1.PURPOSE. This AMC describes an acceptable means for showing compliance with the requirements of CS 25.362 “Engine failure loads”. These means are intended to provide guidance to supplement the engineering and operational judgement that must form the basis of any compliance findings relative to the design of engine mounts, pylons and adjacent supporting airframe structure, for loads developed from the engine failure conditions described in CS 25.362.
2.RELATED CS PARAGRAPHS. a. CS-25: CS 25.361 “Engine and auxiliary power unit torque” CS 25.901 “Powerplant installation” b. CS-E: CS-E 520 “Strength” CS-E 800 “Bird strike and ingestion” CS-E 810 “Compressor and turbine blade failure” CS-E 850 “Compressor, Fan and Turbine Shafts”
3.DEFINITIONS. Some new terms have been defined for the transient engine failure conditions in order to present criteria in a precise and consistent manner in the following pages. In addition, some terms are employed from other fields and may not necessarily be in general use. For the purposes of this AMC, the following definitions should be used. a. Adjacent supporting airframe structure: Those parts of the primary airframe that are directly affected by loads arising within the engine. b. Ground Vibration Test: Ground resonance tests of the aeroplane normally conducted for compliance with CS 25.629, “Aeroelastic stability requirements.” c. Transient failure loads: Those loads occurring from the time of the engine structural failure, up to the time at which the engine stops rotating or achieves a steady windmilling rotational speed. d. Windmilling engine rotational speed: The speed at which the rotating shaft systems of an unpowered engine will rotate due to the flow of air into the engine as a result of the forward motion of the aeroplane.
4.BACKGROUND. a. Requirements. CS 25.362 (“Engine failure loads”) requires that the engine mounts, pylons, and adjacent supporting airframe structure be designed to withstand 1g flight loads combined with the transient dynamic loads resulting from each engine structural failure condition. The aim being to ensure that the aeroplane is capable of continued safe flight and landing after sudden engine stoppage or engine structural failure, including ensuing damage to other parts of the engine. b. Engine failure loads. Turbine engines have experienced failure conditions that have resulted in sudden engine deceleration and, in some cases, seizures. These failure conditions are usually caused by internal structural failures or ingestion of foreign objects, such as birds or ice. Whatever the source, these conditions may produce significant structural loads on the engine, engine mounts, pylon, and adjacent supporting airframe structure. With the development of larger high-bypass ratio turbine engines, it became apparent that engine seizure torque loads alone did not adequately define the full loading imposed on the engine mounts, pylons, and adjacent supporting airframe structure. The progression to high-bypass ratio turbine engines of larger diameter and fewer blades with larger chords has increased the magnitude of the transient loads that can be produced during and following engine failures. Consequently, it is considered necessary that the applicant performs a dynamic analysis to ensure that representative loads are determined during and immediately following an engine failure event. A dynamic model of the aircraft and engine configuration should be sufficiently detailed to characterise the transient loads for the engine mounts, pylons, and adjacent supporting airframe structure during the failure event and subsequent run down. c. Engine structural failure conditions. Of all the applicable engine structural failure conditions, design and test experience have shown that the loss of a fan blade is likely to produce the most severe loads on the engine and airframe. Therefore, CS 25.362 requires that the transient dynamic loads from these blade failure conditions be considered when evaluating structural integrity of the engine mounts, pylons and adjacent supporting airframe structure. However, service history shows examples of other severe engine structural failures where the engine thrust-producing capability was lost, and the engine experienced extensive internal damage. For each specific engine design, the applicant should consider whether these types of failures are applicable, and if they present a more critical load condition than blade loss. In accordance with CS-E 520(c)(2), other structural failure conditions that should be considered in this respect are: failure of a shaft, or failure or loss of any bearing/bearing support, or a bird ingestion.
5.EVALUATION OF TRANSIENT FAILURE CONDITIONS a. Evaluation. The applicant’s evaluation should show that, from the moment of engine structural failure and during spool-down to the time of windmilling engine rotational speed, the engine-induced loads and vibrations will not cause failure of the engine mounts, pylon, and adjacent supporting airframe structure. (Note: The effects of continued rotation (windmilling) are described in AMC 25-24). Major engine structural failure events are considered as ultimate load conditions, since they occur at a sufficiently infrequent rate. For design of the engine mounts and pylon, the ultimate loads may be taken without any additional multiplying factors. At the same time, protection of the basic airframe is assured by using a multiplying factor of 1.25 on those ultimate loads for the design of the adjacent supporting airframe structure. b. Blade loss condition. The loads on the engine mounts, pylon, and adjacent supporting airframe structure should be determined by dynamic analysis. The analysis should take into account all significant structural degrees of freedom. The transient engine loads should be determined for the blade failure condition and rotor speed approved per CS-E, and over the full range of blade release angles to allow determination of the critical loads for all affected components. The loads to be applied to the pylon and airframe are normally determined by the applicant based on the integrated model, which includes the validated engine model supplied by the engine manufacturer. The calculation of transient dynamic loads should consider: the effects of the engine mounting station on the aeroplane (i.e., right side, left side, inboard position, etc.); and the most critical aeroplane mass distribution (i.e., fuel loading for wing-mounted engines and payload distribution for fuselage-mounted engines). For calculation of the combined ultimate airframe loads, the 1g component should be associated with typical flight conditions. c. Other failure conditions. As identified in paragraph 4(c) above, if any other engine structural failure conditions, applicable to the specific engine design, could result in higher loads being developed than the blade loss condition, they should be evaluated by dynamic analysis to a similar standard and using similar considerations to those described in paragraph 5.b., above.
6.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY. a. Objective of the methodology. The objective of the analysis methodology is to develop acceptable analytical tools for conducting investigations of dynamic engine structural failure events. The goal of the analysis is to produce loads and accelerations suitable for evaluations of structural integrity. However, where required for compliance with CS 25.901 (“Powerplant installation”), loads and accelerations may also need to be produced for evaluating the continued function of aircraft systems, including those related to the engine installation that are essential for immediate flight safety (for example, fire bottles and fuel shut off valves). b. Scope of the analysis. The analysis of the aircraft and engine configuration should be sufficiently detailed to determine the transient and steady-state loads for the engine mounts, pylon, and adjacent supporting airframe structure during the engine failure event and subsequent run-down.
7.MATHEMATICAL MODELLING AND VALIDATION a. Components of the integrated dynamics model. The applicant should calculate airframe dynamic responses with an integrated model of the engine, engine mounts, pylon, and adjacent supporting airframe structure. The model should provide representative connections at the engine-to-pylon interfaces, as well as all interfaces between components (e.g., inlet-to-engine and engine-to-thrust reverser). The integrated dynamic model used for engine structural failure analyses should be representative of the aeroplane to the highest frequency needed to accurately represent the transient response. The integrated dynamic model consists of the following components that must be validated: Airframe structural model. Propulsion structural model (including the engine model representing the engine type-design). b. Airframe Structural Model and Validation
(1)An analytical model of the airframe is necessary in order to calculate the airframe responses due to the transient forces produced by the engine failure event. The airframe manufacturers currently use reduced lumped mass finite element analytical models of the airframe for certification of aeroelastic stability (flutter) and dynamic loads. A typical model consists of relatively few lumped masses connected by weightless beams. A full aeroplane model is not usually necessary for the engine failure analysis, and it is normally not necessary to consider the whole aircraft response, the effects of automatic flight control systems, or unsteady aerodynamics.
(2)A lumped mass beam model of the airframe, similar to that normally used for flutter analysis, is acceptable for frequency response analyses due to engine structural failure conditions. However, additional detail may be needed to ensure adequate fidelity for the engine structural failure frequency range. In particular, the engine structural failure analysis requires calculating the response of the airframe at higher frequencies than are usually needed to obtain accurate results for the other loads analyses, such as dynamic gust and landing impact. The applicant should use finite element models as necessary. As far as possible, the ground vibration tests normally conducted for compliance with CS 25.629 (“Aeroelastic stability requirements”) should be used to validate the analytical model.
(3)Structural dynamic models include damping properties, as well as representations of mass and stiffness distributions. In the absence of better information, it will normally be acceptable to assume a value of 0.03 (i.e., 1.5% equivalent critical viscous damping) for all flexible modes. Structural damping may be increased over the 0.03 value to be consistent with the high structural response levels caused by extreme failure loads, provided it is justified. c. Propulsion Structural Model and Validation For propulsion structural model and validation, see AMC 25-24.
[Amdt 25/8]