HOLY SPIRIT UNIVERSITY OF KASLIK

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

Finite Element Analysis | GEN450 | Project

Hangar Design.

Presented To:
DR. JAD JELWAN

Presented By:
ELIO JABBOUR
GEORGE NASR
MARC ABI NADER

1
Table of Contents 
Table of Figures : ............................................................................................................................ 3 

Table of tables : ............................................................................................................................... 6 

Introduction:.................................................................................................................................... 7 

Modelling Approach and Assumptions: ......................................................................................... 7 

Factors that must be considered in Aircraft Hangar Design: ...................................................... 8 

Structures and Sizes: ............................................................................................................... 8 

Making the most of available square footage: ........................................................................ 8 

Accounting for ultra-heavy loads: .......................................................................................... 9 

Aircraft Hangar Floor Plans: ................................................................................................... 9 

Hangar Doors Designs: ......................................................................................................... 10 

Fire Protection:...................................................................................................................... 10 

Insurance and Safety Considerations: ................................................................................... 11 

Main Loads That are Affecting the structure of the Hangar: .................................................... 11 

Load Cases and Study: .......................................................................................................... 12 

MATLAB Analysis for Case C: ................................................................................................... 22 

Side 1: ................................................................................................................................... 23 

Side 2: ................................................................................................................................... 24 

Side 3: ................................................................................................................................... 25 

Side 4: ................................................................................................................................... 25 

Description of the FE Model: ....................................................................................................... 27 

Element Plot: ............................................................................................................................. 27 

Inertia Calculation:................................................................................................................ 28 

Material Properties: ................................................................................................................... 31 

Boundary Conditions: ............................................................................................................... 32 

2
Analysis Results:........................................................................................................................... 32 

ANSYS Results: ....................................................................................................................... 32 

Case A(i): .............................................................................................................................. 33 

Case B(i): .............................................................................................................................. 39 

Case C: .................................................................................................................................. 44 

Model Verification: ....................................................................................................................... 50 

Max deflection calculation:....................................................................................................... 50 

Solution: ................................................................................................................................ 52 

Max stress calculation: .............................................................................................................. 58 

Optimization: ................................................................................................................................ 60 

I Beam Optimization: ................................................................................................................ 60 

C Beam Optimization: .............................................................................................................. 62 

Beam Cost calculations: ............................................................................................................ 64 

Conclusion: ................................................................................................................................... 65 

References: .................................................................................................................................... 65 

Table of Figures : 
Figure 1: Cessna 172 Multiple Views............................................................................................. 8 
Figure 2: Free Standing Aircraft Hangar. ....................................................................................... 9 
Figure 3: Sliding Hangar Doors. ................................................................................................... 10 
Figure 4: Draining System. ........................................................................................................... 11 
Figure 5: Average Wind Speed in Lebanon throughout the year. ................................................ 13 
Figure 6: Ci & Ce Diagram (1). .................................................................................................... 15 
Figure 7: External Design Pressure (1). ........................................................................................ 15 
Figure 8: Internal Design Pressure (1). ......................................................................................... 16 
Figure 9: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-1-i) ........................................................................... 16 
Figure 10: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-1-ii) ........................................................................ 17 
3
Figure 11: Ci & Ce Diagram (2). .................................................................................................. 18 
Figure 12: External Design Pressure (2). ...................................................................................... 18 
Figure 13: Internal Design Pressure (2). ....................................................................................... 19 
Figure 14: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-2-i) ......................................................................... 19 
Figure 15: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-2-ii) ........................................................................ 20 
Figure 16: Pressure per unit length (1). ........................................................................................ 21 
Figure 17: Pressure per unit length (2). ........................................................................................ 21 
Figure 18: MATLAB code for angle of attack (1). ....................................................................... 22 
Figure 19: MATLAB code for angle of attack (2). ....................................................................... 23 
Figure 20: Call Function Side 1. ................................................................................................... 23 
Figure 21: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 1. ............................................................ 24 
Figure 22: Call Function Side 2. ................................................................................................... 24 
Figure 23: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 2. ............................................................ 24 
Figure 24: Call Function Side 3. ................................................................................................... 25 
Figure 25: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 3. ............................................................ 25 
Figure 26: Call Function Side 4. ................................................................................................... 25 
Figure 27: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 4. ............................................................ 26 
Figure 28: Critical Pressures at critical angles of attack presented at each wall. ......................... 27 
Figure 29: Element Plot. ............................................................................................................... 28 
Figure 30: I beam inertia study procedure. ................................................................................... 29 
Figure 31: I beam dimensions. ...................................................................................................... 29 
Figure 32: C beam Dimensions..................................................................................................... 30 
Figure 33: C beam centroid results. .............................................................................................. 31 
Figure 34: C beam inertia results. ................................................................................................. 31 
Figure 35: Material Properties. ..................................................................................................... 31 
Figure 36: Fixed points of hangar. ................................................................................................ 32 
Figure 37: Total Deformation Case A(i)....................................................................................... 33 
Figure 38: Equivalent Stress Case A(i)......................................................................................... 33 
Figure 39: Maximum Principal Stress Case A(i). ......................................................................... 34 
Figure 40: Normal Stress Case A(i). ............................................................................................. 34 
Figure 41: Convergence of total deformation Case A(i). ............................................................. 35 

4
Figure 42: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case A(i). .................... 35 
Figure 43: Convergence of Equivalent Stress Case A(i). ............................................................. 36 
Figure 44: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case A(i) (2). .............. 36 
Figure 45: Buckling Mode 1 Case A(i)......................................................................................... 37 
Figure 46: Buckling Mode 2 Case A(i)......................................................................................... 37 
Figure 47: Buckling Mode 3 Case A(i)......................................................................................... 37 
Figure 48: Buckling Mode 4 Case A(i)......................................................................................... 38 
Figure 49: Buckling Mode 5 Case A(i)......................................................................................... 38 
Figure 50: Buckling Mode 6 Case A(i)......................................................................................... 38 
Figure 51: Buckling Mode 7 Case A(i)......................................................................................... 39 
Figure 52: : Buckling Mode 8 Case A(i). ..................................................................................... 39 
Figure 53: Total Deformation Case B(i). ...................................................................................... 40 
Figure 54: Equivalent Stress Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 40 
Figure 55: Maximum Principal Stress Case B(i). ......................................................................... 40 
Figure 56: Normal Stress Case B(i). ............................................................................................. 41 
Figure 57: Buckling Mode 1 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 42 
Figure 58: Buckling Mode 2 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 42 
Figure 59: Buckling Mode 3 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 42 
Figure 60: Buckling Mode 4 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 43 
Figure 61: Buckling Mode 5 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 43 
Figure 62: Buckling Mode 6 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 43 
Figure 63: Buckling Mode 7 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 44 
Figure 64: Buckling Mode 8 Case B(i). ........................................................................................ 44 
Figure 65: Total Deformation Case C........................................................................................... 45 
Figure 66: Equivalent Stress Case C. ............................................................................................ 45 
Figure 67: Maximum Principal Stress Case C. ............................................................................. 45 
Figure 68: Minimum Principal Stress Case C............................................................................... 46 
Figure 69: Convergence of total deformation Case C. ................................................................. 46 
Figure 70: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case C. ........................ 46 
Figure 71: Convergence of Equivalent Stress Case C. ................................................................. 47 
Figure 72: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case C (2). .................. 47 

5
Figure 73: Buckling Mode 1 Case C............................................................................................. 48 
Figure 74: Buckling Mode 2 Case C............................................................................................. 48 
Figure 75: Buckling Mode 3 Case C............................................................................................. 48 
Figure 76: Buckling Mode 4 Case C............................................................................................. 49 
Figure 77: Buckling Mode 5 Case C............................................................................................. 49 
Figure 78: Buckling Mode 6 Case C............................................................................................. 49 
Figure 79: Buckling Mode 7 Case C............................................................................................. 50 
Figure 80: Buckling Mode 8 Case C............................................................................................. 50 
Figure 81: Force Matrix. ............................................................................................................... 51 
Figure 82: Total Deformation Verification (1). ............................................................................ 55 
Figure 83: Total Deformation Verification 2. ............................................................................... 57 
Figure 84: FBD Beam. .................................................................................................................. 58 
Figure 85: Reactions Diagram. ..................................................................................................... 59 
Figure 86: Shear Diagram. ............................................................................................................ 59 
Figure 87: Bending Moment Diagram. ......................................................................................... 59 
Figure 88: Design of experiment results for I beam. .................................................................... 61 
Figure 89: I beam Safety Factor.................................................................................................... 61 
Figure 90: Mass and volume of I beam. ....................................................................................... 62 
Figure 91: Surface Optimization Results for I beam. ................................................................... 62 
Figure 92: C beam Safety Factor. ................................................................................................. 63 
Figure 93: Mass and Volume of C beam. ..................................................................................... 63 
Figure 94: Design of Experiments Result C Beam. ...................................................................... 63 
Figure 95: Surface Optimization Results for C beam. .................................................................. 64 

Table of tables : 
Table 1: Table Summarizing this section results. ......................................................................... 26 
Table 2: Material and Quantity of each type of beams used......................................................... 28 
Table 3: Number of nodes and elements....................................................................................... 28 
Table 4: I beam inertia results. ...................................................................................................... 30 
Table 5: Cost Calculations. ........................................................................................................... 64 

6
Introduction: 
The main objective of this project was to design an aircraft hangar, taking into consideration the
safety issues and many other constraints, such as strength, durability, fire proof, speed of
construction, customizable designs…

The goal was to design the structure in a way to have maximum stability with the minimum amount
of materials used, the material being in major composed of multiple forms of beams and wall
sheets all around the hangar.

The importance of all these constraints is the fact that the hangar is used to store high priced
vehicles (aircrafts) that we don’t want to be affected from any damage, thus a detailed analysis is
necessary to be provided.

Modelling Approach and Assumptions: 
Thinking about the average height of an aircraft and the length of its wings, to make sure that the
hangar can store it, and moving on to the other important aspects accomplished in this hangar
which are the protection from the weather and direct sunlight, maintenance, repair, manufacture,
assembly were also taken into consideration in order to make sure that there were enough space to
accomplish all these essentials.

Taking a look at the given model, we found that the design could be helpful and some of the
dimensions could be used.

We wanted to take the Cessna 172 as the reference for all our dimensions and make sure that it fits
through the door and could be well stored in the hangar.

7
 Figure 1: Cessna 172 Multiple Views.
From here we can see that the door should at least open a gap of 11m with a clearance from both
sides of about 3 to 3.5 meters. From this I decided to make the hangar width to be 18m. The length
of the aircraft being 8.28m I decided to take the length of the hangar to be around 18m in order to
have space for maintenance equipment and other necessary items. The height of the aircraft reaches
a maximum of 2.72m so taking a height of around 5.7m + the roof was quite reasonable.

Factors that must be considered in Aircraft Hangar Design: 
There are a number of fundamental design and construction elements critical to the successful
delivery of a hangar project. At first glance, hangars appear to be fairly straightforward – nothing
more than a large spanning space to store and repair aircraft. Truth is, there’s much more to it.

Structures and Sizes: 
The width of the doors have to be large; this includes the aircraft entrance. The bigger the aircraft
to be introduced, the more complex a structure is needed.

Making the most of available square footage: 

Regardless of the overall size of the hangar, space is critical. And maximizing that space is
especially important in establishing an efficient and optimal work flow around the aircraft for
repairs and maintenance.

8
Accounting for ultra‐heavy loads: 

Aircrafts put enormous amounts of pressure on the concrete surface of an aircraft hangar. It’s
vitally important that design specifications account for prolonged exposure to such pressures.
Designing for wheel placement, parking loads and entry/exit paths must all be planned for in our
layout.

Aircraft Hangar Floor Plans: 
There are plenty of different floor plans to choose from, in our case the free standing aircraft hangar
is analyzed:

Figure 2: Free Standing Aircraft Hangar.

This design is the most common aircraft hangar. The standard design includes four walls, a roof,
and door system. This simple design is best for private hangars, aircraft maintenance hangars, and
airport repair facilities.

These types of hangars can be designed to any size to suit smart aircraft, helicopters or larger jets.

9
Hangar Doors Designs: 
A quality door setup is essential in order to have easy access to the hangar, and thus the sliding
hangar door is chosen, for the following reasons:
Sliding Hangar Doors: 
The main benefits of sliding hangar doors are their cost-effectiveness. They are simple to use and
often cheaper to build and install.

Figure 3: Sliding Hangar Doors.

Fire Protection: 
Trenches with "vee" shape bottoms are used minimize odors and bugs. The trenches have several
discharge connections, spaced every 80 feet, so that jet fuel spills are quickly drained from the
trench into underground concrete drain collection piping.

10
 Figure 4: Draining System.
Insurance and Safety Considerations: 
In addition to protecting the operational characteristics of your aircraft, hangaring the airplane may
lower the cost of insuring it. How, where and when you store your aircraft affects the risk of it
being damaged. If you protect it individually in a secure, indoor hangar, it is less likely to suffer
damage and therefore your aircraft insurance may cost less.

Main Loads That are Affecting the structure of the Hangar: 
Many loads could be affecting any structure present in the environment, and for the hangar case
there is no difference, let’s start by stating the loads:

1- Dead Load.
2- Live Load.
3- Wind Load.
4- Seismic Load.

In our analysis only the wind load will be taken into consideration and all other loads will be
neglected. The roof weight being the dead load is neglected due to the fact that it is made from
aluminum and it is a very thin sheet, comparing its weight to the wind effects on the structure
resulted in neglecting it.

11
The analysis will be focused on the multiple cases of wind direction that will be stated in later
sections, and investigating the loads on the structure in each case in order to finally find the critical
case and be able to identify the safety factor and failure of the beams used.

All those results will be verified in ANSYS after completing the design in CATIA software.

Load Cases and Study: 
Before we start our analysis we need to determine the load that the wind will exert on our structure.
These loads are based on civil engineering codes. In this project the “Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and other Structures” will be used, which is an American society of civil engineers
publication, 2017. ASCE 7-16.

Many procedures are given in the publication to analyze wind loads, in our case the Envelope
Procedure will be used since we have a low-rise building.

The wind velocity pressure could be calculated using the following equation:

𝑁
𝑞 0.534𝑉
𝑚

Where V is the basic wind velocity in m/s.

The coefficient 0.534 is found by multiplying the equation by many correction factors
corresponding to this specific procedure, and is found in the code.

In order to determine the wind speed, we will use the following graph:

12
 Figure 5: Average Wind Speed in Lebanon throughout the year.

This is the average wind speed throughout the year in Lebanon, it is clear that the highest values
are seen in the months January and February and the peak is at about 18mph.

The study will be made at the peak velocity.

Let’s convert the velocity to m/s: 𝑉 18𝑚𝑝ℎ 8𝑚/𝑠

Thus we could conclude the value of q:

𝑁
𝑞 0.534 8 34.176
𝑚

At this point this pressure need to be converted to beam loads:

Cases: 
Wind will affect the structure in multiple cases, each resulting in a different pressure profile. We
need to consider all the cases in order to ensure that the structure is safe regardless the wind
direction.

Wind will cause external and internal pressures on the walls and the roof of the hangar. Externally
the wind will be pressing against the wall from the windward direction and this wall will be
subjected to positive pressure, while the leeward side of the structure will be subjected to negative

13
pressure, which means that the wind will create a suction force on the wall. Since the roof of the
hangar has a relatively small inclination, it will also be subjected to negative pressure.

Three general direction will be considered:

1- East-West wind direction.

2- North-South wind direction.
3- Diagonal wind direction, which in fact will be decomposed to form the previous two cases
with lower loads in each.

In order to ignore the internal pressure due to air entering the hangar and exiting it, we will assume
that the doors are closed at all times.

Thus the total pressure on the walls and the roof of the building, can be written as:

𝑃 𝑞 𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑖

𝑃 34.176 𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑖

Where:

- P: design wind pressure.

- q: wind velocity pressure.
- Ce: External pressure coefficient.
- Ci: Internal pressure coefficient.

Note that Ce and Ci are found from the code, for each wind direction.

Ce and Ci determination: 
a- Case 1:
𝐶𝑖 0.18
𝐶𝑒 𝐴𝐵 0.45
𝐶𝑒 𝐵𝐶 0.69
𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝐷 0.42
𝐶𝑒 𝐷𝐸 0.35

14
 Figure 6: Ci & Ce Diagram (1).

At this point we need to determine the external and internal design pressures:
- External Design pressure:
34.176𝐶𝑒

Figure 7: External Design Pressure (1).

- Internal Design pressure:

34.176𝐶𝑖
15
 Figure 8: Internal Design Pressure (1).

Or it should be noted that since the internal pressure could be either positive or negative
two cases are present:
i- Internal Pressure Positive:

Figure 9: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-1-i)

ii- Internal Pressure Negative:

16
 Figure 10: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-1-ii)

b- Case 2:
𝐶𝑖 0.18
𝐶𝑒 𝐴𝐵 0.45
𝐶𝑒 𝐵𝐶 0.69
𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝐷 0.37
𝐶𝑒 𝐷𝐸 0.45

17
 Figure 11: Ci & Ce Diagram (2).

At this point we need to determine the external and internal design pressures:
- External Design pressure:
34.176𝐶𝑒

Figure 12: External Design Pressure (2).

- Internal Design pressure:

34.176𝐶𝑖

18
 Figure 13: Internal Design Pressure (2).

Or it should be noted that since the internal pressure could be either positive or negative
two cases are present:
i- Internal Pressure Positive:

Figure 14: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-2-i)

ii- Internal Pressure Negative:

19
 Figure 15: Pressure per unit area diagram (a-2-ii)

c- Case 3:
In fact the third case is a combination of the two cases above, we will consider the diagonal
direction to have a ∝ angle and we will assume in later sections the higher loads from the
previous 2 cases to be the loads of this case multiplied by: 𝑐𝑜𝑠 ∝ 𝑜𝑟 𝑠𝑖𝑛 ∝.

Since the critical case needs to be studied, at this point we can eliminate the cases for which the
internal pressure is negative, since the maximum loads appear to be present when the internal
pressure is positive.

Since the design wind pressures are defined as force per unit area, we need to convert them to force
per unit length before placing them on the beams.

It should be noted that each beam should be designed in a way to support a wind pressure exerted
on a 5.7 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 wide wall and roof sheets.

In order to find the force per unit length we need to multiply the values found above in the case
where the internal pressure is positive by the width of the wall and roof sheets:

a- Case 1:

20
 Figure 16: Pressure per unit length (1).

b- Case 2:

Figure 17: Pressure per unit length (2).

Now in order to find the load applied at each beam we need to multiply the value found in the
previous calculations by the distance between the beams. This is not necessary since in ANSYS
both pressure per unit area and pressure per unit length could be used.

21
MATLAB Analysis for Case C: 
Since we had to study a diagonal direction wind, applying a 45 degree wind load was a valid option
but does not include the most critical case that the hangar could face. Therefore our goal from this
section is to find the values of the angle of attack of the wind load that will create the highest
pressure on the hangar walls.

The equations that represent the values of case 3 are given by:

𝑃3 𝐿𝑃1 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 𝑖 𝐿𝑃1 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 𝑗 𝐿𝑃2 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 𝑖 𝐿𝑃2 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 𝑗

𝑃3 𝐿𝑃1 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 𝐿𝑃2 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 𝑖 𝐿𝑃1 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 𝐿𝑃2 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼 𝑗

Let:

𝐴 𝐿𝑃1 cos 𝛼 𝐿𝑃2 sin 𝛼

𝐵 𝐿𝑃1 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝛼 𝐿𝑃2 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝛼

||𝑃3|| 𝐴 𝐵

In order to evaluate the most critical angle of attack of the wind, a MATLAB code iterating the
value of α from 0 to 90° was written as shown below:

Figure 18: MATLAB code for angle of attack (1).

22
 Figure 19: MATLAB code for angle of attack (2).

Assume that the sides are named as the following:

At this point a call function is created for each of the 4 cases shown above in order to find the
critical angle for each side:

Side 1: 

Figure 20: Call Function Side 1.

23
 Figure 21: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 1.
Side 2: 

Figure 22: Call Function Side 2.

Figure 23: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 2.

24
Side 3: 

Figure 24: Call Function Side 3.

Figure 25: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 3.

Side 4: 

Figure 26: Call Function Side 4.

25
 Figure 27: Applied Pressure Vs Angle of Attack Side 4.

The generated results from the MATLAB code are presented in the below table and figure:

Side α (deg) P3 (N/m) P3x (N/m) P3y (N/m)

I 51 227.6858 143.2873 176.9451

II 43 224.8092 164.415 153.3195

III 46 339.72 235.9893 244.3741

IV 68 189.2536 70.8956 175.4729

Table 1: Table Summarizing this section results.

26
 Figure 28: Critical Pressures at critical angles of attack presented at each wall.

It should be noted that the previous figure could not happen at the same instance in normal
conditions, and it represents the highest load applied to each side of the hangar according to the
angle of attack of the wind. Thus for example in the case of 68° side 4 represents its highest load
in normal wind conditions, while the other three sides represent loads that are lower than those
represented in the figure and this could be seen from the graphs plotted using MATLAB.

The idea of keeping the highest loads on each side was to study the most critical case that could
happen in a turbulent wind condition, and if the results show that the design of the hangar is safe
for these conditions we can conclude that it will be safe for any other case.

Description of the FE Model: 
Element Plot: 
The following figure shows the elements (Black) and nodes (Red) and the exact quantity will be
sumarized in a table:

27
 Figure 29: Element Plot.

First as seen in the above element plot we have two kind of beams in our design, I and C beams.
Let’s state the exact quantity, material, and inertia of each type:

   Quantity Material 
Structural 
I beam  10 
Steel 
Structural 
C beam  13 
Steel 
Table 2: Material and Quantity of each type of beams used.

Now let’s conclude the total number of nodes and elements in our design:

Nodes  30 
Elements 23 
Table 3: Number of nodes and elements.

Inertia Calculation: 
As we already stated we have two types of beams in our design. This section is dedicated for the
calculation of the inertia:

28
Inertia of I beam: 

Figure 30: I beam inertia study procedure.

Our “I beam” and its dimensions is shown below:

Figure 31: I beam dimensions.

Section 1  Section 2  Section 3  

b1  h1  A1  d1  b2  h2 A2  d2  b3  h3 A3 
50  500  25000  275 600 50 30000 275 600 50 30000 

29
 Ix1'  520833333  Ix2'  6250000  Ix3'  6250000 
Iy1'  5208333.3  Iy2'  900000000  Iy3' 9E+08 
Ix  5070833333 
Iy  1805208333 
Table 4: I beam inertia results.

Inertia of C beams: 
The C beam cross section is presented in the following figure:

Figure 32: C beam Dimensions.

First we need to find the centroid of the part using the following formulas:

𝐴1𝐻1 𝐴2𝐻2 𝐴3𝐻3

𝐻𝑐
𝐴1 𝐴2 𝐴3

𝐴1𝑉1 𝐴2𝑉2 𝐴3𝑉3

𝑉𝑐
𝐴1 𝐴2 𝐴3

30
 h1  v1  A1  h2 v2  A2  h3  v3  A3 
150  25  15000 25 300 25000 150 575 15000 
 𝐻𝑐  =  93.18181818 
 𝑉𝑐  =  300 
Figure 33: C beam centroid results.

The inertia of the C beams is thus evaluated in the following table:

Section 1  Section 2  Section 3  

b1  h1  A1  d1h  d1v  b2 h2  A2  d2h  d2v  b3  h3  A3  d3h  d3v 
300  50  15000  56.82  ‐275  50 500 25000 ‐68.18  0  300 50  15000  56.82  275 
Ih1'  =  160924587  Ih2'  =  121427341.6 Ih3'  =  160924586.8
Iv1'  =  1137500000  Iv2'  =  520833333.3 Iv3'  =  1137500000 
Ih  =  443276515.2 
Iv  =  2795833333 
Figure 34: C beam inertia results.

Note: In the previous tables all units are in: 𝑚𝑚, 𝑚𝑚 , 𝑚𝑚 .

Material Properties: 
It should be noted that all materials used are found in ANSYS workbench, and the main properties
of these materials will be tabulated in the following table:

𝑲𝒈
Material  Density   Syt 𝑴𝑷𝒂 Syc 𝑴𝑷𝒂 Sut 𝑴𝑷𝒂 Suc 𝑴𝑷𝒂   E 𝑴𝑷𝒂
𝒎𝟑
Aluminum 
2770  280  280  310  0  71000 
Alloy 
Concrete  2300  0  0  5  41  30000 
Structural 
7850  250  250  460  0  200000 
Steel 
Figure 35: Material Properties.

The structural steel material is used for all the beams in our design and this is due to the high
strength it has and the ability to withstand high loads. On the other hand, aluminum alloy is used
for the wall sheets that will cover the surrounding of the hangar. And finally a concrete base is
used to fix the beams.

31
Boundary Conditions: 
Before starting our analysis it is important to know the boundary conditions of our design, as we
already stated the beams are fixed to the concrete base, thus all lower nodes present on the element
plot are fixed, these nodes are seen in blue in the following figure:

Figure 36: Fixed points of hangar.

Concerning the loads on each beam, refer to previous sections in the report where the load has
been calculated according to each of the three cases taken.

Analysis Results: 
The main goal of our analysis is to conduct both hand and software calculations in order to be able
to verify our results, the software used is ANSYS.

ANSYS Results: 
First it should be noted that after calculating the pressure loads in each of the three cases, we found
that the higher loads appear when the internal pressure has positive Ci, thus all cases are taken
when the internal pressure is positive.

32
Case A(i): 
Static Study: 
We started by fixing the concrete slab according to our boundary conditions stated earlier and
applied all pressure loads in a normal manner on the beams having the values calculated in previous
sections.

Results are shown in the following figures:

Figure 37: Total Deformation Case A(i).

Figure 38: Equivalent Stress Case A(i).

33
 Figure 39: Maximum Principal Stress Case A(i).

Figure 40: Normal Stress Case A(i).

According to these results it is clear that the static analysis of the structure shows a safe design and
in fact a very strong one.

In addition the most critical beam is found to be the one with the probe max on it in both the
deformation and stress studies.

Note that the mesh in here is not very fine and this is because the h-convergence method was going
to be used anyway and it would fix the mesh on its own.

34
h‐convergence method: 
The h-convergence method was only applied on the critical beam due to software limitations, the
following results are shown:

Total Deformation Study: 

Figure 41: Convergence of total deformation Case A(i).

Figure 42: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case A(i).

35
It is clear from the table that the number of elements and nodes increases with the increase of
iterations, in addition the % of change is lowered with each solution and the total deformation
converges at solution 8 as proposed by the software.

Equivalent Stress Study: 

Figure 43: Convergence of Equivalent Stress Case A(i).

Figure 44: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case A(i) (2).
Buckling Study: 
8 modes of buckling are required, they are presented in the following:

36
1- Mode 1:

Figure 45: Buckling Mode 1 Case A(i).

2- Mode 2:

Figure 46: Buckling Mode 2 Case A(i).

3- Mode 3:

Figure 47: Buckling Mode 3 Case A(i).

4- Mode 4:
37
 Figure 48: Buckling Mode 4 Case A(i).
5- Mode 5:

Figure 49: Buckling Mode 5 Case A(i).

6- Mode 6:

Figure 50: Buckling Mode 6 Case A(i).

7- Mode 7:

38
 Figure 51: Buckling Mode 7 Case A(i).
8- Mode 8:

Figure 52: : Buckling Mode 8 Case A(i).

From all these results almost no change is seen from one mode to the other, only the max
affected point changes.

Case B(i): 
Static Study: 
We started by fixing the concrete slab according to our boundary conditions stated earlier and
applied all pressure loads in a normal manner on the beams having the values calculated in
previous sections.

Results are shown in the following figures:

39
 Figure 53: Total Deformation Case B(i).

Figure 54: Equivalent Stress Case B(i).

Figure 55: Maximum Principal Stress Case B(i).

40
 Figure 56: Normal Stress Case B(i).

According to these results it is clear that the static analysis of the structure shows a safe design and
in fact a very strong one.

In addition the most critical beam is found to be the one with the probe max on it in both the
deformation and stress studies.

Note that the mesh in here is not very fine and this is because the h-convergence method was going
to be used anyway and it would fix the mesh on its own.

h‐convergence method: 
The h-convergence method was going to be applied on the critical beam only, but noting that the
case B(i) critical beam is the same critical beam of case A(i) having the same pressure loads applied
to it, the study was not repeated since the same results are expected.

Buckling Study: 
8 modes of buckling are required, they are presented in the following:

1- Mode 1:

41
 Figure 57: Buckling Mode 1 Case B(i).
2- Mode 2:

Figure 58: Buckling Mode 2 Case B(i).

3- Mode 3:

Figure 59: Buckling Mode 3 Case B(i).

42
4- Mode 4:

Figure 60: Buckling Mode 4 Case B(i).

5- Mode 5:

Figure 61: Buckling Mode 5 Case B(i).

6- Mode 6:

Figure 62: Buckling Mode 6 Case B(i).

43
 7- Mode 7:

Figure 63: Buckling Mode 7 Case B(i).

8- Mode 8:

Figure 64: Buckling Mode 8 Case B(i).

In this case the buckling study shows different results in each mode none of them having a
higher deformation than 1.5mm which could be considered to be a great result and we
conclude that our design is safe from buckling in this case of wind direction.

Case C: 
Static Study: 
As done in both cases A and B, we started by fixing the concrete slab according to our boundary
conditions stated earlier and applied all pressure loads in a normal manner on the beams having
the values calculated earlier in previous sections.

Results are shown in the following figures:

44
 Figure 65: Total Deformation Case C.

Figure 66: Equivalent Stress Case C.

Figure 67: Maximum Principal Stress Case C.

45
 Figure 68: Minimum Principal Stress Case C.

h‐convergence method: 
Total Deformation Study: 

Figure 69: Convergence of total deformation Case C.

Figure 70: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case C.

46
Equivalent Stress Study: 

Figure 71: Convergence of Equivalent Stress Case C.

Figure 72: Number of nodes and elements with respect to convergence Case C (2).

From the previous figures, the total deformation convergence study has a shape that resembles the
shape of the curve seen in case A(i), while even though the equivalent stress curve does not seem
to converge, ANSYS provided the green light that in fact it did.

Buckling Study: 
8 modes of buckling are required, they are presented in the following:

1- Mode 1:

47
 Figure 73: Buckling Mode 1 Case C.
2- Mode 2:

Figure 74: Buckling Mode 2 Case C.

3- Mode 3:

Figure 75: Buckling Mode 3 Case C.

4- Mode 4:

48
 Figure 76: Buckling Mode 4 Case C.
5- Mode 5:

Figure 77: Buckling Mode 5 Case C.

6- Mode 6:

Figure 78: Buckling Mode 6 Case C.

7- Mode 7:

49
 Figure 79: Buckling Mode 7 Case C.
8- Mode 8:

Figure 80: Buckling Mode 8 Case C.

Similar to case B there’s no mode for which the total deformation surpasses the value of 1.5mm
which shows that even though the most critical case has been taken, the design is very safe against
buckling loads.

Model Verification: 
Max deflection calculation: 
As stated earlier, the analysis will be done in two different methods, the ANSYS computation is
done and the critical beam has been identified, at this point hand calculation for the most critical
case found earlier will be applied to verify it.

50
It should be noted that Case C has obviously the most critical case and it is located on the C beam
having the load of 59.6 Pa.

Let’s start by stating some important informations, any beam has two degrees of freedom, the first
one being related to vertical displacement and the second one to the rotation.

Our interest is the deflection of that beam which is in fact the maximum deformation which we
are seeking.

Using the direct formulation of finite element, we can compute the displacement at each node.

Note that for a beam, the deformation is composed of reaction and moment displacements.

At each node, we have 1 reaction and 1 moment.

Direct formulation:

𝐾 𝑈 𝐹

Where:

𝐾 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥

𝑈 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥

𝐹 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥

This force matrix 𝐹 varies according to the problem, in our case, considering the critical beam
and simplifying the calculation we decided to take the following force matrix:

Figure 81: Force Matrix.

Note that the real deformation of the beam will be lower since it has multiple supports from all the
I beam positioned below it and supporting it, but since this study has been used in the h-
convergence analysis we will stick to it.

51
The beam stiffness matrix is:

 12 6L  12 6 L   Ui1 
𝐸𝐼 6 L 4 L ^ 2  6 L 2 L ^ 2 Ui 2 

𝐾   
𝐿  12  6 L 12  6 L  Uj1 
 
 6 L 2 L ^ 2  6 L 4 L ^ 2 Uj 2

As computed earlier we have:

𝐴 55000𝑚𝑚

𝐸 200000𝑀𝑃𝑎

𝑊 339.72

Or this load is in 3D and has an angle of 46° which allows us to decompose the load into x and y
components:

𝑊1 244.3741𝑁/𝑚

𝑊2 235.9893𝑁/𝑚

The length of the beam is: 𝐿 9𝑚

Solution: 
Along 1st axis: 
𝐼 2795833333𝑚𝑚

Using the direct formulation of finite analysis:

 12 6L  12 6 L   Ui1    wL / 2 
𝐸𝐼 6 L 4 L ^ 2  6 L 2 L ^ 2 Ui 2 
 ( wL ^ 2) / 12
 
    
𝐿  12  6 L 12  6 L  Uj1    wL / 2 
 
 6 L 2 L ^ 2  6 L 4 L ^ 2 Uj 2   ( wL ^ 2) / 12 

𝐸𝐼 200000 10 2795833333 10
767032.4645
𝐿 9

52
 6𝐿 54𝑚

4𝐿 324𝑚

2𝐿 162𝑚

 12 54  12 54   Ui1    wL / 2 
 54 324  54 162  Ui 2  ( wL ^ 2) / 12
   
7.67 10      
 12  54 12  54 Uj1    wL / 2 
  Uj 2   ( wL ^ 2) / 12 
 54 162  54 324 

Let’s set the boundary conditions:

It should be noted that from the form of our hangar and the way our C beam is fixed on the I beams
we can consider nodes one and two to be fixed by a roller, thus 𝑈𝑖1 𝑈𝑗1 0

Simplifying the matrix we get a 2 2 matrix of the form:

𝑤𝐿
⎧ ⎫
324 162 𝑈𝑖2 12
7.67 10
162 324 𝑈𝑗2 ⎨ 𝑤𝐿 ⎬
⎩ 12 ⎭

Or:

𝑤𝐿
⎧ ⎫
324 162 𝑈𝑖2 12
7.67 10
162 324 𝑈𝑗2 ⎨ 𝑤𝐿 ⎬
⎩ 12 ⎭

𝑤𝐿 244.3741 9
1649.525
12 12

𝑤𝐿
1649.525
12

𝑈𝑖2 1.328 10 𝑟𝑎𝑑

Solving we get:
𝑈𝑗2 1.328 10 𝑟𝑎𝑑

53
The main objective is to determine the deflection at the midpoint of the beam where it is maximal,
in order to obtain it we need to employ the shape functions.

From the finite element course we use the following formula:

𝑣 𝑆𝑖1𝑈𝑖1 𝑆𝑖2𝑈𝑖2 𝑆𝑗1𝑈𝑗1 𝑆𝑗2𝑈𝑗2

Or 𝑈𝑖1 𝑈𝑗1 0

Thus 𝑣 𝑆𝑖2𝑈𝑖2 𝑆𝑗2𝑈𝑗2

Where:

2𝑥 𝑥
𝑆𝑖2 𝑥
𝐿 𝐿

𝑥 𝑥
𝑆𝑗2
𝐿 𝐿

Evaluating the shape functions at the midpoint:

𝑥 4.5𝑚

𝐿 9𝑚

We get:

𝑆𝑖2 1.125

𝑆𝑗2 1.125

𝑣 1.125 1.328 10 1.125 1.328 10 2.988 10 𝑚

0.02988𝑚𝑚

54
 Figure 82: Total Deformation Verification (1).

Along 2nd axis: 
𝐼 443276515.2𝑚𝑚

Using the direct formulation of finite analysis:

 12 6L  12 6 L   Ui1    wL / 2 
𝐸𝐼 6 L 4 L ^ 2  6 L 2 L ^ 2 Ui 2 
 ( wL ^ 2) / 12
 
    
𝐿  12  6 L 12  6 L  Uj1    wL / 2 
 
 6 L 2 L ^ 2  6 L 4 L ^ 2 Uj 2   ( wL ^ 2) / 12 

𝐸𝐼 200000 10 443276515 10
121612.2126
𝐿 9

6𝐿 54𝑚

4𝐿 324𝑚

2𝐿 162𝑚

 12 54  12 54   Ui1    wL / 2 
 54 324  54 162  Ui 2  ( wL ^ 2) / 12
   
1.22 10      
 12  54 12  54 Uj1    wL / 2 
  Uj 2   ( wL ^ 2) / 12 
 54 162  54 324 
55
Let’s set the boundary conditions:

It should be noted that from the form of our hangar and the way our C beam is fixed on the I beams
we can consider nodes one and two to be fixed by a roller, thus 𝑈𝑖1 𝑈𝑗1 0

Simplifying the matrix we get a 2 2 matrix of the form:

𝑤𝐿
⎧ ⎫
324 162 𝑈𝑖2 12
1.22 10
162 324 𝑈𝑗2 ⎨ 𝑤𝐿 ⎬
⎩ 12 ⎭

Or:

𝑤𝐿
⎧ ⎫
324 162 𝑈𝑖2 12
1.22 10
162 324 𝑈𝑗2 ⎨ 𝑤𝐿 ⎬
⎩ 12 ⎭

𝑤𝐿 235.9893 9
1592.928
12 12

𝑤𝐿
1592.928
12

𝑈𝑖2 8.0597 10 𝑟𝑎𝑑

Solving we get:
𝑈𝑗2 8.0597 10 𝑟𝑎𝑑

The main objective is to determine the deflection at the midpoint of the beam where it is maximal,
in order to obtain it we need to employ the shape functions.

From the finite element course we use the following formula:

𝑣 𝑆𝑖1𝑈𝑖1 𝑆𝑖2𝑈𝑖2 𝑆𝑗1𝑈𝑗1 𝑆𝑗2𝑈𝑗2

Or 𝑈𝑖1 𝑈𝑗1 0

Thus 𝑣 𝑆𝑖2𝑈𝑖2 𝑆𝑗2𝑈𝑗2

Where:

56
 2𝑥 𝑥
𝑆𝑖2 𝑥
𝐿 𝐿

𝑥 𝑥
𝑆𝑗2
𝐿 𝐿

Evaluating the shape functions at the midpoint:

𝑥 4.5𝑚

𝐿 9𝑚

We get:

𝑆𝑖2 1.125

𝑆𝑗2 1.125

𝑣 1.125 8.0597 10 1.125 8.0597 10 1.8134 10 𝑚

0.18134𝑚𝑚

Figure 83: Total Deformation Verification 2.

Comparing these values with ANSYS, we can say that it is very close and the difference could be
negligible. From one side the ANSYS software works on a 3D scale while the hand calculation is

57
done in 1D finite element analysis. Moreover every software contain a margin of error and this
difference could be due to this margin and in fact could be neglected.

Max stress calculation: 
Using our knowledge from RDM course, in order to find the stress we need to apply the following
formula:

𝑀𝑦
𝜎
𝐼

Using a FBD of the beam:

Figure 84: FBD Beam.

Applying equilibrium along y-axis:

𝑅1 𝑅2 1099.7 𝑁

The following figures shows the reactions, shear forces, bending moments of the beam:

58
 Figure 85: Reactions Diagram.

Figure 86: Shear Diagram.

Figure 87: Bending Moment Diagram.

59
We have:

𝐼 443276515.2𝑚𝑚

Thus we can conclude the maximum stress to be:

𝑀𝑦 2.4744 93.182
𝜎 12 0.52 10 𝑃𝑎
𝐼 443276515.2 10

𝑀𝑦 2.4744 300 93.182

𝜎 12 1.154 10 𝑃𝑎
𝐼 443276515.2 10

Optimization: 
Throughout our project, results were showing very low deformation and stresses even for the most
critical case. Therefore even though our results are efficient, the goal is to minimize the mass of
material used and thus minimize the cost of our project.

To do so both the most critical I beam and the most critical C beam has been taken into
consideration, and ANSYS optimization has been applied to them. Setting two objectives, the first
being minimizing the mass and the second is seeking the target of 1 as safety factor. Conditions
with higher safety factors will also be shown which could be used noting that the higher the safety
factor, the higher the mass, the higher the cost of our hangar.

As a summary a table will be provided at the end of this section showing all possible costs in
function of mass and safety factor.

I Beam Optimization: 
After setting lower and upper bounds to the dimensions of the “I-beam” cross section, and
changing the design of experiments to custom, multiple design points have been created seeking
the best result possible. The following is obtained:

60
 Figure 88: Design of experiment results for I beam.

Initially after the study was done on initial dimensions of I beam the safety factor was 15 and the
beam mass was 4003.5[Kg] as seen below:

Figure 89: I beam Safety Factor.

61
 Figure 90: Mass and volume of I beam.

The table found using the design of experiments section, shows that for many different dimensions
of the I beam, both the safety factor and the mass could be lowered. In order to find candidate
points from the set present above manually the response surface optimization are found, and these
are the results:

Figure 91: Surface Optimization Results for I beam.

According to our goal of minimizing both the mass and safety factor, three candidate points are
presented above, each having different dimension, the verified candidate point 1 is chosen, since
it has dimensions allowing it to have the form of an I beam. For this we have a safety factor of
1.038 and a mass of 348.54[Kg].

It could be seen that the mass of the beam has decreased largely which will decrease the cost of
our hangar accordingly.

C Beam Optimization: 
The same analysis is done for the C beams and results are shown below:

The initial safety factor and mass are 15 and 3885.8[Kg] as seen in the following:

62
 Figure 92: C beam Safety Factor.

Figure 93: Mass and Volume of C beam.

The design of experiments is used again, the following table of design points is created where the
mass and safety factor for each point is calculated.

Figure 94: Design of Experiments Result C Beam.

63
The surface optimization, as usual provides three candidate points, or all three of them didn’t have
the dimensions of a C-beam, therefore they were studied again by the design of experiments
section, which led to concluding that all of the three candidates are wrong and marked them by
three red X. A new candidate point 4 is added, which was found earlier, and shows that the mass
is of 275.54[Kg] and the safety factor is of 4.5954. This point will be considered in the next section.

Figure 95: Surface Optimization Results for C beam.

Beam Cost calculations: 
As stated in previous sections, the material used for the beams is the structural steel which costs
0.76$/Kg. The following table consists of the cost of the materials needed for all the beams used
in the hangar. These calculations are done at both the old cross section and the new ones found
using optimization. These values are only an approximation of the beams costs used in the project.

Beam  Beam 
Material  Money 
Quantity  Mass  Total Cost  Mass  Total Cost 
Cost[$]  Saved [$] 
Old[Kg]  Old [$]  New[Kg]  New [$] 
I 
10  4003.5  348.54  27777.696 
Beam  30426.6  2648.904 
0.76 
C 
13  3885.8  275.54  35669.3688
Beam  38391.704 2722.3352 
  68818.304   5371.2392  63447.0648
Table 5: Cost Calculations.

64
It is clear that the money saved is a huge sum of 63.4𝐾$ which again shows the importance of the
optimization tool.

Conclusion: 
It was clear from the beginning, after calculating the pressure on each beam in three different cases,
the most critical one was the angled wind direction, and our MATLAB code shows the effect of
this wind direction on the values of the pressure, or we know that the higher the pressure is the
higher the deflection and stress would be, therefore relating all those parameters to the angle ∝
allowed us to conclude the critical angle of attack.

Based on the deflection and max stress calculations on the most critical beam in the most critical
case, we can see that both these values are very low, and by analyzing the safety factor in ANSYS
we observed it to be very high, thus our design is safe and efficient preventing the hangar from
failing.

The material used was structural steel, which is in fact a material that has high strength as seen in
the material properties section, thus changing this material to reduce the cost would not be the
ideal solution. While reducing the dimension of the beams and thus reducing the quantity of
material used would decrease the cost of production from here the power of the optimization tool
in ANSYS is presented as both C and I beams are optimized to get ideal values of mass and reduce
therefore the cost.

References: 
https://www.korteco.com/construction-industry-articles/five-factors-must-be-considered-aircraft-
hangar-design/

https://www.dimensions.guide/element/cessna-172-skyhawk-aircraft

https://www.global-aero.com/important-considerations-about-aircraft-hangars/

https://techspanbuilding.com.au/articles/aircraft-hangar-design/

https://weatherspark.com/y/99217/Average-Weather-in-Beirut-Lebanon-Year-Round

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDNaw87nyN4&list=WL&index=3&t=0s

65