AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES:

RIGID AND ELASTIC

Dr. John Valasek
Aerospace Engineering
Texas A&M University

AERO 401
November 1999

1 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 INTRODUCTION
early motivations
 The main factor that governs the choice of materials and structural form is the
ratio of the load on the structure to its dimensions.
 mission type and speed
 Very early aircraft operated at low speeds, and therefore loads were low in
relation to aircraft size. Wing loadings were typically 5 - 10 psf.
 best option was to concentrate compression loads into a few small rod-like members
and diffuse tensions into fabric and wires
 Low power engines of the time made structural lightness an expedient
 wood and fabric were best choice, and simple to obtain
 aircraft of similar dimension were less than the weight of comparable modern ones
 metals were entirely out of the question
 Biplanes were prevalent because early monoplanes suffered from catastrophic
structural failures (probably caused by aeroelastic effects which were unknown
at the time).
 WWI dogfight load factors could be as high as 4g

2 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 INTRODUCTION
modern motivations
 For high speed flight, the main factor that governs the choice of materials and
structural form is the high temperature environment caused by kinetic
heating in sustained supersonic flight.
 Except for one or two exceptions, the top speed of fighter aircraft have
traditionally been limited not by aerodynamics or propulsion but by the choice
of materials.
 without advances in structural efficiency the performance improvements due to
advances in aerodynamics and propulsion would not have been realized
 Existing fighter aircraft as a rule do not have long supersonic endurance, and so
have metalic leading edges (for reasons of rain and birdstrikes).
 The proposed U.S. High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) is critically dependent
on advanced structures and materials technology.

3 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 WING LOADING
fighter aircraft trends (1910 - 2000)
160
 Wing loadings based on F-104A
F-16C

maximum takeoff weight. 140 MiG-31

F-14A
F-15E
 The great rise in wing loading 120 Thick F-4E F-15C
occurred during the 1930’s and Thick
Skinned F-4B
MiG-29A
Skinned

Wing Loading (psf)

40’s. 100 Jets
Jets Kfir Rafale
F-84G
F-16A
 The generation of fighters with 80
F-84D YF-12A EF2000
Mirage 2000
thick skins lessened the trend J-37

60
F-106A Deltas
slightly. Fw 190A Deltas
J-35D
 Note the difference in F-16 Wood
40
Wooden
Bf-110A
Meteor Hurricane II
Biplanes P-26
takeoff wing loadings: Biplanes Gladiator MetalMetal
20
 F-16A air superiority Gauntlet Monoplanes
Monoplanes
Pup
 F-16C multi-role 0
1910 1930 1950 Year 1970 1990 2010
Thick Skinned Jets Deltas
Metal Monoplanes Wooden Biplanes

4 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 WING CONSTRUCTION
the early years (1900 - 1918)
 Fabric covering wooden spars.
 Load carried by internal structure
plus bracing wires.
 Typical of WWI aircraft.
 Load bearing members are
positioned near aerodynamic
surfaces where the stresses are highest.
 Upper surface in compression, lower surface in tension. Stresses near the
neutral axis are low and lightening holes can be used.
 Susceptibility to structural failure
due to wood rot.
 Buckling of wings in flight
called a “striptease” in the
vernacular of the period.
Moraine-Saulnier Type N “Bullet”

5 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 STATIC LOADS TESTING
1920
Determining ultimate flight loads by testing to destruction

Military Wing Sopwith D.1 No. 243 Squadron

6 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 WING CONSTRUCTION
the inter-war years (1919 - 1938)
 Built up steel spars with wood
reinforcement, covered with fabric.
 Warren type truss.
 Load carried by internal
structure plus bracing wires.
 Intended to be the “best of both
worlds” in terms of greater
structural strength due to inclusion of steel, and lower cost, ease of
manufacture, and ease of maintenance due to fabric covering.
 Ended up being “worst of both worlds”
 mix of steel and wood not as strong as Hawker Hurricane Mk. XII
steel alone
 fabric unable to withstand higher speeds
permitted by stronger structure

7 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 WING CONSTRUCTION
WWII to Korea and after (1939 - 1955)
 A major conceptual breakthrough:
most of the structural load is carried
by the external structure.
 Semi-Monocoque construction
 the thin skin can easily handle tension
 to handle compression without
buckling, the skin is attached to the spars and stringers
 Stressing the skin results in an even higher load carrying capability.
 total result is a structure very stiff in bending.
 requires mechanical fasteners (rivets).
Messerschmitt Me 262 Sturmvogel
 permits higher speeds / lower drag.
 Discovered in 1925 by Dr. H. Wagner,
termed the ‘Wagner Theory of the
Diagonal-Tension Field Beam,’
 Standard construction type today.

8 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 WING WEIGHT
fighter aircraft trends (1930 - 1980)
1.2

P-51B  Normalized to P-51 baseline

1
P-26A span (accounting for planform,
P-36A section, materials).
 Modern jet wings are much
Normalized Wing Weight

0.8
lighter than 1940’s prop wings
 P-51 14.5% WTO
0.6 F-86A  F-15A 3% WTO
 If modern wings had to be built
0.4
F-84F
using 1940’s technology, they
F-104A
would virtually be solid
F-4C
F-111
aluminum alloys or steel.
F-100C F-14A
0.2 F-16A
F-106A F-15A
 Structural efficiency has
improved greatly with time.
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year of Service Entry

9 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 WING CONSTRUCTION
supersonic to post Vietnam (1955 - 1975)
 High transonic and supersonic flight speeds mandated wings with
 very low thickness ratios
 large bending strength
 sweepback torsion
 thicker skins
and therefore more structural material.
 Solid wings were one answer (F-104).
 A better solution is integral wings
 skin and stringers are machined from a single large piece of material
 eliminates mechanical fasteners
McDonnell F-101A Voodoo
 good surface finish (low drag)
 “Wet Wing”; no bladders, but integral:
 fuel tank
 torque box
 skin
 significant increase in fuel volume
 structural synergism
10 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
 INTERNAL FUEL LOAD
fighter aircraft trends (1945 - 2000)
12000
YF-22
 Comparison of integral
F-15E YF-23
tanks and bladder tanks. 10000 Su-27(o)

 For the same area, integral Integral Tanks

Integral Tanks
Su-27
Mirage 4000
tanks offer greater capacity.

Internal Fuel Volume (kg)

8000
F-14A
 Notable aircraft:
Deltas
Deltas
 F-101A fuselage fuel 6000 F-101A
F-18E
F-15C
F-16XL
 F-15E conformal tanks F-18C Javelin FAW.9

 Su-27 overload condition F-105D

F-8A
J-8
J37
F-15A
EF2000
4000 Rafale D
F-16C
F-100C
Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker F-104G
Lavi Bladder TanksTanks
Bladder
Mirage 2000
F-5E
J35D
Pre-1955
Pre - 1955
F-84F
2000
F-86H
Hunter F.6
F-86F
MiG-15

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000

Wing Area (m2)

11 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 WING CONSTRUCTION
contemporary (1976 - )
 The quest to save weight while still retaining good mechanical properties.
 Concept: reduce structural mass by reducing material density, instead of
increasing mechanical properties like
 strength
 stiffness
 toughness
 For most materials:
 10% strength increase, 3% weight reduction
 10% density reduction, 10% weight reduction
 Execution is usually in the form of various types of alloys and composites.
 Drawbacks include
 cost
 difficulty in manufacturing
 undesirable aeroelastic effects
such as reduced roll rates and
aileron reversal

12 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 STATIC LOADS TESTING
1998
Non-destructive testing including accurate measurement of deflections

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

13 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
 TOTAL GROSS WEIGHT REDUCTION
projected

TILTROTOR 5 23 2 8
Structures
STOL Short Range 16 2 14 5 Aerodynamics
STOL Medium Range 9 5 10 7 Propulsion
Systems
GLOBAL CARGO Short 16 5 8 6

GLOBAL CARGO Long 22 11 15 7

LONG HAUL Blended 19 12 12 3

LONG HAUL Conv. 24 5 13 9

SUPER Business 8 18 13 18

SUPER Premium 8 13 12 13

SUPER Long Haul 11 13 12 15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Gross Weight Reduction (% )
Source: Aerospace America, November 1997

14 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 THE COMET STORY (1)
1949 A New Era Begins

The DeHavilland D.H. - 106

ushers in the jet age in
commercial air passenger
transport

DeHavilland D.H.-106 Comet 1949

48 pax
490 MPH
3540 nm
15 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
 THE COMET STORY (2)
1953 - 1954 Tragedies
 Five aircraft are lost
 two due to stall at takeoff
 three inflight, due to “unknown” causes
 BOAC Comet Yoke-Peter, serial G-ALYP, (the first Comet I in scheduled
service) crashes off the island of Elba in the Mediterranean Sea, 10 January
1954. 35 pax plus crew are lost.
 South African Airways Comet crashes off the island of Stromboli in the
Mediterranean Sea, 8 April 1954. 14 pax plus crew are lost.
 Deep sea salvage using sonar and underwater television cameras is used for the
first time to locate aircraft wreckage.

16 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 THE COMET STORY (3)
1955 The Cause Revealed
 The Particulars
 pressurized cabin
 multiple pressurizations / depressurizations
 square windows
 The Mechanism
 crack propagation
 The Result
 structural failure resulting from repeated loading/unloading cycles
 The Phenomena
 Cyclic Fatigue

17 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 THE COMET STORY (4)
America responds

Boeing 367-80 1954 Douglas DC-8 1958

118 pax* 132 pax
582 MPH 600 MPH
3530 nm 3550 nm

18 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 THE COMET STORY (5)
the lead is lost for good
 The improved “safe version” Comet 3 (1955) and improved range
(transatlantic) Comet 4 (1958) are offered.

 In 1958 the Comet 4 begins the very first regularly scheduled transatlantic jet
service.
 westbound flights still had to refuel at Gander, Newfoundland
 One year later, the DC-8 and B707 firmly captured the market due to higher
speed and significantly larger passenger capacity.
 Comet 4: 76 pax at 500 MPH
 B707: 176 pax at 600 MPH
 Comets are eventually sold to the Royal Navy as Nimrod AEW aircraft.

19 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 FATIGUE TESTING
ensuring long term structural integrity
 V-22 design life is 10,000 hours, or 20 years of flying ops.
 Airplane and helicopter induced loads will be encountered.
 takeoffs
 landings
 airplane and helicopter maneuvers
 rough field and shipboard operations
Boeing V-22 Osprey
 ground maneuvers (braking and taxiing)

 For acceptance, structural integrity of

airframe is tested to multiple lifetimes.
 Two for low-cycle loadings (20,000 hrs),
three for high-cycle loadings (30,000 hrs)
 Minimum 7,000 hours in airplane mode,
3,000 hours in VTOL mode.
 No damage at 4g, 310 kts, and 2.8g, 345 kts.
 At end of first test lifetime, airframe is
disassembled and inspected.

Dr. John Valasek Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, 20 April 1998 Aerospace Engineering
20
 THE ELASTIC AIRPLANE
fact or fiction?

21 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 AEROELASTICITY
when flexible structure meets dynamic pressure

Source: Air International, Vol. 52 No. 3, March 1997

22 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 ELASTIC AIRCRAFT
practical considerations
 All aircraft are elastic to some extent.
 The designed-in level of airframe elasticity is dictated by:
 operational requirements and constraints
 aerodynamics
 materials
 economics
 safety, e.g “bend but don’t break” Rutan Voyager
 Some aircraft types are significantly more elastic than others:
 Aircraft which are generally rigid
 fighters F-15 Eagle
 general aviation Cessna 172
 homebuilts made of conventional materials Thorpe T-18
 Aircraft which are generally elastic
 supersonic cruise Concorde
 large and long range transports and bombers Boeing 777
 homebuilts made of composite materials GlassAir
23 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
 AEROELASTIC EFFECTS (1)
steady-state stability derivatives
 Example: Boeing Model 707-320B
Boeing Model 707-320B
 Weathercock Stability
 Elastic stability derivatives are a
strong function of dynamic pressure
and therefore speed and altitude.

 Compared to the rigid aircraft:

 elastic weathercock stability has
essentially equal yet opposite slope
for 0.1  M  0.9
 elastic weathercock stability is
Boeing Model 707-320B
reduced 85% at M = 0.9
Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam

24 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 AEROELASTIC EFFECTS (2)
aft fuselage bending
 Example: elevator effectiveness degradation due to fuselage flexure.
Model the horizontal tail as a flexible cantilever beam:

Under a vertical load Lh the fuselage will produce an elastically

induced angular deflection KLh. An up load produces a negative
change in horizontal tail angle-of-attack. The total aerodynamic
Boeing Model 707-320B b
load is: Lh  CLh  w  ih     e e  KLh qS g
Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam

Note that Lh is a function of itself. Solving for this load: Lh  h

b
CL  w  ih     e e qS g
e1  C L h KqS j
At high dynamic pressure the loads decreases because the denominator grows large. Converting to a
b g
pitching moment coefficient C  CL  w  ih     e e lh and differentiating with respect to e,
h
mh
e1  CL h j
KqS c

25 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 MODELING AEROELASTICITY
perturbed-state stability derivatives
 Analytical derivatives are obtained
by influence coefficient methods.
 Aerodynamic [A]
 rigid body
Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam
Each element aij is the aerodynamic
force induced on panel i as a result
of a unit change in angle-of-attack
on panel j. The column of aerodynamic
forces oF t is related to [A ] and
AEi ij

the airplane angle-of-attack distribution

sn
 iJ
by oF t  q A n s .
AEi ij Ji

Converting to pitching moment coefficient and

2
Cmq  2 xi
Sc
l q A lx q
T
ij i taking the derivative with respect to pitch rate,
gives the rigid body pitch damping derivative.

26 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 JIG SHAPE (1)
equilibrium states of elastic aircraft
 It is assumed that:
 The aircraft is held in its elastic equilibrium shape by an elastic equilibrium
load distribution (gravity, aerodynamic, thrust).
 The aircraft is elastically deformed in the equilibrium state.
 strain energy is “pent up” in the structure
 While under equilibrium loads, the center of gravity does not
correspond to a specific point on the structure of the airplane.
 When equilibrium loads are removed, the C.G. is a fixed point on the
structure of the aircraft in its undeformed or jig shape.
Undeformed or Jig Shape

Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic

Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam
Elastic Equilibrium State

27 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 JIG SHAPE (2)
equilibrium states of elastic aircraft
 Elements of a calculated “jig shape matrix” must be translated into
“jigging points” for the assembly jigs.
 Determination of the jig shape is usually performed by computer.
 Computer controlled laser-guided alignment is used during assembly.

28 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

 ELASTIC AIRCRAFT
summary
 Multiple and simultaneous aeroelastic behaviours are typically
encountered:
 aileron reversal
 wing divergence
 loss of longitudinal control power due to aft fuselage bending
 Aeroelastic effects on stability and control derivatives are usually
significant and always vary strongly with flight condition.
 Steady-state and perturbed state stability and control derivatives are
fundamentally different for elastic aircraft:
 inertial effects due to mass distribution invoke elastic deformations,
altering the aerodynamic loading
 Elastic aircraft must be designed, manufactured, and built to a jig shape
to achieve a specific desired cruise shape under flight loads.
 Many analytical modeling techniques exist of varying complexity and
accuracy.
29 Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering