Topology Optimization of A Wing Box Rib

The Preliminary Design of an Aircraft Wing Structure to Meet Aggressive Torque Box Strain Energy and Mass Targets
Formatted: Font: 26 pt
Formatted: Centered, Line spacing: 1.5 lin Formatted: Font: 26 pt
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 20 pt Formatted: Centered
Stephen Wanjihia
A dissertation submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Engineering
Formatted: Centered, Line spacing: 1.5 lin
Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered, Indent: Left: 1.97", Right: 1.94", Line spacing: 1.5 lines
March 2014 School of Engineering and Design Brunel University London, United Kingdom
Formatted: Centered
ATTENTION! IF YOU SEE _ KNOW THAT THERE IS A HIDDEN REFFERENCE THERE. PLEASE CHANGE TO SHOW MARKUP TO SEE IT. Topology Optimization of a Wing Box Rib
Abstract
Formatted: Font: 16 pt, Not Highlight
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line
NU2 Dr Narcis Ursache Topology optimization of aircraft wing box ribs Aerospace Design a rib to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads. Starting from a baseline and using concepts of topology optimisation, the design would cater for both the global wing bending/twist loads and the locally applied rib compression loads. The global finite element model should be loaded by a combination of critical flight loads. Minimum weight formulation and constrain the total elastic energy in each load case to be lower that of a baseline design, leading to a more efficient design. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This dissertation project provides a methodology for generating the preliminary design of an aircraft wing box rib to meet aggressive strain energy and mass targets. Initially research is conducted to investigate the potential benefits and real world applications of topology optimisation; this has the double objective of giving the study a focus while providing initial aircraft wing geometry that a CAD model is built from. Furthermore research is also conducted to investigate the flight missions that the aircraft / type is typically exposed to and in doing so a greater understanding of the maximum wing loading and more importantly the conditions that the aircraft is in during which is achieved.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Putting the two together, an aerodynamic study is conducted on the wing CAD model with the boundary conditions that the aircraft experiences when producing maximum wing loading. Therefore the objective of the aerodynamic study is to extract the surface pressures that act on the wing during the critical flight case. With great care the loads along with the CAD model are then transferred from the aerodynamic environment to the structural environment for structural analysis and optimisation. The structural analysis is conducted beforehand using the aerodynamic loads to gain an initial understanding of the stress distribution and displacement within structure. The structural analysis not only provides a better understanding of the structure to be optimised but also acts as a validation tool for the optimised structure. The factor of safety that the pre-optimised structure achieves can be compared to that of the post optimised structure, thus structurally validating the final optimised design. Design a rib to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads. Starting from a baseline and using concepts of topology optimisation, the design would cater for both the global wing bending/twist loads and the locally applied rib compression loads. The global finite element model should be loaded by a combination of critical flight loads. Minimum weight formulation and constrain the total elastic energy in each load case to be lower that of a baseline design, leading to a more efficient design. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formatted: Centered
to my family for their constant love and support and my loving girlfriend for her patience over the years
Formatted: Centered, Indent: Left: 1.97", Right: 1.94", Line spacing: 1.5 lines
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Narcis M. Ursache for his guidance on the project and also Dr. Jan Wissink for his insightful advice and guidance.
Formatted: Left, Line spacing: Multiple 1.1 li Formatted: Font: 11 pt, No underline
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 159 1.1. 1.2. Context ................................................................................................................................ 159 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1810 Size Optimisation ...................................................................................................... 1910 Shape Optimisation ................................................................................................... 1910 Structural Optimisation ............................................................................................. 1911 Topography ............................................................................................................... 1911 Topometry................................................................................................................. 1911 Topology.................................................................................................................... 2011
Formatted: Centered, Line spacing: 1.5 lin Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold, English (U.K.), Check spelling and grammar
1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.2.5. 1.2.6. 1.3. 1.4. 2.
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 2011 Dissertation Outline .......................................................................................................... 2011
Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 2112 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. Approach ........................................................................................................................... 2213 Algorithms ......................................................................................................................... 2414 Objectives.......................................................................................................................... 2514 Domain .............................................................................................................................. 2615 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 3316
3.
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5017 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5017
4.
Geometry Design ...................................................................................................................... 5218 4.1. 4.2. Aircraft Specification ......................................................................................................... 5318 Wing Structure .................................................................................................................. 5318 Wing Design .............................................................................................................. 5419 Specification .............................................................................................................. 5620
4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3.
Mission .............................................................................................................................. 5921 Flight Case ................................................................................................................. 6022
4.3.1. 5.
Aerodynamic Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6923 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6923 Problem Study ................................................................................................................... 7425 Flow Classification ............................................................................................................. 7426 Subsonic vs. Supersonic & Incompressible vs. Compressible ................................... 7526 Laminar vs. Turbulent ............................................................................................... 7727
5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.4.
Boundary Conditions......................................................................................................... 7827
5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3. 5.5. 5.6. 6.
Geometry .................................................................................................................. 7827 Grid............................................................................................................................ 7828 Flow Solver Boundary Conditions ............................................................................. 8028
Results ............................................................................................................................... 8329 Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 8631
Baseline Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 9433 6.1. Model Setup and Considerations ...................................................................................... 9433 Approach ................................................................................................................... 9533 Geometry .................................................................................................................. 9533 Material Property ...................................................................................................... 9634 Mesh Creation ........................................................................................................... 9634 Loads and Boundary Conditions ............................................................................... 9835 Hypothesis............................................................................................................... 10036 Results ..................................................................................................................... 10036 Discussion................................................................................................................ 10238
6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.1.3. 6.1.4. 6.1.5. 6.1.6. 6.1.7. 6.1.8. 7.
Topology Optimisation ............................................................................................................ 11139 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7. 7.8. 7.9. FE Model Setup and Considerations ............................................................................... 11139 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 11139 Geometry ........................................................................................................................ 11239 Material Property and Element property ....................................................................... 11340 Loads and Boundary Conditions ..................................................................................... 11340 Meshing........................................................................................................................... 11340 Analysis Setup ................................................................................................................. 11340 Results ............................................................................................................................. 11441 Discussion........................................................................................................................ 11641 Project Overview ..................................................................................................... 11642 Results Overview..................................................................................................... 11843 Future Work ............................................................................................................ 11944 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 11944
7.9.1. 7.9.2. 7.9.3. 7.9.4. 8.
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 12246

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
No table of contents entries found.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Wing geometrical specification ............................................................................................ 5523
Formatted: Centered
Table 2 Cessna Citation Mustang wing spar material properties ..................................................... 5824 Table 3 Cessna Citation Mustang wing spar material properties ..................................................... 5824 Table 4 Take-off flight case conditions ............................................................................................. 6125 Table 6 Chord-Wise Coefficient of Pressure Distribution (Airfoils 1, 2 & 3), 10 degrees angle of attack .......................................................................................................................................................... 8432 Table 7 Chord-wise Static Pressure Distribution (Airfoils 1, 2 & 3), 10 degrees angle of attack ...... 8533
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1Types of structural optimisation, size (top), shape (middle) and topology optimisation (bottom), Courtesy of ((Martin P Bendsoe & Sigmund, 2003)) ........................................................ 1813 Figure 2 Topology Optimisation, types of approach, macrostructure (top) and microstructure (bottom), Courtesy of ((G I N Rozvany et al., 1995)) ........................................................................ 2316 Figure 5 NACA 23014 geometrical points ......................................................................................... 5623 Figure 6 Critical conditions for a wing box structure (Courtesy of (Michael Chun-yung Niu, n.d.)) .......................................................................................................................................................... 6025 Figure 7 C-Mesh geometry around NACA 23014 .............................................................................. 7128 Figure 9 Flow regime classifications (Courtesy of Dr Mark Jabbal) .................................................. 7630 Figure 11 Contours of Static Pressure for 10 degrees angle of attack k-omega model (airfoil 1) .... 8533 Figure 13 Isometric View of Airfoils1, 2 & 3 and front, mid and rear spars geometry in Patran 2012 .......................................................................................................................................................... 9637 Figure 14 Loads applied to Finite Element Model Patran............................................................... 10039 Figure 15 Applied load displacement plot (patran) ........................................................................ 10140 Figure 16 Finite Element Model Von-Mises Stress ......................................................................... 10240 Figure 17 Baseline Design of CCM Wing Ribs ................................................................................. 11444
Formatted: TOC Heading, Centered, Tab stops: Not at 6.26"
Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines
Contents Abstract Give the reader a brief outline of the dissertation Contents, Table of figures and List of Tables List of Symbols/Nomenclature Introduction Brief introduction to the report, i.e. analysis and studies conducted. Finally, in brief, discussing the aims of the report. o o Context Justifying topology optimisation Background Brief yet detailed chronological account of optimisation, leading to structural optimisation and finally topology optimisation. Types of optimisation A brief discussion of the different types of optimisation, concentrating on the key differences. General optimisation Theory, Algorithms and Applications o o Topology optimisation algorithms Multidisciplinary Topology Optimisation
Comment [m1]: MAE 154B
Comment [m2]: Progress review & m5
Comment [m3]: See m5
Comment [m4]: See m5 Also An intro to Structural Opt
Project Description A description of the project (as stated in the project brief) and a breakdown of the major challenges of the project. Delimitations of dissertation A description of the set project boundaries to ensure focus is kept within the study topic i.e. topology optimisation.
Methodology o Introduction o Wing Structure Description of wing structural components Aircraft Selection Justification of aircraft selection through comparative study Airfoil Design Guiding the reader through the design process of the airfoil Geometry o Introduction Highlighting the importance of the work conducted herein before providing a brief description of the simulation conducted Description of Software Introduction Highlighting the importance of the work conducted herein before providing a brief description of the simulation conducted Description of Tools - Ansys Workbench Fluid Flow (Fluent) Inputs and Constraints Pre-Analysis boundary conditions Procedure Geometry, Mesh, Physics Setup Results and Discussion Numerical Results, Verification & Validation
Aerodynamic Analysis
Conclusion and Recommendations
Finite Element Analysis Linear Static Analysis Geometry Properties Boundary Conditions & Loads Meshing Analysis Results
Topology Optimisation Model Preparation Meshing Set-up Results
Discussion Conclusion
To the women of my life:
Formatted: Heading 1, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.5"
Abstract
Formatted: Heading 1, Left, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligne at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Contents, Table of figures and List of Tables List of Symbols/Nomenclature
1. Introduction
Within this chapter a context for the study is provided, thereafter a brief background of optimisation in general is given before the various types of structural optimisation are identified and covered. Thereafter the purpose of the study is defined before an outline of the report is specified.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold
1.1.
Context
Fuel costs for the past 23 years have suffered from a constant inflation (Department of Energy and Climate Change 2012) and for a flight company today this accounts to a significant proportion of approximately a third of overall operating fees. As a result, flight companies are making a conscious effort to cut costs from elsewhere in the business; By simply removing an olive from the salad container of each first class passenger, American Airlines are said to have saved up to $500,000 per year (Robinson G & Stern 1997). While Airline business search for margins through budgeting, OEMs are pursuing their margins through efficient designs and less material waste. In an interview Dr. Matthew Gilbert of Sheffield University stated, Over a thirty year lifetime of an aircraft, carrying one kilogram is equivalent to $100,000 of aviation fuel . The importance of reducing aircraft weight can be witnessed in thethrough cases such as of Airbus collaboration with Altair Engineering where the company is reported to have made weight savings of up to 1000kg per A380 (Krog et al. 2004). According to Dr. Matthew Gilberts estimates, that equates to commercial savings of approximately $3.3million each year. Furthermore, the aerospace industry is under immense pressure to reduce emissions, both nationally and internationally, from governments and aviation authorities through key policies such as Flightpath 2050(Parliament 2012), ACARE 2020 (Quentin & Co-chairman 2007). These examples of cost saving were chosen to give the reader an better insight into the pressure, effects and results of minimising expenditure within the aerospace industry. Other methods of achieving methods of achieving this are are through incorporating solutions such as flight model optimisation, incorporating drag reduction devices or structural optimisation.
The ACARE 2020 vision for commercial transport aircraft targets a 50% reduction per passenger kilometre in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, with a 20-25% reduction to be achieved through airframe improvements. This step change in performance is dependent on the successful integration of Multi-Disciplinary Design Capabilities (MDDC) at the preliminary design stage. The ACARE 2020 vision for business transport air ship focuses on a half decrease for every traveler kilometer in fuel utilization and Co2 discharges, with a 20-25% lessening to be accomplished through airframe enhancements. This step change in execution is reliant on the fruitful joining of Multi-Disciplinary Design Capabilities (MDDC) at the preparatory outline stage. The ACARE 2020 vision for business transport flying machine focuses on a half lessening for every traveler kilometer in fuel utilization and Co2 discharges, with a 20-25% diminishment to be attained through airframe upgrades. This step change in execution is reliant on the effective mix of Multi-Disciplinary Outline Abilities (MDDC) at the preparatory configuration stage.
"Saving even a few pounds of a vehicle's weight ... could mean that they would also go faster and consume less fuel. Reducing weight involves reducing materials, which, in turn, means reducing cost as well." Henry Ford, 1923.
Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.75", Font Alignment: Auto
https://www.vrand.com/companyProfile.html
Formatted: Heading 2, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Sta at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" Indent at: 0.75", Font Alignment: Auto Formatted: Default Paragraph Font
Irespective of the industry that you are in, one will try to stay ahead of the competition by the continuous improvement of your design, this can be done by reducing cost and improving performance. Generally cost reduction involves making good decisions early, reducing the weight of a component by selecting appropriate material, doing proper sizing and the performance means meeting the specification required for the design and often the risk identification means you wanna be able to find out what cariables are gonna effect your cost as well as your responses of your design
1.2.
Background
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
It is important initially to become cognizant of the topic optimisation before applying it to a specific particular purpose. In the book Elements of Structural Optimization (Haftka, 1992), Haftka makes a notable comment regarding the origin of optimization, Optimization is concerned with achieving the best outcome of a given operation while satisfying certain restrictions. Human beings, guided and influenced by their natural surroundings, almost instinctively perform all functions in a manner that economizes energy or minimizes discomfort and pain. The motivation is to exploit the available limited resources in a manner that maximizes output or profit. The early inventions of the lever or the pulley mechanisms are clear manifestations of mans desire to maximize mechanical efficiency. I believe this to be both an accurate description of the term optimisation as well as a factual portrayal into its origins. Haftka goes on to describe an optimal design by quoting Wilde, i.e. the best feasible design according to a preselected quantitative measure of effectiveness (Wilde, 1978). It is with this understanding that we can now go on to define structural optimisation as a method that uses constraints such as density or mass to obtain the greatest performance for a structure. Structural optimisation is made up of three sections; i) Size ii) Shape and iii) Topology/Layout Optimisation.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Keep with next
Figure 1Types of structural optimisation, size (top), shape (middle) and topology optimisation (bottom), Courtesy of ((Bendsoe & Sigmund 2003))
Formatted: Caption
1.2.1. Size Optimisation

Size optimisation manipulates parameters of a structure such as plate thickness, beam cross section size, etc. to find the optimal design.
Formatted: Heading 3, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Sta at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" Indent at: 0.75"
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Not Highlight
Usually associated with structures such as bridges, space frames, features such as the thickness of a plate or the cross sectional size of a beam structure, size optimisation modifies these dimensions to achieve an optimal design.
1.2.2. Shape Optimisation
Within shape optimisation, the boundary of the domain is manipulated to achieve an optimal structure.
Formatted: Heading 2, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Sta at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: No underline
Shape optimisation allows changes to be made to the border of the geometry.

1.2.3. Structural Optimisation
Structural optimisation from (Christensen & Klarbring 2009) is described as the subject of making an assemblage of material sustain the loads in the best way. Structural optimisation can then be further divided into three sections i.e. topography, topometry, topology. The focus of this report will be on topology optimisation.
Give a brief description on how structural optimisation separates itself from size and shape optimisation Topography
1.2.4. Topography
Similar to topology optimisation, within topography the best arrangement of beads within a material is sought by varying the element offset from the mid-plane component.Define
Topometry
1.2.5. Topometry
Similar to topology, topometry optimisation seeks the ideal material layout within a structure by varying the element wise thickness.Define
1.2.6. Topology
For topology optimisation, the material layout of the structure is manipulated by varying the element density between 0(void) and 1(material) in an effort to achieve an ideal material layout for a given load and objective.FULLY DEFINE!
Formatted: Heading 3, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Sta at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Not Highlight
1.3.
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a working methodology for the design of a rib to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads. Starting from a baseline and using the concepts of topology optimisation, the design would cater for both the global wing bending/twist loads and the locally applied rib compression loads. The global finite element model should be loaded by a combination of critical flight loads. Minimum weight formulation and constrain the total elastic energy in each load case to be lower than that of a baseline design, leading to a more efficient design.
1.4.
Dissertation Outline
This next chapter of this report reviews the available topology optimisation literature through investigation of each step of the optimisation operation. In doing so the vastness of the topic that is topology optimisation is realised. A conclusion to the literature review is provided before the methodology section. The methodology is logically explained with the focus of each section being the discussion of achieved results. The sections of the methodology include; CAD (geometry design), CFD (aerodynamic study), FEA and Topology optimisation. Thereafter the results, discussion and conclusion, are provided.
Formatted: Heading 2, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Sta at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
2. Literature Review
The following section provides a brief outline of the literature regarding topology optimisation. It does not intend to provide an in depth critique of the vast field that is topology optimisation, for that the reader is referred to text such as (Bendsoe & Sigmund 2003) Bendsoe and Sigmund (1995), (Rozvany 2001) Rozvany GIN 2001a or (Eschenauer & Olhoff 2001)Eschenauer and Olhoff (2001). Using the optimality criteria (OC) method, Australian engineer Michell _ Mic, A. G. M. LVIII . The Limits of Economy of material in Frame-structures. 8 (Michell., 1904.), 175177 (1904) was able to determine the least weight arrangement of truss structures. In doing so entered his name into the history books as being one of the first to develop a new way of identifying structurally optimal forms. Thereafter within (Rozvany, 1972)Rozvany GIN (1972a) Grillages of maximum strength and maximum stiffness. Inlet J Mech sci 14:1217-1222 , Rozvany has further developed and extended Michells work to beam systems. Within (Rozvany et al. 1995) Rozvany GIN, Bendsoe MP, Kirsch U (1995) Layout optimization of structuresof structures. Appl Mech Rev ASME 48:41119 it is seen that Michells early work in structures lacked practicality, however, using his basic principles, Prager and Rozvany were able to define the optimal layout theory. Although its application today is mostly seen within the specific subject of exact analytical solutions of benchmark problems, optimal layout theory has had profound ramifications on the fields of both continuum structures and numerical methods. See (T. Lewiski, G. I. N. Rozvany, T. Sok 2013)Exact analytical solutions for some popular benchmark problems in topology optimization III: L-shaped domains revisited for current work by Rozvany extending analytical solutions of Michells trusses. From a review of the literature Topology Optimization of Structures and Composite Continua(Rozvany 2000) it is seen that topology optimisation of structures and composite continua is divided into two topics i.e. Layout Optimisation (LO) also referred to in the literature as low volume fraction and Generalised Shape Optimisation (GSO) also known as variable topology shape optimisation. LO deals with skeletal structures and has its principles founded on those of Michells work and, therefore, is not a new field of structural mechanics by any means, Ref, [(Rozvany 2001)Aims, scope mehods history and unified terminology of computer-aided topology optimization in structural mechanics]. GSO, on the other hand, deals with both the shape and topology of the internal of a structure of a continuum concurrently.
Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: Calibri, Do not check spelling or grammar Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, Do not check spelling or grammar Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight
Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Tab stops: 0.49", Left Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight
Formatted: Font: Not Italic, Do not check spelling or grammar, Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight
Sometimes referred to as the godfather of topology optimisation, Martin Bendsoe contributed significantly to the technique of homogenisation. Within (T. Lewiski, G. I. N. Rozvany, T. Sok 2013) Rozvany, Olhoff, Bendsoe et al. (1985/87) we see that he contributed to the development of the initial precise analytical solutions for the stiffness tensor of homogenized optimal microstructures. Furthermore via text such as (Bendsoe & Kikuchi 1988)Bendsoe and Kikuchi 1988, (Ma et al. 1993) Bendsoe Diaz and Kikuchi it can be seen that he pioneered research in the exploration of the homogenisation method. Having said that, within his book (Bendsoe & Sigmund 2003)Topology Optimisation: Theory Methods and Applications, Bendsoe mentions that his work in homogenisation can be seen as a natural continuation of the solid plate optimisation studies performed by Cheng and Olhoff 1981. In parallel to his research of the homogenisation method, Bendsoe also originally suggested the SIMP approach., see section [xx]. From the text it can be seen that topology optimisation is quite literally a century old problem that has been vastly explored and broken down into numerous branches differing in methods or applications. That being said, the following section aims to better explain the topic of topology optimisation by roughly exploring the various branches it is divided into. According to research conducted, initially it is necessary specify all the functional and performance requirements of the structure to be optimised. Generating accurate information at this stage will result in the deeper understanding of the structure. In doing so, the correct problem formulation can be created which is necessary to select the ideal optimisation method, resulting in the efficient material layout for a set of constraints given an objective function(s). See flowchart below.
Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Font: Italic Formatted: Font: Italic
Rozvany GIN (1972a) Grillages of maximum strength and maximum stiffness. Inlet J Mech sci 14:1217-1222 2.1. Approach
Detailed within (Eschenauer & Olhoff 2001)Eschenauer and Olhoff 2001 we can see that as initial division, topology optimisation consists of two rough classes, i.e. Microstructure approach or material and Macrostructure approach or geometrical, see fig below.
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Keep with next
Figure 2 Topology Optimisation, types of approach, macrostructure (top) and microstructure (bottom), Courtesy of ((Rozvany et al. 1995))
Formatted: Centered
As in fig above, the microstructure approach works by spreading a mesh throughout the domain and attaching a stiffness-density relation to the property of the element, the structure can then be optimised given a predefined loading, constraint and criteria. Using the density as a design variable i.e. 0 Void and 1 Solid, an optimum material distribution is achieved. The geometric approach works by attaching a variable geometry to the material locations thus achieving an optimal design.
2.2.
Algorithms
Although analytical methods are significantly important as they provide early approximate predictions to problems as well as validation of solutions, their capabilities tend to become limited as the geometries and loading conditions of actual structures become more and more complex to formulate. This along with the ever growing research in numerical methods and high speed computing during the latter half of the last century became the main drivers for the reliance that structural analysis today has on numerical methods, specifically FEM.
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Lin spacing: 1.5 lines, Don't adjust space betwe Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers
That being said, in order to conduct topology optimisation on a given structure via the aid of a numerical solver, depending on the objective(s) of the optimisation, an optimisation must be selected. These are complex algorithms that are specifically written to result in the improvement of the selected objective function. In order to better explain this, first the various branches and segments of topology optimisation are discussed including a brief look at the algorithms and the differences within the formulas that compose them.
2.3.
Objectives
Formatted: No underline
Within topology optimisation, the implication of the objective function embodies the efficiency of the design with reference to an initial target design goal. Common examples of objective functions are; maximum strain, natural frequency, weight etc. Topology optimisation can be further divided, depending on the number of objectives functions being considered, into either problems that consider a single objective (Single Objective Analysis) or an average of multiple objectives, i.e. Multi-Disciplinary Optimisation (MDO). SOASingle Objective Analysis (SOA) is a straightforward case and rarely appears in text however MDO is a field that still offers some novelty. The reader is referred to (ROELAND DE BREUKER 2013)K. Maute and G. W. Reich 2006 for an in depth look at MDO in the field of aero structures. The multi or even scalar objective analysis can be mathematically represented as; ( { ( ) ( ) )
With the difference between the two being the number of objective function(s) to fulfil, within the formula this would be represented by the term fn.
The objective
by the a respective number of
There are 2 types of optimization algorithms for solving multidisciplinary optimization problems. These are the deterministic gradient search algorithm and the stochastic nongradient based algorithms. Within these, the choice of an optimization technique depends on factors like number and type of design variables, whether the problem is a linear or nonlinear problem and constraints (equality/inequality or unconstraint).
TALK ABOUT STEPS OF TOPOLOGY OPTIMISATION I.E. Immediately after the definition of the type of structure required and the establishment of specifications, the optimization problem needs to be formulated. This includes the definition of the design variables, the variation of constraints, the adoption of the objective function, and thus the standard formulation of the optimization problem. Typical objective functions include; Strain energy density Mises Equivalent Stress Mean Compliance and Maximum Displacement (for stiffness design) Maximum strain (for formability study of sheet metals) Domain
2.4.
Depending on the intended domain to be optimised, topology optimisation can be classified into either; continuum or discrete structures.
Figure Topology Optimisation - Continuum Approach (Christensen & Klarbring, 2009)
Formatted: Normal, Line spacing: 1.5 lines Keep with next Field Code Changed
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), Italic Field Code Changed
Figure 3 Topology Optimisation - Continuum and Discrete Approach ((Christensen & Klarbring 2009)) Figure Topology Optimisation - Discrete Approach (Christensen & Klarbring, 2009)
Formatted: Caption, Indent: First line: 0", Don't keep with next
The continuum structures approach considers the domain to be made up of a continuous blend of both material and void elements. Thus by altering the density of each element between the two, a final optimal design to predefined criteria is obtained under loading.
Sometimes referred to as the ground structure approach, the discrete structures approach works by converting the structural domain (the design space) into an array of nodal positions and linking all connections using truss members. Once the structure is loaded the members that are under-loaded are eliminated by varying the density to zero from the domain leaving an efficient structure for a given loading condition.
and a glimpse into the algorithmsthereafter a discussion
in order to conduct optimisation on a given structure via a numerical method such as finite element, the numerical solver
an optimisation method would have to be selected method would still need to be combined with an algorithm.
developed into an alternative method for. helped numerical methods of topology optimisation reach its current stage of practicability.
The recent progress made in fields of structural optimisation, by scientist such as Bendsoe9, Xie 10, has caused the surge in research efforts back to the fundamentals of structural mechanics which in effect have helped numerical methods of topology optimisation reach its current stage of practicability.
Although analytical methods served as useful and powerful tools for structural optimization in the early days, they could not handle most optimization problems of real structures as it was impossible to formulate and represent those complex geometries of structures as well as complex loading and boundary conditions. Fortunately enough, in the late 50s and early 60s the booming numerical search techniques and high speed electronic computers made numerical methods ideal alternatives for structural analysis and optimization. Particularly the finite element method, which will be reviewed in Section 2.3, became dominant.
Formatted: Highlight
The optimization algorithms were refined during the 1980s and some typical algorithms were incorporated into commercially available packages, both in mathematical programming and optimality criteria approaches. Schittkowskis implementation of sequential quadratic programming [75] was significant. Vanderplaat implemented the feasible directions method in DOT, whose optimizer was adopted by MSC.NASTRAN to solve large scale aerospace structures optimization problems [96] in 1989, while dual methods of convex linearization were used to solve large scale optimization problems in CONLIN by Fleury [17], who represents the major contributions from Europe, especially in the development of the optimality criteria method.
and maximising / minimising of the objective function yielding and efficient design.
deciding whether to use a gradient based or stochastic based algorithm would depend on the type of structure in question. Continuous or continuum structures, i.e. individual parts and components, would
Discrete structures often refer to larger constructions like bridges, cranes and other truss structures, while continuum structures often refer to smaller, single piece parts and components. As already mentioned in section 1.3, continuum structures are of main interest in this thesis.
Formatted: Font: Bold
Gradient Based Algorithms
For continuum structural optimisation gradient based methods include; Steepest descent method Conjugate gradient method Modified method of feasible directions Sequential Linear programming Sequential programming methods Common methods of discrete structural optimisation for gradient based algorithms include; Genetic algorithms Simulated annealing method
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Normal, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Non-Gradient Based Algorithms (stochastic) A
, a minimum compliance topology optimisation of a wing box rib for a given set of constraints, MOA would consider say the averaged minimum compliance topology optimisation of a wing box rib Single Objective
Formatted: Underline
Multi-Disciplinary Optimisation
Within his paper_, Australian engineer Michell made a derivation finding the optimality criteria for the least weight layout of trusses. In doing so was
As Rozvany states in CATOPT (find file), any one of the multiple achievements of Martin Bendsoe would be sufficient to ensure immortality in the history of structural mechanics.
2.5.
Conclusion of reviewed literature
Based on From the findings of the reviewed literature, the importance of topology optimisation can clearly be seen in its versatility. It is seen from the literature review that there are numerous variations to the setup of the topology optimisation problem. As a result of the continued research efforts in the topic, the boundary of topology optimisation is continually being broadened. This is no surprise as initial principles of structural optimisation were introduced a century ago. With applications ranging from biomechanical to aerospace and beyond, the versatility of topology optimisation makes it a powerful tool that can be used within any structurally application. Based on the research conducted, an understanding of the problem classification has been achieved which will assist the author generate a problem formulation for the topology optimisation of a wing box rib. This will be elaborated on further in subsequent chapters. . It is used in many ways, such as . There are many different methods of approaching a top opt of a structura; analyasis Such as These wide range of mwethod result in a large discrepancy in the approach to standard top opt problem. Factors such as different models or other variants, assumptions, are all user specified. Resulting in ana apparent no one right method or approach to a top opt. Are there comparible studies of didferentr approaches?? (one liner of the outcome or majority/ general consensus ) Describe the assumptions made by people and explain the pros and cons I there approach. Aim to show that your chosen method is the best form these findings wether it is for simplification sake or true results.
Formatted: Heading 2, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.75" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
So far wind turbine blades have typically been optimized through a combination of testing and simplified analytical and numerical methods. However, numerical simulation tools are gaining wider acceptance as they become more sophisticated in their predictive capability, thus offering a route to significantly lower developmental costs.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
THEREAFTER GO THROUGH TOPOLOGY OPTIMISATION EXAMPLES I.E. LARS KROG,
There are 2 types of optimization algorithms for solving multidisciplinary optimization problems. These are the deterministic gradient search algorithm and the stochastic nongradient based algorithms. Within these, the choice of an optimization technique depends on factors like number and type of design variables, whether the problem is a linear or nonlinear problem and constraints (equality/inequality or unconstraint).
General optimisation theory and applications An explanation of the of the structural optimisation process. Arrive at conclusion that structural optimization is to determine design variables within a design space in a precise and logical fashion so that the objective function(s) will be minimised (maximised).
Comment [m7]: See m5 Also An intro to Structural Opt Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Given Structure / Specifications / Design Space

2.1 Finite Element Discretization
The general concept of topology optimization is to determine optimal placement of a given material in space. In other words, the goal is to determine which points x should be filled with material and which points should be voids. The design parameter x is continuous in space. However, to consider the true continuous problem is not very practical and it is convenient to discretize the problem using the finite element method, both in terms of the geometry and in terms of the design parameter. When applying finite element discretization on the design domain, we can think of the geometrical representation as pixels of black and white representing solid and void areas where the discretized design vector (rho symbol) turns pixels on or off. Given a design domain (sigma symbol) of finite elements, we thus seek to find an optimal subset (sigma symbol)mat of elements that should be filled with material, i.e. the elements e (capital epsilon symbol) (sigma symbol)mat for which _e should be 1.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Problem Formulation Once the structural domain, also known as the design space, has been created and converted to an array of Immediately after the definition of the type of structure required and the establishment of specifications, the optimization problem needs to be formulated. This includes the definition of the design variables, the variation of constraints, the adoption of the objective function, and thus the standard formulation of the optimization problem. There are three classes of problem formulations. The first class of structural optimization is sizing problems. These consist of
-
Design Variables
Design variables are not preassigned quantities of a structural system and will vary with the optimization algorithm. According to Kirsch [41], they may represent the mechanical or physical properties of the material, the topology of the structure, the geometry or configuration of the structure, the cross-sectional dimensions or the member sizes.
Formatted: Heading 1, Left, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligne at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5", Adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
Objective function
2.5.1 Objective Functions Volume The volume objective, measured in [m3], is linearly dependent on (rho symbol):
and has the following derivative with respect to the design parameters _e:
where
is the base volume of each element.
Compliance The compliance is a way to describe the stiffness of a structure with respect to a specific load case: the stiffer the structure is, the lower the compliance is. It is a scalar measure and is here formulated as:
where
is the element sti_ness matrix in local coordinate system with unit
Young's modulus (E = 1 [-]). The derivative of the compliance is:
The element displacement in local coordinate system, , is found solving the global displacements where is the global load vector,
and then transforming the relevant partition of u into local coordinates. The stiffness matrix is found as
2.2.2.4 Formulations for evaluating the objective function
Formulations for evaluating the objective function aim to minimize, maximize, or minimize the maximum of a speci_ed design response. The latter is not as intuitive as the two _rst, and is elaborated below for clari_cation. The _minimizing the maximum_-formulation is often referred to as the Min-Max-formulation, or the Bound formulation. It is so far the most widely implemented formulation in commercial software aimed at handling multiple load cases. The formulation was proposed as a less time consuming alternative to creating Pareto frontiers and automatically selecting the appropriate optimum [20, 21]. The formulation inserts an objective _ which acts as a new objective, simultaneously acting as an upper bound on all other objectives, treating the original objectives as constraints. The problem can be expressed as:
Figure 2.12 demonstrates the di_erence in optimal designs when using the MinMaxformulation instead of merely minimizing the strain energy.
Constraints and Standard formulation
Optimisation Methods
2.2.2.1 SIMP-model
The Solid Isotropic Microstructure with Penalization (SIMP)-model, also known as the penalized, proportional stiness model, is a gradient-based model [17] expressed in mathematical terms as presented in equation 2.5. The method is widely used, and one out of two possible algorithms for use with Abaqus ATOM.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Gradient (local) optimisation approach :

The algorithm interpolates between extreme values as shown in equation 2.4. Choosing the value p > 1 makes intermediate densities unfavourable because the Stiffness Volume ratio will decrease. Values of p exceeding 3 is assumed to perform well for both 2D and 3D-structures, as discussed in [7]. The workflow of the SIMP-algorithm can be seen in figure 2.7, following the description in [17].
SIMP usually starts with a uniform distribution of densities in the elements of the design domain and a volume fraction equal to the one specified. The first step in the iterative analysis is solving the equilibrium equations, followed by a sensitivity analysis calculating the derivatives of the design variables (ref. the element densities). Simulation settings provide the possibility to limit the magnitude of the density updates. To ensure numerical stability, filtering techniques are applied before the densities are updated using the minimum compliance criteria, followed by a new finite element analysis. This procedure is repeated until convergence has been reached, as described in figure 2.7. Further discussion on numerical stability is discussed below.
2.2.2.2 RAMP-model
As the second out of two possible interpolation algorithms in Abaqus ATOM, the Rational Approximations of Material Properties (RAMP)-model is briefly presented to enlighten the use or possible misuse of the algorithm. The RAMP method as first presented in [18], was formulated to solve the problem of design dependent loads, like pressure loads from wind, water, snow, etc. As element density is updated, the initial surface properties of the design are no longer valid, and loads are no longer unambiguous. As an alternative approach to the initial formulation, a mixed displacement-pressure formulation can be used, defining the void phase to be an incompressible hydrostatic fluid transferring pressure loads without further parameterization of the surface [19], as shown in figure 2.9. Figure 2.10 is included to show the possible error of choosing the RAMP- model when performing topology optimization without the use of pressure loads. If not specified, the solver will use the default algorithm, normally the SIMP algorithm.
Explain the structural optimisation process
One can roughly separate topology optimization into two approaches; the Material- or Microapproach vs. the Geometrical or Macro-approach, whereas the last approach is the most used in commercial software today [7]. The inherent differences between the two approaches will be clarified at a later stage in the thesis. Theory also separates between gradient-based and non-gradientbased algorithms, whereas the difference will be explained later. Keep in mind that combinations of both approaches and algorithms exist. Topology optimization can roughly be divided into treatment of two different types of domains; continuum and discrete structures. Discrete structures often refer to larger constructions like bridges, cranes and other truss structures, while continuum structures often refer to smaller, single piece parts and components. As already mentioned in section 1.3, continuum structures are of main interest in this thesis. When performing optimization, one must also distinguish between the number of objectives. If there is one objective, or the objective consists of a weighted average of objectives, the process is referred to as a Single Objective Analysis (SOA). If there is more than one objective, the process is said to be a Multi- Disciplinary Optimization (MDO) or a Multi- Objective Analysis (MOA).
Project Description / Mission The aim of this project is to design a wing box rib to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads. Starting from a baseline and using the concepts of topology optimisation to minimise volume and elastic compliance in each load case to be lower that of a baseline design, consequently generating a more efficient design.
-
The design would cater for both the global wing bending/twist loads and the locally applied rib compression loads.
- The global finite element model should be loaded by a combination of critical flight loads.
Stochastic (global) optimisation method :
3. Methodology
3.1. Introduction
Formatted: Heading 1, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline
This report provides an accurate approach to the design of a wing box rib via the concepts of topology optimisation with the objective of minimising volume and compliance. The methodology will therefore provide a general description of the steps taken by the author, from initial aircraft selection through to final linear static analysis, to validate the optimisation results, see [X results]. In doing this report aims to provide a standardised approach to the efficient design of structural wing components, specifically a wing box rib. The methodology is simplified into four key sections that portray the critical phases that the project can be simplified into; CAD/ gGeometry dDesign o o o o o o o o FEA o o o o o o o o o o o o Importing model geometry Assign material properties to the geometry Create mesh Assign element properties Assign loads and boundary conditions Set up of linear static analysis Results Consideration of aircraft for optimisation study Exploration of wing structure Wing airfoil optimisation Airfoil exploration and generation of idealised wing structure on
Aerodynamic StudyCFD Linear Static AnalysisSet up of model geometry Creating an accurate mesh for simulation Set up of simulation boundary Conditions, reference values and monitors Numerical results and validation
Topology optimisation Importing model geometry Assign material properties to the geometry Create mesh Assign element properties Assign loads and boundary conditions
Set up of optimisation Results and validation
Formatted: Normal, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline
Description of Software
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: Not Bold, No underline
Formatted: Heading 3, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Sta at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
4. Geometry Design
as well as this in most cases it is also used to store fuelAs a result of the lift produced the wing experiences aerodynamic loading that can be summarised into three major forces; Bending, Shear, Torsion That being said the optimisation problem is idealised as a 2D airfoil to simplify the solution
4.1.
Aircraft Specification
As aircraft traffic becomes greater so too does the demand for the reduction in aircraft noise caused by the engine and airframe. As stated via Breguet Range Equation the [X introduction] the fuel consumption of an aircraft is inversely proportional to the weight of the vehicle. In other words the higher the aircraft weight, the more engine power required which means more fuel burn and in effect more engine noise. Ref [(Review 2009)X-Caa.co.uk/docs/33/200903.pdf] states that already operating in the US, Very Light Jets (VLJs) will likely expand to the UK and Europe. EUROCONTROL predict the number of VLJs operating in European airspace per day will rise by 300 aircraft each year in the period 2008-2015. Proven relatively more efficient, it would seem that VLJs are destined to become the more popular mode of air transport. As stated in section 1.3[X Project description], the goal of this project is to design a wing box rib to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads. Within reason this infers that, considering the optimised wing box rib provides stiffness and weight values lower than that of the original design, the choice in aircraft type is irrelevant. That being said, given the recent efforts in topology optimisation of passenger jet structural components, see (MSC 2007)_ the aircraft type selected for an optimisation study is the Very Light Jet (VLJ). It is proposed that by applying the concepts of topology optimisation to the efficient design of the wing box rib of a VLJ, the final design achieved will result in not only less fuel burn, less emissions and better range but also less overall noise. Therefore the Cessna Citation510 Mustang (CCM) is selected as the subject of the wing box rib design study. The CCM wing utilises a NACA 23014 airfoil at the root and a NACA 23012 airfoil at the tip. Therefore the specific aircraft to be studied for the efficient design of its wing box rib is the Cessna 510 Mustang. Insert Pic here.
Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Not Highlight
4.2.
Wing Structure
Formatted: No underline, Not Highlight
The wing of an aircraft has the main tasks of providing majority of the lift for the aircraft. In order to do this, characteristics such as span, taper ratio, airfoil camber etc. have to be manipulated to cope with the desired speeds, weight and aerodynamic loading of a given aircraft. Within (Niu 1999) Airframe Structural Design by Michael C. Niu it is mentioned that as result of the air pressures and inertia loadings the loads acting on a wing, design loads can essentially be broken down to shears, torsion and bending moments. Niu also states
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: Not Italic
the central part of the wing bounded by the front and rear spars, takes the wing loads from the nose and rear sections and carries them to the fuselage, together with its own loads . This structural configuration is referring to the wing box. Also known as the torque box, its structural components consist of the spars, ribs and stringers.
based on the selected aircraft,
the following sections provide details of the geometrical specification of the aircraft. Wing details Name the airfoil and specify the wing geometries as a whole 4.2.1. Wing Design
The objective of the study is to design a rib to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads, specifically a wing box rib. Within the paper, (Krog et al. 2004)topology optimisation of aircraft wing box ribs, Lars Krog lists the functional requirements for a wing box rib as: Maintain the sectional shape of a wing box Function as panel breakers for skin/stringer compression panels Provide support for attachment of fuel systems Provide support for attachment of flap-tracks and pylons Function as physical fuel tank boundaries Distribute locally applied air pressure loads Support locally applied loads, like those from pylon attachment, Landing gear and flap tracks This would suggest that the crucial structural requirement for a wing box rib would be to maintain stiffness both in compression and tension. Topology optimisation is a process that is conducted in the early stages of a design to help gain a better understanding of the precise structural layout that would result in a significant enhancement of a desired characteristic. Applied to the objective of designing rib, the precise material layout would result in significant improvements in the load carrying ability of the structure as well as massive weight savings. In this study topology optimisation is used as intended i.e. as a tool within the initial stages of a design to study the precise configuration of material within a wing box rib that would result in significant improvements in both the weight and stiffness of the structure. Therefore for
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Normal, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, No bullets or numbering
optimisation, a general design is considered against specific loads from with detailed sizing being performed thereafter. To enable the study of the wing box rib of a CCM, the wing was idealised as a series of 2D airfoil sections. That being said to enable the study of a CCM wing (Cessna Citation Mustang), the NACA airfoil was idealised as an entire of the wing cross section.The root and tip airfoil geometry, sourced from UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database, were modelled using commercially available CAD software Siemens NX before exporting geometry to both FEA and CFD A design of 23014 the selected aircraft Airfoil NACA 23014 - 23012 Airfoil NACA - 23012 initially is modelled Wing Span, 5 on before Wing Span, b b/2 [m] exporting geometry Thickness 0.12 to both FEA Thicknessto toChord ChordRatio Taper Ratio, and CFD software 0.5for analyses. Ratio
2 The Planform Area, ] following sections 5.625 provide Taper Ratio, S [m details of the structural Aspect Ratio, 17.7 Planform Area, SA configuration and geometrical Chord Length, 1.5 Aspect Ratio, Acroot [m] specification of 0.75 the aircraft. ChordLength, Length,cctip [m] Chord
Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Position Horizontal: 5.38", Relative to: Page, Vertical -0.03", Relative to: Paragraph, Width: Exactl 2.4", Height: Exactly 0.53" Formatted: Left, Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Left, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Position: Horizontal: 4.0 Relative to: Page Formatted Table Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Keep with next
Figure 4 Cessna Citation Mustang Idealised Wing Bay
Formatted: Left, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Position: Horizontal: 4.0 Relative to: Page
Table 1 Wing geometrical specification
software for analyses.
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Keep with n
Formatted: Position: Horizontal: Right, Relative to: Margin, Vertical: -0.03", Relative to: Paragraph, Horizontal: 0.13", Wrap Arou
Formatted: Right, Position: Horizontal: Righ Relative to: Margin, Vertical: -0.03", Relative to: Paragraph, Horizontal: 0.13", Wrap Arou
The airfoil cross section was then partitioned and surfaced to idealise the internal structures of the wing i.e. spar and rib structure. See fig X
Figure 5 NACA 23014 geometrical points
Formatted: Caption, Centered, No bullets o numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
Specifications / Justificationsas the complete internal structure of the wing with partitions being made to signify
Formatted: Heading 3, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.75" Formatted: No underline
Topology optimisation is a tool that is used in the early stages of a design to provide
powerful tool that is used in the early stages of a design to potentially reduce its structural weight and thus provide significant improvements elsewhere.
4.2.2. SSpecificationtructure location

Within (Niu 1999)Airframe Structural Design by Michael Niu it is stated a generic guideline is given to the location of the spars of a wing within the wing box structure. It is stated that in general the front spar is located at around 15% of the chord whereas the rear spar is located at between 55% - 60%. This information was modified for the current study due to the 3 spar wing configuration of the CCM. The end result was a front spar located at 15% of the chord, a middle spar located at 36% of the chord and a rear spar located at 75% of the chord. The thought process behind this was that as Niu stated, generally the front spar is located at around 15% of the chord, this was maintained. The rear spar was moved back from 55-60% to 75% of the chord, this was done in an effort to cope with the loads from the control surfaces. This leaves the mid spar to be placed at the maximum chord thickness location, i.e. 35% of the chord.
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: Italic
Niu also states that wing rib locations are based on the locations of the aileron and flap hinges. Furthermore, rib spacing is influenced by panel size considerations. These specifications complicated the study without assisting to achieve its objective. To simplify the study, these specifications were not implemented.
ted. As the CCM wing design utilises 3 spars rather than the generic 2 spars, the advice from Niu is heeded but modified In general, the front spar is located at about 15% chord, the rear spar at 55 to 60%" (Page 251). I was going to simply assume that a three spar wing would have a comparable layout but with a mid spar located halfway between the front and rear. Materials The CCM Specification & Descriptions states that the wing structure is constructed of three monolithic spars, each machined from a single piece of aluminium alloy. As the material spec is not provided, typical aluminium alloy specs for the spar and ribs were selected instead. Wing Structure Material Elastic Modulus (N/m2) Poisson Ratio Shear Modulus (N/m ) Density (kg/m3)
2
Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Wing Structure Material (N/m2)
Spar Aluminium 7075-T651 Spar Aluminium 2024-T4 7.31E+10 0.33 2.8E+10 2780
Formatted: Centered, Space After: 0 pt Formatted Table
Ribs Aluminium 7075-T651 7.169E+10 0.33 2.69E+10 2810k
Elastic Modulus 7.169E+10 Wing Structure Material 0.33
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Centered, Space After: 0 pt Formatted Table Formatted: Centered, Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Centered, Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Centered, Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Centered, Space After: 0 pt
Poisson Ratio
2
ShearElastic Modulus 2.69E+10 Modulus (N/m2) (N/m ) Poisson Ratio Density (kg/m3) 2810k Shear Modulus (N/m2) Density (kg/m3)
Table 2 Cessna Citation Mustang wing spar material properties Table 3 Cessna Citation Mustang wing spar material properties
Formatted: Position: Horizontal: 4.09", Relative to: Page, Vertical: 0.12", Relative to Paragraph, Horizontal: 0.13", Wrap Around
Wing Structure Material (N/m2) Poisson Ratio

2
Spar Aluminium 7075-T651
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Lin spacing: 1.5 lines Formatted Table
Elastic Modulus 7.169E+10
Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Lin spacing: 1.5 lines
0.33
Shear Modulus 2.69E+10 (N/m ) Density (kg/m3) 2810k
The wing of the Cessna Citation Mustang utilises a NACA 23014 airfoil at the root and a NACA23012 airfoil at the tip. Furthermore
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Using Kirchoffs plate theory we can assume that the planar loads of a wing box are more significant than the lateral loads
Applying this to the wing of the Cessna Citation Mustang, this was initially idealised as airfoil s
design the wing of SHOW A GENERAL WING INTERNAL STRUCTURE AND ALSO SHOW YOUR ARFOIL INTERNAL STRUCTURE, GIVING DIMENSIONS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES
4.3.
Mission / Flight Case Profile
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold Formatted: Font: 12 pt, No underline Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
The objective of the study is to design a rib to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads; as justified above, the specific aircraft selected for this is the Cessna Citation Mustang. It is essential that the design cater for the global wing bending and twist loads as well as the locally applied rib compression loads. To do this a mission cases of a VLJ were studied and it was found that typical missions profiles of VLJs consists of; Engines start & warm up, Take-off Climb, Cruise, Descend, Loiter, Land. Of these cases the most critical flight case with regards to wing loading was found to be either take-off or landing. By designing the rib to withstand the loads from the critical case and an envelope is built that will ensure the safety of the structure under all other loads. Within (Peery 2011)Aircraft Structures David J Peery states that one of four flight conditions will produce the highest stress in an airplane, i.e. positive high angle of attack (PHAA), positive low angle of attack (PLAA), negative high angle of attack (NHAA) and negative low angle of attack (NLAA). He summarises that one of these conditions will be critical for the design of almost every part of the airplane.
Formatted: Not Highlight Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Font: Italic
Figure 6 Critical conditions for a wing box structure (Courtesy of (Niu n.d.))
Formatted: Caption, Centered Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
When analysing the current study and comparing it to Peerys findings we can see that, based on the typical flight mission of a typical VLJ, either the take-off or landing phases of the flight would have to be assessed to ensure the structurally efficient design of a wing box rib. Thus take-off phase can be selected as the critical flight case to be studied and the loads used as the foundation of the analysis conducted.
Perhaps create this on excel
4.3.1. Mission / Flight Case / Take-Off Specification
Formatted: Heading 3, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Sta at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" Indent at: 0.75" Formatted: Underline
Rather than investigating
The typical mission profile of a very light jet consists of; Engines start & warm up, Take-off Climb, Cruise, Descend, Loiter, Land. to do this the applied loads that the ribs are designed to would have to be the most severe
The highest lift producing cases from these would translate to From these cases it is clear that critical flight cases from these with regards to wing loading would be either the take-off or landing case. This
Therefore in an effort to improve the efficiency of the aircraft through the topology optimisation of the wing box rib, the most critical flight case with regards to wing loading was The.
The following parameters define the typical flight conditions of a Cessna Citation
Angle of Attack 10
o
Velocity 213mph i.e. 95m/s
Altitude Sea Level
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Keep with n Formatted: Font:
MustangCCM during take-off at sea-level; these were used in the simulations conducted.
Table 4 Take-off flight case conditions
Figure 2.3 shows a sketch of the aerial refuelling mission profile of the KC-X. Firstly taxi on the run way and take off then ascent to cruise altitude 40,000 feet. The KC-X will refuel other aircraft at 40,000 feet then return fly back to the base. When approach the base, the KC-X will do loiter for one hour and then do descent and landing.
Formatted: Heading 1, Left, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.5" Formatted: Highlight
Figure 2.4 shows the sketch of both cargo transfer mission and medical evacuation mission. Taxi one the runway then take-off climb to 40,000 feet. One hour loiter before landing and then do descent and landing.
The objective of this project is to design a new military fuel transport aircraft for the United State Air Force. According to the request, the USAF aims to replace its current aerial refuelling fleet which consists of Boeing KC-135Rs. Better range and payload requirement is necessary for the new aircraft. Three different tasks competency is also required which are aerial refuelling, cargo transfer and medical evacuation. A typical mission for the new aircraft can take off from Guam carrying military personnel to South Korea, transfer military supplies from Guam to South Korea, or take off from Okinawa to prepare for an aerial refuelling mission near North Korean airspace.
Mission Specification & Mission Profile As determined by the USAF, the mission requirement numbers are concerned:
-
Passengers: 150 (125 Patients to 25 Medical Personnel; 5:1 ratio)
Cargo: 18 x 464L Pallets (5,000 lbs/each) Crew: 3: Pilot, co-pilot, boom operator Fuel Capacity: 150,000 lbs Range: 1,500 nmi for aerial refuleing mission 1,800 nmi for cargo transfer and medical evacution missions
Cruising Altitude: 40,000 ft Cruise Speed: 612.7mph (M=0.83) Figure 2.3 shows a sketch of the aerial refueling mission profile of the KC-X. Firstly taxi on the run way and take off then ascent to cruise altitude 40,000 feet. The KC-X will refuel other aircraft at 40,000 feet then return fly back to the base. When approach the base, the KC-X will do loiter for one hour and then do descent and landing.
Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Heading 1, Left, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.5"
Figure 2.4 shows the sketch of both cargo transfer mission and medical evacuation mission. Taxi one the runway then take-off climb to 40,000 feet. One hour loiter before landing and then do descent and landing.
Critical Mission Requirements

The KC-X has two critical mission requirements. The first is large cargo capacity. The U.S. government is planning to move marine troop from Okinawa to Guam in 2014. Large cargo capacity could assist transport large quantities of supplies. The second is the reduction in noise during take-off and landing. Okinawa and Guam are both popular sightseeing place. Noise could affect local residents and vibrations could damage local landscape.
Comparative Study This section will compare different refueling aircraft designs. Currently, there are four different refueling jet powered aircrafts service around the world. They are KC135R, KC-767, KC-30 and KC-10. The KC-135R is the current fleet for the USAF. Figure 2.5 to figure 2.8 shows these four aircrafts. Table 2.1 express specifications of these four aircraft.
Formatted: No underline, Highlight
Wing Structure
Geometry
Airfoil Design
For everything ask why? How? What? Relate and where? DONT WASTE TIME!!!!! ANSWER AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND MOVE ON!!!!! MOT WORD COUNT! CONTENT!!!! HAVE ALL THE QUESTIONS BEEN ANSWERED?? NO!!!!!REANSWER LATER BULLET POINT 5. Aerodynamic Analysis
5.1. Introduction
The necessity for speedier and more exact routines for the estimations of fluid flow around bodies and specifically regions of interest has been the primary driver behind the quick advancement of CFDCFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics). In the past decade, within industries where fluid interaction plays a major role, the use of CFD packages has been the obvious decision. Within the subject of fluid dynamics, there are numerous business CFD bundles accessible for demonstrating flow in or around bodies. The PC recreations show characteristics and points of interest that are challenging, costly or difficult to measure or recreate tentatively. The CFD software used in this study uses Reynolds average Navier-Stokes equations. To define RANS we should iterate that fluctuations and unsteadiness are inherent to turbulent flows, i.e. the velocity fluctuations take place in all directions and have and infinite number of scales (degrees of freedom). RANS operates under the principle that any property can be expressed as the sum of its average, and fluctuation values, this is known as
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Reynolds decomposition. The outcome of implementing Reynolds decomposition in the Navier-Stokes equations is known as RANS and it yields a set of governing equations for average flow fields, thus the values for any property are constant over time. For the current study the Navier-Stokes equations can be expressed as;
Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Within which the inviscid flux vectors (G1, G2 and G3), are mathematically represented through the equation below within which u1, u2 and u3 represents the velocity, whereas represents the density and p represents the pressure of the fluid.(H. C et al. 2013)
Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted
For the viscous flux vectors (G1,V, G2,v, and G3,v) these are represented by the equation below within which
,
yy
and
zz
represent the normal stresses.

( ( ( ) ) )
Formatted Formatted Formatted: Line spacing: single Formatted
Formatted
Within (Dippold 2005) Vance Dippold conducted a study to investigate the performance of various turbulence models and wall functions within the WIND flow solver. Dippold made a comparison of the performance of Chiens K- against Mentors SST solvers in simulating incompressible flow on three differing geometries. Dippold reasoned that in the vicinity of neutral or favourable pressure gradients, both turbulence models performed adequately well however, Dippold stated that in the presence of adverse pressure gradients, the SST clearly produced more accurate results. Within Ref (S 2010), we see that Using CFD S. Sarada et al. attempted to acquire an approved philosophy to gauge the aerodynamic coefficient values for the aforementioned subsonic airfoil. Comparing 2D to 3D airfoils, the study made a notable conclusion that although for 3D simulations using K- yielded accurate results in the stalling region, the 2D results in the stalling region were unreliable. It is with this information that the SpalartAllamaras model was selected to simulate the turbulence flow around the airfoil for the current study. By dividing or discretising the system up into small simple bodies or elements of a finite volume and given that each finite quantity can be converted to an algebraic equation, by reconnecting the bodies together through common nodal points, an approximate system of equations for the model can be obtained and solved numerically using the fundamentals of conservation of mass and momentum. Having said that the higher the quality of the mesh, the higher the accuracy of the results and as such, the following adaptions we utilised to add resolution.
(understand the problem and identify the key modelling objectives)(once the geometry is obtained, the discretization of the model to small elements and nodes is conducted)The movement of different sorts of fluid flow, be it turbulent or laminar, is represented by a series of dynamical mathematical statements known as the Navier-Stokes equations. When NavierStokes equations are coupled together with the continuity equation and accurate proper boundary conditions, the effect is a complete series of comparisons that could be utilized to compute a flow. This phase of the overall study will use these models to study external 2D turbulent incompressible flow around an airfoil in a duct with the configuration shown below.
in fig [pic of setup].

FLUID DENSITY () VISCOSITY () VELOCITY (U) H1 R1 L1 AIR 1.225 (kg/m3) 1.7894 (kg/ms) 95 (m/s) 150 (m) 150 (m) 1.5 (m)
Formatted Table
Table 5 CFD boundary conditions
Figure 7 C-Mesh geometry around NACA 23014 The CFD software used in this study uses Reynolds average Navier-Stokes equations. To define RANS we should iterate that fluctuations and unsteadiness are inherent to turbulent flows, i.e. the velocity fluctuations take place in all directions and have and infinite number of scales (degrees of freedom). RANS operates under the principle that any property can be expressed as the sum of its average, and fluctuation values, + this is known as Reynolds decomposition. The outcome of implementing Reynolds decomposition in the Navier-Stokes
Formatted: Caption, Left, Line spacing: Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: Caption
equations is known as RANS and it yields a set of governing equations for average flow fields, thus the values for any property are constant over time.
Within Investigation of Wall Function and Turbulence Model Performance within the Wind Code by Ref [1] Vance Dippold conducted a study to investigate the performance of various turbulence models and wall functions within the WIND flow solver. Dippold made a comparison of the performance of Chiens K- against Mentors SST solvers in simulating incompressible flow on three differing geometries. Dippold reasoned that in the vicinity of neutral or favourable pressure gradients, both turbulence models performed adequately well. However Dippold stated that in the presence of adverse pressure gradients, the SST clearly produced more accurate results. Using CFD, in Ref [Within Numerical Simulation of Viscous Incompressible Flow around NACA 64618 Subsonic Airfoil Using Computational Fluid Dynamics] S. Sarada et al. attempt to acquire an approved philosophy to gauge the aerodynamic coefficient values for the aforementioned subsonic airfoil. Comparing 2D to 3D airfoils the study made a notable conclusion that although for 3D simulations using K- yielded accurate results in the stalling region, the 2D results in the stalling region were unreliable. Typical modelling steps taken to simulate such a problem include, problem study, geometry and mesh generating, solver setup and obtain results. These are elaborated on more in the following chapters. By dividing or discretising the system up into small simple bodies or elements of a finite quantity and given that each finite quantity can be converted to a mathematical representation, by reconnecting the bodies together through common nodal points, an approximate system of equations for the model can be obtained. Having said that the higher the quality of the mesh, the higher the accuracy of the results and as such, the following adaptions we utilised to add resolution.reasoned that both turbulence models were found to work well in the vicinity of an unbiased or favourable weight angle; however the X2 plainly performed better when an unfavourable weight slope was available.
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Typical modelling steps taken to simulate such a problem include,The following chapters discusses the details of the problem being studied study, geometry and mesh generating, solver setup and obtain results. These are elaborated on more in the following chapters.
Formatted: Font: Not Italic Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Heading 2, Left, Line spacing: single, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.75"
Mathematical Model 5.2. IntroductionProblem Study
Formatted: No underline Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: No underline
Why do CFD? Computational Fluid dynamics was essentially used to study the airflow around the airfoil at take-off case and predict the in-flight aerodynamic loads that the airfoil experiences. What aerodynamic loads? For the current case the loads acting on an airfoil can be summarised into three major components; Lift This is the component of the resultant aerodynamic load to acting perpendicular to the airflow around the airfoil Drag This is the component of the resultant aerodynamic load to acting parallel to the airflow around the airfoil Moment This is a rotational effect on the airfoil as a result of the net lift and drag loads. (This is measured about the aerodynamic centre, for all thin airfoil shapes this at quarter the quarter chord i.e. 25% of the chord distance from the leading edge) For a 2D wing section the coefficients of these forces can be surmised as;
How do you go about studying the airflow around the airfoil? To study the airflow we must first become cognizant of the type of flow regime that we are dealing with. We can do this my examining the conditions of the flight case being studied and making some assumptions based on those conditions.
5.3.
Flow Classification
The following parameters describe the case being studied; Flight Case: Take off Airfoil: NACA 23014(Mod)
Angle of Attack: 10o Velocity: 213mph Altitude: Sea Level TALK ABOUT SIMPLIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM 3D TO 2D Fluid flows can be classified in a variety of ways: Internal vs. external. Steady vs. unsteady. Single-phase vs. multiphase. Elliptic vs. parabolic vs. hyperbolic.
Formatted: No underline Formatted: No underline Formatted: No underline, Not Highlight Formatted: No underline Formatted: Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li
Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numberin
Assumption 1&2
5.3.1. Subsonic vs. Supersonic & Incompressible vs. Compressible

Since the flight case being studied in this case is of take-off at 213mph, i.e. 95.22m/s, at sea-level. Converting the speed to Mach using the equation 1, where V is the velocity of the aircraft and a is the local speed of sound, see equation 2, we obtain a Mach number of 0.28.
Using the density change as a function of Mach number table below we can see that for flow of Mach <0.3 density changes account for less than 5%. Therefore given our current case of Mach 0.28 we can assume that any density changes are negligible and treat the flow as incompressible.
Figure 8 Density variation with change in Mach number (Coutesy of (Schobeiri 2009))
Formatted: Centered Formatted: Justified Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
As well as this, given a Mach number of 0.28 we can safely assume the flow is subsonic.
Figure 9 Flow regime classifications (Courtesy of Dr Mark Jabbal)
Formatted: Centered
As well as this, given a Mach number of 0.28 we can safely assume the flow is subsonic. 5.3.2. Assumption 3Laminar vs. Turbulent
Next we need to find out whether the flow is Laminar or turbulent. This is categorised by the value of the Critical Reynolds number (equation 3), any number below this value is termed laminar and any value above is termed turbulent. The Reynolds number can be obtained from equation 4, where is density, is the velocity of the fluid, is the chord length and is
the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. Applying the equation to our case we obtain a Reynolds value of 9,778,0421,365,770.
With a value well in excess of the critical Reynolds number we can safely assume the flow it turbulent. With the assumptions made above we can fully define the flow as subsonic turbulent incompressible. With this we can now begin modelling the problem. Commercially available software ANSYS Workbench is used throughout the aerodynamic analysis phase of the study, specifically; ANSYS Fluent is used as the numerical solver. Fluid Flow (FLUENT) is utilized as the system template as it provides a workflow approach
ideal for the problem. To optimise the setup to the 2D problem being studied, this must be specified within the analysis type section of the properties pane of the analysis system.
5.4.
Boundary Conditions
5.4.1. Geometry
Pre-Processing Geometry The airfoil is imported into the Geometry component system via the coordinate points method. Once the airfoil is generated, a domain must be created to which boundary conditions synonymous with the problem being studied are applied. For this study a C-Mesh domain is used as the mesh-able surface. The domain is placesd at a distance of 1050 chord lengths away from the airfoil; this is to ensure that the boundary effects do not affect the flow around airfoil. Furthermore the geometry is divided into four regions; this is serves the objective of allows for greater flexibility when meshing and applying the loads and boundary conditions.
Formatted: Heading 2, Justified, Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligne at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75"
Formatted: Heading 3, Justified, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligne at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75"
5.4.2. Grid
Once the domain and the airfoil geometry are created, The mesh is created using the Mechanical component system. To ensure that the pressure distribution along the airfoil is accurately predicted, mesh refinement is conducted adjacent to the upper and lower airfoil walls. Before creating the mesh however a few predictions could be made regarding the problem. Given the current case, we can assume the following for PHAA; Point of stagnation point moves anti-clockwise around the airfoil surface and Also Point of maximum suction is close to the leading edge of the airfoil. This would indicate that the expected peak pressure in the model will be around the upper leading edge area of the airfoil and refinement should be conducted to that area specifically. However, as the objective of the current overall objective of the study is to conduct topology optimisation on a wing box rib using aerodynamic forces acting on its surfaces, mesh refinement is conducted around all surfaces to ensure accurate resolving of these pressures. For the current model 250,000 quadrilateral elements were used with a minimum mesh quality of l, therefore adequate mesh coverage around the airfoil is important to accurately resolve the pressure distribution. Reference
Formatted: Normal, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
As the objective of the current phase is to obtain the aerodynamic loads around the airfoil,
Figure 10 Quadrilateral Mesh around NACA 23014 airfoil (left) with closer view (right)
Formatted: Caption Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: Left
5.4.3. Ansys 12.0 Official Training Manual IntroductionFlow Solver Boundary Conditions
A pressure based solver along with a Spalart-Allamaras with Mentors shear stress transport were used to model the flow of air around an airfoil at 100 angle of attack. The rear rectangular edge of the c-mesh domain was setup as the outlet and all other boundary
edges of the c-mesh domain were setup as inlet. The airfoil walls were simply setup as walls. To simulate the take-off of the wing at 10o angle of attack the velocity of the fluid flow was set at 95m/s magnitude however with an x-component of 0.984807753 and a ycomponent of 0.173648178, i.e. v*cos() and v*sin(). As the study is considering a take-off condition at sea-level conditions, the density of the fluid was set as 1.225kg/m3 and the dynamic viscosity was set as 1.7894x10-5 Kg/m-s. The outlet is set to pressure outlet with a gauge pressure of zero. This is done to simulate the atmospheric conditions. To extract the pressures acting on an entire wing through a 2D approach, the above steps were repeated at constant span wise rib locations.
As the objective of the current phase is to obtain the aerodynamic loads around the airfoil,
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75"
5.5.
Results
Values of static pressure for each node point were obtained and plotted against their xposition to show the static pressure distribution along the airfoil.
Fluent provides lift and drag coefficient values independently for the both upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil. A resultant is first obtained for the Lift and drag for each surface independently, both values are then taken and converted to their normal and tangential components before separately applying them to their respective surfaces.
Pressure Distribution along Airfoil Chord

1 0.5 Pressure Coefficient 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 -3 Chord 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 lower_airfoil upper_airfoil
1.5 1.0 0.5 Coefficient of Pressure 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 -3.5
Chord Wise Pressure Distribution
Lower Airfoil 1 0.4 0.9 1.4 Upper Airfoil 1 Lower Airfoil 2 Upper Airfoil 2 Lower Airfoil 3 Upper Airfoil 3
Chord Distance
Table 6 Chord-Wise Coefficient of Pressure Distribution (Airfoils 1, 2 & 3), 10 degrees angle of attack
Formatted: Caption, Centered, Line spacing single Formatted: Caption
8000 6000 4000 2000 STATIC PRESSURE (Pa) 0 0 -2000 -4000 -6000 -8000 -10000 -12000 0.2 0.4
STATIC PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
Formatted: Keep with next
-0.2
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Lower Airfoil 3 Total Pressure Upper Airfoil 3 Total Pressure Lower Airfoil 2 Total Pressure Upper Airfoil 2 Total Pressure Lower Airfoil 1 Total Pressure Upper Airfoil 1 Total Pressure
1.6
CHORD DISTANCE (m)
Table 7 Chord-wise Static Pressure Distribution (Airfoils 1, 2 & 3), 10 degrees angle of attack
Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Keep with next
Figure 11 Contours of Static Pressure for 10 degrees angle of attack k-omega model (airfoil 1)
Formatted: Centered
NB DONT FORGET TO ADD IN THE TOTAL PRESSURE PLOTS
Figure 12 Velocity vectors at 10 degrees angle of attack, k-omega model (airfoil 1)
Formatted: Caption, Centered
5.6.
DiscussionThis is what was applied for the FEA
The NACA 23014 airfoil in take-off conditions i.e. at 10o angle of attack with a velocity of 95m/s and in sea-level conditions, has been studied to find the pressure acting on its surfaces. Using the K- turbulence model with Mentors Shear Stress Transport, the turbulence flow was modelled. The obtained results from the simulation are not compared against variants for verification. Instead the methodologies suggested from research conducted has been used as a justification of the final obtained result. This is because the ultimate goal of this study is to achieve an optimised wing bay. Therefore for all intents and purposes, any surface pressures acting on a given airfoil would have resulted in the optimisation of the structure and thus achieving the ultimate goal of this study. Moreover time constraints encroached on the project further reiterate the necessity to use the obtained results. That being said, if time was not an issue and the final results of the overall study relied more heavily on the accuracy of the aerodynamic study, then the author suggests the following; In the current study a 10 degree angle of attack is selected as according to research, this is the optimal take off angle of attack for the take-off of a VLJ. That being said, during take-off the highest lift to drag for an airfoil is sought. To obtain this value the parameterisation feature within Fluent can be used to set various angles of attack and the comparative lift to drag results could be plotted against these to obtain the highest lift to drag angle achievable. This corresponds to the maximum load acting on the wing and therefore the pressures achieved would be of significant quality to the overall results achieved. The author also suggests conducting a mesh refinement study. This is an incredibly powerful that can be used to validate the results and ensure valuable computational time is not wasted. A mesh/grid refinement study could be conducted to perhaps investigating the lift and drag achieved and comparing them to the number of elements used for each solution.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: No underline
Pre-Study Discussion Prior to performing a baseline analysis, a 2D optimisation study was performed on an airfoil section to investigate
Formatted: Heading 1, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.5" Formatted: Font color: Auto
Ensuring Topological Congruency Research this and write about it. Could use spinbot http://www.mscsoftware.com/training_videos/patran/Rever b_help/index.html#page/Patran%20Users%20Guide/geom etry.06.6.html
Subsonic flow Compressible flow Turbulent flow Around airfoil Considering Model turbulent subsonic incompressible flow What is it How to model steps Geom Insert into deghn to creat boundary 2d model simplified Air foil win considerations No 3d complex
Mesh how to mesh c-mesh pros and cons of cmesh c is inlet model as pressure far field what is pressure far fiel? Tub viscosity minimise effects of boundary of airfoil, increase sdiostance of boundary to air fiol 50 was chosen why#?? Point of cfd?? Study air to extract the air loads Cl cd what is it
Mesh refinement on cfd
How did I do it? Methodology
Specifics on refinement tactics inflation / increasing number of divisions How did you get the boundary [perfect
Exporting geom to solve What is the solver fluent Study of fight case What flight case take off - velocity at take off is 160 mph (find out) Take of charachteristics Conditions Combrssible or non Density based?? Account for changes inmn density Previoous case sutded
Setup soling conditions How do you define the solver
Boundary conditions Seting the conditions Validations Pressure far field~? Validate every state
Monitors why/ what to follow/ cd and cn / reason How
Simple or splec solver - why ?? what the difference is The calculation bases Formulas Solving model What to look for Indicators for accurate results Check case Check mesh quality - duplicate Mesh convergense
Good jacobian ratios Angle of attach relative to airflow and chand to ct and cn relative to ring cord
Indicatprs f good simulation
Extract the values from plot Get fluent to read Cl and cd with viscos flow convert to normal and tang Fron cn and ct, applie to fea
6. Baseline Analysis
The total pressure points extracted from the aerodynamic study can now be analysed through the finite element method within commercially available structural analysis software MSC Patran. Linear static analysis is performed on the structure in an effort to achieve a baseline design. Through this, the tool of topology optimisation is then used to help gain a better understanding of the precise material layout that will provide significant improvements in the load carrying and weight saving ability of the structure.
Formatted: No underline Formatted: No underline
6.1.
Model Setup and Considerations
Before applying the aerodynamic loads to the structure for optimisation, it is essential to first perform a baseline analysis. This is when structural analysis is performed on the initial design in an effort to understand the key initiatives for the optimisation study. Thus, a linear static analysis is performed on the airfoil using Finite Element Method on the commercially available structural analysis software MSC Patran and Nastran. Within this Patran is the pre and post structural analysis processor and Nastran is the solver.
The normal and tangential force coefficients from the aerodynamicis on the body to obtain a structural baseline that the optimised structure can be validated against. As such, linear static analysis is conducted on the airfoil using commercially available MSC software Patran/Nastran. Patran acts as the By obtaining the Factor of Safety for the structure
hrough which the values of the final optimised rib can be validated through to analysis can then be used as the loads for both the structural analysis and the optimisation study. To ensure the aerodynamic pressure distribution through the chord wise direction of the airfoil is maintained, either:
-
Take the points of each CP distribution and apply them to the same point in structure Obtain an analytical / polynomial formula for the pressure distribution curves for both surfaces, and apply that formula to the structuredoing so care was taken to apply the distribution of those loads via the polynomial equation representing their distribution.^^Potential Rewrite^^
Formatted: Font: Bold, Font color: Red Formatted: No underline Formatted: Not Highlight
6.1.1. Approach
In an effort to simplify the linear static analysis, the 3D wing box structure can be idealised as a 2D thin walled structure. Within MSC. Nastran 2003 Linear static Analysis users guide it is stated that, in the context of a 2D problem, a CQUAD4 element can be used to model membranes, plates and thick or thin shells. It is also stated that the PSHELL entry should be used for all materials other than composites. As such, the approach used in the current study has been to model the spars and ribs as 2D Shell elements.
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: Italic
6.1.2. Geometry
The geometry of airfoil 1, 2 & 3 and the global coordinate system seen in fig x [Figure 5airfoil sketch in geom] were imported into Patran. Surfaces were then created along the cross section of each airfoil with lines (idealised spars) separating the sections of the idealised
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Field Code Changed Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Highlight
wing. Thereafter surfaces were created from the lines forming three airfoils and three spars and association was performed to link all connected edges and surfaces of the structure.
Figure 13133 Isometric View of Airfoils1, 2 & 3 and front, mid and rear spars geometry in Patran 2012
Once A congruency check is performed on the model to guarantee that all sections of the model's geometry could be made into one associated substance when meshing.
6.1.3. Material Property

As stated in the geometry section the materials selected for this study are Aluminium 7075T651 for the spar and Aluminium 2024-T3 for the ribs. Within Patran the ribs were defined to have a 2D shell element property with a thickness of 0.02m and the spars were defined with the same element property but with a thickness of 0.06m.
6.1.4. Mesh Creation

Care was taken when creating a mesh seed on the idealised ribs. Crucially, the number of mesh seeds on the surface of the ribs wereas manipulated to match the pressure points
extracted from the aerodynamic analysis. The objective of this was to reduce the preprocessing time when applying the loads by keeping the model at its simplest.
A CQUAD4 mesh was applied to the ribs using the paver mesher while the spars were also meshed with CQUAD4 elements however using the isomesh function.
Figure Quad4 mesh generated on wing bay structure
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
Formatted: Caption, Centered, Line spacing 1.5 lines Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines
To ensure duplicate nodes were not created, an equivalence check was performed on the model. The connection between the spar and the ribs was simulated using multi-point constraint rigid body element 2.
6.1.5. BoLoads and Bouundary Conditions

To simulate the connection of the spar to the fuselage a displacement constraint was placed on the edge of the spar restraining movement in six degrees of freedom.
Before applying the aerodynamic loads to the ribs, it is crucial to remember that within the aerodynamic analysis the airfoil was modelled at 10o angle of attack thus so are the pressures obtained. To ensure the loads are transferred accurately from the aerodynamic environment to the structural environment, a local coordinate system on spar 1 is created with reference to the global coordinate system that is then rotated by 10 degrees. All loads applied are done with reference to this local coordinate system.
To apply the total pressure loads obtained from the aerodynamic study, the clever spatial fields tool was used to enable the input of loads to Patran directly from an excel table.
Formatted: Centered, Keep with next
Figure 14 Loads applied to Finite Element Model Patran
Formatted: Centered
6.1.6. Hypothesis
The aim of the study was to investigate the stress distribution through the internal structure of a CCM wing during take-off. It is crucial to mention that the study is limited to the first three ribs from the wing root. As such the author proposes that the obtained results will contain an error factor within them especially for the max wing bending case.
6.1.7. Results
Once the model setup within MSC Patran is complete the job is submitted to MSC Nastran for analysis. The objective of the analysis is to obtain an understanding of the distribution of stress within the structure under take off loading conditions. Within Nastran the linear static analysis solution is obtained via solver 101, within which the displacement, stress and oOload results are requested. From the results it can be seen that the maximum displacement of the structure occurred at the trailing edge of rib 3, i.e. 1.230.69 mm at Node 4997320207.
Figure 15 Applied load displacement plot (patran)
Each rib experiences deformation as a result of the total surface pressure. This is most magnified at the trailing edge as there is less material from both the ribs and the rear spar to cope with the applied load. It can be seen that the material at the trailing edge structure of rib 3 has reached its elastic limit. Maximum stress on the structure can be seen to develop at the rearmid spar connection to the fuselage, i.e. 20.92 MPa at Node 112956450. This is because the rear spar has the least material to cope with the applied load. As the spar is fully constrained at the therefore experiences the most stress when compared to the rest of the spars.
Figure 16 Finite Element Model Von-Mises Stress
6.1.8. Discussion
From the results of the baseline analysis the following hypothesis have been made formed regarding regarding the final optimised structure. The following hypothesis has been made; It is believed that due to the high stiffness observed on the ribs closest to the fuselage, the optimiser will concentrate on achieving most mass reduction around these areas. Equally, structure that is furthest away from the fuselage can be seen to experience large deformations and thus would require most stiffening.
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
That being said the results show that structure such as the trailing edge of each rib and the rear spar also undergo large deformations due to take-off loading. This suggests that these structures would and therefore wouldalso require stiffening.
Formatted: Normal, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
From the results of the linear static analysis it is seen that as distance from the fuselage increases, the forces acting on the wing box tend to worsen. Regions of stress on the wing box section of rib 3 would indicate compression on the upper surface and tension on the bottom due to bending. This is also observed on ribs 1 and 2 as well however is less prominent. It is crucial to remember that the obtained results i.e. three rib sections, reflect only a fraction of those of a larger wing bay. In the case that a complete wing was studied, results obtained would follow a similar trend to the current results however would be significantly greater in magnitude.
NB LATER IF YOU HAVE TIME, ADD IN PRE-STUDY SECTION AND DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF FIRST TOPOLOGY OPTIMISATION RUN
Formatted: Highlight Formatted: No underline
Mesh A uniform mesh seed are applied to the both the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil and the spars. Despite a uniform mesh being used in this case, the mesh seed tool can be used in conjunction with a bias type function to control the element density around the regions interest.
-
SPECIFY NUMBER OF ELEMENTS OR ELEMENT LENGTH Within MSC Nastran 2003 Linear Static Analysis Users Guide it is stated that when meshing 2D shell elements, Quad elements are preferred over tria elements as they provide better accuracy. In keeping with this, an isomesh is applied to the surface of the airfoil maintaining an all quad mesh.
INSERT PICTURE OF FULL QUAD ISOMESH AIRFOIL HERE When meshing multiple surfaces at the same time however, care must be taken to ensure that duplicate nodes are not created. To do this an equivalence check is performed on the Finite Element Model (FEM) to erase all coexisting nodes.
Properties Once a complete geometry is created and a surface mesh is obtained, properties synonymous with the problem can then be applied to the FEM. First a material property synonymous with that of the problem is applied to the model. These are provided in the table below;
INSERT TABLE OF MATERIAL PROPERTIES Thereafter, due to the approach used to model the problem, a 2D element property must be created to enable application of the material property to the model. As such, a
Boundary Conditions Within Airframe structural analysis, Niu states that in actuality the central section of the wing, i.e. the torsion box, would be bounded by the spars and take the loads from the front and the rear sections, i.e. the leading and trailing edge, and transmit those loads to the fuselage. In an effort to model these conditions, zero displacement constraints were applied to curves A, B, C & D in the x, y and z directions.
As well as this the aerodynamic loads predicted from fluent are then applied to the suction and pressure sides of the airfoil as total loads. This means that the total load value that is entered is distributed across all of the entities that are selected; in this case the elements along the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil, to add up to a total of the specified value.
problem properties and boundary conditions can then be applied before meshing material can then be applied to the
Solver The input file always has to start with a SOL-command that calls the according solution sequence. In this case it is SOL101 for linear static problems.
Run linear static analysis on all the stuctures of the wing
Achieve wing strength to use as base line and the bases for all folwing comparisons If the optimised rib results in less structural sound then it will be a negative result What is the fea model Structural analysis what is it? Wher is it used? Who to do this? Partan Importing data to patran how? Creat new material properties Why? How? Mesh geometry How? 2d tet mesh iso material Check for the silar nodes duplicate nodes Check mesh quality
Reason for not doing mesh refinement top opt does not study varying mesh sizes studies use very fine meshes. You would look to assign densities to each element. Ask the optimiser to give each element a density of 0 or 1 so either there or not Quality does not effect???
Fine mesh is needed! Why? a wide spread of elements to allow the optimiser to find the best variation in material, that will give the structure the highest (optimal) strength for the given load What defines a fine mesh????
Top opt does not need refinement but fea could?? Refine spar and connections and boundary of problem This is so that the load can be effectively transmitted
Apply boundary and load conditions Wing box leading, trailing edge ribs ar all fioxed to the spar Constarints of the model Contain on the spar
Loads applied from cn and ct from fluent
Solver Element properties idealis the ribs to be I sections Validate this Ribs, wing section and spar
Ask the solver to sove von miser sress, displacement, any others, What are all of these What theyu will show Preassumption
Submit the structural analysis to nastan Patran is the visual interface of the sol;ver
Ewhat does Nastran do?? It is the solver! It uses coding? What coding?? ??
Once simulation on nastran is complete- files are exprted about the results How the top Open bdf / fo4/6 file Search for .???? Error Tell you if the thing was able to solve? If not??? search for error (error code) No error proced]
Import the results file back to [atra for visual analysis for post prposeessing
View results Insert pic of von mises stress of airfoil Discuss results <linear static analysis ? bases for validation and comparison for the top opt
7. Topology Optimisation
As such the reader is referred to previous sections for more information on the study boundary conditions setup. From the results of the baseline analysis hypothesis have been made regarding the final optimised structure however the goal of the optimisation is to find the ideal material layout of the wing box rib section that will result in increased stiffness with minimum weight, all under take-off loads. Therefore this section is limited to the investigation of the optimisation of the wing box rib section only. For further examples of topology
optimisation on aerospace structures the reader is referred to (Bayandor et al. 2002)Parametric Optimisation of composite shell structures for an aircraft Kruger flap by Javid Bayandor et al, (Krog et al. 2004)Topology Optimisation of aircraft wing Box ribs by Lars Krog etc.
7.1.
FE Model Setup and Considerations
From the performed baseline analysis it is observed that, as a result of the rib bending, regions of relatively high stress form at the interface between the wing box and the mid spar. Furthermore as distance increases from the fuselage, displacements become greater and as a result, stress is seen to gradually increase on the wing box ribs. Through interpretation of the baseline analysis results, an objective function for the topology optimisation can be achieved. In this case, through considerations of the baseline analysis an objective function of minimising the structural compliance is arrived at.
7.2.
Approach
The approach taken to model the baseline analysis is similarly used for the optimisation study. Please refer to section [9538x FEA approach x] for more information. Within MSC
Nastran the solution sequence SOL 200 is used to perform the topology optimisation on the CCM wing bay
7.3.
Geometry
The complete wing geometry model generated for the baseline analysis is utilised within the optimisation study. See section [6.1.2xgeometryx]. Furthermore, the problem domain is created between the front, mid and rear spars. This is the area of material that will be optimised to achieve the desired objective function. For the current study, the domain is specified as the inner geometry of the wing box ribs. Doing so has the double objective of ensuring both an overall boundary as well as a structural boundary.
Formatted: Centered, Keep with next
Figure Topology Optimisation specified domain
Formatted: Caption, Centered Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
7.4.
Material Property and Element property
The material and element properties stated within section [6.1.3xbaseline analysis material propertiesx] remained unchanged for the optimisation study.
7.5.
Loads and Boundary Conditions
The loads and boundary conditions stated in Section [6.1.5xFEAx] are correspondingly used for the optimisation study; the solver will then optimise the structure to the specified load case.
7.6.
Meshing
A comparable mesh to that stated in Section [6.1.4xFEA x] is used for the optimisation study.
7.7.
Analysis Setup
To reduce the overall mass of the model, a fractional mass constraint of 0.4 is specified, i.e. only 40% of the overall mass is to be retained. As stated earlier this is done by specifying a selection of the design domain on which the optimisation will be performed without affecting any structurally critical areas. Furthermore the edge distance is altered by specifying a minimum member size within the manufacturing constraints. For this study a minimum member size of 0.001 m was specified. Therefore through the Modified Method of Feasible Directions (MMFD) algorithm in MSC Nastran is requested to minimise the structural compliance of the wing under take-off flight loads and boundary conditions.
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.75"
7.8.
Results
The result of the topology optimisation is a stiffened structure that has achieved a 60% mass reduction through minimisation of compliance. See Figure 11
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Field Code Changed Formatted: No underline
Figure 17 Baseline Design of CCM Wing Ribs Figure 4 Baseline Design of CCM Wing Ribs
Formatted: Caption Formatted: Caption, Centered Field Code Changed
Figure 18 Final Wing Box Ribs Topology Optimised Design Figure 5 Final Wing Box Ribs Topology Optimised Design
Formatted: Caption Formatted: Caption, Centered Field Code Changed
The compliance objective function i.e. the maximum the stiffness of the structure was defined as of minimum compliance /. Furthermore a mass target constraint for the model is set to 0.8/0.6/0.4, in doing so this enables the software to retain 80/60/40% of the mass of the FEM.
7.9.
Discussion
The aerodynamic forces acting on the surface of a wing in take-off conditions is used as pressure loads within a study of the structural analysis of a nthat is performed on multiple airfoils, effectively the internal structure of a wing. The objective of the conducted structural analysis was to visualise the variation is stress through the structure before using topology optimisation to minimise the compliance of the structure with a volume constraint. As a result of the topology optimisation, 60% of the baseline material has been dissolved resulting in a stiffer structure for the considered load case.
7.9.1. Project Overview

This project provides a methodology for generating the preliminary design of an aircraft wing to meet aggressive torque box strain energy and mass targets. with the objective of minimising weight and complianceInitially research is conducted to investigate the potential benefits and real world applications of topology optimisation; this has the double objective of giving the study focus while providing initial aircraft wing geometry that a CAD model is built from. Furthermore research is also conducted to investigate the flight missions that the aircraft / type is typically exposed to and in doing so a greater understanding of the critical flight case producing maximum wing loading and more importantly the conditions that the aircraft is in during which is achieved. Putting the two together, an aerodynamic study is conducted on the wing CAD model with the boundary conditions that the aircraft experiences when producing maximum wing loading. Therefore the objective of the aerodynamic study is to extract the surface pressures that act on the wing during the critical flight case. With great care the loads along with the CAD model are then transferred from the aerodynamic environment to the structural environment for structural analysis and optimisation. The structural analysis is conducted beforehand using the aerodynamic loads to gain an initial understanding of the stress distribution and displacement within structure. The structural analysis not only provides a better understanding of the structure to be optimised but also acts as a validation tool for the optimised structure. The factor of safety that the pre-optimised structure achieves can be compared to that of the post optimised structure, thus structurally validating the final optimised design.
Baseline Analysis
From the results of the baseline analysis hypothesis have been made regarding the final optimised structure. The following hypothesis has been made; It is believed that due to the high stiffness observed on the ribs closest to the fuselage, the optimiser will concentrate on achieving most mass reduction around these areas. Equally, structure that is furthest away from the fuselage can be seen to experience large deformations and thus would require most stiffening. That being said structure such as the trailing edge of each rib and the rear spar also undergo large deformations due to loading and therefore would require stiffening. Regions of stress on the wing box section of rib 3 would indicate compression on the upper surface and tension on the bottom due to bending. This is also observed on ribs 1 and 2 as well however is less prominent. It is crucial to remember that the obtained results i.e. three rib sections, reflect only a fraction of those of a larger wing bay. In the case that a complete wing was studied, results obtained would follow a similar trend to the current results however would be significantly greater in magnitude.
Using the results of the baseline analysis, a problem formulation could be generated for the topology optimisation to be conducted. Within the current study, an objective function of minimising compliance is arrived at through understand the results of the baseline analysis.
From the performed baseline analysis it is observed that, as a result of the rib bending, regions of relatively high stress form around the interface of the wing box and the mid spar. Furthermore as distance increases from the fuselage, displacements become greater and as a result, stress is seen to gradually increase on the ribs as well. Conversely it is also interesting to note that as a result of the wing taper, the total pressure acting on the wing decrease with span wise distance from the fuselage. i.e.
7.9.2. Results Overview

The optimisation performed has resulted in the removal of structurally excess material from the wing box ribs. The goal of the optimisation was to minimise the compliance of the structure with a mass fraction constraint of 0.4 i.e. forcing the solver to retain only 40% of the material within the domain. From the results of the optimisation it can be seen that the solver is attempting to optimise the structure through and find a direct load path in response to the applied surface pressure. Whereas a truss structure can be seen to be forming on within the wing box of rib 3 to cope with the applied loads, rib 1 displays aggressive removal of stricture. This is supported by the results of the linear static analysis, See [displacement figure]. From the linear static analysis it can be seen that as the distance from the fuselage increases, the displacement tends to worsen. The results of the optimisation reflect the applied loads. Generally as distance from the fuselage increases, wing bending worsens and as a result more structure is maintained on each consecutive rib. This can be seen by the structural variation between rib 1 and 3.
7.9.3. Future Work

Strictly for the study of topology optimisation of a wing box rib, the following areas can be further explored; MSC Nastran contains multiple optimisation algorithms that could be implemented for the current study in an effort to achieve better, more conclusive results. The MMFD algorithm was used for the current study To verify the obtained results, linear static analysis could be performed on the structure the before the optimisation, obtaining a factor of safety for the structure. Thereafter once the topology optimisation is performed, the optimised structure could be studied to find a factor of safety. The two parameters could then be compared for validation purposes Finally to ensure accurate results are achieved from the optimisation, a mesh refinement study is suggested to compare the number and size of the members obtained in the optimisationIn the case of strictly studying topology optimisation and its effects on a wing box rib, the variance of certain parameters should be considered irrelevant.Studies
Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Leve 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, No underl
Compare results of analysis before and after optimization. By
changing the solution sequence in the subcase selection context it is also possible to access other results, like eigenmodes, frequency responses, etc. Change fineness of the mesh. This will also change the results of the optimization. For a fine mesh the influence of the Minimum Member Size Constraint can also be observed. By adding the parameter DESPCH to the input file (see Appendix) intermediate designs can be accessed. (DESPCH = 4 means a printout every 4 cycles). Change loads or boundary constraints.
Formatted: Left, Indent: Left: 0.5", Space After: 10 pt, Line spacing: Multiple 1.15 li, No bullets or numbering, Adjust space betwe Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
Formatted: List Paragraph
7.9.4. Recommendations
These recommendations are discussed below; Aircraft Selection Within industry the aerodynamicists would study the aerodynamic loads and provide them to the structural engineer for strength analysis. would be provided with the aerodynamic loads of the by. Choice in aircraft for a topology optimisation study is . Make sure you state that the wing structure would not change relatively. This is not the objective of the study.
Formatted: Heading 3, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 3 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.75" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
FIND A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHOICE IN AIRCRAFT Airfoil Shape o Regardless of whether it is a 4, 5 or even 6-digit airfoil, the choice would be irrelevant for the current study. That being said, in an effort to maintain simplicity, in hindsight a simple airfoil should have been selected. Rather than a 5-digit transonic airfoil perhaps a simple 4-digit symmetric airfoil instead. In industry if a wing box rib was to be optimised, the relevant data would be specified. Strictly speaking for the purpose of the study of topology optimisation alone the shape of the airfoil is irrelevant. FIND A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHOICE IN AIRFOIL Flow Modelling Software o Initially choice in modelling software was made as a result of research suggesting that care should be taken in choice of software when modelling flow above 5e5. This is because the results obtained from certain software would maintain a higher degree of inaccuracy than others. As such, Ansys Fluent was selected for the aerodynamic loads study phase of this project however, strictly for the study of topology optimisation of a wing box rib; the area to apply the most degree of accuracy would actually be the structural analysis and the extraction of the predicted aerodynamic loads from flow modelling software to structural modelling software. Therefore as the objective of this study is to explore the effects of topology optimisation on a wing box rib, a less scrutinous approach can be applied, with regards to degree of accuracy of aerodynamic results, in selecting a flow modelling software. That being said, with the key issue being the topology optimisation study, the selection of a flow modelling software should actually weigh more heavily on the factor of modelling time than accuracy achieved. That being said, the following software can be used; o Javafoil Xfoil Foilsim
Formatted: List Paragraph, Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Bulleted + Level: 2 + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1"
When studying an airfoil, only slight variance is obtained in the aerodynamic loads when comparing multiple flow modelling software. In the scenario that the objective was to investigate the specifics of turbulence and its effects on the structure then an accurate software such as Fluent should be selected. In the case that a quick answer is required in terms of chord-wise or perhaps
even span-wise load distributed a simple package should be selected as it will provide more or less the same values.
8. Conclusion
This dissertation presents the topic of topology optimisation and investigates its feasibility within the application of the preliminary design of wing box ribs. Before applying the investigation to the specific case of a CCM wing, a review of current literature regarding the topic was conducted. This revealed the numerous formulations that the general problem can be expressed into and thus the outstanding versatility of the tool for application in conflicting industries. In an effort to fully exploit the tool an understanding of the problem classification was achieved and applied to the topic which assisted the author in generating a problem formulation for the topology optimisation of wing box ribs. Thereafter the topic is investigated through the specific application of the optimisation of the wing box ribs of a Cessna Citation Mustang at take-off in sea-level conditions. Prior to this, research is conducted to define the specific aircraft for the study and the potential savings that could be made. The aerodynamic loads are predicted using computational fluid dynamics and are then transferred to the structural analysis environment for baseline analysis and optimisation. All in all the topology optimisation results achieved demonstrate the feasibility of the methodology applied to a wing bay and given more time, better results could have been achieved. That being said the final result shows a bay of ribs that were designed to withstand locally applied compressive rib loads using the concepts of topology optimisation. Minimisation of compliance objective function was used to define the total elastic energy in each rib while a mass fraction constraint set to lower the weight the final design, leading to a more efficient design.
Formatted: Heading 1, Line spacing: 1.5 lines, Outline numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Inden at: 0.5" Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines Formatted: Font: Arial
Formatted: Left
9. Bibliography
Formatted: Heading 1
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri)
NB P = RHO in the following text

Numerical Stability and Valid Solutions Approaches

Numerical stability is an important issue when working with optimization algorithms, and is currently one of the main areas of research, as well as finding other ways of performing topology optimization.
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: No underline Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: No underline Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: No underline Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: No underline
Implementing a lower bound on relative densities, e.g. _min = 0:001 (can be adjusted in the Abaqus ATOM environment), giving admissible densities of 0 < _min < _ < 1, prevents singularities in the finite element analysis. The following paragraph is based on [6, 17, 11]. Other significant causes of numerical problems treated in literature are, as earlier mentioned; checkerboards, mesh dependence and local optima, as well as the mere existence of a solution suitable for engineering interpretation (convergence). The different problems are shown in figure 2.8. The latter is, partially, dependent on the discretization of into N finite elements, as the real-world problem is ill-posed and is generally not solvable. In order to prevent scattering and rapid changes in the topology (thus ensure the convergence of a solution), further bounds are implemented in the algorithm. An upper limit to the perimeter of the set (thus reducing the number of holes by limiting the surface area) and local or global gradients of _ will solve the problem. The latter is found to be the most time consuming when solving the analysis, together with solving the equilibrium equations.
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Formatted: Heading 1, Adjust space betwe Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers
Early beliefs suggested that checker-boarding was some sort of optimal microstructure, but has later been found to be a result of bad numerical modelling. The solution to the checkerboard-problem is solved by using higher order elements (CTETRA10, etc.), as well as filtering techniques from image processing. The image filter makes the design sensitivity of each element dependent on the weighted average of neighbouring elements. Both solutions implies significantly increased computational time, however they are required in order to obtain robust results.
In its original form, the SIMP-model is suffering from mesh-dependence. Work referenced in [6] suggests that solutions to the checkerboard problem can help solve this problem as well. The problem with mesh-dependence is also linked to the problem of local minima. Gradientbased algorithms are known to have a weakness of not finding the global minima, rather finding local minima, and only small changes in initial simulation parameters (density update limits, initial volume fraction, etc.) can result in non-re-producible designs. Different approaches to the problem have been suggested by various researchers, e.g. the continuation scheme; to gradually increase the intermediate density penalty factor p through the process, as this will ensure that the process is convex, gradually converging to the desired 0-1 design. Starting out with a low value of p will ensure that the solver does not _jump_ to a 0-1 solution to soon, avoiding local minima effectively. Commercial software normally has one or more of these algorithms implemented, ensuring that the optimization results are valid and truly optimal.
A static analysis discipline
are assumed to be those stated in Ref, [XX]. Once a baseline analysis is complete we can then move on to the topology optimisation of the idealised rib. Initially we must begin the optimisation is SOL200 Density Method Also known as SIMP method
Studies Compare results of analysis before and after optimization. By changing the solution sequence in the subcase selection context it is also possible to access other results, like eigenmodes, frequency responses, etc.
Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Formatted: Heading 1, Adjust space betwe Latin and Asian text, Adjust space between Asian text and numbers Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Change fineness of the mesh. This will also change the results of the optimization. For a
fine mesh the influence of the Minimum Member Size Constraint can also be observed.
By adding the parameter DESPCH to the input file (see Appendix) intermediate designs can
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
be accessed. (DESPCH = 4 means a printout every 4 cycles).

Change loads or boundary constraints.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt
Top opt Insert geom Exact same as fea set up Except the results requested are speciefed with top opt And specify structur to optimise- specify opbjectibe constraints Minimise the volume and compliance Once achieved, set up further constrainst manufacturing consrainst / how to fabricate Why important to use
Out put back to Nastran Reimport result to pqatran for post process Discuss results
Comparative study of top opt to linear
Ask for vonmises results for new structure Discuss all results Valid changes Why used What assumption wher made and what ignored Where used in reality
Conclusions Recommendations Further investigatons required

Aim of thesis Provide a standardised approach to the topology optimisation of a wing box r Caca
Discussion
A more detailed analysis could be conducted within the aerodynamic analysis to completely validate the results by studying an airfoil that incorporates a flap angle to simulate takeoff.ib Bayandor, J., Scott, M.L. & Thomson, R.S., 2002. Parametric optimisation of
composite shell structures for an aircraft Krueger flap. Composite Structures, 57(1-4), pp.415423. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0263822302001095. Bendsoe, M.P. & Kikuchi, N., 1988. GENERATING OPTIMAL TOPOLOGIES IN STRUCTURAL DESIGN USING A HOMOGENIZATION METHOD. , 71, pp.197224. Bendsoe, M.P. & Sigmund, O., 2003. Topology Optimization Theory, Methods and Applications 2nd ed., Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Barcelona, Hong Kong, London, Milan, Paris, Tokyo: Springer. Available at: http://www.springer.com/materials/mechanics/book/978-3-540-42992-0. Christensen, P.W. & Klarbring, A., 2009. An Introduction to Structural Optimization. SOLID MECHANICS AND ITS APPLICATION, 153, p.214. Available at: www.springer.com/series/6557. Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2012. Quarterly energy prices. , (December), p.88. Available at: http://decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/prices/prices.aspx. Dippold, V., 2005. Investigation of Wall Function and Turbulence Model Performance within the Wind Code. In 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Aerospace Sciences Meetings. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-1002. Eschenauer, H. a & Olhoff, N., 2001. Topology optimization of continuum structures: A review. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 54(4), pp.331390. Available at: http://appliedmechanicsreviews.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=1 396619 [Accessed November 9, 2013]. H. C, R., N, M. & S, K., 2013. NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION OF FLOW TRANSITION FOR NACA-4412 AIRFOIL USING COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2(7), pp.27782785. Krog, L. et al., 2004. Topology Optimisation of Aircraft Wing Box Ribs. 10th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, pp.116. Available at: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2004-4481. Ma, Z.-D., Kikuchi, N. & Hagiwara, I., 1993. Structural topology and shape optimization for a frequency response problem. Computational Mechanics, 13(3), pp.157174. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00370133. MSC, 2007. User s Guide for Topology Optimization in MD and MSC Nastran, Niu, M.C., 1999. AIRFRAME STRESS ANALYSIS AND SIZING. , p.406.
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
Niu, M.C., AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL Practical Design Information and Data, Parliament, E., 2012. The EU Emissions Tranding Systems. , pp.321. Peery, D.J., 2011. Aircraft Structures, Dover Publications. Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EBd5oT3yM2wC. Quentin, F. & Co-chairman, A., 2007. ACARE: the European Technology Platform for Aeronautics. , 1(December), p.10. Review, A.S., 2009. CAA Paper 2009 / 03. , 1(2), p.56. Robinson G, A. & Stern, S., 1997. Corporate Creativity: How Innovation and Improvement Actually Happen, Berrett-Koehler. Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Corporate_Creativity.html?id=7Ec6ni5MfYC&redir_esc=y. ROELAND DE BREUKER, M.M.A.A.Z.G., 2013. A Generic Morphing Wing Analysis and Design Framework. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 1(1), p.16. Rozvany, G.I.N., 2001. Aims, scope, methods, history and unified terminology of computeraided topology optimization in structural mechanics. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 21(2), pp.90108. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s001580050174. Rozvany, G.I.N. (Ed. ., 2000. Topology Optimization of Structures and Composite Continua. Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering Computer Aided Engineering Design and Product Development, 1(1), p.123. Rozvany, G.I.N., Bendsoe, M.P. Kirsch, U., 1 . Layout Optimization of Structures. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 48(2), pp.41119. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3005097. S, S., 2010. Numerical Simulation of Viscous Incompressible Flow around NACA 64618 Subsonic Airfoil Using Computational Fluid Dynamics. NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, 1(1). Schobeiri, M.T., 2009. Fluid Mechanics for Engineers, T. Lewiski, G. I. N. Rozvany, T. Sok, K.B., 2013. Exact analytical solutions for some popular benchmark problems in topology optimization III: L-shaped domains revisited. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 47(6), pp.937942. -
Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numberin Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

Topology Optimization of A Wing Box Rib

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Topology Optimization of A Wing Box Rib

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Preliminary Design of an Aircraft Wing Structure to Meet Aggressive Torque Box Strain Energy and Mass Targets

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing: 1.5 lin Formatted: Font: 26 pt

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 20 pt Formatted: Centered

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing: 1.5 lin

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing: 1.5 lin

Formatted: Font: 16 pt, Not Highlight

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.2.5. 1.2.6. 1.3. 1.4. 2.

Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 2011 Dissertation Outline .......................................................................................................... 2011

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 5017 3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 5017

4.2.1. 4.2.2. 4.3.

Mission .............................................................................................................................. 5921 Flight Case ................................................................................................................. 6022

5.3.1. 5.3.2. 5.4.

Boundary Conditions......................................................................................................... 7827

5.4.1. 5.4.2. 5.4.3. 5.5. 5.6. 6.

Results ............................................................................................................................... 8329 Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 8631

6.1.1. 6.1.2. 6.1.3. 6.1.4. 6.1.5. 6.1.6. 6.1.7. 6.1.8. 7.

7.9.1. 7.9.2. 7.9.3. 7.9.4. 8.

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 12246

No table of contents entries found.

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: TOC Heading, Centered, Tab stops: Not at 6.26"

Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines

Formatted: Line spacing: 1.5 lines

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Comment [m1]: MAE 154B

Comment [m2]: Progress review & m5

Comment [m3]: See m5

Comment [m4]: See m5 Also An intro to Structural Opt

Comment [m5]: MAE 154B

Conclusion and Recommendations

Topology Optimisation Model Preparation Meshing Set-up Results

To the women of my life:

Contents, Table of figures and List of Tables List of Symbols/Nomenclature

Comment [m6]: MAE 154B

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Keep with next

1.2.1. Size Optimisation

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Shape optimisation allows changes to be made to the border of the geometry.

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line Formatted: Not Highlight

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Font: Not Bold

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight

Formatted: Font: Italic, Highlight

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Keep with next

Formatted: Centered, Line spacing: 1.5 lin

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

Formatted: Justified, Line spacing: 1.5 line

by the a respective number of