impact angle on the failure onset and evolution and on the safety of the passengers. The
impact simulations with different impact angles demonstrated the criticality of crash events occurring
with a pitch angle. As expected, the presence of the impact angle causes a kinetic energy absorption
concentrated in a very small area of the structure, significantly increasing the deformations and
leading to more severe and potentially more significant damage transmitted to the passenger area. The
investigation of the effects of the impact angle on the passengers will be the focus of follow-on research.

Author Contributions: All the authors contributed equally to this work.

Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge that part of the research activity, that provided the
data adopted for this follow on research study described in the present paper, has been conducted within the
frame of the research project PON03PE_00124 CERVIA (Metodi di Certificazione e Verifica Innovativi ed Avanzati)
granted to DAC and funded by the M.I.U.R. The experimental drop test has been performed at the facility of the
Italian Aerospace Research Centre (CIRA) located in Capua, Italy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Federal Aviation Regulations. Part 25—Aircrashworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes; Federal
Aviation Adminstration, Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
2. Cronkhite, J.D.; Berry, V.L. Crashworthy Airframe Design Concepts—Fabrication and Testing; NASA Contractor,
Report 3603; NASA: Washington, DC, USA, 1982.
3. Guida, M.; Manzoni, A.; Zuppardi, A.; Caputo, F.; Marulo, F.; De Luca, A. Development of a multibody
system for crashworthiness certification of aircraft seat. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 2018, 44, 191–221. [CrossRef]
4. Caputo, F.; De Luca, A.; Marulo, F.; Guida, M.; Vitolo, B. Numerical-experimental assessment of a hybrid
FE-MB model of an aircraft seat sled test. Int. J. Aerospace Eng. 2018, 8943826. [CrossRef]
5. Riccio, A.; Caputo, F.; Di Felice, G.; Saputo, S.; Toscano, C.; Lopresto, V. A Joint Numerical-Experimental
Study on Impact Induced Intra-laminar and Inter-laminar Damage in Laminated Composites. Appl. Compos.
Mater. 2016, 23, 219–237. [CrossRef]
6. Riccio, A.; Ricchiuto, R.; Saputo, S.; Raimondo, A.; Caputo, F.; Antonucci, V.; Lopresto, V. Impact behaviour
of omega stiffened composite panels. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 2016, 81, 41–48. [CrossRef]
7. Ren, Y.R.; Xiang, J.W. Crashworthiness uncentainty analysis of typical civil aircraft based on Box-Behnken
method. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2014, 27, 253–262. [CrossRef]
8. Caputo, F.; De Luca, A.; Greco, A.; Maietta, S.; Marro, A.; Apicella, A. Investigation on the static and dynamic
structural behaviours of a regional aircraft main landing gear by a new numerical methodology. Frattura ed
Integrità Strutturale 2018, 12, 191–204. [CrossRef]
9. Riccio, A.; Cristiano, R.; Saputo, S.; Sellitto, A. Numerical methodologies for simulating bird-strike on
composite wings. Compos. Struct. 2018, 202, 590–602. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 13 of 14

10. Perfetto, D.; De Luca, A.; Lamanna, G.; Chiariello, A.; Di Caprio, F.; Di Palma, L.; Caputo, F. Drop test
simulation and validation of a full composite fuselage section of a regional aircraft. Procedia Struct. Integr.
2018, 12, 380–391. [CrossRef]
11. Jackson, K.E.; Fasanella, E.L. NASA Langley Research Center impact dynamics research facility research
survey. J. Aircraft 2004, 41, 511–522. [CrossRef]
12. Bisagni, C. Crashworthiness of helicopter subfloor structures. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2002, 27, 1067–1082.
[CrossRef]
13. Adams, A.; Lankarani, H.M. A modern aerospace modelling approach for evaluation of aircraft fuselage
crashworthiness. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2003, 8, 401–413. [CrossRef]
14. Sellitto, A.; Riccio, A.; Russo, A.; Zarrelli, M.; Toscano, C.; Lopresto, V. Compressive behaviour of a damaged
omega stiffened panel: Damage detection and numerical analysis. Compos. Struct. 2019, 209, 300–316.
[CrossRef]
15. McGuire, R.J.; Nissley, W.J.; Newcomb, J.E. Vertical Drop Test of a Fairchild Metro III; FAA Report
DOT/FAA/CT-93/1; U.S. G.P.O.: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
16. Abramowitz, A.; Ingraham, P.A.; McGuire, R. Vertical Drop Test of a Shorts 3-30 Airplane; FAA Report
DOT/FAA/AR-99/87; U.S. G.P.O.: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
17. Federal Aviation Administration. Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787-8 Airplane; Crashworthiness, Docket No.
NM368 Special Conditions No. 25-362-SC, US Federal Register 72; U.S. G.P.O.: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
18. Federal Aviation Administration. Special Conditions: Airbus A350-900 Airplane; Crashworthiness, Emergency
Landing Conditions, Docket No. FAA-2013-0892 Special Conditions No. 25-537-SC, US Federal Register 79;
U.S. G.P.O.: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
19. Maia, L.G.; de Oliveira, P.H.I.A. Crashworthy Composite Fuselage Section Concept for Next Generation General
Aviation; SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-4011; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2005.
20. Riccio, A.; Raimondo, A.; Di Caprio, F.; Fusco, M.; Sanità, P. Experimental and numerical investigation on
the crashworthiness of a composite fuselage subfloor support system. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 150, 93–103.
[CrossRef]
21. Kumakura, I.; Minegishi, M.; Iwasaki, K. Impact Simulation of Simplified Structural Models of Aircraft Fuselage;
SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-5586; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2000.
22. Zheng, J.; Xiang, J.; Luo, Z.; Ren, Y. Crashworthiness design of transport aircraft subfloor using polymer
foams. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2011, 16, 375–383. [CrossRef]
23. Shoji, H.; Miyaki, H.; Iwasaki, K.; Minegishi, M. Crashworthiness research on cabin structure at JAXA. In
Proceedings of the 5th Triennial International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference, Atlantic
City, NJ, USA, 30 October 2007.
24. Ren, Y.; Xiang, J. A comparative study of the crashworthiness of civil aircraft with different strut configurations.
Int. J. Crashworthiness 2010, 15, 321–330. [CrossRef]
25. Hu, D.Y.; Meng, K.P.; Yang, Z.Y. Numerical investigation of the energy absorption characteristics of a fan
shaped deployable energy absorber. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2014, 19, 126–138. [CrossRef]
26. Huculak, R.D.; Lankarani, H.M. Methods of evaluating ES-2 leg flail in dynamic evaluation and certification
tests of side-facing aircraft seats. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2015, 20, 613–628. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, X.C.; Guo, J.; Bai, C.Y.; Sun, X.S.; Mou, R.K. Droptest and crash simulation of a civil airplane fuselage
section. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2015, 28, 447–456. [CrossRef]
28. Paz, J.; Diaz, J.; Romera, L.; Costas, M. Size and shape optimization of aluminum tubes with GFRP honeycomb
reinforcements for crashworthy aircraft structures. Compos. Struct. 2015, 133, 499–507. [CrossRef]
29. Ren, Y.R.; Xiang, J.W. The crashworthiness of civil air Craft using different quadrangular tubes as cabin-floor
struts. Int. J. Crashworthiness 2011, 16, 253–262. [CrossRef]
30. Ren, Y.R.; Xiang, J.W. Energy absorption structures design of civil aircraft to improve crashworthiness.
Aeronaut. J. 2014, 118, 383–398. [CrossRef]
31. Ren, Y.R.; Xiang, J.W.; Zheng, J.Q.; Luo, Z.P. Crashworthiness analysis of aircraft fuselage with sine-wave
beamstructure. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2016, 29, 403–410. [CrossRef]
32. Schatrow, P.; Waimer, M. Crash concept for composite transport aircraft using mainly tensile and compressive
absorption mechanisms. CEAS Aeronaut. J. 2016, 7, 471–482. [CrossRef]
33. Shi, Q.H.; Dai, D.; Cao, Z.H. Tensile failure strength analysis and Experimental confirmation of stitch
reinforced composite of T-stiffened structure. Polym. Compos. 2012, 20, 307–311. [CrossRef]
Aerospace 2019, 6, 72 14 of 14

34. Sturma, R.; Klett, Y.; Kindervater, C.; Voggenreiter, H. Failure of CFRP airframe sandwich panels under crash
relevant loading conditions. Compos. Struct. 2014, 112, 11–21. [CrossRef]
35. Riccio, A.; Raimondo, A.; Saputo, S.; Sellitto, A.; Battaglia, M.; Petrone, G. A numerical study on the impact
behaviour of natural fibres made honeycomb cores. Compos. Struct. 2018, 202, 909–916. [CrossRef]
36. Khalili, S.M.R.; Soroush, M.; Davar, A.; Rahmani, O. Finite element modeling of low-velocity impact on
laminated composite plates and cylindrical shells. Compos. Struct. 2011, 93, 1363–1375. [CrossRef]
37. Chattopadhyay, S. Response of elastic plates to impact including the effects of shear deformation. In Recent
Advances in Engineering Science; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1977; pp. 127–138.
38. Shivakumar, K.N.; Elber, W.; Illg, W. Prediction of impact force and duration due to low-velocity impact on
circular composite laminates. J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 1985, 52, 674–680. [CrossRef]
39. Dassault System Abaqus 2016 User’s Manual; Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp.: Providence, RI, USA, 2016.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).