Design & Construction

AE1222-I

Literature study on
wing structures 19/02/2019

Ayushi Goyal - 4787218

Gijs Janssen - 4862570
Guido Insinger - 4846419
Irina Dumitrescu - 4786262
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/9y7w5r/boeing_787_wing_flex/
Jorian van Bemmelen - 4790413
Maarten Beltman - 4772350
Mohamed Yaakoub - 4814185
Ned Pigott-Rowles - 4785541
Øyvind Bryhn Pettersen - 4810511
Vincent Lechner - 4785940
Winand Mathoera - 4775848
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The first phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 The final design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Literature study on the wing box 3

2.1 Advantages of stiffened box structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Location and orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Loads on the wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4 Loads on the wing box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5 Deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6 Real aircraft comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7 Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Literature study on sandwich structures 9

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Vibrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3 Bending stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 Testing and reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.5 Parameter Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 Study Practical 12

5 Conclusion 14

Bibliography 15

Contributions 17

ii
Introduction
This report as part of the Design and Construction project concerns the literature study on
wing box and sandwich structures and their applications in aircraft and spacecraft. Fur-
thermore, a practical that involves testing of custom-designed beams will lead to a greater
understanding of the concept.

This project’s aim is to acquire knowledge on wing box designs and influencing factors
in order to ultimately design a wing box structure for ’Aerospace Manufacturing by Young
Engineers’ (AMYE), an important company in the aviation industry.

1.1 The first phases

The project will start with a literature study to build up knowledge on wing box designs and
parameters that need to be considered for the own design. The main concern is finding good,
reliable sources that can be used as a base for calculations and design choices. By doing this
study, it is ensured that up-to-date research is being used and providing the best chance of
finding an optimal design.

Once a good base has been established, the design of the wing box will be started. The
team will come up with possible designs and a hypothesis on which will perform best. This
hypothesis will be then tested in a parameter study. These designs will be optimized through
an iterative process by tweaking and altering the available parameters.

Wing boxes are included in the structure of an aircraft, the weight of which is needed to
be reduced as much as possible in order to maximize the payload fraction. Thus, the lowest
number of ribs, rivets, stiffeners, and stingers needed to withstand specific loads for buckling
and failure in addition to a safety margin should be used. This will lead to finding the optimal
mass to stiffness ratio.

The final design will be selected, built and tested. In order to speed up the production pro-
cess, a production plan needs to be created. This is defined as ”the process of choosing work
to be started in a manufacturing facility during some future time period so that performance
is maximized” [15]. It is a process taking place prior to the start of production of a specific
product, and it involves assigning tasks to different parties involved in the production, as well
as dividing up the time and resources that should be assigned to each party. This process will
allow the wing box to be produced in a shorter time frame and with fewer production errors.

Furthermore, an instrumentation plan needs to be produced in which the details of the

instrumentation used in the testing of the design are specified. When the design is built, the
wing box will be continuously loaded until failure, while having the team inspect and make
notes on the damages. The team will focus on monitoring where the failure modes appear to
ensure the design can withstand required loads, and be able to identify weak points.

After testing, a thorough evaluation of the design process will be produced and final test-
ing will be done. The team will be tasked with identifying errors, after which the design will
be given a final assessment. Thus, it is ensured that the redesign phase is entered with a
clear vision of how to improve the design. The other main task will be to produce and hold
a presentation for AMYE where the design and data that has been collected so far is showcased.

1
1.2 The final design
In the next phase, the team will be tasked with redesigning the top-panel of the original wing
box. It will be subjected to large compressing forces, and must be subject to these without
buckling. Progressive failure analysis will be used to create an optimised design, noticing weak
points and ensuring the design can carry the loads it has been designed for. A production
plan will ensure the production goes quickly and smoothly.
While a large part of the team will create the redesigned wing box, a smaller group will
tackle a new challenge from AMYE. This smaller team will perform a preliminary investigation
into spacecraft structures, focusing on sandwich structures and vibrations, as AMYE needs
our help to push beyond the atmosphere. This team will also perform tests on different types
of sandwich structures to verify their calculation methods, so they can be sure the calculations
they make can be trusted.

To conclude this project, the team will write out an extensive report, analyzing and evaluat-
ing the redesign and making a recommendation for AMYE stating whether or not a redesigned
wing box is beneficial for their airplane or not.

2
Literature study on the wing box
2.1 Advantages of stiffened box structures
In aircraft and spacecraft design, stiffened box structures, which is exactly what wing boxes
are, are advantageous as opposed to other stiffening structures. This is due to the fact that
shell structures are much better when designing for an aerodynamic shape. They also have a
much larger cross-sectional area than, for example, an I-beam, allowing for a larger resistance
to torsion [1], which is a virtue when considering the type of loading on a wing during flight.
Additionally, a stiffened box structure also offers storage space on its inside. This is often
used in aviation; for example, most airplanes store their fuel within the hollow space inside
their wing boxes.

2.2 Location and orientation

The wing box is located in between the wings and the lower part of the fuselage. In some way,
it can be seen as the very first part of the wings. It is orientated at an angle of 90 degrees to
the fuselage. The location and orientation of the wing boxes are illustrated in the following
schematic drawings (Fig. 2.1), including the wing boxes of an Airbus A320 and that of a
turbine blade. [2]

Figure 2.1: wing boxes of an Airbus A320 (left) and a turbine blade (right)

2.3 Loads on the wing

The main goal of a wing box is transferring loads from the wing to the fuselage. These loads
will differ with different flight phases. To begin with, like in any flight, the airplane has to
take-off from the airport.
During take-off the aircraft undergoes large acceleration [3]. During this process, gravita-
tional force is acting upon the engine and wing structure, as illustrated with the most right
purple and blue arrows in figure 2.2. The gravitational force of the remaining part of the
aircraft is acting on the wing box tip, as illustrated with the most left purple arrow. The
lift distribution, illustrated in orange, acts upon the entire length of the wing. Due to the
different forces that act upon the wing, a bending moment acts upon the wing box tip, as
illustrated with a green circular arrow.
During cruise flight, the next phase during an ordinary flight, lift force is still distributed
over the wing and gravity still applies, so a gravitational force is acting upon the engine, the

3
wing structure and upon the remaining part of the aircraft. These forces cause a bending
moment at the wing box tip. It can be noticed that all forces, including the weight of the
fuselage, are more or less in equilibrium during the cruise phase.
All forces are illustrated in figure 2.2 with the same colours as in the previous figure.
During touch-down, a number of forces act on the aircraft wing. A small lift force is still
distributed on the wing. Gravitational force are present on the engine, the wing structure and
the remaining part of the aircraft. Also, a normal force acts upon the landing gear, which is
attached to the wing. The combination of the forces creates a bending moment at the wing
box tip. The loads are illustrated in figure 2.2 below, using the same colors as before. The
flight phase also includes taxiing after landing.
During the taxi phase of the flight, there is no lift force acting on the wing, but gravitational
forces still apply along the wing and fuselage. Normal forces act upon the landing gear. All
of this is once again illustrated in figure 2.2, shown below. The same colors are used for the
same purposes.

Figure 2.2: Loads on the wing during:

A: Take-off —— B: Cruise
C: Touch down – D: Taxi

2.4 Loads on the wing box

Now transitioning from the loads on the wing to the loads on the wing box, during cruise
flight the upper part of the wing box is in compression and the lower part of the wing box is
in tension. This is due to the bending moments that are caused by the lift force induced by
the wing.
During take-off, in addition to the bending moments, there is also a torsional force caused
by the thrust and a shear force caused by the lift [3]. When taxiing, the wing box has a
bending moment caused by the weight of the wing. This results in a moment in the reverse
direction compared to cruise flight. The wing box bends downwards in this case.
During touch down the same torsional force and shear force are applied to the wing box as
during take-off. The following figure, 2.3, shows the different deformations in an exaggerated
way.

4
 Figure 2.3: Deformation of the wing box during:
A-Cruise — C-Taxi
B-Take off – D-Touch down

2.5 Deformations
It is important for the wings of the aircraft to be stiffened
properly in order to minimise these deformations. This is
important because a deformation of the wing during flight
could cause a change in the lift, drag or moment coefficients
of the aircraft. In order to understand this, let us take a
look at the way airfoil affects the lift and drag coefficients,
shown in Fig. 2.4.
The graph clearly shows that the lift and drag coeffi-
cients will be different for any airfoil. So if the wing is
not stiff enough to keep its initial shape, a change in wing
loading may cause the wing to deform in such a way that
mimics a change in airfoil, thus causing the lift and drag
coefficients to change.
This can also be demonstrated using the equations for
lift and drag. From the equation for lift
1 Figure 2.4: Polar diagrams for
L = CL ρV 2 S (2.1) seven wings with aspect ratios of 7
2 to 1 [4]
and the assumption that L = W in steady horizontal flight
[5], the following equation for the drag coefficient can be derived:

2W
CL = (2.2)
ρSV 2
It is apparent now, that the lift coefficient of the wing is proportional to the inverse of
the wing surface area. Thus, if the wing deforms so that its surface area changes, the lift
coefficient will change in this relation with respect to the surface area.
The equation for the drag coefficient is also known[5], namely:

CL2 2W 2 1 4W 2 c
CD = CD,0 + CD,i = CD,0 + = CD,0 + ( 2
) = C D,0 + 2 2 2 4
πAe ρSV πAe ρ b c V πbe

4W 2
CD = CD,0 + (2.3)
ρ2 πeb3 cV 4

5
 If the wing is deformed, the following parameters could change: the zero-lift drag coefficient
CD,0 , the Oswald efficiency factor e, the average chord length c, and, potentially, the wing span
b observed by the airflow. The effects such changes would have on the total drag coefficient
can be derived from equation 2.3.
Lastly, a change in wing loading may also cause a change in angle of attack of the leading
edge if the wing box is not stiff enough, thus prompting a mostly linear change in the lift
coefficient CL , as can be observed in Fig. 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Sketch of a typical lift curve [5]

In conclusion, it is obvious that if the wing is not stiff enough to maintain its initial shape,
a change in wing loading may drastically affect the performance of the wing. It would be
highly impractical and potentially dangerous if this were to happen mid-flight, and thus, the
a potential deformation of the wings should be restricted as much as possible.

2.6 Real aircraft comparison

In order to prove that it will be stiff enough in use, it is important to test the deflection under
certain loads. During the test phase of the project, the load will be a point load at the end
of the wing box, but this does not comply with actual flight. In real life flight conditions the
load will be a distributed load caused by lift and structural weight, and there will be point
loads because of the engines[19].
These loads on the wing are not static either, see Figure 2.6 [18]. The cyclic loading,
even if the maximum loads are below the yield strength, can cause fatigue on the long term.
Cracks will propagate and cause failure after many cycles, and this can only be counteracted
by having regular maintenance and assuming there are cracks present from day 1. Only testing
a wing box with a point load once could end up disastrous in the actual use of an aircraft, as
the effects of cyclic loading are not tested.

6
 Figure 2.6: Schematic of stress cycling on the underside of a wing during
flight

2.7 Failure
Going back from fatigue issues to regular loads, a structure can only carry a certain amount
of load up to its strength limit. Beyond this, it will lose its ability to carry these loads and
structural failure will occur. The particular structure will show either excessive deformation
or fracture [6] Sudden failure of a structure can largely be traced back to either structural
instability, in this case mostly buckling, or material failure, as in that the applied loads exceed
the yield strength [7].
During flight, the wing box experiences different heavy loads that need to be transferred
onto the strong, primary structure: The Skin is not only essential for aerodynamic shape, but
also helps carrying torsional as well predominantly bending, compression and tension loads,
depending on location: During flight, due to Lift, it will bend upwards. Subsequently, the
upper skin will experience compression and the lower will be subjected to tension. As a result
of this, in case of skin failure, it will most likely fail on the upper side due to buckling, assuming
undamaged skin [7]. However, only plastic buckling is considered failure, which takes place
after critical Loading is achieved [8]. Failure could also occur if tension in the lower skin
exceeds the yield strength. [7]. The skin is fastened to the main structure of the box by
stiffeners. These mainly transfer bending loads from the wings onto the primary structure [9].
Failure of individual stringers is comparable to the stringer configuration of the main fuselage,
as in that the local, applied stress exceeds either the yield stress or a crippling stress of the
stringers. However, individual string failure does not necessarily translate into failure of the
complete wing box, since multiple stringers are present [10]. Additionally local buckling plays
a role as a possible failure mode.[11].
From the stringers, loads are being transferred onto rigid ribs. However, opposite to the
case of upper skin failure, since the ribs mostly carry transverse loads, buckling is not the
typical failure mode of this component and material failure is more likely [7].
The spars inside the wing box are mainly responsible for taking up bending moments as
well as shear forces.[12] Since most modern aircraft use a spar configuration that includes a
web plate, as before with the skin, plastic buckling of said plate is a possible failure mode [8].
The upper failure modes assume traditional materials, mostly metal based. However,
advancements in composite structures increasingly allows for composite materials consisting
of a fiber-matrix layup to be used. Failure modes differ from more traditional materials in the
following ways: Since most composites show little ductile behaviour, material failure is more
sudden and the stress-strain curve shows a close to linear behaviour leading up to breakage, in
case of applied tension. The actual failure mode of the composite layup itself can be further
differentiated into at least three modes: Brittle fibre behaviour, Brittle behaviour with fibre

7
pullout and the former with additional matrix breakage, as shown in figure 2.7 below. It
should also be noted, that failure of a fibre-matrix layup is described by a statistical function,
which also implies, that premature failure is a possibility. [13]

Figure 2.7: Composite Layup failure mode in one direction

Another considerable difference is the reaction to impacts. Especially low velocity impacts
put the load-bearing capabilities of the composite wing box in jeopardy and introduce a new
mode of failure, specifically delamination and damages which are difficult to detect from the
surface of the composite layup. These damages by the initial impact can lead to subsequent
failure of structures in the load path and depending on severity can drastically impact the
ability of the structure to carry the expected loads [14].

8
Literature study on sandwich struc-
tures
3.1 Introduction
Apart from stiffened box structures, sandwich structures are also used in aircraft and space-
craft. The most important application of sandwich structures is to protect spacecraft from
space debris.
Space debris is a problem that spacecraft designers have to deal with since although large
pieces of debris can mostly be detected, small pieces cannot, making impacts with them
impossible to avoid. In order to choose the right materials for the sandwich structure, different
failure criteria have to be met. These criteria are the result of different failure mechanics in a
laminate structure. The biggest contribution to impact resistance of sandwich panels are the
skins. A projectile barely slows down in the core of the structure as can be seen in the graph
in Figure 3.1 [16].

Figure 3.1: Deceleration of particle with hypervelocity into Sandwich

structure[29]

Since the core of the sandwich structure is sealed from the outside, any humidity inside
the core is trapped. This humidity will cause corrosion onto the structure [5].
Sandwich structures are often chosen for protection purposes over conventional monocoque
thin-walled structures because of their high flexural stiffness to weight ratio which results in
lower lateral deformations and higher buckling resistance. These properties are very suitable
for the impact resistant material needed for the spacecraft [17].
However, sandwich structures are difficult to join to other structural elements. Fastening a
bolt into a sandwich structure will most likely cause the structure to fail. There are, however,
techniques to overcome this problem such as filling the desired area with an epoxy resin in
which the bolt can be fastened [18].

3.2 Vibrations
Resonance can occur in both the axial and lateral directions to a system in which a mass is
attached to one end of a sandwich structure. This system can be considered as the loading of

9
a spring for the axial direction and the bending of a beam for the lateral direction. Hence, this
gives an equation for the spring constant for each direction both dependant on the length of
the spring while the lateral one being related to bending stiffness (EI) and the axial one being
related to the stiffness of the spring (EA). Therefore, the natural frequency of this system can
be calculated using equation 3.3. [19]
3EI
ky = (3.1)
L3
EA
kx = (3.2)
L
r
1 k
fn = (3.3)
Π m
This means that the natural frequency of this system is governed by the size of the mass
attached to the end of the structure and the spring constant in both lateral and axial directions.
The equivalent bending stiffness for a sandwich structure is given by equation 3.4 however
as in most sandwich structures the core is much weaker that the face sheets and is much
thicker therefore it can be simplified to equation 3.5. Therefore, the natural frequency in the
lateral direction is govern mostly by E modulus and thickness of the face sheets as well as the
thickness of the core which has a large effect on the moment of inertia of the structure.
In the axial direction the spring constant is dependant on the spring stiffness which is a
function of the E modulus of the material and the cross sectional area of the structure. As
in most sandwich structures the core is much weaker than the face plates, the material of the
face plates has a much larger effect on the spring constant in the axial direction and hence
the natural frequency. [20]

bt3 bc3 btd2

(EI)eq = Ef + Ec + Ef (3.4)
6 12 2
Ec << Ef and tf << tc and d ≈ c

btc2
(EI)eq = Ef (3.5)
2

Figure 3.2: Sandwich structure dimensions.[20]

3.3 Bending stiffness

The bending stiffness (EI) of the core and sheet material from equation 3.4 can be simplified
to equation 3.5 [19].
This means that for calculating the bending stiffness of the core and sheet together, only
the Young’s modulus and moment of inertia of the face sheets about the center of the beam
are really necessary. Including the Young’s modulus and moment of inertia of the core into

10
the calculation would be far more complex than is strictly necessary, especially considering
that the core also often is a foam. Therefore, the core material should simply be ignored in
the calculation, seeing as this greatly simplifies the problem but does not change much about
the results.
Another option to calculate the bending stiffness would be to have the whole material
connected already and to then measure the Young’s modulus for the structure. In order to
do this, sound velocities and material density would have to be measured before the bending
stiffness of the sandwich structure as a whole could be calculated, which would, evidently,
complicate the process and not be the easiest or most foolproof approach.

3.4 Testing and reality

The test phase of this project will include a stiffness, and a vibration test of different sandwich
structures [21]. A 3-point bending frame will induce shear stresses and bending moments in
the beam [22]. The vibration test will use weak impulsive loads from a mallet to find an
approximation of the natural frequency of the panel. The primary loads on a spacecraft
during launch are quasi-static axial loads, shock loads and vibration loads. In orbit, the loads
are primarily shock loads, thermal stress and internal pressure [19]. The bending test’s shear
stress will simulate the internal pressure, as well as give a figure for the structure’s axial
performance by measuring its stiffness. The vibration test simulates the vibration loads and
shock loads that act on the spacecraft during launch and in orbit.
The loading of a spacecraft structure is complex, and will be a combination of axial, bi-
axial and shear loads. The tests of this project are simplified loading cases and is not a good
simulation for real flight. A significant safety factor should be applied when only these test
results will be used for a final design.

3.5 Parameter Studies

A parameter study refers to examining how a model behaves when one or more of its input
parameters are changed [23]. It entails creating visualizations in a grid with multiple views and
changing one or more of the parameters in each view.This allows users to visually analyze and
compare the effects of changing the parameters [24]. Thus, a parameter study is performed as
it allows for a greater understanding of the model behaviour as well as unexpected behaviour.
An example of a parametric analysis from the aerospace field is the “Parameter Study on
Pogo Stability of Liquid Rockets” [25]. Pogo oscillations are self-excited vibrations caused
by combustion instability that occur in liquid fueled rockets. They pose a significant threat
to rocket payload and pilot safety [27]. Beside propulsion and structure system frequencies,
over ten other parameters affect pogo stability and are thus responsible for mission-specific
performance. In order to design a pogo-free rocket, it is essential to examine the role of these
parameters on pogo stability. Quantitative data regarding this is, however, very limited in
literature. Thus,in this analytic investigation, a parametric analysis was performed to evaluate
the role of different physical parameters on pogo stability [25].

11
Study Practical
For the practical, multiple beam structures will be compared with each other, in order to be
able to design the stiffest beam with the parts available. The beams will be put in a 3-point-
bending frame where the applied loads on the beam will be varied. The deflection will be
measured as a function of the force applied and from this data, a stress-strain curve will be
obtained.
Our designs can be seen in the following figure.

Figure 4.1: Selection of practical beams

For the first comparison the orientation of the A-profiles is being varied. For the second
comparison the C-profiles will be swapped with the A-profiles to determine whether the length
of the box makes a difference. For the third comparison the thickness of the upper and lower
plate will be varied between 1 and 2 [mm]. For the fourth comparison the width of the upper
and lower plate will be varied between 40 and 80 [mm]. For the fifth and last comparison,
angled stiffeners will be added to the upper and lower plate.
The team expects the I-beam like structure to be stiffer than the wing box like structure.
It’s also expected that the beams with the longer C-profiles will be stiffer than the beams
containing the shorter A-profiles. Then, the thick girder is expected to be stiffer than the
thinner girder. In the end, the strip with the stiffeners inside the wing box like structure is
expected to be stiffer than the I-beam like structure with the stiffeners next to it.

12
 Using the data obtained from the practical at the aircraft hall, the following plot can be
made. Only the measurements of the relevant profiles of a certain comparison will be plotted
and the others will be excluded (4 and 7).

Figure 4.2: Selection of practical beams

The graph contains the values for the different profiles, labeled with numbers that refer
back to the designs in figure 4.1.
As can be seen in the graph, the I-beams create a stiffer beam structure (1 vs. 2). Thus
the following profiles will be made with an I-beam structure. In the second comparison, it
can be concluded that a longer profile is stiffer (1 vs. 3). The third comparison shows that a
thicker cap creates a stiffer profile (3 vs. 5). This profile, in fact, turned out to be the stiffest
profile of all profiles that were tested during the practical. Profile 6 and 8 were also tested,
but both turned out to be more flexible.
At last some iterations of profile 3 were made in order to create a stiffer profile than profile
5. Profile 9 has the same structure as profile 3, but 10 bolts were added to strengthen the
two C-profiles in the middle. This profile is stiffer than profile 3 itself, but still is not stronger
than profile 5. Profile 10 is really similar to profile 3 but twice as wide. Profile 10 , however,
is still more flexible than profile 5. In the end, profile 5 turned out to be the stiffest profile
that was created during the practical.

13
Conclusion
The purpose of this report was to create an overview of the design process of our wing box
structure and to conduct a preliminary study on wing box design and sandwich structures.

From the literature study on wing boxes, it was concluded that the wing box reduces the
bending moment compared to a regular I-beam. Therefore, this can be used to reduce the
mass of the stiffening element. Furthermore, failure modes differ between composite materials
and more traditional materials i.e. metals: Traditional materials tend to fail by plastic buck-
ling or yielding whereas composite materials tend to undergo brittle failure, de-lamination and
are more susceptible to low velocity impacts. This needs to be considered when choosing the
materials for designing the wing box.

The literature study on sandwich structures highlights their use in spacecraft structures,
particularly protection from space debris due to their resistance to buckling and lateral defor-
mations. Moreover, another advantage of sandwich structures was their high bending stiffness.
However due to their complex structure, they are expensive to manufacture and assemble as
well as being susceptible to corrosion limiting their application in aircraft. To conclude, sand-
wich structures will be more relevant for space applications, and will not be very relevant for
a wing box design.

Another conclusion from this literature study was the difference between the test envi-
ronment and the actual complex load cases wings and spacecraft undergo. For example the
bending test involved a concentrated force while in reality a wing is loaded by a distributed
force and is therefore not reflective of a real load case. This must be taken into account when
designing a wing box, and a sufficient safety factor should be applied.

The purpose of the practical was to find the beam configuration with the highest stiffness.
Multiple designs were introduced, and the parameters were changed one-by-one to find which
alterations would result in the highest stiffness. As a result, it turned out that an increasing
height, an increasing thickness and an I-beam like shape have a beneficial influence on creating
the stiffest beam possible. Other parameters like adding stiffeners and having extra vertical
parts did not turn out to be beneficial. Therefore, in the design of a wing box, the main focus
should lie on tall and thick I-beams.

14
Bibliography
[1] UKEssays,“Comparison Of Mass Boom And Box Beam Wing Structure Engineering Es-
say,” Dec. 2016.

[2] V. Soloshenko, “Conceptual Design of Civil Airplane Composite Wingbox Structures,”

29th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2014.

[3] T. Siddiqui, Aircraft materials and analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education LLC.,
2015.

[4] I.H. Abott, A.E. von Doenhoff, ”Theory of Wing Sections”, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 1949

[5] J.D.Anderson, ”Introduction to flight”. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2016.

[6] “structural failure - definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik,” Word-
nik.com. [Online]. Available: https://www.wordnik.com/words/structural failure. [Ac-
cessed: 12-Feb-2019].

[7] A. Paul and S. George, “Buckling analysis of wing upper skin panels of a transport Air-
craft,” International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Research , vol. 3, no.
10, pp. 2870–2870, Oct. 2014.

[8] J. Sinke, “Introduction to Aerospace Engineering, Lecture Slides 9 & 10: Structural con-
cepts.” TU Delft, 2018.

[9] D. Immanuvel , K. Arulselvan, P. Maniiarasan, and S. Senthilkumar, “Stress Analysis and

Weight Optimization of a Wing Box Structure Subjected To Flight Loads,” The Interna-
tional Journal Of Engineering And Science, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 33–40, 2014.

[10] C. Lynch, A. Murphy, M. Price, and A. Gibson, “The computational post buckling anal-
ysis of fuselage stiffened panels loaded in compression,” Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 42,
no. 10, p. 1447, Oct. 2004.

[11] G. Moors, C. Kassapoglou, S. F. M. D. Almeida, and C. A. E. Ferreira, “Weight trades

in the design of a composite wing box: effect of various design choices,” CEAS Aeronautical
Journal, pp. 1–1, 2018.

[12] Immanuvel D., Arulselvan K., Maniiarasan P.,Senthilkumar S., ”Stress Analysis and
Weight Optimization of a Wing Box Structure Subjected To Flight Loads”, The Inter-
national Journal Of Engineering And Science, Vol.3, Iss.1, P.33

[13] Nachiketa Tiwari, ”Introduction to Composite Materials and Structures” https://

nptel.ac.in/courses/112104168/L28.pdf[Accessed: 11-Feb-2019]

[14] A. Riccio, R. Ricchiuto, M. Damiano, and F. Scaramuzzino, “A Numerical Study on the

Impact Behaviour of an All-composite Wing-box,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 88, pp. 54–54,
2014.

[15] H.E. Fargher, R.A. Smith, ”Method and system for production planning”. U.S. Patent,
1996.

[16] B. L. Buitrago, C. Santiuste, S. Sánchez-Sáez, E. Barbero, and C. Navarro, “Modelling

of composite sandwich structures with honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact,”
Composite Structures, vol. 92, no. 9, pp. 2090–2096, Aug. 2010.

15
[17] J. R. Vinson, The behavior of sandwich structures of isotropic and composite materials.
Lancaster: Technomic, 1999.

[18] M. F. Ashby, H. Shercliff, and D. Cebon, Materials: engineering, science, processing and
design, 3rd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2014.

[19] R. Alderliesten, Introduction to Aerospace Structures and Materials. 2018.

[20] J. Pilling, “Composite Materials Design,” Quantitative Metallography of steels, 2005.

[Online]. Available: http://www.mse.mtu.edu/ drjohn/my4150. [Accessed: 12-Feb-2019].

[21] V.P. Bruegemann, J.M.A.M. Hol, R.M. Groves, ”AE1222-I - Project Manual: Design and
Construction”. Delft University of Technology, 2018.

[22] R. C. Hibbeler, ”Mechanics of Materials”, 10th ed. Pearson, 2018.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/structural%20failure [Accessed: 11-Feb-2019]

[23] “Parametric analysis,” Statistical functions - Analytica Wiki. [Online]. Available:

https://wiki.analytica.com/index.php?title=Parametric_analysis#Understand_
unexpected_behavior. [Accessed: 11-Feb-2019].

[24] “Parameter Study,” ParaView, Mar-2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.paraview.

org/Wiki/Parameter_Study. [Accessed: 11-Feb-2019].

[25] Z. Zhao, G. Ren, Z. Yu, B. Tang, and Q. Zhang, “Parameter Study on Pogo Stability of
Liquid Rockets,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 48, no. 3, 2011.

[26] K. Oliphant, “Cavitating Pump Dynamics Test Facility for Vehicle System Stability
Modeling,” Tech Briefs, 01-Oct-2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.techbriefs.com/
component/content/article/tb/features/application-briefs/9262 [Accessed: 11-
Feb-2019].

[27] C. E. Larson, “NASA Experience with Pogo in Human Spaceflight Vehicles,” RTO-MP-
AVT-123, May 2008.

[28] B. L. Buitrago, C. Santiuste, S. Sánchez-Sáez, E. Barbero, and C. Navarro, “Modelling

of composite sandwich structures with honeycomb core subjected to high-velocity impact,”
Composite Structures, vol. 92, no. 9, Aug. 2010.

[29] K. Oliphant, “Cavitating Pump Dynamics Test Facility for Vehicle System Stability
Modeling,” Tech Briefs, 01-Oct-2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.techbriefs.com/
component/content/article/tb/features/application-briefs/9262 [Accessed: 11-
Feb-2019].

[30] J.R. Vinson, ”The Behavior of Sandwich Structures of Isotropic and Composite Materials”
CRC Press, May 2018

16
Contributions
Student Task Working Time (h)
Question Sandwich 5 & References, edit-
Ayushi Goyal 16
ing, Introduction and part of Conclusion
Gijs Janssen Question Sandwich 3, editing 16
Guido Insinger Question wingbox 6 start 4.2.2 16
Irina Dumitrescu Wing Box Questions 1, 5 & 8 16
Jorian van Bemmelen Question Sandwich 1 start 4.2.2 8
Questions 1-4, start 4.2.2 drawings, prac-
Maarten Beltman 16
tical graph and text
Mohamed Yaakoub Questions 1-4, editing 16
Question 3.2, editing, introduction and
Ned Pigott-Rowles 16
conclusion
Question 12, editing, introduction, conclu-
Øyvind Bryhn Pettersen 16
sion
Vincent Lechner Question 7 16
Questions 1-4, Fig 2,3 & 4 , start 4.2.2
Winand Mathoera 16
text, practical graph and text

17