Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894

Minimum cost and weight design of fuselage frames

Part A: design constraints and manufacturing process characteristics
Christos Kassapoglou*
Structures Research Group, Sikorsky Aircraft, MS S-314SA2, 6900 Main Street, Stratford, CT 06614, USA
Received 11 May 1998; accepted 26 October 1998

Abstract
As part of an approach to design fuselage frames for minimum weight, minimum cost, or a combination of the two, the design constraints
and the effects of manufacturing process are discussed. Four different fabrication processes are considered: Conventional sheet metal, high
speed machined metal, hand laid-up composite, and resin transfer molded composite. For each process, the limitations and applicability are
translated to constraints for the geometry of the frame. In addition, the constraints arising from structural requirements are presented and
discussed. These constraints are discussed as a necessary foundation for solving fuselage frame cost and weight optimization problems.
q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cost and weight design

Nomenclature ks constant in shear buckling equation (function of

aspect ratio)
a shortest frame web dimension
K constant in crippling equation (composites)
ac cutout semi-major axis
Kts constant in expression for flange stress
A cross-sectional area of cap or stiffener
(composites)
Aw planform area of web of frame bay
L length of cap or stiffener
b longest frame web dimension
q shear flow in frame web
bc cutout semi-minor axis
qd shear allowable in web with reinforced cutout
bf cap (or stiffener) flange length
qocrit shear flow at buckling of frame web with cutout
Cij constants in shear buckling equation (stiffness
qcrit shear flow at buckling of frame web without
dependent)
cutout
Deq equivalent cutout diameter
r ratio of 458 plies in reinforcing flange
Dij bending stiffnesses for composite frame web
(by volume)
E Young’s modulus for frame web material
R frame web aspect ratio (a/b)
Ec Young’s modulus for material of cap or stiffener
t thickness of frame web
Eij constants in shear buckling equation (stiffness
td thickness of reinforcement material (doubler)
dependent)
around cutout
Fcs crippling stress of cap or stiffener
ts thickness of each side of the “L” cap or stiffener
Fcu first ply failure stress of composite cap or
wd width of reinforcement material (doubler)
stiffener in compression
around cutout
Fcy compression yield stress for cap or stiffener
wt total weight of frame
material
a exponent in crippling equation (composites)
Fsu shear allowable for reinforcement material
n Poisson’s ratio for frame web material
around cutout
rg radius of gyration of cap or stiffener cross
I moment of inertia of cap or stiffener cross
section
section
r w, r s, r r density of web, stiffener (or cap), or
* Tel.: 1 1-203 386 3292; fax 1 1-203 386 3717.
reinforcement material

1359-835X/99/$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S1359-835 X( 98)00 190-0
888 C. Kassapoglou / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894
sf stress in reinforcing flange around cutout
(composites)
t emax maximum shear stress at edge of cutout
1. Introduction
As the aerospace industry becomes more global and
competitive, the ability to perform rapid, accurate trades
on design concepts and manufacturing technologies is fast
becoming a necessity. In the last decade, a variety of manu-
facturing technologies such as high speed machining (for
metals), and automated fiber placement and resin transfer
molding (for composites), have emerged as viable options
for aerospace components. It is important to be able to
rapidly configure a particular design for each of the avail-
able technologies and to compare all options on the basis of
weight, cost, or other attributes that are important for the
specific application.
Traditionally, the design phase of a program has been
under time and budget constraints that allow only the
comparison of a few variant designs, typically with the
same manufacturing technology. For example, a composite
wing box fabricated using hand layup and varying degrees
of cocuring. The evaluation of the candidate designs has
been done on the basis of weight estimates only with little
or no consideration to other attributes such as cost. If cost is
considered, it is, usually, as an afterthought. More recently,
Refs. [1–5], cost has been included as one of the primary
design drivers and optimization algorithms have been devel-
oped that also minimize cost Refs. [5,6]. The advantage of
these approaches is that they provide an estimate of cost
early in the design phase where there is time to make signif-
icant changes. These changes would have been prohibitively
expensive at later stages of a program since the design and
the basic fabrication plan would have already been final-
ized.The key ingredient in these approaches Refs. is the
determination of a Pareto set of near optimum configura-
tions. The final selection is made from this Pareto set on the
basis of some criterion that trades cost and weight.
This paper provides a discussion of the manufacturing
and structural constraints that design a component. These
constraints are discussed as a necessary foundation for
defining an optimization approach [7] to determine the
configuration for lowest cost, weight, or both. The applica-
tion selected to demonstrate the basic concepts is a frame of
a helicopter fuselage. Four fabrication technologies are
considered: (1) The traditional Sheet Metal (SMT) approach
which will be used as a baseline, (2) The High Speed (alumi-
num) Machined (HSM) approach which represents the most
advanced production-ready metal technology, (3) The
composite Hand Layup (HLP) approach, and (4) The
composite Resin Transfer Molded (RTM) approach. Two
distinctly different frame types will be considered: A lightly
loaded, and a highly loaded frame.
2. Frame configuration
Typical frames for a helicopter fuselage are shown in Fig.
1. The lightly loaded frame of Fig. 1(a) is typical of the aft
fuselage region. It is an open frame since the two vertical
portions are not (structurally) connected. This is done in
order to accommodate a door at that location. The highest
internal loading is typically caused by flight maneuvers.
The highly loaded frame of Fig. 1(b) is typical of the
center fuselage region in the vicinity of the main rotor and
transmission attachment. The highest internal loading is
typically caused by crash requirements.
The outer mold line of each frame is defined by overall
fuselage configuration requirements and is, usually, final-
ized before the design of the frame in question starts. It is
thus externally imposed to the design of the frame as a
constraint. The remainder of the frame is defined by the
internal loads in the frame which result from the various
mission requirements.
Usually, an initial configuration is selected on the basis of
experience and by similarity to other frames. The frame is
divided into quadrilateral bays. Caps and stiffeners are
located on the boundaries of each bay to carry axial loads
and to act as panel breakers. Cutouts within a bay are ellip-
tical in shape and, for highly loaded bays, require reinforce-
ment at the cutout edge. The initial location of the caps and
stiffeners is based on experience and load considerations
such as the need to provide for load path continuity, attach-
ment of interior structure, accommodation of stringers, etc.
Preliminary thicknesses, lengths and widths are assigned to
the various members and a coarse finite element model is
created that determines the internal loads in each bay. These
internal loads are shear flow in the web of the bay and axial
forces (tensile or compressive) on the corresponding caps
and stiffeners.
3. Design process
The design process consists of a set of iterative steps
which define the geometry of each of the bays. This includes
the web thickness, the cap and stiffener geometry, and the
cutout reinforcement geometry if necessary. The geometry
is determined such that the weight or cost, or both are
minimized.
Traditionally, the design process has focused on a single
manufacturing process and on minimum weight configura-
tions only. The limitation of options is because of the fact
that the optimization process for each frame is lengthy and
there is rarely sufficient time to permit extensive optimiza-
tion for all the frames of the fuselage using traditional analy-
sis tools. In this paper, a variety of manufacturing processes
is presented.
In the traditional approach, a margin of safety is calcu-
lated for each member of a bay, loading condition, and fail-
ure mode. For example, caps under compression are
 C. Kassapoglou / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894
Fig. 1. Typical frame configurations.
checked for crippling and Johnson–Euler (column)
buckling. If the margin is positive, the procedure is
repeated for the next member of the bay until all
members of all bays have been analyzed. If the margin
is negative, the geometry of the member is modified
and the analysis redone until a positive margin is
found. On occasions when a margin is positive but
high, the geometry may be modified to obtain a lower
(non-negative) margin and thus reduce the weight. A
limited number of such iterations is usually done.
In the approach presented here, a manufacturing process
is selected and the geometry of each member determined
such that all structural and manufacturing constraints are
satisfied. A wide variety of such designs is possible. The
procedure is repeated for other manufacturing options. From
all the feasible designs, the optimum is selected following
the procedure described in Ref. [7].
The optimum design is likely to be different from the
initial rough design. This means that the internal loads
obtained from the finite element model may no longer be
applicable. For this reason, the optimum design is used to
modify the finite element model and the finite element
analysis is rerun to update the internal loads. If the internal
loads are significantly different from the original loads, the
889
optimization is repeated and the finite element model
updated again until the entire process converges.
4. Fabrication process considerations
Four fabrication processes are considered: (1) Sheet
metal (SMT), (2) High speed machining (HSM), (3) Hand
layup (HLP), and (4) Resin transfer molding (RTM).
4.1. Sheet metal
This is the conventional approach. The frame is built up
from individual pieces of sheet metal representing the web,
the caps, and the stiffeners. The web is assumed to carry
shear loads and the caps and stiffeners carry axial loads.
Wherever adjacent members of different thicknesses meet
(bay webs, inner or outer caps), splice plates are used to
assemble them. The cutout reinforcements, wherever
required, are doublers that are riveted to the web. The alter-
native of flanged cutouts is not considered here.
The part count for a sheet metal frame is very high. The
cost is dominated by the assembly process because of the
large number of rivets or fasteners that are required to
assemble the individual parts into the frame and the frame
890 C. Kassapoglou / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894
to the fuselage. To keep the cost down, the individual
components are all taken from a set of standard gages that
are commercially available at low cost. This means that if
the structural optimization requires a thickness value or an
angle side length that is not available as a standard gage, the
next highest gage has to be used. This results in an increase
in weight over the theoretical optimum. To avoid damage
during handling, the lowest acceptable web thickness is
often set at 0.05 cm (0.02 in).
To avoid interference between adjacent stress concentra-
tion fields, the minimum rivet spacing is often set at five
rivet diameters. The caps and stiffeners have an “L” cross-
section with equal sides. The minimum side length is
usually set at 1.27 cm (0.5 in) to accommodate rivet holes
and edge distance requirements. Splice plates (and cutout
reinforcement doublers), wherever needed, usually have a
minimum thickness equal to the lowest of the thicknesses of
the spliced members (or equal to the web thickness for
reinforcement doublers) and at least two rows of rivets.
Scrap is minimal and the raw material (aluminum) cost is
approximately 2.2US$/kg (1US$/1b). Material density
is.0028 kg/cm 3 (0.1 1b/in 3).
4.2. High speed machining
This is a relatively recent process where the entire frame
is machined from a billet of aluminum. Such is the process
for some of the S-92 [8] and V-22 [9] frames. Caps, stiffen-
ers, and doublers, are all integrally machined. As a result,
the assembly time is limited to the time required to assemble
the entire frame onto the fuselage. Unlike the sheet metal
case, the optimum lengths and thicknesses of the frame
components (webs, caps, reinforcements) can be used so
that there is no weight penalty for having to use the next
highest available gage. However, the current technology
cannot consistently produce quality parts with web thick-
nesses less than 0.1 cm (0.04 in) and this value is typically
used as the minimum gage requirement. For this study, the
allowable cap or stiffener height was constrained to lie
between 1.27 cm (0.5 in) and 10.2 cm (4.0 in).
The strength and stiffness properties are the same as the
properties of aluminum used in sheet metal frames. About
95%–99% of the material is scrapped and recycled, typi-
cally as a lower quality material. Currently, the raw material
cost is approximately 6.8US$/kg (3.1US$/1b). The revenues
from reselling scrapped material have not been factored into
this price. Material density is .0028 kg/cm 3 (0.1 1b/in 3).
4.3. Hand layup
This process has been used a number of times in the last
10 years, notably on the RAH-66 Comanche [10]. The entire
frame is typically laid up by hand and is co-cured using
thermoset composite materials. In this study, only mono-
lithic laminates are used (no sandwich configurations). A
more complete investigation should include sandwich struc-
ture as an alternative.
A first generation, relatively brittle thermoset such as
AS4/3501-6, is used in this study. The material forms are
typically unidirectional tape with ply thickness of 0.15 mm
(0.006 in) and 0.3 mm (0.012 in) and plain weave fabric
with ply thickness 0.19 mm (0.0075 in) or eight harness
satin with ply thickness 0.38 mm (0.015 in). The thick-
nesses of the frame components are constrained to integral
multiples of combinations of the available materials. The
material properties used are summarized in the Appendix.
In this study, the following constraints were imposed on
the candidate layups: (1) Minimum laminate thickness (3-
ply layup) is 0.53 mm (0.021 in) to avoid porosity and
moisture insertion problems; (2) Layup is symmetric; (3)
outside plies are always fabric for impact damage resis-
tance; (4) only 0 tape and 0/90 or ^ 45 fabric plies are
used; (5) Web laminates are shear dominated and thus have
a predominance of 458 plies; (6) Cap and stiffener plies are
axial load dominated, and thus have a predominance of 08
plies; (7) No more than four plies of the same orientation
can be next to each other in order to protect against micro-
cracking.
In addition, several producibility requirements were
imposed: (1) Adjacent webs or caps have the same outer
plies to simplify blending of adjacent members; (2) The
caps and stiffeners (of “L” configuration) were constrained
to have equal sides with a minimum side length of 1.27 cm
(0.5 in: smaller lengths become hard to manufacture) and a
maximum length of 10.2 cm (4.0 in); (3) 08 tape was only
used in caps to avoid wrinkles at frame radius regions.
A computer program (layup generator) was written to
create layups consistent with the available materials and
layup/producibility constraints mentioned previously. This
program was connected with the optimization code [7] to
provide layup configurations at (or near) the thickness value
required by the optimization procedure.
The scrap factor used was 35% and the raw material cost
was approximately 143US$/kg (65US$/lb). Material
density was 0.00155 kg/cm 3 (0.056 lb/in 3). These values
were assumed based on commercially available information
from the vendors.
4.4. Resin transfer molding
This is a process that, even though mature, has found only
limited use on frames. One of the main reasons is the high
cost of matched tooling required.
Two options are considered: In the first, the preforms are
fabricated by hand. In the second, the preform fabrication is
automated (through braiding or weaving). In both cases, the
preforms are located in the tool by hand. The tool is then
injected with resin and the part cured. No stitching was
considered in this study. The preforms are kept together
with the use of a tackifier. The available material forms
are assumed to be the same as for hand layup (tape and
fabric) and the resulting layup thicknesses are assumed to
be the same as the corresponding hand laid up counterparts.
 C. Kassapoglou / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894 891

Table 1
Typical manufacturing processes and constraints for frame design

Process Material Process characteristics Constraints

Sheet Metal Aluminum sheet, extruded
angles
High Speed Machining Aluminum billet
Hand Layup Brittle thermoset of Toughened
t’set
Resin Transfer Molding Manual preforms or autom.
Preforms (mat’ls similar to
hand layup)
High part count, Assembly
intensive
most assy eliminated, min
thickness ˆ 0.1 cm
most assy eliminated, touch 1. “L” × -section caps/stiffeners
labor intensive, bagging
sensitive
Very high tooling cost, some same as hand layup
limitation on layup as a result
of preform limitations
1. “L” × -section for caps/stiffeners
2. Min thickn ˆ 0.05 cm
3. Min lgth ˆ 1.27 cm
4. Max lgth ˆ 10.2 cm
5. Splice plates/dbrs w/2 rows of rivets
6. 5D min rivet spacg
7. Thickness to match available gages
1. Rectangular × -section caps/stiffeners
2. Min thickn ˆ 1 cm
3. Min lgth ˆ 1.27 cm
4. Max lgth ˆ 10.2 cm
2. Min thickn ˆ 0.05 cm
3. Min lgth ˆ 1.27 cm
4. Max lgth ˆ 10.2 cm
5. Symm. Layup w/fabric outside
6. Piles constrained to 0,0/90, ^ 45
7. No more than four consecutive plies of same orientation

The layup rules are the same as for hand layup. Some limita- shape with all sides simply supported. As some bay webs
tions in layup may constrain the options further. For may not be rectangular, an “equivalent” rectangular bay is
example, unidirectional tape preforms are very difficult to assumed of area approximately equal to the actual bay and
make and use. Also, some automation processes such as aspect ratio equal to the lowest ratio of two adjacent sides of
braiding may be limited in the layups they can create. the actual web.
These limitations were not considered in this study. The shear buckling load for a metallic bay web (sheet
The scrap factor was 35% for non-automated preforms metal or high speed machined) is given by [11]:
and 12% for automated preforms. The raw material cost was  2
p2 ks Et t
approximately 26.4US$/kg (12US$/lb) for non-automated qˆ ÿ
…1†
and 44US$/kg (20US$/lb) for automated preforms. Material 12 1 2 v2 a
density is 0.00155 kg/cm 3 (0.056 lb/in 3). These values were
where q is the shear flow in the web, t is the web thickness, E
assumed based on commercially available information from
is the web Young’s modulus, n is the Poisson’s ratio, a is the
the vendors.
shortest of the two dimensions of the rectangular web, and ks
The process characteristics and constraints for all options
is a function of the web aspect ratio R( ˆ a/b) given approxi-
are summarized in Table 1.
mately by:
ks ˆ 5:2779 1 0:53064R 1 3:4018R2 …2†
5. Structural requirements and constraints
The shear buckling load for a composite bay web (hand
Each bay of the frame is analyzed separately. The compo- laid-up or resin transfer molded) is determined by truncating
nents of the bay are (1) the web, (2) the inner and outer cap, the series solution in [12] after the third term and using the
(3) the stiffeners, and (4) the cutout reinforcement (if a resulting expressions from reference [5]:
cutout is present). Each of the components must be sized ÿ

so that no failure occurs under ultimate load. It should be 45p4 D11 1 2 D12 1 2D66 R2 1 D22 R4
qcrit ˆ q 
noted that the ultimate loads are the result of a variety of 32Ra2 …706=25† 2 …C ÿC 1 C
=C C †
53 45 34 34 45
conditions (flight, landing, etc.) that tend to load more heav-
ily different portions of the same frame. For this reason, an or
envelope of maximum loads (positive and negative) must be
created over all the anticipated load conditions. p4
qcrit ˆ
128Ra2
5.1. Webs p
E 11 E 22 E 33 E 44
× p
The webs are designed not to buckle under the maximum …81E 11 E 22 =625† 1 …E 11 E 33 =25† 1 …E 33 E 44 =81† 1 …E 22 E 44 =25†
applied shear load. Each web is assumed to be rectangular in …3†
892 C. Kassapoglou / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894
whichever of the two expressions gives the smallest qcrit.
The constants E ij and C̄ij are defined in the appendix of
Ref. [5].
For composite webs, the stiffness properties correspond-
ing to the worst environment (hot/wet) are used in the
calculations.
5.2. Caps and stiffeners
Compression-loaded caps or stiffeners are designed so
there is no crippling or Johnson–Euler buckling failure
under the applied load.
Crippling (failure after local buckling of the flange) for a
metallic cap or stiffener (sheet metal or high speed machin-
ing) is given by [13]:
" 2 #0:85
2ts Ec
Fcs ˆ 0:56Fcy …4†
A Fcy
where Fcs is the crippling stress, Fcy, Ec are the compressive
yield stress and the Young’s modulus of the cap or stiffener
material, ts is the cap or stiffener thickness, and A is the
cross-sectional area of the cap or stiffener.
For composite caps and stiffeners, the crippling stress has
been found experimentally to be given by:
KF  
Fcs ˆ  cua for bb =tf $ 1:95 …5†
bf =tf
where Fcu is the compression failure stress (first ply failure
for composites), and K and a are material constants and bf
and tf are the flange width and thickness of the cap or stif-
fener. Typical values for K and a are 1.525 and 0.63 for first
generation thermoset materials.
For composite caps and stiffeners the strength properties
corresponding to the worst environment (hot/wet) are used.
These allowable strength values are statistically significant
values that guarantee a certain reliability level (B-Basis or
A-Basis).
In addition to the crippling check, a column buckling
(Johnson–Euler) check is done. For both metallic and
composite caps or stiffeners, the Johnson–Euler stress is
given by [14]:
2
" #2
Fcs L The cutout reinforcement for a metallic web (sheet metal
Fc ˆ Fcs 2 …6†
4p E c rg
2
where Fcs is given by Eqs. (4) or (5), L is the length of the
cap or stiffener (which is assumed simply supported at the
edges of the bay in question), and r g is the radius of gyration
of the cross-section of the cap or stiffener given by:
p
rg ˆ I=A …7†
with I the moment of inertia and A the area of the cap or
stiffener cross-section.
If the load on the cap or member is tensile, only a strength
check is done where the material tensile strength is
compared to the applied tension stress.
5.3. Cutouts
If a cutout is present, a check is done first to see if the bay
web with the thickness selected from shear buckling (no
cutout accounted for) will buckle in the presence of the
cutout. This is done by relating the buckling load without
hole to that with hole through the expression [15]:
qocrit ˆ qcrit 0:93…1 2 Deq =b† …8†
where qocrit, qcrit are the shear flow at buckling of the web
with and without cutout respectively, b is the largest side of
the web, and Deq is the equivalent cutout diameter given by
p
Deq ˆ ac bc …9†
with ac and bc the semi-major and semi-minor axes of the
cutout assumed elliptical. Eq. (8) is obtained from Ref. [15]
through curve-fitting. The data in Ref. [15] are for a square
cutout. By using b, the largest of the rectangular bay dimen-
sions, Eq. (8) is conservative. Eq. (9) treats the elliptical
cutout as an equivalent circular cutout of equal area. It
should be noted that Eq. (8) is used for both metallic and
composite webs. The validity of Eq. (8) for composite webs
has not been examined in detail.
In addition to buckling, the highest stress at the edge of
the cutout is calculated by curve-fitting data in Ref. [15]:
 
t emax ˆ 3:963 1 5:725 Deq =b
 2  3
2 25:769 Deq =b 163:424 Deq =b : …10†
Again, Eq. (10) is used for both metallic and composite
webs even though its validity on composite webs has not
been completely established. This shortfall is not major
since the entire design and optimization approach proposed
here corresponds to the preliminary design phase where
optimum dimensions are sought for the frame as a whole.
More detailed local analysis will follow to fine-tune some of
the dimensions selected during this phase.
If the applied shear flow in the web is such that the web
with the cutout buckles, or the maximum stress at the cutout
boundary exceeds the shear failure stress for the web mate-
rial, a reinforcement around the cutout is necessary.
or high speed machining) is a doubler of thickness td and
width wd. The allowable shear flow qd for a web with a
reinforced hole is given by recasting the design curves in
Ref. [16] to:
Fsu td
qd ˆ  2   …11†
0:75 Deq =wd 11:75 Deq =wd
where Fsu is the shear failure strength for the doubler
material.
In a sheet metal web, the reinforcing doubler is fastened
onto the web. This imposes three additional design
constraints developed through experience: The doubler
 C. Kassapoglou / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894 893

thickness td should be no smaller than the web thickness t, r w, r s, r r, are the densities of the web, stiffener (or cap),
the doubler width wd should be wide enough to accommo- and reinforcement materials respectively. Aw is the area of
date two rows of rivets and the ratio wd/Deq should be the web of the ith bay (minus the cutout area if there is a
between the values 0.36 and 0.5. cutout, and Vr is the volume of the reinforcement around the
The minimum doubler weight can be obtained by multi- cutout of that bay.
plying its volume by the density, imposing condition Eq. The last term in Eq. (15) is the fastener weight and is
(11), differentiating with respect to Deq/wd and setting the summed over all fasteners. The number of fasteners is deter-
resulting expression equal to zero. It follows that the mini- mined by dividing the total interface length (interface of
mum doubler weight is obtained when Deq/wd ù 1.08. As, fastened members) by the fastener spacing. The fastener
however, it is required, from standard design practices, that spacing is taken to be five fastener diameters and the typical
wd/Deq # 0.5, the optimum wd value is wd ˆ 0.5Deq. This fastener diameter is set to 0.4 cm (0.156 in).
value minimizes the doubler weight. It also minimizes the
cost since larger wd values increase the material cost and 7. Summary
may require additional rows of rivets.
In a high speed machined web, the doubler is integrally The structural and manufacturing constraints that must be
machined around the cutout and these constraints on td and satisfied during designing of a frame of a fuselage structure
wd do not apply. have been presented. The structural constraints apply to the
For a composite web (hand laid up or resin transfer structural members of a frame bay. For the web, the
molded), the doubler is a flange around the cutout and is constraints relate the shear buckling ability of the web to
co-cured in place. The compressive stress in the flange is the applied shear load. For the caps and stiffeners, crippling,
given by recasting the design curves of Ref. [17]: Johnson–Euler buckling, and tension strength conditions
  are imposed. For cutouts, the buckling strength of the web
sf ˆ Kts qb= b 2 Deq …12† in the presence of a cutout determines whether a reinforce-
ment is needed. The size of the reinforcement is determined
where Kts is a function of material and layup and for
from strength and crippling considerations.
graphite/epoxy is found to be [17]:
The manufacturing constraints are related to the capabil-
Kts ˆ 2:971 1 3:125r 2 5:241r2 1 5:613r 3 …13† ities of the manufacturing process considered. These include
minimum gage requirements, material forms and layups for
where r is the volume ratio of 458 material.
composites, minimum and maximum geometry values, and
The flange is checked for crippling using Eq. (5).
rivet diameter and spacing constraints.
Eqs. (1)–(13) are used to determine the load carrying
These structural and manufacturing constraints form the
ability of each member of the frame bay. This load carrying
necessary requirements for optimum design of frames for
ability (strength or buckling) becomes the allowable load for
minimum cost and weight. The optimization approach is
that member. Then, the margin of safety for that member is
presented in a companion paper [7].
given by
Allowable Load Appendix A. Appendix
MS ˆ 21 …14†
Applied Load
A.1. Composite material properties
This margin of safety must be greater than or equal to
zero for all potential failure modes of the member in Table A1 shows the material properties used in this study
question.
Table A1
Composite material properties (elevated temperature wet)
6. Weight
Property Tape material Fabric material
The weight for each manufacturing option of the frame is
Ex (GPa) 120 63.4
calculated as the sum of the weights of the individual
Ex (Gpa) 8.3 63.4
members increased by the weight of any fasteners used to n xy 0.31 0.05
assemble the frame components and/or assemble the frame Es (Gpa) 4.4 3.7
onto the skin. The weight of each member is determined by Longit. Tension 1212 671
multiplying the volume of the member by the material strength X t (Mpa)
Longit. Compr. Strength 896 615
density. Then, the total weight is given by
X c (Mpa)
X ÿ

Wt ˆ ti … Aw†i rw i Transv. Tension 31.7 406
Strength Y c (Mpa)
X ÿ
X ÿ
X …15† Transv. Compr. 106 406
1 Li … A†i rs i 1 …Vr †i rr i 1 …fastener wt†i Strength Y c (Mpa)
Shear Strength S (Mpa) 46.2 66.1
where the subscript “i” denotes the ith member of the frame,
894 C. Kassapoglou / Composites: Part A 30 (1999) 887–894
for prepreg material (hand layup). The same properties were
used for thick and thin ply materials. For the resin transfer
molding material, a 15% knockdown factor was used for all
values (except Poisson’s ratio).
References
[1] Swanson GD, Metschan SL, Morris MR, Kassapoglou C. The effects
of design details on cost and weight of fuselage structures. In Proc 3d
NASA Advanced Composites Technology Conf, Long Beach, CA,
June 1992:601–622.
[2] Mabson GE, Flynn BW, Ilcewicz LB, Graesser DL. The use of
COSTADE in developing composite commercial aircraft fuselage
structures. In: Proc 35th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf Hilton Head, SC, 1994,
AIAA Paper 94-1492.
[3] Ilcewicz L, Smith P, Olson J, Backman B, Walker T, Metschan S.
“Advanced Technology composite Fuselage”, Sixth NASA/DOD/
ARPA Advanced Composite Technology Conference, NASA, CP-
3326, 1996.
[4] Metschan S, Willden K, Sharples G, Andelman R. “Cost model Rela-
tionships Between Textile manufacturing Processes and Design
Details for Transport Fuselage Elements”, Third NASA/DOD
Advanced Composite Technology Conference, NASA CP-3178,
1992:323–340.
[5] Kassapoglou C. Simultaneous Cost and weight minimization of
composite-stiffened panels under compression and shear. Composites
Part A 1997;28A:419–435.
[6] Soremekun GA. Genetic algorithms for composite laminate design
optimization. MS Thesis, Dept. Engineering Science, Mechanics,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Feb 1997.
[7] Kassapoglou C. Minimum cost and weight design of fuselage frames.
Part B cost consideration, optimization and results. Composites Part A
1998;30(7):895–904.
[8] Warwick G. Helibus speeds up. Flight International, Jan 14-20,
1998:54–56.
[9] Kandebo SW. V-22 modifications focus on cost, producibility. Avia-
tion Week & Space Technology, May 22 1995:35.
[10] Garbo SP, Rosen KM. Composites usage on the RAH-66 Comanche.
Vertiflite, March/April 1992:8–13.
[11] Timoshenko SP, Gere JM. Theory of Elastic Stability. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc, 1961 Chapter 9.7.
[12] Whitney JM. Structural Analysis of Laminated Anisotropic Plates.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Co, 1987 Chapter 5.7.
[13] Gerard G. The crippling strength of compression elements. J Aero-
nautical Science, 1958:25.
[14] Bruhn EH. Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures. India-
napolis, IN: S.R. Jacobs and Associates Inc, 1973 Section C7.26.
[15] Engineering Sciences Data Item No 75034, Initial buckling stress,
maximum direct stress and shear strain of square plates in shear
with central circular holes, November 1975.
[16] Engineering Sciences Data Item No 80027, Elastic stress concentra-
tion factors. Single reinforced and unreinfoced holes in infinite plates
of isotropic materials, September 1995.
[17] Engineering Sciences Data Item No 86003, Choice of reinforcement
for a circular hole in a fibre reinforced laminated plate, May 1996.