American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1
Teaching Undergraduate Aerospace Structural Analysis
Preparing Students for Future Workforce
Satchi Venkataraman
a

San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-1308
and
Raphael T. Haftka
b

University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl 32611-6250
Developments in modern computational tools have led to changes in the way we analyze,
design and manufacture aircraft. This paper explores how the practice of structural
analysis and design has changed in the aircraft industry; new abilities and skills a new
graduate must possess to be successful in this changed environment; how aerospace
structures education has changed to meets the new needs of industry practice; and changes
needed to improve teaching and learning the aerospace structures curriculum. We find that
computational tools and programs have significantly reduced the time spent by engineers
and students to perform calculations. This provides opportunities for more emphasis on
understanding the mechanics of aircraft structures. However, current learning resources
and teaching practices are not developed explicitly for this purpose.
I. Introduction
HE field of aerospace engineering has changed significantly since its inception a century ago. Aeronautics saw
rapid advances during the World War era (1920 1940), followed by rapid advances in space exploration and
development of launch vehicles (1950-1980s). Although the last few decades have seen far fewer new aircraft and
launch vehicle designs, advances in the field have made aircraft structures safer, and more efficient and affordable.
Advances in composite materials, manufacturing technology, design and simulation methods have resulted in many
new successful aircraft designs, such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A380 commercial transport carriers, Lockheed J -
35 fighter aircraft, and the Northrop-Grumman Global Hawk and General Atomics Predator unmanned aerial
vehicles. To sustain aerospace engineering industry growth and innovation, it is crucial to evaluate and address
preparedness and availability of its future workforce

Growth in computer technology (1980s), information technology (1990s) and biotechnology (2000s) has allowed
these industries to attract some of the brightest talent. The current aerospace engineering workforce is aging rapidly;
the field is losing many talented and experienced engineers. Complaints and dissatisfaction over the training of
engineers have become increasingly prevalent as older engineers are replaced by new university graduates, A
common refrain heard from aerospace structures senior engineers is that new hires rely too much on computer
modeling, do not have analytical skills to make simple hand calculations for stress analysis, do not have a good
physical understanding of load paths in aircraft structures, and do not understand manufacturing limitations At the
same time, even a cursory glance at the undergraduate aerospace engineering curricula indicates that students today
take many more courses in solid mechanics and aerospace structures than did engineers who graduated in the
1970s and 1980s. Topics such as finite element analysis, composite mechanics, and fracture and fatigue, now find
a place at the undergraduate level. So the questions that arise are: Where is the disconnect? Are universities training
students adequately? Or is this simply a generational gap and disconnect in the aerospace engineering workforce?

The first author (SV), who has just finished his fifth year as a faculty member in an aerospace engineering program,
has had to wrestle with these questions as he started his teaching career. Although it was clear that it was important

a
Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, e-mail: satchi@mail.sdsu.edu , AIAA Member.
b
Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, e-mail: haftka@ufl.edu , AIAA Fellow.
T

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2
to teach basic mechanics and analysis methods, that author has had to constantly review the course content to engage
the undergraduate students in the learning process, relate fundamentals to applications in aerospace engineering, and
provide them with skills that make them attractive to potential employers. In choosing course content there have
been many instances of having to strike balances between (a) basic mechanics versus design related content, (b)
fundamental knowledge versus applied skills to make students employable, and (c) performing traditional
calculations by hand versus using computer tools. As a junior faculty member, he sought input from other senior
instructors as well as people from the industry.

The senior author has over 30 years of experience in teaching aerospace structures courses and has worked with
aerospace industry. Discussion between the authors has ranged from textbook choices, course content, relevancy of
topics, effective pedagogical practices. In the course of the discussion it became clear that the way we were
teaching the introductory aerospace structures courses (the course topics, textbooks, and even the pedagogical
practice) has not changed much since the senior authors days as an undergraduate student some 45 years ago.

Of course, one cannot prepare engineers for the rest of their lives with the small number of courses that they take at
the university. The goal of university education is to provide a foundation upon which students build through
lifelong learning. While we try to provide the knowledge and skills that aerospace engineering graduates must have
to succeed in their future career as structural analysts or designers, the important question appears to be finding out
what has changed in the way we practice aerospace engineering in the last 40 years. What new knowledge and skills
are fundamental for aerospace engineers as a result of these changes? How should we react to changes in the
industry in order to adequately prepare aerospace engineering students for the current workforce? Have academic
curricula adopted changes that effectively address the changes taking place in the aircraft industry? Are these topical
curricular changes or changes in how we training students to use their knowledge and/or information?

University or Program State
University of Arizona AZ
San Diego State University CA
University of California, Davis CA
University of California, San Diego CA
University of Colorado Boulder CO
Embry Riddle University FL
University of Florida FL
Georgia Tech GA
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign IL
Purdue University IN
Massachusetts Institute of Technology MA
University of Minnesota MN
Mississippi State University MS
University of Notre-Dame ND
US Air Force Academy OH
University of Oklahoma OK
Texas A&M University TX
Virginia Tech VA
Boeing Training Course WA
University of Washington WA
West Virginia University WV
University or Program State
University of Arizona AZ
San Diego State University CA
University of California, Davis CA
University of California, San Diego CA
University of Colorado Boulder CO
Embry Riddle University FL
University of Florida FL
Georgia Tech GA
University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign IL
Purdue University IN
Massachusetts Institute of Technology MA
University of Minnesota MN
Mississippi State University MS
University of Notre-Dame ND
US Air Force Academy OH
University of Oklahoma OK
Texas A&M University TX
Virginia Tech VA
Boeing Training Course WA
University of Washington WA
West Virginia University WV

Figure 1: Programs surveyed and their geographical distribution.

II. Survey of Undergraduate Structural Mechanics Courses in Aerospace Engineering Programs

To investigate how universities teach undergraduate aerospace structures courses, we embarked on a survey of
the aerospace curricula and a detailed review of syllabi for aerospace structural analysis and design courses from 20
universities from across the United States. This study follows the general style used by J arosz and Busch-Vishniac
[1] for their topical analysis of mechanical engineering curriculum. The schools were chosen to provide diversity in
geographic location, program size, the presence and nature of the graduate and research programs and the proximity
to aircraft designers and manufactures. We admit that the availability of such information on the internet was also a
reason for inclusion of some programs. The survey focused on two aspects. One was at the curriculum level to
identify courses taken by aerospace engineering majors related to structural mechanics. Most aerospace engineering

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3
programs require that students take at least one required course on aerospace structural analysis. The second part of
the survey focused on what topics were included in the required introductory aerospace structural analysis course.

Aerospace engineering undergraduate curricula around the country today require approximately 130-140 credit
hours of courses work. Of the total number of credit hours, 30-40 credit hours are prescribed for basic sciences and
mathematics. ABET requirements have mandated that undergraduate engineering students also acquire knowledge
in humanities, and arts and letters that are cataloged under general education. These courses account for 20-30 credit
hours. The remaining 70-80 credit hours is left for aerospace engineering related courses. Most aerospace
engineering programs offer coursework to prepare students in the following sub-disciplines: aerodynamics,
structures, propulsion, and flight mechanics or stability and control. While focused programs and courses are mostly
aimed at developing expertise in aircraft analysis and design, some programs provide coursework and projects to
develop expertise in rotorcraft structures, satellites, and other space structures. The nature and the number of courses
in each sub-discipline vary at each university based on the expertise of its faculty and focus of the graduate and
research programs.

Table 1. Summary of survey of topics covered in introductory aerospace structures courses based as indicated in
syllabi available online
TOPIC Percent TOPIC Percent
Introduction 100 Buckling 77
History of Structures 23 Elastic Buckling 69
Aircraft Structures 100 Euler Buckling 31
Aircraft Materials 100 Inelastic Buckling 0
Simple Trusses 100 Post Buckling 8
Pressure Vessels 38 Crippling 8
Asymmetric Solid Beam Bending 46 Plate Buckling 38
Elasticity 100 Rod Buckling 23
Theory of Elasticity 92 FEM 38
Energy Methods 92 History of 8
Aeroelasticity 31 Matrix Methods 38
Viscoelastic Response 8
Heat Conduction and
Convection 8
Thin-Walled Sections 100 Vibrations 15
Open Thin-Walled Sections 100 Composite Materials 54
Closed Thin-Walled Sections 100 Mechanics of Composites 8
Asymmetric Thin-Walled Sections 62 Composite Laminates 54
Torsional Loads 92
Lamina Stress-Strain
Relations 8
Flexural Shear 92 Thermal Analysis 38
Bending Loads 92
Helicopter, Spacecraft, and
Launch Vehicle Loads 8
Plastic Bending 8 Design 85
Tapered Thin-Wall Wings 8 FAA Regulations 8
Failure Analysis 69 Stress Concentrations 23
Stress Failure Criteria 54 Stability 0
Fracture Mechanics 38 Dp Method 8
Fatigue Failure 54 V-n Diagrams 23
Corrosion 23 Fasteners 23


The results of our survey on courses taken by students at different universities for an aerospace engineering (AE)
degree indicates that the vast majority take the same preparatory courses: Statics, Dynamics, Strength of Materials,
Materials Science. In addition to these preparatory courses, AE students are required to take an introductory course

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4
in aerospace structures often titled as Introduction to analysis of aerospace/aircraft structures. In most universities
this course is followed by a required structural dynamics or mechanical vibrations course. A few schools offer a
follow-on course on design of aerospace structures. However, most programs offer a number of senior level elective
courses that aim to expand students expertise in aerospace structures. These elective courses include finite element
analysis, mechanics of composite materials/structures, and fatigue and fracture. Therefore, it appears that an
average engineer graduating with an AE degree in most schools is exposed to aerospace structures primarily through
an introductory course on aerospace structures.
A. Survey and Analysis of Topics Included in Aerospace Structural Analysis Courses
Traditionally the required aerospace structural analysis course that is present in most aerospace engineering
programs has been a follow-on course to the basic strength of materials course. A review of the topics covered by
courses (see Table 1) indicates that the introductory aerospace structures course is a course on analysis of thin
walled structures such as wings and fuselages under bending, transverse shear and torsion loads. The analysis
methods are usually limited to linear elastic response. In addition to calculating stresses and deformation of thin
walled open and closed section beams, these courses also present failure analysis (stress and stability). Newer topics
such as fracture and fatigue, composite laminates and finite element methods find their way into this introductory
course. A small fraction of the courses surveyed had topics on fasteners or bonding, FAA regulations for design,
load analysis for aircrafts (V-n diagrams).

Looking at classical books on aircraft structural analysis (Bruhn [2], Peery [3]), it appears the topics introduced
in the introductory structural analysis course have not changed much over the last 40 years, at least. Therefore it is
safe to conclude from the preliminary survey data that the introductory aerospace structural analysis course
continues it traditional format. At the same time, additional topics of composites, energy methods, finite element
analysis and fatigue and fracture have been added to this course. So it appears that the traditional topics included in
the introductory course have not changed much, but some new topics have been added.

III. Course Objective for Current Aero-Structural Analysis Practice
In the last forty years the use of computational tools such as finite element analyses has increased significantly in
structural analysis. Today most large and primary structures are analyzed and designed using finite element models.
However, preliminary design and sizing are still performed using simplified models based on analytical models. The
use of analytical models also appears to be prevalent in the design of small local features and fixtures in structures,
where using finite element modeling can be very time consuming. Managers and senior engineers report that current
graduates from university programs are very adept at generating numerical models. However, a prevalent complaint
from managers and senior engineers is that their recent hires are not are not so good anymore in using simple
analytical models to verify their answers form numerical simulations. And worse, they are unable to identify
incorrect results. These junior engineers rely solely on numerical models for analysis, even for simple cases for
which accurate first estimates can be made using analytical solutions. These senior engineers were trained (as were
the authors of this paper) in structural analysis methods that entirely if not significantly relied on analytical methods
or simple numerical modeling. The computing resources available 20 to 40 years ago did not permit the use of
general purpose finite element models for simple problems. Today, most aircraft structures are analyzed using finite
element analysis. Senior engineers have years of experience doing design by hand calculations using analytical
models. This experience provided them a thorough understanding and insight into the mechanics that guides their
work today when using numerical modeling tools. Unfortunately, in todays economy it is unrealistic to expect
university graduates to acquire their skills by accruing years of experience on the job. Many entry level jobs in the
U.S. are being sent to countries with lower labor costs; recent graduates are increasingly expected to become
productive in a short time span. In the past engineers would start their careers as analysts and learn the trade of
design from senior engineers before assuming design responsibilities. Today as engineering analysis jobs get
outsourced, the aerospace graduates have to quickly learn and assume design responsibilities.

With this in mind we asked the question What is the objective of this course? We believe that in order to
prepare aerospace engineers for structural analysis and design careers, the objective of the aerospace structures
course must be to:

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

5
1. Provide students with a thorough understanding of the elements of structural response such as
strain, stress (and their principal values), yield, fatigue, and buckling, and an understanding of
howthesedrivethedesignofaircraftstructures.

2. Provide students with backoftheenvelope equations for fast calculations that can be used to
checkthecorrectnessofanswersobtainedfromfiniteelementprograms.

The implications of these two objectives do not impact much the list of topics covered in an aircraft structures
course but rather the way in which they are dealt. Aerospace structural engineers need to have the ability to look at
a complex structure and to simplify the complex structure to formulate a problem amenable to a simple analytical
solution that provides a good first estimate for the response. This requires breaking structures down into an assembly
of bar, beams, plates and shells and then isolating a local portion to analyze further. Local analysis of substructures
often requires physical simplification of the structure; it also requires identifying appropriate boundary conditions
and loads. The latter requires being able to identify load paths in structures and make simple estimates for loads on
local regions. The engineer must also be aware of the limitation of a solution obtained using simplified assumptions,
and be able to bound the error in such a solution.
We generally assume that engineering students acquire the training to do such tasks through solving problems in
course assignments and tests. However, it appears that this is not the case. Rather, these exercises help students
become adept at using formulas and solving problems, but not necessarily to develop the skills required to
understand the rationale behind the formulas used, the assumptions that went into the formulas, or the limitations of
solutions that are calculated using the formulas. While traditional problem solving exercises are good at helping
students develop skills required for the solution process, they do not explicitly help students develop skills to
formulate problems, identify appropriate analysis models to use, and quantify the limitation simple solutions. We
contend for students to gain these latter skills, targeted exercises and assessments must be devised to guide the
student to think along these lines.
Since engineers are seldom going to do very complex problems by hand, it is possible to reduce course emphasis
on training students to do lengthy calculations without reducing course effectiveness. Use of calculators,
spreadsheets and programming environments like MATLAB can further reduce the time required to solve problems.
The time saved by students spent in generating solutions may then be put to better use in improving their
understanding of mechanics. For example, in calculating principal stresses students can skip the process of obtaining
the characteristic cubic equation, solve for its roots by hand, and simply use a calculator or computer to compute the
eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the stress tensor. The time saved can be used to solve simple problems that focus on
understanding such basic concepts as the physical meaning of the quantities and equations used in the calculations.
Carrying out lengthy computations, such as shear flow in multi-cell structures, may not be as useful as they were
40 years ago. On the other hand, questions that probe the understanding of basic concepts with very little
computation involved become more important. Are there instructional methods that can promote a better
understanding of mechanics and physics of structural response without the drudgery of lengthy hand computations
or excessive theoretical derivations?
IV. Types of Assessments or Exercises that Promote Understanding over Rote Formula Use
Over the years the authors of this paper have discussed the amount of time that should be spent in derivation of
analytical models that are based on either mechanics of materials type assumptions or from theory of elasticity. We
find that to engage students in such derivations has become a challenge. Instead, students would rather spend time
solving more example problems. This prompted in us the question, What is the purpose of lectures that present
these derivations? We contend they have two purposes: one is to teach students the mechanics and mathematics of
formulating solid/structural mechanics solutions; the second is to present the assumptions made in such derivations
and the limitations these solutions have as a result of the assumptions. We find he first objective to be very
important for a student who is going to go on for graduate studies and research. However, it has little relevance to a
practicing engineer. The second objective is however very important to both categories of students. The
introductory course at most universities must address both needs. Therefore, instructors spend some time in
performing derivations, and for the most part students bear with us as we grind through the elegant algebra and
calculus to arrive at final answers. We find that our students are more interested in applying these final results to
make calculations. Over the years, the amount of time we spend solving example problems seems to be increasing.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

6
Yet, it is not uncommon to find on student course evaluation mentions the request for more example problems. We
contend that we bear the blame for this trend.
In our desire to impart problem solving skills, we have created what we call formula jockeys. By this we mean
students who want to generate numerical answers for problems using the final formulas. In fact, students today are
better at this than ever. However, this ability does not reflect an understanding or insight into governing mechanics.
This becomes particularly apparent when you ask students questions that require an understating of the mechanics or
rationale behind the formula but little or no calculation. Asking such questions on tests or exams leads to
complaints that the exams and test have no resemblance or correlation with homework. We realized this is indeed
true. Often we have assigned as homework the exercise problems that most texts provide at end of each chapter or
section. These exercises do not in any way require students to think or investigate the rationale behind a problems
solution. . In order to assure that students learn the whys, in addition to the hows we recently adopted a new
strategy. We assign problem as before from texts that are collected and graded for bonus points. Actual homework
grades are based on a short (5-10 minute) quiz assigned to students around the day the homework is due. The
quizzes test whether students understand the mechanics concepts behind the problems they solve. In fact, we have
found that explaining them this rationale of the solution process or the important mechanics concepts they should
have understood from solving those problems on the day they turn in the homework and testing them a day or two
later has improved student learning.
In the next sections we present examples of questions we use to probe how well students understood the
material. Most of these, why, when, which or what questions require thinking and often verbal answers, but
little or no computation.

Examples of W problems in contrast to How questions.

When Aircraft Structures methodology is derived in class, most instructors dutifully explain to students the basis for
the assumptions that they make on the way to derive the equations that the students will use to solve problems. As
mentioned above, most homework and exams to not test students on knowledge and understanding of basic
assumptions. As a consequence they are likely to want to apply an equations even when its assumptions are violated.
Our prescription for remedying this problem is to incorporate why questions into homework and exams. One
method is to post on a course web page a question that students are expected to answer during the next class or by
email for extra credit. Examples of such questions may be found on one of our course web pages
www.mae.ufl.edu/haftka/structures/schedule.html . One example of a Why question from this page is given in
Figure 1.

Figure 1: Example of a why question.

We similarly propose that students be asked about when they can and when they cannot apply the methods they
have learned in the course. For example, most of the beam analysis in Aircraft Structures uses the Euler-Bernoulli
model. Figure 2 is an example of a when question that queries the student on when he should not use Euler-
Bernoulli beams.

Figure 2: Example of a when question.

When it comes to failure criteria, which questions become more important. We typically review many failure
criteria, including some (like strain-energy density or Beltrami criterion) that are mostly of historical significance.
Students diligently learn them all, but often forget which one they should apply for any given circumstances. In a
recent test, students were asked the question in Figure 3.

What is shear deformation in beam theory, and
for what kind of beams is it significant?
Wing and fuselage skin structures are analyzed using plane-stress
conditions, which assumes that there is no stress in the direction normal
to the skin. How can we do that when these skins are subject to
pressure loading?


American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

7


Figure 3: An example of a which question.

Most of the students remembered that ceramics are brittle materials, then they selected the maximum principal stress
criterion (Rankine) because the textbook presented it as an appropriate criterion for brittle materials. A few added
the important caveat that it should be used only for tensile stresses. Very few provided the best answer: the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion that explicitly caters to different tensile and compressive failure stresses.

These types of questions are somewhat repugnant to many engineering students and possibly some engineering
faculty. Problems that require coherent written sentences may seem too much like of an assignment in a course in
the humanities or social sciences. Fortunately, what type questions can be answered using numbers and equations
rather than words.

When students learn about stresses, they use the stress and strain tensors for various calculations. In the process
many of them forget the physical meaning of the components of these tensors. Consider for example the strain and
stress tensors given in Figure 4. The figure shows several questions that may be asked about these tensors that tests
students understanding of the quantities with which they are working.


Figure 4: Example of what problems.

Question 1 is often solved by students by first finding the normal to the y-z plane, that is (1,0,0) and then
multiplying this normal by the stress tensor to calculate the traction vector. This takes time. Students who know that
the traction on that plane is the first row of the tensor save time and have fewer opportunities for errors. Question 2
tests that students know the meaning of the shear strain. While most students remember the meaning of normal
strains as relative change in length, they tend to forget that the shear strain measures the change in angles.
Furthermore, of those that do remember, many forget that the tensorial shear strain is only half of that angle.

Question 3 requires that the students understand that principal stresses are extreme stresses rather than just thinking
of them as the eigenvalues of the stress tensor. Since the problem must be solved without a calculator, it is
practically impossible to give the right answer without understanding the extreme properties of the principal
stresses. Question 4 tests that students know what the bulk modulus is rather than just providing the formula for
calculating it in terms of Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio. It is certainly possible to calculate Youngs modulus
and Poissons ratio from the data and substitute into the formula for the bulk modulus. However, is much easier to
divide the average normal stress (1/3 Mpa) by the volume change (0.5x10
-3
) to get 2/3GPa.

In order for students to acquire the understanding required for solving problems such as those given in Figure 4 they
need practice. Since these problems require little time compared to traditional homework problems they can be
1 0 1 1 0 2.5
0 2 1 0 2.25 2.5
1 1 2 2.5 2.5 2.75
MPa


= =



milistrain

Question 1: What is the magnitude of the traction acting on the y-z plane?
Question 2: By how much does the angle change between the lines that were the x and z
axes before deformation?
Question 3: Why is it obvious that the three principal stresses could not be {3,-1,-1}.
Question 4: What is the bulk modulus of the material?

Answer questions without using a calculator.
Which failure criterion is most appropriate for ceramic materials?


American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

8
added to homework assignments without undue burden. However, while such problems can be solved relatively
quickly, they are not easy to create. The authors believe the creation of a body of problems that probe the
understanding of students is an important challenge for updating the teaching of aircraft structures courses.
V. Textbooks and Educational Material for Teaching Aerospace Structural Analysis
As part of this review paper we also looked at the availability of textbooks on aerospace structural analysis. At
present there are half a dozen on introductory aerospace structural analysis. The popular adoptions for textbooks
include texts by Sun [4], Megson [5], Allen and Haissler [6], Curtis [7] Donaldson [8]. Books written 40 to 50 years
ago such as those by Bruhn [2], Peery [3], and Rivello [9] continue to be popular references by practicing engineers.
In recent years, with the merger of mechanical and aerospace engineering departments in some universities, the
aerospace structures course has been replaced by a general course in stress analysis or advanced strength of
materials. Such courses use general solid mechanics or structural mechanics texts such as those by Budynas [10],
Cook and Young [11], Boresi and Young [12].
The authors of this paper settled on using the textbook by Sun [4] for teaching aircraft structures after
experimenting with the others. Suns text [4] provides a concise presentation of the mechanics of structures and is
aligned with the objectives mentioned before for this course. The authors also borrow materials form the other texts
such as the book by Megson [5], and Budynas [9]. Recent revised editions of these texts have appeared with
additional topics. Unfortunately, the texts have not increased the examples and exercises that deepen student
understanding.
Numerous non-traditional sources such as web pages (e.g. TuPAS [13], online notes (e.g., MIT open courseware
notes for the Structural Mechanics course [14]), and Wikipedia pages [15] provide educational resources that
support instructors teaching aerospace structural analysis courses and supplement students aerospace learning
resources. The Tutorial Page for Aircraft Structures (TuPAS) [12] developed by professor Rais-Rohani at
Mississippi state University requires a special mention. This web page is an interactive learning webpage with very
good illustrations and examples. The authors refer their students to these sources, and even assign problems that
force students to look up and use these additional resources. However, we find that undergraduate students have
difficulty in using multiple sources in their learning as they are not easily able to assimilate the different notations
and sign conventions in the different texts. All the above text and electronic sources have their own unique
advantage and feature that makes them special or useful. Singling any one of them as a best source is impossible.
They do share a common element. While they all have something unique to provide, they all lack exercises that are
relevant to training students for current aerospace structural practice. We believe that future new texts or revisions of
existing texts must provide exercises and projects that probe the understanding of students.
VI. Conclusion
This paper provides a much needed look at the state of aerospace structures curriculum. It concludes that the list
of topics covered by the course has not changed much in the last three or four decades, and similarly the
methodology has not changed much. However, we believe that the extensive use of numerical tools such as finite
element analysis in industry puts more demands on preparing students better in effective use and understanding of
the simpler methods they learn in aircraft structures courses. This is because they will not get much practice using
these methods routinely for analyzing structures. Instead these methods are available to them for quick estimates and
checks of finite element results. The authors have experimented with use of simple problems that help assure us that
students are not merely trained as formula jockeys, but they also understand what goes in and out of the formulas,
why and when they are applicable, and which formula is most appropriate for a given application.

Acknowledgments
Thanks to Ms. Natalya Brikner for assistance with data collection. Author (SV) also expresses his thanks to Pat
O Callghan (Butler Team and Associates), Mario Kataoka and Mark Holcomb (Goodrich Aerostructures), and
Warren Lang (Northrop Grumman) for the many useful discussions on teaching and practice of aerospace structural
analysis.


American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

9
References
[1] J arosz, J. P. and Busch-Vishniac, I.J ., Topical Analysis of Mechanical Engineering Curriculum, J ournal of
Engineering Education, Vol 96, No. 7, July 2006, pp. 241-248.
[2] Bruhn, E. F. Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures, Tri-State Offset Co., 1965 (originally published in
1946).
[3] Peery, D. J ., Aircraft Structures, Mc Graw Hill Book Co., 1950.
[4] Sun, C. T., Mechanics of Aircraft Structures, 2nd edition, J ohn Wiley, 2006.
[5] Megson, T. H. G., Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students. 4th edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007
[6] Allen D. and Haisler W., Introduction to Aerospace Structural Analysis, John Wiley, 1985.
[7] Curtis,H.D. Fundamentals of Aircraft Structural Analysis, McGraw-Hill, 1997.
[8] Rivello, R. M., Theory and Analysis of Filight Structures, Mc-Graw Hill Book Company, 1969.
[9] Donaldson, B. K., Analysis of Aircraft Structures An Introduction, McGraw-Hill, 1993
[10] Budynas, R., Advanced Strength and Applied Stress Analysis, Mc Graw Hill. 1998.
[11] Cook, R. D., and Young, W. C., Advanced Mechanics of Materials, Second Editions, Prentice Hall, 1999.
[12] Boresi, A. P., and Schmidt, R. J ., Advanced Strength of Materials, Sixth Edition, John Wiley 7 Sons, 2003.
[13] TUPAS: Tutorial Page of Aerospace Structures,
http://www.ae.msstate.edu/~masoud/Teaching/SA2/Course.html (last accessed march 16, 2008)
[14] MIT Opencourseware: Structural Mechanics 16.20 page: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-
Astronautics/16-20Structural-MechanicsFall2002/CourseHome/ (last accessed March 16, 2008)
[15] Wikipedia: Solid Mechanics page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Solid_mechanics (last accessed march
16, 2008)