Structural Analysis, Fatigue Analysis and Optimization of Aircraft Wings

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING HONOURS PROJECT
“STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, FATIGUE ANALYSIS

AND OPTIMIZATION OF AIRCRAFT WINGS”
XENOFON KATIFES
SUPERVISED BY COLIN BOSWEL
EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
ABSTRACT
This project addresses multiple objectives in an attempt to apply in the most complete
and realistic manner possible, knowledge and skills that were gained throughout the
writer’s academic programme.
The provided background theory familiarizes the reader with the most common types of
aircraft failure in terms of material properties and aerodynamics, as well as with the
architecture of wings, and relates them with safety and efficiency. Extensive discussion
is made on the loading conditions in which aircraft operate during their service life, and
their impact on wing structure.
The Bombardier Learjet 70 is selected as the reference aircraft and structural analysis is
carried out using Inventor for Finite Element Analysis (FEA). The analysis investigates
both the static and the dynamic aspect of the problem, and determines Von Misses
stress, displacement and the modal frequencies. Fatigue analysis is also carried out
and Miner’s rule is used to determine the wing’s fatigue safe life.
Furthermore optimization is investigated in terms of alternative materials such and

aerodynamic improvements.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor and course leader Colin Boswell, for his constant
guidance and support throughout this project. Colin would see me even when I turned
up without notice, and he was always happy help.
I would also like to thank my second marker Martin Askey for his advice on the structure
of the report, and my lecturers Colin Hindle and Neil Shearer for their help with material
science related topics.
Most of all I would like to thank my wife Natalia and my son Theodoros for their love and
support and for putting up with my heavy schedule throughout this whole time.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM .................................................................................. 2
1.2 SCOPE OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................... 2
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT ................................................................................... 2
1.4 SOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 LIMITATIONS AND BOUNDARIES .................................................................................. 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4
2.1 AIRCRAFT FAILURE MODES .......................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 OVERLOADING ......................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 FATIGUE ................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 CORROSSION .......................................................................................................... 8
2.2 AERODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 BERNOULLI’S EQUATION ........................................................................................ 9
2.2.2 AERODYNAMIC FORCES ........................................................................................10
2.2.3 LOAD FACTOR .......................................................................................................12
2.2.4 AERODYNAMIC FAILURE .......................................................................................15
2.3 AIRCRAFT WINGS ........................................................................................................16
2.3.2 FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES ............................................................................18
2.4 WING CONFIGURATIONS .............................................................................................19
2.4.2 ELLIPTICAL WING .................................................................................................19
2.4.3 TAPERED WING.....................................................................................................20
2.4.4 SWEPT WING .........................................................................................................20
2.4.5 DELTA WING ..........................................................................................................21
2.4.6 VARIABLE SWEEP WING......................................................................................21
2.6 WING TESTING.............................................................................................................22
3. STRUCTURAL AND FATIGUE ANALYSIS .......................................................................23
3.1 SIMILAR WORK ..............................................................................................................23
3.2 REFERENCE AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................24
3.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................26
3.3.1 STATIC ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................27
3.3.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................31
3.4 FATIGUE ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................32
4. AIRCRAFT OPTIMIZATION ...............................................................................................37
4.1 MATERIAL OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................37
4.1.1 METALS IN AIRCRAFT DESIGN ..............................................................................37
4.1.2 COMPOSITE MATERIALS IN THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY ................................37
4.1.3 SANDWICH STRUCTURES .....................................................................................39
4.2 AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION ....................................................................................41
4.2.1 WINGLETS ...............................................................................................................42
4.2.2 FLEXFOIL WINGS ....................................................................................................44
4.3 TOOLS FOR MATERIAL SELECTION ............................................................................45
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................49
7. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................54
8. APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................58
8.1 BOMBARDIER LEARJET MANUAL ................................................................................58
8.2 BOMBARDIER LEARJET 70 DIMENSIONS ................................................................59
8.3 INVENTOR SHAPING AND SIZING .............................................................................60
8.4 ORIGINAL WING MODEL FEA .......................................................................................61
8.5 EQUIVALENT MODEL SELECTION ...............................................................................63
8.6 FATIGUE LIFE CALCULATIONS ....................................................................................70
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - DUCTILE AND BRITTLE FRACTURE (SOUTHAMPTON, 2014) ........................... 5
FIGURE 2- GROUND AIR GROUND LOADING (MOUSSAS, 2016) ......................................... 6
FIGURE 3 - FATIGUE FAILURE (CALLISTER, 2007)................................................................ 7
FIGURE 4 - CESSNA 180 WING RIB CORROSION (FAA, 2013).............................................. 9
FIGURE 5 - THE AERODYNAMIC FORCES IN A STEADY LEVEL FLIGHT (FAA, 2013) ........10
FIGURE 6 - LIFT AND DRAG (AEROMODELING, 2013) .........................................................10
FIGURE 7 - PRESSURE DIFFERENCE DISTRIBUTION FOR SYMMETRICAL (TOP) AND
CAMBERED (BOTTOM) AIRFOILS (AEROMODELING, 2013) ........................................11
FIGURE 8 -CHANGE OF LOAD FACTOR WITH BANK ANGLE (AEROSPACEWEB, 2003) ...12
FIGURE 9 - FIGHTER JET LOAD FACTOR VS AIRSPEED GRAPH (FAA, 2014) ...................13
FIGURE 10 - ICE DEFORMITY ON WING (FAA, 2014) ............................................................15
FIGURE 11 – THE AERODYNAMIC EFFECT OF ICE DEFORMITY (FAA, 2014) ....................15
FIGURE 12 - WING STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS (BITAR, GUNNARSSON, 2010) .............16
FIGURE 13 - AIRCRAFT WING COMPONENTS (ARQUIVO, 2014) ........................................18
FIGURE 14 - RECTANGULAR WING (FLYING, 2006) .............................................................19
FIGURE 15 - ELLIPTICAL WING (ENGINEER, 2009) ..............................................................19
FIGURE 16 - TAPERED WING (AVIATION, 2015) ...................................................................20
FIGURE 17 - SWEPT WING (AVIATION, 2015) .......................................................................20
FIGURE 18 - DELTA WING (DEFENCE, 2012) ........................................................................21
FIGURE 19 - VARIABLE SWEPT WING (BATH, 2010) ............................................................21
FIGURE 20 - WING TESTING OF A BOMBARDIER C70 (BOMBARDIER, 2014) ....................22
FIGURE 21 - BOMBARDIER LEARJET 70 (BOMBARDIER, 2014) ..........................................24
FIGURE 22 - FEA VON MISSES STRESS ...............................................................................28
FIGURE 23 - FEA DISPLACEMENT .........................................................................................28
FIGURE 24 - EQUIVALENT MODEL FEA ................................................................................29
FIGURE 25 - NATURAL FREQUENCIES OF THE FIRST THREE MODE SHAPES OF THE
CANTILEVER BEAM .........................................................................................................31
FIGURE 26 - REPRESENTATION OF CHARACTERISTIC CYCLIC STRESS VALUES ..........33
FIGURE 27 - S-N CHART FOR AL-CU-MG ALLOY WINGS (HANGARTNER, 1974) ...............35
FIGURE 28 - FAILURE DUE TO DELAMINATION (AEROSPACE, 2012) ................................38
FIGURE 29 – BUCKLING EFFECT IN THE PRELIMINARY EQUIVALENT MODEL ..........39
FIGURE 30 - A CARBON FIBRE / SANDWICH PANEL (AEROSPACE, 2012).........................40
FIGURE 31 - THE BEECH STARSHIP .....................................................................................41
FIGURE 32 - DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FLAT WING TIPS AND WINGLETS ........................42
FIGURE 33 - DIFFERENT WINGLET SHAPES (ENGINEER, 2013) ........................................43
FIGURE 34 - THE GULFSTREAM III WITH ATTACHED FLEXFOILS (NASA, 2014) ...............44
FIGURE 35 - UNWANTED PROPERTIES OF AIRCRAFT WINGS...........................................45
FIGURE 36 - YOUNG'S MODULUS VS YIELD STRENGTH BUBBLE CHART - STAGE 1 ......46
FIGURE 39 - PRICE VS DENSITY - STAGE 4 .........................................................................48
FIGURE 40 - BOMBARDIER LEARJET C70 MANUAL (BOMBARDIER, 2014) ........................58
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - FAILURE MODES OF COMPONENTS (QINETIQ, 2002)......................................... 4
TABLE 2 - LOADING SPECTRUM (MAKANDAR,KUSUGAL, 2015).........................................32
TABLE 3 - STRESS LIMITS ......................................................................................................33
TABLE 4 - ACCUMULATED DAMAGE .....................................................................................36
TABLE 5 - SELECTION OF EQUIVALENT MODEL..................................................................63
TABLE 6 - FATIGUE CALCULATIONS .....................................................................................70
ABBREVIATIONS
FEA – Finite Element Analysis NACA - National Advisory Committee for
S-N – Stress vs Cycles to Failure Aeronautics
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration FOS – Factor of Safety
CFD – Computational Fluid Dynamics FAR - Federal Aviation Administration
AA – Aluminum Alloy JAR – Joint Aviation Requirements
CF – Correction Factor PLA - Polylactic acid
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2 / 68
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

Failure of an aircraft component can have catastrophic consequences, therefore the
study and prediction of aircraft failure can prevent loss of life and property damage.
Structural and fatigue analysis are used not just for validating safety but also as a guide
for modifications that allow aircraft to operate beyond their original design life.
Due to the predominance of steel in the past decades, a large proportion of recorded
aircraft failure is due to corrosion. In the most recent years however, the wide use of
aluminium alloys has led to dramatic decrease of this type of failure. (QinetiQ, 2002)
Among all aircraft parts, structural analysis investigates primarily the wings because
their performance is critical for the overall aircraft safety. This is because wings account
for flight by using aerodynamic forces and thus produce stresses that weaken their
structure significantly.
1.2 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

The integrity of an aircraft wing is validated by applying structural and fatigue
analysis on a reference aircraft, and optimization is addressed by considering
alternative materials and aerodynamic improvements.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT

 Investigation of the modes of aircraft failure.
 Introduction to aerodynamic principles and the airfoil concept.
 Investigation of the architecture and the purpose of the structural components
and aerodynamic devices of wings, and discussion about the different wing
types.
 Structural analysis with FEA, and validation of the results with hand calculations
by applying mechanics formulas.
 Fatigue Analysis based on a given loading spectrum, by applying Miner’s rule
and using the appropriate S-N chart.
BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 / 68
 Optimization in terms of alternative materials and aerodynamic improvements.

 Assessment on alternative aircraft materials for efficiency increase, using CES
Edupack material selection software.
1.4 SOURCES
The following sources were used for this project:
 Publications on similar work.
 Books.
 Articles from engineering journals.
 Statistical data.
 Manuals from aircraft manufacturers, and aeronautical institutions
 University academic staff for FEA, and material properties and composites.
 Reports from people who addressed similar problems in the past.
 Reports from scientific and engineering forums.
1.5 LIMITATIONS AND BOUNDARIES

Top secrecy among aircraft manufacturers made it impossible to obtain information
directly from these companies possibly due to fears for industrial espionage, and so all
the information and the technical specifications that have been used such as material
specification, geometry, dimensions, and loading conditions are taken from relevant
books and published work that have dealt with the problem previously.

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 / 68
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter introduces important concepts and information that will be used in the
upcoming analysis. It includes an investigation of the modes and the occurrence of
aircraft failure, a short study of aerodynamic principles that will be used to
determine the wing loads, and a study of the wing structure.
2.1 AIRCRAFT FAILURE MODES

In 2002 QinetiQ -a leading aerospace company with long history- published a study
about aircraft failure. This study is used in this section as the point of reference for
investigating aircraft failure.
The list presented in table 1 compares the modes of aircraft failure with failure from
other engineering components. The list shows clearly that fatigue is the most common
type of failure accounting for more than 50% of the recorded modes, followed by
corrosion and overloading.
Table 1 - Failure Modes of Components (QinetiQ, 2002)

FAILURE MODES AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING
COMPONENTS COMPONENTS
% %
FATIGUE 55 25
CORROSION 16 29
OVERLOAD 14 11
CORROSION FATIGUE 7 6
WEAR 6 3
HIGH TEMPERATURE CORROSION 2 7
BRITTLE FRACTURE - 16
CREEP - 3
The following sections describe the failure modes given above.

2.1.1 OVERLOADING
Failure due to overloading can occur gradually with ductile fracture or instantly with
brittle fracture.
Ductile fracture occurs when a material has been exposed to excessive load at a
relatively slow rate to the breaking point. This type of fracture produces plastic
deformation in a cup and cone shape as illustrated in figure 1 (left).
Brittle fracture, occurs on application of excess load. For this fracture a crack is spread
rapidly at constant stress with little plastic deformation.
Figure 1 (right), illustrates a specimen with brittle fracture.
Figure 1 - Ductile and Brittle Fracture (Southampton, 2014)
Fracture is always a bad thing but if it has to happen it is preferred to be of ductile

nature, i.e. at slow rate that would give the time for detection and maintenance.

2.1.2 FATIGUE
In a metallic structure such as an aircraft wing, fatigue failure appears in the form of
a crack which propagates until the structure is no longer able to withstand the stresses
imposed on it, thus causing it to fail. Fatigue cracking is caused by cyclic loads,
although the stresses that they produce are substantially below the material’s yield
strength. For a commercial flight with a typical ground air ground cycle, figure 2
illustrates the loads at each stage of the flight.
Figure 2- Ground Air Ground Loading (Moussas, 2016)
Components that fail from fatigue, undergo the following three stages:
• Initiation of fatigue crack. This can be affected by stress concentrations due to material
defects or design imperfections.
• Propagation of the fatigue crack.
• Sudden failure as eventually the propagating crack reaches a critical size at which the
remaining material cannot support the applied loads.
Fatigue failure generally leaves characteristic beach marks on the fractured surface,
which can be observed macroscopically. Beach marks indicate successive positions of
the advancing crack and they are usually indicative of fatigue being the cause of
fracture. Fatigue fractures tend to be relatively smooth near the origin with slight
roughening as the crack progresses and have little or no ductility.

Although the laboratory fatigue behaviour of most metals and alloys is well understood,
fatigue cracking is still the most common cause of aircraft failure.
Materials and their design must be taken into consideration so that the probability of
fatigue cracks is reduced, although it cannot be removed completely. Therefore many
aircraft structural components are designed with a safe or inspection-free life, below
which fatigue cracking is not a cause for concern.
Figure 3 - Fatigue Failure (Callister, 2007)
The factors that affect fatigue and will be investigated further in the fatigue analysis
chapter of this report are the maximum and minimum stress that determine mean and
alternating stress. Other factors are temperature, environmental conditions and
microstructure voids. Surface defects such as forging laps or surface cracking can
increase local stress, by producing stress concentrations that can initiate fatigue
cracking even faster.
All these factors are taken into account when determining the fatigue safe life of a
component and so aircraft components are thoroughly tested, in order to detect and
rectify any defects. Therefore the majority of catastrophic fatigue failures tend to be
those resulting from unexpected conditions.

The fatigue behavior of aircraft wings depends on the load history of the structure.
For new designs the expected load history is determined based on the service life
data from aircraft of similar mission profiles and requirements.
Once obtained, the load history is used to create a loading spectrum of the various
loading conditions that the aircraft is expected to experience. The material’s
corresponding S-N chart is then used and the number of cycles to failure is
obtained. The accumulated damage is then calculated, and by applying Miners Rule
the fatigue safe life of the new design is determined.
2.1.3 CORROSSION
Corrosion is the chemical degradation of metals caused by chemical reactions with the
environment. It usually results in failure of components when the metal wastes to such
an extent that the remaining material cannot support the applied loads. Besides general
corrosion described above the following types of corrosion are also possible:
 Galvanic or contact corrosion, which occurs due to a difference in electric potential
between touching parts.
 Inter-crystalline corrosion, where the more active edges of the crystals are attacked
while the rest of the crystals remain intact.
 Stress corrosion, where mechanical stress increases the chemical activity of the
material.
 Fretting corrosion, where wear between surfaces results in corrosion products like
hard oxides that increase further the local corrosive effect.
Methods that deal with corrosion are painting, which can increase weight substantially,
anodising, where the aircraft is covered with a stable protective oxide layer, cladding,
where a layer of pure aluminium is attached during rolling, cadmium plating, and regular
cleaning. (AeroStudents, 2015)
Corrosion of wings is mostly related with steel structures that were used widely in
previous decades, and although still certain aircraft components are made of steel,
wings are now made entirely of aluminium alloys. This ensures significantly increased
corrosion resistance but still it does not eradicate the problem completely (figure 4).

Figure 4 - Cessna 180 Wing Rib Corrosion (FAA, 2013)
2.2 AERODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES
Aerodynamics deal with the forces that result from pressure difference and friction due
to airflow around a structure. The relationship between pressure and velocity is
fundamental for understanding the effect of the aerodynamic force on aircraft wings.
2.2.1 BERNOULLI’S EQUATION

Bernoulli’s equation gives the relationship between pressure and velocity for steady
airflow. In a closed system, the total energy (TE) is constant and it is given by the sum
of potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE).
TE=PE+KE (Equation 1)
The compressed air around an airfoil has potential energy because it can do work by
exerting a force on the surface of the airfoil. Therefore, static pressure (PS) is a
measure of potential energy per unit volume. Moving air also has kinetic energy (KE)
since it can do work by exerting a force on a surface due to its momentum.
Dividing both sides of equation 1 with volume and substituting ρ for mass/volume,
dynamic pressure q is obtained.
TE/volume = PE/volume + KE/volume = PS + 1/2 mv2 / volume = PS + 1/2 ρv2
PT = PS + q (Equation 2)
Where PT is the Total pressure that just like total energy, it also remains constant in a
closed system.

2.2.2 AERODYNAMIC FORCES

There are four forces during a steady level flight, thrust, drag, lift, and weight.
Figure 5 - The Aerodynamic Forces in a steady level flight (FAA, 2013)
Thrust is the force produced by the engines that moves the aircraft forward and
opposes drag.
Weight is the gravitational force resulting from the combined load of passenger’s fuel,
and cargo. Weight opposes lift, and acts through the aircraft’s centre of gravity.
Lift and drag are the vertical and horizontal components of the aerodynamic force,
and result from static pressure difference and friction over the wing airfoil.
Lift is produced by the negative static pressure difference at the top of the airfoil and
acts perpendicular to the relative wind, and drag is the combination of friction and
negative static pressure difference behind the airfoil, and acts parallel to the relative
wind.
Figure 6 - Lift and Drag (Aeromodeling, 2013)

Theoretical and experimental results show that lift and drag can be expressed as
the product of air density ρ at the altitude of flight, airspeed v, wing surface area S
and a coefficient representing the shape and orientation of the airfoil CL and CD
respectively. The equations for lift and drag are:
1
Lift, 𝐿 = 𝜌 𝑣 2 S CL (Equation 3)
2
1
Drag, 𝐷 = 𝜌 𝑣 2 S CD (Equation 4)
2
A symmetric airfoil at zero angle of attack (AOA), -the acute angle between the
chord line of the airfoil and the direction of the relative wind- produces identical
static pressure on both its upper and lower surface, and thus zero lift is produced.
A cambered airfoil on the other hand, is able to produce uneven pressure
distribution even at zero AOA.
Figure 7 - Pressure Difference Distribution for Symmetrical (top) and Cambered

(bottom) airfoils (Aeromodeling, 2013)

2.2.3 LOAD FACTOR
The load factor n, is an important structural parameter that indicates the load at
which an aircraft is subjected to, and it is defined as the ratio of lift L over weight W
𝐿
𝑛= (Equation 5)
𝑊
Figure 8 illustrates how the load factor changes with different bank angles during a
level flight. At a turn of angle φ, the lift required to balance the aircraft weight so that
it retains a steady altitude is:
𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑 = 𝑊, and combining with Equation 5:
𝐿 1
𝑛= = (Equation 6)
𝑊 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑
As example, an Airbus A320 of mass m=78,000kg with n=2, is subjected to lift

L=2 x 78,000 x 9.81 = 1.53MN
For a steady level flight, φ=0, cosφ=1 and n=1.
Using the same equation lift is found to be 765kN, i.e. half of what it was.
Figure 8 -Change of Load Factor with Bank Angle (AerospaceWeb, 2003)

The load factor does not depend on the weight and size, and whatever the type of
the aircraft same load factors apply for same bank angles. (Cavcar, 2015)
As the load factor increases, the aircraft minimum speed has to increase to prevent
stall. Equation 6 shows that the load factor theoretically becomes infinite for a 90’
angle. In practice this means that the aircraft cannot maintain a steady-state level
flight for this particular angle as this would require infinite thrust to overcome the
produced stall.
Flight at 90’ bank is possible only if the aircraft sideslips or changes altitude or
airspeed. The same principles and equations apply for pitch, with the only
difference that the bank angle is replaced with the angle of pitch.
The structural strength of an aircraft is determined by the limit loading conditions

which should be experienced only very few times in the lifetime of an aircraft.
The operating limitations of a flight, are presented in Load Factor vs Indicated
Airspeed V-G diagrams like the one of figure 9.
In order to avoid structural damage and in more extreme loading conditions
immediate failure, aircraft must operate inside the indicated operating Vg region.
Figure 9 - Fighter Jet Load Factor vs Airspeed Graph (FAA, 2014)

The limit load factor is the maximum load factor to be expected over the lifetime of
an aircraft and so the maximum load factor is a maneuvering and performance limit
that is not to be exceeded by pilots.
The FAA Aerodynamics of Flight Manual indicates that limit load factors specified
for aircraft in the various categories are:
 Normal (airliners, business jets etc.), 3.8 to –1.52
 Utility (mild acrobatic), 4.4 to –1.76
 Acrobatic and fighter jets, 6.0 to –3.00
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE LOAD FACTOR

The change of the load factor during a flight depends not only on the airspeed and
the maneuvers of the aircraft, but also on environmental factors like turbulence and
air gusts that most usually cannot be avoided.
TURBULENCE
There are different types of turbulence and they are classified as follows:
 Convective turbulence, caused by vertical currents of air that rise due to ground
surface heating.
 Mechanical turbulence, caused when obstacles disrupt the normal flow of the
wind, setting up currents. This type of turbulence is usually met when flying
close to mountains.
 Clear air turbulence (CAT), is the most common form of turbulence and can
occur at any altitude due to convective currents. In this case air tends to flow as
a jet streams which sometimes can be thousands of miles long. (Palmer, 2012)
AIR GUSTS
Air gusts can come from any direction and with any magnitude. Gust loading
dependents on aircraft load, altitude of flight, wing type and gust speed.
Regulations specify a set of extreme gust-speeds that must be withstood at a
number of characteristic airspeeds before an aircraft is released to service.

2.2.4 AERODYNAMIC FAILURE

Aerodynamic failure is a common type of wing failure and a cause for fatal accidents in
many occasions. This type of failure happens when a change in the shape of the wing
affects the lift characteristics and the aircraft becomes unable to maintain altitude.
The most common reason for this is ice buildup on the leading edge of the wing which
not just adds extra weight that can be more than what the aircraft is designed to handle,
but also changes the shape of the wing resulting to loss of lift and increase of drag.
This increases the need for thrust in order to maintain the air speed above stall speed
level as illustrated in figure 11.
For commercial aircraft, icing accounts for 9.5% of fatal crashes. (Borell, 2009)
Figure 10 - Ice Deformity on Wing (FAA, 2014)
Figure 11 – The Aerodynamic Effect of Ice Deformity (FAA, 2014)

2.3 AIRCRAFT WINGS

A wing is a surface used to produce lift and ensure flight. The geometry of the wing
determines its aerodynamic quality and therefore different wing geometries are
used for different types of aircraft. Aerodynamic quality is expressed as the lift to drag
ratio, and can reach high values, up to 60 for some gliders. This means that a
significantly smaller thrust force is necessary to obtain lift.
2.3.1 WING STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
The structural components of a wing are illustrated in figure 12.
Figure 12 - Wing Structural Components (Bitar, Gunnarsson, 2010)
Spars, are essentially beams that effectively support the wing. They vary in size and
shape and can have of I, C or O section profile. They are the most heavily loaded
parts of the aircraft that support large loads tending to bend and twist the wing.
In the most conventional designs they are used in sets of two or three, and they are
placed along the wing span.

Ribs, have the shape of the airfoil, they support the skin by preventing it from
buckling and separate the wing tanks. They also serve as attachment points for the
control surfaces, and the engines.
Ribs are divided to the following categories:

 Form ribs, made of aluminum sheet bent into shape.
 Plate-type ribs, made of aluminum sheet with upturned edges and weight-saving
holes cut out into it. These ribs are used in conditions of light to medium loading.
 Truss ribs, consist of profiles joined together. These ribs may be suitable for a
wide range of loads.
 Closed ribs, are constructed from profiles and aluminum sheet, and are suitable
for closing off sections of the wing. This rib is also suitable for various loading
conditions.
 Forged ribs are manufactured with heavy press-machinery, and are used for
sections where very high loads apply.
 Milled ribs are solid structures, manufactured by milling away excess material
from a solid block of metal, and are also used where very high loads apply.
Stringers, are attached at the wing skin, and just like spars they run span-wise.
Their job is to stiffen the skin and resist buckling when subjected to compression
loads. Stringers usually bridge the ribs in one of the following ways:
 The stringers are interrupted at the rib. Interrupting the stringer weakens the
structure, and therefore extra strengthening material, called a doubler, is added.
 The stringers interrupt the rib. The stringers in this case run through holes cut
into the rib, which causes inevitable weakening of the ribs.
 The stringers and ribs are both uninterrupted. The stringers in this case run over
the rib, leaving a gap between rib and skin. The drawback is that rib and skin are
not directly connected, resulting to bad shear load transfer between them.
The Skin, ensures aerodynamic shape, it carries a share of the loads, and it helps
to carry torsional loads. It is fixed to the internal structure by rivets or bonding.

An alternative for increased stiffness is the machined skin, in which the skin,
stringers and spar flanges can be machined together from a single piece alloy,
called billet. Advantages to this are that less riveting is required resulting in
smoother surface, lighter and stronger structures, reduction of construction faults,
need for less maintenance and easier inspection. The drawback in this case is the
high manufacturing cost and the expensive replacement of parts.
2.3.2 FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES

The following control surfaces can be found on wings.
Slats and flaps, are moving surfaces on the leading and trailing edges of the wing
respectively, that when extending they increase the wing area and thus increase lift.
During landing, flaps pivot downwards to increase drag and help the aircraft slow
down.
Spoilers are fitted to the top surface of the wing. When operated, which is usually at
touchdown, they also increase drag and reduce lift.
Ailerons, are control surfaces attached to the wing to control roll, and elevators at
the rare wing are the horizontal control surfaces attached to the horizontal stabilizer
to control pitch.
The above described control surfaces as well as the control surfaces on the tail and
the rare wings are illustrated in figure 13.
Figure 13 - Aircraft Wing Components (Arquivo, 2014)

2.4 WING CONFIGURATIONS

This section introduces the most common types of aircraft wings, and highlights
their strengths and weaknesses.
2.4.1 RECTANGULAR WING

The rectangular wing is a general purpose wing. It can carry a reasonable load and
fly at a reasonable speeds, but does nothing superbly well. It is ideal for personal
aircraft as it is easy to control in the air as well as inexpensive to build and maintain.
Figure 14 - Rectangular Wing (Flying, 2006)
2.4.2 ELLIPTICAL WING

The elliptical wing is similar to the rectangular wing and was mostly used in the
1930s and 40s for military purposes. It excels in use on gliders, where its relatively
long wingspan (large span to chord length ratio) can capture the wind currents
easily, and provide lift at low airspeed. The drawback is low manufacturability.
Figure 15 - Elliptical Wing (Engineer, 2009)

2.4.3 TAPERED WING

This is a modified version of the rectangular wing where the chord varies across the
span to approximate the elliptical lift distribution. While not as efficient as the elliptical
type, it offers a compromise between manufacturability and efficiency.
Figure 16 - Tapered Wing (Aviation, 2015)
2.4.4 SWEPT WING

The swept wing is the most appropriate wing for airliners. It needs more forward
speed to produce lift than the rectangular wing, but produces much less drag in the
process, meaning that the aircraft can fly faster. It also works well at the higher
altitudes, which is where most commercial aircraft operate.
Figure 17 - Swept Wing (Aviation, 2015)

2.4.5 DELTA WING

The delta wing advances the swept wing concept, pulling the wings further back for
even less drag. The downside to this is that the aircraft has to fly extremely fast.
This is why it’s only used for supersonic aircraft such as fighter jets and the space
shuttle orbiters. In the recent past it was also used on commercial aircraft like the
Concorde which was too advanced for its time but very expensive to build, run and
maintain.
Figure 18 - Delta Wing (Defence, 2012)
2.4.6 VARIABLE SWEEP WING

Some military aircrafts use variable sweep wing design. The disadvantage of having
variable sweep wings is the weight increase due to the pivots and the need to
house the leading and trailing edges within a cavity in the fuselage.
Many designs use air-inflated bags to create an aerodynamic seal and smoothen
the external contour when the wing is positioned at minimum sweep, which in turn
reduces drag further.
Figure 19 - Variable Swept Wing (Bath, 2010)

2.5 WING TESTING

Testing with the application of measured loads is carried out on new aircraft to
validate the static and fatigue characteristics of wings. This is sometimes done to
failure in order to determine their strength limits of the wing or validate FEA results.
 Static testing, uses multiple actuators, load cells and whippletrees. Load control
systems track the applied load and safely unload the test item should excessive
deflections or load tracking errors occur. Data are continuously recorded and
data “snapshots” are taken at certain loading increments.
 Fatigue Testing is carried out with the objective of determining the relationship
between the stress range and the number of cycles to failure. Using stress, load,
and strain life, methods, aircrafts are analyzed, loading spectra are developed
and fatigue life predictions are made.
Figure 20 shows a flexed wing during the testing of a Bombardier C70 aircraft
before it is delivered to the customer. In these tests the wings are subjected to
extreme loads, resulting to flexing that is not likely to be experienced in the normal
operational life of the aircraft.
Figure 20 - Wing Testing of a Bombardier C70 (Bombardier, 2014)

CHAPTER 3. STRUCTURAL AND FATIGUE ANALYSIS 23 / 68
3. STRUCTURAL AND FATIGUE ANALYSIS

3.1 SIMILAR WORK
Information regarding structural and fatigue analysis, as well as data for the
geometry and dimensions of the wing components were taken from the following
papers:
 “Stress Analysis and Weight Optimization of a Wing Box Structure Subjected to

Flight Loads” by Immanuvel – Arulselvan.
In this paper FEA is conducted to validate the structural integrity of a wing box.
Following this, optimization is attempted by removing material from the ribs for
weight reduction. The resulting model is then re-subjected to FEA and if results
allow it the process repeats until Von Misses stress of the final model is close to
the material’s yield strength.
 “Static and dynamic analysis of typical wing structure of aircraft using Nastran”
by Pritish Chitte, investigates not just the static but also the dynamic
performance of wings using Nastran FEA software.
 “Stress Analysis of Wing Root Fitting-Box and Its Fatigue Life Estimation for
Crack Initiation Due To Fluctuating Wing Loads” by Makandar – Kusugal.
The paper addresses static strength and calculation of fatigue life using a root
fitted wing box. Equivalent stress is found using FEA and the result is validated
with hand calculations. Once the structure is found safe the fatigue life is
determined using Miner’s rule
 “Design of an Aircraft Wing Structure for Static Analysis and Fatigue Life
Prediction” by Kumar – Balakrishnan.
This paper investigates the static and fatigue strength of a full wing model using
FEA, and validates the results with hand calculations.

3.2 REFERENCE AIRCRAFT
In this section the wing of the Bombardier 70 aircraft, -shown in figure 21- was
selected as the reference wing for the analysis.
Using the limit load factor the maximum expected load due to lift was obtained.
A model of the aircraft wing was created on inventor based on the geometry
specifications given by the manufacturer, and it was subjected to static and dynamic
FEA. The FEA results were validated with hand calculations and the specimen was
subjected to fatigue analysis to determine fatigue safe life.
Figure 21 - Bombardier Learjet 70 (Bombardier, 2014)
Selection of the shape and the number of different airfoils used to shape a wing is
determined by the required aerodynamic performance, and usually such information
is not revealed by aircraft manufacturers. The most critical factors that determine
the aerodynamic requirements of the wing are the mission of the aircraft, its size,
and the loading conditions that it is expected to be subjected to.

In aircraft design computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis combined with

aerodynamic tube testing and structural analysis are used to produce the optimum
wing designs for new aircraft. However as this is an expensive process with
particular infrastructure needs, pre-existing designs from similar aircraft are
modified and used on the new models.
In general the root airfoil is relatively higher and more round in comparison with the
tip airfoil which more slender and elliptical. This is because the root must be more
durable to stress while the tip must prevent vortices that increase drag.
ASSUMPTIONS
 The wing is a cantilever beam under uniformly distributed load.

 Bending occurs only span-wise.
 Torsion and bending chord-wise are negligible and hence they are ignored.
 The stress concentration factor is zero, i.e. the structure is perfect with no voids.
 The wing material is homogenous and isotropic.
 The skin and the stringers are machined together (billet).
 The produced load from the combined weight of the landing mechanism, fuel
and the wing itself, is included in the overall lift load.
 The aerodynamic effect of the flight control surfaces is negligible.
 The contribution of the winglets to lift is negligible, and thus they are excluded
from the wing design.
 The load factor ranges from nmin=-0.5G to nmax=3.5G. 1
 80% of the total weight of the aircraft is lifted by the wings with the fuselage and
the rare wing accounting for the rest 20 % i.e. 40% of the weight for each wing.
1 (FAA, 2014)

3.3 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Taken from the aircraft’s manual2, the following specifications apply:

Wing Span: 15.50 m
Semi Span: 7.75 m
Aircraft Maximum Weight: 9,752 kg
Using dimensions from the official drawings of the aircraft3, the wing model is built
in inventor with the following specifications:
Exposed Single Wing Span = 5.9m
Root chord length = 2.6m
Tip chord length = 1.1m
The airfoils are selected according to the Airfoil Guide (Lednicer, 2010).
As the Bombardier Learjet C70 is not included in this list, the airfoil of the
Gulfstream G280 - a very similar aircraft - is selected.
Root Airfoil - NACA 0012
Tip Airfoil - NACA 64008A
Based on the existing bibliography4, and to avoid having an extremely complex

model, the following thicknesses are selected:
Skin Thickness 7mm, included the stringers
Spar Thickness 7mm, I shape
The position of the spars along the chord is selected as follows: 4

Front Spar is located at 20% of the chord length
Rear Spar is located at 65% of the chord length
2 Appendix 8.1
3 Appendix 8.2
4 (Makandar,Kusugal, 2015)

3.3.1 STATIC ANALYSIS
A factor of safety on the loading factor is used accounting for extreme loading due
to human error or unexpected weather conditions.
The F.O.S. is selected to be 1.5, thus the produced lift will be:
nmax x FOS =Lift per Wing / 40% Weight, (Equation 7)5
Lift per Wing = nmax x FOS x 40% Weight = (3.5x1.5) x 40% 9,752 x 9.81
Lift per Wing = 200.9 kN
Inventor is used to build the wing model and the area of the wing is measured to be
A=11.14 m2
The pressure of the lift load on the lower surface of the wing is
𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑡
𝑃= (Equation 8)
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
200,900
𝑃= P=0.018 MPa
11.14
FEA MODEL
Due to the complexity of the structure which would make FEA inaccurate and
extremely time consuming if not impossible to carry out, the geometry of the model
is simplified by omitting the ribs, as they do not contribute against bending. This can
be done because buckling on the skin was not produced.
Using the given dimensions and pressure load, and by applying a fixed constraint
for the wing root, the model is produced and FEA was conducted giving the results
shown in figures 22 and 23.
5 (Kumar, Balakrishnan, 2013)

Maximum Von Misses stress at the bottom root is 256.9MPa

Maximum Deflection at the tip is 239.4mm
Figure 22 - FEA Von Misses Stress
Figure 23 - FEA Displacement

MODEL VALIDATION
An equivalent non-tapered wing model is considered. The model is made from extruding
the cross-section profile of the original wing at 75% of the length from the tip, i.e. at
length L=4.74m.
The equivalent model is used to avoid considerations over the varying second moment
of area of the original shape, and it is selected in such a way so that it gives similar Von
misses stress with the original model. The selection process of the appropriate
equivalent model is based in calculations made using the spreadsheet of table 66,
where in total three candidate equivalent models are investigated.
As the ribs do not affect bending stress, seven equally distanced ribs and the tip surface
are added in the equivalent model to deal with buckling that appeared in the first
simulation attempts (figure 30, page 41). The resulting model wing is subjected to FEA
and the Von Misses stress results illustrated in figure 24 are obtained.
Figure 24 - Equivalent Model FEA
6 Appendix 8.5

The indicated max Von Misses stress of 324.3 most probably results from stress
concentration at the edgy contact points of ribs and spars.
At the bottom root max Von Misses stress is found to be 274.4MPa, and at the
maximum deflection at the tip is 132mm.
Mechanics formulas7 are now applied, to validate the FEA results.

Bending due to lift on the bottom surface of the wing produces bending moment:
1
𝑀 = 2 𝑊𝑥𝐿 (Equation 9)
1
M = 2 x200,900x4.74 ,
M = 476,133 Nm
Using the inspection tool Inventor can measure the second moment of area. Inventor is
also used to measure the height of the airfoil and thus derive the distance y from the
neutral axis.
Moment of Inertia, I=0.000318 m4

Distance from neutral Axis, y=0.133m
The bending stress at the bottom root of the wing is given by,
𝑀𝑦
𝜎𝑏 = (Equation 10)
𝐼
476,133𝑥0.133
Substituting, σb = = 198.4MPa
0.000318
Maximum deflection at the tip is,

𝑊𝐿3
𝑌𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (Equation 11)
8𝐸𝐼
Young’s Modulus for AA 2024-T 351 is E=70GPa.

200,900𝑥 4.743
𝑌𝑚𝑎𝑥 = =0.120 or 120mm
8𝑥70𝑥109 𝑥0.000474
7 (Benham,Crawford, Armstrong, 1996)

3.3.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
FEA MODEL (Appendix 8.4)

The original model is now subjected to modal analysis giving the following
frequencies that correspond to the first three modal shapes.
f1= 9.1Hz
f2=34.1Hz
f3=48.5Hz
EQUIVALENT MODEL (Appendix 8.5)

Again the equivalent model is used and the following results are produced for the
first three natural frequencies:
f1=11.2Hz
f2=39.6Hz
f3=43.7Hz
The above results are illustrated in the FEA analysis given in appendix 8.4.
For cantilever beams, the first three mode shapes are illustrated in figure 25.
Figure 25 - Natural Frequencies of the first three Mode Shapes of the Cantilever Beam

MODEL VALIDATION
The natural frequencies of these vibrations are calculated using equation 12
𝑛4 𝜋5 𝐸𝐼
𝜔𝑛 = √ (Equation 12)
16(3𝜋−8)𝜌𝐴𝐿4
Where for different n the corresponding natural frequency is obtained.
Based on the above equation, table 6 from appendix 8.4 gives the following results:
ω1=22.9 rad/s or f1=12.33Hz
ω2=91.7 rad/s or f2=49.32Hz
ω3=206 rad/s or f3=110.97Hz
3.4 FATIGUE ANALYSIS
For the reference aircraft and for a block of 100 flights with each flight to be 4 hours
long, the loading spectrum of table 2 is given.
Table 2 – Bombardier Learjet 70 Loading Spectrum (Makandar,Kusugal, 2015)

LOADING CONDITION LOADING RANGE CYCLES
1 0.5G-0.75G 1000
2 0.75G-1G 200
3 1G-1.25G 40
4 1.25G-1.5G 25
5 0G-1.75G 30
6 0G-3.5G 5
7 -0.5G—1.5G 25
The maximum stress value of 256.9MPa that was obtained from the stress analysis,
corresponds to 3.5 g including the FOS, and so the stress for 1G of loading is
256.9/3.5=73.4MPa.
Thus the stress values of the given load spectrum table 3 is produced.

Table 3 - Stress Limits

LOADING LOADING RANGE STRESS MIN STRESS MAX
CONDITION G MPa MPa
1 0.5 - 0.75 36.7 55.05
2 0.75 - 1 55.05 73.4
3 1 - 1.25 73.4 91.75
4 1.25 - 1.5 91.75 110.1
5 0 - 1.75 0 128.45
6 0 – 3.5 0 256.9
7 -0.5 - 1.5 -36.7 110.1
For the sinusoidal stress of figure 26, for each of the above loading conditions the
Alternating and the Mean Stress, are given by:
Alternating Stress: σa= σmax – σmin / 2

And Mean Stress: σm= σmax + σmin / 2
Figure 26 - Representation of Characteristic Cyclic Stress Values

Calculations are made using spreadsheet table 68, and the following results are
produced.
8 Appendix 8.6

Condition 1: 0.5G – 0.75G σmin =36.7MPa and σmax = 55.05MPa

Mean Stress σm = 45.88MPa or 6.65ksi
Alternating Stress σa= 9,18 MPa or1.33ksi
Condition 2: 0.75G – 1.0G σmin =55,05MPa and σmax = 73,4 MPa

Mean Stress σm = 64,23MPa or 9.31ksi
Alternating Stress σa= 9,18 MPa or 1.33ksi
Condition 3: 1G – 1.25G σmin =73,4MPa and σmax = 91,75 MPa

Mean Stress σm = 82,58MPa or 11.97ksi
Alternating Stress σa= 9,18MPa or 1.33ksi
σmin =91,75ΜPa and σmax = 110,10 MPa
Condition 4: 1.25G – 1.5G Mean Stress σm = 100,93MPa or 14.63ksi
Condition 5: 0G – 1.75G σmin =0 MPa and σmax = 128,45 MPa

Mean Stress σm = 64,23ΜPa or9.31ksi
Alternating Stress σa= 64,23 MPa or9.31ksi
Condition 6: 0G – 3.5G σmin =0 MPa and σmax = 256.9 MPa

Mean Stress σm = 128.45 MPa or 18.6ksi
Alternating Stress σa= 128.45 MPa or 18.6ksi
σmin =-36,7 MPa and σmax = 110,10 MPa

Condition 7: -0.5 – 1.5G Mean Stress σm = 36,7MPa or 5.32ksi

A correction factor accounting for surface roughness and design reliability is

considered. This correction factor is defined as the product of the corresponding
correction factors of these two characteristics. (Makandar,Kusugal, 2015)
Correction Factor= Surface Roughness CF x Design Reliability CF

For the aircraft wing the following values apply:
Surface Roughness CF= 0.8
Design Reliability CF=0.897
And hence, Correction Factor=0.8x0.897=0.7176
For Cu-Mg Aluminum Alloys like AA2024-T351, the S-N chart from figure 27 applies.
The chart is in logarithmic scale, and it was produced from measurments on the wings
of 250 different aircraft.
Figure 27 - S-N Chart for Al-Cu-Mg Alloy Wings (Hangartner, 1974)
The equation for the graph presented of this chart is:

log10N=7.99274 - 1.11862 x log10(σm+5) - 0.259901 x σa + 0.00503694 x σa2 -
Equation 13-

By applying the above equation and with the use of table 6 in appendix 8.6, the
following results are obtained.
Table 4 - Accumulated Damage

LOAD ACTUAL ACTUAL CYCLES
LOADING ACCUM.
CYCLES MEAN ALT. TO
CONDITION Log10Nf DAMAGE
Ni STRESS STRESS FAILURE
G D=Ni/Nf
σm/CF-ksi σa/CF-ksi Nf
0.50-0.75 1000 9.27 1.85 6.24 ∞ 0

0.75-1.00 200 12.98 1.85 6.12 ∞ 0
1.00-1.25 40 16.7 1.85 6.03 ∞ 0
1.25-1.50 25 20.4 1.85 5.96 ∞ 0
0.00-1.75 30 12.98 12.97 4.06 1.16 x104 25.90x10-4
0.00-3.50 5 26.0 26.0 2.97 0.094x104 53.30x10-4
-0.50-1.50 25 7.42 14.8 4.02 1.05x104 23.80x10-4
Total accumulated damage ΣD= (25.9+53.3+23.8) x10-4=0.0103

The total damage accumulated is less than 1 and therefore a crack will not initiate
immediately for the given loading conditions.
Miner’s Rule is applied to obtain the number of blocks to failure:

Number of blocks to failure = 1/ ΣD (Equation 14)
Number of blocks to failure = 1/0.0103=97.2
1 block of loading is considered to represent 100 flights of 4 hours each, i.e. 400
flight hours per block.
Therefore fatigue safe life is found to be 38,887 flight hours, and hence inspection
has to be made in this time.

CHAPTER 4. AIRCRAFT OPTIMIZATION 37 / 68
4. AIRCRAFT OPTIMIZATION
This section introduces the different metals used in aircraft manufacturing and
investigates optimization with alternative materials like composites and sandwich
structures. Aerodynamic optimization is also looked into with the use of winglets
and shape changing wings. Finally a demonstration is made of how the CES
Edupack is used for material selection.
4.1 MATERIAL OPTIMIZATION

In aircraft design the role of the aircraft determines the required properties and thus
the appropriate materials. Combinations of different materials ensure optimization in
terms of strength, elasticity, specific weight and corrosion resistance.
4.1.1 METALS IN AIRCRAFT DESIGN

Steel, aluminum, titanium and their alloys are some of the metals typically used in
the aircraft industry.
Aluminum alloys have lower weight compared to steel alloys, with good corrosion
resistance properties, but steel alloys have better yield strength. For this reason,
steel is used in the parts of where strength is more important such as the landing
gears, and aluminum is used for parts like the wings where low weight and elasticity
are more important.
Titanium on the other hand provides a combination of low weight with particularly
high strength, and high heat and corrosion resistance. Titanium and other heat
resistant Nickel-based super alloys are used for engine parts, where weight and
heat resistivity are particularly important.
4.1.2 COMPOSITE MATERIALS IN THE AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Aircraft designers are increasingly turning to composites for lighter structures and
improved efficiency. Composites are usually built up with laminates where

unidirectional fabric layers embedded within a resin matrix are stacked on top of
each other at different orientations for maximum stiffness.
In addition to their high specific strength and stiffness, composites exhibit the ability
to tailor optimum mechanical properties by orientating the majority of plies in the
direction of the load and thus less material waste during manufacture is achieved.
The increasing use of composites over the last years has caused a decline in the
use of metals. Composites are now used on most modern fighter aircraft, and the
first generation of commercial aircraft with more than 50% composite parts, such as
the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350 XWB, have recently entered service.
Despite the benefits, aircraft manufacturers justifiably are cautious in a more

massive transition to composites. The reason is that as composites are made of
different ply, if subjected to significant out of plane stresses, subsurface
delaminations may develop between the different plies. These delaminations are a
significant problem as they are difficult to detect by visual inspection and may
reduce the compressive strength of the laminate by up to 60%.
Figure 28 illustrates failure due to delaminantion at compression.
Figure 28 - Failure due to Delamination (Aerospace, 2012)

4.1.3 SANDWICH STRUCTURES

As seen in the FEA analysis, thin-skinned structures like the wing skin exhibit
practically zero rigidity when loaded, which is causing buckling. In order to increase
rigidity bending stiffness must be increased and this is done with the use ribs and
stringers that divide the skin into smaller sections.
This is justified by Euler’s formula for critical buckling described in equation 13.
𝜋2 𝛦𝛪
𝑃𝑐𝑟 = (Equation 15)
𝐿2
Where Pcr is the critical buckling load, and L is the width of the surface.
Equation 13 defines the critical buckling load as a function of the square of the
width of the plate over which the load is applied. Therefore skins can be made 4
times stronger in buckling by just cutting the unsupported width in half.
In the case of the equivalent model before the addition of ribs, buckling on the skin
was produced as illustrated in the stress analysis of figure 29.
Figure 29 – Buckling effect in the preliminary equivalent model

An alternative for more rigidity is the sandwich structure. This generally features a
very lightweight core, such as a honeycomb lattice or a foam, sandwiched between
two thin yet stiff outer panels. The role of the sandwich core is to carry any shear
loads and separate the two skins as far as possible. (Figure 30)
Figure 30 - A Carbon Fibre / Sandwich Panel (Aerospace, 2012)
The second moment of area which reflects the ability to withstand bending, is a
function of the cube of the depth and so the bending rigidity increases dramatically
with increasing depth.
Ideally, in this manner it is possible to design an entire wing without ribs or stringers
and the Beech Starship is an excellent example of this application. (Figure31)
However, it is hard to create curved shells since the structure is built to oppose
bending. Furthermore, there are problems with condensation and water inside the
honeycomb cells and the ability to guarantee a good bond surface between the core
and the outer panels. Structures with foam core are an alternative, but they tend to
be heavier with low mechanical properties.

Figure 31 - The Beech Starship
One of the most important applications of honeycomb structures is when used in

combination with composites. Stiff carbon composite panels are ideal as outer skin
and the whole assembly can be co-cured together in an autoclave without the need
for secondary bonding.
The high specific strength and stiffness of carbon composites makes this
combination of ultra-lightweight yet resilient structure, ideal for aerospace purposes.
4.2 AERODYNAMIC OPTIMIZATION
There are several new concepts under development having to do with innovative wing
shapes and materials with a focus on reduction of drag and noise and increase of fuel
efficiency. It is estimated that 1% reduction of drag for a large commercial aircraft, can
save up to 400,000 litres of fuel and reduce carbon emissions by 5,000 kg.

4.2.1 WINGLETS
The high pressure on the lower surface of the wing creates airflow from the bottom of
the airfoil outward from the fuselage around the tips. At the tip, due to relatively lower air
pressure above the wing, air tends to spill over and swirl around it forming a vortex that
creates additional drag and thereby reducing the aerodynamic efficiency of the wing.
The strength of the vortices is directly proportional to the weight of the aircraft and
inversely proportional to the wingspan and speed of the aircraft. The heavier and slower
the aircraft, the stronger the wingtip vortices. Thus, an aircraft will create wingtip
vortices with maximum strength occurring during the take-off, climb, and landing phases
of flight. These vortices lead to a potentially hazardous form of turbulence, the wake
turbulence.
Winglets are aerodynamic surfaces that reduced significantly the effect of the wingtip
vortices. A well designed winglet rises vertically and is swept back by approximately 25’
such that it significantly reduces the size of the wingtip vortex and the induced drag.
Inspiration for the design of winglets came from birds observed to curl their wingtip
feathers upward when in need of high lift.
Figure 32 - Differences between flat wing tips and Winglets

In the mid 70’s NASA was the first to design the winglets as an aerodynamically efficient
concept. The original design was predicted to reduce induced drag by approximately
20% and improve the overall aircraft lift-drag ratio by 6% to 9%.
In 1993 Blended winglet technology made its debut as a Performance Enhancement

Program for the Gulfstream II aircraft. The blended winglet provides a transition region
between the outboard wing, which is typically designed for a plain tip, and the winglet.
Without this transition region, the outer wing would require aerodynamic redesign to
allow for the interference between the wing and winglet surfaces. Highly blended
winglets have demonstrated more than 60 per cent greater effectiveness over
conventional winglets with an angular transition.
In 2000, Dr Fort. F Felker, a former NASA researcher, submitted a patent for “elliptical
winglets”, where the curvature of the winglets approximates part of an ellipse, as shown
in Fig 33 C. This apparently ensures an elliptical distribution of lift both horizontally and
vertically, resulting to even lower induced drag.
Figure 33 - Different winglet shapes (Engineer, 2013)
In general winglets contribute by 4% to 5% in fuel savings and considering their low

cost, practically no additional maintenance requirements and extremely long life span
they are the most important aerodynamic invention of the modern times.
Winglets bring several additional advantages due to the increased lift to drag ratio which
results in better take-off performance and rate-of-climb.

In the case of limiting runways this allows for higher available take-off weights, and
where runway performance is not limiting, operators can profit from a reduction in
average take-off thrust with consequent savings in engine maintenance costs by 2%.
(Engineer, 2013)
4.2.2 FLEXFOIL WINGS

Another example of innovative aircraft design is the flexfoil wings, developed by NASA
in a joint project with US company FlexSys Inc. and the American Air Force Research
Lab, aiming to improve aircraft aerodynamic efficiency and reduce noise during take-off
and landing. (NASA, 2014)
This design allows the profile of the wing to change during flight through a flexible edge.
The tests are being carried out on a modified Gulfstream III (G-III) business aircraft that
has been converted into an aerodynamics research test bed at NASA's Armstrong Flight
Research Centre. Traditional flaps have been replaced with continuous bendable
surfaces made of composite materials patented from FlexSys Inc., and they have the
capability of performing large angular deformations.
The shape-changing wing can presumably increase fuel efficiency by up to 12%, and
reduce the noise during landing and take-off by up to 40%.
Figure 34 - The Gulfstream III with attached flexfoils (NASA, 2014)

4.3 TOOLS FOR MATERIAL SELECTION
As previously mentioned the characteristics of wings depend on the mission

requirements of the aircraft. Optimal performance is achieved, based on material
properties listed in databases of engineering materials or alternatively using software
such as the CES EduPack.
This section demonstrates the use CES EduPack for material selection.
MATERIAL SELECTION USING CES EDUPACK

When designing aircraft wings the desired material requirements are high stiffness,
high strength, high toughness and low weight.
Figure 35 - Unwanted Properties of Aircraft Wings
The first step is to open the software and browse the database of materials that is
available in three different levels.
Level 2 with a relatively detailed list of materials is selected in this occasion.
Each material has a record with a general description of the material detailed
property data and images of typical applications
.

The software allows comparison between materials through bubble charts of any
selected set of properties. The charts are interactive and double-clicking on a
material opens its record. Materials can also be highlighted and labeled.
In this occasion toughness are considered and so Yield strength and Young
modulus are selected for the bubble chart.
This first stage of the selection produces the chart of figure 36.
1000
Technical ceramics
Metals and alloys
100
Gold
Non-technical ceramics
Composites
10
Young's modulus (GPa)
Polymers
1
Foams
0.1 Natural materials
0.01
0.001
Elastomers
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Yield strength (elastic limit) (MPa)
Figure 36 - Young's Modulus VS Yield Strength Bubble Chart - Stage 1
PERFORMING A SELECTION
The selection proceeds by eliminating the least suitable materials. The closer a
material to the top right of the chart the better for this application and so metals,
technical ceramics and composites advance to the next selection stage as the most
appropriate. The remaining materials are excluded and the chart of figure 37 is
produced. The remaining materials are refined further by removing materials from
the bottom left quarter of the graph i.e. pure lead, lead alloys, GFRP, and
magnesium alloys which results to the chart of selection stage 3 of figure 38.

Tungsten alloys
Metals and alloys Nickel-chromium alloys

Nickel
200
Copper Nickel-based superalloys
Commercially pure titanium

100 Brass
Commercially pure zinc
Tin
Aluminum/Silicon carbide composite

50 Non age-hardening wrought Al-alloys Zinc die-casting alloys
Cast Al-alloys
Cast magnesium alloys Wrought magnesium alloys CFRP, epoxy matrix (isotropic)
Dough (Bulk) molding compound, DMC (BMC), polyester matrix
Commercially pure lead Lead alloys

20 GFRP, epoxy matrix (isotropic)
Composites
Sheet molding compound, SMC, polyester matrix

10
10 100 1000
400
Tungsten alloys
350
300
Nickel-chromium alloys
Nickel
250
200
Nickel-based superalloys
Metals and alloys Copper
150
Titanium alloys
Commercially pure titanium
100 Brass Brass

CFRP, epoxy matrix (isotropic)
Bronze
Cast Al-alloys
Age-hardening wrought Al-alloys
50 100 200 500 1000 2000


ADDITIONAL SELECTION CRITERIA
Material selection takes into consideration not just mechanical properties, but also
economics.
The final selection stage takes into account density as a measure of weight and
price as a measure of cost and so the chart of figure 39 is produced.
In this chart the closer to the bottom left the most appropriate the material.
Tungsten alloys
CFRP, epoxy matrix (isotropic)
20
Titanium alloys
Nickel-based superalloys
Price (GBP/kg)
10
Bronze
5
Brass
Cast Al-alloys Zinc die-casting alloys

2
Age-hardening wrought Al-alloys
2000 5000 10000 20000

Density (kg/m^3)
Figure 39 - Price VS Density - Stage 4
The above chart makes it obvious that carbon fiber composites are the lighter
material with half of aluminum’s weight and they cost about 20 times as much.
Aluminum alloys are used on most conventional commercial aircrafts, when carbon
fibre is used on aircraft where high performance is the most significant factor
regardless the cost, like in the case of fighter jets and aerobatic airplanes.

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 49 / 68
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Given the maximum load distributed uniformly at the bottom surface of the wing is
F=200.9 kN or P=0.018 MPa, FEA gave the following results,
Von Misses stress σVM=256.9MPa
Maximum Deflection at the tip, Ymax=239mm at the wing tip.
Modal Frequencies, fi=9.1 Hz, f2=34.1Hz and f3=48.5Hz
An equivalent model was built so that it has similar static and dynamic performance with
the original model under the same loading conditions and thus validating it results to
indirect validation of the original model.
The model is made from extrusion of the cross-section profile of the original model at
75% of the span. FEA for the new model gives the following results,
Maximum Von misses stress =274.4MPa
Maximum Deflection, Ymax=132mm
Modal frequencies fi=11.2 Hz, f2=39.6Hz and f3=43.7
Hand calculations are made using classic mechanics formulas and for the given
assumptions it is found that,
Maximum Bending stress at the root, σb=198.4MPa
Maximum Deflection at the tip is Ymax=120mm.
Modal Frequencies, f1=12.33Hz, f2=49.32Hz and f3=110.97Hz
The results from the static analysis are different because FEA calculates Von Misses
stress and the hand calculations were based on the assumption that only bending
stress along the span is present. This assumption ignores the effect of twist around the
span due to the non-symmetric shape of the airfoil and shear loads along the chord due
to drag. The effect of these loads to the equivalent stress is significantly smaller
compared with the calculated bending stress but nevertheless they cause this variance.

The results from the modal analysis are relevant only for the first natural frequency and
totally irrelevant for the second and the third. Again this is caused from the airfoil shape
of the wing given that the formula that was used to calculate natural frequency is obtain
from the study of solid rectangle beams.
Therefore the equivalent FEA model is valid and hence the original model is valid.
Given that AA2024-T351 Yield Strength=345Mpa which is greater than the maximum
Von Misses stress found from the FEA, the wing is considered to be safe in terms of
static loading.
Fatigue analysis gives fatigue safe life to be 33,887 flight hours which is a
reasonable result for this type of aircraft.
Material optimization was assessed and it is found that composites and sandwich
structures can improve significantly aircraft efficiency due to weight reduction while
retaining the required mechanical characteristics. However considerations for
composite delamination and low ability for shaping due to high stiffness, and
condensation of water in the core of sandwich structures is why a more broad use
of these materials is not made at present.
However as materials constantly improve better and cheaper products are

produced, and so recently two aircraft that use these technologies, the Airbus A380
and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, have successfully gone to service.
Aerodynamic optimization was also assessed by investigating the use of winglets

which are found to enhance aerodynamic performance. The reason is that they
reduce wing tip vortices resulting this way to drag reduction and efficiency increase.
This is important for airlines given the large competition and the need for constant
control of ticket pricing as it increases profit due to fuel saving.

The shape changing wing prototype was also presented as the technology that
could reduce drag further and also control noise. The latter is important for aircraft
passengers and airports, however the technology is still in research stage.
Finally demonstration of the process of material selection with the use of CES
Edupack shows that aluminum alloys are the best option for conventional aircraft,
and that carbon fibre is best for special purpose aircraft like fighter jets, aerobatic
planes and large airliners for which their role and mission makes composites more
suitable.
This process proved CES Edupack to be an easy, and powerful tool for material
selection. CES EduPack can be used efficiently for making real-life engineering
decisions by providing complete material information making the process of
selection easy, fast and reliable.

6. CONCLUSIONS
Investigating failure contributes significantly to aircraft safety. The identification of the

primary causes of failure and analysis enable recommendations for corrective action
that will prevent similar failures from occurring in the future. (QinetiQ, 2002)
In a flight, aircraft wings are exposed to various static and dynamic loads. Dynamic
loading is particularly important but hard to measure as the loading conditions vary
constantly during flight. Furthermore, aircraft experience even more intense loads when
subjected to gusts or turbulence. (Giraldo, 2008)
The cyclic pattern of loading is the main cause of fatigue, which is the most common
reason for aircraft structural failure. Thus, the service life of structural components is
calculated based on blocks of loading cycles that result to a certain number of flight
hours at which inspection must be carried out
In this project structural analysis and fatigue analysis were carried out on a reference
aircraft wing. Von Misses stress and the modal natural frequencies of the wing were
obtained with FEA and were validated with hand calculations. Calculations for fatigue
life were also carried out and the fatigue safe life of the aircraft was obtained. The
overall analysis confirmed safety and produced a satisfactory fatigue safe life.
In aircraft manufacturing, the fields of design, materials, fabrication and maintenance all
work hand in hand to ensure safety. Metal fatigue and cracks, corrosion, excessive
loading, bad design and faulty maintenance are sources of problems, and an oversight
in any of these areas can cause catastrophic failure. Service bulletins and airworthiness
directives, constantly add new knowledge and information that combined with previous
experience ensure building and maintaining safer aircraft. (Jackson, 2015)

Considerable effort is being made to mature composite technology for reducing

manufacturing costs, and guarantee reliably high quality materials. (Aerospace,
2012)
With the rapid and constant increase of the capabilities of computers, computer
simulation is a reliable, low-cost alternative for the evaluation of aircraft performance.
Coupling aerodynamic analysis - computational fluid analysis - with finite element
analysis to understand fluid-solid interactions is a common thread among engineers in
pursuing better results.
The use of accurate virtual designs ensures reliability of the physical models tested
before any manufacturing process takes place. As testing a real prototype is time and
resource consuming, by improving the design search before manufacturing a prototype
is an advantage. Altering and experimenting on design by means of computer analysis
is a cost and time affective privilege that contributes beneficially to design process.

CHAPTER 7. REFERENCES 54 / 68
7. REFERENCES
Aeromodeling, 2013. Bandung Aeromodeling. [Online]

Available at: http://bandung-aeromodeling.com/tutorial.php?nid=51#.VvAoyVWLSM8
Aerospace, 2012. Aerospace Engineering. [Online]
Available at: http://aerospaceengineeringblog.com/aircraft-structures/
AerospaceWeb, 2003. Aerospace Web. [Online]
Available at: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml
AeroStudents, 2015. aerostudents.com. [Online]
Available at:
http://aerostudents.com/files/aircraftStructures/aircraftStructuresFullVersion.pdf
Anon., n.d. s.l.: s.n.
Arquivo, 2014. Arquivo da Aviacao. [Online]
Available at: http://arquivodaaviacao.blogspot.co.uk/2013_02_01_archive.html
Aviation, 2015. [Online]
Available at: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19475/what-are-the-different-
wing-planforms-what-are-eachs-advantages-where-are-the
Bath, 2010. Bath University. [Online]
Available at:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/prp24/website3/New_Aircraft_Structures/Morphing/Morphing.ht
ml
Benham,Crawford, Armstrong, 1996. Mechanics of Engineering Materials. 2 ed. Essex:
Pearson.
Bitar, Gunnarsson, 2010. Assembly Analysis – Fixed Leading Edge for Airbus A320 ,
Lincopings: s.n.
Bombardier, 2014. Bombardier Commercial Aircraft Media Hub. [Online]
Available at: http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardier.com/fully-loaded-wing-up-
bending-test-takes-on-ultimate-load/
Borell, 2009. Scientific American. [Online]
Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-flight-3407/
Callister, 2007. Materials Science and Engineering. 7 ed. s.l.:Willey.

Cavcar, D. M., 2015. Anadolu Univarsity. [Online]

Available at: http://home.anadolu.edu.tr/~mcavcar/common/Loadfactor.pdf
Chitte, 2013. Static and Dynamic Analysis of Typical Wing Structure of Aircraft using
Nastran. IJAIEM, 2(7).
Defence, 2012. Defence Pk. [Online]
Available at: http://defence.pk/threads/rafale-why-it-is-the-last-plane-standing.156901/
Doherty, D., n.d. Anaytical Modeling of Aircraft Wing loads using atlab. [Online]
Available at:
http://uk.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/articles/analyticalmodelingofaircraftwingl
oadsusingmatlabandsymbolicmathtoolbox.
EASA.E.069, 2013. EASA. [Online]
Available at: https://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/EASA-TCDS-
E.069_International_Aero_Engines_AG_(IAE)_V2500--A5_and_V2500--
D5_series_engines-02-25012013.pdf
Engineer, F., 2009. [Online]
Available at: http://theflyingengineer.com/flightdeck/airbus-a320-experience/
Engineer, T. F., 2013. The Flying Engineer. [Online]
Available at: http://theflyingengineer.com/flightdeck/winglets-and-sharklets/
FAA, 1973. Fatigue Evaluation of Wing and Associated Structure on Small Airplanes,
Virginia, USA: Federal Aviation Administration.
FAA, 2013. Aerodynmaics of Flight. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/m
edia/phak%20-%20chapter%2004.pdf
FAA, 2014. Pilot's Handbook of Aeronauatical Knowledge. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/m
edia/phak%20-%20chapter%2004.pdf
Fillipone, A., 2013. SierraFoot. [Online]
Available at: http://www.sierrafoot.org/mather/fact_checks/lift_to_drag_ratios.html

Flying, 2006. The Flying Kiwi. [Online]

Available at: http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Ciaf2006/Highlights/
Giraldo, 2008. CFD Based Wing Shape Optimization Through Gradient-Based Method.
Brasil, International Conference on Engineering Optimization.
Gürgen, Kuşhan, 2015. Fatigue failure in aircraft structural components. In: Handbook
of Materials Failure Analysis with Case Studies from the Aerospace and Automotive
Industries. s.l.:s.n.
Hangartner, 1974. Correlaiton of Fatigue Data for Aluminum Aircraft Wing and Tail
Structures, s.l.: Canada National Research Counsil.
Jackson, D., 2015. Act For Libraries. [Online]
Available at: http://www.actforlibraries.org/common-causes-of-aircraft-wing-failure-2/
Kumar, Balakrishnan, 2013. Design Of An Aircraft Wing Structure For Static Analysis
And Fatigue Life. IJERT, 2(5).
Lednicer, D., 2010. UIUC Applied Aerodynamics Group. [Online]
Available at: http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/aircraft.html#conventional
Makandar,Kusugal, 2015. IJETMAS. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.ijetmas.com/admin/resources/project/paper/f201503061425660513.pdf
Moussas, 2016. Athens Polytechnic University. [Online]
Available at: http://users.teiath.gr/vmouss/ebooks/fmndt/sections/106KyklikiKopwsi.html
NASA, 2010. Parts of an Airplane. s.l.:NASA.
NASA, 2014. NASA. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/research/ACTE/index.html
Neto, P. J. d. O., 2007. An Investigation of Unsteady Aerodynamic Multi-axis, USA: s.n.
Palmer, 2012. Slate. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/06/can_turbulence_cau
se_a_plane_crash_.html
QinetiQ, 2002. Why Aircrafts Fail. Materials Today, 5(11), pp. 18-25.
R. M. Ajaj, D. Smith, A. T. Isikveren, 2013. Aeronautical Journal. [Online]
Available at: http://michael.friswell.com/PDF_Files/J227.pdf

SEDAGHATI, 2006. Wing-Box Structural Design Optimization, Canada: Concordia

University.
Southampton, 2014. Materials & Manufacture. [Online]
Available at: http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~doctor/Supervision%204.htm
Spampinato, A., 2015. AZO Materials. [Online]
Available at: Improving Aerodynamics and Fuel Efficiency
Wilson, 2007. Montana Edu. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.montana.edu/composites/documents/Tim%20Wilson%20thesis.pdf

CHAPTER 8. APPENDICES 58 / 68
8. APPENDICES
8.1 BOMBARDIER LEARJET MANUAL
Figure 28 - Bombardier Learjet C70 Manual (Bombardier, 2014)

8.2 BOMBARDIER LEARJET 70 DIMENSIONS

8.3 INVENTOR SHAPING AND SIZING

8.4 ORIGINAL WING MODEL FEA

ORIGINAL WING MODEL

8.5 EQUIVALENT MODEL SELECTION
Table 5 - Selection of Equivalent Model
Equivalent Models 100% 50% 75%

Lift Force - N 200900 200900 200900
Wing Area - m2 11.14 11.13 11.14
Lift Pressure - Mpa 0.018 0.018 0.018
Length, L 4.2 5.9 4.74
Bending Moment - Nm 421890 592655 476133
Moment of Inertia, I- m4 0.000474 0.00014 0.000318
y-m 0.154 0.100 0.133
VM Stress - MPa 251.9 465 274.4
Bending Stress, M - Mpa 137.1 421.2 198.4
Stress Difference - Mpa -114.8 -43.8 -76.0
% Stress Difference -45.59% -9.42% -27.70%
FEA Deflection Ymax- m 0.125 0.537 0.141
Calculated Deflection, Ymax- m 0.056 0.526 0.120
Deflection Difference - m 0.069 -0.011 -0.021
% Deflection Difference 55.14% -2.00% -14.79%
Cross-section Area, A - m2 0.037
1ST Natural Freequency 12.33
2ND Natural Frequency 49.32
3RD Natural Frequency 110.97

100% EQUIVALENT MODEL






8.6 FATIGUE LIFE CALCULATIONS
Table 6 - Fatigue Calculations

Load Damage
σmin- σmax- σm/CF - σalt/CF-
Gmin Gmax Cycles- log10Nf Cycles to Fail.-Nf Accum.
Mpa Mpa ksi ksi
Ni D=Ni/Nf
0.50 0.75 1000 36.7 55.05 9.27 1.85 6.24 1.73E+06 5.80E-07
0.75 1.00 200 55.1 73.40 12.98 1.85 6.12 1.33E+06 0
1.00 1.25 40 73.4 91.75 16.7 1.85 6.03 1.08E+06 0
1.25 1.50 25 91.8 110.1 20.4 1.85 5.96 9.05E+05 0
0.00 1.75 30 0.00 128.5 12.98 13.0 4.06 1.16E+04 2.59E-03
0.00 3.50 5 0.00 256.9 26.0 26.0 2.97 9.39E+02 5.33E-03
-0.50 1.50 25 -36.7 110.1 7.42 14.8 4.02 1.05E+04 2.38E-03
Total 1.03E-02
Blocks to Fail.(1/D) 97.217
Hours to Failure 38887

Structural Analysis, Fatigue Analysis and Optimization of Aircraft Wings

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Structural Analysis, Fatigue Analysis and Optimization of Aircraft Wings

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING HONOURS PROJECT

“STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, FATIGUE ANALYSIS

EDINBURGH NAPIER UNIVERSITY

Furthermore optimization is investigated in terms of alternative materials such and

1.1 DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

1.2 SCOPE OF THE REPORT

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

 Optimization in terms of alternative materials and aerodynamic improvements.

1.5 LIMITATIONS AND BOUNDARIES

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.1 AIRCRAFT FAILURE MODES

Table 1 - Failure Modes of Components (QinetiQ, 2002)

The following sections describe the failure modes given above.

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

Figure 1 - Ductile and Brittle Fracture (Southampton, 2014)

Fracture is always a bad thing but if it has to happen it is preferred to be of ductile

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

Figure 2- Ground Air Ground Loading (Moussas, 2016)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

Figure 3 - Fatigue Failure (Callister, 2007)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

Figure 4 - Cessna 180 Wing Rib Corrosion (FAA, 2013)

2.2 AERODYNAMIC PRINCIPLES

2.2.1 BERNOULLI’S EQUATION

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.2.2 AERODYNAMIC FORCES

Figure 5 - The Aerodynamic Forces in a steady level flight (FAA, 2013)

Figure 6 - Lift and Drag (Aeromodeling, 2013)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

Figure 7 - Pressure Difference Distribution for Symmetrical (top) and Cambered

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.2.3 LOAD FACTOR

As example, an Airbus A320 of mass m=78,000kg with n=2, is subjected to lift

Figure 8 -Change of Load Factor with Bank Angle (AerospaceWeb, 2003)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

The structural strength of an aircraft is determined by the limit loading conditions

Figure 9 - Fighter Jet Load Factor vs Airspeed Graph (FAA, 2014)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE LOAD FACTOR

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.2.4 AERODYNAMIC FAILURE

Figure 10 - Ice Deformity on Wing (FAA, 2014)

Figure 11 – The Aerodynamic Effect of Ice Deformity (FAA, 2014)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.3 AIRCRAFT WINGS

2.3.1 WING STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

The structural components of a wing are illustrated in figure 12.

Figure 12 - Wing Structural Components (Bitar, Gunnarsson, 2010)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

Ribs are divided to the following categories:

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.3.2 FLIGHT CONTROL SURFACES

Figure 13 - Aircraft Wing Components (Arquivo, 2014)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.4 WING CONFIGURATIONS

2.4.1 RECTANGULAR WING

Figure 14 - Rectangular Wing (Flying, 2006)

2.4.2 ELLIPTICAL WING

Figure 15 - Elliptical Wing (Engineer, 2009)

BENG MECHANICAL ENGINEERING - HONOUR’S PROJECT XENOFON KATIFES

2.4.3 TAPERED WING