Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Load Design
Loads
zone
Fatigue
Loads
zone
Number of appearances
during the aircraft life
Figure 8-1
Boundary of
ultimate loads
Boundary of
limit loads
Figure 8-2
Apart from the normal conditions, two additional scenarios must be considered:
1. Loads in case of failures of aircraft systems.
2. Loads to be combined with damaged structure.
The aircraft loads due to failures of systems, such as flight control system, hydraulic and
electrical systems, sensors (see figure 8-3), fuel system, etc. are multiplied by factors of
safety (FS) between 1 and 1.5 and then applied as ultimate loads.
Figure 8-3
Schematic diagram of A330 EFCS (Electronic Flight Control System)
Depending on the consequences of the failure, these loads are classified in two groups:
Loads at the time of occurrence, when the failure provokes a transient condition that
develops significant aircraft loads. The factor of safety FS to be applied depends on
the probability of the failure per flight hour.
Loads for continuation of flight, when the failure originates a degraded condition that
worsens the normal flight and/or ground loads. The factor of safety FS depends not
only on the probability of the failure but also on the subsequent flight time with the
aircraft exposed to this scenario.
The failures can be detected or undetected. In the first case, realistic pilot corrective
actions can be considered at the time of occurrence and, if needed, operational limitations
can be established for continuation of flight.
The loads for structural damage tolerance account for two possible scenarios in which the
structure is not intact. In these cases the set of applicable loads is relaxed with respect to
the normal conditions. The two situations are:
Fail-safe loads, to be combined with structural degradation due to internal failures
by fatigue and other sources. The residual structure must withstand with a factor of
safety FS=1 the normal loads up to the maximum cruise speed. That is, the limit
loads are considered directly as ultimate loads.
Discrete source loads, to be applied when there is a structural damage due to
external actions (for instance a bird strike, figure 8-4). The damaged structure must
withstand with a factor of safety FS=1 the loads which are reasonably expected to
occur after that.
On the other hand, the main design parameters having an influence on flight loads are
collected in table 8-6.
Figure 8-5(a)
Typical potential sizing of a/c components by flight load conditions
X (FZA+FZT) = NZmg
Z
Figure 8-6
Figure 8-7 depicts the manoeuvring envelope, also known as diagram of manoeuvre,
established by CS/FAR 25.333 in terms of required vertical load factor NZ versus
equivalent airspeed (EAS).
NZ NZmax
VA VC VD
EAS
-1
Figure 8-7
VS1NZ1/2 VS1NZ1/2
OEM MTOM
1g
EAS
VS1 Va VS1 VA
OEM MTOM
Figure 8-8
Difference between VA and corner speed due to weight effects
VS1NZ1/2
CLmax
1g
EAS
Mach VS1 VA Va
Figure 8-9
Difference between VA and corner speed due to compressibility effects
Next figure shows a typical variation of the design speeds V A, VC and VD with altitude.
Usually the zone at high altitude is limited by maximum Mach: design cruise Mach (MC)
and design dive Mach (MD).
In this zone VA would
Altitude be equal to VC
hmo
VA
VS1N1/2 in the
theoretical case of
constant CLmax Va VC VD
EAS
Figure 8-10
Typical design airspeeds
Mass Max.
fuel
MTOM
MZFM
OEM
Xcg
Fwd c.g. Aft c.g.
Figure 8-11
Figure 8-12
Figure 8-13
Example of fuel tanks (A330)
At fixed NZ, taking as starting point the MZFM, the addition of fuel to the aircraft produces
the following effects on the wing:
Adding fuel always requires additional lift in the wing with respect to MZFM.
If the fuel is stored in tanks outside the wing, it is equivalent to additional payload.
As this worsens the flight wing loads, the fuel sequence is usually defined to fill
firstly the wing tanks and afterwards the fuselage and/or HTP tanks.
If the fuel is received in the wing tanks, it produces wing loads alleviation due to the
inertia loads. Then:
o From the point of view of wing shear force (FZ), extra aerodynamic lift and
extra inertia alleviation are approximately counterbalanced. Even the net
load decreases, because extra lift is usually not supported to a 100% by the
wing, while the extra inertia load (relief) is.
o Wing bending moment (MX) is driven by the relative position of the fuel tank
c.g. with respect to the lateral aerodynamic centre of pressure (usually about
40% of wing span). In general, filling outer tanks decreases the bending
moment while filling inner tanks increases the bending moment at wing root.
Lift NZ W(a/c)
Bending moment
at wing root
Figure 8-14
Next diagram shows a typical evolution of the wing root bending moment at fixed NZ.
Figure 8-15
8.3.1 Overview
Balanced conditions at given NZ are calculated in 2 ways:
Vertical turn (pull-up & push-over)
Level turn
These conditions involve:
Null angular accelerations
Steady or quasi-steady angular rates at given NZ
Symmetric or quasi-symmetric flight conditions
Balanced NZ conditions are potentially critical for wing, HTP, rear fuselage and powerplant.
q NZ 1
g
(8.5)
V
R
L = NZ mg
mg
Figure 8-16
L = NZ mg
R
q
mg r
Figure 8-17
Figure 8-18
The change of lift coefficient is given by (8.11), where CL is the lift slope of the
complete aircraft:
CL CL CL Vgust V (8.11)
Figure 8-19
Sharp-edged
gust
Typical
(1-cos) gust
Figure 8-20
Actual response of the aircraft to smooth gusts is less than predicted by the preceding
analysis for step gusts. Inserting the gust alleviation factor Kg yields next equation:
K g CL V Vgust
N Zgust 1 (8.15)
2 ( W / S)
In previous equations, V and Vgust are true airspeeds (TAS) while is the actual density.
Generally it is better to use equivalent airspeeds, replacing equation (8.15) by (8.16) that
combines:
0 = sea-level density
VE and VEgust = flight EAS and gust EAS, respectively
K g 0 CL VE VEgust
NZgust 1 (8.16)
2 ( W / S)
This equation (8.16) lets to compare gust loads with manoeuvre loads by means of the
load factor NZ. Note that:
Regulations establish NZmax for pull-up manoeuvres.
Regulations specify the gust intensity (VEgust); then NZgust grows with flight speed.
High speed aircrafts tend to be sized by gusts while low speed aircrafts tend to be
sized by manoeuvres.
Particularly, the Pratt-formula (8.17) has been widely used to formulate Kg for gusts with
shape (1-cos) and gust length equal to 25MAC. The non-dimensional mass coefficient ,
given by equation (8.18), where c is the MAC, accounts for the adaptation of the aircraft
to the gust. This coefficient indicates the ratio between inertia and aerodynamic vertical
forces. Note that light aircrafts develop more alleviation (smaller Kg) than heavy aircrafts
because they have more tendency to be shifted by the wind, decreasing the effective angle of
attack
0.88
Kg (8.17)
5.3
2m
(8.18)
S c CL
0.8
0.6
Kg
0.4
0.2
0
0 50 100 150
Figure 8-21
Figure 8-22
Gust intensity depends on altitude, speed, operational parameters and gradient H, as
given by equation (8.19), where Fg is an operational alleviation factor (around 0.9):
1/ 6
H
Uds Uref Fg (8.19)
350
Reference gust velocities are:
o At VC: Uref (EAS) = 56 fps at s/l, 44 fps at 15 kft, 26 fps at 50 kft.
o At VD: 50% Uref (EAS).
The analysis must take into account unsteady aerodynamic characteristics and all
significant structural degrees of freedom including the rigid body motions. Such analysis is
complex and needs a refined structural model. However, it is possible to apply the
following simplified method for preliminary design purposes:
Pratt-formula can be applied at gust gradient 12.5MAC.
Once estimated NZ, the same equations (8.1) and (8.2) used for balanced
manoeuvres are valid to estimate FZ and MX at wing root.
Some dynamic-tuning loads adjustment factor (based on previous experience) can
be applied on top of the previous results.
Vertical
gust
25 ft/s
Head-on gust
Lateral
gust
Figure 8-23
These conditions are potentially critical for wing torsion, flaps, horizontal tailplane and rear
fuselage.
8.5 Bibliography
References for chapter 8:
8R1. D. P. Raymer.
Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach.
AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) Education Series.
1st edition 1989 5th edition 2012.
8R2. A. K. Kundu.
Aircraft Design.
Cambridge University Press.
2010.
8R3. D. Howe.
Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis.
Professional Engineering Publishing.
2000.
8R4. T. Lomax
Structural Loads Analysis for Commercial Transport Aircraft
AIAA Education Series, 1996.
8R5. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Certification Specification and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large
Aeroplanes, CS-25
Amendment 16, Mar-2015.
8R6. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Title 14 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 25: Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes
Amendment 25-141, Sep-2015.