Notes on Aerospace Structures AME 30341

Edmundo Corona Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556 ecorona@nd.edu August 9, 2006

Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Elements of Aerospace Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Work of the Aerospace Structural Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A Brief History 2.1 Early Aircraft: The Reign of the Wooden Biplane 2.2 The Establishment of the Cantilever Wing . . . . 2.2.1 Wood design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Metal aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Pressurized Cabins . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Composite Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 High Performance Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 5 8 9 9 15 15 16 17 18 18 19 23 23 24 27 27 29 30 33 34 34 34 35 35 37 37 37

3 Materials 3.1 Criteria for Material Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Typical Aerospace Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Structural Nomenclature 4.1 Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Fuselage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Empennage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Structural Design Denitions 5.1 Load Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Limit Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Ultimate Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Fracture 6.1 Fatigue Design Criteria . . . . . 6.1.1 Safe-Life Design . . . . . 6.1.2 Fail-Safe Design . . . . . 6.1.3 Choice Between Safe-Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Fail-Sage 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 6.2 Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Stress concentration . . . . . 6.2.2 When will a crack propagate? 6.2.3 Stress Intensity Factor . . . . 6.2.4 Fracture Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 38 40 40 40

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Objectives

The objectives of the course are: Present an overall, introductory view of the subject of aerospace structures and lightweight structures. Topics include: Historical perspectives and case studies Load analysis Materials Structural concepts Aeroelasticity Behavior of thin-walled beams Fatigue Buckling Applications of simple mechanics in relevant examples Present simple structural theories that yield solutions amenable to hand calculations or simple computational procedures. Although most of the work in the eld is now conducted using sophisticated computational tools, these will not be used in this course (if you are interested in computational methods in structures, you may want to consider taking AME 50541, Finite Elements, as one of your technical electives).

1.2

Elements of Aerospace Structures

Aerospace structures is a multi-disciplinary eld whose objective is to produce structures that meet all the requirements of a ying vehicle (or, in other words, actually build the airplane, rocket, etc.). The most important keyword is airworthiness or structural integrity. This 5

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

means that the structure will not fail or be damaged under the mission requirements of the aircraft. The second keyword, which is perhaps more of a constraint, is lightweight. Excess weight can result in big penalties in the performance and fuel consumption of aerospace vehicles (as well as land-based ones, although the impact is less dramatic). As an example, it was shown in a PBS program on the development of the Boeing 777 that, once the rst prototype had been nished, the aircraft was actually weighted to see if the design weight objective had been achieved. Had it not, Boeing would have had to pay the airline that placed the rst order (United) a certain number of Dollars per pound of overweight, presumably to cover the higher operating expense. In another example [1], one pound of unnecessary structural weight in a long-range missile may add more than 200 lbs. to the weight of the missile. In summary, the objective of aerospace structural engineers is to produce the lightest airworthy vehicle. Figure 1.1 shows various elements that are part of aerospace structures and a few examples in each category. The gure is not exhaustive, but intended to present a rough idea of the variety of issues that are considered in aerospace structural design and of the knowledge needed to address them. The elements shown are: Load Analysis: Prior to designing a structure, the type and magnitude of the loads that need to be supported have to be established. Load analysis refers to the calculation of such loads based on the mission requirements of the aircraft. Materials: Every component of an aircraft needs to be made using some material. Many materials are available to the structural designer. Careful research and analysis needs to be carried out in order to make the best choices. Mechanics: Structures need to be designed according to sound mechanics principles to ensure safety and optimum performance. Mechanics provides the tools needed to conduct load and structural analysis. Physical Factors: These are factors having to do with the physical response of the structure to loads. They inuence the form and material choice of each structural member and of the structure as a whole. Constraints: This list includes constraints that are dictated by practical and economic issues. Construction: Several types of construction have been developed for light-weight structural applications, the most appropriate one for the application at hand should be chosen. By judicious considerations of loads, materials, etc. and using the tools of mechanics, the goal of designing an optimal aircraft structure that meets reasonable design objectives can be achieved. This process will likely involve iterations, symbolized by the circular arrow in the gure.

1.2. ELEMENTS OF AEROSPACE STRUCTURES

It

ti era

on

i es

gn

Load Analysis - Ground loads - Maneuver loads - Landing loads

Materials - Wood - Plywood - Metals - Composites Mechanics - Statics - Dynamics - Mechanics of solids - Aerodynamics

Constraints - Low weight - Low cost - Ease of manufacture - Fit with aircraft requirements

AEROSPACE STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Physical Factors - Weight - Strength - Stability - Vibrations - Aeroelasticity - Fatigue - Corrosion

Construction - Built-up - Integrally machined - Sandwich construction - Co-cured

Optimum aircraft structure that meets the design objectives

Figure 1.1: Various disciplines that support aerospace structural design.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.3

Work of the Aerospace Structural Engineer

Structural engineers have very important responsibilities in aircraft/spacecraft design and operation. Their main responsibility is to ensure the structural integrity of the ight vehicle while keeping the weight as low as possible. In order to produce a safe structure that is optimal, the work of the structures group in an aerospace organization involves [1]: Applied load estimation: It is obvious that before sizing a structure, the loads that need to be carried must be determined. The load sources in ight vehicles are varied and include: aerodynamics forces, power plant thrust, inertia forces, control surface actuators, launching and landing events, armament, thermal loads, docking loads, etc. The results of the load analysis appear as reports with the load design criteria for the aircraft. Stress analysis: The objective of stress analysis is to specify the geometry (shape) and material for every structural member as well as for joints and connections required to assemble the structure. Structural dynamics: This subject involves the investigation of the response of the structure to vibration and shock, including aeroelastic phenomena such as utter. Dynamic phenomena must be studied to determine its eects on the structure and how the structure should be modied to diminish these eects. Research: Progress in aerospace structures depends on continued research into analytical and experimental tools that may improve the accuracy of calculations, into new materials, into new structural concepts, etc. In other words, research leads the way for the development of new and improved air vehicle structures.

Chapter 2 A Brief History

Anderson [2] wrote very nicely about the importance of structural design and construction in aerospace vehicles: In the grand scheme of ight vehicles, the consideration of structural design and analysis plays a special role. No matter how good the aerodynamics, or how powerful the propulsion, or how spectacular the ight dynamics, if the vehicle does not structurally hold together, then it is all for naught. Actually, structural design has further consequences than just holding the air vehicle together. It actually has a strong bearing on the ight dynamics of an aircraft as will be illustrated in the next section.

2.1

Early Aircraft: The Reign of the Wooden Biplane

Let us compare two very early aircraft, Langleys Aerodrome and the Wright Flyer I. Two attempts were made in 1903 to y the Aerodrome, and both resulted in failure. Figure 2.1 shows a photograph taken during the second try, at the instant after the aircraft was launched from a boat on the Potomac. By then, it was clear that the ight was not going to be successful. In fact, the Aerodrome seems to be breaking apart. Note the very large deections of the tandem wings, indicating that the structure was much too exible. Although structural failure may not have been the only factor that caused the Aerodrome to crash, it seems obvious that it played a role. Nine days after the failure of the Aerodrome, the Wright Flyer 1 made the acknowledged rst self-propelled, piloted, controlled ight in history, as shown in Fig. 2.2. Obviously, the Wright brothers succeeded in the various aspects of aircraft design and construction: aerodynamics, ight controls and structures. What are the main structural dierences between Langleys and the Wright brothers designs? The Aerodrome had two tandem wings, whereas the Flyer was a bi-plane, that is one wing was stacked on top of the other. The bi-plane construction had a signicant structural advantage over the tandem wing design: the two wings and the structure between them formed a truss that was sti enough to sustain the ight loads. The tandem wings of the Aerodrome, by contrast, seem to have been much too exible. Trusses had of course 9

10

CHAPTER 2. A BRIEF HISTORY

Figure 2.1: Second launch of Langleys Aerodrome on Dec. 8, 1903. Photograph from [2].

2.1. EARLY AIRCRAFT: THE REIGN OF THE WOODEN BIPLANE

11

Figure 2.2: First ight of the Wright Flyer I. December 17, 1903. Photograph from [2]. been used long before 1903 in building and bridge construction. In fact, the Wright brothers adopted the trussed bi-plane design from Octave Chanute who, prior to his interest in aeronautics had been a successful civil engineer. A schematic of the Flyers truss is shown in Fig. 2.3. Vertical wing struts attach the two front spars (or span-wise running beams) located at the leading edge of each wing. Similar struts connect the two rear spars. The spars and struts were made of wood. The diagonal bracing between the wings was made using steel wire. Each wing had a series of ribs that served as the truss members that connected the front and rear spars in each wing. Diagonal bracing in each wing was provided, to some degree, by the cotton fabric used as wing skin. The cotton fabric was sewn so that the threads ran at 45 to the spars. This ecient truss structure was so successful that bi-plane designs were the norm over the decades of the 1910s and the 1920s, when most airplanes had wooden structures covered with fabric. This is not to say that no successful monoplanes existed in this period, but their inferior stiness made them dangerous. In fact, Gordon [5] states that authorities in nearly every country frowned on monoplane construction, and in some cases it was actually forbidden Notable examples of early monoplane construction include Bleriots airplanes, one of which was the rst to cross the English channel in 1909. Figure 2.4 shows one of his monoplanes. Note the wires from the wing to the landing gear and to the apex of the post above the wing. These wires supported the wing. The upper wires supported the weight of the wing when the aircraft is on the ground, while the lower wires held the wing when it was producing lift. Another monoplane with some claim to fame was the Reissner-Junkers Ente, because it was the rst aircraft that incorporated a metal skin. Aerodynamically, it was clear that eliminating as many bracing wires as possible from the wing structure would result in decreased drag and improved performance of the aircraft. Structurally, this meant that the internal structure of the wing would have to be stockier

12

CHAPTER 2. A BRIEF HISTORY

Figure 2.3: Schematic of the Wright Flyer 1 structure showing a truss-type construction. Diagram from [3].

Figure 2.4: Bleriot aircraft similar to the one used to rst cross the English Channel. Photograph from [4].

2.1. EARLY AIRCRAFT: THE REIGN OF THE WOODEN BIPLANE

13

Figure 2.5: The Fokker Dr-1 tri-plane eliminated much of the wire bracing by employing a tubular spar for improved stiness. Diagram from [3]. to maintain appropriate stiness. The thicker wings used towards the end of WWI made this possible. The Fokker Dr-1 tri-plane, famously own by the Red Baron, was one aircraft where most of the bracing wires were eliminated, as shown in Fig. 2.5. Each wing had a single spar as shown in the gure. The spar, however, was not a single piece of wood, but a relatively wide hollow box with two internal box spars as shown in Fig. 2.6. Tubular structural members are very ecient structures to resist bending and torsional loads. In fact, nature has many examples of tubular structures, bamboo comes to mind as well as long bones. By 1917 the allies were achieving air superiority, so Anthony Fokker developed a monoplane with an unbraced wing, sometimes called a cantilever wing, for the Germans. The Fokker D8, shown in Fig. 2.7 had a performance better than anything available or in immediate prospect on the Allied side [4]. Unfortunately for the Germans, the faster D8 suered from a substantial number of structural failures. The wings tended to come o the airplane during pull-up maneuvers that should have been within the design limits of the aircraft. Obviously, some aspects of structural design were still not well understood at the time. Fokker discovered that the problem was a lethal form of aeroelastic instability called divergent condition that will be discussed in more detail later. By the end of the war, the traditional biplane had proven to be the safest aircraft structure and was regarded to be as almost unbreakable [4].

14

CHAPTER 2. A BRIEF HISTORY

Figure 2.6: Cross-section of the Dr-1 spar. Diagram from [3].

Figure 2.7: An example of a single-wing WWI ghter. The Fokker D8. Photograph from [7].

2.2. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CANTILEVER WING

15

Figure 2.8: An example of truss-type construction. Boeing model 40, 1925. Diagram from [6]. The Boeing Model 40B, shown in Fig. 2.8, was an early passenger plane produced in the late 1920s. The fuselage is made entirely of a steel tube truss structure with the main part of the fuselage covered with thin plywood. The construction of the wings was of typical braced bi-plane design, with a wooden skeleton covered with cloth. These airplanes were much faster than the early planes of the 1900s and could not depend on the wing fabric cover to act as bracing. Instead, note that wires have been used to brace the two spars and some of the ribs in each wing. This structural concept is called a drag-truss because it stiens the wing against bending induced by drag in the front-to-back direction.

2.2
2.2.1

The Establishment of the Cantilever Wing

Wood design

The problem of producing structurally sound, single cantilever (unbraced) wing airplanes began to be solved in the early 1930s. One of the main innovations appears to have been the concept of stressed-skin design. This type of design requires that the wing skin carry signicant shear stress. Therefore, the wing needs to be covered with a sti material such as plywood or sheet metal instead of just fabric. The Lockheed Vega, shown in Fig. 2.9 is

16

CHAPTER 2. A BRIEF HISTORY

Figure 2.9: The Lockheed model 1 Vega had a plywood wing cover, in turn covered by fabric. The box made by the two spars and the plywood panels had a high bending and torsional stiness. Diagram from [8]. an example of an early successful cantilever wing monoplane. The wing had two wooden spars, with spruce booms (or caps) and plywood webs. The wing was covered with plywood panels. Therefore, the two spars and the plywood skin formed a large box that was sti in both bending and torsion. Fabric was then used to cover the wood panels. The tail surfaces were similarly covered with wood paneling. Although it is obvious that wings are subjected to bending loads, it is not as intuitive to realize that they are also subjected to large torques. The development of the torque tube using stressed skin design resulted in a great structural advantage, and it remains a main feature of conventional transport aircraft wing design.

2.2.2

Metal aircraft

During the 1930s metal, particularly aluminum, alloys started to displace wood as the material of choice for aircraft construction. Boeing, Lockheed, Douglas and other aircraft companies started developing aircraft with all-metal structures. The most successful transport aircraft of this period was the Douglas DC-3, shown in Fig.2.10. The DC-3 had a three-spar wing and featured many of the essentials of modern aircraft construction. The DC-3 was

2.2. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CANTILEVER WING

17

Figure 2.10: The Douglas DC-3 was one of the rst successful all-metal aircraft. Diagram from [9]. the rst airplane that made airlines protable, without government subsidies.

2.2.3

Pressurized Cabins

Commercial jet-powered aircraft were developed during the 1950s. One of the rst was the British deHavilland Comet, see Fig. 2.11 that was put in service in 1952. The Comets had a cruise speed of 450 mi/hr and a ceiling of 42,000 ft, and so they provided signicant improvements in speed and comfort over propeller-driven aircraft. By 1953 , however, three Comets had crashed while in ight, the rst under a storm, but the other two under nominal weather conditions. It became clear that something was wrong with the Comets. After grounding the aircraft and conducting a historical investigation of the accidents (to be discussed later), it was found that the cause of the catastrophes was structural and, specically, metal fatigue. The loading on the structure was causing fatigue cracks to develop on the skin that grew to a sucient length to result in fast fracture. Comets eventually came back into service, but they faced strong competition from Boeing and Douglas, which had developed more advanced jet transports, the 707 and the DC-8, respectively. In 1958, the Boeing 707 (Fig. 2.12) received FAA certication. It incorporated structural improvements based on the experience of the Comet and also incorporated the fail-safe, or damage tolerant, design philosophy throughout the airframe. Aluminum alloys resistant

18

CHAPTER 2. A BRIEF HISTORY

Figure 2.11: The DeHavilland Comet. Photograph from [10]. to cracking were used to prevent fatigue failure even after millions of loading cycles.

2.2.4

Composite Materials

The shape of commercial aircraft has changed little since the development of the 707 as can be seen by comparing the Boeing 777 in Fig 2.13, designed in the 1990s, to the 707. The fuel eciency of the newer aircraft is signicantly better, however. It has been said [9] that fuel eciency has improved by 2% per year over the last few decades. Two-thirds of that is due to improvements in engine technology, and one-third is due to improved airframe technology. No doubt, this is due to the development of lighter structures, aided in part by the use of ber-reinforced composite materials at various points in the structure. These composites oer superior strength and stiness-to-weight ratios to metal alloys. The lessons learned in the past and cost considerations, however, have made the introduction of composite materials a gradual process. Figure 2.14 shows the gradual introduction of composite materials in Airbus transport aircraft. The use of composites has been more prominent in military, experimental and, surprisingly, general aviation aircraft.

2.3

High Performance Aircraft

Military ghter aircraft, like the F-16, are required to withstand signicant inertial forces that are generated due to the sharp maneuvers they must be able to accomplish. As a result the airframe of such aircraft is very robust, as shown in Fig. 2.15. Note how the construction of the wing involves multiple, closely spaced spars. In addition the wing skin covers are thick, in the order of 0.5 to 1 inch.

2.4. SUMMARY

19

Figure 2.12: The Boeing 707. Diagram from [6].

2.4

Summary

Structural technology has played a very important role in the development of the aircraft. The constant tradeo between light weight and stiness/strength has made modern aerospace structures some of the most optimized structures ever designed. Although this brief history has concentrated on aeronautical structures, similar issues arise in rocket and space structures. These structures must be strong enough to withstand the rigors of rocket launch, which include high inertial and aerodynamic forces, and must maintain structural integrity either in orbit or space travel to minimize deections due to maneuvers (pointing maneuvers, orbit insertion, etc.) and thermal loads, such as when going from sunlight to shadow and vice-versa.

20

CHAPTER 2. A BRIEF HISTORY

Figure 2.13: The Boeing 777. Diagram from [6].

Figure 2.14: Evolution of composite materials use at Airbus. Diagram from [11].

2.4. SUMMARY

21

Figure 2.15: The F-16 ghter. Diagram from [8].

22

CHAPTER 2. A BRIEF HISTORY

Chapter 3 Materials
Every airframe component needs to be constructed using an optimally chosen material. This often involves compromises over various considerations. Some of the criteria for material choice are given below.

3.1

Criteria for Material Choice

Static structural eciency: Two properties are of interest here. The rst is the specic strength, dened by the ratio u / where u and are the ultimate stress and the density of the material, respectively. The second one is the specic stiness, dened by E/, where E is the Youngs modulus of the material. Obviously, materials with high specic strength and stiness are desirable in aerospace structures. Fatigue resistance: Fatigue is the deterioration of the structure due to cyclic loading, generally due to crack initiation and growth. Materials with high fatigue resistance are desired in air vehicles that have long operational lifetimes such as transport aircraft. Fracture toughness: This parameter represents the resistance a material presents to fracture. Materials with high fracture toughness are preferred. Corrosion and embrittlement: These are results of the chemical interaction between the material and the environment. Embrittlement refers to the loss of fracture toughness. Environmental stability: This represents the resistance to mechanical property changes due to the operating environment, including mechanical stress. Availability in desired form: Materials are available in various shapes (bar, plate, tube, sheet, etc.) and sizes. Manufacturing can be simplied if the materials is available in shapes and sizes that are close to those of the nished structural members. Cost: The purchase cost of the material must be balanced against the physical properties of the material. 23

24

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

Fabrication characteristics: This refers to the easy cutting, drilling, etc. of a material and inuences the manufacturing costs of the airframe. Materials used in satellites and interplanetary vehicles must meet requirements dictated by the space environment. Some of the additional material properties of interest for spacecraft are: Vacuum properties: The very low pressures in the space environment may cause polymeric materials to decompose and metals to sublimate. Thermal properties: Low-earth orbit satellites experience wide temperature ranges as they go from shade to direct sunlight. Atmospheric entry vehicles experience high temperatures. Thermal conductivity and expansion coecients are critical parameters. Space telescopes are examples of satellites where thermal expansion is of critical importance because changes in dimensions can have detrimental eects on optic performance. Radiation properties: Radiation can have the eect of removing structural material and must be accounted if thin-lms are used. Radiation embrittlement can also be a problem. Magnetic properties: Magnetic elds, such as the earths, can induce in undesired moments that cause orientation change of satellites. Non-magnetic materials are preferred. The ideal aerospace structural material would have excellent characteristics in all the above categories. Such material does not exist, so the issue of material choice is usually a compromise. The structural engineer must decide what properties are most important for a given application, and balance those against availability, cost and ease of manufacture. Figure 3.1 gives an idea of what the material property requirements are for dierent structural components in the aircraft.

3.2

Typical Aerospace Materials

Many materials are available to the structural engineer, and some of the most commonly used ones in aerospace structures are listed below. Aluminum alloys: They are the most commonly used materials in aircraft construction, especially the 2024 and the 7075 alloys because they provide the best material property package. The former has good fatigue characteristics, the later has a high yield stress. They can be extruded into complex shapes, but have relatively low melting temperature.

3.2. TYPICAL AEROSPACE MATERIALS

25

Figure 3.1: Aircraft material property requirements. Figure taken from [12].

26

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS

Titanium alloys: Alternative to aluminum alloys for prolonged operation at temperatures above 150 C. Lighter than steel, stier and stronger than aluminum, it can be used to temperatures in the neighborhood of 1000 C. It possesses one of the best structural eciency among metals, but it is more expensive and harder to machine. Steel alloys: Steels are alloys of iron and carbon, with other constituents also added. They can develop very large strengths, in the order of 300 ksi, with proper processing. A great variety of dierent steel alloys exist, for example low carbon, tool, stainless, etc. Composite materials: In aerospace structures, they are generally made of continuous bers embedded in a matrix. The bers can be glass, carbon, Kevlar, etc. The matrix is usually a polymer, although it could be metal and even carbon (carbon-carbon composites are used in aircraft brakes). Composites have great structural eciency in the direction of the bers and can be tailored to achieve interesting material properties (one example is zero coecient of thermal expansion). Composites are slowing replacing aluminum parts in airframes. They tend to be expensive and can hide damage, thus making them harder to inspect.

Chapter 4 Structural Nomenclature

The main parts of the anatomy of an airframe are: the fuselage, the wing and the empennage. Each of these is in turn composed of various structural members. Here, the main structural members are presented. Please see Fig. 4.1 showing the structure of the Boeing B-29 to follow the discussion.

4.1

Wing

The wing is the primary lift-producing part of an airplane. As such, its structure is subjected to high stresses that arise due to aerodynamics forces and moments as well as loads due to the weight of engines and stores, reaction loads from the landing gear, etc. The aerodynamic pressure and friction loads act directly on the surface of the wing, or wing skin, usually made of sheet metal. Depending on the purpose of the airplane, the wing skin thickness can range from 0.016 in. to about 0.75 in. The airfoil-shape of the cross-section of the wing is formed over a set of ribs that also serve to transfer the aerodynamic loads from the skin to the main structural part of the wing, a tube-like structure called the wing-box. In the B-29 and many other aircraft, the wing-box is a tube formed by two spars, which are span-wise beams in the wing, and the skins in the upper and lower surfaces of the wing between the spars. Such a torque-box is called single-cell. Aircraft that withstand high wing loads may have more than two spars, such as the Lockheed C-5 or the Boeing 747. In these cases the torque boxes are called multi-cell. In many airplanes, the outline of the wing-box is easily seen because it is delineated by no-step lines and/or has a dierent color than the rest of the wing as shown in Fig. 4.2. The bending and torsional characteristics of the wing-box are very important structural parameters. Note that the wing-box goes across the fuselage, where it is called the wing carry-through box, as shown in Fig. 4.1. The wing skin is stiened using stringers, which are span-wise bars that are attached to the skin. They are particularly important to resist compressive stresses because they increase the buckling strength of the skin. The wing spars also serve as attachment points to the many devices that the wing accommodates. Examples include ap tracks, aileron and spoiler hinges, landing gear, leading edge device attachment xtures, etc. Wing-mounted engines can be attached to mounting ribs that are, in turn, attached to the spars. As a rst approximation, the wing box can 27

28

CHAPTER 4. STRUCTURAL NOMENCLATURE

Figure 4.1: Structure of the B29 Bomber. Diagram taken from [6].

4.2. FUSELAGE

29

Figure 4.2: The Lockheed C141 Starlifter. Note the outline of the wingbox. Photograph taken from [8]. be thought of as a tubular beam that carries both bending and torsional loads. The aerodynamic loads are distributed over the length of the wing, but point loads induced by the weight of the engines, the reaction from the landing gear, etc. also stress the wing. The wings of ghter aircraft have low aspect ration and must be very strong to resist the high loads that result from abrupt maneuvers. As such, they have dierent construction, as can be seen in Fig. 4.3. In this case multiple spar-like members are used to give the wing the appropriate strength. Also note the absence of a carry-through box. The placement of the engine makes it impossible to use this structure. Instead, the wings are attached to strong bulkheads and frames in the fuselage. Low aspect ratio wings cannot be modeled as beams, instead they should be thought of more as plates.

4.2

Fuselage

The fuselage is the body of the airplane that carries the payload. In ight, the fuselage basically hangs from the wing, so it is subjected to signicant bending loads from its own and the payloads weights. These loads can be augmented by inertial forces during maneuvers and landing. As such, the fuselage can usually be thought of as a beam, as a rst approximation, if it is relatively long as in the B-29. Like wings, fuselages have a skin that covers the

30

CHAPTER 4. STRUCTURAL NOMENCLATURE

Figure 4.3: The F-16 ghter. Diagram taken from [8]. structure. The thickness of the skin in the fuselage is usually smaller than that used in the wing. The fuselage skin thickness of a pressurized, narrow-body aircraft such as the Boeing 737 is in the order of 0.040 in. Torsional loads also arise in the fuselage during rolling and yawing maneuvers. Pressurized fuselages must also serve as pressure vessels that resist the pressure dierential between the inside of the cabin and the outside environment. Fuselage structures can be of truss-frame construction, as shown in Fig. 4.4(c), of monocoque construction, where the skin alone resists all stresses, or of semi-monocoque construction, where the skin stiened using length-wise running stringers/longerons. In the latter two cases, the skin is formed over frames that maintain the shape of the cross-section of the fuselage. Frames near the wing have to be stronger since they also have to transfer loads between the fuselage and the wing. Semi-monocoque construction, as in the B-29 has been preferred for many aircraft. Bulkheads are used to cap longitudinal sections of the fuselage. In the case of the B-29 these bulkheads must be able to withstand pressure dierentials. In many ghter aircraft, the fuselage also contains and supports the engine, as shown in Fig. 4.3.

4.3

Empennage

The empennage contains the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, which generally have similar construction characteristics as the wing, although the rear spar may be stronger, which is opposite to the construction of the wing. The elevators are the main control surfaces in

4.3. EMPENNAGE

31

Figure 4.4: Types of fuselage construction. Diagram taken from [12].

32

CHAPTER 4. STRUCTURAL NOMENCLATURE

the horizontal stabilizer and the rudder in the vertical stabilizer. These control surfaces cause the center of pressure to move towards the rear of the stabilizers, thus requiring more strength farther aft [12].

Chapter 5 Structural Design Denitions

It is clear that any structure must be sized according to the loads that it is supposed to carry. Generally, once the service loads are determined, the structure is actually designed to carry higher loads in order to establish a margin of safety. Such margin of safety is generally established by government agencies based on the work of committees made of engineers working on a particular eld. In the case of airplane structures, the applied loads depend on the mission of the aircraft, that is, whether the aircraft will have a transport mission, or a ghter mission, or an aerobatic mission, etc. In each case, an aircraft mission can be roughly divided into four parts [13]. Taxi and takeo Cruise Maneuvers Landing Design loads must be carefully established for every segment of the aircraft mission. In the US, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the government agency responsible for establishing factors of safety for the structure of civilian aircraft. The FAA guidelines can be reviewed on line by going to www.faa.gov. The military, of course, dictates the requirements for military aircraft. The objective of structural design is to maintain the shape and integrity of the aircraft during each part of the mission. In other words, the structure must prevent excessive deformations that can interfere with the operation of the aircraft, and it must not fail (break). It is important to become familiar with certain terms and denitions used in the design of aircraft structures. These are presented next. 33

34

CHAPTER 5. STRUCTURAL DESIGN DEFINITIONS

5.1

Load Factor

The load factor (n) is a multiplying factor that denes the load on the airplane or any part of it in terms of its weight. For the whole airplane in ight, the load factor along the yaw axis is given by L (5.1) n= W where L is the lift and W is the weight of the airplane. For example, the load factor under steady, level ight is n = 1, but n can increase or decrease during maneuvers. It can even become negative. Furthermore, in some instances, dierent parts of the airplane may experience dierent load factors.

5.2

Limit Loads

Limit loads are the maximum loads that are anticipated during the service life of the aircraft. When the structure is loaded to the limit load, the resulting deformations must not interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft. These loads are often determined statistically by assessing the probability that such load will arise. A common practice is to establish the limit loads through a limit load factor that an airplane must withstand and still satisfy the criterion above. Such limit load factors depend on the mission. Examples of positive limit load factors for dierent aircraft types are [12]: Fighters (5.3-8.7), passenger transports (2.5), private aircraft (3.8), etc.

5.3

Ultimate Load
Ultimate load = Limit load Factor of safety. (5.2)

The ultimate load is dened as the product of the limit load times the factor of safety:

In aircraft structures, generally the factor of safety is 1.5 to take into account unexpected circumstances. This factor of safety is relatively low compared to other structures in civil and mechanical engineering because the weight of the aircraft must be as low as possible. Therefore, aerospace structural design must be very carefully done, paying attention to careful and accurate analysis and testing. According to the FAA regulations, an aircraft structure must be able to withstand the ultimate loads for at least three seconds without failure [14]. Guidelines for the calculation of the aircraft loads in compliance with FAA regulations can be found in the FAA website.

Chapter 6 Fatigue and Fracture

Fracture is a failure mechanism of great concern in structures that can result in unexpected, catastrophic events. Figure 6.1, for example, shows a one-day old Schenectady tanker, which failed by splitting as shown in 1943 in clear weather upon returning to harbor after successful sea trials. Up to 30% of the early Liberty Ships failed catastrophically as a result of an all welded structure, poor workmanship and the use of materials with low fracture toughness. For more information on the Liberty Ships see [15]. Fracture has not forgiven aerospace structures. In these structures, the problems have generally been associated with fatigue. Fatigue is the deterioration of the structure due to cyclic loading, generally due to crack initiation and growth. One catastrophic example of the results of fatigue is shown in Fig. 6.2 The following excerpt of the abstract of the NTSB report explains what happened [17]: On April 28, 1988, at 1346, a Boeing 737-200, N73711, operated by Aloha Airlines Inc., as ight 243, experienced an explosive decompression and structural failure at 24,000 feet, while en route from Hilo, to Honolulu, Hawaii. Approximately 18 feet of the cabin skin and structure aft of the cabin entrance door and above the passenger oor-line separated from the airplane during ight. There were 89 passengers and 6 crew members on board. One ight attendant was swept overboard during the decompression and is presumed to have been fatally injured; 7 passengers and 1 ight attendant received serious injuries. The ight crew performed an emergency descent and landed at Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui. The elds of fracture mechanics and fatigue of materials are immense. Here we will briey review some of their most basic concepts.

6.1

Fatigue Design Criteria

Fatigue considerations are important parts of aircraft structural design. The eect of fatigue must be established during design. Two major design philosophies are used in aerospace structures with respect to fatigue [3]: 35

36

CHAPTER 6. FATIGUE AND FRACTURE

Figure 6.1: Fractured Schenectady Liberty ship. Photograph taken from [16].

6.1. FATIGUE DESIGN CRITERIA

37

Figure 6.2: Aloha Airlines ight 243, April 28, 1988, after an emergency landing.

6.1.1

Safe-Life Design

In safe-life design the structural component must remain crack-free during service. In other words, no cracks are allowed and fatigue is seen as a safety problem.

6.1.2

Fail-Safe Design

In fail-safe design the structure can be safely operated even if there is some degree of damage (damage-tolerant structure), but the damage will not lead to structural failure before it is detected. This requires that the structure be able to absorb failure of a component without overall failure, and that periodic inspections of the airframe be conducted. Inspections have to be carried with a frequency that will ensure that undetected damage in one inspection will not grow to the extent that it can result in failure before the following inspection.

6.1.3

Choice Between Safe-Life and Fail-Sage Designs

Safe-life design is used with parts that cannot be duplicated without paying severe weight penalties and that can be replaced relatively easily. The landing gear is one example. Failsafe design is used for major structural components such as the fuselage. The design requirements for fail-safe design have to specify what a reasonable maximum damage can be allowed in an airframe. Roughly, it is recognized that the strength of the structure will decrease from that required to sustain the calculated ultimate loads, but it should not be allowed to decrease more than it is required to sustain the design limit loads.

38

CHAPTER 6. FATIGUE AND FRACTURE

6.2

Fracture

The subject of fracture addresses the breaking of splitting of objects due to the growth of cracks. Why things break was a mystery up until the beginning of the 20th century, but by then it had been observed that catastrophic failure could occur even when the calculated stresses were much less than the strength of the materials used (hence the need for safety factors). Figuring out how fracture proceeds took several steps and people with good physical understanding.

6.2.1

Stress concentration

The issue of stress concentration is a very important rst step in the study of fracture. Stress concentrations are local areas of high stress introduced by discontinuities (generally geometric) in structures. Such discontinuities may be intentional (windows and doors in a fuselage, rivet holes, etc.) of unintentional (scratches, dents, cracks, etc.). You can easily feel the eect of stress concentrations by taking a strip of paper and tearing it by pulling only. First take the intact strip as in Fig. 6.3(a) and feel how much force it takes to tear it. Then take an identical strip and put a small tear (about one twentieth or one tenth of the width in length) in the middle as shown in Fig. 6.3(b). If you pull this strip, you will nd it takes much less force to tear this strip, even though the cross-sectional area has only been reduced by a small fraction. The reason is that the small tear leads to the development of very high stresses at its tip, in other words, it creates a stress concentration. The calculation of stress concentrations are in general treated in Elasticity graduate courses, so only a few important results will be quoted here. One of the most basic cases in fracture is that of a large plate with an elliptical hole [16], [19] as shown in Fig. 6.4, subjected to a uniaxial stress . The stress eld around the hole turns out to be complex including all in-plane stress components (x , y , xy ). The maximum normal stress occurs at the points with x = a, and it is 2a max = 1 + . (6.1) b In terms of the root radius of curvature of the ellipse = b2 /a at those locations, the maximum stress is a max = 1 + 2 . (6.2) Note that a crack can be approximated by an ellipse with a >> b, which leads to << 1 and the stress concentration factor is then given by max a 2 . (6.3)

It is clear that the presence of even a short crack can cause a very large increase in the local stresses at the crack tip. Note that stresses increase with increasing crack length

6.2. FRACTURE

39

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.3: (a) Uniform plate and (b) Plate with discontinuity

40

CHAPTER 6. FATIGUE AND FRACTURE

and decreasing crack tip radius. Stress concentration factors for many dierent geometric congurations are provided in handbooks.

6.2.2

When will a crack propagate?

Now, supposing a crack is present in a component, what would be the maximum stress that could be applied before the crack grows uncontrollably? Or asking the same question in another way, if a part is stressed to some given level, what would be the maximum crack length that could be tolerated? The basic theory was developed by Grith in the 1920s based on an energy argument that goes as follows [5]: Imagine a crack in a plate under xed edge displacements, and let the crack extend a little increment. Some of the material unloads just behind the crack tip, because the sides of a crack are free of forces. Therefore, some strain energy is released and is available to do work. As the crack advances, however, new surfaces are created, and it takes energy to create a surface. If the released strain energy is less than the energy required to create the new surface, the crack will not grow. If on the other hand, more energy is released than required to create new surface, the crack becomes unstable and extends rapidly.

6.2.3

Stress Intensity Factor

The stresses near the crack tip for an opening crack deformation are dictated by the geometry of the crack. For plane stress and the coordinate system shown in Fig. 6.5, they are given by [19]: K 3 x = cos 1 sin cos 2 2 2 2r K 3 y = 1 + sin cos cos 2 2 2 2r 3 K cos sin cos xy = 2 2 2 2r

(6.4)

where K is the stress intensity factor, a constant that depends on the geometry and loading of the component. Also note that the magnitude of the stress eld varies as 1/ r as measured from the crack tip. Values for K for many loading congurations are available in fracture handbooks. For example, for a very large plate with a central crack, loaded uniaxially by a far-eld stress applied perpendicular to the crack, as shown in Fig. 6.6: K = a. (6.5)

6.2.4

Fracture Criterion

Fracture criteria are generally stated in terms of the stress intensity factor. Once the stress intensity factor is known for a sample of given geometry, such sample can be subjected to a

6.2. FRACTURE

41

2b 2a

Figure 6.4: Plate with an elliptical hole under uniaxial tension.

y y xy x r Crack faces x

Figure 6.5: Region near the crack tip.

42

CHAPTER 6. FATIGUE AND FRACTURE

2a

Figure 6.6: A large plate with a central crack. test to determine the value of K at which the crack extends. This critical value is called K c , the fracture toughness of the material. It is a material property. Any specimen shape may be used to determine Kc provided its stress intensity factor is known. So the answers to the questions posed above are obtained from knowledge of the fracture toughness of materials and the stress intensity factor for the geometry and loading of the structural member being considered.

Bibliography
[1] Bruhn, E.F., Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Tri-State Oset Company, 1973. [2] Anderson, J.D., Introduction to Flight, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2000. [3] Curtis, H.D., Fundamentals of Aircraft Structural Analysis, Irwin, 1997. [4] http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum. [5] Gordon, J.E., Structures-or Why Things dont Fall Down, Da Capo, 1978. [6] Badrocke, M. and Gunston, W., Boeing Aircraft Cutaways. The History of Boeing Aircraft Company, Barnes and Noble books, 2001. [7] Bisplingho, R.L., Ashley, H. and Halfman, R.L., Aeroelasticity, Addison-Wesley, 1955. [8] Badrocke, M. and Gunston, W., Lockheed Aircraft Cutaways. The History of Lockheed Martin, Barnes and Noble Books, 2001. [9] Badrocke, M. and Gunston, W., The illustrated history of McDonell Douglas Aircraft, Osprey Publishing, Oxford, 1999. [10] http://surf.to/comet [11] Hinrichsen, J., The Material Down-Selection Process for the A3XX, Around Glare, a new aircraft material in context,Klug C. Vermeeren Editor, Kluwer, 2002. [12] Welch, J. F., Bjork, L. and Bjork, L.,Van Sickles Modern Airmanship, 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1999. [13] Batill, S., Class notes for Aerodynamics and Design, US Air Force Academy, 1978. [14] http://www.faa.gov [15] http://www.mech.uwa.adu.au/DANotes/fracture/maritime/maritime.html [16] Hertzberg, R.W., Deformation of Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials, John Wiley & Sons, 1976. 43

44

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[17] NTSB Report NTSB/AAR-89/03, Aircraft Accident Report Aloha Airlines, Flight 243, Boeing 737-200, N73711, near Maui, Hawaii, April 28, 1988, June 14, 1989. [18] Niu, MCY, Airframe Structural Design, Conmilit Press, 1988. [19] Bedford, A. and Liechti, K.M., Mechanics of Materials, Prentice Hall, 2000.