Aeronautical Engineering 3 (AER 3008)

Aircraft Structures Assignment

Group 14

Authors: Tawfiq Cali [40160520]

Shreya Sen [40156427]
Rushit Patel [40192817]
Module: Aeronautical Engineering 3 [AER 3008]
Lecturer: Dr Damian Quinn
Date: 27th November 2017
Question 1:

The aircraft wing was simplified as a cantilever beam carrying an upward distributed load:
𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑡 = 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑀. 𝑔. 𝑥/𝑏 2
Where MTOM is the maximum take-off mass, and b is the wing semi span and a point load
which is the weight of the Engine:
𝑊𝑒𝑛𝑔 = 𝑀𝑇𝑂𝑀. 𝑔
The engine is located at 0.7 of the wing semi span from the wing tip.
For calculating the bending moment and shear force distribution across the wing, the bending
moment and shear force equations were derived by using the method of sections cutting the
free body diagram as shown in figure 1 below in two places. One cut was made between the
engine and tip (0 < x < 10.5) and the second was made between the root and engine (10.5 <
x < 15).
The figure below shows the calculation of the bending moment and shear force equations:

i
 Figure 1.1: Shear Force and Bending Moment Equations

The Following equations for shear force and bending moment were derived.

3357.2𝑥 2
Shear Force 0 < x < 10.5:
2
3357.2𝑥 3
Bending Moment 0 < x < 10.5:
6
3357.2𝑥 2
Shear Force 10.5 < x < 15: + 29430 (Weng = 29430N)
2
3357.2𝑥 3
Bending Moment 10.5 < x < 15: + 29429(𝑥 − 10.5)
6
The shear force equations and the bending moment equations are positive because while
calculating the equations by hand the distance x was measured from the wing tip to ease
calculation.

Once the shear force and bending moment equations were derived, an excel spreadsheet was
set up to calculate values such as Lift, Shear force and bending moments at 1g and 2.5g at
various points along the span using a step size of 0.015. The first point (x = 0.015) is at the tip
and it moves along the span to the root (x = 15).

ii
 Figure 1.2. Excel Spreadsheet calculating Shear force and Bending moments 1g and 2.5g.
The excel spreadsheet then produced the following Shear force and bending moment
diagrams at 1g.

Sheer force diagram

400000
Sheer Force (N)

300000

200000

100000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Length of the spar (m)

Figure 1.3: Shear force diagram.

iii
 Bending moment diagram
2000000

Bending moment (Nm)

1500000

1000000

500000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Length of the spar (m)

Figure 1.4: Bending moment diagram.

Question 2:

The bending moment and shear force distribution will follow the same equations as derived in
question one above. However, considering the front spar will not take all of the Lift and engine
forces, the following working out was done to calculate what proportion of the forces the front
spar will take.

iv
v
Figure 2.1: Working out of Lift and engine forces on front spar.

vi
Once the proportion of lift and engine forces which would be acting on the front spar were
calculated. The Front spar spreadsheet was set up using a similar spreadsheet to task 1 but
adjusting the lift and point load values accordingly. The following spreadsheet was derived.

Figure 2.2: Front Spar Shear Force and Bending Moment Spreadsheet.
Using the aforementioned front spar spreadsheet, the following Shear force and bending
moment diagrams were plotted at 1g.

Shear Force Diagram Front Spar

200000
Shear Force (N)

150000

100000

50000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Length Spanwise from tip (m)

Figure 2.3: Shear Force Diagram for front spar at 1g

vii
 Bending Moment Diagram Front Spar
1200000

Bending Moment (Nm)

1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Length Spanwise from tip (m)

Figure 2.4: Bending moment diagram for front spar at 1g.

Question 3:
Once the shear force and bending moment distributions for the front spar were plotted using
excel we were then able to calculate the maximum bending and shear stresses. To calculate
the maximum bending stress the following formula was used.
𝜎 = 𝑀𝑦/𝐼
σ = Bending Stress
M = Bending Moment from task 2.
Y = Neutral Point
I = Moment of inertia.
The first step taken was to calculate the moment of inertia of each beam cross section along
the span. This was done using the parallel axis theorem. Each cross section was split into
various segments including the skin, and the moment of inertia of each cross section was the
sum of each segments I + ad^2. Once each cross-section moment of inertia was known the
1g, 2g and maximum bending stresses were calculated.

Maximum shear stresses are calculated using:

𝜏 = 𝑄/𝐴
𝜏 = Shear Stress
Q = Shear Force
A = Cross-sectional Area
The shear stress at 1g, 2.5g and max shear (150% safety factor) were calculated using the
shear forces from task 2. The figures below display the incremental values and the maximum
values are highlighted.

viii
 Figure 3.1: I-Beam 1g, 2.5g and maximum bending and shear stresses.

Figure 3.2: Box-Beam 1g, 2.5g and maximum bending and shear stresses.

ix
 Figure 3.3: C-Beam 1g, 2.5g and maximum bending and shear stresses.

Note: Stresses change with thickness these are not optimized values.

x
Question 4:

The unit load method was then used to calculate the tip deflection caused by the Lift force and
the engine weight. The tip deflection is the sum of the deflection due to bending and the
deflection due to shear. The figure below shows how the tip deflection due to bending is
analytically worked out.

Figure 4.1: Tip deflection due to Bending integral.

The virtual moment was calculated to be the local value of x (distance from tip). The Bending
moment was taken to be the bending moment at 1g.
The tip deflection due to shear was calculated using the following formula:

Figure 4.2: Tip deflection due to Shear integral.

xi
The virtual shear was taken to be 1 at all points along the span.
Since the cross-sectional area and moment of inertias are not constant throughout the length
of the beam, the equations were integrated using the Trapezium rule to calculate the deflection
due to bending as well as shear. This method has its shortcomings although a step size of
0.015 did help to alleviate its outliers. The integrated values were then verified using Euler’s
method.
1
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑧𝑖𝑢𝑚 𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒 = . ℎ[(𝑌0 + 𝑌𝑛 ) + 2( 𝑌1 + 𝑌2 + ⋯ + 𝑌𝑛 − 1)]
2
Where h is the step size: h = 0.015

Figure 4.3: Calculating Tip deflection due to bending and shear at 1g.

The previous procedure was then followed for all cross-section types.

xii
Question 5:
The same procedure was followed for calculating the deflections at the engine location as
shown in question 4. The only change was that the virtual moment from the tip to the engine
location was taken as zero. And the virtual moment from the engine location to the root was
taken as (X – 10.5).

Figure 5.1: Engine deflection due to bending.

xiii
The engine deflection due to shear integral was also derived as shown in task 4. However,
the virtual shear from the tip location to the engine were zero and the virtual shear from the
engine location to the root was one throughout as shown in the workings below.

Figure 5.2: Engine deflection due to shear.

The equations were once again integrated using the trapezium rule and verified using
Euler’s method. The value for G (Shear Modulus) was left out of the integral as it was
constant. Figure 17 below shows the Engine deflection due to both Bending (Blue) and
Shear (Red). The effect of shear on deflection is almost negligible (approximately 0.5%).

Figure 5.3: Calculating Engine Deflection due to Bending and Shear.

xiv
The Following Figures give the relationship between the Deflections due to bending and shear.
As you can see deflection due to shear does not affect the overall deflection at smaller
thicknesses. However, as the thickness is increased so is the effect of shear.

Table 5.1: I – Beam Tip and Engine Deflections at 0.08

Table 5.2: Box – Beam Tip and Engine Deflections at 0.08

Table 5.3: C – Beam Tip and Engine Deflections at 0.08

xv
Question 6:
For the structural optimisation element of the analysis we firstly recorded the performance
constraints and geometric constraints. Once that was done, We Linked the values for max
bending stress, max shear stress, Tip deflection, engine deflection and mass to where they
could be found in the spreadsheet. The table below shows the solver Table.

Table 6.1: Optimization Table.

We then ran a solver for each cross-section and material to find the mass at the first point of
failure. The following results were recorded.
I-Beam
Results: AL #1 AL #2 CFRP Com.
Optimum Thickness 0.0071686972 0.0067426803 0.0129364637
Optimum Height 0.6 0.6 0.6
Mass (kg) 185.279881724 174.791175962 186.96042471376500
Failure due to: Tip Deflection Ultimate Bending Ultimate Bending

Table 6.2: I – Beam optimized results.

B-Beam
Results: AL #1 AL #2 CFRP Com.
Optimum Thickness 0.0073786401 0.0069374043 0.0133298360
Optimum Height 0.6 0.6 0.6
Mass (kg) 236.2111167 222.8351069 237.1476393
Failure due to: Tip Deflection Ultimate Bending Ultimate Bending

Table 6.3: Box-Beam optimized results.

C-Beam
Results: AL #1 AL #2 CFRP Com.
Optimum Thickness 0.0075713151 0.0071155365 0.0136338915
Optimum Height 0.6 0.6 0.6
Mass (kg) 161.5759422 152.3037045 162.4491114
Failure due to: Tip Deflection Ultimate Bending Ultimate Bending
Table 6.4: C-Beam Optimized results.

xvi
 Spar Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)
Material Strength Constraint 144.6 0.651 0.071

AL #1 Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 185.3 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 146.5 0.642 0.070

Table 6.5: Optimised I beam alloy #1

Spar Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)

Material Strength Constraint 174.8 0.471 0.051

AL #2 Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 165.1 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 131.0 0.642 0.070

Table 6.6: Optimised I beam alloy #2

Spar Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)

Material Strength Constraint 187.0 0.316 0.034

CFRP Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 120.8 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 95.3 0.643 0.070

Table 6.7: Optimised I beam CFRP

Spar
Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)
Material Strength Constraint 126.0 0.652 0.070

AL #1 Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 161.6 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 126.7 0.648 0.070

Table 6.8: Optimised Box Beam Alloy #1

Spar
Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)
Material Strength Constraint 152.3 0.471 0.051

AL #2 Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 144.0 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 113.3 0.648 0.070

Table 6.9: Optimised Box beam Alloy #2

xvii
 Spar
Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)
Material Strength Constraint 162.4 0.316 0.034

CFRP Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 105.3 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 82.5 0.648 0.070

Table 6.10 Box Beam alloy CRFP

Spar Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)

Material Strength Constraint 184.4 0.652 0.070

AL #1 Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 236.2 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 185.4 0.648 0.070

Table 6.11 C Beam alloy #1

Spar Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)

Material Strength Constraint 222.8 0.471 0.051

AL #2 Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 210.6 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 165.8 0.647 0.070

Table 6.12 C Beam alloy #2

Spar Mass (kg) Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)

Material Strength Constraint 237.1 0.316 0.034

CFRP Wing Tip Deflection Constraint 153.9 0.500 0.054

Engine Deflection Constraint 120.6 0.649 0.070

Table 6.13 C Beam alloy CRFP

xviii
 Optimal Material: AL #2

Optimal Cross-Section: C-BEAM

Optimal Mass: 152.3037045

Wing Tip Deflection at Cruise: 0.6524114

Engine Deflection at Cruise: 0.050833

ULTIMATE
Critical Design Constraint:
BENDING

Table 6.14: Optimised design C Beam alloy #2

xix
Question 7:
Limitation/assumptions:

1. Using Euler’s method and the trapezium rule will not give you the same results as direct
integration. This is due to having a relatively high step size of 0.015m. The trapezium
rule also tends to under approximate the actual value. Therefore, over estimating the
maximum bending stress and maximum shear stress making the actual beam weigh
less.
2. Torsion/twist loading

Framework members under compressive loading are susceptible to column flexural

buckling analysis required, usually occurs in ‘open’ cross-section. Adding load to spar,
increases deflection. Torsional force act upwards depending on spar location or
downwards cancelling lift force.

xx
Question 8:
1. Elastic material behaviour
Unit load method assumes linear constructive material behaviour.
In real world applications, the material is nonlinear, this results in more strain per unit
load. Therefore, greater strain energy in each member and hence greater tip
deflection.

2. Structural idealisation is only considering 2d loading on spar.

in real wing-box structure a spar wold also be subjected to torsional twist loading
which increases the mass of the front spar.

xxi
Question 9:
The overall excel spreadsheet was designed with adjustability in mind as it was necessary for
us to understand the difference a change in certain variables would make on the overall
optimized geometry of each respective spar cross-section.

Question 9 (a) Design sensitivity due to a change in the engine location span wise.
The engine was shifted span-wise along the length of the front spar of the C-section Al alloy
#2 and the changes of the performance characteristics due to bending deflection and the
changes in the ultimate stresses were noted.

Engine Location Span-Wise vs Spar Mass

160
Spar Mass (kg)

155

150

145

140
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
Engine Spanwise Location towards root (m)

Figure 9.1: Engine Location Span wise vs Spar Mass.

Explanation: The Spar thicknesses and heights were kept constant for the duration of the
design sensitivity analysis. This was to make the comparing of engine location results as fair
as possible.

Engine Location Span-Wise vs Ultimate Bending

Stress
Maximum Bending Stress (Pa)

600000000

550000000

500000000

450000000
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
Engine Spanwise Location towards root (m)

Figure 9.2: Engine Location Span – wise vs max bending stress.

Explanation: As the engine location is moved closer to the root there is a linear increase in
bending stress. This is due to an increase in bending moment on the front spar as the engine
is moved closer to the root. The affect of the engine on the Bending moment doesn’t come
into play at all on the bending moment at 15m.

xxii
 Engine Location Span-Wise vs Ultimate Shear Stress
33000000
Maximum Shear Stress (Pa) 31000000

29000000

27000000

25000000

23000000
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
Engine Spanwise Location towards root (m)

Figure 9.3: Engine location span wise vs ultimate shear stress.

Explanation: There is an exponential relationship between the Engine location and the
maximum shear stress. As the engine moves closer to the root the maximum shear stress
increases as a result of increased shear force due to the affect of the engine weight coming
into play at a later point of the wing span towards the root.

Engine Location Span-Wise vs Tip Deflection

0.53
0.52
Tip Deflection (m)

0.51
0.5
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
Engine Spanwise Location (m)

Figure 9.4: Engine Location Span wise vs Tip Deflection

Explanation: The tip deflection gradually becomes larger as the engine is moved closer to the
root. This is again due to the bending moment being greater as the point load for the engine
doesn’t affect the bending moment until the root.

xxiii
 Engine Location Span-Wise vs Engine
Deflection
0.06
Engine Deflection (m) 0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15
Engine Spanwise Location (m)

Figure 9.5: Engine Location Span-wise vs Engine Deflection.

Explanation: As the engine location is moved closer to the root the engine deflection
decreases. This is due to the virtual moments and virtual shear values remaining zero until
the point where the engine effect is placed. When the virtual moments do come into play they
are minimized by the (Engine location of X-axis – Local X). For this reason, the engine
deflection due to shear and bending are minimized.

xxiv
Question 9 (b) – Design sensitivity due to a change in the engine location chordwise.
Changing the Engine location chord wise yielded the following results:
Engine Location Chordwise ( c) Mass of spar (kg) Ultimate Bending Ultimate Shear Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)
0.6 152.3037044 501139655.3 26260627.48 0.482125238 0.053240926
0.8 152.3037044 488069603.9 25481573.02 0.476558912 0.05203711
1 152.3037044 475000000 24702518.56 0.470992586 0.050833293
1.2 152.3037044 461929501.1 23923464.09 0.46542626 0.049629476
1.4 152.3037044 448859449.8 23144409.63 0.459859934 0.048425659

Table 9.1: Variation of performance to engine location Chordwise.

By varying the excel spreadsheet and changing factors such as the force of the engine on the
front spar we were able to calculate the variation of various performance characteristics to
engine placement chordwise. The following graphs visually show this change.

Engine Location Chordwise vs Spar Mass

160
158
156
154
Spar mass (kg)

152
150
148
146
144
142
140
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Engine chordwise location (c)

Figure 9.6: Engine Location Chordwise vs Spar Mass.

Explanation: Again, the Spar thicknesses and heights were kept constant for the duration of
the design sensitivity analysis. This was to make the comparing of engine location results as
fair as possible.

xxv
 Engine Location Chordwise vs Ultimate Bending
510000000
Stress

Maximum Bending Stress (Pa)

500000000
490000000
480000000
470000000
460000000
450000000
440000000
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Engine chordwise location (c)

Figure X: Engine Location Chordwise vs maximum bending stress.

Explanation: There was a linear relationship between the chordwise location and maximum
bending. As the engine was moved further away from the spar chordwise, there was a linear
decrease in maximum bending. This was due to a bigger point load as the front spar has to
work harder to achieve equilibrium. This was because the increased moment arm increased
the force of the rear spar therefore to achieve equilibrium the front spar point load was
increased. Again, as previously stated the point load offsets the bending moment and so
added force downwards decreases the bending moment.

Engine Location Chordwise vs Ultimate Shear

Stress
Maximum Shear Stress (Pa)

26500000
26000000
25500000
25000000
24500000
24000000
23500000
23000000
22500000
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Engine chordwise location (c)

Figure 9.7: Engine location chordwise vs ultimate shear stress.

Explanation: There was a linear relationship between engine chordwise location and maximum
shear stress. As the engine was pushed further away from the front spar the maximum shear
stress reduced. This was due to the maximum shear force value decreasing as the point load
of the engine increased to support equilibrium.

xxvi
 Engine Location Chordwise vs Tip Deflection
0.485

Tip Deflection (m) 0.48

0.475
0.47
0.465
0.46
0.455
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Engine chordwise location (c)

Figure 9.8: Engine location chordwise vs Tip deflection.

Explanation: There was an inverse relationship between the chordwise location of the engine
and the tip deflection. This can be traced back to the shear force and bending moment values.
As the chordwise location grows so does the moment arm from the front spar therefore the
rear spar force increases and so the point load offsets the bending moment. Therefore, the tip
deflection decreases.

Engine Location Chordwise vs Engine Deflection

0.054
Engine Deflection (m)

0.053
0.052
0.051
0.05
0.049
0.048
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Engine chordwise location (c)

Figure 9.9: Engine location chordwise vs Engine Deflection.

Explanation: There was an inverse relationship between the chordwise location of the engine
and the engine deflection. As the engine moves further away from the chord the engine
deflection decreases. This is due to the maximum shear force and bending moments
decreasing due to an increased point load.

xxvii
Question 9 (c) – Design Sensitivity due to a change in engine mass.
By changing engine mass:
Engine Mass (kg) Mass of spar (kg) Ultimate Bending Ultimate Shear Tip Deflection (m) Engine Deflection (m)
1000 152.3037044 562133228.4 29896214.97 0.508101426 0.058858738
2000 152.3037044 518566390.5 27299366.76 0.489547006 0.054884602
3000 152.3037044 475000000 24702518.56 0.470992586 0.050833293
4000 152.3037044 431432714.6 22319575.06 0.452438166 0.04682057
5000 152.3037044 387865876.6 22319575.06 0.433883747 0.042807847

Table 9.2: Variation of performance to Engine mass.

By varying the engine mass from 1000 – 5000 kg we were able to plot the variation of the
various performance values shown above. The graphs below give a visual representation of
this variation.

Engine Mass vs Spar Mass

160
158
156
154
Axis Title

152
150
148
146
144
142
140
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Engine Mass (kg)

Figure 9.10: Engine mass vs Spar mass.

Explanation: Again, the mass was the variable that was kept constant. This was to make the
comparing of engine location results as fair as possible.

xxviii
 Engine Mass vs Ultimate Bending Stress

Maximum Bending stress(Pa)

550000000

500000000

450000000

400000000

350000000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Engine Mass (kg)

Figure 9.11: Engine mass vs Ultimate Bending Stress.

Explanation: As the mass of the engine increases the bending stress decreases this is due to
the bending moment decreasing as the increased point load offsets the bending moment due
to lift. The greater downward force slows down the bending moment towards the root. Hence,
decreasing the maximum shear stress.

Engine mass vs Ultimate Shear Stress

32000000

30000000
Maximum Shear Stress (Pa)

28000000

26000000

24000000

22000000

20000000
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Engine Mass (kg)

Figure 9.12: Engine mass vs Ultimate Shear Stress.

Explanation: The maximum shear stress also decreases in this case exponential with an
increase in engine mass. This is again due to a higher point load off setting the upward
trajectory of the shear force and hence minimizing the shear stress.

xxix
 Engine Mass vs Tip Deflection
0.52
0.51
Tip Deflection (m) 0.5
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Engine Mass (kg)

Figure 9.13: Engine mass vs Tip deflection.

Explanation: There was a linear relationship between the engine mass and the tip deflection,
as the engine mass increased the tip deflection decreased. This effect can be traced back to
the decrease in bending moment and shear force due to increased mass. As the shear stress
and bending stress decrease so does the tip deflection.

Engine Mass vs Engine Deflection

0.06
0.058
Engine Deflection (m)

0.056
0.054
0.052
0.05
0.048
0.046
0.044
0.042
0.04
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Engine Mass (kg)

Figure 9.14: Engine mass vs Engine Deflection.

Explanation: There was a linear relationship between the engine mass and engine deflection.
Again this can be traced back to a decrease in bending moment and shear force due to
increased engine mass which decreases the bending and shear stress, hence, decreasing the
engine deflection.
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii