Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Просмотров: 1.5K

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Aircraft Wing rib designing
- Wing Rib Stress Analysis and Design Optimization
- VIP_Wing Layout Structure_short Introduction
- WING SPAR Presentation
- Structure Optimisation Wing Aircraft
- Aircraft Design Project 2
- Example Aircraft Loading Calculations
- Wing Spar Calculation
- Aircraft Structures 1
- Aeroelastic Loads Modeling for Composite Aircraft Design Support
- Fuselage Stress Analysis
- 44848151 WING SPAR Presentation
- adp 2 final
- MSc Aerospace Dissertation
- Lecture on Airplanes Aerodynamics
- Analysis of Box Beams 7
- Aircraft Design Day1
- Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout
- Airfoil Selection
- Aircraft Design

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 94

INTRODUCTION

Airplanes may be subjected to a variety of loading conditions in flight. The structural

design of the aircraft involves the estimation of the various loads on the aircraft structure and

designing the airframe to carry all these loads, providing enough safety factors, considering

the fact that the aircraft under design is a multirole fighter aircraft. It is obviously impossible

to investigate every loading condition that the aircraft may encounter; it becomes necessary

to select a few conditions such that each one of these conditions will be critical for some

structural member of the airplane.

Using the V-n diagram two important load factor values can be plotted, which are

1) Limit load factor- Value of load factor corresponding to which there is

Permanent structural deformation

2) Ultimate Load factor – Value of load factor corresponding to which there is

outright structural failure.

33

VELOCITY – LOAD FACTOR (V – n) DIAGRAM

The various external loads on the airplane are usually represented on a graph

of the limit load factor n plotted against the indicated airspeed (IAS). This diagram is known

better as the V-n diagram. The indicated airspeeds are used, since all air loads are

proportional to q or . The value of q is the same for the air density ρ and the actual

airspeed at altitude, as it is for the standard sea level density and the IAS. The V-n diagram

is therefore the same for all altitudes if indicated airspeeds are used. However, in this design

case, corrections involving compressibility have to be taken into consideration while

calculating the True airspeeds from Indicated airspeeds. Therefore, calculations involving

high speeds have been performed with respect to sea-level conditions only.

1

ρV∞ 2 SCl

n= 2

W

The load factor n is basically the ratio of the wing lift produced to the weight of the

aircraft and hence represents the amount of acceleration produced along the z-axis of the

plane. For supersonic fighter aircraft, the ultimate positive load factor ranges from 7.75 to

8.67 and negative load factor between -3 and -4.5. The positive and negative load factors are

arbitrarily chosen as 7.75 and -3 respectively.

For level flight at unit load factor, the value of V corresponding to CLmax would be the

stalling speed of the airplane. In accelerated flight, the maximum lift coefficient can be

achieved at higher speeds. The wing is usually analyzed for a coefficient of 1.25CLmax, and

various values of n are obtained by varying the velocity, until the ultimate positive load factor

is reached. It can be made out from this boundary that it is impossible to maneuver at speeds

and load factors corresponding to points above or to the left of line because this would

represent positive high angles of attack (+HAA). This load factor is usually arrived at by

considering both aerodynamic and structural design capabilities.

The structural design diving speed is usually specified as 1.2 times the cruise velocity,

or is limited by Compressibility effects. Here, a never exceed Mach no. (Mne) of 2.5 and the

design diving speed were considered and were found to be of the same order. The line of the

34

V-n diagram represents this speed and is also known as the buffeting boundary. The velocity

at this boundary is 3172.5 km/hr.

load factor region which is indicative of inverted flight. The negative maneuver boundary is

seldom made use of in transport aircraft. However, the gust loads in the negative region are

indispensable and can be more severe than the manoeuvre load factor itself.

Thus in order to establish the safe flight envelope of our aircraft, we have plotted as per FAR

25 norms,

V – n gust diagram

V – n MANOEUVRE DIAGRAM

1 – g stall speed VS

For purposes of constructing a V – n diagram, the 1-g stall speed VS, may be

computed from:

35

Where: WFDGW is the flight design gross weight. For most aircraft: WFDGW equals the

maximum design take-off weight.

C Ncontrable = 1.1*1.16

C Ncontrable = 1.278

Vs = 16.08 m/s

The positive design limit load factor, nlimpos, must be selected by the designer, but must

meet the following condition:

nlimneg = -1

≥ 2.24

36

The negative design limit load factor nlimneg, must be selected by the designer, but must

meet the following condition:

nlimneg ≥ 0.4 nlimpos for normal and for utility category airplanes

therefore,

3 ≥ 0.4 × 1

3 ≥ 0.4

The design maneuvering speed VA , must be selected by the designer, but must satisfy the

following relationship:

VA ≥ 70.76m/s

The design cruise speed VC, must be selected by the designer, but must satisfy the following

relationship:

17540.24

VC ≥ 33

1.224*86.7

VC ≥ 424.25

37

For our designed aircraft the cruise speed is VC = 424.25m/s which satisfy the above

condition.

VD ≥ 1.5 VC

VD ≥ 710.99m/s

For our designed aircraft the diving speed is VD = 710.99m/s which satisfy the above

condition.

38

V – n MANOEUVRE DIAGRAM

Cl=1.16

1

ρV∞ 2 SCl

n= 2

W

AT ALTITUDE = 2000m

n = 5.1409 × 10-5 V2

(-n) V (+n)

0 0 0

-0.12 50 0.122

-0.22 100 0.78

-0.36 150 1.2

-0.48 200 1.8

-0.66 250 2.2

-0.78 300 2.6

-1 350 3

39

GUST V – n DIAGRAM

The gust V-n diagram is given by the following formulae

Where

40

Substituting the values in the given equations we get,

2(WFDGW / S )

µg =

ρ CgCLα

2*17540.24

µg =

1.224* 4.08*9.81*0.1*6.7

µ g = 82.59

.88µ g

kg = (subsonic aircraft)

5.3 + µ g

41

kg = 0.826

We know,

42

43

EX NO:3 WING

INTRODUCTION TO COMPONENTS OF THE

WING:

FUEL TANKS

The study of the fuel tanks and its corresponding feed systems is of importance to us

because, as the fuel is stored in the wings and also externally. Thus structural analysis results

are incorporated here to ensure that the fuel tanks are positioned suitably and are adequate in

capacity so that our fighter aircraft has an endurance of 1.5 hours. The C.G analysis carried

out in ADP-I let us know that our aircraft’s C.G remains within acceptable limits even on

consumption of fuel consumption.

Internally, the fuel is carried in the wings. The wing tanks are capable of withstanding

up to 17200lb of fuel. Externally however we had two choices, conformal tanks or drop

tanks. Drop tanks are heavy and are an aerodynamic liability (drag). Drop tanks severely

hamper agility, and our aircraft being a fighter requires excellent manoeuvrability. Taking

into consideration the above mentioned points, we have adopted conformal fuel tanks.

Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) are additional fuel tanks fitted closely to the profile of

an aircraft which extend either the range or time on station of the aircraft, with little

aerodynamic penalty compared to the same fuel capacity carried in external drop tanks.

Conformal tanks are plumbed into the aircraft, and can only be removed on the ground. CFTs

also have the advantages of not significantly increasing an aircraft's radar cross-section, and

allowing a higher maximum speed than with drop tanks. We have also incorporated in-flight

refuelling using a probe and drogue system.

44

Tank 1

Tank 2

Tank 3

rib spacing should be determined to ensure adequate overall buckling support to the

distributed flanges. This requirement may be considered to give a maximum pitch of

the ribs. In practice other considerations are likely to determine the actual rib

locations such as:

a) Hinge positions for control surfaces and attachment/operating points for flaps,

slats, and spoilers.

b) Attachment locations of power plants, stores and landing gear structure.

c) A need to prevent or postpone skin local shear or compression buckling, as

opposed to overall buckling. This is especially true in a mass boom form of

construction.

d) Ends of integral fuel tanks where a closing rib is required. When the wing is

unswept, it is usual for the ribs to be arranged in the flight direction and thereby

define the aerofoil section. While the unswept wing does give torsional stiffness,

the ribs are heavier, connections are more complex and in general the

disadvantages overweigh the gains.

Ribs placed at right angles to the rear spar are usually he most satisfactory in

facilitating hinge pick-ups, but they do cause layout problems in the root regions. Some

designs overcome this by fanning the ribs so that the inclination changes from

perpendicular to the spars outboard to stream-wise over the inboard portion of the wing.

45

There is always the possibility of special exceptions, such as power plant or store

mounting ribs, where it may be preferable to locate them in the flight direction.

pitched ribs, span-wise members being absent. Providing care is taken in the detail design

of the skin attachment it is possible to arrange for little span-wise end load to be diffused

into the leading edge and buckling of the relatively light structure is avoided. This may

imply short spam-wise sections. The presence of thermal de-icing, high-lift devices or

other installations in the leading edge also has a considerable influence upon the detail

design. Bird strike considerations are likely to be important.

Installations also affect the trailing edge structure where much depends

upon the type of flaps, flap gear, controls and systems. It is always aerodynamically

advantageous to keep the upper surfaces as complete and smooth as is possible. Often

spoilers can be incorporated in the region above flaps or hinged doors provided for ease

of access. The hinges should be flexible and frequently use a continuous, ‘piano’, type.

AUXILIARY SURFACES

The structural layout of the auxiliary lifting surfaces is generally similar to that

of the wing but there are differences, in part due to the smaller size and in part due to the

need to provide hinges or supports. The latter implies that each auxiliary surface is a well-

defined.

number of discrete hinges, although continuous, piano type, hinges may be used for

secondary tabs. To some degree the number and location of the discrete hinges depends upon

the length of the control. The major points to be considered are:

a) The bending distortion of the control relative to the fixed surface must be

limited so that the nose of the control does mot fouls the fixed shroud.

b) The control hinge loads and the resulting shear forces and bending moments

should be equalized as far as is possible.

46

c) Structural failure of a single hinge should be tolerated unless each hinge is of

fail-safe design and can tolerate cracking one load path.

These points suggest the use of a relatively large number of discrete hinges but there

are difficulties associated with this solution there are the obvious loads likely to be induced in

the control by the distortion under load of the main surface to which it is attached may be

significant. These problems do not arise if only two hinge points are used as any span-wise

distortion or misalignment can be accommodated by designing one of the hinges so that it can

rotate about a vertical axis. When more than two hinges are used the ‘floating’ hinge concept

cannot fully overcome the problems. However, it is possible to design the control surface so

that it is flexible in bending and indeed the more hinges there are the easier this is to

accomplish. One hinge must always be capable of reacting side loads in the plane of the

control surface. The hinges are supported near to the aft extremities of the main surface ribs.

on one side of the aircraft may be pivot about a point on its root chord. Clearly in this case,

the structural considerations are dominated by the need to react all the forces and moments at

the pivot and operating points. Thus the structural layout may consist of an integral root rib or

pivot or stub spar arrangement to which is attached a number of shear webs fanning out

towards the extremities of the surface, possibly in conjunction with full depth honeycomb.

High skin shear loading is inevitable due to the need to bring the loads to the two

concentrated points. Shear loads due to torsion may be limited by locating the operating point

on the root rib some distance away from the pivot.

Some designs incorporate the pivot into the moving surface with the support

bearings on the fuselage, while on others the pivot is attached to the fuselage and the bearings

are in the surface. The bearings should be as far apart as local geometry allows to minimize

loads resulting from the reaction of the surface bending moment.

There is a wide variety of leading and trailing edge high-lift systems. Some types

are simply hinged to the wing, but many require some degree of chord-wise extension. This

can be achieved by utilizing a linkage, a mechanism, a pivot located outside the aerofoil

47

contour or, perhaps most commonly, by some from of track. Trailing edge flaps may consist

of two or more separate chord-wise segments, or slats, to give a slotted surface and these

often move on tracts attached to the main wing structure.

The majority of flaps and slats are split into span wise segments of no greater lengths

than can be supported at two or three locations. As with control surfaces, the locations of the

support points are established so as to minimize local deformations since the various slots are

critical in determining the aerodynamic performance. Sometimes the actuation may be

located at a different pan wise position from the support points. This is often a matter of

convenience, layout clearances, and the like.

The structural design of flaps is similar to that of control surfaces but it s simpler as

there is no requirement for mass balance, the operating mechanisms normally being

irreversible. On large trailing edge flap components, there is often more than one spar

member. Especially when this assists in reacting the support or operating loading. There may

be a bending stiffness problem in the case of relatively small chord slat segments and full

depth honey combs can be used to deal with this. Figure shows a cross section of a typical

slotted flap of metal construction but the same layout applies if composite materials are used.

In many cases the slipstream or afflux from power plants impinges upon a flap and

this is likely to require special consideration in the design. Additional stiffness is not

necessarily the answer because acoustic fatigue characteristics are often worse at higher panel

frequencies. However the extensive local support offered by sandwich construction, either in

panel or full depth configuration, is usually beneficial. This leads naturally to the application

of reinforced plastic materials. Trailing edge flaps tends to be prone to damage by debris

thrown up by the landing gear and it may be desirable to use Kevlar or glass rather than

carbon fibers for the lower surface, but material compatibility needs to be considered.

The joint of the fuselage with the wing is subjected to heavy load inputs and there is

a potential for considerable relative distortion. This distortion is usually accepted and the

wing centre box is built completely into the fuselage, the resulting constraint stresses being

allowed for. It is usual for the wing structure of large aircraft to include a production joint at

the side of the fuselage and this is virtual essential for swept wings.

48

It is sometimes possible to arrange the wing pick-ups as pivots on the neutral axis or

set them on swinging links. In this case, the relative motion is allowed to take place and there

are no induced stresses. Structural assembly of the wing to the fuselage is relatively simple.

Similar remarks also apply to the attachment of the horizontal stabilizer when the

incidence setting is fixed. If the surface is also used for trimming or control, some special

consideration is necessary in the location of the pivot and actuation fittings. These usually

require a relatively heavily loaded rib or a pair of ribs, and where possible at least one of the

attachment points should be close to the rib or spar intersection. It is desirable to arrange for

the lateral distance between the pivots to be as great as possible to minimize pivot loads

resulting from asymmetric span-wise loading. When the controls are manually operated, it is

simplest if the elevator-hinge line and pivot coincide.

Fins are usually built integrally with the rear fuselage. This is mainly due to the

different form of loading associated with the geometric asymmetry

EX NO:3A

AIR LOADS ON WING

With the Vn-diagram complete, the actual loads and load distribution on the wing can

be determined. Before the actual structural members can be sized and analyse, the loads they

will sustain must be determined. Aircraft loads estimation, a separate discipline of aerospace

engineering, combines aerodynamics, structures and weights.

Initially we have to calculate the lift produced by the wings. Once the lift on the

wings is known, the spanwise and chordwise load distributions can be determined.

According to classical wing theory, the span wise lift or load distribution is

proportional to the circulation at each station. A vortex lifting –line calculation will yield the

spanwise lift distribution. For an elliptical plan form wing, the lift and load distributions is of

elliptical shape.

For a nonelliptical wing, a good semi-empirical method for spanwise load estimation

is known as Schrenk’s Approximation. This method assumes that the load distribution on an

49

untwisted wing has a shape that is the average of the actual planform shape and an elliptical

shape of same and area. The total area under the lift load curve must sum to the required total

lift.

To find the lift distribution in aircraft wing, the following procedure is followed:

CALCULATIONS:

We know,

π ab Planform Area

=

4 2

Where; a=

a = 14.27/2 = 7.135m

π x 7.135 x b / 4 = 39.35/2

b = 3.511m

x2 y 2

+ =1

a 2 b2

x2

⇒ y 2 = b2 1 − 2

a

50

x2

∴ y = b 2 1 − 2

a

Using the above equation, for various values of x, the values of y are found and the

ellipse is drawn

X (m) Y (m)

0 3.511

0.25 3.5088411

0.5 3.5023684

0.75 3.4915490

1 3.4763453

1.25 3.4566994

1.5 3.4325350

1.75 3.4037560

2 3.3702440

2.25 3.3318563

2.5 3.2884222

2.75 3.2397387

3 3.1855651

3.25 3.1256159

3.5 3.0595517

3.75 2.9869668

4 2.9073728

4.25 2.8201764

4.5 2.7246477

4.75 2.6198753

5 2.5046998

5.25 2.3776095

5.5 2.2365744

5.75 2.0787580

6 1.8999834

6.25 1.6936266

6.5 1.4479424

6.75 1.1377324

7 0.6797537

7.135 0

.

The midpoint of the difference between the elliptic curve and the planform shape are

marked and joined together. This is required Schrenk’s curve.

51

The load intensity at each grid point on the wing plan-form is calculated as follows.

Lift on each element is calculated using the following formula and a graph is plotted

between lift on element and wing span.

Lift on element = Load intensity at grid point × Distance between two grid points

52

Next, the shear force diagram, the bending moment diagram and the torque diagram

are to be drawn. It can be drawn using the following procedure. Here, the wing is assumed to

be a cantilever beam.

At x = 0, = = 4.5871 m

At x = , = = 1.3761 m

A = 4.5871; B = -0.45

= 4.5871 – 0.45x

To find the value of K, first the total structural weight of the wing is taken as the wing load.

Using the above value of K, the wing structural loads at other locations are calculated

and tabulated.

The resultant can be found as the difference between the lift on element and the

structural load at each station.

span Yi

INTENSITY LOAD INTENSITY INTENSITY

0 3.511 1355.07 3528.679 2173.609

0.25 3.5088411 1354.236 3357.717 2003.481

0.5 3.5023684 1351.738 3191.001 1839.263

0.75 3.4915490 1347.562 3028.529 1680.967

1 3.4763453 1341.695 2870.303 1528.608

53

1.25 3.4566994 1334.112 2716.321 1382.209

1.5 3.4325350 1324.786 2566.584 1241.798

1.75 3.4037560 1313.679 2421.093 1107.414

2 3.3702440 1300.745 2279.846 979.101

2.25 3.3318563 1285.929 2142.844 856.915

2.5 3.2884222 1269.166 2010.087 740.921

2.75 3.2397387 1250.376 1881.575 631.199

3 3.1855651 1229.468 1757.308 527.84

3.25 3.1256159 1206.331 1637.286 430.955

3.5 3.0595517 1180.833 1521.509 340.676

3.75 2.9869668 1152.819 1409.976 257.157

4 2.9073728 1122.100 1302.689 180.589

4.25 2.8201764 1088.446 1199.646 111.2

4.5 2.7246477 1051.577 1100.849 49.272

4.75 2.6198753 1011.140 1006.296 4.844

5 2.5046998 966.688 915.989 50.699

5.25 2.3776095 917.638 829.926 87.712

5.5 2.2365744 863.205 748.108 115.097

5.75 2.0787580 802.296 670.535 131.761

6 1.8999834 733.298 597.207 136.091

6.25 1.6936266 653.654 528.124 125.53

6.5 1.4479424 558.833 463.286 95.547

6.75 1.1377324 531.578 402.693 128.885

7 0.6797537 262.350 346.345 83.995

Plotting the variation of the lift, structural load and resultant load intensity along the

spanwise direction.

54

55

56

SHEAR FORCE AND BENDING MOMENT DIAGRAM

To determine the shear force and bending moment diagram for the wing we assume that the

wing is a cantilever beam with the root end fixed while the tail end is free.

ShearForce Rx =

Rx 2

Bending Moment =

2

Tabulation for the values of shear force and bending moment at various position along the

span is as follows.

RESULTANT

SPAN SHEAR FORCE(Kg) BENDING MONENT(Kg-m)

INTENSITY(Kg/m)

0 2173.609 0 0

57

4.25 111.2 472.6 1004.275

58

EX NO:3A

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF WING

Wing is the major lift producing surface. Therefore, the analysis has to be very

accurate. The structural analysis of the wing consists of the following steps.

1) Spar Definition

SPAR DEFINITION

The maximum bending moment from previous section was found to be as 9706.27

Nm. Therefore we define 3 Spars with front spar at 20% of chord, middle spar at 50% of

chord and rear spar at 80% of chord. The position of the three spars from the leading edge of

the root chord is given below as follows:

59

Bending moment M = Max BM × FOS × n = 9706.27 × 1.5 × 9 = 131034.645 Nm

The Structural load bearing members in the wing are the Spars and Stringers. The

bending moment carried by the spars is 70% and that of stringers is 30% of the total Bending

Moment.

1) Centriod

2) Moment of Inertia

3) Bending Moment

4) Bending Stress

FRONT SPAR

To find out the centre of gravity, the following calculations are made.

60

Area(A) x y Ax Ay Ax2 Ay2 Icx Icy

(c )

Element (cm) (cm) (c ) (c ) (c ) (c ) (c )

(c )

274.5 2196 5215.5 17568 5 7 2

Centroid = X = = 8 cm ; Y= = 19 cm

The bending moment carried by the front spar is 35% of the total bending moment carried by

the spars.

The bending stress at various points whose co-ordinates are determined with centriod as the

origin are calculated from above formula and tabulated.

BENDING STRESS

POINTS COORDINATES (y) (cm) (N/cm2)

A 19 1225.081405

61

B 14.5 934.9305456

C 14.5 934.9305456

D -14.5 -934.9305456

E -14.5 -934.9305456

F -19 -1225.081405

Table.4 Front Spar Bending Stress

MIDDLE SPAR

62

Cross Section of Middle Spar

To find out the centre of gravity, the following calculations are made.

(c )

Element (cm) (cm) (c ) (c ) (c ) (c ) (c )

(c )

2 68357.1 13147.

158 9 20.8 1422 3286.4 12798 2 7 329.17

3 137592.

90 9 39.1 810 3519 7290 9 187.5 2430

338 3042 7030.4 27378 5 7 7

Centroid = X = = 9 cm ; Y= = 20.8 cm

The bending moment carried by the front spar is 40% of the total bending moment carried by

the spars.

63

Bending moment carried by front spar = 0.40 x 91724.25 = 3668970 N cm

The bending stress at various points whose co-ordinates are determined with centroid

as the origin are calculated from above formula and tabulated.

BENDING STRESS

POINTS COORDINATES (y) (cm) (N/cm2)

A 20.8 1262.071751

B 15.8 958.6891183

C 15.8 958.6891183

D -15.8 -958.6891183

E -15.8 -958.6891183

F -20.8 -1262.071751

REAR SPAR

To find out the centre of gravity, the following calculations are made.

(c )

64

Element (c ) (cm) (cm) (c ) (c ) (c ) (c )

1 274.3

19 3.8 1.25 72.2 23.75 6 29.6875 9.896 91.45

31.8 3.8 8.86 120.84 8 9 7 428.76 16.56

3 274.3 5153.95

19 3.8 16.47 72.2 312.93 6 7 9.896 91.45

69.8 265.24 8 9 2 2 199.46

The bending moment carried by the front spar is 25% of the total bending moment carried by

the spars.

The bending stress at various points whose co-ordinates are determined with centroid

as the origin are calculated from above formula and tabulated.

BENDING STRESS

POINTS COORDINATES (y) (cm) (N/cm2)

65

A 8.86 7669.120461

B 6.36 5505.147419

C 6.36 5505.147419

D -6.36 -5505.147419

E -6.36 -5505.147419

F -8.86 -7669.120461

Rear Spar Bending Stress

INTRODUCTION

Shear flow is in a solid body, the gradient of a shear stress force through the body;

in a fluid, it is the flow induced by such a force gradient In solid mechanics, shear flow is

given in dimensions of force per length. This corresponds to units of Newton per meter in the

SI system and pound-force per foot in the English Engineering and British Gravitational

systems.

The following pages give us a detailed account of the shear flow calculations.

Initially we must define the area of each stringer in the following way.

Hence the total area = Area of front spar + Area of middle spar + Area of rear spar

= 974.714 cm^2

As our wing section has 14 stringers running along its length, the area of each stringer is

given by

66

67

Stringer Area(A) X (cm) Y (cm) x2 y2 Ax2 Ay2 Axy

(cm2)

A 20.88 59.0076 14.99 3481.897 224.9994 72725.335 4699.49 18487.09

2

C 72 177.2 27.6 31399.84 761.6993 2260788.48 54842.3 352117.8

5

D 20.88 243.65 30.56 59365.32 934.3415 1239945.68 19515.3 155556.8

1 1

E 20.88 310.1 33.67 96162.01 1133.534 2008507.05 23675.7 218066.5

4 9

F 20.88 376.55 33.65 141789.9 1132.341 2961523.15 23650.8 264655.6

7 7

G 90 443 32.83 196249 1077.857 17662410 97007.1 1308961

1

H 20.88 509.45 30.30 259539.3 918.1627 5420919.55 19177.3 322426.9

9

I 20.88 575.9 27.29 331660.8 744.6786 6927299.84 15553.8 328247.4

8

J 20.88 642.35 23.74 412613.5 563.8155 8618134.86 11776.2 318573.8

5

K 19 708.8 17.27 502397.4 298.4947 9545551.36 5671.40 232672.8

9

N 20.88 542.675 -5.84 294496.2 34.19443 6151052.85 714.21 -66280.7

4

O 90 443 -8.81 196249 77.56043 17662410 6980.44 -351129

4

1

2

TOTAL

8 6 7691

Stringer Calculations

68

ΣAx2= 104857445.6 cm^4

Solving we get,

Ixy = 0

SX = = 11756280 N

SY = = 43114680 N

length) (m) centroid)

CR 29 B -236.733 3.9385

69

QR 104.105 N 187.837 -24.767

RC 29 O 88.162 -27.727

LM 99.675

MN 66.45

MO 99.675

OG 31.6

qs = - ∫yds - ∫xds

qs = - ΣydA - ΣxdA

Qab 0 -618820.6012

Qcd 0 -189299.5739

70

Qgo -1199524.96 -1388824.534

Qgh 0 -108474.1111

For cell 1:

70.36 +(qs0) X 59.0962 = 0

qs0 = -189299.5739

qs0= -108474.1111 respectively and the corrected shear flow is as shown above.

EX NO:3C

71

WING STRUCTURAL LAYOUT

SPECIFIC ROLES OF WING (MAINPLANE) STRUCTURE:

The specified structural roles of the wing (or main plane) are:

• To transmit: wing lift to the root via the main span wise beam

Inertia loads from the power plants, undercarriage, etc, to the main beam.

Aerodynamic loads generated on the aerofoil, control surfaces & flaps to the main

beam.

• To react against:

• To provide:

• A covering skin

• Stringers

72

Basic Functions of wing Structural Members

The structural functions of each of these types of members may be considered

independently as:

SPARS

• Form the main span wise beam

loads.

In particular:

• Webs – resist shear and torsional loads and help to stabilize the skin.

73

SKIN

• To form impermeable aerodynamics surface

STRINGERS

• Increase skin panel buckling strength by dividing into smaller length sections.

RIBS

• Maintain the aerodynamic shape

• Act along with the skin to resist the distributed aerodynamic pressure loads

• Distribute concentrated loads into the structure & redistribute stress around any

discontinuities

• Increase the column buckling strength of the stringers through end restraint

Several basic configurations are in use now-a-days:

construction

• Multi-Spar

In this design, all of the span wise bending loads are reacted against by substantial

booms or flanges. A two-boom configuration is usually adopted but a single spar “D-nose”

configuration is sometimes used on very lightly loaded structures. The outer skins only react

74

against the shear loads. They form a closed-cell structure between the spars. These skins need

to be stabilized against buckling due to the applied shear loads; this is done using ribs and a

small number of span wise stiffeners.

This method is more suitable for aircraft wings with medium to high load intensities

and differs from the mass boom concept in that the upper and lower skins also contribute to

the span wise bending resistance

Another difference is that the concept incorporates span wise stringers (usually “z”

section) to support the highly –stressed skin panel area. The resultant use of a large number

of end-load carrying members improves the overall structural damage tolerance.

• Interactions between the ribs and stringers so that each rib either has to pass below the

stringers or the load path must be broken. Some examples of common design

solutions are shown in figure

• Many joints are present, leading to high structural weight, assembly times,

complexity, costs & stress concentration areas.

75

The concept described above is commonly known as built-up construction method.

An alternative is to use a so-called integral construction method. This was initially developed

for metal wings, to overcome the inherent drawbacks of separately assembled skin-stringer

built-up construction and is very popular now-a-days. The concept is simple in that the skin-

stringer panels are manufactured singly from large billets of metal. Advantages of the integral

construction method over the traditional built-up method include:

Disadvantages include:

• Reduced damage tolerance so that planks are used

TYPES OF SPARS

In the case of a two or three spar box beam layout, the front spar should be located as

far forward as possible to maximize the wing box size, though this is subject to there being:

76

This generally results in the front spar being located at 12 to 18% of the chord

length. For a single spar D-nose layout, the spar will usually be located at the maximum

thickness position of the aerofoil section. For the standard box beam layout, the rear spar

will be located as far as aft as possible, once again to maximize the wing box size but

positioning will be limited by various space requirements for flaps control surfaces

spoilers etc.

This usually results in a location somewhere between about 55 and 70% of the

chord length. If any intermediate spars are used they would tend to be spaced uniformly

unless there are specific pick-up point requirements

RIBS

For a typical two spar layout, the ribs are usually formed in three parts from sheet

metal by the use of presses and dies. Flanges are incorporated around the edges so that they

can be riveted to the skin and the spar webs Cut-outs are necessary around the edges to allow

for the stringers to pass through Lightening holes are usually cut into the rib bodies to reduce

the rib weight and also allow for passage of control runs fuel electrics etc.

77

RIB CONSTRUCTION AND CONFIGURATION

The ribs should be ideally spaced to ensure adequate overall buckling support to

spar flanges .In reality however their positioning is also influenced by

• Facilitating attachment points for control surfaces, flaps, slats, spoiler hinges, power

plants, stores, undercarriage attachments etc

78

RIB ALIGNMENT POSSIBILITIES

There are several different possibilities regarding the alignment of the ribs on

swept-wing aircraft

(a) Is a hybrid design in which one or more inner ribs are aligned with the

main axis while the remainder is aligned perpendicularly to the rear spar

(b) Is usually the preferred option but presents several structural problems in

the root region

(c) Gives good torsonal stiffness characteristics but results in heavy ribs and

complex connection

79

EX NO:4

FUSELAGE:

fuselage (from the French fuselé "spindle-shaped") is an aircraft's main body section that

holds crew and passengers or cargo. In single-engine aircraft it will usually contain an engine,

although in some amphibious aircraft the single engine is mounted on a pylon attached to the

fuselage which in turn is used as a floating hull. The fuselage also serves to position control

and stabilization surfaces in specific relationships to lifting surfaces, required for aircraft

stability and maneuverability.

EX NO:4A

Structural analysis of fuselage like that of wing is of prime importance while

designing an aircraft. As the fuselage is the one which houses the pilot, the power plant and

also part of the payload its structural integrity is a matter of concern. While analysing the

fuselage structure the section must be idealized. Idealization involves the conversion of a

stringer and its accompanying skin thickness into a concentrated mass known as a boom. The

shear flow analysis of the fuselage simulating flight conditions is shown below.

0.75m 0.2945m

5m

0.693m

0.53m

0.287m

80

Stringer Position on Fuselage

50m

0.2c

20m

The above stringer section is uniformly used throughout the fuselage as shown above

in order to provide the fuselage the required load carrying capacity. The diagram showed

adjacent is of the idealized fuselage structure. The idealization process is carried out in the

following way.

EX NO:4B

STRESS ANALYSIS:

IDEALIZATION:

Where

B1 = Area of Boom 1

81

tD = Thickness of skin panel

= 1535.196 mm^2

= 1535.196 mm^2

= 28803.73 X 7.75 X 3

= 669686.722 N-m

= 0.0969 X y

82

STRINGER/BOOM Y in mm STRESS N/mm^2

1 750 72.675

2, 16 693 67.151

3, 15 530 51.357

4, 14 287 27.8103

5, 13 0 0

6, 12 -287 -27.8103

7, 11 -530 -51.357

8, 10 -693 -67.151

9 -750 -72.675

Stress in Stringers

EX NO:4B

BENDING MOMENT;

external forces acting to one side of that section.

83

BM (G ) = 0

BM ( F ) = −(0.5*974.468*3.21*1.07)

BM ( F ) = −1673.5kg − m

BM ( E ) = −14952.04kg − m

BM ( D ) = −116144.748kg − m

+(16670.5*12.545)

BM (C ) = −98263.8175kg − m

+(2816.91*1.07)

BM ( B ) = −97319.11kg − m

84

BM ( A) = 0

DISTRIBUTION;

v

q= q0 − I ∑ aτ

yy

N

σ b = 9.28*106

m2

M y = Ae * 0.67 * σ b *(0.75* H )

Fuselage dia,d=3.56

85

3.56

H= =1.78

2

Ae = 9.68*10−3 m2

Aeff = 0.058m2

0.058

No .of stringes = = 28

20*10−4

1 20 1.78 63.36

2 20 1.735 60.2

3 20 1.6 51.2

4 20 1.39 38.64

5 20 1.11 24.64

6 20 0.77 11.85

7 20 0.39 3.042

I zz = 252.932*10−4 m 4

A=20 *10−4 m2

86

V

I ∫

q= ydA

117571.21* 20*10−4

q= y

1011.72*10−4

q = 2324.18 y

er e flow

1 1.78 4137.04

2 1.735 4032.45

3 1.6 3718.688

4 1.39 3230.61

5 1.11 2579.847

6 0.77 1789.61

7 0.39 906.43

87

EX NO:4C

FUSELAGE STRUCTURAL LAYOUT

support the payload, crew, equipment, systems and (possibly) the power plant. Furthermore,

it must react against the in-flight maneuver, pressurization and gust loads; also the landing

88

gear and possibly any power plant loads. Finally, it must be able to transmit control and

trimming loads from the stability and control surfaces throughout the rest of the structure.

• Semi-monocoque layout

when the overall structural loading is relatively low or when there are extensive cut-outs in

the shell. The concept comprises four or more continuous heavy booms (longerons), reacting

against any direct stresses caused by applied vertical and lateral bending loads. Frames or

solid section bulkheads are used at positions where there is distinct direction changes and

possibly elsewhere along the lengths of the longeron members. The outer shell helps to

support the longerons against the applied compression loads and also helps in the shear

carrying. Floors are needed where there are substantial cut-outs and the skin is stabilized

against buckling by the use of frames and bulkheads.

This is the most common layout, especially for transport types of aircraft, with a

relatively small number and size of cut-outs in use. The skin carries most of the loading with

the skin thickness determined by pressurization, shear loading & fatigue considerations.

89

Semi Monocoque fuselage layout

Longitudinal stringers provide skin stabilization and also contribute to the overall load

carrying capacity. Increased stringer cross-section sizes and skin thicknesses are often used

around edges of cut-outs. Less integral machining is possible than on an equivalent wing

structure. Frames are used to stabilize the resultant skin-stringer elements and also to transmit

shear loads into the structure. They may also help to react against any pressurization loads

present. They are usually manufactured as pressings with reinforced edges. Their spacing

(pitch) is usually determined by damage tolerance considerations, i.e. crack-stopping

requirements. The frames are usually in direct contact with the skin; stringers pass through

them and are seated into place.

Bulkhead designs

90

PRESSURE CALCULATION OF FUSELAGE

σ = ( Pd / 4t )

Where,

optimum altitute

σ =stress at (Kn/m^2)

d = diameter of fuselage

= (1.2256-0.82)

= 0.3556 kg / m2

Hoop stress:

σ = ((0.355*2) / (2*0.13)

= 0.1846kg / m2

Longitudinal stress:

σ = ( Pd / 4t )

optimum altitute

91

σ =stress at (kN/m^2)

d = diameter of fuselage

σ = ((0.355*2) / (4*0.13)

= 0.3692kg / m 2

EX NO:9

92

Shear force

FB = 0

FA = wl / 2

= (1.030*14.3) / 2

= 7.36

MB = 0

MA = (14.3)2 *1.03 / 6 = 35.2kN / m

93

EXNO:10

94

SHEAR FORCE UNDER 3W/S

(MANUEVERABILITY) CONDITION:

SHEARFORCE

FB = 0

FA = −(3.04 *(14.33 / 2)) = 12.87kN

95

BENDING MOMENT AT 3W/S:

(MANUVERABILITY)

MB = 0

MA = (3.04) *(14.3)2 / 6 = 34.15kN

96

STABILITY AND CONTROL

aircraft requires a study of the dynamic of flight. In which we

consider not the motion of the aircraft but only its equilibrium

states. It is commonly called stability and control analysis

c = 108.1284in

X cg

X cg = = 0.5

c

X ac

X ac = = 0.24

c

For wing:

97

2π

CLα =

1− M 2

2*3.14

CLα =

1.0.252

Side slip, β

β 2 = 1− M 2

β 2 = 1 − 0.252

β = 0.968

Airfoil efficiency, η

CLα

η=

2π

β

6.477 *0.968

η=

2*3.14

η = 0.998

98

d

F = 1.07(1 + ) 2

b

3.56 2

F = 1.07(1 + )

11.3

F = 1.176

Aeff = 0.058m2

S wet

= 3 from the historical data.

S ref

t

For the airfoil <0.5,

c

Swet=2.003Sexposed

Sexp osed 3

= = 1.5

S ref 2.003

2π A Sexp osed

CLα = *F

Aβ2 2

tan 2 Λ max t S wet

2+ 4+ (1 + )

η2 β2

2*3.14*10.3

CLα = *1.497 *1.176

10.32 *0.9682

2+ 4+ *1

0.9982

99

Downwash:

lt

r=

b

2

16.05* 2

r=

42.5

r = 0.755

∂α n ∂ε

= 1−

∂α ∂α

∂ε 1.62CLα

=

∂α πA

∂ε 1.62*5.588

=

∂α 3.14*10.3

∂ε

= 0.279

∂α

∂α n

= 1 − 0.279 = 0.72

∂α

100

Sh ∂α n F ∂α p

CLα − Cmα fus + ηn CLh X ach + ph Xp

SW ∂α qSW ∂α

X np =

S ∂α n Fph

CLα + ηn h CLh +

SW ∂α qSW

X np = 0.712

X np = X np * c

X np = 0.712*108.1284

X np = 76.98

Static margin:

sometimes called static margin

static margin=( X np − X cg )

76.98 − 71.02

=

108.1284

= 0.0551

disturbed would be positive, or nose-up, and would tend to

rotate the airplane still farther from its equilibrium attitude. We

see that the pitch stiffness is determined by the sign and

∂Cm

magnitude of the slope ∂α .If the pitch stiffness is to be

∂Cm

positive at the equilibrium α , Cm must be zero,and ∂α must

be negative. It will be appreciated from the figure that an

∂Cm

alternative statement is “ Cm 0 must be positive,and ∂α

negative if the airplane is to meet this (limited) condition for

101

stable equilibrium.”. the various possibilities corresponding to

∂Cm

the possible signs of Cm 0 and ∂α are shown in figures.

CMα = −CLα ( X np − X cg )

CMα = −6.47(0.0551)

CMα = −0.356

Stick free:

αn αh

Sh ∂α n F ∂α p

CLα − Cmα fus + ηn CLh X ach + ph Xp

SW ∂α qSW ∂α

X np =

S ∂α n Fph

CLα + ηn h CLh +

SW ∂α qSW

X np = 0.68

X np = X np * c

X np = 0.68*108.1284

X np = 73.527

static margin=( X np − X cg )

102

73.527 − 71.02

=

108.1284

= 0.0231

increases, and larger control movements and forces are

required to maneuver or change the trim. The forward CG limit

is therefore based on control considerations and may be

determined by any one of the following requirements:

The control-force gradient at trim, ∂P ∂V , shall not exceed a

specified value.

The control force required to land, from trim at the

approach speed shall not exceed a specified value.

The elevator angle required to land shall not exceed

maximum up elevator.

The elevator angle required to raise the nose wheel off the

ground at take off speed shall not exceed maximum up

elevator

CMα = −CLα ( X np − X cg )

CMα = −6.47 *0.0231

CMα = −0.15

Sh T

CM cg = CL ( X cg − X acW ) + CM N + CM ff f p + Cm fus − ηn CLh ( X ach − X cg ) − ( X cg − X p )

SW qSW

24

CM cg = −6.47α (0.5 − 0.24) + 0 + 0 + 0.21α − [0.7 * * δe (3.21 − 0.5)

108.1284

CM cg = 0.5065α − 0.391δe

103

Trim plot:

α \ δe 0o 4o 8o 12o

8

4o 4.976 6.3 7.78 9.188

4

8o 9.952 11.35 12.7 14.16

6 6 4

12o 14.92 16.33 1773 19.14

8 2 6

pitch stiffness , then we see that we must have h< hn, or kn >

0 .In other words the CG must be forward of the NP. The farther

forward the CG the greater is kn ,and the sense of “static

stability” the more stable the vehicle.

dCm

at which the derivative = 0.

dCL

104

∂ε

CLh = CLαh [(α + iw )(1 − ) + (ih − iw ) − α 0Lh ]

∂α

CLh = CLαh [0.7292 + (0 − 0) − ∆α 0Lh ]

−1 ∂CL

∆α 0 Lh = * *δ f

CLα ∂δ f

−0.7

∆α 0 Lh = *6.47 *0.5* k f δe

7.91

∆α 0 Lh = −0.286δ e

∂CL ∂C S flapped

= 0.9k f * * *cos λHL

∂δ F ∂δ f Sref

CM cg = −1.3302α − 0.9734δe

Lift:

Sh

CTotal = CLα (α + iW ) + ηn CL

SW h

24

CTotal = 0.5065α + 0.7 7.91*(0.6α + 0.286δe )

108.1284

CTotal = 1.224α + 0.351δe

Trim plot:

105

α \ δe 0o 4o 8o 12o

0o 0 -3.8936 -7.7872 -

11.680

8

4o -5.3208 -9.2144 -13.108 -

17.001

6

8o - - - -

10.641 14.535 18.428 22.322

6 2 8 4

12o - -19.856 - -

15.962 23.749 27.643

4 6 2

106

DESIGN OF LANDING GEAR

We have designed the landing gear characteristics by following a step by step

method.

the fuselage after the take off.

The landing gear configuration we have adapted is the Conventional type or Tri-

cycle type with a nose wheel in front. From an ease of ground manoeuvring

viewpoint as well as ground looping the nose wheel configuration is preferred.

There are two geometric criteria which are required to be considered on deciding

the disposition of landing gear struts are:

A) Tip-over criteria

A) Tip-over Criteria :

107

a) Longitudinal Tip-over Criterion :

For tricycle gears the main landing gear must be behind the aft CG location. The 15 deg angle

as shown in the Fig. represents the usual relation between main gear and the aft CG.

108

Lateral Tip-over Criterion

109

Lateral Ground Clearance Criterion

4) Number of Wheels :

TYRE SIZING;

Nearly 90% of the load is carried by the main landing gear.

experience dynamic loads.

• Nose wheel size could be 60-100% of size of main wheel.

• But in the bicycle and quarter cycle configuration the size

same.

110

WW → Weight of the wheel

Rr → Rolling radius

d → Diameter

W → width

PERFORMANCE PARAMETER;

pressure will greatly improve the tyre life.

occupied etc.

d

AP (area of foot print )=2.3* w * d ( - Rr )

2

1 2

Wlanding

Braking kinetic energy= *Vstall ( )

2 g

(horizontal)

1 W

Braking kinetic energy= *Vstall 2 ( landing )

2 g

(vertical)

111

GEAR RETRACTION GEOMENTRY:

112

1. INSIDE THE WING.

2. WING PADDED.

3. INSIDE FUSELAGE.

4. FUSELAGE PADDED

5. WING FUSELAGE JUNCTION.

1. VERTICAL LOAD FACTOR

2. SPIN UP

3. SPIN BACK

4. BRAKIN G

5. ON E WHEEL ARRESTED

6. TURNING LOADS

7. TAXYING LOADS

• when the aircraft touches the ground wheels are not rotating .

Then after fraction of second it will spin up. it is called spin

load.

landing gear. Once it starts to rotate, the rearward force is

released and gear strut springs back forward.

• Breaking load can be estimated by braking co-efficient i.e. 0.8

Spinback load ≥ spinup load test

factor(from 23 to 48 cm).

2. Primary landinggear design.

3. Detailed landinggear design.

113

• For entire layout

• Shock absorbers

• Skid controls

• Steering systems

• Retracting mechanisms

• Cockpit requirements and strength

• Selection of tyres

• Construction method

• Temperature effects

• Tyre friction

performed in the design.

• Material selection

• Laws

• Pushing seals

• Lubrication

TYRE SIZING:

B

Main wheel diameter or width = AWw

d = 1.63[19335.0]0.315

d =36.50 in

Ww - weight on wheel

114

10% - nose wheel

B

Width of the wheel = AWw

w = 0.1043[19335.0]0.48

w = 11.90 in

lb

Maximum pressure, P =350

in 2

s e l

Load Speed Radius Weigh

Dia Width Km t

lb in

i in hr lb

n

5

STATIC MARGIN:

It is the distance between C.G and neutral point. When the static margin is

minimum, the lateral stability of aircraft is poor and when it is maximum, more

power is required to maneuver. Hence optimization of static margin in aircraft is

required.

WW = P * AP

19335

AP =

350

AP = 55.242 in 2

115

Rolling radius, Rr :

d

Ap = 2.3* w * d [ − Rr ]

2

Rr =17.098 in

Shock absorber:

Shock absorber is generally based on the compression ratios. For larger

aircraft compression ratio from the static condition to the fully extended

condition i.e.4:1 and compressed to static is 3:1.

116

Stoke of the shock absorber:

2

Vvertical η

S= − t * ST

2* g *η * N gear η

1

ST = * d − Rr

2

ST =1.152 in

83.32 0.47

S= − * 2.927 *10−2

2*9.81*0.8*3*60*60 0.8

S = 2.37cm

ηt → Tyre efficiency(0.45-0.47)

η → Shock absorber efficiency(0.75-0.9)

OLEO SIZING:

The size of oleo strut will be approximate that of stroke length.

117

Doleo = 0.04 Loleo

Doleo =2.5*23.7

Doleo =0.5925m

= 5846.808

= 0.25*5846.808

=1461.702 kg

= 0.3*5846.808

=1754.0424 kg.

Load Stroke

(kg) (cm)

1461.70 0

2

5846.80 15.8

8

8770.21 23.7

2

118

5846.808* 2.204585

Piston area =

350

= 36.82 inch 2

(1 kg = 2.204585 lb),

V3 =10 % displacement

V3 = 34.35 inch 3

V1 = V3 +0 =34.35 inch 3

It is confirmed that the piston and cylinder volume

are enough for the static load.

Oleo sizing:

For Oleo –pneumatic metered orifice

η =0.8,

4loleo

The size of oleo strut (D) =1.3

pπ

L = Load on oleo

119

4*9.81*19489.36

D = 1.3

7239.491*3.14*103

D = 0.2384m

1 2 w

K .Evertical = *Vvertical *

2 g

K .Evertical = .5*83.332 *8770.21

K .Evertical =30.44 MJ

120

K .Eabsorbed = η * L * ST

K .Eabsorbed = 0.8* L *0.02927 *9.81

K .Eabsorbed = 0.477 KJ

K .Eabsorbed = 2.014 KJ

with 4 tyres in a single strut for main and 1 tyre for nose wheel.

121

VIEW DIAGRAM

AIM

To draw the 3-view diagram of the aircraft that has been designed.

FRONT VIEW

122

TOP VIEW

123

SIDE VIEW

124

125

126

- Aircraft Wing rib designingЗагружено:Nagaraj Ramachandrappa
- Wing Rib Stress Analysis and Design OptimizationЗагружено:srikanthlaxminrayan5869
- VIP_Wing Layout Structure_short IntroductionЗагружено:Thehoang Nguyen
- WING SPAR PresentationЗагружено:abhilashr50
- Structure Optimisation Wing AircraftЗагружено:viorelu99
- Aircraft Design Project 2Загружено:Mahesh J Rao
- Example Aircraft Loading CalculationsЗагружено:Manoj Manoharan
- Wing Spar CalculationЗагружено:Jürgen Storl
- Aircraft Structures 1Загружено:vodmox
- Aeroelastic Loads Modeling for Composite Aircraft Design SupportЗагружено:h2301
- Fuselage Stress AnalysisЗагружено:benandbergen
- 44848151 WING SPAR PresentationЗагружено:dillikannan007
- adp 2 finalЗагружено:rahul_vh
- MSc Aerospace DissertationЗагружено:anirudh666
- Lecture on Airplanes AerodynamicsЗагружено:Idefix1
- Analysis of Box Beams 7Загружено:kundanbvb
- Aircraft Design Day1Загружено:arun_sanga1233515
- Aircraft Loading and Structural LayoutЗагружено:lohithkumars
- Airfoil SelectionЗагружено:Hui Wen Tan
- Aircraft DesignЗагружено:Benny Basit
- Aircraft Design (2011)[1]Загружено:Elroy Christmas
- Basic Design of Flying Wing ModelsЗагружено:Giang Bui
- Aileron Sizing ProAdviceЗагружено:Kevin Carvalho
- Aircraft Structures Complete NotesЗагружено:Aarjav Pandya
- olaestruclayout[1]Загружено:venkat_venkat
- ADP 2_finalЗагружено:Rohit Muna
- Model AirplaneЗагружено:random person
- Aircraft Design Project Group 5Загружено:Pugal Venthan
- FIXED_WING_DESIGN_PAPER_AE_6343 (2).pdfЗагружено:Giannis Giorgos
- General Loads on Aircraft StructureЗагружено:Sunil Panwar

- Geography PptЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Engineering MechanicsЗагружено:Raj Manova
- AgesЗагружено:Raj Manova
- stability 1 notes.pdfЗагружено:Raj Manova
- shear and bending.docxЗагружено:Raj Manova
- syllabus.docxЗагружено:Raj Manova
- PHYSICS NOTES.docxЗагружено:Raj Manova
- 2 mark.docxЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Unit 5 Combustion ChamberЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Thin and Thick Cylinder 5th UnitЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Thin and Thick CylinderЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Torsion 1Загружено:Raj Manova
- TorsionЗагружено:Raj Manova
- 3 QuestionsЗагружено:Raj Manova
- unit 2 qpЗагружено:Raj Manova
- alp.docxЗагружено:sivakrishna m
- 2018 Current AffairsЗагружено:Raj Manova
- CurrencyЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Flow Over CylinderЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Important QuestionsЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Sm Bending Stress QuestionsЗагружено:Raj Manova
- qpsЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Answer for Important QuestionsЗагружено:Raj Manova
- WTT UT 1 2018Загружено:Raj Manova
- Wtt PhotosЗагружено:Raj Manova
- WTT 2marksЗагружено:Raj Manova
- WTT NOTESЗагружено:Raj Manova
- Continuity EquЗагружено:Raj Manova

- EJ501 T2 Logical Sensor and ActuatorЗагружено:Loga HS
- Liquidliquid and Gasliquidliquid SeparatorsЗагружено:Riaz Ali
- AVIM 103C Hydraulic Student PowerPoint 2Загружено:John Alajo
- Test on ErrorsЗагружено:Shiva Ram Prasad Pulagam
- 20090625_042051_garland.pdfЗагружено:Marcos Eletricidade Refrigeração
- Holt Physics Chapter 5 OutlineЗагружено:Auston Henderson
- PhysicsЗагружено:Bacillus Subtilis
- TM-9-3465-201-10Загружено:radio-chaser
- XR70CX_GBЗагружено:hassanain_100
- ATLAS COPCO - PORTABLE ENERGY DIVISION.pdfЗагружено:tarek
- IJSETR-VOL-4-ISSUE-5-1283-1286.pdfЗагружено:Md Naim Hossain
- Powerflow 17-10 & 12-10 Range Brochure EnglishЗагружено:Anonymous NcB95G6Xw
- Fracture Mechanics docЗагружено:jalali007
- FRP Analysis in Caesar-IIЗагружено:86tejas
- BLN-9884Загружено:Maximiliano Dreyer
- TOPIC 8 Bending Flanging and HemmingЗагружено:JMPCalcao
- Physics Lesson Plan FORM 4 2018Загружено:Shazl Hasbi
- ASTM D 5780-95 Standard Test Method for Individual Piles in Permafrost Under Static Axial Compressive LoadЗагружено:Pablo Antonio Valcárcel Vargas
- 1st Euro-Mediterranean Conference on Structural Dynamics and Vibroacoustics, Medyna2013 - ProceedingsЗагружено:Yuriy Krayniy
- F1V2_2007Загружено:Ray Cepeda Mena
- Calibracion PRV 330 B LЗагружено:Franky Fernandez
- Weldability and Process Parameter Optimization of Dissimilar Pipe Joints Using GTAWЗагружено:kaliappan45490
- 06 TranslationsAndRotationsCombinedЗагружено:tamustafa85
- Future Igniter TechnologiesЗагружено:Mohamad Saat Bin Sukami
- FANUCЗагружено:Sara Santos
- 4.mixingNonNewtЗагружено:Odst Ovac
- AhammedRashelHasan CV - letest.docxЗагружено:Newaz Kabir
- Torque Converter & Hydraulic Ratchet System - 4thЗагружено:falconalnajjar
- Hydrostatic Test Pump Model 7JЗагружено:luiedu
- GEA_Hilge_durietta 0_Brochure_A4_EN_V012015.pdfЗагружено:Shawn Ang