DOCSLIB.ORG

Comprehensive Comparison of Steel Framed Fabric and Conventionally Constructed Aircraft Hangars Justin M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comprehensive Comparison of Steel Framed Fabric and Conventionally Constructed Aircraft Hangars Justin M Air Force Institute of Technology AFIT Scholar Theses and Dissertations Student Graduate Works 3-23-2018 Comprehensive Comparison of Steel Framed Fabric and Conventionally Constructed Aircraft Hangars Justin M. Iungerich Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.afit.edu/etd Part of the Civil Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Iungerich, Justin M., "Comprehensive Comparison of Steel Framed Fabric and Conventionally Constructed Aircraft aH ngars" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 1894. https://scholar.afit.edu/etd/1894 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Graduate Works at AFIT Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of AFIT Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON OF STEEL FRAMED FABRIC AND CONVENTIONALLY CONSTRUCTED AIRCRAFT HANGARS THESIS Justin M. Iungerich, Capt, USAF AFIT-ENV-MS-18-M-211 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States Government. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. AFIT-ENV-MS-18-M-211 COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON OF STEEL FRAMED FABRIC AND CONVENTIONALLY CONSTRUCTED AIRCRAFT HANGARS THESIS Presented to the Faculty Department of Systems Engineering Management Graduate School of Engineering and Management Air Force Institute of Technology Air University Air Education and Training Command In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering and Environmental Management Justin M. Iungerich, BS Captain, USAF March 2018 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. AFIT-ENV-MS-18-M-211 COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON OF STEEL FRAMED FABRIC AND CONVENTIONALLY CONSTRUCTED AIRCRAFT HANGARS Justin M. Iungerich, BS Captain, USAF Committee Membership: Dr. Diedrich Prigge Chair Dr. Elias Toubia, P.E. Member Dr. Anthony Palazatto, P.E. Member Capt. Ricardo Basora, P.E. Member AFIT-ENY-MS-18-M-211 Abstract Through the life of the United States Air Force (USAF), the accepted method for constructing permanent aircraft hangars is the use of materials such as steel and concrete. However, the emerging type of construction known as steel framed fabric (SFF) construction shows potential to meet the requirements of the USAF at a lower life-cycle cost and with faster construction delivery. A comprehensive comparison to conventional hangars is conducted through the means of an extensive literature review, case study analysis, structural analysis with the use of finite element analysis (FEA) software, and a life-cycle cost comparison. Through examination of Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Facility Criteria, industry building codes, and best practices, there are no significant barriers keeping the USAF/DoD from constructing SFF hangars. The FEA of a simplified SFF model reinforced that fabric membranes can provide equal, if not more, structural safety in comparison to conventional hangar claddings. This research recommends the USAF implement SFF hangars as an alternative to conventional construction for new aircraft hangar projects. By investing in SFF, the USAF will save considerable costs to the US taxpayer. Shorter construction delivery times will allow commanders more flexibility in mission bed-down. Lastly, reduced maintenance concerns typical of SFF hangars will lessen the burden on facility maintenance personnel. iv Acknowledgments I would like to show my gratitude to my thesis advisor Dr. Diedrich Prigge. His guidance and candid feedback was invaluable in the development of this paper. I would also like to thank the committee that helped develop different areas of the research: Dr. Elias Toubia, from the University of Dayton’s Structural Engineering department, and Dr. Anthony Palazatto, from the Air Force Institute of Technology, who instructed me on Finite Element Modeling techniques essential for the analyses performed in this research. I would, also, like to thank my sponsor, Mr. Benjamin Kindt, from the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Facilities Engineering Directorate for both the support and latitude provided to me in this endeavor. Capt Justin Iungerich v Table of Contents Page Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... vi Table of Figures ............................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi I. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 General Issue ................................................................................................................1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................5 Research Objectives/Questions/Hypotheses ................................................................7 Research Focus .............................................................................................................9 Methodology...............................................................................................................10 Assumptions/Limitations ............................................................................................12 Implications ................................................................................................................12 Outline of Chapters.....................................................................................................13 II. Literature Review ..........................................................................................................14 Chapter Overview .......................................................................................................14 Brief History and Description of Fabric Structures ....................................................15 Design Comparison ....................................................................................................22 Comparison of Construction Methods........................................................................35 Commercially Available Fabric Material ...................................................................45 III. Methodology ...............................................................................................................50 Chapter Overview .......................................................................................................50 Instrumental Case Study .............................................................................................50 Structural Analysis .....................................................................................................55 Life Cycle Cost Analysis ............................................................................................58 IV. Analysis and Results ...................................................................................................61 Chapter Overview .......................................................................................................61 Results of Case Study .................................................................................................61 Results of Structural Analysis ....................................................................................74 Results of Life Cycle Cost Analysis ...........................................................................89 V. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................91 Chapter Overview .......................................................................................................91 vi Conclusion ..................................................................................................................94 Recommendations for Action .....................................................................................95 Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................100 Appendix A: LCCA Input and Output .............................................................................101 Appendix B: Design Load Calculations ..........................................................................106 Appendix C: Fabric Membrane Specifications ................................................................113 Appendix D: Case Study Interview Responses ...............................................................115 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................135 vii List of Figures Figure Page 1. Top image shows scrim with woven yarns of the warp and fill directions. Bottom image shows a typical cross section of a tensile fabric with the arrangement of coatings and scrim (Huntington C. G.,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hindenburg: Last of The1 2 Gtaihi
    www.PDHcenter.com www.PDHonline.org Table of Contents Slide/s Part Description 1N/ATitle 2 N/A Table of Contents 3~96 1 Exceeding the Grasp 97~184 2 Biggest Birds That Ever Flew 185~281 3 Triumph and Tragedy 282~354 4 Made in America 355~444 5 The Future is Now 445~541 6 LZ-129 542~594 7 Flight Operations 595~646 8 Magic Carpet Ride 647~759 9 Oh, The Humanity! 760~800 10 Back to the Future Hindenburg: Last of the1 2 GtAihi Part 1 “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”for? Robert Browning, Poet Exceeding the Grasp 3 4 “...as by certain mechanical art and power to fly; The Dreams of Inventors so nicely was it balanced by weights and put in motion by hidden and enclosed air” Archytas of Tarentura, 400 B.C. 5 6 © J.M. Syken 1 www.PDHcenter.com www.PDHonline.org “…Then we are told of a monk who attempted a flight with wings from the top of a tower in Spain. He broke his legs, and wasafterwardburnedasasorcerer. Another similar trial was made from St. Mark’s steeple in Venice; another in Nuremberg;andsoonԝ - legs or arms were usually broken, occasionally a neck. In the sixteenth century we read of a certain Italian who went to the court of James IV of Scotland, and attempted to fly from the walls of Sterling Castle to France. His thig h was bkbroken; btbut,asareasonfor the failure, he asserted that some of the feathers used in constructing his wings “…Many other trials have there been of the same character.
    [Show full text]
  • Airship Hangars in Canada
    FWS Group Building Large Airship Hangars in Canada Engineering Considerations FWS Group History of Hangar Structures • In 1909, a French airplane pilot crash landed and rolled into a farmer’s cattle pen • He decided to set up shop in this unused shed, later ordering a number of these sheds for further use • The word hangar comes from a northern French dialect, and means "cattle pen" Zeppelin ZR3 approaching Hangar (Naval Air Station, Lakehurst, N.J) FWS Group History of Hangar Structures • A limited number of the over 100 airship hangars built in 19 countries survive today and documentation related to their construction is scarce • With the reinvention of the airship, the hangar needs to follow suit • Borrowing cues from the past and taking advantage of contemporary design and construction techniques FWS Group History of Hangar Structures • One of the first zeppelin sheds in Germany (1909) was a 600 ft x 150 ft x 66 ft steel-lattice structure with light cladding • 1920s saw the construction of parabolic reinforced concrete hangars • Designed by the pioneer of prestressed concrete, Eugene Freyssinet Construction of Former Hangar at Former Hangar at Orly, France Orly, France FWS Group Airship Hangars • “Hangar One” in California is a famous North American hangar that survives today • Over 1000 ft long and 308 ft wide Hangar One , NASA Ames Research Center USS Macon inside “Hangar One” circa 1933 Moffett Field, California FWS Group Airship Hangars • Another famous group of hangars in California are at Tustin • Over 1000 ft long, 300 ft wide and 178 ft high • All-wood design… war time rationing.
    [Show full text]
  • Heading Style
    Eaton wins $250 million, 20 -year aerospace contract for world's largest airship Wed May 16, 2001 - CLEVELAND, OHIO… Diversified industrial manufacturer Eaton Corporation (NYSE:ETN) said today its Aerospace business unit has signed a contractual agreement with CargoLifter Development GmbH of Berlin/Brand, Germany to provide the hydraulic power generation and distribution systems for the CargoLifter CL160 airship. The CL160 will be the largest lighter -than -air cargo airship in the world, and is designed to t ransport extremely large and heavy equipment and cargo containers. The program represents a revenue potential for Eaton of approximately $250 million over the next 20 years. Eaton has been selected to design, develop and integrate the hydraulic power gen eration system to power the blowers for the ballonets of the lighter -than -air gas management system, the winches for the cargo loading system and the flight controls. Eaton will also design and manufacture the entire hydraulic fluid power distribution netw ork that will provide total fluid conveyance for the hydraulic power generation system. The Eaton designed 4000 psi hydraulic system will be powered by eight Vickers brand main engine driven pumps and six Vickers brand AC motor pumps. The main hydraulic system will provide up to 1400 kilowatts of power to 16 speed -controlled blower motors, four to eight winch motors and eight flight control actuators, as well as several auxiliary power functions. Classified as a semi -rigid airship, as opposed to a blimp or dirigible, the CargoLifter's exterior structure is supported by an inner "bladder", or ballonet, which maintains the shape and altitude of the airship by increasing or decreasing air pressure.
    [Show full text]
  • Cargo Airships: Applications in Manitoba and the Arctic
    Cargo Airships: Applications in Manitoba and the Arctic Dr. Barry E. Prentice Professor, Supply Chain Management I.H. Asper School of Business University of Manitoba Presentation to the APEGM Annual Meeting, October 2005 www.umti.ca 1935 Everything old is new again 2005 www.umti.ca The same technological advances that have been 2005 applied to wind power have also been applied to a new generation of airships www.umti.ca 1935 Keys to a new Generation Cargo Airships • Better materials, new designs, lower cost • Environmentally benign, fuel efficient • Potential for large indivisible loads • Relativity lower ton-mile costs • Year-round freight service www.umti.ca Airship Options Symmetrical Hybrid Lifting Body Conventional Ellipsoid www.umti.ca Outline • overview of northern transportation • two logistics case studies for cargo airships • benefits to Canada • the state of the international airship industry • next steps www.umti.ca Sustainable Transportation in Northern Canada • Vast distances • Thin markets / low incomes • Arctic weather conditions • Fragile environment / climate change • Rare wildlife / aboriginal rights • Limited transportation infrastructure • Few backhaul opportunities • Monopoly service providers www.umti.ca Northern Canada: Logistics Alternatives Sea-lift Barge Airplanes Ice Roads www.umti.ca Northern Logistics Alternatives: Sea-lift lowest cost, summer coastal service, potentially large environmental hazard www.umti.ca Northern Logistics Alternatives: Barge transshipment plus marine costs, summer coastal and river
    [Show full text]
  • Hangar 3 Re-Use Guidelines
    Re-Use Guidelines Hangar 3 (Building No. 47) NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California August 30, 2006 Prepared for Integrated Science Solutions, Inc. Moffett Field, California Prepared by page & turnbull, inc. San Francisco, California Reuse Guidelines Hangar 3 Moffett Field, California Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 a. Project Team..................................................................................................................................3 b. Purpose..........................................................................................................................................4 c. Methodology....................................................................................................................................4 d. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................5 II. BUILDING SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 9 a. Description.....................................................................................................................................9 b. History ........................................................................................................................................20 c. Construction Chronology ...............................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • MS-388: James R. Shock Airship Collection
    MS-388: James R. Shock Airship Collection Collection Number: MS-388 Title: James R. Shock Airship Collection Dates: 1908-2010 (Bulk 1994-1999) Creator: Shock, James R., 1924-2010 Summary/Abstract: The James R. Shock Airship Collection documents the progression of airships from the early experimental prototypes of the late 19th century to the surveillance blimps used by the United States government today. The collection includes numerous photographs of military and civilian airships, blimps, and barrage balloons, along with detailed descriptions of the photographs. Included is Mr. Shock’s research for the airship books and articles he wrote over the years, magazine articles, newspaper clippings, military and civilian regulations, airship calendars, and slide presentations. Quantity/Physical Description: 18 linear feet Language(s): English, limited German and French Repository: Special Collections and Archives, Paul Laurence Dunbar Library, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001, (937) 775-2092 Restrictions on Access: There are no restrictions on accessing material in this collection. Restrictions on Use: Copyright restrictions may apply. Unpublished manuscripts are protected by copyright. Permission to publish, quote or reproduce must be secured from the repository and the copyright holder. Preferred Citation: [Description of item, Date, Box #, Folder #], MS-388, James R. Shock Airship Collection, Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. Acquisition: James R. Shock donated the collection to Special Collections and Archives, Wright State University Libraries, in September 2007, with additions received in May 2009, June 2010, and October 2010. Separated Material: Airship books and magazines were removed from the collection, cataloged, and are available for viewing in the Special Collections and Archives Reading Room.
    [Show full text]
  • Airship Logistics Centres: the 6 Th Mode of Transport
    Presented at the Canadian Transportation Research Forum . Toronto, ON, May 30- June 2, 2010 Published in the 45 th Annual Meeting Proceedings (2010): 413-427. AIRSHIP LOGISTICS CENTRES: THE 6 TH MODE OF TRANSPORT ∗ Blair Sherwood and Barry E. Prentice Introduction Contrary to public perception, airship development did not terminate with the Hindenburg accident, some 83 years ago. Airships have operated continuously since that time, albeit in small numbers, and developers continue to invest in new materials, designs, propulsion and computerized control systems. The major investment gap of the airship industry is ground-based infrastructure. Many industrialized countries retain a legacy of military airship hangars, but Canada has no infrastructure to support the development of an airship industry. Ironically, the country that stands to gain the most from lighter-than- air technology is the least prepared to attract it. Approximately 70 percent of Canada’s surface area is inaccessible most of the year. All-season, low cost airships could open the Canadian hinterland to economic development. Moreover, airships could address growing concerns about Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Airships, which can fly anywhere with minimal infrastructure, are ideal for serving Canada’s vast northern transportation needs. Airships could also be valuable to Canada as a trading nation. As airships get larger, they become more competitive for long distance transport. Like ships of the ocean, airships enjoy increasing economies of size. A doubling of the airship’s dimensions could quadruple its cargo capacity. Once airships are large enough to cross oceans economically, international trade will become their primary market (Prentice et al, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Cargolifter Airships
    Cargolifter airships Peter Lobner, Updated 21 December 2020 1. Introduction CargoLifter AG was founded in September 1996 in Wiesbaden, Germany, with the objective of offering a logistics service based on the point-to point transportation of heavy and oversized loads using lighter-than-air (LTA) technology in airships of their own design. An abandoned former Soviet military airbase in Brand-Briesen, south of Berlin, was selected as the site to build their production and operation center, including a giant airship hangar that in 2020 remains the largest freestanding building in the world. Cargolifter hanger circa 2001. Source: Stefan Kühn via Wikipedia Three different types of Cargolifter airships were planned: the 1:8 scale manned experimental airship “Joey,” the unmanned CL75 AC “AirCrane” transportation balloon and the CL160 semi-rigid airship. 1 The CL160 was much larger than the LZ-129 Hindenburg zeppelin built in the 1930s and the similar LZ-132 concept from the 1950s. Size comparison of CL160 Cargolifter, CL75 AC AirCrane transportation balloon, and CL “Joey” experimental airship with other air vehicles. Source: migenda.weebly.com First flight of the CL160 originally was planned to occur in 2003, with series production starting in 2004 / 2005. The first unit, known as P1, was to be used mainly for development risk reduction. The second unit, P2, would have been used to validate lift, control and maneuvering systems in a comprehensive development program. Cargolifter AG planned to build up to 50 CL160 airships and 10 CL75 AC transportation balloons by 2015 and establish the global infrastructure that could support this fleet of airships.
    [Show full text]
  • 19930084756.Pdf
    NOTICE THIS DOCUM.ENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED \ .- .. FROM THE BEST COPYFURNISHED US B.Y . - THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH.IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS. TECRJICAL E3MORANDUU NO. 237 RIGID AIRSHIPS.* Sy Friedrich Stahl. In contrast with the nonrigid. airship, in the development of which men of all. ciuilized c0untrie.s have,assisted, the Tigi.dl airship is exclusively the result of German genius- Its father is Count Zeppelin. Chronologically, the airship of David Schrvarz' was built first (in 1897), but Zeppe1in.I~.plans go back to the seventies, of '-1 - the last century. The plans for the. construction of the ~chfitte- i I Lanz airship did not nature until after the Echterdinge disaster Spurred on by German successes, the construction of rigid I airships was also undertaken in foreign countries. The Spiess airship in France and the Vickers in Engla.nd, mere finished shortly before the war. Their performances and especially their small carrying capacity, did not encourage further production. During the war, hoaever, England succeeded in making ser- viceable airships, after spies of the Entente had obtainedprac- tical experience in airship construction by working in German . airship yards and after Zeppelin airships had fallen into the hands of the enemy through forced landings. The successes England gained with these airships, including * From flFlug-Fielt;lt 1920, Nos. 24 & 25; 1921, Nos. 1-4 & 6-13. ... -2- I ' the American trip of thi R 34, may properly be placed to the, cred- it of Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Photo Gallery
    USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Photo Gallery August 27, 1924 – The ZR-3, built for the US Navy is pulled out of the hangar in Friedrichshafen by hundreds of handlers for its first test flight. Photo courtesy of Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Photo Gallery August 27, 1924 – The ZR-3’s control car as it leaves for its first test flight. Dr. Hugo Eckner can be seen in the window marked with an x. Photo courtesy of Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Photo Gallery 1924 – The LZ126/ZR-3 at Friedrichshafen during a test flight before its transatlantic flight for delivery to the U. S. Navy. Photo courtesy of airships.net USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Photo Gallery 1924 – The ZR-1, USS Shenandoah and the ZR-3, USS Los Angeles in the NAS Lakehurst hangar. Photo courtesy of Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Photo Gallery 1925 – View of the Los Angeles’ control car, taken while she was resting in the airship hangar at Naval Air Station Lakehurst, New Jersey. Note sandbag weights used to keep the airship from lifting off the wooden supporting structure. Photo courtesy of history.navy.mil USS Los Angeles (ZR-3) Photo Gallery August 25, 1927 – The USS Los Angeles in a near-vertical position, after her tail rose out-of-control while she was moored at the high mast at Naval Air Station Lakehurst, New Jersey. This incident, which resulted from the sudden arrival of a cold air front that lifted the airship's tail, causing it to rise before she could swing around the mast parallel to the new wind direction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Airships
    BY: Arjumand-Bano The Airships By Arjumand Bano (13005001010) Research Supervisor: Sir Kalim- Ur- Rehman A Research Project Submitted to Aviation Management In Partial fulfillment of requirement of Degree of Aviation Management Department of Institute of Aviation Studies University of Management and Technology Johar Town, Lahore May, 2017 Preface his project “The Airships” is done as a part of BS Aviation Management which has to be done in last semester in University of Management and T Technology, Lahore. I am glad to dedicate this project to Sir Kalim- Ur- Rehman which is project supervisor and without their guidance this project cannot be done competently. I am thankful to my parents and teachers who guided me in this project. For preparing the project I studied different websites related to airships. The data related to airships is easily available on internet. The research is based on airships types, its history, construction, biographies, modern airships etc. I tried my level best to put maximum information related to airships and keep the project from inaccuracies. If this project can help anyone to increase his/her information and knowledge I will feel that the purpose of my hard work has been achieved. ------------------------- Arjumand-Bano ID: 13005001010 Batch#5 Email: [email protected] BS Aviation Management (2013-2017) University of Management and Technology, Lahore. Acknowledgement t is genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to supervisor Sir Kalim- Ur -Rehman. Their keen interest and dedication above I all their overwhelming attitude to help their students had been solely and largely responsible for completing my work.
    [Show full text]
  • USS Akron (ZRS-4) Airship 1931-1933
    Source: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER USS Akron (ZRS-4) Airship 1931-1933 USS Akron, first of a class of two 6,500,000 cubic foot rigid airships, was built at Akron, Ohio. Commissioned in late October 1931, she spent virtually all of her short career on technical and operational development tasks, exploring the potential of the rigid airship as an Naval weapons system. During the remainder of 1931 and the early part of 1932, Akron made flights around the eastern United States and over the western Atlantic, including one trial of her capabilities as a scouting unit of the fleet. Damaged in a ground-handling accident at Lakehurst in late February 1932, she was again ready for flight two months later and began tests of her ability to operate an embarked unit of airplanes. These would greatly extend her reconnaissance reach and enhance her defenses against hostile air attack. During May and June 1932, Akron was based on the West Coast, performing a successful search mission over the Pacific as part of a fleet exercise. However, a fatal accident early in this deployment, in which two Sailors lost their lives, provided further proof that handling large airships at their ground bases was an inherently risky proposition. Another accident, while leaving the hangar at Lakehurst in August, reinforced this conclusion. Akron flew extensively during last half of 1932, further refining her airplane support and search capabilities. In January and March 1933 she twice went south, visiting Florida, Cuba and Panama to explore the base sites in the U.S.
    [Show full text]