Professional Documents
Culture Documents
64
(
4
) (ref 7)
=
64
(
4
)
= 306640.625
4
Deflection,
max
=
PL
3
3 EI
( ref 7)
=
1000 (100)
3
3 (70000)(306640.625)
max
= 0.015 mm
Page | 24
Bending Equation,
M
I
=
o
Y
=
E
R
(ref 7)
M
= PL (ref 7)
= 1000 (100)
= 100000 N-mm
y = D/2 = 50 / 2 = 25 mm (ref 7)
=
M Y
I
(ref 7)
=
(100000) (25)
12.5664
Note: Here
=
x
.In this problem there are no
y
and
xy.
Hence bending stress is
equal to principal stress (both major and minor) in magnitude.
5.1.2 FE ANALYSIS:
FE idealization: Total diameter of 50 mm circular cross section is idealized
with (3d- tetra) TET 10 elements.
Geometrical properties: Diameter, Area, M.I (moment of inertia) of cross
section is provided with PBAR card.
Material properties : Youngs modulus and shear modulus (G) of aluminium
are provided with MAT1 card.
Boundary conditions: Fixed at one end by constraining all the
displacements.
Loading at the other end: Only vertical load, P = 1000 N.
= 8.152 N/mm
2
Fig.9
Fig.10: Maximum stress
Result:
Methods
Analytical
FEA
9: Deflection, at the free end
: Maximum stress, at the free end
Deflection,
(mm)
Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
0.015 8.152
0.017 8.15
Page | 25
stress,
Page | 26
5.2 BUCKLING OF A BEAM (BOTH ENDS HINGED):
5.2.1 CONVENTIONAL METHOD:
Fig.11: Buckling of beam
Material used: Steel
Crippling load, P
cr
=
2
E I
L
2
(ref 7)
Length of the column, L = 200 mm
Diameter of the column, d = 10 mm
Youngs modulus, E = 2.1 10
5
N/mm
2
Moment of Inertia, I = (/64) d
4
(ref 7)
= (/64) 10
4
= 490.87
4
P
cr
=
2
EI
L
2
(ref 7)
=
2
(2.1)(10)
S
(490.87)
200
2
Allowable Critical buckling load,
P
cr
= 25.3 kN
Page | 27
5.2.2 FE ANALYSIS:
5.2.2.1 Linear buckling analysis:
In NASTRAN, a structure defined for static analysis can also be run for
buckling also. This solution gives results firstly with static results and can be
estimated by multiplying the applied load by lowest Eigen value (fundamental
buckling mode).
Critical buckling load, Pcr =
lowest
x P
applied
In buckling analysis, the stiffness matrix of structure (K) in static analysis is
extended to include interaction between the in-plane forces and lateral bending by
introducing additional elements K
ij
. Linear buckling analysis ignores the effect of
structural imperfections on the behaviour of the structure under load and yields a
buckling load for a perfect structure which is always higher than the buckling load,
which is found in tests on real structures.
5.2.2.2 Buckling FE analysis:
FE idealization: Total length of 200mm is idealized with CBAR elements
Geometrical properties: Diameter, Area, M.I (moment of inertia) of cross
section is provided with PBAR card.
Material properties: Youngs modulus and shear modulus (G) of steel are
provided with MAT1 card.
Boundary conditions: Hinged Hinged condition: FOUR Degrees of
Freedom were constrained.
Loading: A compressive Force of 1000 N is applied axially through Force
card.
Fig.12: FE
Lowest Eigen value from FE
FEA Critical buckling load,
FEA results of beam under buckling
Lowest Eigen value from FEA results = 25.317
Critical buckling load,
c
= 25.317 (1000)
= 25317 N
Page | 28
Page | 29
5.3 RESULTS AND SUMMARY OF EXERCISE PROBLEMS:
5.3.1 STRESS ANALYSIS ON A CIRCULAR CANTILEVER BEAM:
S.NO DESCRIPTION CONVENTIONAL
METHOD
FE METHOD
1) Displacement due to
point load, (mm)
0.015 0.017
2) Maximum bending
stress, (N/mm
2
)
8.152
8.15
5.3.2 BUCKLING OF A BEAM (BOTH ENDS HINGED):
S.NO DESCRIPTION CONVENTIONAL
METHOD
FE METHOD
1) Crippling load,
c
(kN) 25.4 25.317
5.4 OBSERVATION:
It is observed that the example results on structural elements are similar in
both analytical method and FEA. Hence by using FE package the accuracy of the
expected results are good and the procedure is fast.
6. STRESS ANALYSIS OF SKID TUBE OF A HELICOPTER
The skid landing gear system components of LUH are designed to
withstand the limit as well as reserve landing loads as specified in FAR 29.501.
The gear in its most critically deflected position for the landin
considered and the ground reactions rationally distributed along the bottom of skid
tube.
Structural yielding of elastic spring members under limit load is acceptable.
The design maximum weight, CG and the load factor is determined as per F
29.471 through 29.475. Design ultimate load is estimated by the drop test with the
rotor disc 1.5 times (or less) that used in limit drop case and drop height 1.5 times
of that specified in FAR 29.725.
6.1 LOAD CASES:
The undercarriage system skid tube component of a helicopter has been
analyzed using FEA packages Patran/Nastran. The analysis of the skid tube has
been carried out by varying the thickness of the circular cross section FOR
OPTIMIZATION. The skid tube has been analyzed for different LOAD CASES as
PER AIRWORTHIENESS REQUIREMENTS as follows:
When a helicopter lands, the load is always concentrated between the
span of the cross tube joints in the skid tube.
A. Load applied is applied on length (2210.25 mm) of the skid tube.
B. Load applied is only on 33.3
the skid tube.
Fig.13: Helicopter skid tube with defining length
STRESS ANALYSIS OF SKID TUBE OF A HELICOPTER
The skid landing gear system components of LUH are designed to
withstand the limit as well as reserve landing loads as specified in FAR 29.501.
The gear in its most critically deflected position for the landing condition is
considered and the ground reactions rationally distributed along the bottom of skid
Structural yielding of elastic spring members under limit load is acceptable.
The design maximum weight, CG and the load factor is determined as per F
29.471 through 29.475. Design ultimate load is estimated by the drop test with the
rotor disc 1.5 times (or less) that used in limit drop case and drop height 1.5 times
of that specified in FAR 29.725.
The undercarriage system skid tube component of a helicopter has been
packages Patran/Nastran. The analysis of the skid tube has
been carried out by varying the thickness of the circular cross section FOR
OPTIMIZATION. The skid tube has been analyzed for different LOAD CASES as
PER AIRWORTHIENESS REQUIREMENTS as follows:
When a helicopter lands, the load is always concentrated between the
span of the cross tube joints in the skid tube.
Load applied is applied on length (2210.25 mm) of the skid tube.
Load applied is only on 33.3% of the length (2210.25 mm) i.e. 73
: Helicopter skid tube with defining length
Page | 30
STRESS ANALYSIS OF SKID TUBE OF A HELICOPTER
The skid landing gear system components of LUH are designed to
withstand the limit as well as reserve landing loads as specified in FAR 29.501.
g condition is
considered and the ground reactions rationally distributed along the bottom of skid
Structural yielding of elastic spring members under limit load is acceptable.
The design maximum weight, CG and the load factor is determined as per FAR
29.471 through 29.475. Design ultimate load is estimated by the drop test with the
rotor disc 1.5 times (or less) that used in limit drop case and drop height 1.5 times
The undercarriage system skid tube component of a helicopter has been
packages Patran/Nastran. The analysis of the skid tube has
been carried out by varying the thickness of the circular cross section FOR
OPTIMIZATION. The skid tube has been analyzed for different LOAD CASES as
When a helicopter lands, the load is always concentrated between the
Load applied is applied on length (2210.25 mm) of the skid tube.
i.e. 736 mm of
6.1.1 Reference image of boundary & loading conditions (2D)
for load case B:
Fig.14: Load applied is only on 33.3 % of the
The simulated loads are given in the table below:
Landing velocity FWD CG
Fwd C/T
Reserve landing
3.12 m/s
19716 N
Total load considered (FWD C/T) =
6.2 SKID TUBE ANALYSIS:
Skid tube 1D FE model and
elements and 2D quad elements. Initially
stress and deflection are estimated. FE results from two models are also obtained
for the same loading and compared.
6.1.1 Reference image of boundary & loading conditions (2D)
oad applied is only on 33.3 % of the total length i.e. 736 mm
simulated loads are given in the table below:
FWD CG AFT CG
Fwd C/T Aft C/T Fwd C/T
19716 N 19898 N 31724.5 N
Total load considered (FWD C/T) = 31724.5 N
6.2 SKID TUBE ANALYSIS:
Skid tube 1D FE model and 2D FE model are created using 1D
elements and 2D quad elements. Initially, by analytical approach critical bending
stress and deflection are estimated. FE results from two models are also obtained
for the same loading and compared.
Page | 31
total length i.e. 736 mm
(ref 1)
Aft C/T
__
2D FE model are created using 1D beam
by analytical approach critical bending
stress and deflection are estimated. FE results from two models are also obtained
Skid tube has been analyzed for both the load cases (load cases
under two simulations which differ in thickness as follows:
6.2.1. SIMULATION (1)
thickness 3.4 mm for load case
6.2.2. SIMULATION (1
thickness 3.4 mm for load case
6.2.3. SIMULATION (2)
thickness 4 mm for load case
6.2.4. SIMULATION (2)
thickness 4 mm for load case
6.2.1 SIMULATION 1- case A:
Fig.15: FE model of the
6.2.1.1 Analytical solution:
Load concentration span,
L
Thickness, t
Total load applied, P
(Vertical loading in Z
Outer diameter, D
Inner diameter, d
Skid tube has been analyzed for both the load cases (load cases
ch differ in thickness as follows:
SIMULATION (1) - case A: Analysis of the skid tube of constant
hickness 3.4 mm for load case-A
(1) - case B: Analysis of the skid tube of constant
thickness 3.4 mm for load case-B
SIMULATION (2) - case A: Analysis of the skid tube of constant
thickness 4 mm for load case-A
SIMULATION (2) - case B: Analysis of the skid tube of constant
thickness 4 mm for load case-B
case A:
FE model of the Skid tube with constant thickness, 3.4 mm
Analytical solution:
Load concentration span, 2210.25 mm
Thickness, t 3.4 mm
Total load applied, P
(Vertical loading in Z-axis)
31724.5 N
Outer diameter, D 90 mm
Inner diameter, d 83.2 mm
Page | 32
Skid tube has been analyzed for both the load cases (load cases-A & B)
Analysis of the skid tube of constant
Analysis of the skid tube of constant
lysis of the skid tube of constant
Analysis of the skid tube of constant
3.4 mm
Page | 33
Mass of the skid tube,
Mass = volume density (ref 7)
= (
2
r
2
) L
= 3.14 (4
2
41.6
2
) (3172) (0.000002810)
Mass = 8.24 kg
Moment of inertia, I =
64
(D
4
d
4
) (ref 7)
=
64
(90
4
83.2
4
)
w =
Ioad
Icngth
(ref 7)
=
31724.5
2210.25
w = 14.3533 N/mm
Fig.16: General load diagram
I = 868042.86 mm
4
Page | 34
M
A
=
W L
2
12
; M
B
=
W L
2
12
(ref 7)
=
(14.3533) (2210.25)
2
12
M
A
= 5.8432 1
6
N mm
M
B
= - 5.8432 1
6
N mm
M
C
=
W L
2
24
(ref 7)
=
(14.3533) (2210.25)
2
24
N
C
= 2.921 1
6
N mm
Maximum bending stress, =
M
A
Y
I
(ref 7)
=
(5.8432) (10
6
) (45)
868042.86
= 302 N/ mm
2
Deflection, =
W L
4
384 E I
(ref 8)
=
(14.3533) (2210.25)
4
(384) (70000) (868042.86)
= 14 mm
Page | 35
6.2.1.2 FEA solution:
Fig.17: Deflection (1D)
Fig.18: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
Fig.19: Deflection (2D)
Page | 36
Fig.20: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
6.2.1.3 Comparison of RESULTS in simulation 1-case A:
Solutions Deflection,
(mm)
Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
Analytical 14 302
FEA (1D) 15 266
FEA (2D) 18 307
6.2.2 SIMULATION 1- case B:
Load applied is only on 33.3 % of the total length (2210.25 mm) i.e. 736 mm of the
skid tube.
Thickness, t 3.4 mm
Total Length, L 2210.25 mm
Page | 37
6.2.2.1 Analytical solution:
Using Macaulays method,
b = (0.333) (2210.25)
= 736 mm
a =
L-b
2
(ref 7)
=
2210.25-736
2
a = 737.125 mm
w =
31724.5
736
= 43.103 N/ mm
N
A
= w
12 b L
2
- 8 (L-a)
3
+ (L-b)
3
48 L
(ref 7)
N
B
= w
12 b L
2
- 8 (L-a)
3
+ (L-b)
3
48 L
(ref 7)
M
A
= 43.103
(12)(736)(2210.25)
2
- 8 (2210.25-737.125)
3
+ (2210.25-736)
3
(48)(2210.25)
N
A
= 8438486.943 N mm
N
B
= 8438486.943 N mm
=
M
A
Y
I
(ref 7)
=
(8438486.943) (45)
868042.86
= 437 N/ mm
2
Page | 38
6.2.2.2 FEA solution:
Fig.21: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
Fig.22: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
6.2.2.3 Comparison of RESULTS in simulation 1-case B:
Solutions Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
Analytical 437
FEA (1D) 387
FEA (2D) 411
6.2.3 SIMULATION 2 case A
Fig.23: Skid tube with constant thickness,
Length, L
Thickness, t
Total load applied, P
(Vertical loading in Z
Outer diameter, D
Inner diameter, d
6.2.3.1 Analytical solution:
Mass of the skid tube,
Mass = volume
= (
2
= 3.14 (
Mass = 9.62 kg
case A:
d tube with constant thickness, 4 mm
Length, L 2210.25 mm
Thickness, t 4 mm
Total load applied, P
(Vertical loading in Z-axis)
31724.5 N
Outer diameter, D 90 mm
Inner diameter, d 82 mm
Analytical solution:
volume density
2
r
2
) L
= 3.14 (4
2
41
2
) (3172) (0.000002810)
2 kg
Page | 39
(ref 7)
Page | 40
Moment of Inertia, I =
n
64
(
4
4
) (ref 7)
=
n
64
(9
4
82
4
)
I = 1000768.24
4
From simulation- 1,
w = 14.3533 N/ mm
N
A
= 5.8423 1
6
N
B
= - 5.8423 1
6
N
C
= 2.921 1
6
N mm
=
M
A
Y
I
(ref 7)
=
(.842S) (1)
6
(4)
1768.24
Deflection, =
W L
4
384 E I
(ref 8)
=
(14.3533)(2210.25)
4
(384) (70000) (1000768.24)
= 262 N /
2
= 12.7 mm
Page | 41
FEA solution:
Fig.24: Deflection (1D)
Fig.25: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
Fig.26: Deflection (2D)
Page | 42
Fig.27: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
Result:
Solution Deflection,
(mm)
Maximum bending
stress,
(N/
2
)
Analytical 12.7 262
FEA (1D) 13.6 252
FEA (2D) 15.7 261
6.2.4 SIMULATION (2) case B:
Load applied is only on 33.3 % of the length i.e. 736 mm of the skid tube.
6.2.4.1 Analytical solution:
Thickness = 4mm; from sub case-1, N
A
= 8438486.943 N/mm
N
C
= M
A
+
w b L
4
w b
2
8
(ref 7)
= 8438486.943 +
(14.3533) (736) (2210.25)
4
14.3533 (736)
2
8
N
C
= 3.573 1
6
N/ mm
=
(8.4384) 10
6
(45)
1000768.24
= 379.43 N/mm
2
Page | 43
6.2.4.2 FEA solution:
Fig.28: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
Fig.29: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
Result:
Solutions Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
Analytical 379
FEA (1D) 359
FEA (2D) 351
Page | 44
7. WEIGHT OPTIMIZATION ANALYSIS & STUDY
7.1 WEIGHT OPTIMIZATION SIMULATIONS:
Weight optimization is done considering the stress concentrated area in the skid
tube. Thickness has been varied in the same skid tube giving greater thickness to
the more stress concentrated area to reduce the overall weight of the skid tube.
The weight optimization is done for both the load cases (load cases A & B) under
two simulations.
7.1.1 SIMULATION (3) case A:
Analysis of the skid tube of variable thickness 3-4 mm for load case-A.
Fig.30: Skid tube with variable thickness
Mass of the skid tube,
Mass = volume density (ref 7)
= (
2
r
2
) L
1
= 3.14 (4
2
41
2
) (860.5) (0.000002810)
m
1
= 2.61 kg
Mass = volume density
= (
2
r
2
) L
2
= 3.14 (4
2
42
2
) (1105.125) (0.000002810)
m
2
= 2.55 kg
Page | 45
Mass = volume density
= (
2
r
2
) L
3
= 3.14 (4
2
41
2
) (1206.375) (0.000002810)
m
3
= 3.66 kg
Total mass of the tube = m
1
+ m
2
+m
3
= 2.61 + 2.55 + 3.66
= 8.82 kg
Margin of safety (MOS):
Design safety factor, DSF = 1.5
Fitting factor, F
F
= 1.15
MOS =
o
uIt
F
F
o
vs
DSF
1 (ref 7)
=
450
(1.15)(255)(1.5)
1
Fig.31: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
MOS = 0.02
Page | 46
Fig.32: Deflection (1D)
Fig.33: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
Fig.34: Deflection (2D)
Page | 47
Result:
Solutions Deflection,
(mm)
Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
MOS
FEA (1D) 14.8 259 0.02
FEA (2D) 16.4 255 0.02
7.1.2 SIMULATION (3) case B:
Analysis of the skid tube of variable thickness 3-4 mm for load case-B
Load applied is only on 33.3 % of the length i.e. 736 mm of the skid tube.
Fig.35: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
Fig.36: Deflection (1D)
Page | 48
Fig.37: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
Fig.38: Deflection (2D)
Result:
Solutions Deflection,
(mm)
Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
FEA (1D) 27 394
FEA (2D) 30 381
Page | 49
7.1.3 SIMULATION (4) case A:
Analysis of the skid tube of variable thickness 3-4 mm for load case-A
Fig.39: Skid tube with variable thickness
Mass of the skid tube,
Mass = volume density (ref 7)
= (
2
r
2
) L
1
= 3.14 (4
2
42
2
) (608) (0.000002810)
m
1
= 1.4 kg
Mass = volume density
= (
2
r
2
) L
2
= 3.14 (4
2
41
2
) (252.5) (0.000002810)
m
2
= 0.77 kg = m
4
Mass = volume density
= (
2
r
2
) L
3
Page | 50
= 3.14 (4
2
42
2
) (1105.125) (0.000002810)
m
3
= 2.55 kg
Mass = volume density
= (
2
r
2
) L
5
= 3.14 (4
2
42
2
) (953) (0.000002810)
m
5
= 2.19 kg
Total mass = m
1
+ m
2
+ m
3
+ m
4
+ m
5
= 7.68 kg
Margin of safety (MOS):
Design safety factor, DSF = 1.5
Fitting factor, F
F
= 1.15
MOS =
o
uIt
F
F
o
vs
DSF
1 (ref 7)
=
450
(1.15) (253)(1.5)
1
Fig.40: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
MOS = 0.03
Page | 51
Fig.41: Deflection (1D)
Fig.42: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
Fig.43: Deflection (2D)
Page | 52
Result:
Solutions Deflection,
(mm)
Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
MOS
FEA (1D) 15.2 256 0.03
FEA (2D) 16.4 253 0.03
7.1.4 SIMULATION (4) case B:
Analysis of the skid tube of variable thickness 3-4 mm for load case-B
Load applied is only on 33.3 % of the length i.e. 736 mm of the skid tube.
Fig.44: Maximum bending stresses (1D)
Fig.45: Deflection (1D)
Page | 53
Fig.46: Maximum bending stresses (2D)
Fig.47: Deflection (2D)
Result:
Solutions Deflection,
(mm)
Max. Bending stress,
(N/
2
)
FEA (1D) 28.8 399
FEA (2D) 29.4 402
Page | 54
7.2 COMPARISON & OBSERVATIONS OF RESULTS:
7.2.1 COMPARISON AND OBSERVATIONS OF RESULTS OF SIMULATIONS
(2D) FOR LOAD CASE-A:
S.No Simulation for
load cases-A
(N/
2
)
(mm)
MOS Mass
(kg)
1 Simulation -1
(t = 3.4 mm)
307 18 0.07 8.24
2 Simulation-2
(t= 4 mm)
261 15.7 0.25 9.62
3 Simulation-3
(t= 3-4 mm)
255 16.4 0.02 8.82
4 Simulation-4
(t= 3-4 mm)
253 16.4 0.03 7.68
7.2.2 COMPARISON AND OBSERVATIONS OF RESULTS OF SIMULATIONS
(2D) FOR LOAD CASE-B:
S.No Simulation for
load case-B
(N/
2
)
(mm)
MOS Mass
(kg)
1 Simulation- 1 411 30.2 0.45 8.24
2 Simulation- 2 351 26.1 0.70 9.62
3 Simulation- 3 381 30.4 0.02 8.82
4 Simulation- 4 402 29.4 0.03 7.68
Margin of safety (MOS) is acceptable in simulation 3 & 4, the stress levels
are within the allowable maximum stress for the material concerned.
Weight saving = simulation (2) simulation (4) = 1.94 kg
Page | 55
8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
When simulation-2 is compared with weight optimization cases we can
clearly observe that maximum bending stress in simulation 3 & 4 are
approximately same. Therefore, we can say that stress concentration levels in the
weight optimization simulations which have variable cross-section is same as the
stress concentration levels in simulation-2 which has uniform cross-section of 4
mm thickness resulting in the reduction of gross weight (W
g
) and empty weight
(W
c
) of the skid tubes.
S.
No.
Simulations for
both the load
cases A & B
Mass
(kg)
Weight saving
(simulation 2 simulation x)
(Kg)
1 Simulation -1
(t = 3.4 mm)
8.24 1.38
2 Simulation -2
(t = 4 mm)
9.62
(Reference)
__
3 Simulation -3
(t = 3-4 mm)
8.82 0.8
4 Simulation -4
(t = 3-4 mm)
7.68 1.94
The graph below gives a clear view of reduction in weight without compromising its
yield strength for the suggested simulation (simulation 4).
Fig.48: Graph of strength to weight
Page | 56
9. CONCLUSION
The weight optimization of skid tube of a helicopter has been achieved by
varying the thickness of skid tube cross-sections considerably. At first a FEA
analysis has been performed for skid tube of constant thickness cross-sections
and the results have been validated by conventional method.
The following observations have been made:
i. The increase in thickness directly reduces the stresses and deflections
across the skid tube (ref- simulation 1 & 2).
ii. The stress concentration is more at the joints of cross-tube with skid
tube.
iii. The increase in thickness directly reflects in the increase of over all
weight of the skid tube (ref- simulation-2).
To reduce the overall weight without decreasing the structural strength of the
skid tube has been achieved.
The weight optimization is demonstrated in the simulation 3 & 4 where variable
thickness for different span lengths of the skid tube has been applied in such a
way that the thickness has been increased only at joints where the cross-tube
meets the skid tube so as to reduce the overall stress concentration in the skid
tube especially at the joint sections. At the same time the thickness has been
decreased considerably at the other spans of the skid tube which results in
significant weight reduction of the skid tube.
FE analysis has given a good insight for the better understanding of structural
components behaviour due to different loading cases in lesser time.
And there is still lot of scope for further weight optimization of skid tube by
using different materials.
Hands-on experience to practical working environments has been gained by
working under the RWR & DC STRESS GROUP DIVISION of HAL
organisation.
Page | 57
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. HAL, RWR & DC, LUH reports & data sheets.
2. Gatlin Clifford I., Goebel Donald E. and Larsen Stuart E., Analysis of
Helicopter Structural Crashworthiness. Volume 1. Mathematical Simulation
and Experimental Verification for Helicopter Crashworthiness, JAN 1971.
3. Crist David and Symes L. H, Helicopter Landing Gear Design and Test
Criteria Investigation, AUG 1981.
4. Louis S. Brown, Sr., Vehicle skid assembly, OCT, 25, 1994.
5. James Liautaud, Cantilever helicopter skid tube JUNE, 8, 1993.
6. DR.R.K.Bansal, Strength of Materials.
7. DR.Sadhu Singh, Strength of Materials.
8. Wayne Johnson, Theory of helicopter.
9. http://www.awc.org/pdf/DA6-BeamFormulas.pdf
10. http://www.aviastar.org
11. www.helis.com