Structural Analysis of Cessna 182 Main Spar as an open

and closed beam section

Héctor Eduardo SOSA SULUB a, Ernesto Antonio PIÑA CHÁVEZ a, Leobardo Ivan SILVA GUTIÉRREZ a, Giezi
Xitlali CHÁVEZ SERRANO a, Rosaura HERNÁNDEZ ESTRADA
a
Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez

Abstract.This paper represents as the principal topic, is about to compare open section beams
against closed section beams. Demonstrating that open section beams are structural members,
while closed section beams that are consider as cellular components. Thus, it is possible to say
that what is exposed next in this document, speaks of the comparison between both types of
beam, considering the characteristics, loads to which they are subject and efforts of each one
including the variants, limitations and applications.

Keywords. Open beam, Closed beam, Shear Stress, Shear Flow, Structural Loads

1. Introduction
Wings are very complex structural elements, they have all kinds of elements, like shell and beam elements and
different types of loads acting on it. That is why when it comes to make a structural analysis of it, it is necessary to
convert the wing to an element easier to analyze but keeping in mind to make it the most approachable to reality.

The Cessna’s spar has a C shape cross section, this means it is an open beam section. For this article, the spar is
analyzed as its original cross section area, and for educational purposes it is also analyzed as a closed section beam.
These two methods are compared using analytical and Finite element analysis (FEM) the results will show us if they
are. The analytical method compares the shear flow between the two sections. The FEM compares this spar in both
cases when the aircraft is on ground and on flight.

The foundations on which this document is based are mainly aeronautical structures. The structure of an aircraft has
two main functions, on the one hand supports and transmits the various loads to which the aircraft is subjected, on the
other hand gives the external shape and maintains it. However, it is important to recognize that an aircraft is basically
a set of rigid casing structures ranging from single cell closed section fuselage to multicellular wings and tail surfaces.
In addition to recognizing that each is subjected to different loads. Loads that depend on the location and functionality
of each element. Such as bending, shearing, torsion and axial.

On the other hand, smaller sections of a thin-walled aeronautical structure are analyzed, where there is a variety of
types depending on the application you want to give it. They are used to harden the thin skins of cellular components
and to support the internal loads of each structural element. They are basically divided into four categories; T, Z, "top-
hat" or I.

Applying the bending theory, we can see the expressions for direct stress and displacement are based on the
assumptions that the beam is of uniform, homogeneous cross section and that plane sections remain plane after
bending. The latter assumption is strictly true only if the bending moments Mx and My are constant along the beam.
However, shear stresses in beams whose cross-sectional dimensions are small in relation to their lengths are
comparatively low so that the basic theory of bending may be used with reasonable accuracy.

In thin-walled sections, shear stresses produced by shear loads are not small and must be calculated, although the
direct stresses may still be obtained from the basic theory of bending so long as axial constraint stresses are absent.
[1]
The distortion of the cross section is produced by the variation of shear stress over the depth of the beam. Thus, the
basic assumption of simple beam theory that plane sections remain plane is not valid when shear loads are present,
although for long, slender beams the bending stresses are much greater than shear stresses and the effect may be
ignored.

These concepts are based in the understanding of aircraft what has been learned in the theory of bending
should be assumed as a beam of cross section, homogeneous and uniform. The distortion that occurs in the cross
section that is carried out by the variation of shear stresses in the beam, can be ignored when the bending stresses are
greater than the shear stresses.

2. Methodology
For the analysis of this Spar we used the properties of the Aluminum 2024, which has the properties shown on the
table below

Mechanical Properties Metric

Modulus of Elasticity 73.1GPa
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
Shear Strength 283MPa

The beam sections have the following cross section dimensions, these where designed using Solid Works Student
Version, first all the measurements where made to the aircrafts wing.
Numerical analyisis
The purpose of this analysis is to determine the differences of the shear stress and torque generated by the engine.
This methodology is presented by T. Megson [1] where it presents the equations used for this comparison.

Closed beam

ds 2 ( 0.01345m ) − ( 2 )( 0.00345m ) 2 ( 0.114m − ( 2 )( 0.00345m ) )

 =
0.00345m
+
0.00345m
ds
 t
=65.88

S = (114mm )(13.45mm ) = 1533.3mm 2

4 (1533.3mm 2 )
2

J= = 142744.9335mm 4
65.88
d 2528.6 N  m grado
= = 0.24
dx (142744.9335mm 4 ) ( 73.1Gpa ) m
grado
 = 0.24 ( 5.14m ) = 1.2336 grados
m
2528.6 N  m
= = 239 MPa
2 (1533.3mm 2 ) ( 0.00345m )

Opened beam

( 0.134m )( 0.00345m )
3

J= = 1.83 10−9 m 4
3
d 2528.6 N  m grado
= = 1.8
dx (1.83 10−9 m 4 ) ( 73.1Gpa ) m
grado
 = ( 5.14m )1.8 = 9.25 grados
m
3 ( 2528.6 N  m )
= = 4.756GPa
( m ) ( 0.134m )
2
0.00345

FEA analysis
This analysis is done following the following methodology, first the design is done in Solid Works. The geometry of
the crossbar was determinate through physical analysis. The file generated in SolidWorks must be saved with an IGES
extension to be imported into ANSYS APDL. The values used for modulus of elasticity and relation of poison are
those that are specified in table 1. When the beam element is created it is necessary to insert a mesh to the element.
The stringer is then inserted over the previously created beam element.

The values used for modulus of elasticity and relation of poison are those that are specified in table 1. When the beam
element is created it is necessary to insert a mesh to the element. The stringer is then inserted over the previously
created beam element.
The Finite element analysis is made with ANSYS APDL Academic, where the spar is defined as a Beam 2 Node 188.
The restrictions are applied on the node where the wing is fixed. And, where the strut is just applied to the vertical
axis. The restrictions were placed on two nodes, the hollow of the fuselage and the crossbar of the wing, which is 1.94
m from the root chord. therefore, having a total of 56 nodes (beam segments due to the mesh) with a rule of three, it
is determined that the restriction of the cross element is in node 20.

FEA spar analysis ground

The ground analysis was made considering the wing approximated weight, plus the fuel weight. The total weight is
divided by two beams of the wing and then distributed on each node. The points selected correspond to the nodes that
make up the entire beam, the amount of them is defined by the type of mesh that is used to define the beam element.

(100𝑘𝑔 + 129𝑘𝑔) ∗ 9.81𝑚/𝑠 2

= 20.05𝑁
2(56𝑁𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠)

On the left there is the C beam mesh and loas forces, and on the right the closed section beam is showed.

FEA spar analysis in flight

For this analysis the applied load to the spar is the aircrafts weight, plus the wings lift. Based on the Cessna 182
characteristics found on the Operations manual, it was determined that the maximum load on the wing is 1,338kg,
due to our analysis consist of only one spar, this load is divided by two. And then we obtain the load for the semi-
span. Therefore, we have the following load.

9.81𝑚
1338𝑘𝑔 ∗
𝑠 2 = 3,281.44𝑁
4
For this FEA our meshing gives us 56 nodes, and to distribute the load along the spar, the total load is divided
between each node.
3,281.44 𝑛𝑒𝑤𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 58.59𝑁
=
56 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑜
The conditions of the analysis are the same for open and closed section, only the transverse section area changes,
which is defined from the design phase.
The applied load is ascending from the cantilevered section to the embedment as shown in the following image: now
in the opposite direction to the previously applied weight.

3. Results
Analytical analysis
Open Beam Closed Beam
Shear Stress 4,75Gpa 239Mpa
Angular displacement 9,25degrees 1,2336degrees

FEA analysis
On the following tables the maximum and minimum results obtained using APDL Ansys, are shown. The first tables
show the analysis using the loads applied when the aircraft is on the ground.
Ground Analysis Nodal Solution Maximum Minimum
Opened Beam Von Misses Stress 0.12E8 N/m2 4855.19N/m2
Displacement vector sum 0.009978m 0
Closed beam Von Misses Stress 0.78E8 N/m2 3588.72
Displacement vector sum 0.09668 0

The contour plot of the nodal solutions is shown below. First the von Misses stresses are presented. For
ground loads. On the lefts side the stresses on a opened section beam and right the closed beam.
Than the total deformation result on the same order of past images.

The two previous diagrams correspond to the concentration of efforts and displacements, where the sections with the
highest concentration of efforts in the element and the deformations due to the applied loads can be observed.

As shown below, the table of nodal displacements of the spar. Each value in the table corresponds to a node of the
beam element in the beam, the deformation occurs in the Z axis, and the most disturbed nodes are closest to the root
cord of the section in cantilever, after the section with restriction.

This table shows a summary of the results of inflight stresses and deformations.
Air Analysis Maximum Minimum
Opened Beam Von Misses Stress 0.159 E10 N/m2 116390 N/m2
Displacement vector sum 1.325m 0
Closed beam Von Misses Stress 0.22E9 N/m2 10486.9m
Displacement vector sum 0.282483m 0

This image show on the left the opened beam and right closed beam von Misses stress plot. It is observed that the
concentration of efforts is greater now with the lifting applied only by the color code and paying attention to the axis
of coordinates, it is observed that the deformation of the crossbar is now opposite sense to the previous one, this
because the lifting force overcomes the force that applies the weight on the crossbar.
Next plot the deformation along the spar.

5. Conclusion
In conclusion of the analytical analysis it was found that a closed beam tends to support better torque, but resists less
the shear stresses than a open beam. This is because on the shear stress on open beam it is not considered the area
formed, because it is opened, it is just considered the mainline which goes through the beam form and the turn on
closed sections tend to have higher shear stress because they have shear flow. The stiffness constant of the opened
cross section is 1.24% the total of the closed beam. On the other side the shear stress of the closed beam is 5.03% the
total of the opened beam. On the FEA analysis the results show that an open beam gets more deformation than a closed
beam, it is important to consider that this analysis was made for educational purposes, it is not a high approach to a
real aircraft wing analysis. The closed beam gets higher stresses results on the analysis.

6. References

[1] T. H. Megson, Aircraft Structural Analysis, Burlington: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.