0% found this document useful (0 votes)
49 views35 pages

Design of A Minimum Mass Wing-Box: Professor J. Cooper

This document describes the design of a minimum mass wing box for an aircraft. It analyzes a square wing box design using distributed loading models to calculate deflection. It then analyzes wing deflection, shear stress, twist, and skin buckling to design a C-section wing box structure that can withstand expected loads while being as light as possible. Finite element analysis was used to verify the final wing box design.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
49 views35 pages

Design of A Minimum Mass Wing-Box: Professor J. Cooper

This document describes the design of a minimum mass wing box for an aircraft. It analyzes a square wing box design using distributed loading models to calculate deflection. It then analyzes wing deflection, shear stress, twist, and skin buckling to design a C-section wing box structure that can withstand expected loads while being as light as possible. Finite element analysis was used to verify the final wing box design.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 35

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

AEROSTRUCTURES 2

Design of a Minimum Mass


Wing-Box

Alex Farrant
Christopher McGarry
Josh Plant
Oliver Weston

15 December 2011

Professor J. Cooper
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

Contents
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Design Intent ............................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 Square Wing-box Design ........................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Distributed Loading Analysis ................................................................................................. 5
4.0 C-Section Design ....................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Wing Deflection .................................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Wing-box Shear Stress and Twist .......................................................................................... 9
4.2.1 Mohr’s Circle Analysis ................................................................................................. 11
4.3 Wing-skin Buckling Analysis ................................................................................................ 11
5.0 Final Wing-box Design............................................................................................................. 15
References .......................................................................................................................................... 20
6.0 Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 20

2
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

1.0 Introduction

The wing-box of an aircraft is the component that makes up the wing’s internal structure, to fit within
the important aerodynamic shape which defines the aircraft’s performance. The wing-box must handle
all expected operating loads whilst retaining structural integrity, despite routine exposure to fluctuating
loads. The main difficulty in the design of a wing-box is the challenge of achieving a design which has
minimal mass, to ensure that the aircraft can maintain maximum operating efficiency.

Conventional wing-box designs consist of spars which run along the length of the wing, form the
connections to the fuselage, and effectively handle all experienced loads. Wing-boxes also require a
wing skin, which consists of thin metal sheets that enclose the wing-box, and provide some shear and
bending stiffness. For added strength, ribs are added which run from the trailing edge to the leading
edge, and resist twisting in the wing to help maintain the desired aerodynamic shape. This resistance
can also be achieved through the inclusion of stiffeners, which run parallel to the spars to prevent
wing-skin buckling.

The design of a wing-box must take into consideration the specified wing profile, which limits the
wing-box dimensions, and support the aerodynamic shape in normal operating conditions through
handling bending, torsion, and shear. Many modern wing-boxes are based on similar designs, with C-
or I-beam spars supported by ribs and stringers. Modern wing designs are also tapered, which
distributes the wing area more towards the wing root, which reduces deflection.

This report outlines the design of a minimum mass wing-box for a given aircraft. The design involved
analysis of deflection, torsion, and shear experienced by the wing, to develop the lightest wing-box
structure which will operate safely within specifications, when constructed from a specified aluminium
alloy.

The report demonstrates the step-by-step analysis that was carried out, but only in the general case.
A MATLAB programme was then constructed, which iterated through a number of possible wing-box
dimensions to find the most light-weight design that would handle the expected loads in normal
operating conditions. The results of this numerical analysis were then compared with finite element
analysis carried out in Pro-Engineer to verify the final design.

3
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

2.0 Design Intent


This section provides some parameters set by the design brief. Exterior wing dimensions, along with
some performance values for the aircraft, and material specifications are shown below with relevant
notation:

Root Chord cR = 4.8 m


Tip Chord cT = 3.6 m
Semi-span S = 16 m
Root thickness tR = 12% chord
Tip Thickness tT = 8% chord

Aircraft mass m = 74,000kg


Worst case scenario - = 4x straight and level flight case

Wing-box material - = Specified Aluminium alloy


Maximum Stress σmax = 350x106 Nm-2
9 -2
Young’s Modulus E = 70x10 Nm
27x10 Nm-2
9
Shear Modulus G =
Density ρ = 2,700 kgm-3

It was also followed that the design should include only two spars: one at 20% chord, and the other at
80% chord.

3.0 Square Wing-box Design


As stated, the loading analysis was carried out on a square cross-section, un-tapered wing-box to
demonstrate its performance. For this, it was assumed that the wing chord was 4.8m across the full
span, and that the thickness was 12% of this chord. As can be seen in Figure 1, there is a significant
difference between the wing thickness at the front spar, and the thickness at the rear spar. For
simplicity, the square design was based on the height of the trailing-edge spar.

Figure 1 - Airfoil Showing Square Wing-box design

Using ProEngineer, the height of the wing thickness at 80% of the chord was found to be 250mm. The
lateral distance along the wing from 20-80% of the chord is 2.88m. Figure 2 shows the dimensions of
the square wing-box analysed in this section.

4
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

B (2.88m)

t (20mm)
D (250mm)

Figure 2 - Square Wing-box Design (NOT TO SCALE)

The thickness, t, of 20mm, was a value taken from typical wing-box designs. The second moment of
area of this box is found using the equation shown below:

3.1 Distributed Loading Analysis


With the dimensions of the square wing-box defined, the first step was to evaluate the wing’s
maximum deflection. The analysis was simple in that wing-loading is uniform, and is depicted in
Figure 3. Because the wing-root is fixed, and will therefore experience zero displacement, the wing is
analysed as a cantilever beam:

Uniform load, w (Nm-1)

L (m)
z (m)

Figure 3 - Uniform Loading on a Cantilever

The moment due to the distributed load is given as a function of z, by:

Using the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation (eFunda, 2011):

With this term, the deflection, y, can be found at any point along the beam. To find the two integration
constants, the conditions y’ and y’’ =0 at z = L were used, as the wing-root is fixed. With this, the

5
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

equation for maximum beam deflection was found to be:

Although non-uniform distributed loading arises from wing taper, triangular loading analysis was
carried out on the same wing-box shown in Figure 2, to demonstrate the analysis method and to
develop an understanding of wing-box analysis. For simplicity, it was assumed that wmax occurs at the
root, and decreases linearly to w = 0 at the tip. This is shown below, in Figure 4:

Triangular Load wmax (z=L)  0 (z=0) [Nm-1]

L (m)
z (m)

Figure 4 - Triangular Loading on a Cantilever

Again, the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation was used to derive an equation for the maximum deflection.
The z=L conditions of y’ and y’’ = 0 still apply. In this case:

-3
Referring to the dimensions in Section 2.0, the second moment of area, Ixx, was found to be 1.56x10
m4. With this, an aircraft mass of 74,000kg, and a Young’s Modulus of 70GPa, the maximum (tip)
deflections are:
S&L Flight (m) Worst Case – Gust (m)
 Uniform Load case: 1.70 6.81
 Triangular Load case: 0.91 3.63

From these results, it can be seen that the beam under triangular loading is deflected about half as
much as the uniformly loaded case. Despite this, tapered wings have increasing I xx from the tip to the
root, and so it is expected that triangular loading on a tapered wing would cause a higher deflection
than either of the cases shown above. Taper will be in the final design, however, as it is much more
weight-efficient than the simple uniform section that was analysed in this section.

The importance of considering worst-case scenarios is also highlighted – with the gust causing a
deflection four times that experienced in straight & level flight.

The maximum allowable stress of the material is 350MPa, so the wing-box design must not
experience any direct stress above this value. The stress on the beam was calculated using the
formula shown below, with the maximum stress occurring at the wing root, where the bending moment
is at its maximum value:

6
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

4.0 C-Section Design


For reduced mass and maximum internal wing volume, required for the storage of fuel in large
aircraft, a C-section wing-box was chosen. Although the wing specifications show that there should be
taper in 2-dimensions (thickness and chord), the first C-section analysis took account of chord taper
only. The formula for Ixx is also given: the multiple of 2 is to take account of both C-section spars. To fit
inside the aerofoil, the leading-edge spar is higher than the trailing edge spar, shown below:

Wing Skin, Area = C.t


B1 b1

b2 B2
d1
d2
Hav
D1 y1 y2 D2

Figure 5 - Fitted C-Section Wing-box

To calculate the second moment of area for this section, the Ixx values for each C-section were added,
along with the area contribution for the skin – the bd3 term for the skin was neglected as the skin is a
thin section, so t3  0. The full formula for Ixx is shown below, and the last term is the skin contribution
to Ixx.

4.1 Wing Deflection


As in Figure 4, wing deflection was calculated with a triangular load, but with a tapered wing. The term
Ixx in the Euler-Bernoulli equation is replaced by a function of z, to represent the change in I xx along
the wingspan due to taper.

The rate of change of Ixx over the wingspan was simplified to λ. This relationship was substituted into

7
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

the Euler-Bernoulli equation, along with M(z) for triangular loading, shown previously in Section 3.1:

This equation was then integrated once, to find the first integration constant:

The integration solution was found using an online integral solver(Vanovschi, 2006). This was then
integrated again, to find a term for the deflection containing two integration constants, c and d:

This was simplified to:

The constants, c and d, were found using the same method employed in Section 3.1 – y’ and y were
assumed to be zero at the wing root: where z is 16m. With this, the wing deflection is:

8
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

To reduce human error in these lengthy calculations, all arithmetic was conducted on MATLAB.

4.2 Wing-box Shear Stress and Twist


A shear analysis was carried out on the wing-box, to ensure that wing twist is low to prevent reducing
the aerodynamic performance. Maximum shear will be experienced where the largest bending
moment is occurs, at the wing root (see Figure 7, below):

Figure 6 - Bending Moment along Length, L, of Tapered Cantilever from Root to Tip

(eFunda, 2011)

To calculate the shear stress, a boom approximation analysis was carried out on the wing-box at the
root. The boom approximation equates the C-section wing-box to an open section with four point Ixx
components (booms), where the shear acts through the shear centre, and a section with a constant
torque. This is done by equating each member to a zero-mass length with booms at each end:
b
Δq1 1 2

= q=0 qb + Hav 2Aq0


Δq1+Δq2

3 4

Sy Sb
Figure 7 - Wing-box Boom Approximation

From the boom approximation, the shear from boom 1 to boom 2 was found to be:

And the shear from boom 3 to boom 4 was found to be:

In the above equations, the letter B represents point areas, which were found by equating the Ixx of
each member to two booms, which themselves have no Ixx. For the final wing-box section shown in
Figure 5, B was found using:

9
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

In order to calculate q0, the unknown shear flow due to the moment (constant), moments were taken
about Boom 3, the point where Sy acts:

Because the area, A, is equal to b x h:

From this, the shear flow of the open section, q 0 was found to be:

Hence, the shear flow in the wing-box is:

Figure 8 - Shear Flow on wing-box

Shear stress in each boom due to the shear flow (shown above in Figure 8), is given by:

Where q is the shear flow, and t is the thickness of the material. For t, the thickness of the skin used
to give a critical value. With the shear flow distribution acquired from the boom approximation, wing
twist could be calculated using:

This is then integrated to give:

Because the wing root is fixed, and z is measured from the root in this case, θ is equal to zero at z is
0, so the integration constant, C, is equal to zero:

Again, to minimise human error in calculations, this was programmed into MATLAB for the final wing-
box design and analysis.

10
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

4.2.1 Mohr’s Circle Analysis

The maximum shear stress experienced by the wing-box was found by conducting a Mohr’s circle
analysis. This was relatively simple to do, as it can be assumed that the stresses acting on the wing-
box elements are one dimensional, in the y-direction only:

 Normal Stress, σ (Nm-2)

Figure 9 - Stress acting on C-Section for Mohr’s Circle

Maximum shear stress is given by:

Where:

The τ value is taken from the equation for τ given by the shear-flow analysis.

4.3 Wing-skin Buckling Analysis


A typical wing consists of a thin skin, which has the potential fail due to buckling. The thin plates must
be analysed for critical stresses - the stress at which the plate will buckle - before strengthening
methods such as stringers and ribs were considered. The buckling analysis was carried out following
equations given in Aircraft Structures (Megson, 1999)

The critical load for a thin-walled structure is defined as:

For the equation above, it is observed that a minimum occurs when n is equal to one, hence the
critical load becomes:

Here, n is the number of half waves which occur laterally across the thin walled structure, and m is the
number of half waves that occur longitudinally along the z axis. The buckling load can be expressed
by introducing a buckling constant, k, which is defined as:

11
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

Using this, the critical load becomes:

The number of half waves in the z axis is still an unknown. This number is an integer and is defined as
a function of the aspect ratio:

A table of upper- and lower-limits of each m value was calculated:

Table 1: Upper- and lower-limits of the aspect ratio related to each mode

m Lower limit Upper limit


1 0
2
3
4
5
6

The length of the wing box is 16m, with an average width of 2.5m. The aspect ratio is therefore 6.4,
which below the upper limit of m=6. From this, the waveform expected of the wing box is sketched
below:

Figure 10 - Sketch of the expected buckling waveform

Once this has been done, the buckling coefficient and critical load could be calculated with a value of
m=6:

Note here that D is known as the flexural rigidity of the material and is defined as:

The specified alloy has a Young’s modulus of 70GPa, a Poisson’s ratio of 0.39, and an initial
thickness of 1mm. Hence, the critical load is:

12
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

The critical load was then related to a critical stress:

As the bending stress distribution through the wing is known, it was possible to design the
strengthening mechanism required to prevent a 1mm thick wing-skin from buckling. Because the
wing-skin takes up such a large area, it was decided that a thinner skin with strengthening
components would be much more weight efficient than a thicker skin.

With Microsoft Excel, the critical stress at points along the wing box were evaluated and compared to
the expected stress, as shown below in Figure 11. The full spread-sheet can be found in Appendix 2.

Stress Variation Along the Wing-box

70

60

50
Stress (MPa)

40 Critical Stress Pa

30 Expected stress (Pa)

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance from tip (m)

Figure 11 - The Red Series Shows the Expected Stress along the wing-box

From the graph, it is clear that the expected stress is much higher than the critical stress, so a
longitudinal stiffness design is required. Due to the scale, it is difficult to see the variation in Critical
Stress, which has therefore been plotted on the figure below:

13
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

Wing-box Critical Stress


70

60

50
Critical Stress, KPa

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Distance from wing tip (m)

Figure 12 - Critical Stress Variation along a Tapered Wing-box

The stiffened members only run 15m along each wing, as they are not required at the tip. The skin
needs to be broken up into sections:

Wing Chord

bsk

Figure 13 - Wing-box schematic, showing stiffeners along the wing root

The critical stress was taken as the bending moment at the root during a worst case scenario gust.
Using this, the width of each “segment” was calculated by solving the above equation for b, which is
the distance between each stiffened member. The width of the wing-box was then divided by this
distance, to find the number of stiffened members required at the root to prevent the wing-skin from
buckling:

Applying this analysis at different points on the wing-box demonstrated that the number of stiffeners
required reduces, moving from the root to the tip. From this, it was deduced that some stiffened

14
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

members do not need to run the full 16m. The depth of each stiffened member was determined by:

With a skin thickness of 1mm, and the critical stress value found earlier, the stringer depth was
calculated as 20mm. To prevent buckling, 88 stiffened members are required at the root, each with a
thickness of 1mm and a depth of 20mm. This only adds 70kg to each wing-box, which is much more
mass-efficient than an increase in skin thickness. Again, Appendix 2 demonstrates the full buckling
analysis spread-sheet, giving the number of stringers and their dimensions.

5.0 Final Wing-box Design


As mentioned, MATLAB was used to iterate through the possible C-section dimensions to provide the
lowest-mass wing-box that is capable of handling the flight loads, including the worst-case scenario of
a gust creating a lift force four times that of the aircraft’s mass.

To increase the reliability of the structural analysis carried out in MATLAB, Pro-Engineer was used to
conduct a finite-element analysis. As mentioned in Section 3.1, a simple deflection and bending
analysis was carried out on a square wing-box with a thickness of 20mm. This allowed time for
familiarisation with the software, and to help conduct a full wing-box design. The worst-case scenario
caused a deflection of 6.81m for a uniform load, and the Pro-Engineer analysis found a deflection of
6.78m, as shown below in Figure 14:

Figure 14 - FE Analysis of square wing-box with Uniform Loading

With a variation of less than 1% on this simple example, Pro-Engineer’s finite element suite was to be
used to verify our more complex analytical methods in MATLAB.

The composed program took the input values given in the design brief, and then calculated the
dimensions within the wing skin at both the wing root and tip. This allowed for a secondary function to
create C-section spar dimensions that fit would within this space. Values for the cross-sectional area
and second moment of area were also calculated, and added to each spars data. The use of
programming allowed for a vast number of varying spar shapes and sizes to be analysed – this would
not have been possible to do manually.

To begin with, the program worked using two identical spars that were mirrored and ran the length of
the wing box with a constant cross-section. The distance between the spars in this analysis varied

15
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

form root to tip, to match the taper of the wing. Spars were initially tested for both direct stress and
shear at the root, whilst the maximum amount of twist was tested at the wing-box tip. These
calculations follow the methods outlined in section 4. With the given criteria, the program omitted all
spars that did not conform to the maximum stress value, and then would output the lightest possible
solution. At this point the chosen spars were then analysed in more depth to calculate deflection,
shear stress and twist, at intervals from root to tip.

Figure 15 – Initial spar refinement stage using spars with a uniform section

As can be seen above in Figure 15, the chosen spars met all the initial criteria, and experienced very
little deflection and twist, but they are far from ideal in reality. To improve on this design, the spar
dimension would need to change along the wing-box to fit inside the wing. New restrictions limiting the
height of the spars were added to the programme, resulting in spar taper. The function used to create
the spar dimensions was also updated to create a separate set of c-section data based upon these
new restrictions. Once these additions had been made, the spars tapered in height and therefore
continued to fit within the skin.

Figure 16 – Further refinement of the spars allowing for a varying cross-section

With the spar cross-sections being generated independently from root to tip, the shape could vary
freely allowing for a much more efficient use of material in the wing box structure. Figure 16 shows
that in although a more light-weight and feasible design had been reached, the deflection and twist
were larger. This refinement made the spars 46% lighter than at the previous stage, saving 1697kg
per wing.

There was still one last adjustment to make to the program which would allow for a complete spar set
that would fit truly inside the wing skin. The restriction of identical spars meant that the spar close to
the trailing edge would not fit inside the dimensions of the wing. Due to the airfoil shape of a wing,
there is far more height at the location of the leading edge spar than at the trailing edge and so using
the same-sized spar for both locations is illogical. By modifying the function that creates the spar data
sets, it was possible to allow for independent sizing of each spar whilst calculating area and second

16
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

moment of area for the entire cross section.

By making this final modification to the program, completely independent cross section combinations
could be analysed to make for the best possible solution. Again, this reduced the weight, by 400kg,
but caused 24% more deflection and 7% more twist. Despite this increase, both are still of an
acceptable magnitude. A maximum twist of 1.5°, which only occurs in the absolute worst-case
scenario and will therefore not be prolonged, would not have a large effect on the aerodynamic
performance of the wing.

Figure 17 – Final modification to the spars showing wing deflection and twist

To further refine the wing-box design, the thickness of the wing skin was taken into consideration. The
calculations made so far were made using an arbitrary wing-skin thickness of 3mm, and show that the
skin mass is a large contributor to the overall wing-box mass. By reducing this value to 1mm, a large
weight loss could be achieved but this resulted in a large increase in twist as well as a moderate rise
in shear and direct stress. The deflection value also changed here but only by a small degree.

Figure 18 – Analysis of the wing box with alternate skin thickness of 1mm

The value for twist here is considerable so analysis for this wing box under straight and level
conditions was used to evaluate how the wing would act during flight. Figure 19 shows that the wing
twist returns to a very low value of 0.6° when under normal conditions.

17
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

Figure 19 – Analysis of the wing box under straight and level conditions

60 200

60 120 20

450 20
240

Root

30 100

30 80 10

250 10
120

Tip

Figure 20 – Dimensions of the minimum-mass wing-box spars at root and tip.

Using the MATLAB programme, a set of spars have been designed for the wing-box, and the skin
thickness has been determined. The programme allowed a minimum-mass solution to be achieved
using numerical methods, and has output a set of dimensions for the spars. To validate this method,
as mentioned above, finite element analysis can now be done using the dimensions calculated.

Due to the size and shape of the wing box, the ratios between dimensions are very high, which
resulted in some difficulty running a finite-element approach. To create the mesh for the thin
structures, a small element size was required and this, when used along the entire length of the
structure, leads to the analysis calculating for such a large number of points that it becomes
unfeasible. Therefore, a shell idealisation technique was used within Pro-Engineer to solve for the
surfaces of the wing box. Once a material and thickness was applied to each surface, a much faster
and more feasible analytical solution was possible.

For the analysis, the root was constrained and the distributed force was added along the 25% chord

18
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

line. This force was interpolated from root to tip to replicate the triangular loading assumptions from
the numerical analysis.

Figure 21 – Deflection of the wing box using FE analysis in Pro-E

Figure 22 – Deflection comparison from the numerical results

The maximum deflection calculated by Pro-Engineer for the wing box design was 0.96 metres. In
comparison, the calculated value in MATLAB was 0.81m, giving a difference of 15.6%. The error
between these results can be explained by the assumptions made in using the shell idealisations
within the Pro-Engineer analysis. To create the shells, average thicknesses along the wing-box had to
be used for each case, rather than including the design’s varying dimensions. This simplification
resulted in smaller spars close to the root than the actual design, hence producing slightly larger
stress and wing deflection values.

The principle stress was also analysed by Pro-Engineer, and the values displayed in Figure 23 help to
reinforce the explanation of the variation between the deflection values. The maximum principle stress
is much higher at 370MPa compared to 300MPa, and this will cause the extra deflection.

A 15% error in deflection between these results is satisfactory to validate the numerical methods used
in MATLAB, when taking into consideration the approximations used in defining the mesh used in Pro-
Engineer. Although the stress in the finite-element analysis is considerably higher than that calculated
in the numerical analysis, and also slightly higher than the yield stress of the aluminium alloy, the fact
that these values only occur in areas that are underrepresented, by up to half the volume of material
through using the shell approximation method, restores confidence and reliability in the design.

19
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

Figure 23 – Principles stress of the wing box by FE analysis using Pro-E with the view from below

This wing-box design combines maximum weight-effectiveness with multiple analytical methods that
fully demonstrate the ability of the design to safely handle the aircraft’s worst-case loading scenario,
whilst retaining structural integrity and experiencing minimal distortion to the wing’s important
aerodynamic profile.

References
 eFunda, I. (2011). Euler Bernoulli Beam Equation. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from
efunda: The Online Reference for Engineers:
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/beams/theory.cfm
 Megson, T. H. (1999). Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
 Vanovschi, V. (2006). Online Integral Calculator. Retrieved November 27, 2011, from
NumberEmpire.com: http://www.numberempire.com/integralcalculator.php

6.0 Appendices
 Appendix 1 - MATLAB code
 Appendix 2 - Excel spread-sheet

20
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

Appendix 1 - MATLAB code


clear
clc
close all

% * * * * Inputs * * * *
% Box materials
maxs=350E6; % Max stress MN
E = 70E9; % Youngs Modulus
G = 27E9;
dens=2700; % Density

% Wing data
RootC=4800; % Root chord
TipC=3600; % Tip chord

RootT=0.12; % Root thickness


TipT=0.08; % Tip thickness

Span=32; % wing span m

% Box dimensions
mDlr=10*floor(((RootC*RootT)/1.05)/10); % max spar hieght at
root/leading mm
mDtr=10*floor((mDlr/2.2)/10); % max spar hieght at
root/trailing mm

mDlt=10*floor(((TipC*TipT)/1.05)/10); % max spar hieght at


tip/leading mm
mDtt=10*floor((mDlt/2.2)/10); % max spar hieght at
tip/trailing mm

Cwr=RootC; % wing root chord mm


Cwt=TipC; % wing tip chord mm

Wr=0.6*Cwr; % wing box width at root mm


wr=Wr/1000; % wing box width at root m
Wt=0.6*Cwt; % wing box width at tip mm
wt=Wt/1000; % wing box width at root m

L=Span/2; % spar length/wing semi-span in m


l=L*1000; % spar length/wing semi-span in mm

ar=Cwr/Cwt; % aspect ratio


Ar=Cwt/Cwr; % aspect ratio

n=2; % number of spars


ts=0.001; % skin thinckness mm

% Loads
m=74000; % mass
slf=4; % straight and level factor
w=m*slf*10; % total load at gust (n)
w2=(w/2); % loading per wing (n)
q=w2/L; % distributed load (n/m)

% * * * * * Create spar data sheets * * * * *

21
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

[tdata,rdata]=DataC( mDlr,mDtr,mDlt,mDtt,Wr,Wt,ts);

% * * * * * Calcs to find best spars * * * * *

% Find lightest root dimensions first

% Direct stress at root


sdr=size(rdata,1);
p=0;
for i=1:1:sdr
rdata(i,9)=(((q*(L^3))/(6*L))*(rdata(i,1)+rdata(i,4))/2)/rdata(i,8);
if rdata(i,9)<=maxs
if rdata(i,9)>=maxs*0.7 % between 70% and 100% Stress
p=p+1;
end
end
end
dsdata=zeros(p,9);
p=0;
for i=1:1:sdr
if rdata(i,9)<=maxs
if rdata(i,9)>=maxs*0.7
p=p+1;
dsdata(p,:)=rdata(i,:);
end
end
end

% Shear stress at root

sds=size(dsdata,1);
p=0;
for i=1:1:sds
t=dsdata(i,3);
D=dsdata(i,1);
hav=(dsdata(i,1)+dsdata(i,4))/4;
d=D-(2*t);
b=dsdata(i,2);
B=b+t;
ixx=dsdata(i,8);

% Shear flow
Ba=ixx/(4*hav^2); % Point area for boom
dq1=(-Ba*q*hav)/ixx;
q0=q/(8*hav);
qmax=dq1+q0;

% Rate of twist
tw=((wr)+2*hav)/(2*(wr*2*hav)*G*ts) * (q/(8*(wr/2)*hav) *
(4*Ba*(wr/2)*hav^2)/ixx);

dsdata(i,10)=-qmax;

if dsdata(i,10)<=maxs % Shear limit


p=p+1;
end
end

22
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

sdsdata=zeros(p,10);
p=0;
for i=1:1:sds
if dsdata(i,10)<=maxs
p=p+1;
sdsdata(p,:)=dsdata(i,:);
end
end

% Find smallest area spar - should be lightest solution

ssds=size(sdsdata,1);
rArea=100; % Random large number
for i=1:1:ssds
if sdsdata(i,7)<=rArea
rArea=sdsdata(i,7);
root=sdsdata(i,:);
end
end

% Find lightest tip dimensions

% Shear stress and twist at tip

sdt=size(tdata,1);
p=0;
for i=1:1:sdt
t=tdata(i,3);
D=tdata(i,1);
hav=(tdata(i,1)+tdata(i,4))/4;
d=D-(2*t);
b=tdata(i,2);
B=b+t;
ixx=tdata(i,8);

% Shear flow
Ba=ixx/(4*hav^2); % Point area for boom
dq1=(-Ba*q*hav)/ixx;
q0=q/(8*hav);
qmax=dq1+q0;

% Rate of twist rads/z


tw=((wt)+2*hav)/(2*(wt*2*hav)*G*ts) * (q/(8*(wt/2)*hav) *
(4*Ba*(wt/2)*hav^2)/ixx);

% Max twist degrees


twmax=tw*L*180/3.16;
tdata(i,10)=twmax;

if tdata(i,9)<=maxs % Shear limit


if tdata(i,10)<=13 % Twist limit
p=p+1;
end
end
end

dtdata=zeros(p,10);
p=0;
for i=1:1:sdt

23
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

if tdata(i,9)<=maxs
if tdata(i,10)<=13 % Twist limit
p=p+1;
dtdata(p,:)=tdata(i,:);
end
end
end

% Find smallest area spar - should be lightest solution

sdt=size(dtdata,1);
rArea=100; % Random large number
for i=1:1:sdt
if dtdata(i,7)<=rArea
rArea=dtdata(i,7);
tip=dtdata(i,:);
end
end

% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
% Analysis/Plotting of selected spars
% * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

iters=16;
dz=L/iters;

% Spar Dimensions

t1=root(3);
t2=tip(3);
dt1=(t1-t2)/iters;

t3=root(6);
t4=tip(6);
dt2=(t3-t4)/iters;

D1=root(1);
D2=tip(1);
dD1=(D1-D2)/iters;

D3=root(4);
D4=tip(4);
dD2=(D3-D4)/iters;

d_1=D1-2*t1;
d_2=D2-2*t2;

d_3=D3-2*t3;
d_4=D4-2*t4;

b1=root(2);
b2=tip(2);
db1=(b1-b2)/iters;

b3=root(5);
b4=tip(5);
db2=(b3-b4)/iters;

24
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

B_1=b1+t1;
B_2=b2+t2;

B_3=b3+t3;
B_4=b4+t4;

w1=Wr/1000/2;
w2=Wt/1000/2;
dw=(w1-w2)/iters;

% Draw Unloaded Spars

uspar1=zeros(9,3,iters+1);
uspar2=zeros(9,3,iters+1);

for i=1:1:L+1
D=D1-(i-1)*dD1;
b=b1-(i-1)*db1;
t=t1-(i-1)*dt1;
x=w1-(i-1)*dw;

uspar1(1,1:2,i)=[x,0.5*(D1-D)];
uspar1(2,1:2,i)=uspar1(1,1:2,i)+[0,D];
uspar1(3,1:2,i)=uspar1(2,1:2,i)+[-(b+t),0];
uspar1(4,1:2,i)=uspar1(3,1:2,i)+[-0,-t];
uspar1(5,1:2,i)=uspar1(4,1:2,i)+[b,0];
uspar1(6,1:2,i)=uspar1(1,1:2,i)+[-t,t];
uspar1(7,1:2,i)=uspar1(6,1:2,i)+[-b,0];
uspar1(8,1:2,i)=uspar1(7,1:2,i)+[0,-t];
uspar1(9,1:2,i)=uspar1(1,1:2,i);
uspar1(:,3,i)=i-1;
end

for i=1:1:L+1
D=D3-(i-1)*dD2;
b=b3-(i-1)*db2;
t=t3-(i-1)*dt2;
x=w1-(i-1)*dw;

uspar2(1,1:2,i)=[-x,0.5*(D1-D)];
uspar2(2,1:2,i)=uspar2(1,1:2,i)+[0,D];
uspar2(3,1:2,i)=uspar2(2,1:2,i)+[(b+t),0];
uspar2(4,1:2,i)=uspar2(3,1:2,i)+[0,-t];
uspar2(5,1:2,i)=uspar2(4,1:2,i)+[-b,0];
uspar2(6,1:2,i)=uspar2(1,1:2,i)+[t,t];
uspar2(7,1:2,i)=uspar2(6,1:2,i)+[b,0];
uspar2(8,1:2,i)=uspar2(7,1:2,i)+[0,-t];
uspar2(9,1:2,i)=uspar2(1,1:2,i);
uspar2(:,3,i)=i-1;
end

% copy for load


lspar1=uspar1;
lspar2=uspar2;

% uspar1(:,2,:)=uspar1(:,2,:)D1-0.05;
% uspar2(:,2,:)=uspar2(:,2,:)D1-0.05;

hold on

25
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

set(gcf,'renderer','opengl')
fc=[0.4 0.4 0.4]; % colour

% Create faces from cross sections

uspar1f=zeros(4,3,8);
uspar2f=zeros(4,3,8);
for i=1:1:L
for j=1:1:8
uspar1f(1,:,j)=uspar1(j,1:3,i);
uspar1f(2,:,j)=uspar1(j+1,1:3,i);
uspar1f(3,:,j)=uspar1(j+1,1:3,i+1);
uspar1f(4,:,j)=uspar1(j,1:3,i+1);

h1=fill3(uspar1f(:,3,j),uspar1f(:,1,j),uspar1f(:,2,j),fc*2);
set(h1,'edgecolor','none');

uspar2f(1,:,j)=uspar2(j,1:3,i);
uspar2f(2,:,j)=uspar2(j+1,1:3,i);
uspar2f(3,:,j)=uspar2(j+1,1:3,i+1);
uspar2f(4,:,j)=uspar2(j,1:3,i+1);

h2=fill3(uspar2f(:,3,j),uspar2f(:,1,j),uspar2f(:,2,j),fc*2);
set(h2,'edgecolor','none');
end
end

h1=fill3(uspar1(:,3,1),uspar1(:,1,1),uspar1(:,2,1),fc*2);
set(h1,'edgecolor','none');
h2=fill3(uspar1(:,3,L+1),uspar1(:,1,L+1),uspar1(:,2,L+1),fc*2);
set(h2,'edgecolor','none');

h3=fill3(uspar2(:,3,1),uspar2(:,1,1),uspar2(:,2,1),fc*2);
set(h3,'edgecolor','none');
h4=fill3(uspar2(:,3,L+1),uspar2(:,1,L+1),uspar2(:,2,L+1),fc*2);
set(h4,'edgecolor','none');

alpha(0.1)

%%% Draw Loaded Beams

ixxr=root(8);
ixxt=tip(8);
k=(ixxr-ixxt)/(iters);

% Calculate point Deflection


xi=zeros(1,iters);
yi=zeros(1,iters);
zi=zeros(1,iters);

% constant c
f=-q/(6*L*E*k) * ((-ixxt^3*log(16*k+ixxt)/(k^3)) + (16*ixxt^2)/(k^2) -
((16^2*ixxt)/(2*k)) + (16^3)/3);
fL=f*L;
% constant d
g=(-q*(((-6*ixxt^4)*log(ixxt+(16*k)))/k - (96*ixxt^3*log(ixxt+16*k)) +
(96*ixxt^3) + (3*ixxt^2*k*(16^2)) - (ixxt*(k^2)*(16^3)) +
((k^3)*(16^4))/2))/(36*L*E*k^4)-fL;

26
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

for i=0:1:L
z=i;
fz=f*z;
y1=(q/(36*L*E*k^4)) * (((-6*ixxt^4)*log(ixxt+k*z))/k -
(6*ixxt^3*z*log(ixxt+k*z)) + 6*ixxt^3 + 3*ixxt^2*k*z^2 - ixxt*k^2*z^3 +
(k^3*z^4)/2);
y=y1+fz+g;
yi(i+1)=y;
zi(i+1)=z;
xi(i+1)=0;
end

miny=min(yi);
if miny<0
yi=yi-miny;
end

% Calculate point rate of twist


theta=zeros(1,iters);
tau=zeros(1,iters);
for i=0:1:L-1
D=((D1+D2)/2)+i*(dD1+dD2)/2;
t=((t1+t2)/2)+i*(dt1+dt2)/2;
b=((b1+b2)/2)+i*(db1+db2)/2;
B=b+t;
d=D-(2*t);
hav=D/2;
ixx=ixxr-k*i;

% Shear flow
Ba=ixx/(4*hav^2); % Point area for boom
dq1=(-Ba*q*hav)/ixx;
q0=q/(8*hav);
tau(i+1)=-(dq1+q0)/ts;

% Rate of twist rads/z


tw=((wt)+2*hav)/(2*(wt*2*hav)*G*ts) * (q/(8*(wt/2)*hav) *
(4*Ba*(wt/2)*hav^2)/ixx);
if i<=1
theta(i+1)=tw;
else
theta(i+1)=theta(i)+tw;
end

end

theta=-theta*180/3.14;

% Plot Spar data


alpha=zeros(1,L);
for i=1:1:L
% Add twist
Rz=[cosd(theta(i)),-sind(theta(i)),0; sind(theta(i)), cosd(theta(i)),
0; 0, 0, 1]; % Rotational matrix
for j=1:9
lspar1(j,:,i+1)=lspar1(j,:,i+1)*Rz; % Add twist to leading edge
lspar2(j,:,i+1)=lspar2(j,:,i+1)*Rz; % Add twist to trailing
edge
end

27
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

% Add rotation
alpha(i)=atand(yi(L+1-i)/i);
Rx=[1,0,0; 0, cosd(alpha(i)),-sind(alpha(i)); 0,
sind(alpha(i)), cosd(alpha(i))]; % Rotational matrix
for j=1:9
lspar1(j,:,i+1)=lspar1(j,:,i+1)*Rx; % Add twist to leading edge
lspar2(j,:,i+1)=lspar2(j,:,i+1)*Rx; % Add twist to trailing
edge
end
end

% Create faces from cross sections


lspar1f=zeros(4,3,8);
lspar2f=zeros(4,3,8);
for i=1:1:L
for j=1:1:8
lspar1f(1,:,j)=lspar1(j,1:3,i);
lspar1f(2,:,j)=lspar1(j+1,1:3,i);
lspar1f(3,:,j)=lspar1(j+1,1:3,i+1);
lspar1f(4,:,j)=lspar1(j,1:3,i+1);

h1=fill3(lspar1f(:,3,j),lspar1f(:,1,j),lspar1f(:,2,j),fc*2);
set(h1,'edgecolor',fc);

lspar2f(1,:,j)=lspar2(j,1:3,i);
lspar2f(2,:,j)=lspar2(j+1,1:3,i);
lspar2f(3,:,j)=lspar2(j+1,1:3,i+1);
lspar2f(4,:,j)=lspar2(j,1:3,i+1);

h2=fill3(lspar2f(:,3,j),lspar2f(:,1,j),lspar2f(:,2,j),fc*2);
set(h2,'edgecolor',fc);
end
end

h1=fill3(lspar1(:,3,1),lspar1(:,1,1),lspar1(:,2,1),fc*2);
set(h1,'edgecolor','none');
h2=fill3(lspar1(:,3,L+1),lspar1(:,1,L+1),lspar1(:,2,L+1),fc*2);
set(h2,'edgecolor','none');

h3=fill3(lspar2(:,3,1),lspar2(:,1,1),lspar2(:,2,1),fc*2);
set(h3,'edgecolor','none');
h4=fill3(lspar2(:,3,L+1),lspar2(:,1,L+1),lspar2(:,2,L+1),fc*2);
set(h4,'edgecolor','none');

% * * * * * * * * * *
% Wing overlay
% * * * * * * * * * *

% Standard NACA 0012


n12u=[0, 0; 0.00225, 0.008279; 0.00525, 0.012505; 0.00825, 0.015542;
0.01125, 0.018018; 0.02325, 0.025293; 0.05325, 0.036509; 0.08325, 0.043739;
0.14325, 0.05274; 0.26325, 0.059698; 0.38325, 0.05861; 0.5, 0.05294; 0.62,
0.043958; 0.74, 0.032637; 0.86,0.019344; 1, 0];
sn12=size(n12u,1);

wing=n12u;
for i=1:1:sn12-1
wing(i+sn12,:)=[wing(sn12-i,1),-wing(sn12-i,2)];
end

28
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

% Modify for wing root


wingr=wing*RootC/1000;
wingr(:,2)=wingr(:,2)+(0.5*D1);
wingr(:,1)=-wingr(:,1)+(0.5*RootC/1000);
wingr(:,3)=0;

% Modify for wing tip


wingt=wing*TipC/1000;
wingt(:,2)=wingt(:,2)+(0.5*D1);
wingt(:,1)=-wingt(:,1)+(0.5*TipC/1000);
wingt(:,3)=16;

% Create matrix of cross sections between root and tip


dwp=(wingr-wingt)/L;

wingm=zeros(31,3,L+1);
wingm(:,:,1)=wingr;
plot3(wingm(:,3,1),wingm(:,1,1),wingm(:,2,1))
h7=fill3(wingm(:,3,1),wingm(:,1,1),wingm(:,2,1),fc*2);
set(h7,'edgecolor','none')
for i=2:1:L+1
wingm(:,:,i)=wingm(:,:,i-1)-dwp;
end
wings=wingm; % copy for unloaded

for i=2:1:L+1
% Add twist
Rz=[cosd(theta(i-1)),-sind(theta(i-1)),0; sind(theta(i-1)),
cosd(theta(i-1)), 0; 0, 0, 1]; % Rotational matrix
for j=1:31
wingm(j,:,i)=wingm(j,:,i)*Rz;
end
Rx=[1,0,0; 0, cosd(alpha(i-1)),-sind(alpha(i-1)); 0,
sind(alpha(i-1)), cosd(alpha(i-1))]; % Rotational matrix
for j=1:31
wingm(j,:,i)=wingm(j,:,i)*Rx;
end

end
h8=fill3(wingm(:,3,17),wingm(:,1,17),wingm(:,2,17),fc*2);
set(h8,'facealpha',1);
set(h8,'edgecolor','none')

% Create faces from cross sections

% Plot loaded skin


wingf=zeros(4,3,30);
for i=1:1:L
for j=1:1:30
wingf(1,:,j)=wingm(j,1:3,i);
wingf(2,:,j)=wingm(j+1,1:3,i);
wingf(3,:,j)=wingm(j+1,1:3,i+1);
wingf(4,:,j)=wingm(j,1:3,i+1);

h1=fill3(wingf(:,3,j),wingf(:,1,j),wingf(:,2,j),fc*2);
set(h1,'facealpha',0.5);
set(h1,'edgecolor','none');
end

29
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

end

% Ploting unloaded skin


wings(:,2,:)=wings(:,2,:);
wingfs=zeros(4,3,30);
for i=1:1:L
for j=1:1:30
wingfs(1,:,j)=wings(j,1:3,i);
wingfs(2,:,j)=wings(j+1,1:3,i);
wingfs(3,:,j)=wings(j+1,1:3,i+1);
wingfs(4,:,j)=wings(j,1:3,i+1);

h2=fill3(wingfs(:,3,j),wingfs(:,1,j),wingfs(:,2,j),fc*2);
set(h2,'facealpha',0.1);
set(h2,'edgecolor','none');
end
end

% Calculate wieghts

% Spar weight
s1a=((D1*B_1-d_1*b1)+(D2*B_2-d_2*b2))/2;
s1v=s1a*L;
s1m=s1v*dens;

s2a=((D3*B_3-d_3*b3)+(D4*B_4-d_4*b4))/2;
s2v=s2a*L;
s2m=s2v*dens;

sm=s1m+s2m;

% Skin weight
avC=(RootC+TipC)/2/1000;
skv=2*avC*L*ts;
skm=skv*dens*1.05; % +5% mass as estimation

sigma=root(1,9)/1000000;
taumax=max(tau)/1000000;

str1(1)={sprintf('Max. Deflection = %gm',round(yi(1)*100)/100)};


str2(1)={sprintf('Max. Direct Stress = %gMPa',sigma)};
str1(2)={sprintf('Max. Wing twist = %g°',-round(theta(L)*100)/100)};
str2(2)={sprintf('Max. Shear Stress = %gMPa',taumax)};

str3(1)={sprintf('Spar Mass = %gKg',round(sm*100)/100)};


str3(2)={sprintf('Estimated Skin Mass = %gKg',round(skm*100)/100)};
str3(3)={sprintf('Total Structure Mass = %gKg',round((sm+skm)*100)/100)};

txt1=text(L*0.95,0,L/5,str1);
set(txt1,'HorizontalAlignment','center','FontName','calibri','color',0.75*f
c)

txt2=text(L*0.1,0,L/5,str2);
set(txt2,'HorizontalAlignment','center','FontName','calibri','color',0.75*f
c)

txt3=text(L*0.5,0,-L/7,str3);
set(txt3,'HorizontalAlignment','center','FontName','calibri','color',0.75*f
c)

30
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

axis equal
axis vis3d
axis off
grid on
camlight
lighting gouraud

function [tdata,rdata] = DataC( mDlr,mDtr,mDlt,mDtt,Wr,Wt,ts)


wr=Wr/1000;
wt=Wt/1000;

% Root Leading Edge Data


Dlm=450;
deltad=10;
diters=(mDlr-Dlm)/deltad+1;
tmin=10;
tmax=60;
deltat=10;
titers=(tmax-tmin)/deltat+1;
bmin=50;
bmax=200;
deltab=10;
biters=(bmax-bmin)/deltab+1;

i=0;
data1=zeros(titers*biters*diters,5);
for Dm=Dlm:deltad:mDlr
for tm=tmin:deltat:tmax
for bm=bmin:deltab:bmax
i=i+1;
D=Dm/1000;
t=tm/1000;
b=bm/1000;
B=(b+t);
d=(D-2*t);
A=B*D-b*d;
ix=2*(B*D^3-b*d^3)/12;
data1(i,1)=D;
data1(i,2)=t;
data1(i,3)=b;
data1(i,4)=A;
data1(i,5)=ix;
end
end
end

% Root Trailing Edge Data


Dtm=50;
deltad=10;
diters=(mDtr-Dtm)/deltad+1;
tmin=20;
tmax=60;
deltat=10;
titers=(tmax-tmin)/deltat+1;
bmin=50;
bmax=120;
deltab=10;

31
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

biters=(bmax-bmin)/deltab+1;

i=0;
data2=zeros(titers*biters*diters,5);
for Dm=Dtm:deltad:mDtr
for tm=tmin:deltat:tmax
for bm=bmin:deltab:bmax
i=i+1;
D=Dm/1000;
t=tm/1000;
b=bm/1000;
B=(b+t);
d=(D-2*t);
A=B*D-b*d;
ix=2*(B*D^3-b*d^3)/12;
data2(i,1)=D;
data2(i,2)=t;
data2(i,3)=b;
data2(i,4)=A;
data2(i,5)=ix;
end
end
end

% Tip Leading Edge Data


Dlm=50;
deltad=10;
diters=(mDlt-Dlm)/deltad+1;
tmin=10;
tmax=30;
deltat=10;
titers=(tmax-tmin)/deltat+1;
bmin=20;
bmax=100;
deltab=10;
biters=(bmax-bmin)/deltab+1;

i=0;
data3=zeros(titers*biters*diters,5);
for Dm=Dlm:deltad:mDlt
for tm=tmin:deltat:tmax
for bm=bmin:deltab:bmax
i=i+1;
D=Dm/1000;
t=tm/1000;
b=bm/1000;
B=(b+t);
d=(D-2*t);
A=B*D-b*d;
ix=2*(B*D^3-b*d^3)/12;
data3(i,1)=D;
data3(i,2)=t;
data3(i,3)=b;
data3(i,4)=A;
data3(i,5)=ix;
end
end
end

32
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

% Tip Trailing Edge Data


Dtm=50;
deltad=10;
diters=(mDtt-Dtm)/deltad+1;
tmin=10;
tmax=30;
deltat=5;
titers=(tmax-tmin)/deltat+1;
bmin=20;
bmax=80;
deltab=5;
biters=(bmax-bmin)/deltab+1;

i=0;
data4=zeros(titers*biters*diters,5);
for Dm=Dtm:deltad:mDtt
for tm=tmin:deltat:tmax
for bm=bmin:deltab:bmax
i=i+1;
D=Dm/1000;
t=tm/1000;
b=bm/1000;
B=(b+t);
d=(D-2*t);
A=B*D-b*d;
ix=2*(B*D^3-b*d^3)/12;
data4(i,1)=D;
data4(i,2)=t;
data4(i,3)=b;
data4(i,4)=A;
data4(i,5)=ix;
end
end
end

sd1=size(data1,1);
sd2=size(data2,1);
sd3=size(data3,1);
sd4=size(data4,1);

rdata=zeros(sd1*sd2,7);

p=1;
for i=1:1:sd1
for j=1:1:sd2
rdata(p,1)=data1(i,1); %D1
rdata(p,2)=data1(i,3); %b1
rdata(p,3)=data1(i,2); %t1

D1=data1(i,1); %D1
b1=data1(i,3); %b1
t1=data1(i,2); %t1

rdata(p,4)=data2(j,1); %D2
rdata(p,5)=data2(j,3); %b2
rdata(p,6)=data2(j,2); %t2
rdata(p,7)=data1(i,1)+data2(j,2); %A

D2=data2(j,1); %D2

33
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

b2=data2(j,3); %b2
t2=data2(j,2); %t2

d1=t1;
d2=t2;

B1=t1;
B2=t2;
y1=(D1-t1)/2;
y2=(D2-t2)/2;

ixxsp=(B1*D1^3)/12+(B2*D2^3)/12+2*(b1*d1/12+b1*d1*y1^2)+2*(b2*d2/12+b2*d2*y
2^2);
ixxsk=2*(wr*ts*((D1+D2)/2)^2);
rdata(p,8)=ixxsp+ixxsk;
p=p+1;
end
end

tdata=zeros(sd3*sd4,8);

p=1;
for i=1:1:sd3
for j=1:1:sd4
tdata(p,1)=data3(i,1); %D1
tdata(p,2)=data3(i,3); %b1
tdata(p,3)=data3(i,2); %t1

D1=data3(i,1); %D1
b1=data3(i,3); %b1
t1=data3(i,2); %t1

tdata(p,4)=data4(j,1); %D2
tdata(p,5)=data4(j,3); %b2
tdata(p,6)=data4(j,2); %t2
tdata(p,7)=data3(i,1)+data4(j,2); %A

D2=data4(j,1); %D2
b2=data4(j,3); %b2
t2=data4(j,2); %t2

d1=t1;
d2=t2;

B1=t1;
B2=t2;
y1=(D1-t1)/2;
y2=(D2-t2)/2;

ixxsp=(B1*D1^3)/12+(B2*D2^3)/12+2*(b1*d1/12+b1*d1*y1^2)+2*(b2*d2/12+b2*d2*y
2^2);
ixxsk=2*(wt*ts*((D1+D2)/2)^2);
tdata(p,8)=ixxsp+ixxsk;
p=p+1;
end
end

34
AERO318 – DESIGN OF A MINIMUM MASS WING-BOX December 2011

APPENDIX 2 – BUCKLING SPREADSHEET

35

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy