You are on page 1of 38

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

UCK 328E-STRUCTURAL DESIGN


Instructor: Prof. Dr. Zahit Mecitoglu Term Project: Structural Design And Analyses Of A Wing Of ATA Unmanned Aircraft

110090052 Kaan Berki KARABAY 110090053 Cemre UNAL 110110083 Selahattin GOKCEN

Spring, 2013

INDEX

Page No
INDEX ..................................................................................................................................... 2 TABLE LIST .......................................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE LIST ........................................................................................................................ 3 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 2. GEOMETRY and MATERIAL ........................................................................................ 6 2.1 Geometry ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Material ....................................................................................................................... 10 3. LOADING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................. 11 4. FINITE ELEMENT METHOD ...................................................................................... 16 5. RESULTS OF ANALYSES ............................................................................................. 20 6. EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 36 ATTACHMENTS...................................................................................................................37

TABLE LIST Page No Table 2.1 : Material Numbers..........................................................................................9 Table 2.2 : Properties Of Components...........................................................................10 Table 2.3: Mechanical Properties of Balsa ...............................................................10 Table 2.4: Mechanical Properties of Carbon Pipe ....................................................11 Table 3.1: The Parameters Of The ATA Aircrafts.........................................................12 Table 5.1: Convergency Of Meshes...............................................................................28 Table 5.2 :Vibration Frequencies Of 5 Modes Of The Wing(Hz)................................28 Table 5.3: The Result Of Buckling Analysis For First Modes.......................................31 Table 5.4: The Reaction Forces In Y Direction..............................................................33

FIGURE LIST

Page No

Figure 1.1 : A Sample Image Of ATA Unmanned Aircraft .................................6 Figure 2.1: Top View Of The Wing And Dimensions Of First Geometry...................6 Figure 2.2 : Side View Of The Wing And Dimensions Of First Geometry]................7 Figure 2.3 : The General Image Of Wing................................................................7 Figure 2.4: Top View Of The Wing And Dimensions Of Final Geometry..................8 Figure 2.6: Cross Section Of Carbon Pipe (Thickness : 1 mm)................................8 Figure 2.7 : Cross Section Of Spar (Thickness : 4 mm)...........................................9 Figure 2.8 :Display of Components According To Real Constant Numbers...............9 Figure 3.1: Lift Distribution Of The Single Wing..................................................13 Figure 3.2 : The Calculation Of Parasite Drag Coefficient......................................14 Figure 3.4 : The Pressure Distribution On Wing....................................................15 Figure 3.5: Pressure Distribution On The Rib At The Root.....................................15 Figure 4.1: SHELL 63 Elastic Element ...........................................................16 Figure 4.2: The Meshed Carbon Pipe...................................................................17 Figure 4.3: The Meshed Spar...............................................................................17 Figure 4.4: The Meshed Structure Containing All Components...............................18 Figure 4.6 : Boundry Conditions..........................................................................19 Figure 5.1: Displacement Values Of First Design (Max:53 mm).............................20 Figure 5.2: Von Mises Stress Values Of First Design(Max:40 MPa)........................20 Figure 5.3: Tsai-Wu Failure Criteriation Values Of First Design.............................21 Figure 5.4: Displacement Values ( Max:67 mm)....................................................22

ii

FIGURE LIST

Page No

Figure 5.5: Tsai-Wu Failure Criteria (Max: 0,87)...................................................22 Figure 5.6: Von Mises Stress Values Of Carbon Pipe For Nodes..............................23 Figure 5.7 : Von Mises Stress Values Of Carbon Pipe For Elements.........................24 Figure 5.8 : Von Mises Stress Values For Spars For Nodes ( Max:12 MPa)...............24 Figure 5.9 : Von Mises Stress Values Of Ribs For Elements.....................................25 Figure 5.10: Von Mises Stress Values Of The Spar For Nodes(Max:6.3MP................26 Figure 5.11: Von Mises Stress Values Of The Spar For Elements(Max:6.3 MPa.........26 Figure 5.12: General Image Of Distribution Of Von Mises Stress Values For Nodes (Max:46 MPa).........................................................................................27

Figure 5.13: General Image Of Distribution Of Von Mises Stress Values For Elements (Max:47 MPa).........................................................................................28 Figure 5.14: Image Of 1th Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 207.3 mm).................29 Figure 5.15: Image Of 2nd Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 197 mm)...................29 Figure 5.16: Image Of 3rd Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 199 mm)....................30 Figure 5.17: Image Of 4th Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 199 mm)....................31 Figure 5.18: Image Of 5th Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 277 mm).....................31 Figure 5.19: Front View Of Buckling Analysis For 1st Mode.........................................32 Figure 5.20: Isometric View Of Buckling Analysis For 1st Mode...................................32 Figure 5.20: Side View Of Buckling Analysis For 1st Mode............................................3

iii

1.INTRODUCTION An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot on board. Its flight is controlled either autonomously by computers in the vehicle, or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle. [1] ATA unmanned aircraft was designed and built for the competition named Desing /Build/Fly that was organized by the supports of American Cessna Aircraft Company and Rahytheon Rocket Systems in 2012, April. ATA Team was all consisted of students of Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics. In this competition, ATA Team became 4th that was the best success ever among very popular univercities like MIT, Illnois, Virginia Technical Univercity. In this study, the wing of the aircraft was designed and analyzed in CATIA V5 and ANSYS 14.5, respectively. All the calculations were done in Microsoft Office EXCEL. First geometry of wing was designed. Because of importance of lightness, balsa and carbon are choosen as materials for skin and ribs, respectively. SHELL 63 Elastic Shell element was used for finite element model. Lift and drag forces was calculated by appropriate equations. These processes were discussed in next chapters in details. Von Mises stress values were compared to allowable stresses values. The convergency of meshes was examined and found proper. After providing stress and displacement conditions, Tsai-Wu failure criteriation and modal analysis under just gravitational load were done. At the end, total weight of the wing was calculated. Results of analyses were examined in evaluation part. The sources that were researched were indicated in the bibliography part. A sample image of ATA unmanned aircraft was shown in Figure 1.1 .

Figure 1.1 : A Sample Image Of ATA Unmanned Aircraft [2]

2. MATERIAL AND GEOMETRY 2.1. Geometry 2.1.1 First Geometry For airfoil geometry, MH114 was chosen by designer . With the given data, first geometry was created. The first geometry of the wing was shown in Figure 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 .

Tip
59.2 mm

Root

61.1 mm
177.3 mm

65 mm

715 mm

65 mm

Figure 2.1: Top View Of The Wing And Dimensions Of First Geometry

10 mm

59,2 mm

177,3 mm

Figure 2.2 : Side View Of The Wing And Dimensions Of First Geometry

Carbon Pipe

Spar Rib

Figure 2.3 : The General Image Of Wing

2.1.2. Final Geometry After analyzing the first wing, there were found unnecessary parts and some parts were substracted, then the length of carbon pipe was shorten. The final geometry of the wing was shown in Figure. There used totally 13 ribs.

Tip

Root

61.1 mm

This part was substracted. The new length of carbon pipe was 260 mm.

Figure 2.4: Top View Of The Wing And Dimensions Of Final Geometry

9 mm

10 mm

15 mm

7 mm

36.4 mm

23 mm

29.1 mm

48 mm

100 mm

Figure 2.5: Side View Of The Wing And Dimensions Of Final Geometry

Chord length and wing span were 236.5 mm and 780 mm, respectively. According to these dimensions, wing area equals to 0,185 m. The carbon pipe had offset. Because the offset was mounted to fuselage and connection point for the wing.

10 mm

8 mm

Figure 2.6: Cross Section Of Carbon Pipe (Thickness : 1 mm)

The cross sections of the carbon pipe and spar were shown in Figure 2.6 and 2.7, respectively.

24.97 mm

4 mm

Figure 2.7 : Cross Section Of Spar (Thickness : 4 mm)

The cross section areas were considered same for all the structure because of easiness in designing process.The thickness of the skin was also considered 1 mm for all the structure. The properties of the components were shown in Table 2.1 , 2.2 and Figure 2.8.
Table 2.1 : Material Numbers

Material Number 1

Balsa

Material Number 2 Carbon Tube

Figure 2.8 :Display of Components According To Real Constant Numbers

Table 2.2 : Properties Of Components

Structure Real Constant Number Thickness Rib Skin Spar 1 2 3 3 mm 1 mm 4 mm

2.2.Material Model aircraft had to be very light and resistent because of the missions of the competition. Because of that carbon tube was choosen for the pipe where the wing connected to the fuselage. The other parts of the wing was made from Balsa that had very high elasticity modulus in x direction. Safety factor was considered 1,3 because of the importance of lightness. The mechanical properties of the carbon tube and balsa were shown in Table 2.3 and Table 2.4, respectively. Also the allowable stresses in different directions were calculated in these tables.
Table 2.3: Mechanical Properties of Balsa [3]

Elasticity Modulus in X Direction Elasticity Modulus in Y Direction Elasticity Modulus in Z Direction Poisson Ratio in XY Plane Poisson Ratio in YZ Plane Poisson Ratio in XZ Plane Shear Modulus in XY Plane Shear Modulus in YZ Plane Shear Modulus in XZ Plane Density Tensile Yield Strength in X Direction Tensile Yield Strength in Y Direction

4600000 MPa 110 MPa 110 MPa 0,3 0,00717 0,00717 600 Mpa 600 Mpa 360 Mpa 150 kg/m3 32,5 MPa 27,5 MPa Allowable Stress 32,5/1,3=25 MPa 25,7/1,3=19,8MPa

Tensile Yield Strength in Z Direction

27,5 MPa

25,7/1,3=19,8MPa 19,5/1,3=15 MPa 16,5/1,3=12,7MPa 16,5/1,3=12,7MPa

Compression Yield Strength in X Direction 19,5 MPa Compression Yield Strength in Y Direction 16,5 MPa Compression Yield Strength in Z Direction 16,5 MPa

Table 2.4: Mechanical Properties of Carbon Pipe [4]

Elasticity Modulus in X Direction Elasticity Modulus in Y Direction Elasticity Modulus in Z Direction Poisson Ratio in XY Plane Poisson Ratio in YZ Plane Poisson Ratio in XZ Plane Shear Modulus in XY Plane Shear Modulus in YZ Plane Shear Modulus in XZ Plane Density Tensile Yield Stress in X Direction Tensile Yield Stress in Y Direction Tensile Yield Stress in Z Direction Compression Yield Stress in X Direction Compression Yield Stress in Y Direction Compression Yield Stress in Z Direction

142000 Mpa 10300 MPa 10300 Mpa 0,27 0,0195 0,0195 7200 MPa 7200 MPa 4824 MPa 1500 kg/m3 1035 MPa 41 MPa 41 MPa 689 MPa 117 MPa 117 MPa Allowable Stresses 1035/1,3=796,2 MPa 41/1,3= 31,6 MPa 41/1,3=31,6 MPa 689/1,3= 530 MPa 117/1,3=90 MPa 117/1,3= MPa

3.LOADING CONDITIONS Because of the manueveirs of the aircraft the load factor was considered 1.5 . Load factor is defined as the as the ratio of the lift of an aircraft to its weight. The total lift for for the one wing can be calculated from Formula 1. The total weight of the structure was 18 N.

(1)

The lift force was for two wings. Since one wing was analyzed, the lift force was divided by 2. So the total lift force was 13,5 N. First, some parameters were needed. The calculated parameters were shown in Table 3.1:
Table 3.1: The Parameters Of The ATA Aircrafts

The lift distribution of lift and drag distributions were calculated as follows: Lift Distribution The wing span and the magnitute of circulation an the root of a three dimensional wing were 2s and 0. The formulas used in calculations were below:

With the data of coordinates given, circulation was found. Then inserting the lift force formula lift force was found. The details of the calculations were given in attachments. The graph of the lift distribution was shown in Figure 3.1.
8

Figure 3.1: Lift Distribution Of The Single Wing

Drag Distribution For a wing with an eliptical lift distribution, induced drag is calculated as follows:

[6]

For a wing with an eliptical lift distribution, parasite drag was calculated and shown in Figure 3.2 .

Figure 3.2 : The Calculation Of Parasite Drag Coefficient

The total drag force was calculated from the formula given below:

For all the calculations, the freestream density was taken 1,226 kg/m3 and total drag was calculated as 2,5653 N. The wing was divided into 12 zones and these zones were divided into 4 areas. The areas were shown in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 : The Different Divided Areas

10

The distributions of drag and lift forces were applied as pressures and shown in Figure 3.4 and 3.5.

Figure 3.4 : The Pressure Distribution On Wing

Figure 3.5: Pressure Distribution On The Rib At The Root

11

4.FINITE ELEMENT MODEL After determining the geometry and appropriate element was choosen as SHELL 63 Elastic Element. SHELL63 is well suited to model linear, warped, moderately-thick shell structures. The element has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z axes. The deformation shapes are linear in both in-plane directions. For the out-of-plane motion, it uses a mixed interpolation of tonsorial components. The geometry, node locations, and the coordinate system for this element are shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: SHELL 63 Elastic Element [7]

The element is defined by four nodes, four thicknesses, and the orthotropic material properties. A triangular-shaped element may be formed by defining the same node number for nodes K and L as described in Triangle, Prism and Tetrahedral Elements. The element has plasticity, creep, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain capabilities. The meshed Figures are shown in Figure 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.

12

Figure 4.2: The Meshed Carbon Pipe

Figure 4.3: The Meshed Spar

13

Figure 4.4: The Meshed Structure Containing All Components

Figure 4.5: The Meshed Ribs

14

In the wing structure there used totally 19307 nodes and 19961 elements. Because of limitation on the number of elements, there could not be used another mesh. For that reason the most appropriate mesh was choosen and element length was 5 mm. So the convergency of different meshes could not be examined also. For fixing the sutructure spar and carbon pipe were connected to wing. For that reason, boundry conditions were applied on spar and carbon pipe. The degree of freedom or the surfaces were limited in every direction. It was shown in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6 : Boundry Conditions

15

5.RESULTS OF ANALYSIS Results Of Analyses Of First Design

Figure 5.1: Displacement Values Of First Design (Max:53 mm)

Figure 5.2: Von Mises Stress Values Of First Design(Max:40 MPa)

16

Displacement and Von Mises Stress values of first design were shown in Figure 5.1 and 5.2, respectively. The results were found appropriate. But because of the competition rules and the missions that ATA unmanned aircraft would do, the lightness was very important property. For that reason, the length of the carbon pipe whose density was very high compared to balsa material was shorten and the unnecessary parts of the ribs were substracted. After these prosesses, desired geometry was created. Also Tsai-Wu failure criteriation of first design was shown in Figure 5.3. The structure was stable that failure criteriation value did not exceed 1 under the loading conditions.

Figure 5.3: Tsai-Wu Failure Criteriation Values Of First Design

17

Results Of Analyses Of Final Design In this study, static and modal analysis of the components of the wing structure were

examined. For each component the analysis results were shown below.

Figure 5.4: Displacement Values ( Max:67 mm)

Figure 5.5: Tsai-Wu Failure Criteria (Max: 0,87)

18

The displacement values are appropriate for the structure. Maximum displacement occured at the tip and the value was found 67 mm. After that Tsai-Wu criteriation was examined and found maximum 0,87. Tsai-Wu criteriation values was under 1 and there was no problem in the wing structure. The displacement and Tsai-Wu results were shown in Figure 5.4 and 5.5 respectively.

Figure 5.6: Von Mises Stress Values Of Carbon Pipe For Nodes

Figure 5.6 and 5.7 showed the Von Mises Stress values for nodes and elements, respectively. The maximum stress values were found 46 MPa and 47 MPa. Maximum stresses were under the allowable stress values and occured at near the middle of the tube as expected.

19

Figure 5.7 : Von Mises Stress Values Of Carbon Pipe For Elements

Figure 5.8 : Von Mises Stress Values For Spars For Nodes ( Max:12 MPa)

20

Figure 5.9 and 5.10 showed the Von Mises Stress values of spars for nodes and elements, respectively. The maximum stress values were found 12 MPa and 17.9 MPa. Maximum stresses were under the allowable stress values and occured at the hole of the root rib as expected. The great difference between nodal and element solution is the cause of mesh. As mentioned before, because of limitation of the number of elements there could not be used more elements. Here could not be found exact value. But the locations where the maximum stress occured were same. Also the convergency of the meshes were not appropriate for the results for ribs. In fact, the geometry of the ribs was the main reason for the irregularity of the meshes.

Figure 5.9 : Von Mises Stress Values Of Ribs For Elements

21

Figure 5.10: Von Mises Stress Values Of The Spar For Nodes(Max:6.3MPa)

Figure 5.11: Von Mises Stress Values Of The Spar For Elements(Max:6.3 MPa)

22

Von Mises stress values of the spar for nodes and elements were shown in Figure 5.10 and 5.11 respectively. The maximum stress values were found 6.3 MPa and same. It did not exceed the allowable values. As the geometry was rectangle prism and smooth, the meshes was excellent. Because of that the convergency of the meshes was good.

Figure 5.12: General Image Of Distribution Of Von Mises Stress Values For Nodes

(Max:46 MPa)

As understood from the figures none of the Von Mises stress values exceeded the allowable values. The values of the carbon pipe were the same with general distribution. So the maximum stress occured on the carbon pipe. Because of that reason the skin thickness was considered as thin as possible and 1 mm. In addition, the rib on the tip of wing was not same with the others. It remained same with first geometry for easiness in the covering prosess. There was one hole that carbon pipe connected as understood from Figure 5.12 and 5.13.

23

Figure 5.13: General Image Of Distribution Of Von Mises Stress Values For Elements (Max:47 MPa) Table 5.1: Convergency Of Meshes

Component Carbon Pipe Rib Spar

Element Solution(MPa) Nodal Solution (MPa) Convergency(%) 47.2 17.9 6.37 45.9 11.9 6.37 2.75 33 0

The convergency of meshes were shown in Table 5.1. After Von Mises stress analyses, modal analyses of 5 modes of the wing were examined and the vibration frequencies were found as shown in Table 5.2. The displacements for 5 modes were shown in Figure 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18.
Table 5.2 :Vibration Frequencies Of 5 Modes Of The Wing(Hz)

24

Figure 5.14: Image Of 1th Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 207.3 mm)

Figure 5.15: Image Of 2nd Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 197 mm)

25

Figure 5.16: Image Of 3rd Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 199 mm)

Figure 5.17: Image Of 4th Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 199 mm)

26

Figure 5.18: Image Of 5th Mode Of Wing (Max Displacement: 277 mm)

After examining the modal analysis, also buckling analysis of the wing was done for one mode. The reason of the negative value in the frequency was reasearched and consulted to instructors, but could not be found. The value was shown in Table 5.3 and the images of the buckling analyses were shown in Figure 5.19, 5.20 and 5.21.
Table 5.3: The Result Of Buckling Analysis For First Mode

27

Figure 5.19: Front View Of Buckling Analysis For 1st Mode

Figure 5.20: Isometric View Of Buckling Analysis For 1 st Mode

28

Figure 5.20: Side View Of Buckling Analysis For 1 st Mode

Maximum displacement for buckling analysis for first mode was found 1mm. It was considered appropriate. Weight Of The Structure
Table 5.4: The Reaction Forces In Y Direction

With Gravity Without Gravity First Design Final Design -12.208 N -12.501 N -13.530 N -13.530 N

As understood from Table 5.4, in the first design, the weight of the structure was found 1.32N, 137.6 g. After idealizing the wing total weight was found 1.029N, 105 gr.

29

6.EVALUATION In this study, design and analyses of the wing of ATA unmanned aircraft that participated in 'Design/Build/Fly' competition that was held by the supports of American Cessna Aircraft Company and Rahytheon Rocket Systems in 2012, April. Design, analyses and calculations were done in CATIA V5 , ANSYS 14.5 and Microsoft Office EXCEL program, respectively. Firstly, the wing was designed then analyses were done.Lightness was very important parameter for ATA aircraft.Because of that load and safety factor were taken 1.5 and 1.3,respectively.Under these conditions, Displacement and Von Mises stress values were found 53 mm and 40 MPa. Results were considered appropriate. But that was not ideal one. For finding the desired design the wing was optimized. Because of importance of lightness, balsa and carbon are choosen as materials for skin and ribs, respectively. SHELL 63 Elastic Shell element was used for finite element model. Structure was modeled with 5 mm-length elements. There used 19307 nodes and 19961 elements. Because of limitation on the number of elements, there could not be used another mesh. Total lift and drag forces were 13,5 N. Dividing the wing 14 zones, again dividing zones into 4 areas, the pressures were applied. The wing was attached from spar and carbon pipe to fuselage. Because of that the movement of areas that were connected was limited in translation and rotation in x, y, z directions. In the results part, displacement values were found suitable for 76cm wing. Then none of Von Mises values exceeded the allowable stress values for different components. The convergency of meshes were good except mesh of ribs. Because of the geometry of ribs meshes were irregular and convergency was too high. Tsai-Wu failure criteriation values were under 1 as expected. Then 5 modes of modal analyses were done. The vibrations were evaluated as normal. Then buckling analysis was done for one mode and maximum displacement for that mode was 1

30

mm. The sources used and calculations were given in bibliography and attachments, respectively. For under all these conditions, the structure can be tought as resistent and could do missions successfully. This study was just an approximation to real case. In theory, under some assumptions, the structure had no problem. But to get exact results, the aircraft had to be flied and tested by experts.

31

BIBLIOPGRAPHY [1]Url-1<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle> Taken Date : 01.05.2013 [2]Url-2<http://ahmettoprakci.net/> Taken Date : 01.05.2013


[3]Url-3<http://www.iaukhoy.ac.ir/download/Principles%20of%20composite%20materials.

%28GIBSON%29..pdf> Taken Date : 06.05.2013 [4]Url-4<http://www.acpsales.com/upload/Mechanical-Properties-of-Carbon-FiberComposite-Materials.pdf> [5]Url-5<http://web.itu.edu.tr/~yukselen/Uck351/10-%20Sonlu%20Kanat%20Teorisi.pdf kaynaka> [6]Url-6<http://web.itu.edu.tr/~yukselen/Uck351/10-%20Sonlu%20Kanat%20Teorisi.pdf kaynaka> [7] ANSYS 14.5 Help Topics

ATTACHMENTS

32

ATTACHMENTS
Area(mm2) 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 8071 8018 7760 7825 Pressure (Mpa) 0,00008784927 0,00008727239 0,00008614798 0,00008558227 0,00008538880 0,00008482807 0,00008419116 0,00008363830 0,00008247669 0,00008193509 0,00008012876 0,00007960258 0,00007697721 0,00007647172 0,00007276948 0,00007229162 0,00006711053 0,00006666983 0,00005931621 0,00005892669 0,00004793766 0,00004762287 0,00002714268 0,00002696445 Applied Pressure(Mpa) 0,000114204 0,000113454 0,000026355 0,000026182 0,000111992 0,000111257 0,000025844 0,000025675 0,000111005 0,000110276 0,000025617 0,000025448 0,000109449 0,000108730 0,000025257 0,000025091 0,000107220 0,000106516 0,000024743 0,000024581 0,000104167 0,000103483 0,000024039 0,000023881 0,000100070 0,000099413 0,000023093 0,000022942 0,000094600 0,000093979 0,000021831 0,000021687 0,000087244 0,000086671 0,000020133 0,000020001 0,000077111 0,000076605 0,000017795 0,000017678 0,000062319 0,000061910 0,000014381 0,000014287 0,000035285 0,000035054 0,000008143 0,000008089

1.Zone

2.Zone

3.Zone

4.Zone

5.Zone

6.Zone

7.Zone

8.Zone

9.Zone

10.Zone

11.Zone

12.Zone

1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower) 1. Area (upper) 2.Area (upper) 3. Area (Lower) 4.Area (Lower)

33

34