WALL MADE FROM A COMPOSITE MATERIAL REINFORCED SO AS TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF A CRACK IN A DIRECTION

Abstract

The invention relates to a wall made from a composite material comprising at least two layers of fibers (18, 18′) embedded in a resin matrix, a crack being able to spread in said wall in a direction of propagation, characterized in that it comprises at least one longilineal metal reinforcement (20), oriented in a direction secant to the direction of propagation, inserted between two layers of fibers (18, 18′) of the wall.

Description

The present invention relates to a wall made from a composite material reinforced so as to limit the spread of a crack in a given direction.

To limit the impact of noise annoyance in aircrafts, techniques have been developed to reduce the noise, in particular by positioning panels or coatings at certain walls aiming to absorb some of the sound energy, in particular using the principle of Helmholtz resonators.

This type of panel comprises, from the outside toward the inside, an acoustically resistive porous layer, at least one cellular structure, and a reflective or impermeable wall. Alternatively, the panel may comprise several superimposed cellular structures between which acoustically resistive porous layers are provided. The cells of the cellular structure(s) are sized so as to ensure optimal acoustic treatment.

“Layer” refers to one or more layers that may or may not be of the same nature.

According to one embodiment, the cellular structure assumes the form of one or more honeycombs made from a composite material.

The reflective wall may be made from a composite material and obtained by draping fibers embedded in a resin matrix.

The acoustically resistive structure is a porous structure playing a dissipative role, partially converting the acoustic energy of the sound wave passing through it into heat. It comprises open areas capable of allowing the acoustic waves to pass, and other closed or solid areas not allowing the sound waves to pass, but designed to ensure the mechanical strength of said layer. This acoustically resistive layer is in particular characterized by an open surface rate that varies essentially as a function of the engine, the components making up said layer.

In general, the acoustically resistive structure comprises at least one porous layer and at least one reinforcing structure.

The porous layer must make it possible to make the acoustic treatment linear and trap the acoustic waves in the Helmholtz cells formed by the cellular structure.

According to one embodiment, the porous layer is a metal fabric, in particular a wire mesh with metal wires having a diameter in the vicinity of 0.1 mm.

According to one advantage, this metal fabric is an excellent conductor for sweeping lightning.

According to one constraint, this wire mesh, which is in contact with the flows of air, must not generate excessive protrusions, such that the diameter of the wires is limited and less than 0.1 mm or 0.2 mm. Beyond that, the wires of the mesh would create aerodynamically prohibitive protrusions.

According to one important point, part of the surface of the metal wire mesh is glued to the other layers of the acoustically resistive structure.

The reinforcing structure assumes the form of a plate made from a composite or metal material in which openings are formed with a larger or smaller section.

According to one embodiment, the reinforcing structure assumes the form of a sheet with round, oblong perforations.

According to the prior art, the porous layer and the reinforcing structure are made independently of one another and are simply connected by gluing so as to be pressed against one another.

Acoustically, the performance of the acoustic treatment panels is improving. They are very strong with respect to certain stresses, for example such as compression forces in the transverse direction (direction perpendicular to the layers) and tensile stresses in a longitudinal direction (direction contained in the plane of the layers). However, these panels are not resilient and may break in the event of impact. Lastly, cracks may spread from a localized damage area along an uncontrolled path.

Consequently, under normal usage conditions, the acoustic treatment panels are satisfactory. However, in case of incidents, if the structure of the aircraft to which the acoustic panel is connected tends to deform, the stresses borne by the panel may cause fissures or cracks to appear, which may spread if the burdens are severe enough, thereby causing the panel to break into several parts. Although acoustic treatment becomes secondary in that situation, it is nevertheless important for the structure of the aircraft to be damaged as little as possible so as to allow it to reach its final destination.

This issue may be generalized to all walls of the aircraft that are made from a composite material, for example such as those forming the fuselage. As for the acoustic treatment panel, it is important to limit the spread of a crack in a given direction so that the structure of the aircraft is damaged as little as possible and to allow the aircraft to continue its mission.

According to a more specific issue, the parts made from a composite material of an aircraft having sections in a transverse plane with a closed perimeter, for example such as a section of the fuselage, an acoustic treatment panel for an air intake, or a section of the wing, have a structure with orbital reinforcements that limit the spread of cracks in a direction perpendicular to the transverse plane. However, these parts made from a composite material have a low resistance to limit the risks of a crack spreading in a transverse plane that may then extend over the entire circumference.

Document U.S.2005/0112348 proposes a solution for reinforcing a panel that consists of affixing protruding strips on the surface of a panel. These strips may comprise non-metallic reinforcing fibers. This panel may not be used for applications where it is in contact with aerodynamic flows, due to the protruding elements. Furthermore, the nonmetallic fibers do not limit the spread of cracks, as they “break” just as much as the fibers of the layers making up the panel.

Consequently, the present invention aims to resolve the drawbacks of the prior art by proposing a wall made from a composite material reinforced so as to limit the spread of a crack in a given direction without, however, excessively impacting the onboard mass of the aircraft.

To that end, the invention relates to a wall made from a composite material comprising at least two layers of fibers embedded in a resin matrix, a crack being able to spread in said wall in a direction of propagation, characterized in that it comprises at least one longilineal metal reinforcement, oriented in a direction secant to the direction of propagation, inserted between two layers of fibers of the wall.

Advantageously, the reinforcement is made from a material having an elongation at break 50% higher than that of the fibers of the layers. Due to the ductile properties of the metals, the metal reinforcements can deform more than the fibers before breaking.

Preferably, the metal reinforcement assumes forms allowing it to be immobilized between the layers of fibers when a tensile force is exerted at one of its ends. This feature allows the metal reinforcements not to move in the matrix while limiting the adhesion between the reinforcement and the adjacent layers. This feature favors deflection of the crack, which tends to spread in the direction of the reinforcement 20.

Other features and advantages will emerge from the following description of the invention, which is provided solely as an example, in light of the appended figures, in which:

FIG. 1 is a cross-sectional view in a transverse plane of an acoustic treatment panel,

FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating a plate made from a reference composite material,

FIG. 3A is a diagram illustrating a plate made from a composite material reinforced with additional plies of fabric in which a crack has spread,

FIG. 3B is a diagram illustrating a plate in which a crack has spread made from a reinforced composite material with reinforcements in the form of Kevlar strips,

FIG. 3C is a diagram illustrating a plate made from a composite material reinforced with metal reinforcements according to the invention that have made it possible to deflect the spread of a crack,

FIG. 4 shows curves for tensile strength tests on plates in a direction parallel to the reinforcements respectively without reinforcements, with additional plies, with Kevlar reinforcements, and with metal reinforcements,

FIG. 5 shows curves for tensile strength tests on plates in a direction perpendicular to the plates respectively without reinforcements, with additional plies, with Kevlar reinforcements, and with metal reinforcements,

FIGS. 6A to 6G are lateral views of reinforcements according to various alternatives of the invention,

FIG. 7 is a cross-sectional view of the reinforcement illustrated in FIG. 6B along cutting line VII-VII,

FIG. 8 is a perspective illustration of a panel for the acoustic treatment of an air intake of an aircraft nacelle illustrating the installation of reinforcements,

FIG. 9 is a transverse cross-sectional view of the panel of FIG. 8, and

FIG. 10 is a transverse cross-sectional view of a wall according to the invention.

FIG. 1 shows an acoustic treatment panel 10 including, from the outside toward the inside, an acoustically resistive porous layer 12, at least one cellular structure 14, and a reflective or impermeable wall 16.

The acoustically resistive layer 12 and the cellular structure 14 are not described in more detail, as they are known by those skilled in the art and can be made in the same way as those of the acoustic treatment panels according to the prior art.

The acoustically resistive layer 12 and the cellular structure 14 can be made from a composite material. The reflective wall 16 is made from a composite material. It comprises at least two layers of fibers 18, 18′ oriented parallel to the plane of the panel and embedded in a resin matrix.

According to one embodiment, the reflective wall 16 comprises at least two layers of fibers 18, 18′, which may or may not be woven, and may or may not be pre-impregnated, the layers being draped on one another. The wall may comprise more than two layers of fibers. As illustrated in FIG. 10, the layers 18, 18′ may intersect or be interwoven.

According to one embodiment, these fibers can be made from carbon. As an example, to provide an order of magnitude, the carbon fibers have a diameter comprised between 0.005 mm and 0.015 mm, or a section smaller than 0.0002 mm². The invention is applicable to all types of fibers: short fibers or long fibers.

This wall 16 can be subjected to stresses that may cause a crack, also called a fissure, to appear.

“Crack” refers to the break of at least one ply. It is called a through crack when it passes straight or obliquely through the entire thickness.

In light of the stresses undergone, a crack may spread in a direction called the direction of propagation.

According to the invention, the wall 16 comprises at least one longilineal metal reinforcement 20, arranged to be secant to the direction of propagation of the crack and inserted between two layers of fibers 18, 18′. The reinforcement(s) 20 may be arranged between two parallel layers as shown in FIG. 1, or inserted between layers that intersect and pass above/below the reinforcements, as illustrated in FIG. 10.

The reinforcement is metallic due to the ductile properties of metals, which can deform more than fibers can before breaking. Thus, the material used for the reinforcement must have an elongation at break 50% higher than that of fibers.

“Metal” also encompasses metal alloys and metal matrix nanotechnologies.

“Longilineal” means that the reinforcement has one dimension that is much larger than the other dimensions. As illustrated in FIGS. 6F and 6G, the reinforcement is not necessarily rectilinear, but can have a curved profile, for example such as corrugations.

For the rest of the description, the longitudinal direction X refers to the direction corresponding to the largest dimension of the reinforcement, i.e. its length.

When the reinforcement is not rectilinear, the longitudinal direction at a given point corresponds to the direction of the tangent to the reinforcement at the given point.

“Transverse plane” refers to a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.

According to one important point of the invention, the metal reinforcement 20 must have shapes allowing it to be immobilized between the layers of fibers 18, 18′ when a tensile force is exerted at one of its ends and preventing it from moving outward.

To that end, as illustrated in FIGS. 6A to 6E, the reinforcement 20 does not have a constant section, that section varying in the longitudinal direction.

Alternatively, as illustrated in FIGS. 6F and 6G, the reinforcement 20 has a non-rectilinear profile in the longitudinal direction, but for example describes corrugations.

Alternatively, as illustrated in FIG. 6G, the reinforcement 20 comprises fastening points 22 to connect it to at least one of the adjacent layers 18, 18′.

The fact that the metal reinforcement 20 assumes forms allowing it to be immobilized between the layers of fibers 18, 18′ when a tensile force is exerted at one of its ends makes it possible to limit the adhesion between the reinforcement 20 and the adjacent layers 18, 18′. Optimally, the outer surface of the reinforcement 20 does not adhere to the adjacent layers 18, 18′. This feature favors the deflection of the crack, which tends to spread in the direction of the reinforcement 20.

According to the invention, the layers of fibers 18, 18′ on either side of the metal reinforcement 20 are connected outside the surfaces covered by the reinforcement. In this way, the matrix in which the fibers of the layers and the metal reinforcement(s) are embedded is continuous on either side of the reinforcement(s) 20 and polymerized during a same polymerization phase. The wall does not comprise two distinct assembled matrices on either side of the plane of the reinforcement(s).

Advantageously, the reinforcement 20 assumes the form of a strip, as shown in FIGS. 6A to 6E and 7. This feature makes it possible, at a constant section, for the reinforcement to have a reduced thickness for a reinforcement in strip form as compared to a reinforcement in the form of a cylindrical rod. It is possible to provide a strip with a thickness of 0.5 mm and a width in the vicinity of 0.7 mm, which corresponds to a section of 0.35 mm². To obtain the same section, a cylindrical reinforcement must have a diameter in the vicinity of 0.65 mm. Providing a reinforcement in the form of a strip makes it possible to limit overthicknesses, and therefore the risks of breaking the fibers of the adjacent layers.

According to another advantage, providing a reinforcement in the form of a strip makes it possible to limit the risks of shearing of the fibers relative to a reinforcement with a circular section, which may behave like a cutting thread.

According to one preferred embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 6A and 6E, the reinforcement assumes the form of a metal strip with recesses 24 with a width smaller than that of the reinforcement and arranged symmetrically relative to the longitudinal median axis of the strip. These recesses define two posts 26, 26′ at the strip, said posts being arranged at the longitudinal edges of the strip (parallel to the longitudinal direction) and connected by crosspieces 28. The adjacent layers 18 and 18′ are embedded in the same matrix at the recesses.

To provide an order of magnitude, a reinforcement has a width in the vicinity of 30 mm, as illustrated in FIGS. 6A and 6B, in the vicinity of 20 mm as illustrated in FIG. 6D and 6E, or the vicinity of 10 mm as illustrated in FIG. 6C.

The posts 26, 26′ may or may not have the same width. The width of the posts may vary from 2 to 10 mm.

The recesses 24 may be regularly spaced apart, as illustrated in FIGS. 6A to 6C and 6E, or may have different spaces between them, as illustrated in FIG. 6D.

The recesses 24 may have a dimension L1 in the longitudinal direction that is identical or at most equal to two times the dimension L2 in the transverse direction, as illustrated in FIGS. 6B, 6D, 6E.

Alternatively, as illustrated in FIGS. 6A and 6C, the dimension L1 of the recesses is larger than or equal to two times the dimension L2.

Lastly, the posts 26, 26′ and the crosspieces 28 may have substantially identical widths, as illustrated in FIGS. 6A to 6C, or certain crosspieces 28 may have a width much larger than that of the posts, as illustrated in FIGS. 6D and 6E.

According to one preferred embodiment, a metal reinforcement 20 has a width in the vicinity of 30 mm and a thickness of the vicinity of 0.5 mm, the posts and the crosspieces have a width in the vicinity of 2 to 4 mm, the recesses are regularly spaced apart and have a dimension L1 of 30 to 35 mm and a dimension L2 in the vicinity of 25 mm.

As illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 9, in the case of a reflective wall 16 of an acoustic treatment panel 10 in the form of a tube portion with an axis 30, reinforcements 20 should be provided oriented parallel to the axis 30, (preferably regularly) distributed over the circumference. Advantageously, in the case of a cylindrical wall of an air intake, 12 to 35 reinforcements should be provided regularly distributed over the periphery, which form an angle varying from approximately 10 to 30° between them. Advantageously, 16 to 18 reinforcement should be provided.

In the case of a wall of a pressurized fuselage, not only should the spread of a crack be limited, but sealing of the wall should also be ensured. In that case, the reinforcements are arranged closer together and forming an angle varying from approximately 2 to 10° between them.

More generally, in the case of a wall made from a composite material of an aircraft having sections in parallel planes with a closed perimeter, for example such as the fuselage or a wing, the reinforcements are arranged between the layers of the wall and oriented in a direction perpendicular to the section planes.

When they are incorporated into a wall in which a crack may spread in a direction of propagation, the reinforcements 20 are spaced apart by a distance greater than or equal to 5 times the width of the reinforcement in the direction of propagation. Preferably, they are oriented perpendicular to the direction of propagation, which must be avoided as a priority.

In FIG. 2, a test piece 32 is provided in the form of a plate made from a composite material, comprising at least two layers of fibers.

This test piece 32 comprises a crack 34 and is subjected to tensile forces 36, 36′ arranged on either side of the crack 34 oriented in opposite directions, in a direction Z that is perpendicular to the plane of the test piece, so as to cause the crack 34 to spread in a direction Y embodied by the arrow 38.

The reference test piece 32 does not comprise any reinforcements and comprises a superposition of plies, for example 7 plies, certain plies having fibers oriented in the longitudinal direction, other fibers oriented at +/−45° relative to the longitudinal direction. According to one embodiment, the fibers are made from carbon and embedded in an epoxy resin.

In FIG. 3A, the test piece 32′ has been reinforced by the addition of plies of the same nature. In this way, the test piece 32′ comprises 20% additional plies, which amounts to a 20% increase in the mass of the test piece.

The test piece 32′ is subjected to the same stresses as the test piece 32. As illustrated in FIG. 3A, the crack tends to spread in the direction of propagation.

As shown by the curves of FIG. 4, the tensile gain in the longitudinal direction X is 15% between the curve 40, which corresponds to the reference test piece 32, and the curve 42, which corresponds to the test piece 32′.

As illustrated in FIG. 5, the tensile gain in the perpendicular direction Z is 2% between the curve 44, which corresponds to the test piece 32, and the curve 46, which corresponds to the test piece 32′.

Thus, despite a 20% increase in the mass, a gain of only 2% is obtained regarding the limitation of the spread of the crack, which spreads identically to that of the test piece 32 without reinforcements.

In FIG. 3B, the test piece 32″ has been reinforced by adding reinforcements 48 in the form of Kevlar strips. The test piece 32″ thus has a mass 5% higher compared to the reference test piece 32. As illustrated in FIG. 3B, the crack tends to spread in the direction of propagation Y.

As shown by the curves of FIG. 4, the tensile gain in the longitudinal direction X is 15% between the curve 40, which corresponds to the reference test piece 32, and the curve 50, which corresponds to the test piece 32″.

As illustrated in FIG. 5, a tensile gain in the perpendicular direction Z is 50% between the curve 44, which corresponds to the test piece 32, and the curve 52, which corresponds to the test piece 32″.

In FIG. 3C, the test piece 32′″ has been reinforced by adding metal reinforcements 54 according to the invention, spaced apart in the direction of propagation Y. The test piece 32′″ has a mass 2% higher compared to the reference test piece 32. As illustrated in FIG. 3C, the crack tends to spread in the direction of propagation Y as far as the reinforcement, then is deflected and tends to spread in the longitudinal direction X.

As shown by the curves of FIG. 4, the tensile gain in the longitudinal direction X is 30% between the curve 40, which corresponds to the referenced test piece 32, and the curve 56, which corresponds to the test piece 32′″.

As illustrated in FIG. 5, a tensile gain in the perpendicular direction Z is 120% between the curve 44, which corresponds to the test piece 32, and the curve 58, which corresponds to the test piece 32′″.

Thus, as shown by this trial, the crack does not spread in the direction of propagation, but is deflected owing to the reinforcements according to the invention. Furthermore, it will be noted for the test piece with metal reinforcements according to the invention that there is a much greater gain compared to the other test pieces with a more limited impact on the mass. These trials overcome a prejudice of those skilled in the art tending to think only of the iso-mass; composite materials have better mechanical properties than metals, with the result that metal aircraft parts are replaced by elements made from a composite material.

Claims

1. A wall made from a composite material comprising at least two layers of fibers (18, 18′) embedded in a resin matrix, a crack being able to spread in said wall in a direction of propagation, characterized in that it comprises at least one longilineal metal reinforcement (20), oriented in a direction secant to the direction of propagation, inserted between two layers of fibers (18, 18′) of the wall.

2. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 1, characterized in that the reinforcement is made from a material having an elongation at break 50% higher than that of the fibers of the layers.

3. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 2, characterized in that the metal reinforcement (20) assumes forms allowing it to be immobilized between the layers of fibers (18, 18′) when a tensile force is exerted at one of its ends.

4. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 3, characterized in that the section of the reinforcement (20) varies over its length.

5. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 1, characterized in that the reinforcement (20) assumes the form of a strip inserted between the layers of fibers (18, 18′).

6. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 5, characterized in that the reinforcement (20) assumes the form of a metal strip with recesses (24) with a width smaller than that of the reinforcement and arranged symmetrically relative to the longitudinal median axis of the reinforcement.

7. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 6, characterized in that the reinforcement has a width in the vicinity of 30 mm.

8. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 6, characterized in that the reinforcement has a thickness in the vicinity of 0.5 mm.

9. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 6, characterized in that the recesses (24) are regularly spaced apart by approximately 2 to 4 mm and have a direction along the length of the reinforcement of 30 to 35 mm and a dimension along the width of the reinforcement of approximately 25 mm.

10. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises several reinforcements (20) spaced apart by a distance greater than or equal to 5 times the width of the reinforcements in the direction of propagation.

11. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 1, characterized in that said wall has sections in parallel planes describing a closed perimeter and in that it comprises reinforcements regularly distributed over the periphery of the closed perimeter that form an angle varying from approximately 10 to 30° between them.

12. The wall made from a composite material according to claim 1, characterized in that said wall has sections in parallel planes describing a closed perimeter and in that it comprises reinforcements regularly distributed over the periphery of the closed perimeter that form an angle varying from approximately 2 to 10° between them.