EM 510 for Aerospace Structural Analysis

Numerical Analysis of a Hexagonal Wing-Box Structure

Scott James
Department of Aerospace Engineering, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182

Abstract
This goal of this report is to investigate the static and buckling behaviors of a given aircraft wing-box structure under distributed lift loading. Details of a numerical analysis using a commercial finite element code presented, and structural optimization options are briefly discussed.

1. Introduction
This project report details the numerical analysis performed on an aircraft hexagonal wing-box structure. The central goal is to create a discrete model of a symmetric wing-box structure, analyze the model under level flight loading conditions, and then apply knowledge gained in the classroom to preform various post-processed analyses. By using a commercial, general-purpose, finite element analysis code, FEMAP, the static analysis and buckling analysis were performed. The analysis results were then used to gain a brief understanding of the optimization possibilities.

2. Modeling a. Geometry
The wing structure is made entirely out of Aluminum 7075-T6 material. The wing-box structure, is symmetric, and has three spar and webs equally spaced along the chordwise and spanwise directions. The top and bottom skins are further subdivided into three panels along the spanwise direction. The wing-box has three spars, one each at the leading edge, center and trailing edge; as well as three ribs. The shear webs of the spars have a constant thickness along the length of the wing. The

spar beams also have top and bottom flanges. See Figure 1 below for a dimensional depiction of the wing-box structure.

Cross-section at root
375cm

20cm 100cm

40cm

Cross-section at tip
10cm 50cm
Figure 1: Overall Geometry and Dimensions of the Wing-Box Structure.

20cm

b. Geometry in FEMAP The figures below (2-6) illustrate the different assembly operations taken within FEMAP to complete the final wing-box geometry as seen in Figure 7.

Figure 2: Rod Elements

Figure 3: Rib Surfaces

Figure 4: Web Surfaces

Figure 5: Skin Surfaces

The skins, spars, webs, and ribs were modeled using Table 1 as a reference for the initial thickness values, and the material properties were modeled as: Modulus of Elasticity (E) = 71.7 GPa Poissons Ratio () = 0.33 Mass Density () = 2810 kg/m3
Table 1: Initial Thickness for Wing-Box Structure

Component Top/Bottom skin at root, troot Top/Bottom skin at center, tcenter Top/Bottom skin at tip, ttip Spar web thickness, tweb Rib thickness, trib Spar cap (area), Aspar

Values 4 mm 2 mm 1 mm 3 mm 2 mm 500 mm2

c. Loading The total lift force generated by the wing in level flight is 95 kN. The wing is subjected to a pressure loading as shown in Figure 6 and in Figure 7.
Idealization of chord wise pressure distribution

1.0 p

0.8 p

Figure 6: Idealization of Chord Wise Pressure Distribution

Idealization of the span-wise pressure distribution 1.0p 0.7p 0.3p

Figure 7: Idealization of Span-wise Pressure Distribution

The distribution and values of the pressure forces were determined by calculating the area of each section of the top skin (A1, A2, A3) and are listed below in Table 2. The pressure forces change chord wise, so consequently, each section (A1, A2, A3) has two corresponding values, one each for the leading and trailing edges of the section (denoted by trail and lead in the table below).

Table 2: Distributed Forces Acting On Surfaces.

A1 (Lead) A1 (Trail) A2 (Lead) A2 (Trail) A3 (Lead) A3 (Trail)

FORCE (N) 26389 21111 18472 14778 7917 6333

Area (m2) 0.5843 0.5843 0.4780 0.4780 0.3718 0.3718

Pressure (Pa) 45166.35 36133.07 38644.81 30915.85 21293.96 17035.16

3. Analysis For the analysis of the wing box structure, the geometry, which was shown in section 2b, needed to be meshed with the appropriate material properties. It was imperative that the nodes of all coincident surfaces or curves shared the same nodes. So to ensure that this was accomplished FEMAP offers a tool that merges coincident nodes within a specified tolerance. The initial mesh that was given to the wing box structure was very dense; the idea here was to set a base line for the mesh convergence study. Referring to Tables 3 and 4 below you can see the mesh steps taken to optimize the computing cost with the accuracy of the results.
Table 3: Mesh Step Definitions

Mesh Layout 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

X-direction 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Y-direction 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Z-direction 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90

Rod

Table 4: Mesh Convergence Study Data

Mesh Layout 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Tip Deflection (mm) 32.922 32.974 32.993 33.003 33.008 33.012 33.014 33.016 33.017

Max vonMises Stress (MPa) 182.726 452.361 374.251 465.620 520.715 572.805 615.170 647.444 675.360

Deflection Convergence (%) -- +0.1577 +0.0576 +0.0303 +0.0151 +0.0121 +0.0061 +0.0006 +0.0003

Stress Convergence (%) -- +59.6 -20.9 +19.6 +10.6 +9.09 +6.88 +4.80 +4.10

I chose the mesh step 9 to use as my model for gathering data in the analysis of the wing under a distributed load. I chose this because as you can see the convergence of the tip displacement is extremely close, and the convergence of the maximum stresses is starting to linearize out. With keeping in mind the computing cost, I felt that this was the best mesh for the given problem, see the figure below for the meshed wing box using mesh layout 9.

Figure 8: Mesh layout of Wing-Box Structure

By selecting mesh layout 9 as the best model amongst the other mesh layouts, below are some of the required analysis details: a. Maximum tip deflection of the wing: 33.017 mm b. Maximum von Mises stress in the i. Bottom skin panel: 109.128 MPa ii. Top skin panel: 675.360 MPa iii. Shear webs: 247.635 MPa NOTE: The values listed above for the maximum von Mises stress values were extracted by grouping individual surfaces for query.

Figure 9: von Mises Stress Contour Plot of Deformed Wing-Box

c. Maximum value of the principal stress on the bottom skin panels (tensile): 123.2 MPa d. Maximum value of the stress intensity factor on the bottom skin panels: ! = ! !" = 123.2 0.0508 = 49.22
! !

> 29

Taking the moment around the center of the root section which is caused by six axial forces that are perpendicular to the plane of the root section, I was able to compute that the bending load carried by the spar caps equal 27643.67 N.m. From the initial dimensions and the selected mesh layout, I was able to run an analysis for the buckling behavior of the wing-box structure. The values listed below in Table 5, illustrate the eigenvalues of the buckling behavior.
Table 5: Buckling Eigenvalues for Wing-Box Structure.

Mode Shape 1 2 3 4 5

Buckling Eigenvalue -0.269609 0.271764 -0.293812 0.295706 -0.307007

Form the initial dimensions and selected converged mesh layout, I was able to run an analysis for the natural frequencies of the wing-box structure. The values listed below in Table 6 illustrate the frequencies of the natural modes.
Table 6: Natural Frequencies of the Wing-Box Structure.

Mode Shape 1 2 3 4 5

Natural Frequencies (Hz) 32.06533 (Flap-wise Bending) 54.74865 55.51081 56.79254 (Torsion) 57.40949

As seen in Figure 9 above, there are very large localized deformation and stress concentrations in the top skin of the wing-box structure. Would be necessary to use either a different material for the top-skin to minimize these local extreme deformations, or increase the thickness of the material. Also, based on the maximum stress intensity factor, which is much greater than what is allowed, a different thickness or material must be used on the bottom skin at the root of the wing. 4. Conclusions Aerospace designs have always had the requirement of being lightweight. This analysis however, shows that being lightweight is not enough to safely design and operate an aerospace systems structure. What is needed is a lightweight, yet extremely stiff material. A

good candidate for optimizing this wing-box structure would be using a sandwich composite material for the skins. This would increase the bending strength up to 3700 times with an increase in weight relative to a single sheet of aluminum of only 6%.