Accepted Manuscript

Failure analysis of a nose landing gear fork

V. Infante, L. Fernandes, M. Freitas, R. Baptista

PII: S1350-6307(16)30879-2
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.04.020
Reference: EFA 3100
To appear in: Engineering Failure Analysis
Received date: 1 October 2016
Accepted date: 19 April 2017

Please cite this article as: V. Infante, L. Fernandes, M. Freitas, R. Baptista , Failure
analysis of a nose landing gear fork. The address for the corresponding author was
captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if appropriate. Efa(2017), doi: 10.1016/
j.engfailanal.2017.04.020

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Failure analysis of a nose landing gear fork

V. Infante1,*,L. Fernandes2, M. Freitas1, R. Baptista1,3

1
LAETA, IDMEC, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001
Lisboa, Portugal
2
Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
3
ESTSetúbal, Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal, Campus do IPS, Estefanilha, 2914-508 Setúbal,
Portugal

PT
*Corresponding author: E-mail: virginia@dem.ist.utl.pt

RI
Abstract

SC
This paper presents a detailed analysis of a nose landing gear failure. The developed study
comes following an accident occurred in which the nose of the landing gear’s fork of a light
NU
aircraft failed during landing. According to Federal Aviation Administration, in average, 55% of
aircraft failures occur during takeoff and landing.
In order to determine the causes of the accident, a material analysis was performed, followed
MA

by a detailed study of the fracture’s surface both visually and using optical and scanning
electron microscopies. It was observed that fatigue cracks developed in the vicinity of the
D

bolted holes, which work as supporting connections, on the topside of the nose fork and, as
such, it can be concluded that the referred area was subjected to cyclic stresses originating
E

and propagating cracks in the material. This cracking is characteristic of the existence of stress
PT

concentration areas. Identified the crack initiation zone with ratcheting and beach marks near
the origin of the crack, combined with the fact that the nose wheel fork is subject to cyclic
CE

loading, leads to the conclusion that the component failed due to fatigue.
Finite element analyses were also performed on the nose fork taking into account service
AC

conditions in order to assess the structural integrity of the component. During the analysis it
was observed that the critical areas are located in the vicinity of the connecting holes, as it was
observed in the fracture surface analysis. The assembly behaviour in the presence of four
straight cracks, originating from the fork holes, was also studied using the stress intensity
factors, calculated using the contour integral method.

Keywords: Aircraft landing gear; Nose wheel fork; Fatigue; Finite elements; Fracture surfaces.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

During the last decades, the studies of accidents causes have become popular in aerospace
and aeronautic sectors [1-3]. Several aerospace applications using components subjected to
static and dynamic loads are concerned with finding the reason of the components failure
during service.
One of the most critical subsystems of an aircraft is the landing gear [4] because supports the
entire weight of an aircraft during landing and ground operations and it is connected to the

PT
primary structural members of the aircraft [5].
The landing gear design takes into account several requirements of safety, strength, stability,

RI
stiffness, ground clearance, control and damping under all possible ground attitudes of the
aircraft that are defined by the Airworthiness Regulations. Divakaran, Ravi and Srinivasa [6]

SC
present in their work an overview and challenges in landing gear design.
Some commercial available CAD/CAM/CAE/CFD and Dynamic Simulation software tools are
NU
used in the design and development of aerospace components [7,8], many Knowledge Based
Engineering (KBE) tools and information intelligence tools are being developed and used by
MA

landing gear designers to automate many engineering processes.

Several authors have studied landing gears, since the loads they are subjected to, design,
optimization and finite element analysis. Horack [9] proposed an analysis of the landing gear
D

structure. Yangchen [10] developed work on the light weight structural design and
E

optimization of landing gears. The analysis of the landing gear using finite element method
was proposed by Briscoe [11]. Krason and Malachowski [12] developed a finite element
PT

modelling of the landing gear and drop test simulation. An investigation of a nose landing gear
failure was performed by Lal et al. [13] on fatigue fracture of a nose landing gear in military
CE

transport aircraft. A study developed by Al-Bahkali [14] with two different landing gear
configurations for a light aircraft have been analysed and modelled under different landing
AC

conditions.
The objective of this paper is to make an assessment of a landing gear component to
determine the possible causes of failure observed during service. The adopted methodology
involves a visual analysis, as well as an optical microscopy with low magnification of the
fractured surface in order to characterize the type of fracture and identify areas of interest to
perform a more detailed analysis through a Scanning Electronic Microscopy (SEM) [15].
Another step was to perform the analysis and numerical simulation of the landing gear
component using the finite element method in order to determine the stresses that the
component is subject to, understanding the failure causes of the landing gear. As previously
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

done by Infante et al. [2] in order to investigate another aircraft accident, the stress intensity
factors for crack originating on the fork holes were calculated. Therefore a more
comprehensive study, in addition to the stress field investigation, allows to better understand
the assembly behaviour under fatigue crack propagation using Finite Element Analysis (FEA).

2. Failure Analysis

The nose landing gear failure object of this analysis with the failure locations is shown in Figure

PT
1.
The nose landing gear failure took place after more than 17,000 landings and the aircraft

RI
where the nose landing gear was located was used as an instruction aircraft.
The material of the nose landing gear is an Aluminium alloy series 5000.

SC
The fractured component was cut in order to allow for a more detailed analysis through optical
and scanning electron microscopes. The fracture developed in a plane normal to the surface of
NU
the component and the beach marks are indicative of clear fatigue mechanisms. These beach
marks reveal evidence of high cycle fatigue and result of micro-plastic deformation of the
MA

material by the effect of successive cycles observed during service. The morphology of the
fracture surface at the fatigue crack front was performed using a 3D mechanical profilometer
(KLA Tencor Alpha-Step Profiler Mechanical D600 3D). In Figure 2 it can be seen that the slope
D

of this surface increases as it progresses in the direction of propagation and the roughness of
E

this zone present an average of 11.7 µm.

Figure 3 shows a mapping of the fracture surface where are located the different zones
PT

observed using the Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).

The beach marks were observed in both surfaces covering approximately 2/3 of the total
CE

section. The remaining portion, however, presents a distinct morphological pattern,

characterized by a clear upper surface roughness caused by brittle fracture observed near the
AC

final fracture zone, which occurs suddenly and precedes the full separation of the component.
Observing the detail "A1" of Figure 3 using a higher magnification (Figure 4) it can be observed
the initiation zone of one of the fatigue cracks in which the shape of the fatigue surface
indicates a propagation of fatigue crack with a curve front. This curve front can be attributed
to the existence, in the central zone of the specimen of an approximate state of plane strain.
Figure 4 indicates that the crack initiation does not occur due to any metallurgical defects or
mechanical defects (e.g., machining, coating). In Figure 4 is also visible the corrosion of the
fracture surface.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5 shows the beach marks observed in the fatigue crack propagation region. These beach
marks present a pattern of uniform progression, without significant evidence of change in the
direction of the crack front as a result of torsional effects. This evidence suggests that the
fatigue process is mainly due to cyclic bending stresses caused by the aircraft landings.

PT
RI
SC
NU
Figure 1 – Fracture surface of the nose landing gear.
MA
E D
PT
CE

a)
AC

b)
Figure 2 - Fracture surface morphology at the crack fatigue front. a) Mapping; b) Surface slope.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a)

PT
RI
SC
NU
b)
MA

Figure 3 - Mapping of different areas along the fracture surfaces.

E D
PT
CE
AC

Figure 4 – Zone of crack initiation (detail “A1”).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Figure 5 - Crack propagation zone (detail “A2”).

SC
Figure 6 (magnification of detail "A3") confirms the existence of fatigue striations on the
fracture surface. The transition between the stable crack propagation (fatigue) and the
NU
unstable propagation area (final fracture) is visible in Figure 7 (detail “A4” of Figure 3).
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC

Figure 6 - Fatigue striations observed in detail “A3”.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Figure 7 - Transition between the crack propagation front and final fracture (detail "A4").

SC
Figure 8 shows ratcheting marks located in the crack propagation area, which are the result of
the merger of two micro crack propagation planes [2].
NU
Figure 9 shows the details B2, C1 and C2, respectively where no evidence of defect responsible
for the fatigue crack initiation was observed.
MA
E D
PT
CE

Figure 8 - Ratcheting mark in the nucleation zone (detail "B1").

AC

a) b) c)
Figure 9 - Fracture surface. a) detail "B2”; b) detail "C1"; c) detail "C2".

3. Finite Element Analysis

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.1 Model, loads and boundary conditions

In order to model the assembly of the front landing gear wheel fork, several simplifications
were taken into account. First, a model for stress distribution calculation was developed. Only
simplified versions of the geometry of the main parts were designed using the ABAQUS CAE
solid generation tools. Figure 10 shows the full geometry of the assembly with the landing gear
fork, the wheel rim with its shaft, and the shimmy wedge with the 4 bolts that connect the
several parts.

PT
Shimmy Wedge

RI
SC
Fork
Rim NU
MA

Figure 10 – Landing gear model assembly, with three main parts; Fork; Rim; Shimmy Wedge.

For symmetry reasons only half of the assembly is considered on the majority of the
D

simulations, using a total of 40514 nodes and 32033 linear hexahedral elements, as seen in
E

Figure 11. The average element size used was 3 mm, with element refinement near the fork
PT

holes. The model includes different interaction behaviors between the several parts. The rim
and the rim shaft were considered to be rigidly connect, in order to simplify the model and
CE

because the interaction between this parts is not essential to the final behavior of the model.
Also the bolts and the shimmy wedge were considered to be rigidly connect. And the other
AC

hand the contact between the fork and the remaining parts, the rim shaft, the bolts and the
lower surface of the shimmy wedge was considered to have a 0.5 friction coefficient on the
tangential direction, while on the normal direction the type of contact considered was hard
contact with the ability of part separation. Therefore the correct stress distribution around the
fork holes is to be expected, in order to correctly predict the fatigue behavior of the landing
gear. The top surface of the shimmy wedge was considered to be fixed, while the free surfaces
of the shimmy wedge, fork and rim, were subjected to symmetry boundary conditions, as seen
in Figure 11.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The loads applied to the model are in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) database, appendix C, Part 23 (or corresponding European norms) and the airplane
characteristics, in which a total of 6350 N are applied to the vertical direction and a total of
2117 N are applied to the horizontal direction as a longitudinal drag force. These loads were
applied using a distributed pressure, resulting from the wheel and rim interaction (not
modeled) on a 97º span, accordingly with the wheel manufacturer specifications.

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Figure 11 – Half symmetric model, boundary conditions and applied loads.

D

The material used in this case study was aluminum alloy 5182, with a Young’s modulus of 69
GPa and a Poisson coefficient of 0.3.
E
PT

3.2 Stress distribution analysis

The aluminum alloy used has a yield strength of 395 MPa. The allowable stress depends of the
CE

safety factor which, for aircrafts, varies between 1.2 and 3, depending on the application and
material. For main landing gear structures it is often 1.25 [16]. The allowable stress was
AC

computed using equation 1 below and then used to plot the material under plasticity in Figure
12 a) to c).

(1)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
a) b) c)
Figure 12 – Von Mises stress distribution on the assembly, a) lateral view; b) medial view; c)

SC
isometric view of the half symmetric model subjected to the combined loads.
NU
As one can see the maximum Von Mises stress on the assembly is 130.5 MPa which is below
the admissible stress for this material, allowing one to calculate a safety factor of 3 using
MA

equation (1).
Next, the normal stresses to the plane where the fatigue cracks initiated, were analyzed.
Separating the influence of the two applied loads, on can see on Figure 13 a) that the
D

horizontal drag load creates a 148 MPa maximum normal stress on the crack plane near the
E

center of the front hole on the fork. This is in agreement with the located crack initiation
PT

defect. Figure 13 b) shows the normal stress distribution resulting from the vertical load only.
With a maximum of 45 MPa on the bottom surface of the fork which means that both holes
are subjected to stresses that lead to crack opening. Finally on Figure 13 c) one can see that
CE

the combined load produces a maximum normal stress of 97 MPa on the bottom surface of
the fork, near the posterior hole. Again this stress will lead to crack opening in the hole.
AC

a)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
b)

SC
NU
MA
E D

c)
PT

Figure 13 – Normal stress distribution. a) Resulting from horizontal drag load; b) Resulting from
vertical load; c) Combined loads.
CE

Considering the fork geometry, the stress distributions resulting from the applied loads can be
AC

better analyzed throughout the longitudinal distance, and the vertical distance in each crack
initiation local, Figure 14 [17].
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Longitudinal
Vertical
Distance
Distance

PT
RI
Figure 14 – Crack locations and stress distribution profiles.

SC
Considering that the applied loads produce bending on the fork, one can expect the stress
profiles to be almost linear. Therefore the normal stress on the crack plane must be positive in
NU
order for the crack to open. Figure 15 a) shows the stress profile for the horizontal drag load,
crack A and B (Figure 14), on the front hole are subjected to the higher normal stresses on the
MA

top surface of the fork which will lead the crack to open from this point on. Cracks C and D
(Figure 14), on the posterior hole of the fork are subjected to very low stresses. Appling only
the vertical load, Figure 15 b) there is a similar trend on the four cracks. The maximum normal
D

stress is very similar and occurs on the bottom surface of the fork. Therefore the tendency for
E

the crack to open would be on the bottom of the holes for this loading condition. Finally Figure
PT

15 c) shows the combined results, and in this case the cracks A and B will tend to open from
the upper surface of the fork, while the crack C and D will tend to open from the lower surface
CE

of the fork.
When one considers the normal stress profile on the top surface of the fork, along the
longitudinal direction, Figure 15 d) shows the result for the combined load. Again the
AC

maximum values always occur near the fork holes, and it is also visible that introducing a 2º
shimmy angle on the assembly will decrease the maximum normal stresses. Therefore one can
assume that the worst case scenario for the assembly is to apply the loads with a shimmy
angle of 0º.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0 0
Crack A
Vertical Distance [mm]

Vertical Distance [mm]

-2 -2 Crack B
Crack C
-4 -4 Crack D
-6 -6
Crack A
-8 -8
Crack B
-10 Crack C -10
Crack D
-12 -12
-200 -100 0 100 200 -20 0 20 40
Normal Stress [MPa] Normal Stress [MPa]

PT
a) b)

RI
0 40
Crack A
30
Vertical Distance [mm]

Norma Stress [MPa]

-2 Crack B
20

SC
Crack C
-4 10
Crack D
0
-6 -10
NU
-8 -20
-30
-10 -40
-50
-12
MA

0 20 40 60 80
-50 0 50 100
Shimmy Angle Distance [mm]
Normal Stress [MPa]
(0º)

c) d)
D

Figure 15 - Hole normal stress distribution. a) due only to the longitudinal drag load; b) due
E

only to the vertical load; c) due to the combined loads; d) along the longitudinal direction due
PT

to the combined loads.

CE

The model was then altered in order to apply an extra load. Although the FAA regulation does
not considers a transverse drag load, the model was considered as a whole (doubling the
AC

number of nodes and elements) in order for a 2117 N drag load to be applied to the rim, in a
transverse direction. Figure 16 shows the obtained results, with the maximum normal stress
value increasing to 214 MPa, which represents a 120% increase from the previously combine
load result. The location of the maximum value and the stress profile shape are not altered
however.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Figure 16 – Normal stress distribution on the full model and considering the transverse drag

SC
load.

3.3 Stress intensity factor calculation

NU
A second model was then developed in order to calculate the stress intensity factors for
several cracks modeled near the fork holes. Figure 14 show the location of the four crack
MA

modeled near the holes of the fork, the crack are design as straight cracks throughout the fork
thickness. The crack initiation location corresponds to the experimentally determine locals,
and the crack geometry was chosen in order to simplify the model. The four crack were
D

considered to coexist in the same model and always have the same crack length, again in order
E

to simplify the model. Figure 17 show crack A and B, on the top surface of the fork, with a
PT

length of 8 mm each.
CE
AC

Figure 17 – Crack A and B, with a length of 8 mm each, under the combined loads.

The model consists of a half symmetric assembly, or the full assembly in order to additionally
apply the transverse drag load, using 54661 nodes and 10799 quadratic hexahedral elements.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The crack fronts were modelled using singular collapsed elements and the stress intensity
factors were estimated by the contour integral method. Once again the loading conditions
were considered independently and combined.
Figure 18 a) shows the stress intensity factor evolution with the crack length for the horizontal
drag load only. As one can see the highs values were obtained for the crack B, on the front of
the fork. This is the crack with the biggest tendency to open. This crack is followed by cracks A,
D and finally C. The evolution of the stress intensity factor for crack C is independent of the
crack length. Figure 18 b) shows the same results obtained for the vertical load. As seen before

PT
the stress distribution is uniform on the lower surface of the fork, and therefore the stress
intensity factor values for all cracks is very similar. As expected they are proportional to the

RI
crack length. Finally combining this two loads the results are visible on Figure 18 c). Crack D

SC
presents the higher stress intensity factor values, followed by crack C and B. Therefore one can
conclude that the posterior cracks have a higher tendency to propagate and will become
lengthier over time as the fatigue crack propagation continues.
NU
If one also includes the effect of a horizontal transverse drag load, Figure 18 d), it is possible to
assess that the stress intensity factor will increase 9.6 times for crack A, 4 times for B and 1.6
MA

times for crack C and D. This behavior is to be expected as this new load introduces a new
bending plane on the fork, increasing the crack opening tendency. Therefore when also
considering a horizontal transverse drag load the anterior cracks have a higher tendency for
D

crack opening.
E

30 7
PT

Crack A Crack A
Stress Intensity Factor [MPa m1/2]

Stress Intensity Factor [MPa m1/2]

25 6 Crack B
Crack B
Crack C Crack C
5
CE

20 Crack D
Crack D
4
15
3
AC

10
2

5 1

0 0
5 7 9 11 5 7 9 11
a - Crack Length [mm] a - Crack Length [mm]

a) b)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

16 35 Crack A
Crack A Crack B
Stress Intensity Factor [MPa m1/2]

Stress Intensity Factor [MPa m1/2]

14 Crack B 30 Crack C
Crack D
12 Crack C
Crack D 25
10
20
8
15
6
10
4

2 5

PT
0 0
5 7 9 11 5 7 9 11

RI
a - Crack Length [mm] a - Crack Length [mm]

SC
c) d)

Figure 18 – Stress intensity factors on the four modelled cracks. a) under the horizontal drag
NU
load; b) under the vertical load; c) under the combined load; d) under the combine load and
transverse drag load.
MA

4. Discussion
D

Although the finite element analysis presented in this paper is simple, especially because of
E

the original geometries not being available to design, the main goal was to determine the
PT

stress distribution around the fork holes, and that goal was achieved. During flights, the
stresses in the nose landing fork are practically inexistent, reaching their maximum when the
contact between the tire and the ground occurs. Figure 13 a) to c) depicts the progression of
CE

Von Mises stresses inside the material. This type of plot helps locate areas under higher stress
values and, from its analysis, it can be concluded that the critical areas are near the bolted
AC

connections. Also, it is noteworthy that higher stress zones are in the vicinity of the actual
fracture surfaces meaning that it is likely that this stress state promotes crack propagation in
that direction leading to component failure. Figure 14 a) to d) not only show that the higher
stress levels occurred near the fork holes, but also allows one to understand that the fork is
subjected to two bending planes, due to the horizontal drag and vertical load. The horizontal
drag creates higher stresses on the fork, while the vertical load bends the fork in a uniform
way. When also including a transverse drag load, not included on the FAA standards, it was
also possible to verify that the stress levels on the fork can increase even more, which will lead
to a higher fatigue crack propagation velocity.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Finally the stress intensity factor determination was important to understand if the introduced
crack tend to grow under the described loading conditions. Once again it was verified that the
horizontal drag loads increase the fatigue propagation velocities, while the vertical load
produces limited results. Under the conditions define by the FAA standard the posterior cracks
tend to propagate faster than the anterior crack on the fork. But if one also considers a
transverse drag load, this behavior is inverted, and the anterior cracks on the fork will
propagate faster.

PT
5. Conclusions

RI
In this paper, a study of a nose landing gear fork is presented, with the goal of finding the
causes that lead to the failure of this component.

SC
The visual observation of the fractured surface immediately indicates that these failures
occurred by a fatigue process. The main area of the fracture surfaces present high stress
NU
failure facies as concluded by the presence of a great area of overload fracture.
Evidences of a fracture surface are visible in the component. Through optical microscopy, with
MA

low magnification, it is possible to identify a crack initiation zone with beach marks near the
origin of the crack which, combined with the fact that the nose wheel fork is subject to cyclic
loading, leads to the conclusion that the component failed due to fatigue.
D

Using SolidWorks, the fork was analyzed through the finite element method. The stress field
E

on the fork has been determined and it was concluded that the region around the attachment
holes is a zone of stress concentration which is critical for crack propagation.
PT

The stress intensity factors were determine for straight cracks near the attachment holes and
it was verified that the horizontal drag loads are responsible for the fatigue crack propagation
CE

on the fork.
In the present case study, cracks developed near the fixing holes, which are stress
AC

concentration zones, and propagated from the upper surface of the fork. As such, it can be
concluded that this area has been subject to cyclic tensile loads, which rise to fatigue cracks.
The fracture was initiated by cracking in holes of the fork structure. This cracking is
characteristic of the existence of areas of stress concentration.
Any type of initial defect was not observed in the fracture surfaces, consequently it can be
concluded that failure occurred by fatigue but in the presence of higher loads in the
components than those that were expected.

Acknowledgements
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

This work was also supported by FCT, through IDMEC, under LAETA, project
UID/EMS/50022/2013.

References

[1] Fonte, M., Duarte, P., Reis, L., Freitas, M., Infante, V., “Failure mode analysis of two
crankshafts of a single cylinder diesel engine”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Volume 56,
October 2015, Pages 185–193.

PT
[2] Infante, V., Silva, J.M., Silvestre, M., Baptista, R., “Failure of a crankshaft of an aeroengine: a
contribution for an accident investigation based on a Fracture Mechanics approach”,

RI
Engineering Failure Analysis, Volume 35, December 2013, Pages 286-293.

SC
[3] Infante, V., Silva, J.M., de Freitas, M., Reis, L., “Failures Analysis of Compressor Blades of
Aeroengines due to Service”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Volume 16, June 2009, Pages 1118-
NU
1125.

[4] Infante, V., Reis, L., de Freitas, M., "Failure analysis of landing gears trunnions due to
MA

service", Engineering Failure Analysis, Volume 41, June 2014, Pages 118–123.

[5] Currey, N.S., Aircraft Landing Gear Design: Principles and Practices, Aiaa Education Series.
1988.
D

[6] Divakaran V. N., Ravi Kumar G. V. V., Srinivasa Rao P., “Aircraft Landing Gear Design &
E

Development - How Advance Technologies are helping to meet the challenges?”, White Paper,
PT

2015.

[7] Serrano, B., Infante, V., Marado, B, “Fatigue life time prediction of PoAF Epsilon TB-30
CE

aircraft - Implementation of automatic crack growth based on 3D finite element method”,

Engineering Failure Analysis, Volume 33, October 2013, Pages 17-28.
AC

[8] Infante, V, Gomes, E., Branco, C.M., “Determination of the loading types responsible for the
deformed shape of an aircraft cockpit”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Volume 17, Issue 4, June
2010, Pages 1008-1016.

[9] Horak, I.V., “Advanced Landing Gear Fatigue Test Method”, LMS Conference Europe 2006.
Munich, March 22 & 23, 2006.

[10] Deng, Y., “Application of Shape Optimization in Landing-Gear Structural Design of Small
Aircraft”, Mechanics in Engineering, 2008, Volume 30 (1), Pages 47-51.

[11] Briscoe, D., ME 548 Aerostructures Final Project ANSYS Analysis Landing Gear.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[12] Malachowski, J., Krasoń, W., “Effort analysis of the landing gear with possible flow during
touchdown”, International Journal of Mechanics, 2008, Volume 2 (1), Pages 16-23.

[13] Franco, L.A.L., Lourenço, N.J., Graça, M.L.A., Silva, O.M.M., de Campos, P.P., von Dollinger,
C.F.A., “Fatigue fracture of a nose landing gear in a military transport aircraft”, Engineering
Failure Analysis, 2006, Volume 13 (3). Pages 474-479.

[14] Al-Bahkali, E.A., “Analysis of Different Designed Landing Gears for a Light Aircraft”,
International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing

PT
Engineering, 2013 Volume 79, Pages 406-409.

[15] Silva, J.M., Infante, V., Brito, A.S., “Using SEM techniques for failure analysis of critical

RI
aeroengine components”, Microscopy and Microanalysis (2009), 15 (Suppl. 3): 71-72
Cambridge University Press, Published online by Cambridge University Press 21 Aug 2009.

SC
[16] Burr, A.H., Cheatham, J.B., “Mechanical Analysis and Design. 2 ed. 1995: Prentice Hall.
NU
[17] Infante, V., Silva , J.M., “Case studies of computational simulations of fatigue crack
propagation using finite elements analysis tools”, Engineering Failure Analysis, Engineering
Failure Analysis, Volume 18, January 2011, Pages 616-624.
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
A nose landing gear fork was analyzed to determine the damage mechanisms
The fracture surface shows beach marks consistent with a fatigue process
Ratcheting was identified in the crack initiation site
The stress intensity factors were determine for straight cracks near the holes
The horizontal drag loads are responsible for the fatigue crack propagation

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC