Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GOALS AND SIGNIFICANCE
The goal of this project is to simulate the wing box design process in industry and to
encourage team work. Integrally Stiffened Panel (Internal blade section) of wing box skin
was chosen for Casa NC212
To understand structural design criteria
C
on
fid
en
tia
fid
en
tia
Secondly, determine load distribution on the wing rely on every section, as Figure 1.
C
on
Figure 1
Thirdly, use y, c, SF, BM as the initial parameter for designing wing box including
rough wing mass, with difference of stringer pitch and rib pitch in order to parametric study
for the last part.
C
on
fid
en
tia
For highly loaded long panels, extrusions or machined plates are most commonly
employed. Section discontinuities such as encountered in the region of cutouts can often be
produced more easily from machined plate. From a cost standpoint it is usually better to
machine a section from the extruded integrally stiffened structures than to machine a section
of the same size from a billet of plate.
From a structural standpoint, appreciable weight savings are possible through the
integral-section design which also develops high resistance to buckling loads. In addition, the
reduction in the number of basic assembly attachments gives a smooth exterior skin surface.
In aircraft applications, the most significant advantages of integrally stiffened structures over
comparable riveted panels has been :
Reduction of amount of sealing material for pressurized fuel tank structures
3
because of their minimum section size. Investigations have indicated that an integrally
stiffened section can attain an exceptionally high degree of structural efficiency. A weight
reduction of approximately 10-15% was realized by the use of an integrally stiffened
structure.
It should be noted that in order to obtain the true weight difference, all non-optimum
tia
factors must by taken into account. The integrally stiffened design will have a relatively low
weight for the so-called non-optimum features. This is attributed to the machined local
padding and reinforcing material and permitted by integral cover construction. In contrast, the
en
builtup type of design generally requires a relatively large non-optimum weight because of the
many chordwise splices for ease of tank sealing and fabrication, discrete doublers, etc.
fid
From the foregoing one concludes that the lightest cover panel design can be obtained with an
integrally stiffened cover structure supported by sheet metal ribs with a preference for a large
spacing. If the use of integral skin is prohibited for such reasons as exfoliation, etc, then
C
on
special attention must be given to the non-optimum factor for using builtup skin-stringer
panel. End grain exposure and residual stresses (threshold stresses) due to fabrication pullup presented a stress corrosion risk. Airplane operator objections, due to experience with
integrally stiffened panels on some competitors airplane, led to a decision not to use them on
some of these commercial airplanes.
tia
Alternatively, for a given payload, saving in aircraft weight means reduced power
requirements. Therefore, it is not surprising that the aircraft manufacturer is prepared to invest
heavily in weight reduction[1].
en
Lower wing skin particularly prone to fatigue through the long-continued application and
relaxation of tension stress, so the standard material is aluminum alloy designated 2024-T3.
For upper wing skins, which have to withstand mainly compression stresses as the wing flexes
fid
C
on
wing box skin . Just several material can be chosen because need
to pay attention to the thickness of form of material (Clad sheet,
bar and extrusions, sheet and strip,) for machining.
In this design, following ESDU 76016, material can be chosen for upper skin is 2L 88-
T6 (Plate 40 mm< t < 63 mm) and material for lower skin is 2L 93-T651 (Plate 40 mm< t <
63 mm) or 2L 95-T651 (Plate 25 mm< t < 75 mm).
Anyway, in purpose to compare with another design, we choose the same material for
every part of wing box
Al 7075-T6 (DTD 5014) : Upper skin, spar web, rib web,
Al 2024-T3 (DTD 5070B): Lower skin
fn
(MPa) (kg/m3)
Shear strength
(MPa)
E
(MPa)
c2
(MPa)
572
331
76000
487
22.2
444
2810
483
283
73100
342
16.6
301
2780
Mat. Prop
7450 kg
329.98 kg
800 kg
= 0.967 kg / m 3
= 40 m2
= 19 m
tia
en
Taper ratio = 2
C
on
outboard
fid
Base on real wing planeform, model of half-wing is illustrated as Figure 2, Fuel tank
Figure 2
1
4S
2y
c planformcl = c planform +
1 ( ) 2
b
2
b
(1)
with
cplanform: chord length of section (m)
cl
: lift coefficient on section in case lift coefficient is 1.0
y
: position of section from central line (m)
S
: wing area (m2)
b
: wing span (m)
Since cl in equation (1) for lift coefficient is 1.0, real Cl is obtained by multiplying cl
tia
1
Vcr2CL S
2
Wcr
7450 9.81
CL =
=
= 0.4
1
1
2
2
Vcr S
0.967 97 40
2
2
(2)
fid
en
Wcr =
C
on
L =
1
V 2 cl S
2
(3)
SFi = SFi 1 + Li
General equation
tia
y
y
BM 2 = L1 y2 + 1 + L2 2
2
2
y
y
= L1 1 + L1 y2 + L2 2
2
2
SF SF1
= BM 1 + SF1 + 2
y2
2
SF + SF2
= BM 1 + 1
y2
2
BM 2 = BM 1 + BM
BM i = BM i 1 + ( SFi 1 + SFi )
y
2
3.2.6 Result
fid
en
= BM i 1 + BM i
In this part, detail of load distribution in case Rib pitch (L) = 0.35 m and Stringer pitch
C
on
(b) = 0.1 m
en
fid
C
on
l
tia
Figure 3
tia
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
fid
10000
en
80000
C
on
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
y (m)
Figure 4
D/ Conclusion
Maximum Shear Force and Bending Moment occur at the wing center line (SFmax =
25,011 N; BMmax = 94,488 Nm). Choose wing root at the center line, so use these values to
design wing box at root.
10
Chord at each cross section of the wing is different so w and h are also different
Figure 5
%c (FS)
%c(RS)
%c max
20
60
18
0.45
tia
en
y, c, SF, BM
fid
C
on
Number of stringer
Distance of stringer
Number of stringer
Distance of stringer
The reason why sizing spar web was done first is getting shear flow on upper and lower
skin to check buckling due to shear when sizing upper and lower skin, illustrated in Figure 6
11
3.3.4 Sizing Spar Webs ( Front Spar Web and Rear Spar Web)
Mat. Prop
Shear strength
(MPa)
E
(MPa)
c2
(MPa)
572
331
76000
487
m
22.2
fn
(MPa) (kg/m3)
444
2810
all
1.0
s
where
tia
all : allowable shear stress of the panel, which is the smallest value of:
skin shear local buckling stress
en
fid
Estimate the enclosed area, A, of the primary structural box at representative sections
C
on
QT =
T
2A
with
Figure 6
12
Note that (from Figure 6), its evident shear flow in the rear spar web (+) larger than
shear flow in the front spar web (-), so rear spar web thickness will be thicker than rear spar
web thickness. This was proved in design results
Where T is now the applied distributed torsion, and QT will be nose up or nose down and
hence positive or negative depending on the sign convention
Select the allowable shear stress, f s as appropriate
The mean material thickness needed to react the torsion moment is then:
tq =
T
2 Af s
tia
The shear flow in the webs due to the shear force is then:
V
hT
en
QV =
The net shear flow in the web is then approximately given by:
fid
C
on
Qw = QV 2
x
QT
w
(+) for rear spar web thickness and (-) for front spar web thickness
Where x is the chordwise location of particular web relative to the mid point of the box
Qw
fs
cr = K S E
Figure 7
13
Consider spar webs, skin (upper and lower), ribs as narrow panels with heavy skin, so
this panel will act as if it had hinged edges (panel 4 in Figure 7). Look up in Figure 5.4.6 ([1],
pp 139) with
Since
a
in line 4 to get value of K s .
b
a
always larger than 4, K s = 5 is used when checking buckling due to shear for
b
tia
Mat. Prop
en
Shear strength
(MPa)
E
(MPa)
c2
(MPa)
572
331
76000
487
22.2
444
2810
fid
fn
(MPa) (kg/m3)
C
on
i. At various points across the span evaluate the idealised depth of the primary
structural box, h (Figure 8)
ii.
Figure 8
iii. Calculate the effective direct loads, P, in the top and bottom surfaces required to
react the appropriate bending moment, M, at each section from: P =
M
h
14
f b = A FB
wL
where
L: the local rib or frame spacing
w: the width of the box perpendicular to the bending axis
tia
C
on
fid
en
For a distributed flange assume initially a uniform effective thickness across the width,
w, to give
t=
M
hwf b
15
Typically this thickness will be made up of skin and stringer area. The effective stringer
are being about half of that of the skin area. Thus the actual skin thickness is about
t=
0.65M
hwf b
tw
= 2.25
te
bw
= 0.65
b
and
tia
comp s2
+
1.0
cr cr2
en
fid
C
on
cr
P
Aeff
comp =
where
P : the effective end load
s =
tq
te (initial )
16
where
tq
due to
compression
f b = f be
f c = (c2 f b )1/ 2
f be
t
= KE
b
tia
where
f be : average elastic compressive stress in panel at which local buckling first occurs
en
fid
f b = f be
f c : crippling stress
C
on
t
f cr , skin = KE e
b
K = 3.62
K = 6.32
17
In this design report, two kind of skin panels were checked for local buckling. However,
just need to check with hinged edge is enough
B3. Checking buckling due to shear
Do the same process with part B (B. Checking due to shear) in 2.3.2 Sizing Spar Webs
t
to get cr = K S E
b
Shear strength
(MPa)
E
(MPa)
c2
(MPa)
483
283
73100
342
fn
(MPa) (kg/m3)
16.6
301
2780
C
on
fid
Mat. Prop
en
and
tia
comp s2
+
1.0
cr cr2
satisfy requirements below. Finally, skin thickness (t) at each section is obtained.
Do the same process of sizing upper skin but the difference here is design criteria.
Upper skin withstand mainly compression stresses as the wing flexes upwards during
flight, so almost unstable problem due to bucking, so checking buckling is the most
importance.
Beside that, lower skin particularly prone to fatigue through the long-continued
application and relaxation of tension stress, so checking damage tolerance is the most
importance. However, for checking damage tolerance take long time and need more detail
information about flight hour, and sizing without damage tolerance get value of skin thickness
(t) too much smaller than upper skin thickness. So get lower skin thickness equal to upper
skin thickness at each section.
Tension and shear interaction criteria for lower skin sizing is showed below
18
Using tension and shear interaction criteria for lower skin sizing
all
1 .0
comb
where as material failure according to Von Mises :
comb =
all
comp + 3 2
tia
Note that Lower panel is also critical due to fatigue. The criteria have to be considered is :
Mat. Prop
Shear strength
(MPa)
E
(MPa)
c2
(MPa)
572
331
76000
487
m
22.2
fn
(MPa) (kg/m3)
444
2810
C
on
fid
en
all 1G
1 0
t
Can be taken as a cantilever beam loaded by a vertical shear force equal to the hinge
reaction and a bending couple due to the offset of the hinge chordwise from the rear
spar location. The spar web will react most of the vertical shear, and in practice if the
hinge fitting is perpendicular to the rear spar, the rib flanges at the spar will be loaded
by direct forces given by:
R = V .
where
x
h
= 2.25
= 1.226 kg/m3
Lift on flap at each section (do the same as lift on wing at each section )
V =
1
2
Vtake
_ off ClS flap
2
ys
en
A flange =
tia
Vi = Vi 1 + Vi
C
on
ii.
fid
rib (i+1)
rib (i)
rib (i-1)
Qz1
Qz2
R = Qz1 Qz 2
R
(daN/mm) = shear flow
2. h
h=
hFS + hRS
2
20
iii.
n =
2. 2 .t panel .L
E.h.trib _ web
where
upper
lower
: rib height
tia
t panel
shear _ strength
= upperpanel
fid
: tskin actual
q3
en
C
on
= KE rib _ web
w
K = 3.62
Do the same process with part B (B. Checking due to shear) in 2.3.2 Sizing Spar Webs
2
to get cr , ribweb
( )
q3
trib _ web
21
L = rib
If stiffener for ribs web was not use, rib webs thickness would be so thick structure
would be very heavy. In this design, rib webs was added two stiffener divide rib webs into
three part as figure below. Finally, get reasonable weight of ribs web
tia
q3
shear _ strength
en
possible with conditions that satisfy requirements below. Finally, skin thickness (t) at each
section is obtained.
C
on
3.4 RESULT
and
fid
n < fcr,ribweb
The main results of sizing wing box were shown in three tables below with three couple
value
The purpose of given Stringer pitch in this report is to determine the number of stringers.
The number of stringer is still kept for all cross sections so stringer pitch of each cross section
will be different and decreased from root to tip. Thats why in the result stringer pitch is not
equal to the number above.
22
23
en
fid
C
on
l
tia
24
en
fid
C
on
l
tia
25
en
fid
C
on
l
tia
en
tia
A. Wing box with Rib pitch L = 0.3 m and Stringer pitch = 0.08 m
C
on
fid
Figure 9
Figure 10
26
B. Wing box with Rib pitch L = 0.35 m and Stringer pitch = 0.1 m
C
on
fid
en
tia
Figure 11
Figure 12
27
C. Wing box with Rib pitch L = 0.4 m and Stringer pitch = 0.12 m
C
on
fid
en
tia
Figure 13
Figure 14
28
4. PARAMETRIC STUDY
From the design results, draw mass of (upper skin, lower skin, spars, ribs)
vs stringer pitch and rib pitch.
(b) Stringer pitch
(m)
Spars mass
(kg)
Ribs mass
(kg)
0.08
0.10
0.12
84
96
123
83
95
121
42
40
40
24
20
18
232
252
303
Parametric Study
mass (kg)
350
300
tia
250
W_upper skin
200
W_lower skin
W_spars
150
W_ribs
50
fid
0
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
C
on
(L) Rib pitch
(m)
W-total
en
100
0.11
0.12
Spars mass
(kg)
Ribs mass
(kg)
84
96
123
83
95
121
42
40
40
24
20
18
232
252
303
0.30
0.35
0.40
Parametric Study
mass (kg)
350
300
250
W_upper skin
200
W_lower skin
W_spars
150
W_ribs
W-total
100
50
0
0.25
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.41
29
It is evident that stringer pitch and rib pitch have the important role in mass
of half wing and also every part of wing box. Increasing stringer pitch and rib
pitch (reducing number of stringers, number of ribs) mass of spars and ribs
reduce insignificantly, but the stringer have to be longer, thicker and skin also
mass of skins (including stiffener) increase promptly in order to keep
tia
From Figure 15, it is obvious to observe the change of wing box cross
section shape when L and b were changed.
en
The difference between wing box mass in case (L = 0.3m and b = 0.08m)
and in case (L = 0.35m and b = 0.1m) is not too much (232 kg 252 kg) but
the difference between wing box mass in case (L = 0.35m and b = 0.1m) and in
fid
case (L = 0.4m and b = 0.12m) is significantly (252 kg 303 kg). It mean that
case of (L = 0.4m and b = 0.12m) is not good and it will never be using for
C
on
design.
(54mm).
Unfortunately, time is not enough for design other case, so it is kept for further
study.
Figure 15
30
5. FURTHER STUDY
Reduce L and b to get more number of stringers and get less length of
stringer and less weight of skin (including stringer).
Understand the influence of individual L and b.
From two suggestions above, withdrawn the optimization of wing mass and
C
on
fid
en
tia
31