Aircraft Structural Insert Layout to Eliminate Hole Deburring
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The inefficiency and time-consuming process of deburring aircraft components after drilling due to the need to separate and reposition them for fastening, particularly in wing box assemblies, where materials like aluminum and carbon fibre reinforced plastic do not require deburring but are unsuitable for high loading applications.
Innovation Solution
Incorporating an insert with lower material hardness than the body into aircraft structural components, allowing machining without significant tool wear and potentially eliminating the need for deburring, by using materials like aluminum or carbon fibre reinforced plastic for the insert and steel or titanium for the body, which minimizes swarf interaction and facilitates easier hole formation.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Strength
If hard materials like steel or titanium are used for the body to achieve high loading capability, then strength is improved, but tool wear increases and deburring becomes necessary
Solution Approach 1:
The body is segmented into two functional zones: a hard outer body for structural strength and loading capability, and a softer insert for machining operations. This segmentation allows each zone to be optimized independently - the body for strength and the insert for ease of manufacturing
Solution Approach 2:
The insert introduces local quality variation within the body, creating a localized softer region at the machining interface while maintaining the overall hard structure. This allows the machining area to have different material properties (lower hardness) than the bulk material, resolving the contradiction between strength and manufacturability
2Ease of manufacture
If soft materials like aluminum or carbon fibre reinforced plastic are used for the body to reduce tool wear, then ease of manufacture is improved, but loading capability decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The structural component is divided into the body (providing strength) and the insert (providing ease of manufacture). The body uses hard materials for loading capability while the insert uses soft materials for machining, with each segment performing its designated function
Solution Approach 2:
The insert creates a localized region with material properties optimized for machining (lower hardness, easier to machine) while the surrounding body maintains material properties optimized for structural performance. This local quality differentiation resolves the contradiction between ease of manufacture and loading capability
3Manufacturing precision
If deburring process is undertaken to remove chaff from holes, then manufacturing precision is improved, but loss of time increases due to component separation and repositioning
Solution Approach 1:
The softer insert material prevents chaff formation during drilling by allowing cleaner hole formation without the need for subsequent deburring operations. The insert's material properties enable the drilling process to complete the hole cleanly in one operation, eliminating the need for component separation and repositioning
Solution Approach 2:
The softer material of the insert, which might seem to compromise structural strength, actually benefits the machining process by reducing tool wear and eliminating chaff formation. This converts what could be seen as a disadvantage (softer material) into a benefit (cleaner machining, no deburring needed)
Data Source
AI summary
An aircraft assembly is disclosed having a first structural component and a second structural component. A fastener fastens the first component to the second component. The first structural component includes a body and an insert in the body. The insert has a machined hole through which the fastener extends. The material hardness of the insert is lower than the material hardness of the body.