Stress analysis of a Boeing fuselage using FEA software ANSYS

and Miners rule

Anzaldo Muoz, Gonzalo
Aeronautical Engineer
Introduction
This document presents the detailed stress
analysis (methodology and results) of a Boeing
Fuselage structure.
The FEA information is created and maintained
using the ANSYS engineering software program.
Simulations are evaluated as follows:
-

Modal analysis: natural frequencies

between 10 Hz and 2000 Hz are derived;
Random vibration: stress and deflection
are evaluated with random vibration input
in the direction of the unit principal axes,
which
corresponds
to
its
airframe
orientation;
Shock:
stress
and
deflection
are
evaluated with shock inputs along each of
the unit principal axes.
Durability
analysis:
durability
assessment based on the results from the
Random vibration analysis.

Definitions

Equivalent stress: this is a measure of

the total stress present in the structure,
also known as Von Mises Stress.
(3s) Results: where results are derived
using statistical methods these are the
maximum
values
which
will
be
experienced and the actual values
experienced will be less than this for
99.74% of the time.
(1s) Results: where results are derived
using statistical methods these are the
maximum
values
which
will
be
experienced and the actual values
experienced will be less than this for
95.95% of the time.
(1s) Results: where results are derived
using statistical methods these are the
maximum
values
which
will
be
experienced and the actual values
experienced will be less than this for
68.3% of the time.
Safety margin: this is the factor by
which the strength of the material exceeds
the stress induced in the part by the
loading conditions. In these analyses, yield

strength is used as the basic of the safety

margin
for
static
and
sustained
acceleration cases, while endurance
strength is used for the safety margin
calculation for vibrational analyses. Safety
margin is non-dimensional. A design with
safety margins greater than 1 would
normally be deemed acceptable. Where
safety margins are between 0.5 and 1 the
design is probably acceptable but if
opportunities to increase margin are
available changes should be consider. For
safety margins between 0 and 0.5
changes to the design to increase the
margin should be investigated and
embodied if possible. If the safety margin
is below 0 changes to the design are
required.
Conventions and System of units
The FEA global coordinate system is defined in
accordance with the coordinates system of the
NX model.
The following figure present the global coordinate
system of the Fuselage.

Z
Y
X

Figure 1 Fuselage Global Coordinate System

All the figures in this document are expressed in
the Metric (m, kg, N, C) unit system.
Analysis tool

The analysis was carried out using ANSYS

Workbench Version 16.1 which incorporates
Design Modeler (for geometry creation and
simplification of existing CAD geometry) and
simulation (for analysis and results processing).
Materials
The mechanical properties of the materials are
presented for references purpose:

Materi
al

Structur
al Steel
Aluminu
m Alloy

Densi
ty
(kg/m
3
)

Poisso
ns
ratio

7850

Tensil
e
modul
us
(MPa)
71000

0.3

Ultima
te
streng
th
(MPa)
460

2770

2.0e5

0.33

310

ol

etry

Eleme
nt
size
Eleme
nt
size
Eleme
nt
size

Skin

type

Quadrilat
eral
Dominant
Stringe Quadrilat
r (x16)
eral
Dominant
Frame
Quadrilat
(x5)
eral
Dominant
Table 2 Mesh controls

e
(m
m)
80

60

40

Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions are set in the simulation
module and do not permit translation or rotation
in any axes. 4 faces have been restrained in all
degrees of freedom as shown figure 3.

Table 1 Material data

FEA Model Description
The 3D geometry is imported directly from the 3D
NX model. Mid surfaces are extracted and
meshed with 2D shell elements. Small features
such as the radius, small holes or non-structural
components are removed to simplified the model
and reduce the number of elements in order to
keep the computation time within acceptable
limit.
Element size controls are added to provide a
denser, more even mesh where required; there
are either applied to complete bodies or regions.
The mesh comprises 92864 nodes and 86779
elements.

Figure 3 Boundary conditions for modal analysis

Geome
try

Typ
e

Displace
ment
X Y
Z
0
0
0

Rotation

X Y
Frame
Fixe
0 0
1&4
d
Table 3 Boundary Condition

Z
0

Analysis Model Summary

Table and table below are the summary of the
FEA model.

Figure 2 Mesh
Contr

Geom

Mesh

Name

Assignment

Skin
Frame 1

Aluminum
Structural
Steel
Structural
Steel
Structural

Frame 2
Siz

Frame 3

Thickne
ss (mm)
20
30

Mass
(kg)
4913.9
2329.2

30

2329.2

30

2329.2

Frame 4
Stringer
1
Stringer
2
Stringer
3
Stringer
4
Stringer
5
Stringer
6
Stringer
7
Stringer
8
Stringer
9
Stringer
10
Stringer
11
Stringer
12
Stringer
13
Stringer
14
Stringer
15
Stringer
16

Steel
Structural
Steel
Aluminum

30

2329.2

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

Aluminum

10

62.631

5
6
7
8

67.405
69.437
71.603
79.562

0.35E-2
0.13E-6
0.73E-6
3.01

-1.88
6.98E-7
-1.29E-6
-3.2E-3

9
10
11

81.517
81.957
83.363

1.38E-2
0.22
0.28

2.76
-5.58E-2
-9.68E-3

12

83.536

8.71E-1

-6.4E-3

13

85.601

-3.99E-2

-3.41E-3

14

97.184

-0.85E-3

7.2E-3

15
16
17

102.37
103.54
107.2

-0.41
4.23E-4
-0.22

0.92E-3
0.65E-4
-0.14E-2

18

111.48

0.26E-2

0.77E-3

19

113.12

-0.79E-3

20

115.36
0.68E-3
-2.36E-3
Table 3 Natural frequencies

-8.7E-4

Table 4 Sheet metal bodies

Volum
e (m3)
3.5923

Mass
Bodies Eleme
(kg)
nts
17350
159
86779
Table 5 Model Summary

Nodes
92864

Modal analysis
A modal analysis was performed on the Fuselage
structure. Table 3 shows the first 20 natural
frequencies. The corresponding vibration mode
shapes for the unit are shown in Figure 4 to Figure
8.
Mod
e
1
2
3
4

Freque
ncy
(Hz)
29.864
30.11
30.16
49.708

Partic.
Factor
X
0.37E-3
1.91E-5
0.47E-3
-1.068

Partic.
Factor
Y
-1.7E-3
-3.17E-3
0.38E-2
4.47E-4

Partic.
Factor
Z
1.64
5.76E-2
0.2
5.94E-4

Figure 4 Mode 1

0.28E-2
0.68
0.65
-6.63E4
0.32E-2
0.64E-2
-1.17E3
-0.62E3
-0.65E3
0.18E-1
3.8E-3
3.2
-0.28E2
-0.34E2
-2.04E2
0.16E-1

Figure 8 Mode 5
Figure 5 Mode 2

Random vibration
For the dynamic analysis, the vibration spectrum
is detailed in figure 9 to figure 11 and table 4 to
table 6.
4.36E-02
3.36E-02

Acceleration (G^2/Hz)

2.36E-02
1.36E-02
3.60E-03
0

Figure 6 Mode 3

1000 2000

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9 Random vibration spectrum, 6.1 GMRS
6.1 GMRS Overall
Frequency
Acceleration
(Hz)
(G^2/Hz)
20
5.3E-03
150
4E-02
600
4E-02
2000
3.6E-03
Table 4 Random Vibration Spectrum, 6.1 GMRS

Figure 7 Mode 4

e
13.50
3
26.13

5.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.00E-02

Acceleration (G^2/Hz)

2.00E-02
1.00E-02
0.00E+00
0

1000 2000

6.1
GMR
S

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 10 Random vibration spectrum, 8.4 GMRS
8.4 GMRS Overall
Frequency
Acceleration
(Hz)
(G^2/Hz)
10
4E-03
50
1.5E-02
400
4E-02
1600
4E-02
2000
2E-02
Table 5 Random Vibration Spectrum, 8.4 GMRS
3.50E-01
3.00E-01
2.50E-01
2.00E-01
Acceleration (G^2/Hz) 1.50E-01
1.00E-01
5.00E-02
0.00E+00

8.4
GMR
S

24.0
GMR
S

15 115 215

Frequency (Hz)

r
18.609

1s Stress
18.41
(MPa), X
1s Stress
25.827 14.756
(MPa), Y
1s Stress
31.72 21.259 12.629
(MPa), Z
Deformatio 0.349 0.339
0.32
n (mm), X
2
Deformatio 0.562
0.52
0.4638
n (mm), Y
6
Deformatio
1.05
0.148
0.146
n (mm), Z
1s Stress
12.75 18.779
17.58
(MPa), X
9
1s Stress
24.70 24.569 13.891
(MPa), Y
5
1s Stress
27.98 18.783 11.168
(MPa), Z
9
Deformatio 0.334 0.324
0.3052
n (mm), X
7
Deformatio 0.529 0.489
0.4358
n (mm), Y
4
Deformatio 1.166 0.131
0.1289
n (mm), Z
2
1s Stress
37.01 50.493 51.016
(MPa), X
7
1s Stress
71.63 70.806
40.45
(MPa), Y
2
1s Stress
86.92 58.257 34.607
(MPa), Z
4
Deformatio 0.957
0.93
0.877
n (mm), X
4
Deformatio 1.542 1.425
1.271
n (mm), Y
4
Deformatio 2.883 0.406
0.4
n (mm), Z
1
Table 7 Random Vibration Results

Figure 11 Random vibration spectrum, 24.0

GMRS
24.0 GMRS Overall
Frequency
Acceleration
(Hz)
(G^2/Hz)
20
4.00E-02
150
3.00E-01
2000
3.00E-01
Table 6 Random Vibration Spectrum, 24.0 GMRS
The results obtained during this analysis area
detailed in table 4. Contour plots of the
deformation and stress in the fuselage are
provided as figure to figure:
Case

Maximum

Fram

Skin

Stringe

Figure 12 1s - Von Mises Stress for Frame

6.1
GMR
S
8.4
GMR
S
24.0

10.356

4.613

4.553

4.868

3.001

6.003

3.834

3.861

7.182

11.018
5.207
4.478

4.503
3.206
4.501

4.878
6.439
8.253

3.142

1.046

1.026

0.45
1.555
9
0.764
0.77
1.986
4
Table 7 Random Vibration MS

Figure 13 1s - Von Mises Stress for Skin

1.141

Shock

Figure 14 Worst case deformation for Frame

The operational shock test requires applying

three shocks with an acceleration peak value of
six (6) gs in each direction with a nominal
duration of 11 ms. The simulation was performed
considering the worst case peak acceleration
level (20 gs) which is the Crash Safety level (vs
Operational Shock level). The Shock Response
Spectrum is preferred for simulation purpose
since the modal analysis is already available.

19
14

Acceleration (G)
9
4

Figure 15 Worst case deformation for Skin

The Random Vibration design margin is
calculated dividing the ultimate strength by the
maximum stress value obtained of 3s and
subtracting 1 to this value:

Allowable StressLoad
MS=
Calculated StressLoad
The margin of safety should always be greater
than 0 and justification are provided for negative
values when required.
Case

Frame

Skin

String
er

55

105

Frequency (Hz)
Figure 16 Shock Spectrum
Frequency
Acceleration
(Hz)
(G)
10
4.44
45
20
2000
20
Table 8 Shock Spectrum
The shock results obtained during this analysis
are detailed in table 9.Contour plots of the
deformations and stresses in the fuselage are
provided as figure 17 and figure 18.

Ca
se

Maximum
Stress (MPa)

Deformation
(mm)
Stress (MPa)

Deformation
(mm)
Stress (MPa)

Fram
e
67.42
8

Skin
81.66
9

1.677
94.48
4

1.624
101.7
6

2.172
132.1
8

2.001
82.58
6

Deformation
(mm)
7.465 0.523
Table 9 Shock Results

9
6
2.48 2.75
Z
0
4
6.891
Table 10 Shock MS

String
er
48.543
1.469
44.392
1.771

Durability analysis
Durability
analysis
takes
the
dynamic
performance of the unit under the Random
Vibration Analysis. By using Miners rule, a
Damage Index (DI) is calculated:

39.284

0.413

A DI of 1 means that the life of the unit is

equal to the lifetime.
A DI greater than 1 means that the unit is
likely to fail before it reaches its Random
Vibration requirements.
A DI less than 1 means that the unit
should continue to work beyond its
Random Vibration requirements, e.g. a DI
of 0.5 means that the equipment should
operate satisfactory for twice its Random
Vibration requirements.

Vibration Damage Assessment

The natural frequency (with the highest
participation factor in X, Y and Z axis) and stress
results (1s, 2s and 3s) from FEA are used to
calculate the DI for the skin.
Figure 17 Von Mises Stress for Frame

300
250
200

Stress (MPa) 150

100
50
1.0E+03

1.0E+06

1.0E+09

Life (cycles)
Figure 19 S-N curve for Aluminum alloy
Figure 18 Worst case deformation for Skin
The design margin for Shock is calculated
dividing the ultimate strength by the peak stress
evaluated obtained and subtracting 1 to this
value:
Cas
e
X
Y

Fram
e
5.82
2
3.86

Ski
n
2.79
6
2.04

String
er
5.386
5.983

Miners Rule is used to assess the Damage Index:

k

Ni =C
i=1

Where:

is the number of cycles during a

particular portion of the test/life.

is the number of cycles for failure at

the given stress level (obtained from the

S-N curve)
Cycles to failure of the Aluminum at X direction
for 1s, 2s and 3s:

Predicted life
Considering a Damage index of 0.505 for a 9 hr.
test (3 per axis) remaining life can be calculated
as:

Total life=

N 1 (50.493) =8.99e9
N 2 (100.986) =1.65e7

9
=17.821 hrs
0.505

Safety factor =

N 3 (151.479) =4.13e5
For a test duration of
frequency of

T =3

In summary:
hours and a nature

f n=79.561 Hz , the number of

cycles accumulated during Testing at the 1s, 2s

and 3s stress levels are as follows:
At 1s:

n1=f nT36000.6831=5.87e5

At 2s:

n2=f nT36000.271=2.33e5

At 3s:

1
=1.98
0.505

n2=f nT36000.03786=3.25e4

Total life (X )=17.821 hrs

S . F( X )=1.98
Total life (Y )=4.335 hrs
S . F(Y )=0.481
Total life (Z)=20.179 hrs
S . F(Z )=2.246

D x 1=

n1
n
n
+ 2 + 3
N 1 N 2 N 3

5.87e5 2.33e5 3.25e4

D x 1=
+
+
=0.093
8.99e9 1.65e7 4.13e5
Calculating the total Damage:

D X =Dx 1 +D y 1+D z 1=0.505

For Y and Z axes, the total Damage is:

DY =2.076
D Z =0.446

Conclusions
According to the results
stress value are found
fuselage. Depending on
highest stress was found
section.

obtained, the highest

on the Skin of the
the load case, the
on the 1 st or the 2nd

Regarding the predicted life for the fuselage, the

FEA results show a marginal design. Based on the
results and the hand calculation there is a good
degree of confidence that the fuselage will meet
the vibration and shock requirements. However,
given the safety factor for Y direction, in order to
properly evaluate the mechanical integrity of the
fuselage, its necessary review the material and
the thickness used for the skin.