This paper aims to present a comprehensive investigation to obtain the structural calculations needed to design a rigid panel of aluminum alloy for the wing box beam of an ATR 72–500 aircraft. For this design process, several types of materials, including composites like CFRP, are considered so it is possible to compare the actual existing part made of aluminum to them, thus checking the advantages these new materials offer. The research presents an introduction to structural design and provides a study of the relevant literature. The aircraft's principal characteristics and performance abilities were collected so that structural loads can be computed. Research used several methods, a design using conventional methods, applying the theory of elasticity is performed using the Theory of Farrar, allowing us to obtain an analytical solution to the problem, followed by checking the obtained results using Ansys FEM software combined with the parts being designed with CATIA. Furthermore, this same panel is calculated using composite materials instead of conventional aluminum, allowing us to compare both solutions. This research shed light on the intricate process of aircraft structural design, materials selection, and calculation methodologies, highlighting the ongoing pursuit of new and advanced materials. This paper makes clear that using composite materials presents several advantages over traditional ones, allowing for lighter, safer, more fuel-efficient, and more sustainable aircraft. The use of composite materials in the construction of airplane structures is driven by many factors. The results show that the chosen composite materials reduce weight, are durable, have low maintenance requirements, reduce noise, enhance fuel economy, and are resistant to corrosion.
In this paper validity and compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments are the central themes. A screening instrument can be called valid if it identifies performance that is important to society. A screening instrument is called compatible if these instruments can be used interchangeably. Validity The outcome of the content-analysis approach suggest that there is clearly not a perfect match between the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF, indicating that the SAM and KLD screening instruments taken the CSAF as the standard, cannot be called valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. However, as discussed earlier, assessing validity is not a binary phenomenon. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will not do. To make things more complicated, the validity of a measure also depends on the aggregation level under observation. It makes a big difference if validity is assessed at a high (i.e. Dimension) or low aggregation (i.e. Sustainability Item) level . At the highest level there is a perfect match with the CSAF, indicating that both screening instruments are valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. At the lowest level the situation is quite different. Here we see that overlap is relatively poor. Besides, the weight distributions of the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF are also largely dissimilar. When we break the validity discussion down to the Dimension level, we can see that overlap between the SAM and KLD instruments is also relatively poor, although the SAM instrument is slightly more attuned to the CSAF than the KLD instrument. This most notably applies to the Governance Dimension. The SAM instrument scores relatively poor on environmental issues. This is due to the fact that we analyzed the generic (i.e. non-industry specific) screening instrument. SAM typically addresses environmental issues in industry specific supplements. CompatibilityThe second question in this study concerns the compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments. Or more accurately phrased: the extent to which these rating schemes are compatible. If we would consider compatibility assessment of screening instruments as a binary phenomenon, then we should conclude that the SAM and KLD instruments are not compatible.However, just like validity, assessing the compatibility of screening instruments is not a binary phenomenon. The extent to which the rating schemes of the two SRAs are compatible relates to the aggregation level. At the highest aggregation ( or Dimension) level the screening instruments are perfectly compatible. Both instruments cover governance, social, environmental and economic issues. At the lowest (or Sustainability Item) level the situation is quite different. At this level compatibility of both instruments is poor. Overlap is poor and the weight distributions are hardly correlated. Obviously both instruments are reflect different interpretations of corporate sustainability performance. Compatibility is highest for the Social Dimension. For the Governance, Environment and Economic Dimension compatibility is very poor. The overall conclusion should therefore be that that compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments is (very) poor and that for this reason these instruments cannot
LINK
In this paper validity and compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments are the central themes. A screening instrument can be called valid if it identifies performance that is important to society. A screening instrument is called compatible if these instruments can be used interchangeably. Validity The outcome of the content-analysis approach suggest that there is clearly not a perfect match between the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF, indicating that the SAM and KLD screening instruments taken the CSAF as the standard, cannot be called valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. However, as discussed earlier, assessing validity is not a binary phenomenon. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will not do. To make things more complicated, the validity of a measure also depends on the aggregation level under observation. It makes a big difference if validity is assessed at a high (i.e. Dimension) or low aggregation (i.e. Sustainability Item) level . At the highest level there is a perfect match with the CSAF, indicating that both screening instruments are valid measures of corporate sustainability performance. At the lowest level the situation is quite different. Here we see that overlap is relatively poor. Besides, the weight distributions of the SAM and KLD instruments and the CSAF are also largely dissimilar. When we break the validity discussion down to the Dimension level, we can see that overlap between the SAM and KLD instruments is also relatively poor, although the SAM instrument is slightly more attuned to the CSAF than the KLD instrument. This most notably applies to the Governance Dimension. The SAM instrument scores relatively poor on environmental issues. This is due to the fact that we analyzed the generic (i.e. non-industry specific) screening instrument. SAM typically addresses environmental issues in industry specific supplements. CompatibilityThe second question in this study concerns the compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments. Or more accurately phrased: the extent to which these rating schemes are compatible. If we would consider compatibility assessment of screening instruments as a binary phenomenon, then we should conclude that the SAM and KLD instruments are not compatible.However, just like validity, assessing the compatibility of screening instruments is not a binary phenomenon. The extent to which the rating schemes of the two SRAs are compatible relates to the aggregation level. At the highest aggregation ( or Dimension) level the screening instruments are perfectly compatible. Both instruments cover governance, social, environmental and economic issues. At the lowest (or Sustainability Item) level the situation is quite different. At this level compatibility of both instruments is poor. Overlap is poor and the weight distributions are hardly correlated. Obviously both instruments are reflect different interpretations of corporate sustainability performance. Compatibility is highest for the Social Dimension. For the Governance, Environment and Economic Dimension compatibility is very poor. The overall conclusion should therefore be that that compatibility of the SAM and KLD screening instruments is (very) poor and that for this reason these instruments cannot
LINK
