#TITLE_ALTERNATIVE#

• Main Author: Leksono - Nim: 13613041 , Shabrina
• Format: Final Project
• Language: Indonesia
• Online Access: https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/30903
• Institution: Institut Teknologi Bandung

<p align="justify">This study contains the simulation of doubler structure as a result of modification of B737-800 aircraft. Modifications made by installing GPS Tracker at station 43, between frame 500E and 500F and between S-1 and S-2R stringer. This installation uses a doubler structure to reinforce the perforated skin for cable access to the GPS Tracker. To find out whether the modification is done optimally so that the stress that occurs in the skin can be reduced, the finite element simulation is used. <br /> <br /> The simulation is done by finite element method. The assembly model is simulated using geometry according to SRM B737-800. The assembly consists of 3 structures; doubler, skin and rivet. Skin and doubler are modeled as shell. While rivet replaced with bushing element. The CAD model is designed with CATIA software and analyzed by ABAQUS software. The type of analysis performed is linear static analysis. The applied load is pressure on the inside surface of the skin due to internal pressure cabin. The optimization is done on the antenna hole and the number of rivets used. First by removing the rivet that is between the antenna holes. Second by combining the antenna hole into one. Third by increasing the diameter of the hole. Lastly by doubler thickening. <br /> <br /> From the simulations performed, the use of rivets has no major effect on load path and stress reduction. The rivet reduction in model 3 only provides 2,909 MPa or 7,2 x 10-3 % stress decline from the original modification. The merger of antenna holes does not decrease the stress, but increases the stress. This is caused by the distance of both holes that are too far away. The addition of doubler thickness can reduce the stresses that occur around the hole. <br /> <br /> The maximum Von Misses maximum voltage value occurs in the 4th configuration of 660.3 MPa and the smallest in configuration 6 of 270.107 MPa. From the value of Von Misses voltage, the Margin of Safety is calculated. Configuration 6 which has the largest margin of safety, with a value of 0.199. While the smallest value occurs in configuration 4 of -0.509. Of the six configurations simulated, only 6 configurations have a positive safety margin.<p align="justify"> <br />