CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO AIRCRAFT

1.1 Definition

An aircraft is a machine that is able to fly by gaining support from the air, or, in
general, the atmosphere of planet. It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift
or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil, or in new cases the downward thrust from jet
engines.

1.2 History

Flying model craft and stories of manned flight go back many centuries; however the
first manned ascent – and safe descent – in modern times took place by hot-air balloon in
the 18th century. Each of the two World Wars led to great technical advances.
Consequently the history of aircraft can be divided into four eras:

Pioneers of flight, from the earliest experiments to 1914.

Early flying machines include all forms of aircraft studied or constructed before the
development of the modern airplane by 1910.

Fig 1: A 1786 depiction of the MONTGOLFIER BROTHERS’ balloon

1
Fig 1.2: First public hot air balloon demonstration by the MONTGOLFIER BROTHER

2
First World War, 1914 to 1918.

World War I was the first time that aircraft were used on a large scale.
Tethered observation balloons had already been employed in several wars, and would be
used extensively for artillery spotting. Germany
employed Zeppelins for reconnaissance over the North Sea and Baltic and also for strategic
bombing raids over England and the Eastern Front.

Fig 1.3: Color Auto chrome Lumpier of a Nierport Fighter in Aisne, France 1917

3
 Aviation between the world wars 1918 to 1939.

The period in the History of aviation between the end of World War I (1918) and
the beginning of World War II (1939) was characterized by a progressive change from
the slow wood-and-fabric biplanes of World War I to fast, streamlined metal
monoplanes, creating a revolution in both commercial and military aviation. By the
outbreak of World War II in 1939 the biplane was all but obsolete. This revolution was
made possible by the continuing development of lightweight aero engines of increasing
power.

Fig 1.4: USS Akron over Lower Manhattan circa 1932

4
Fig 1.5: US Navy airship USS Macon (ZRS-5) over Moffett field in 1933

5
 CHAPTER 2

STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF AIRCRAFT

2.1 Introduction
There are thousands of designs and ideas about aircraft which have been developed
through aviation history. Despite this some main components became permanent in every
aircraft designing. As fix-wing aircrafts are the most common aircrafts they will be the
most studied.

Fig 2.1 Structural component of aircraft

Each part has its own specific job to do. Even if it were possible to build an aircraft in one
single piece, this would not be the best thing to do. Some parts will become damaged, wear
out or crack during service and we need to be able to repair or replace them. If a part
begins to crack, we need to be sure that the structure will not fail completely before it is
found during maintenance inspections, or the aircraft may crash.

2.2 The airframe is split into four main components:



The fuselage or body


The tail unit


The main planes or wings
The undercarriage

6
 Fig 2.2 Four Main Components of an Airframe

Each of these has its own special functions to carry out, but together they form part
of one and the same airframe. Before looking in detail at how they are constructed,
We need to understand their main design features, and to appreciate the forces that
Will be acting on them when the aircraft is in flight.

2.2.1 The Fuselage

The fuselage serves a number of functions:

It forms the body of the aircraft, housing the crew, passengers or cargo (the
payload), most of the aircraft systems - hydraulic, pneumatic and electrical circuits,
electronics. It forms the main structural link between the wings and tail or foreplanes, and
holds these at the correct positions and angles to the airflow to allow the aircraft to fly as it
was designed to do. The loads transmitted from these items, particularly the wings and tail,
try to bend and twist the fuselage, and it must resist these forces. Engines may be installed
in or attached to the fuselage, and the thrust and inertia forces generated by them can be
very high. Most modern aircraft have some form of pressurization system in the fuselage.
This is because they fly at such altitudes that the passengers and crew would find it
uncomfortable or even impossible to survive. So the inside of the fuselage is pressurized to
simulate a lower altitude, of around 2,400 meters (8,000 feet) for transport aircraft, and up
to 7,600 meters (25,000 feet) for military aircraft (with crew oxygen). These pressure
forces try to burst the fuselage like a balloon. These many forces can all exist at once, and
the fuselage needs to be strong and stiff enough to hold its shape for many flying hours.
The fuselage is often blended into the wing to reduce drag. In some aircraft it is difficult to
see where the fuselage ends and the wing begins.

2.2.2 The Tail Unit

The tail unit normally comprises a fixed vertical fin with a movable rudder and
either a fixed horizontal surface with movable elevators or an all-moving horizontal
surface. There is, however, another form of control surface which is finding increasing
popularity in fighter aircraft. In this layout, the horizontal tail surface is replaced by
moving control surfaces at the nose of the aircraft. These surfaces are called foreplanes,
and this layout is known as the canard layout, from the French word for duck, which the

7
aircraft is said to resemble. Whichever layout is used, these surfaces provide stability and
control, pitch and yaw, as described in the Principles of Flight course. There are also other
ways of providing this, but initially we shall think of the tail unit as a fixed fin and tail
plane, with movable control surfaces attached to them. The tail needs to be at the end of a
long arm, to make it as small as possible, reducing drag and weight. For this reason it is
placed at the rear of the fuselage, furthest from the aircraft centre of gravity. Forces created
by the tail are up, down, left and right, and there are usually twisting forces as well. All of
these forces must be resisted and absorbed by the fuselage.

2.2.3 The Undercarriage

 The first is to support the aircraft on the ground and to allow it to move around or
The undercarriage serves two purposes, which are equally important.

 The second is to absorb landing shocks, allowing the aircraft to land smoothly
taxy.

without bouncing. It must also resist braking and side loads. The undercarriage is
not needed
At all in flight, and so must be as small and light as possible, and it is normally
retracted into the wings or fuselage for normal flight to reduce drag.

2.2.4 Landing gear

The landing gear consists of three wheels — two main wheels and a third wheel
positioned either at the front or rear of the airplane. Landing gear employing a rear
mounted wheel is called conventional landing gear.

Airplanes with conventional landing gear are sometimes referred to as tail wheel
airplanes. When the third wheel is located on the nose, it is called a nose wheel, and the
design is referred to as a tricycle gear. A steerable nose wheel or tail wheel permits the
airplane to be controlled throughout all operations while on the ground.

Fig 2.3: Landing Gear

8
2.2.5 Power Plant

The power plant usually includes both the engine and the propeller. The primary
function of the engine is to provide the power to turn the propeller. It also generates
electrical power, provides a vacuum source for some flight instruments, and in most single-
engine airplanes, provides a source of heat for the pilot and passengers. The engine is
covered by a cowling, or in the case of some airplanes, surrounded by a nacelle.

The purpose of the cowling or nacelle is to streamline the flow of air around the engine and
to help cool the engine by ducting air around the cylinders. The propeller, mounted on the
front of the engine, translates the rotating force of the engine into a forward acting force
called thrust that helps move the airplane through the air.

Fig 2.4: Engine compartment.

This concludes the brief introduction to the main airplane components.

9
 CHAPTER 3
WINGS

The wings are airfoils attached to each side of the fuselage and are the main lifting
surfaces that support the airplane in flight. There are numerous wing designs, sizes,
and shapes used by the various manufacturers. Each fulfills a certain need with respect
to the expected performance for the particular airplane. Wings may be attached at the
top, middle, or lower portion of the fuselage. These designs are referred to as high-,
mid-, and low-wing, respectively. The number of wings can also vary. Airplanes with a
single set of wings are referred to as monoplanes, while those with two sets are called
biplanes. Many high-wing airplanes have external braces, or wing struts, which
transmit the flight and landing loads through the struts to the main fuselage structure.
Since the wing struts are usually attached approximately halfway out on the wing, this
type of wing structure is called semi-cantilever. A few high-wing and most low-wing
airplanes have a full cantilever wing designed to carry the loads without external struts.

Fig 3.1: Structure of wing

10
3.1 Structural Components of the Wing
The various structural components of a conventional aircraft wing structure
considered for the design.

 WING PANEL
The primary function of the wing skin is to form an impermeable surface for
supporting the aerodynamic pressure distribution from which the lifting capability of the
wing is derived. These aerodynamics forces are transmitted in turn to the ribs by the skin
through plate and membrane action.

 RIBS
The wing ribs are the forming and shaping structural member of an aircraft wing. He
ribs provide the necessary aerodynamic shape which is required for generation of lift by
the aircraft. They are attached to the wing spars and thus provide structural stiffness. Ribs
also act as a member for transfer or distribution of loads from wing panel to spars.

Fig 3.2 Component of wing

11
SPARS
The wing spars are the main load carrying structural member of the aircraft wing. The
wing spars are used to carry the loads that occur during the flight (flight loads) as well as
carry the weight of the aircraft wing while on the ground (ground loads). The spars are the
longitudinal load carrying members which are connected to the ribs.

Fig 3.3: The wing spar

12
 CHAPTER 4
DESIGN OF COMPOSITE WINGS

Knowing how single components behave, when loaded, can be useful to have a
general idea on how they can affect the overall structure integrity. An aircraft is in fact
made of an assembly of such components and its design involves different phases where
the structure is analyzed at different level of accuracy. The structural design process of an
aircraft wing consists of three main phases: preliminary design, detailed design and
optimization, as shown in Figure 4.1

Fig 4.1: The structural design and optimization

During the preliminary design stage the general wing geometrical parameters are
set and the overall displacements due to the external loadings are evaluated. During this
design phase a wing box is often idealized as a thin walled box structure and it’s bending,
torsion and warping behavior are studied using the thin walled closed section beam
theories.
The classical analytical solutions for the thin walled structures with closed cross sections
were first developed by Vlasov and Gjelsvik. These were then extended in order to
analyses in details the effects of cross section distortion due to structural coupling effects
and tensional warping. The increasingly usage of composite materials led many researchers
to develop general analytical methods to analyze composite thin walled box structures.
Due to the nature of this type of materials, considerable efforts have been dedicated to
study the effects of the laminate layup on the structural coupling effects including non
classical ones, such as transverse shear deflection.

In the next design phase, each component is designed in details and static and
dynamic analyses are conducted for the individual components and for the whole wing
structure. During this more detailed design stage however, the analysis of a wing box is
often carried out using approximate methods as the geometries become more complex and

13
exact closed form solution cannot be obtained. One of the most commonly used numerical
methods is the finite element method. Initially this analysis method was used to develop
two dimensional computational tools to analyze thin walled beams, with a general cross
section, using classical theories. The increase in availability of fast and cheap computers
has lead to the development and wide use of commercially available three dimensional
finite element codes. These finite element method software packages offer the great
advantage of accurately simulating the behavior of complex structures reducing testing and
redesign costs and identify issues before tooling is carried out.
The use of finite element methods for structural analysis made also possible to carry out
complex optimization procedures. A feedback loop is therefore created between the
detailed design and the optimization phases in order to achieve an efficient and safe
structure. A wing box must be in fact optimized to satisfy multidisciplinary criteria such as
stress, fatigue, buckling, flutter and weight which are controlled by a vast number of
parameter (structural size, position and materials of stringers, spars, ribs and skin panels).
Various Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) techniques, programs and software
packages have therefore been developed and applied for wing box sizing and optimization
[79-85].

4.2 Structural Dynamics Analysis Methods

The field of structural dynamics studies the dynamic deformation behavior of continuous
structures, determining natural frequency and mode shapes, response due to initial
conditions, forced response in the time domain, and frequency response.
When a wing structure is modeled as a simple beam, its deformation pattern in response to
a time dependent or frequency depended loading is studied using closed form analytical
methods. Several methods have been developed to obtain exact solutions for composite
wing like structures:

Dynamic stiffness method –

Where the dynamic stiffness matrix is obtained by deriving the governing
differential equation of the structure using energy methods. This method has been used to
study the vibration of composite beams and analyze the bending tensional coupling effects
due to various types of loads.
Modified thin walled structures theory developed by Vlasov –
This method allows including the effect of the transverse shear deformation of the
composite beam cross section in the vibration displacement of the structure.
Variational asymptotic approach –

Which allows providing the stress and displacement fields from the structure’s
stiffness coefficients.

Three high order displacement model –

Which allows to take into account the warping effect of the cross section without
the need of shear correction, by taking the cubic variation of axial strain.

14
 Static space based differential quadrature –
Which uses a frequency dependent system’s governing equation to study the free
vibration of a composite beam structure.

Further progress for the analytical solutions was achieved when morphing structures
started to be modeled and studied, as it became essential to include parameters such as the
adaptive control systems terms (e.g. actuators) and structural nonlinearities.

The vibration analysis of a more detailed wing model is instead often carried out using
approximate methods .In particular, the use of the finite element method allows large three
dimensional composite structures to be analyzed in a relatively short period of time.
Another advantage of using the finite element method for structural dynamic analysis is
that both local and global vibration behavior are computed at the same time and the
interaction between the two can be analyzed.

A type of vibration analysis that is of particular interest when studying aircraft structures is
the response to atmospheric turbulence. As this phenomenon involves both dynamic and
aerodynamic forces, it is usually treated under the subject of flight mechanics.

15
 Chapter 5

Composite channel section beam buckling

 In a wing structure, the components that carry a great portion of the bending, shear
and torque loads due to the aerodynamic load are the spars, ribs and wing box
skin.

 In the literature spar components are often modeled and studied as channel section
beams. Several parameters affecting their mechanical behavior have been
investigated in the past years.
In particular, attention was focused on how the performance against buckling was affected
by the location of the loading position and by the laminate fiber orientation.
These studies showed that when the load is applied through the shear centre the beam
buckles in lateral-tensional mode.
However, when the load is applied away from the shear centre, the warping effects are
large and the warping stresses can be as high as 20% more than the flexural stresses.
Further results have also demonstrated that the warping effect can nonetheless be reduced
by using an appropriate fiber orientation: ±45 degrees for relatively long beams and 0
degrees for short beams. Razzaq et al. also showed that of the most disadvantageous
loading position in a channel section is on the side compression flange, while the most
advantageous loading position is on the tension flange in line with the shear centre.

 Another method to increase the buckling stability of a channel section beam was
studied in the research conducted by Tosh and Kelly, which used the fiber steering
technique.
By steering the fibers of the web panel in such a way that they followed the compression
and tensile principal stresses trajectories, the stiffness of the structure was greatly
increased. The deflection under an applied load was considerably reduced (168% lower)
compared to that of a baseline section with a more traditional layup.
A factor that strongly influences the load carrying capability and stability of this type of
primary structural components is the presence of cutouts. These are unavoidable as they
allow accesses for inspection, cables and fuel lines as well as reducing the overall weight.
However, despite the large literature available in the field of composite structures, few
studies have been found to investigate the effect of a cut-out in the beam web. Most
researches focusing on the influence of the presence of a cutout are in fact conducted on
simple panels which represent the beam web.

5.1 Buckling and Stress Concentration in Composite Panels with Cutouts

The presence of a cutout has always the effect of increasing the stress concentrations and lowering
the load carrying capability of a structure. In a composite panel with a cutout the distribution of the
applied load, especially around the cutout, is strongly dependent on the fiber orientation and it is
never straight forward to predict how they affect the stress distribution. A vast number of
analytical, numerical and experimental studies have therefore been conducted to determine the

16
stress concentration around a cutout in a composite plate and how this stress distribution is affected
by the cutout geometry, the type of applied loading and the laminate layup.

Cutouts have also a significant effect on the overall buckling stability of the panel.
Nemeth published a comprehensive review of the research activities conducted on the
buckling and post buckling behavior of composite plates with a cutout. This review
covered many influential factors such a cutout size, shape, eccentricity and orientation;
plate aspect and slenderness ratios; loading and boundary condition; plate orthotropic and
anisotropy.

Extensive research has also been conducted to reduce the stress concentrations due to
cutouts and also to improve the buckling stability. An approach to reduce the stress
concentrations without adding structural weight was to optimize the cutout shapes and their
position. However, when a more significant stress reduction or buckling strength
improvement was required cutout edge reinforcements were often used. Several studies
showed that the most efficient type of reinforcement was to use ring doublers on each side
of the panel.

In the more recent years stiffness tailoring using steered tow placement fibers has been
employed to reduce the effect of cutouts. Various techniques were also developed to
optimize the fiber tow orientation trajectory using either mathematical optimization
models, such as genetic algorithm, or multidisciplinary criterion implemented in the finite
element method calculations.

5.2 Failure Mode of Composite Joints

The assembly of composite components is also an area of particular interest when
considering composite structures. The connections or joints are potentially the weakest
points and could determine the overall structural efficiency. Examples of such assemblies
are the skin-to-stiffeners and skin-to-spar joints. Many researchers have investigated on
the behavior of these components and in particular on the failure mechanisms of composite
laminate and composite sandwich T-joints.
Numerical and experimental studies have been conducted to determine the failure modes of
composite T-joints and also to predict the presence of delimitation and extent of damage
when failure occurs. These studies showed that the weakest point in the structure is the
triangular adhesive filled region at the root of the joint, see Figure 5.1. The failure is
mainly caused by the high stresses in the filler region and consequent separation of the web
panel from the base. Parametric analyses have also been carried out to determine how the
failure of the composite T-joint is affected by the radius of the curvature at the web/base
interface and by the laminate stacking sequence.
Figure 5.1 Triangular filler region between the web and base panels

Different methods have also been developed to improve the strength of these types of
joints and to allow a more efficient load transfer from the joint web to the base panel.
These methods include the use of attachment laps with circular fillets connecting the web
and base panels [50-53], aluminum U-shaped inserts [54], composite textile [55], Z-
pinning [56], tufting [56], transverse stitching [57-59] and 3D braiding [60].

17
Figure 5.1 Triangular filler region between the web and base panels

Different methods have also been developed to improve the strength of these types of
joints and to allow a more efficient load transfer from the joint web to the base panel.
These methods include the use of attachment laps with circular fillets connecting the web
and base panels [50-53], aluminum U-shaped inserts [54], composite textile [55], Z-
pinning [56], tufting [56], transverse stitching [57-59] and 3D braiding [60].

18
 CHAPTER 6
WING SPAR
6.1 Definition

In a fixed-wing aircraft, the spar is often the main structural member of the
wing, running span wise at right angles (or thereabouts depending on wing sweep) to
the fuselage. The spar carries flight loads and the weight of the wings while on the ground.
Other structural and forming members such as ribs may be attached to the spar or spars,
with stressed skin construction also sharing the loads where it is used. There may be more
than one spar in a wing or none at all. However, where a single spar carries the majority of
the forces on it, it is known as the main spar.

Spars are also used in other aircraft aerofoil surfaces such as the tail plane and fin and
serve a similar function, although the loads transmitted may be different from those of a
wing spar.

In addition to the main spars, some wings have a false spar to support the ailerons and
flaps.

Fig 6.1: Reference wing plan form

19
6.2: Spar/Shear Web
A wind blade is a structural beam that throughout its operating life is subjected to
considerable lift forces on its aerodynamic profile. Stiffening of the blade is therefore
essential to resist bending. Sometimes two strips of reinforcing material are used to provide
local stiffening - one on the upwind face and one on the downwind face. However, to
provide the essential shear strength these two strips need to be structurally joined by a
construction called a shear web.
There are different ways of designing this spar/shear web – either as a girder-structure
connected by one or two shear-webs or as a full box-like beam structure. The longer the
blade, the higher the performance demands on such load carrying structures. The stiffness
of the material in the structural beam is crucial as it prevents the blade from striking the
tower when rotating. The structural integrity of the wind blades depends on the
combination of composites used to build the load carrying structures and the highest
quality materials are therefore required for such applications. Hexcel has an optimized
range of prepress and other fiber-reinforced composites for spar/shear web construction,
including UD reinforced carbon and glass materials, as well as our new range of Super
Cap™ products

Fig 6.2 Spar/Shear web

20
6.3: Moving Spar
Two design concepts were developed to actively change the shear centre location and
the torsion stiffness by moving the spars in the chord wise direction. In the first

Fig 6.4 Represent the chord wise moving spar a) high torsion stiffness b) low torsion
stiffness

The other concept using the same principle consisted of a conventional wing box
with a third movable spar [157], as shown in Figure 6.4. By sweeping the main spar, the
flexural axis of the wing was shifted, allowing the wing to be actively twisted during flight.

Fig 6.5

21
Another option for the spars movement was to rotate them from vertical to horizontal
[156], see Figure 6.6. This configuration allowed the active change in bending stiffness:
maximum when the spars were vertical, minimum when the spars were horizontal.

Fig 6.6: represent the Rotating Spar a) Maximum Bending Stiffness b) Minimum
Bending Stiffness

The feasibility of both chord wise moving and rotating spars concepts were demonstrated
experimentally. It was also shown that the chord wise moving spar concept was more
suitable for changing the wing shape to reduce drag, whereas the rotating spar was
appropriate for rolling control since it was possible to change the position of the spar from
maximum to minimum bending stiffness position in approximately 0.5 seconds

6.4: Spar Spacing

Spars are used in wing box structures to transfer shear load between ribs and distribute the
load based on the web stiffness of the ribs.

22
Fig. 7.1, The wing box spars and ribs as shown to the left image of a traditional transport
wing, is modeled in the FEM with 31” rib spacing in the sweep direction. The spar spacing
is modeled as XX at the root tapering to XX at the wing tip. The top image shows the
internal substructure, the bottom image the OML surface panels.

The spar spacing imposes a physical transverse buckling span on the skin and rib panels.
The two main spars taper so the spar spacing at the wing root is just over 90in and the spar
spacing at the wing tip is approximately 35in.

6.5 Spar Loads

The wing spar provides the majority of the weight support and dynamic load
integrity of cantilever monoplanes, often coupled with the strength of the wing 'D' box
itself. Together, these two structural components collectively provide the wing rigidity
needed to enable the aircraft to fly safely. Biplanes employing flying wire have much of
the flight loads transmitted through the wires and interplane struts enabling smaller section
and thus lighter spars to be used.

6.6 Forces
Some of the forces acting on a wing spar are

 Upward bending loads resulting from the wing lift force that supports the fuselage in
flight. These forces are often offset by carrying fuel in the wings or employing wing-
tip-mounted fuel tanks; the Cessna 310 is an example of this design feature.
 Downward bending loads while stationary on the ground due to the weight of the
structure, fuel carried in the wings, and wing-mounted engines if used.
 Drag loads dependent on airspeed and inertia.
 Rolling inertia loads.
 Chord wise twisting loads due to aerodynamic effects at high airspeeds often
associated with washout, and the use of ailerons resulting in control reversal. Further
twisting loads are induced by changes of thrust settings to under wing-mounted
engines. The “D” box construction is beneficial to reduce wing twisting.
Many of these loads are reversed abruptly in flight with an aircraft such as the
Extra 300 when performing extreme aerobatic maneuvers; the spars of these aircraft are
designed to safely withstand great load factors.

23
 CHAPTER 7
MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION

7.1 Wooden construction

Early aircraft used spars often carved from solid spruce or ash. Several different
wooden spar types have been used and experimented with such as spars that are box-
section in form; and laminated spars laid up in a jig, and compression glued to retain the
wing dihedral. Wooden spars are still being used in light aircraft such as theRobin
DR400 and its relatives. A disadvantage of the wooden spar is the deteriorating effect that
atmospheric conditions, both dry and wet, and biological threats such as wood-boring
insect infestation and fungal attack can have on the component; consequently regular
inspections are often mandated to maintain airworthiness.
Wood wing spars of multi piece construction usually consist of upper and lower members,
called spar caps, and vertical sheet wood members, known as shear webs or more
simply webs, that span the distance between the spar caps.
Even in modern times, "homebuilt replica aircraft" such as the replica Spitfires use
laminated wooden spars. These spars are laminated usually from spruce or Douglas fir (by
clamping and gluing). A number of enthusiasts build "replica" Spitfires that will actually
fly using a variety of engines relative to the size of the aircraft.
7.2 Metal spars

Fig 7.1 Basic metal-sparred wing using a honeycomb ‘D’ box leading edge
A typical metal spar in a general aviation aircraft usually consists of a sheet aluminum
spar web, with "L" or "T" -shaped spar caps being welded or riveted to the top and bottom
of the sheet to prevent buckling under applied loads. Larger aircraft using this method of
spar construction may have the spar caps sealed to provide integral fuel tanks. Fatigue of
metal wing spars has been an identified causal factor in aviation accidents, especially in
older aircraft as was the case with Chalk’s Ocean Airways Flight 101.
7.3 Tubular metal spars
The German Junkers J.I armored fuselage ground-attack sesquiplane of 1917 used a
Hugo Junkers-designed multi-tube network of several tubular wing spars, placed just under
the corrugated duralumin wing covering and with each tubular spar connected to the
adjacent one with a space frame of triangulated duralumin strips — usually in the manner
of a Warren truss layout — riveted onto the spars, resulting in a substantial increase in

24
structural strength at a time when most other aircraft designs were built almost completely
with wood-structure wings. The Junkers all-metal corrugated-covered wing / multiple
tubular wing spar design format was emulated after World war I by American aviation
designer William Stout for his 1920s-era Ford Trimotor airliner series, and by Russian
aerospace designer Andrei Tupolev for such aircraft as his Tupolev of 1922, upwards in
size to the then-gigantic Makism Gorki of 1934.
A design aspect of the super marine Spitfire wing that contributed greatly to its success
was an innovative spar boom design, made up of five square concentric tubes that fitted
into each other. Two of these booms were linked together by an alloy web, creating a
lightweight and very strong main spar.
A version of this spar construction method is also used in the BD-5, which was designed
and constructed by Jim Bede in the early 1970s. The spar used in the BD-5 and subsequent
BD projects was primarily aluminum tube of approximately 2 inches (5.1 cm) in diameter,
and joined at the wing root with a much larger internal diameter aluminum tube to provide
the wing structural integrity.
Geodesic construction
In aircraft such as the Vickers Wellington, a geodesic wing spar structure was employed,
which had the advantages of being lightweight and able to withstand heavy battle damage
with only partial loss of strength.

Composite construction
Many modern aircraft use carbon fiber and Kevlar in their construction, ranging in size
from large airliners to small homebuilt aircraft. Of note are the developments made by
Scaled Composites and the German glider manufacturers Schempp-Hirthand
Schleicher These companies initially employed solid fiberglass spars in their designs but
now often use carbon fiber in their high performance gliders such as the ASG 29. The
increase in strength and reduction in weight compared to the earlier fiberglass-sparred
aircraft allows a greater quantity of water ballast to be carried.
False Spars
False spars, like main spars, are load bearing structural members running span wise
but are not joined to the fuselage. Their most common purpose is to carry moving surfaces,
principally ailerons.
Spar Repair
When a spar is damaged, the damaged must be evaluated to determine if the spar can
be repaired or if it must be replaced and what the ECONOMIC FACTORS are
concerning the cost of repair versus the cost of replacement. The ECONOMIC FACTOR
must be decided between those doing the repair and aircraft owner. Factors that determine
the repair ability of spar include the existence of any previous repairs, the location of the
damage, the type of the damage, if the spar has been repaired twice, it is generally
considered to be unrepeatable. If the damaged is in such a location that a slice is not
possible without interfering with wing fittings, as discussed later, then the spar is
unrepeatable. If the damage is such that the integrity of the repair will be in doubt, such
that the presence of extensive decay, then the spar is unrepeatable.

25
 Keep in mind that each spar must be evaluated, and no one set of rules can apply to all
spars. If the spar is determined to be repairable, the repair procedures outlined in the
aircraft’s maintenance manual or in AC43.13-IA should be followed.

Components Sizing

Once the aircraft structure has been laid out and materials chosen, the detail design
of the structure can begin. This process includes selecting the shapes of each structural
member and sizing it to ensure adequate strength. Because aircraft structures are so
complex, and every load is born by more than one member, detailed analysis of the entire
structure is very difficult and time-consuming. The following discussion of a simple
beam-bending problem will explain in general how the sizing process works, and some of
the factors which must be considered.

Choosing Structural Shapes

Before a structural member can be sized, its cross-sectional shape must be chosen.
For beams such as wing spars, a simple rectangular cross-section is sometimes used. For
the same cross-sectional area and weight per unit span, however, C- or I-shaped cross
sections will have higher values of I, because they have more of their area farther from
their neutral axes where the stresses are higher. I-shaped cross-sections are very common
choices for aircraft spars. They may be extruded whole or built up from pieces. As shown
in Figure 7.4, the top and bottom portions of the spar are called spar caps and the
relatively thin sheet of material connecting them is called the web. Spar caps are primarily
loaded in tension and compression, while the web is designed primarily to resist shear.

Sizing to Stress Limits

Once the cross-sectional shape of a spar is chosen, the shape’s area moment of
inertia can be determined. Then the spar can be sized to withstand the expected design
loads. Spars will typically have both point loads and distributed loads. The spar cross-
section must be sized so that the bending moment from 1.5 (factor of safety) times the
maximum design loads will not cause the tension and compression stresses in the spar caps
to exceed the ultimate stress of the material from which they are made. If the aircraft’s
design maximum load factor is 8, then the point load from an external store hanging from a
pylon attached to the spar which must be considered is the weight of store and pylon
multiplied by 12. The moment at a given point on the spar due to that point load is the
load multiplied by its moment arm to the point.

For distributed loads such as the span wise lift distribution, the moment is
determined by integration:

26
M   l ( x  xo ) dx
b
(7.1)
0

Web
Spar Caps

Figure 7.2 Parts of a Built-Up Spar

Where l is 1.5 times the design maximum lift per unit span (airfoil lift) at the span wise
location x, and xo is the span wise location about which the moments are being summed.
Note that for these spar calculations, a coordinate system is chosen with x running span
wise and y vertical to be consistent with common practice. Since an easily-integrated
algebraic expression for the span wise lift distribution is not normally available, trapezoid
rule or Simpson’s rule numerical integration may be used to approximate the moment.

Once the total moment at a given span wise location on the spar is known, (7.1) is
solved for the required area moment of inertia for the spar cross section at that point:

I
u
My
(7.2)

Consider first a spar with a rectangular cross section, as shown in Figure 7.3. This is
a common section shape for wooden spars (in the Piper Cub, for example). Note that the
grain (fibers) in the wood are oriented span wise, for maximum strength in tension and
compression. For this shape, can be integrated algebraically as:

I   y 2 dA 
A wh3
(7.3)
12

Where w is the width of the base of the rectangular cross section and h is its height, as
depicted in Figure 7.3.

27
 w

y
h

neutral Grain (Fiber) Direction

axis

Figure 7.3 Rectangular-Cross-Sections Wooden Spar

Since the spar must fit within the wing, the shape and size chosen for the wing’s airfoil
determine the maximum possible height of the spar. As shown in Figure 7.3, the
maximum y distance from the neutral axis in the section is just 50% of h, so (7.2) can be
combined with (7.3) and solved for the required cross-section width:

h
w 2  6M
M
 h3   uh2
(7.4)
 u 
 12 

Ideally, (7.4) should be evaluated at each point along the span, and the dimensions of the
spar changed accordingly. In practice, especially for wooden spars which are milled from
larger stock, manufacturing is much simpler if a single size of cross-section is used across
the entire span. For this reason, such spars are primarily used in wings with a taper ratio of
unity. This section is sized for the point on the span where 150% of design maximum
loads produces the greatest moment.

Next consider the built-up spar in Figure 7.2. Its height is also determined by the
thickness of the wing it must fit inside. As a simplifying approximation, assume the web
contributes very little to the magnitude of I, and that each spar caps’ contribution to I can
be modeled as its area, Ac, multiplied by the square of a characteristic distance, yc, from the
neutral axis:

28
 I   y 2 dA  2 Ac yc
A 2
(7.5)

The skin attached to the top and bottom of the spar may be thick enough to also
contribute significantly to I , so that Ac becomes the area of the spar cap and skin, and yc
may be approximately equal to 50% of h. For this case, combining (7.5) with (7.2) and
solving for the required area of spar caps and skin yields:

 
Ac  
M h2
 uh
M
2 u h 2
2 (7.6)

A built-up spar such as this is much easier to design to fit inside a tapered wing, since
to do so only require cutting the web to the appropriate shape before the spar is assembled.
Ideally, (7.6) would be evaluated everywhere along the span to obtain a continuous
function describing the variation of the required spar cap and skin area. In practice, it is
normally sufficient to evaluate (7.6) at enough discrete points along the span to adequately
describe the variation. The spar caps may be extrusions which do not taper unless
additional machining is done to them. Doublers, additional strips of material, may be
added to either side of the spar cap when the spar is assembled to increase area where the
moment is greatest. For a typical wing loaded as shown in Figure 7.5, this maximum
moment will likely occur at the wing root.

Sizing of a built-up spar is not complete until the required web thickness is determined.
Webs must primarily resist shear, both vertical shear resulting from the load and
horizontal shear due to compression at the top of the spar and tension at the bottom. These
stresses are relatively small compared to the stresses in the spar caps, however, and the
webs can be quite thin. Because they must primarily carry shear stresses, webs made of
composite materials should have their fibers in a mesh or with multiple layers in which
each layer has fibers oriented 90o or 45o relative to fibers in adjacent layers. Wooden
webs are normally made of plywood with the grain in each ply 90o from the grain in
adjacent layers for the same reason. If a web must be made of wood with grain in a single
direction (as with balsa wood sheets for built-up model airplane spars) the grain should be
oriented vertically, perpendicular to the span wise direction and the grain in the spar caps.
This allows the spar caps to carry the vertical shear perpendicular to their grain while the
web carries the horizontal shear perpendicular to its grain, so that shear does not tend to
separate the relatively weak lateral bonds between fibers.

Sizing to Deflection Limits

In some cases, structural members are sized not by failure limits but by elastic
deformation limits. In the case of spar bending, this limit would normally be specified by a
maximum deflection limit under the design load. The general expression for deflection of
a beam requires an integration of strain due to shear and moment over the entire span and
can be quite complex. However, for unhampered spars with constant cross-sectional

29
shape, closed form expressions may be integrated for simple loading cases. Figure 7.5
illustrates three of these which are most useful in approximating spar loading and
deflections. In addition, more complex loadings can be approximated as summations of
several different simpler loadings. The resulting deflections are approximated as the sum
of the deflections due to each of the simpler loadings.

Restraint (Fuselage) 
F1

F1 b 2
 
2

3EI
b/2

Spanwise Lift Distribution l


l b 2 
 
4

8 EI

lmax
Spanwise Lift Distribution


lmax b 2
 
4

30 EI

Figure 7.5 Untapered Spar Deflections for Three Simple Span wise Loading Cases

30
 CHAPTER 8
PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROCESS OF A SPAR BEAM OF AN
AIRCRAFT WING STRUCTURE

Wings of the aircraft are normally attached to the fuselage at the root of the wing.
This makes the wing spar beam to behave almost like a cantilever beam.

INTRODUCTION
Aircraft design and development take place in several phases (Hurlimann et al., 2011).
During the first phase, the conceptual design phase, engineers investigate the viability of
different aircraft designs with respect to future market requirements. This phase is mainly
driven by the experience and creativity of the involved engineers. After suitable aircraft
designs are identified, the preliminary design phase starts. During this phase the
performance of different aircraft configurations is evaluated and benchmarked in order to
find an optimal design for further development in the detailed design phase. A key
performance indicator is given by the structural mass of the aircraft. Lower the structural
mass; lower the empty weight which in turn allows for both an increase in payload and/or
range. Design changes are most cost efficiently implemented during the preliminary design
phase. It is therefore important for aircraft manufacturers to be able to perform fast and
reliable mass estimation of aircraft structures during the early stages of the aircraft design.
This is where computational methods add value, their automation capabilities allow the
evaluation and optimization of a large number of individual designs during a short time
leading to a potential reduction of both development costs and time. Optimization is an act
of obtaining best results under given circumstances (Rinku et al). In design, construction
and maintenance of any engineering system, engineers have to make many technological
and managerial decisions at several stages.
The ultimate goal of all such decisions is either to minimize or maximize the desired
benefit. Since the effort required or the benefit desired in any particular situations can be
expressed as a function of certain design variables, the optimization techniques can be used
to obtain the best results. Conventional structural design process is iterative in nature. In
each step various relevant analyses are performed. The result obtained (displacement
stresses etc.) are characterizing the performance of that particular design. Based on these
results, the design is modified and
reanalyzed. This loop has to be repeated until the desired output is obtained. The number
of iterations depends on the experience of the designer and in the complexity of the
structure

31
METHODS
The key parameters considered prior to the design are; All-up weight: 2000 kg, 3g
condition and
Material: Al 2024-T351 Aluminum alloy

Design Approach
The initial design was done using conventional design using strength of materials
approach. Selection of the beam cross section is an important activity that was carried out
using various cross sections and improving upon the same using iterations. Various
iterations of the design were conducted with varying geometries and cross sections, before
arriving at the optimized design of the beam with minimal weight, satisfying the given load
conditions.

Optimization Approach
Structural optimization is of two types:
1. Topology optimization Involves optimal distribution of material within the
structure Size Optimization

2. Involves the modification of the cross or the thickness of finite element i.e., it
typically used element cross sectional properties as design variables. The size optimization
was done using Finite Element based structural optimization. The definition of size
optimization problem was as follows:
Design variables: Width, Height, Thickness of the Spar beam
Design Objective: Minimization of mass
Design Constraints: Stress

Design and Analysis

I-Section has been selected considering the masses of different cross sections such as
rectangle, hollow rectangle and I-sections after modeling in CATIA. Though the required
design limit load
was achieved with the uniform I-section, it ended up with heavy weight. A “Tapered” I-
section, as shown in Fig. 8.1, was considered instead of uniform I-section to reduce the
weight of the spar beam. The required dimensions for the tapered beam were found by
taking the maximum bending moment at each station. Design and analysis was done in the
same way as it was done for conventional beam. In the first iteration, the stresses, at station
1 was at an average is 33.7 kgf/mm2, Station 2 was at an average is 33.5 kgf/mm2 and at
the station 6 was at an average of 40 kgf/mm2 which is above the design strength, 35
kgf/mm2 of the material and hence the design was not satisfied. The satisfactory result was
obtained after 5 iterations. In the fifth Iteration till the station 4 of the tapered beam the
average stress obtained was about 34kgf/mm2 which is considered to be the safe design.

32
 Fig.8.1 Stress analysis of Tapered I-section spar beam in

Patran
Once the Tapered I section has been designed, further optimization was undertaken to
reduce the weight. Stresses on the top, bottom flanges and web were analyzed in detail for
variations. Regions of minimal stress were identified. Some areas of the web region just
above and below the neutral axis were found to have minimal stresses. Cut-outs were made
at those regions to reduce the material and Tapered I-section spar beam model with cut-
outs is shown in Fig. 8.2.
Analysis was conducted again on the modified model to make sure the design limit
parameters were still achieved, even with the cut-outs. The stresses obtained at all stations
(Fig.8.3) were almost the same as obtained for the tapered beam and the average stress
obtained was around 34 kgf/mm2 which is below the design strength and is a safe design.

Fig. 8.2 Tapered I-section model of spar beam with cut-outs in CATIA

33
Fig. 8.3 Stress analysis of Tapered I-section model of spar beam with cut-outs in PATRAN

34
 CHAPTER 9
ACCURATE CALCULATION OF SPAR BENDING MOMENT

There is a considerable amount of estimation used in the model design world. One that
is of particular interest to us is the estimation of wing root bending moments. While I
believe that the common approximation (typically referenced as 50% of the peak load
leveraged at 40% of the half span) for bending moment at the root is certainly simple,
its accuracy is questionable due to plan form taper.

In addition, the use of a plan form factor reduction in bending moment for points
outboard of the root is less than perfectly accurate, and can lead to underestimations of
bending moment far from the centerline. This can be disastrous in high load situations
with joints in an area of unknown high moment. We wonder how many removable
wingtips would have been reconsidered with a correct assessment of bending moment
and load near those joints.

We have assembled a simple process for calculating a much more accurate assessment
of the wing span wise bending moment. While the mathematics here are more
complex than those referenced earlier, they should certainly not be beyond the
capabilities of those individuals dabbling in amateur aerodynamics to the level of
structural optimization.

1. Lay out the half-wing planform you wish to use. For the example here, I will use a
double taper planform:

35
 2. In general, the bending moment (what we are interested in) is the integral of the
shear across the spar. The shear, in turn, is the integral of the running load across
the spar. This can be expressed as:

and

3. The first step is finding the load distribution across the wing. While this is simple
in many cases, it is not always so obvious. In the case of a wing, a very good
approximation is that the load is spread evenly over the planform area of the
wing. We are interested in the load distribution as a function of x, so we care how
the load then spreads spanwise across the wing. If our first assumption is true, then
the load is carried according to chord. We can then write:

which then provides:

and follows that:

It should be noted that this assumption is just as valid for wings of alternate taper
profiles.

4. To make this double integral simple, we need to split up the equation of interest
into a separate integral for each wing panel (remember that in the case of moment
and shear, we need to integrate from the tip to the root). To make life a little
simpler, we’ll define the following:

And then split the integral:

36
Keeping in mind that to find M(x), you only need to integrate from the tip (x=0) to x.

If you have a constant chord wing, a wing with a constant taper, or a wing with an
algebraic taper (e.g. elliptical), then you really don’t need to split the integral. Of course,
you can split the integral further if you have a more complex wing. The key is that the
integral must be split over each section where there is a change in the form of C(x).

5. For our example, we can write each of the section C(x) variables as follows:

6. Solving for the bending moment in the example:

the first integral gives (integration constants are all zero in this case):

and the second integral gives (remember that the tip is set to x=0):

With the understanding that only need to evaluate the integrals that are relevant to the
chosen x. With this, for the root:

So long as your units are consistent, you can input any length and force units. We suppose
could end up with [ergs] or [kilogram rod furlongs per hour month] if that was what you
were comfortable with.

1. It is interesting to note that the base equation:

37
Provides the moment component for any wing section that is linear chord wise (if the
section is of constant chord, then the second term goes to zero). From this, we can quickly
calculate wing root moments given linear geometries.

2. To prove the point of conservatism, I evaluated the traditional method of estimating

wing root bending moment and used the planform shape factor typical for a triple
taper wing and plotted it against the results obtained for the method described
here. The following chart was calculated for a 2M wing (79 inches) with sub-spans
of 20, 15 and 4.5 inches, and chords of 9, 6, and 4 inches respectively. A modest
load case of 5 lbs total upbending was used.

As can be seen from this, the traditional method underestimates the moment at the root by
more
than 20%, but it also undershoots the moment out near the taper joints even more
dramatically. This could lead one to believe that a flimsy removable tip would suffice
outboard of BL20, but this would likely not be the case for any more than incidental flight
loading.

3. In typical Socratic fashion,We can write the chord for such a section as:

Where CR is the root chord, and S1 is the half span of the section. By integrating this, and
combining it with the equation provided in section 7, moments can be accurately calculated
for nearly any wing planform.

38
CONCLUSION

 Analyzed the different type of spar of wing.

 The I-section spar of an aircraft wing structure has been designed and optimized for
weight reduction using catia.
 The change of cross sectional shape and size of the spar beam has resulted in a
significant weight reduction for the same loading conditions.
 While the optimization of geometry of the spar beam has led to 67% of weight
reduction,innovation methods like introducing cut-outs has yielded an additional
weight reduction of 2.3%.
 Besides through holes in the form of cutouts in the spar beam serve additional
beneficial purposes such as passing hydraulic pipe lines that are used for control
surface actuation and electric cables.
 Derive the mathematica equation for calculation of Bending moment of Spar.

39
Reference

1. Ravi, B. D., Starnes, J. H. Jr., Holzwarth, R. C. Low-cost composite materials and

structures for aircraft applications. In: Meeting on “Low Cost Composite Structures”,
Loen, Norway, May 7-11 2001.
2. Engineering News. Airbus to star manufacturing parts for new A350 XWB in late ‟09.
Citing Internet Source. (WWW document). http://www.engineeringnews
3. Rezaeepazhand, J., Jafari, M. Stress analysis of perforated composite plates. Composite
Structures, 71 (3-4), 2005, p. 463-468.
4. Albert, D.M., Lewis. 1976. Computer-augmented preliminary design of aircraft wing
structures, Computers & Structures,6(6): 557-561.
5. Garret. L. Sager, Ron Roberts. 1993. Aircraft Wing Structure Detailed Design, NASA-
CR-195685.
6. Hernandez, S., Baldomir, A., Mendez. J. 2008. Size Optimization of Aircraft Structures
26th International Congress of theAeronautical Sciences.

40
Websites

 www.wikipedia.org
 www.googlesearchengine.com
 http://recentscientific.com

41