AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL DESIGN Practical Design Information and Data on Aircraft Structures By MICHAEL CHUN-YUNG NIU Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company Burbank, California CONMILIT PRESS LTD,© 1988 Conmilit Press Ltd. Al rights reserved. No part ofthis book may be reproduced in any form or bby any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval devices or systems, ‘without prior written permission from the publisher ‘Second printing, January, 1989 Alfenquiries should be directed to: CONMILIT PRESS LTD, 222/F, Sing Pao Building 101 King’s Rod North Point HONG KONG Thx: 62489 CANID HX. or: TECHNICAL BOOK COMPANY 2056 Westwood Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90025, USA. Telephone: (213)475-5711 nis, please forward to: Any suggestions and con Michael C. Y. Niw Author of the book “AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL DESIGN” clo TECHNICAL BOOK COMPANY ISBN No: 962-7128-04-XPreface This book js intended to udvance the technical understanding and practical knowledge of both practicing engineers and students. The book represents several decades of data collection, research, conversanens ait Aiferent airframe specialists, plus the author's more than twenty years’ experience in airtrame succeed design. In addition, the text is partly based on the author’s lecture (Structures Symposium of Aititome Design) for the Lockheed Extension Education Program (LEEP),Itis therefore, equally uscll to thee avn primary degrees in engincering fields as a reference for designing advanced structures From a structural standpoint, the book is intended to be used asa tool help achieve structural integrity according t0, government regulations, specifications, criteria, ete, for designing commercial of milkary transports, military fighters, as well as general aviation sirraf ean also be considered asa troubleshoot, ‘uide for airline structural maintenance and repait engineers or as a supplementary handbook in teaching Areraft structural design in college. Aircraft design encompasses almost all the engincering disiplines and is not prattical to cover all the information and data within one book. Instead, relovant references ate Presented at the end of cach chapter so that the reader can explore his own personal interests in greater etal, This book does not cover basic strength of materials and structural (or stress) analysis: Its assumed! ‘that the reader already has this background knowledge, [This book is divided into a total of sixteen chapters and emphasizes itemized write-ups, ables, graphs and iustrations to lead directly to points of interest, The data can be used for designing and sizing duframe structures and, wherever needed, example calculations ure presented for clatifcation. As technology continues t0 progress, basic technical data hold true, however, 10 suit today’s desium such as advaneey ‘composite structure some modification to the analysis may be required In preparing this hook, it was necessary to obtain and collect vast amounts of information and data from ‘many sources, (Information and data used in this book does not constitute official endorsemtene ether expressed or implied, by the manufacturers oF the Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Caompsty) Serre appreciation is given to the Technical Information Center of Locked. Aeronautical Systeme Company CASC) for their gracious help. Thanks also to those who contabuted to this book, my colleagues at LSC and other specialists from various companies. Special thanks to Mr, Richard W Baker (Resesrch and Development Engineer of LASC) for his valuable comments in reviewing most of the drafts Ave 1 would lke 10 express my appreciation to Mr. Anthony C Jackson (Composite Design Depariment Manager of LASC) for his comments on Chapter 14.0, Advanced Composite Structures; and to my daughter Nace Nog for her help with this book. Lastly itis my hope that this book, with its wide scope and information an the application of technology (m aircraft structural design, will prove not only to be a valuable reference tool for designing sound airframe, sith structural integrity but also as a “bridge” to carry over the valuable experience and knowledge from those who have setired from the aircraft industry to the next generation of engincers. Homever, ar ‘suggestions and comments for revision would he greatly appreciated by the author, Michael Chun-yung Niv California USA. Mareh, 1988)Preface CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER 1.0 1 12 13 14 2.0 24 22 23 24 25 26 3.0 31 32 33 34 35 3.6 37 38 39 3.10 3.1 4.0 4a 42 43 44 45 46 42 5.0 5a 52 53 54 55 56 57 CONTENTS GENERAL INFORMATION Introduction Development Progress Planning and Structural Weight Computer Aid DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING Introduction Engineer's Responsibility Producibility Maintainability Tooling Other Considerations AIRCRAFT LOADS Introduction Aeroelasticity Flight Maneuvers Basic Data Wing Design Loads Empennage Loads Fuselage Loads Propulsion Loads Landing Gear Loads Miscellaneous Loads Example of An Airpiane Loads Calculation MATERIALS Introduction Material Selection Criteria Aluminum Alloys Titanium Alloys Steel Alloys Composite Materials Corrosion Prevention and Conteol BUCKLING AND STABILITY Introduction Columns and Beam-Columns Crippling Stress Buckling of Thin Sheets ‘Thin Skin-Stringer Panels Skin-Stringer Panels Intogrally Stiffened PanelsCHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER 6.0 61 6.2 63 64 65 66 7.0 71 72 73 74 75 76 27 78 8.0 81 B82 83 84 85 8.6 87 88 9.0 91 92 93 v4 95 9.6 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 104 11.0 na 112 n3 na 1s n6 17 cuTouTs Introduction Lightly Loaded Beams Heavily Loaded Beams Cutouts in Skin-stringer Panels Cutouts in Curved Skin-stringer Paneis Fuselage Cutouts for Big Cargo Doors FASTENERS AND STRUCTURAL JOINTS Introduction Rivets Bolts and Screws Fastener Selection Lug Design and Analysis Welded and Adhesive Bond Fatigue Design Considerations Shim Control and Requirements WING BOX STRUCTURE Introduction Wing Box Design Wing Covers Spars Ribs and Bulkheads Wing Root Joints Variable Swept Wings Wing Fuel Tank Design WING LEADING AND TRAILING EDGES Introduction Leading Edges Trailing Edges Wing Control Surfaces Fixed Leading and Trailing Edges Design Considerations EMPENNAGE STRUCTURE Introduction Horizontal Stabilizer Vertical Stabilizer Elevator and Rudder FUSELAGE Introduction Fusclage Configurat Fuselage Detail Design Forward Fuselage Wing and Fuselage Intersection Stabilizer and Aft Fuselage Intersection Fuselage Opening 162 162 165 173 177 186 204 207 207 210 214 218 219 227 230 243 247 247 251 256 269 277 282 288 296 303 303 326 335, 347 352 355 358 358 363 369 371 376 376 379 380 398 406 412 417CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER 12.0 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 134 135 13.6 14.0 141 42 143 ua 5 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 154 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 16.0 161 10.2 16.3 16.4 LANDING GEARS Introduction Development and Arrangements Stowage and Retraction Selection of Shock Absorbers Wheels and Brakes Detail Design Testing ENGINE MOUNTS Introduction Propeller-driven Engine Mounts Inlet of Jet Engines Wing-pod (Pylon) Mounts Rear Fuselage Mounts and Tail Mounts Fuselage Mounts (Fighters) ADVANCED COMPOSITE STRUCTURES Introduction Composite Materials : Design Structural Joint Design Manufacturing FATIGUE, DAMAGE TOLERANCE AND FAIL-SAFE DESIGN Introduction Performance and Functions Design Criteria and Ground Rules Structural Life Estimation Fail-safe Design Detail Design Sonic Fatigue Design and Prevention Verification Tests WEIGHT CONTROL AND BALANCE Introduction Weight Prediction Performance and Configuration Influences Balance and Loadability CONVERSION FACTORS (U.S. unit vs. SI unit) LIST OF CUTAWAY DRAWINGS 430 430 442 449 454 461 464 466 4am 471 415 478 479 487 489 492 492 500 509 520 526 538 538 543 547 548 554 561 567 570 581 581 585 590 591 599 602 609CHAPTER 1.0 GENERAL 1.1. Introduction ‘There are many aspects of design of aircraft structures, as shown in Fig. 1.1.1. For modern jet aircraft, the ‘design must incorporate clear aerodynamic shapes for tong range flight near or at supersonic speeds, and/or wings fo open up like parachutes at very low speeds. ‘The wings must serve as fuel tanks and engine support structures. All structures must withstand hail and lightning strikes, and must operate in, and be pro- tected against, corrosive environments indigenous to all climates, The structure must be serviceable from 1510 20 years with minimum maintenance and still be light enough to be economically competitive. The design musi incorporate new materials and processes that advance the state of the art. Using new techniques often require developing still newer processes, wings Conver useage mode FIND Tusnage module Nose Sanding geae A good overall structural concept incorporating all ‘these factors is initiated during preliminary design, At the very beginning of a preliminary design effort, the designer writes a set of specifications consistent with the needs. It should be clearly understood that during, preliminary design it is not always possible for the designer to mect all the requirements of a given set of specifications. Infact, itis not at all uncommon to find certain minimum requirements unattainable. It is then necessary to compromise. The extent to whiich com: promises can be made must be left to the judgment of the designer. However, it must be kept in mind that to achieve a design most adaptable to the specified Purpose of the airplane, sound judgment must be exercised in considering the value of the nccessary ‘modifications and/or compromises, ET tselage Main ann gear (a) Mitta figher Fig. LI Aircraft structural breakdown, Airframe Structural Design 1() Mitcary bomber sa ) ary ie ie ‘S 2 Airirame Structural DesignThe fst tak of the designer is 10 famiiarize himsat thoroughly with the specications of the iplane upon which the design to be based. Also i the airplane isto be sold to mote thun one custome, all available information should be obtained to mini- tnize the design that might be requied inthe future Thee sould be no thovght ‘of making 8 gene urpese aplane, suitable for any purchaser any teehee ta an impos ower, fk Frequently posible to arrange a design which wou Simi fture. changes without siesificing iter structural of aerodynamic efficiency or taking a ‘regi penal. Nest, the designer should familiarize himsef with all exiting airplanes ofthe same general type as that proposed H possible, itis advisable to collect al Eomumens, both posiive ad negative, of ls passenger maintenance groups, an operators using the eating equipment. The designer should not blindly copy any existing design Just because i tappens to be availble. On the eter hand tt {ake advantage both ofthe successes snd mistakes of ‘others is inefficient, Today’ jet airplanes ave much feter payloads at longer ranges and at higher speeds than past modes A great many shapes and sizes of vrngs and empennages were considered Varios wing Shape sould be examined in depth for aerodynamic high and low speed performance ful capaci, ang, torsional and’ weight characteristics and system compatiblity. High it an lateral contol deviows, pitch an yaw devices onthe empennage, and sizes were established ‘Av the final conigustion vas determined statements Gt work decribing the structore were sipplicd to manufacturing for scheduling purposes, Joints in the ‘structure were established based on manufacturing’s feces, subcontract programs, rae mater ava hilt and schedules "Th aircraft ndusty has for dhe past two decades speit considerable research and developmen efor tO exploit the very attractive. structural efficiencies achicrible through the tse of advanced compose Strvcnives. AGvanced composite oer prome. Of substantial weight savings relative to curren metalic Structures, Further, the numberof parts required (0 build a composte: component may be dramatically les than the numberof pars neode Yo construct the sme component of metal alloy. This cam lead to Significant Tabor savings, sometimes offen the Somenfat_higher price of the present composite taeras. These fetes, together wi the tarent Fesstnce to corrosion, make composites very ate tie candidate materials fr future erat structres 1.2 Development Progress ‘The modern aeronautical engineering of aiveraft design has been an evolutionary process accelerated tremendously in recent times from the demanding requirements for safety and the pressures of cont Pettive economics in structural design. For example 1900-1915 In this period, the Wright Brothers demonstration’ of practical mechani cal fight, power requirements, stabil lay and control were overriding con- siderations, successful flight was cone which permitted repair and turn around in a few weeks or days Strength “considerations. were -sub- frdinate and ultimate strength of few critical parts was the extent of siruetural analysis. World War Laccelerated the solution of power plants and stability and control problems. Engine reliability was improved by ground qualifiea- (fatigue) testing Commercial development of metal aieraft for public transport took place in this era. Design and analysis emphasized. static ultimate. strength and, except for the engine, had litle fr ‘no consideration for airframe fatigue During this period, there grew an increasing awareness of the fatigue Potential in airframe safety. A large Increase in performance capability resulted from WW IL technology Higher material static stengths were developed without a corresponding increase in fatigue strength. Static timate design alone was not suff cient; it was joined by fatigue design. 195S—present. Safety from fatigue alone. was. rec ‘ognized to be inadequate; fail-safe and damage tolerance, ie, static strength of damaged requires ade- {quate inspection intervls to discover and repair fatigue and other damage before cracks feach catastrophic pro- portions. 1915-1930 1930-1940 1940-1955 So today we design for: # Static ultimate (and yield) strength Fatigue life ofthe sittrame (crak initiation. Static residval strength of damaged structure. # fatigue eof damaged sects Caspcton interval # ThermaPsiress analysis and design of supersonic aircraft “The primary objective of the structural designer ix to achieve the maximum possible safety margin and achieve a “reasonable” hfetime of the sera struce ture, Economie obsolescence may not come a8 soon 48 anticipated. For example, some of the old DC-3's sill fying today are approaching. or exceeding 100,000 hours of service. Fis record is achieved only by fail-safe structure, knowledge of when and where {0 look for eracks, and replacement of afew wtal parts ICs the purpose ofthis book to discus, in some detail, the "design procedures, analysis method Imatctial properties ahd experimental dats necessary {o equal Or better the past structural safety record in the fage of ‘ever increasing. performance, adverse environments, and complexities of future aia j Atatame scart desig goes tro thse phases: * Specification of function and design criteria 4 Determination of base external applied toads, $ Cateulation of internal element loads Airframe Structural Design 3* Determination of allowable element strengths ‘and margins of safety. ‘* Experimental demonstration or substantiation test program (Fig. 1.2.1) Engineering is experimental, empirical, and theore- ical in that order. The physical facts must be known, farst; they may be empirically manipulated before the “perfect theory” is available. Failure to recognize this ‘order of priority can lead to disaster if theoretical analyses are relied upon without thorough and careful ‘experimental substantiation loads are relatively predictable from model data and substantiation for a certification program should be ‘more of less routine. The laboratory development test rogram is an important feature of any new vehicle rogram; both to develop design data on materials and’ shapes, and to substantiate any new theory of structural configuration. Assuming clear-cut oDjce. tives, design criteria, and adherence to design rules ‘and development test evaluations, the certification test Program will demonstrate success without degencra Inginto more and expensive development work SERGI cue mopantonwttae sates age competion cones a corr veenonien Sp a ‘nd roidoa strat Fracture id pact, SSS. wun asic ucture frame - ¥% lengeton Nate Frame sce ipo 7B conven Say, Soar cap seas Rb to singer joint Fig. 12.1 Development testing of a transport airplane. ‘This does not mean we do not need theory. It does mean that we may and do need to progress beyond the capability of theory. But when we do, we must Fecognize and account for this fact wherever it may be critical. The engineering system evolved to handle any situation, be it a method of design, a component, of a vehicle design is illustrated in Fig, 1.2.2. Of primary significance are the three boxes in heavy outlines. Laboratory development testing Flight test data Certification or substantiation test progam, ‘The dotted arrows indicate feed-back where ex- Perimental data is utlized to modify the design as hnevessary, The feed back loop for fight data on basic loads for conventional airplane vehicles is not as important as it once was simply ‘of research, experimental dita, empirical know-how, ‘and substantiated theory on the subject exists. Basic 4 Airframe Structural Design [esse Speciteation |] Destin Gra] Basi Loads light Test Oata it Laboratory, ‘ine Osan | Ose a Contiieation Test Progam ———— Tend ects | Fig, 1.2.2 Airplane design, development and certification,1.3. Planning and Structural Weight {A good design is the rest of proper plang and SexBdhling, Ths means scheduling wot only the diet Teaponsbity but also scheduling th data fom other rou or sll Hrnst have al the data required, stents loads from tess, acrodyamic tequemens sysems date such a6 conto, elects fel, ad Ridtauc “incrfoces, interchangeably, malsain: ay, servicesbity, spect srne requirements, and ick pre Allmes be aoe wa tnely manner {Denstres good ineprated design, The designer the Caius wf inowe when he feed is data sed ticles he is committed 1, He isthe one who tmust make hs requremns known and wien, he neds thom, He fs the one who must foOW Up 35 ‘Shen ag necessary to ensure reeling the dae He sat fecognize ha someone eke’ performance i Uatsctey in time to ake tps though his super iors to remedy the situation. There is no other satis- factory way (0 schedule interchange of de data fine e's “ge and ake” slvaton, pareulry Fenwen design groups. Loads and aerodynamic data requirements cate scheduled somewhat more pr Googe but itis al the designer's responsi To ftantin a constant monitoring of sexe and. ero> dynamic progress, Remember, it the designers timate esponsibility to release desis on schedule to the slop, Fig, 131 shows an example of bat Sharing design purposes, I is parcculy weft in management sired into scion “Me fact that sructral desipere of srst engi reefs who determine. seta sizes shh! be Concered ith weuht should ot strike one as Stange Neverteese in today's specialization there i'aMtendeney to wartow one's wewpont fo the aechanics of his job and to forget the fundamental reasons for that job. Ithas been said, sometimes in jst and again in earnest, thatthe weight engineer is paid to worry about weight. However, unless every ater engineerin a company is concerned about weight, that fompany may find it dificult to mect competition or, in other words, to design good performance sit plane. Weight engineers can estimate or calculate the ‘height ofan airplane and its component pars. Actual ‘weight savings, however, are always made by design 1s OF stress engineers. Avery small marpin of weight can determine the difference between excellent and poor performance of an airplane. Ifthe structure and {Equipment of a successful model were increased only Sip of ils pross weigh, the consequent reduction in fuel o pay load may well mean cancellation of a contract. In transport aireraft the gross-weight limit is Slofiitely stipulated; thus, any increase in cmply ‘weight wil be offset by a redvetion in fuel or pay load (Fig, 132} ‘The weight break-down of aircraft structure over the years. shows @ remarkable consistency in_ the values ofthe structure weight expressed as 20-40% of the take-off gross weight (or all-up weight) realized in service, irespective of whether they were driven by propellers or by jet en ‘At the project stage, if performance and strength are kept constant, a saving Of structure weight is also accompanied by savings in fuel, the use of smaller ‘engines, smaller wings to Keep the same wing loading fd so on, such thatthe savings in take-off weight of the aireralt to do the same job is much greater than the weight saved on the structure alone ‘The object of siuetural design is to provide the structure thot will permit the airraft, whether military ‘ouaieston or civilian, to do the job most effectively; that is with 1080 170 wen Twat 7y00 PAPERS SEPP PE ese ee basse. T4 re] i i i Mistones 90% stuctore Fist ta PRA eleae. Fight cee ana + cho tate, tig, tale and soni atu testing Acpine proot O Pe [= wr] gps oe (L Gonstew aitrame Fig. 13.1. L-1011 complete structural test program schedule for project commitment. Airframe Structural Desism 5the least total effort, spread over the whole life of the aircraft from inital design until the aireraft is thrown ‘on the scrap heap. ‘here is thus, an_all-embracing simple criterion by which the success of the structural design can be judged. tis not sulficiont to believe that percentage structural weight is of itself an adequate Measure of effective design, either of the complete aitplane or of the structure itself, A well-known example is the provision of increased aspect ratio ai the expense of structural weight, which may give increased fuel economy at cruise and reduction in the total aircrait weight. Nevertheless, percentage struc- tural weight is a useful measure, provided its limita tions are recognized, 80 a titer. 38) 35: re inereasa in OFM Litres ratio {Commercial vengnon £290.00 1) 65 60 +—_____|_ 180000 20000 00000 Operatingereny neigh (OW) iat Fig. 3.2 Example of 5% increase in OEW and 25% reduction of payload, or 0 keep the same payload and redesign to achieve a 9% Lif drag ratio. 1.4 Computer Aid The requirements of structural analysis ate under- going changes due to different environments. (ie, akitude, speed, ete.) different construction, refined detail, expanded analysis coverage, and broadened analytical concepts as shown in Fig. 14.1. Motivated by these changes in analytical requirement, the digital computer and its effective use have assiimed para- mount importance, Environmental changes ‘have tated the search for improved structures. The altitude and speed have not only motivated ch for lighter structures but have necessitated. ‘the considerations of heated s Different environment Different construction Refined detail Expanded analysis coverage Broadened analytical concepts Stress analysis for composite structures Fig. 14.1 Changed requiements for modern airplane design 6 Airframe Structural Design Finite Element Modeling (FEM) Probably the most versatile tool in structural anatysis is the use of finite clement modeling (FEM), Before FEM, industrial stress analysis was largely an approu mate science. Equations were available for deter. mining ‘stress and strain exactly in simple beams shown in Fig: 142. A major structural discontiuity Occurs at the juncture of components such as the wing and body, At such siructaral junctions, a major rede tribution of stresses must occur and the flemaral di similarities of the wing and body must be designed for. Regardless of the construction details. at ths junetur, the major components affect each other In those cases whete the proportions of a component are such that beam analysis (or theory) can be employed, itis common practice to assume the behavior Of oot of the components and correspondingly analyze the ‘ther component. In the ease of the ‘wing/body juncture ax mentioned previously, such a procedure could assume the body to provide cantilevered sup. or boundary for the wing and then analyze the wing by beam bending theory Hig. 14.2 Equilibrium and compatibiity analysis, Such conventional procedures will essentially ‘ensure that the analytical forces that occur hetweett the wing/body will be in equilibrium. Unfortunately, the actual clastic structural compatibility that i present usually enforces a different distribution of forces between these two major structures. Thus change in. the analytical requirements is present and the analytical technology must he powerful enough to ‘ensure both force equilibrium and deflection cone, patibility a the structural discontinuity. Most of the aircraft construction is stich that not only must the force equilibruim be satisfied, but the elastic deflection compatibility must also he repre: sented, This represents a broadening of the analytical Concepts. whercin itis required to change the analy- tical technology to include both equilibrium and compatibility concepts which give the actual stuctaral load or stress distribution, However, most practical structures, especially aircraft structures, are very redundant 0: indeter, ‘minate which means the analysis of redundant struce tures leads 10 the need to solve sets of simultancous Finear algebraic equations. If the actual redundant structure is large, the set of simultaneous equations will also be large, ic clement modeling represents a part with @ mesh-like “network of simple geometric. shapes ‘combined “in building-block Tashion as. shown inFig. 14.3. Entire airframe finite element model Fig 1.4.3, Bach element has characteristics easly found from simple equations. So the behavior of the entire structure ts determined by solving the cesulting set of simultaneous equations (or by matrix tech= piques) for ull the elements, In the early days, finite element models were built manually (the element mesh was drawn by hand), ‘Then node coordinates, element connectivity. and cother pertinent data were written on lengthy tabula- tion sheets and transferred to computer cards via a keypunch machine. Because of the huge amount of data to be handled, manual model-building is tediow time-consuming, costly, and error-prone, In additio the resulting model may be less than optimal because the lengthy construction time prohibits the analyst fom refining the model with alternative mesh den- ities and configurations. To overcome these def ciencies, preprocessors or 3D mesh graphics program from CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing) system were developed to aid in moclel building. ‘These programs reportedly reduce model-building time and costs by as, much as more than 80% ‘Many FEM programs have been written. However, only a few are satisfactory for general use. These programs handle linear static and dynamie structural analysis problems. Some of them perform a type of linear heattransfer analysis and damage tolerance analysis. ‘One of the earliest FEM programs and probably the most well-known is NASTRAN (NASA STRuct tural ANalysis), developed by NASA in the mid 1960 to handle the analysis of missiles and. aircraft structures. NASTRAN ig one of few major programs with public domain versions available. Several major aerospace companies have modified NASTRAN for their particular applications, Various types of graphic scopes are available showing model deformed-shape and displacements, For dynamic analysis, these deformed shapes are sometimes animated ia slow motion t@ show how the structure bends, wists, and rocks during operation CAD/CAM System The use of interective computer graphics for data hhanding indesign, manufacturing and pr support programs quickly spread from aerospace to automotive applications and gradually permeated the broad base of general industry during the past decade. CAD/CAM. (Computer-Aided-Design and C puter-Aided- Manufacturing) provides a common dat base of the elected design for all disciplines such as preliminary design studies, loting production d tool design, numerical control (NC) design, control, product support, manufacturing, ete. Data can be accessed to other design groups like airplane payloads, controls, hydrablies, powerplant, clectrical, mainienance, etc, to nartow the gap between design and manufacturing and also to open up 2 new oppor- tunity for excellence in all design. I is no exaggeration that CAD/CAM system has been considered as the second industrial revolution of this century “The large-scale computer (rmaintrame) is the heart of the CAD/CAM system that can provide a rapid and uncomplicated interface between engineer and machine to produce the geometric and mathematical definition for different programs. computer is the center of this system and the graphics terminal as shown in Fig. 14-4 provides the ei and machine interface. The other components. the hardware system provide fast response and recovery ‘of work in the event of a hardware failure oF pow failure, the ability for the compuier to operate on multiple tasks, magnetie tapes far control of ma Airframe Seeuctural Design 7EB Seaten Se SEP Fi ig. 14, 4 Typical g raphto make parts or plot druvings, and disk dives for coutuing data and. storage of the work accom pihed. Fig 1S shows the ipucl hardware system Eomponents andthe dataflow EAD/CAM system ts 2 broad data hase system and most of the tompanies simpy do not ned this Semple yim. These compares find suioneted rating stem more resonable way to get sarted in CADICAM. The atomated “éraing.ystom increas in productivity from two to sitfold and steties mote Te denny te compe Inemory and con easily he changed and repoted in 4 few minutes to accommodate engincering modifica tions. Automated drafting increases productivity by coupling the creativity of the engineer with the ‘computer's high speed and huge memory. This frees the engineer from perforn we-consuming, repetitive tasks such as drawing the same shape many times, making the same change to soveral drawings, or painstakingly measuring and dimensioning a. part ‘And the drawing is produced in minutes with the push of @ button. As'a resul, the engineer-machine team can produce a drawing more quickly and more accurately than would otherwise be possible, REFERENCES 1, Anon: Aisfame & Powerplant Mechanics, ACB5-15, Department of “Transportation; Federal Aviation ‘Administration, 12, MeKinley TL and Bent R.D. Basic Science for Aero space Vehicles. MeGrawHlill Book Company. New York, NY. 1963. 13. Torenbeck E: Syretesis of Subsonic Auplane Design Delt University ress, Neterians, 1976, 1A, Nicolai, LM Fundamentals of Aircraft Design University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio 45469, 1975, 18, Williams, De An iniroduction 10 The Theory of Aircraft Secures. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Led. London. 1960. 16, Bruha, EF: Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Sinucures. VaStale Otfset ‘Company, “Cincinnati ‘Ohio 45202, 1965, 17. Corning. G Superwnic and Subsonic CTOL. and VTOL. Airplane Design. PO, Box No. 14, College, Maryan. 1976, LS. Won, K. De Arroxpace Vehicle Devign, Void — Airerajt™ Design. Johnsen Publishing. Company, Boulder, Colorado, 1968 1.9, Newell, AF: Impressions of the Structural Design of American Civil Aiverat The Aevopline, (Sug. 15 1958), 229=232 LI, Megson, THG.: Aircraft Since for Engineering Students. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Lid, Londo WIXSLL. 1972 LIL, Sandler, RAH. “Aiteralt Design Philosophy. Journal Of The ‘Royal Aeronautical Scie. (May. 1956). 301-330, 1.12, Newell, AF and Howe. D2 Aiteralt Design Trends Aurcrji bnginering, (May, 1962), 132—139, 113, Way, WW" Advantages of Aircraft System Macrity SAE paper No. 720507, (1973). M4 North, DM: “Soviets Test Twossat MIG. Version’ Aviation Week & Space Technology: (Mi 28.1977) 17, Sweetman, Bs ‘Fexbat — Something Compleety Different” Plight International, (Apnl 22. 197 Hata 116, Smyth, $4-°CADAM Dats Handing from Concep: tal Design Through Product Supp” ATAA peer No. M840, (1979). LIT. Wehiman, MID: CAD Produced Aiveratt Diving, AIA paper No. S1.0722R, (1981) LIX, Santon, Ds The Anatom’ of The Aeroplane, Are fin Elevioe Publishing Company Ine. New York, NY, 1966, Well, EC: ‘Operational Agpeets of Jet Ueamspont Design’ ero Digest. May 1953) 1.20. Epsicin, A: Some Effets of Structural Deformation "Aieplane Design Acro Digest (Feb. 1949). 17 non: ‘Tomorrow's Fighter: Updated or out- ated” Aviation Week & Space Technology, (Aug. 10, 1987), 61-108, 1.22, Wood, C2 ‘Cargo Plane Des Digest (Dec. 1983), 203, 12%, Rieger, NF: Basic Course in Finite-cloment Analysis? Machine Design, (Bini, 1981). ‘Anon: "Russia's New Long-Havlee” Flight duter: rational, August 20, 197), 324 Laver: “Design Probe ~ Another Look at the Square Cube Law.” Fight tnemanonel (Oot. 17.1968). 615-616, 1.26. Cleveland, PA’ ‘Size Erfecis in Conventional Aircraft Design’ Journal of Aircraft, (Now-~Dee. 1970), 483-512. 1.27, Black, RE. andl Stem, LA: “Advanced Subsonic Transporis —'A Challenge fr the }994"s" Journal of Aircraft (May 1976), 221-321, ‘Anon: "Two or Three Engines?" Flight erations (Gepl. 18, 1969). 416—447, 1.29, Higgins. RAW: "The Choice Bowwoon One Eng Two An Appreciation of the Factors involved Choosing “A Single oF Twin-Engine Layout Miliary Tactical itera Aireraft Engineering, (No 1968) 1.30. Higgins, RW: “The Choice Between One Lagine oe Two for Tactical Stike/Clase Suppoet Aireralt! Zhe Aeronautical Journal of The Royal Aevoneutica Society. uly. 1964), 620 131, Lachmann, G.Vi Bowndary Layer and How Contr! ‘ts Principles and Applicaton. Vol. | and Vol. 2 regamon Press. New York NY. 1961 1.32, Teichmann, EK: Airptane Design’ aual Pitman Pablishiag Corporation. New York, N.Y. sth Edition, 1958 LA3, Anon: NATOS Flee Nations. Frank O'Shanobn ‘Ass Lud, London CHAD. Foods, “JI: “The Air Force/Mocing Advanced Mediuin STOL. Transport Prototype” SAL puper No. 24385, (Apt 1973) 1.35, Bates, RES “Suuctural Development of he DC-10) Douglas paper No 0, Say 1972), 1.36. pulling EH. Trends ia Modern Aiveralt Siruevral Design’ SAF puper No. 92 (May. 1957) Mackey. DJ and Simons, HL: "Structural Develop. iment of he LIU L Thestat” ATAA puper No. 72-77 (Apt 1972), Las, Marks, MD. Characieristics of Th ETS Protoype Ain (apni 1973} Considerations” Aer Technical Basis for The SOL MeDevnnell Douula tsa anc? NALS paper Nie 73, Airframe Structural Design 9140 La 13, Magruder, WM: ‘Development of Requicement, Contiguration and Design for the Lockheed 1011 fet Transport’ SAE puper No. 80583 (Oct. 1968). Morisset, J: Tupolev 144 and Concorde” The fica performances are compared forthe first time: NASA TTF 15446,(Apiil 1974). Kropul, Band’ Herbst, WB: ‘Design for Air Combat? ALAA paper No. 72-749,(Aup 1972), Woolsey 1P:US. Airplane Builders Finding Many Barriers to New Programs’ Air Transom World, (Feb. 1976), 12-17, Sandor, Pa: Structural Design of Future Commer: ne Structural Design ial Transpons: AIAA paper No. 73-20, (Jan, 1973), 144 Poottt, H.R: “Design of Fighter Alietalt” stor Digest (eb, 1948), 145, Anon: ‘Aircraft Design at the AIAA* Alight Iner- ottonal, (Sept. 8, 1972). 146, Barton, Ce "Spruce Gosse — Preradactyt of World war Il! Popular Mechanics, (Nov. 1977), 147. Aronson, “RB: “Blown-wing STOLS on Trial" Machine Design, (Oct. 1977).26— 11. 1.48. Satre, P Supersonic Aie Transport — True Probiems and Misconceptions” Journal of Airey lan Teh, 1970), 3-12,CHAPTER 2.0 DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING 2. Introduction Design and manufacturing are successive phases of @ single operation; the ultimate objective of which is the ‘emergence of an acceptable final product. In aero- space context, such acceptability has several com: ponents: market viability, operational efficiency, ‘capacity for further development and structural integrity. Less obvious but just as important, a struc- ture must not be so complex or difficult in’ concept that its realization will create great difficulties, or increase the cost of the manufacturing process, Design has always carried with it — indeed — a degree of prestige; because its effectiveness can be seen in the final product and a successful design can ‘confer something approaching glamour upon those responsible. Production, on the other hand, emerged later as a specialized branch of engincering and is sandwiched between the designer's drawings and the final product. Consequently, its achievement is less Apparent and frequently, in the past, it has not been azcorded a like degree of consideration or exedit. Yet, itis the production phase of the operation that trans- lates the design into hardware (sce Fig. 2.11). ‘An aircraft is conceived as a complete structure, bbut for manufacturing purposes must be divided inte sections, oF main components, which are in turn split into subassemblies of decreasing size that are finally resolved into individual detail parts. Each main component is planned, tooled and built av a separate unit and joined withthe others in the intermediate and final assembly stages (see Fig 2.1.2) i Schedaling Engeing ‘Contracts-airplan Delivery schedule © Preliminary design # Aiplane quantiy Monitors coordinates * Speciications Deter sehete be] Timespan fom "Go-ahead to 3 Research a tests + Contactsspare parts complston + Dati desien 2 Casters tequtereats 1 Tomintam ontimedeiveries Production design Production Control Manutacioring Pnlneeting + "Machine shop orders 2 "Manafacturingsncenhy pat ist Pla Engicerng S Toole > Machine shop orders, = "Plant space S Mateat © Toot requirements © Machinery L. 2 Pans Tooting Computer equipment 2 Design and produce tos 2 Omer equipments Sper tot for composite structures : — T Major Assembly Fabsication Siapeactaing Control) Traut Engineering + Major stctre aa Manpower atections Standard systems assembly Macho + Detal production Standard procedures Finished product oe Heil Sateen of ents and 7 i # Production analysis ett ut et y # "Conta of quality through inspection of Designs Transpo imateal,punsandfinshed product Fe] + hihctmatcral Sater + Insureto meet he engineering Requiem Par LJ specications Durctases @ Sires Fnkhed product — + Raw mater Ships Rect Tigi Operates + Purchased pants $ Part flight ess each airplane + Matera 3 Traineusomer igh croms + Aireraftequipment (plane) Fig. 211 {[_cereoner Hew an airplane is bait Aictrame Structural Design 11‘Tooling is required for each stage of the building of each component — detail tooling of individual paris, ‘of which there may be many thousands, followed by assembly tooling of increasing size and complexity for the stages of progressive assemnbly Fig. 21.2 Final assembly of airplane. There is nothing new in attempting to design an aireralt to give trouble-free operation, This has, of course, always een one of the major pars of a designer’s job. In recent years there fas been incor- porated the maintenance requirements in every engineering drawing before going into production. If aireraft have become (oo difficult to maintain, tis not entirely due to lack of appreciation of the problem in the drawing, but mainly to the very great increase in complexity of modetm aitcraft, particulary in the past few decades. A great deal of this complication is due to equipment and automatic gadgetry, Between 25 to 40 per cent of the total direct ‘operating cost (DOC) of an airplane is due lo miain- tenance, quite apart from the losses due to airplanes ‘ot being serviceable when required. 2.2. Engineer's Responsibility The design engincer is the “general practitioner” t0 the engineering profession as compared with staff oF research types or engineers. Design engineers must diagnose the symptoms of potential structural failures and service problems early in the design stage. On the shoulders of the design engineer rests the final total design integration responsibiiy, To do @ thorough job, the design engineer must: (2) Coordinate thoroughly and integrate the design ckage ino the overall structure: © Use design data type diagram 10 make co- ordination definite # Donot depend on oral covordination (2) Establish hasies as early as possible: jased on functional requirements © Loads and materials — make sure to use the right foads and materials 10 avoid needless drawing changes ‘+ Acrodynamie requirements © Geometry’ and jig information, interchary ability, produeibilay, repairabilty. replace- 12 Airframe Structural Design ability, maintainability tc * Identification of problem details early to avoid backtracking in design (3) Spend acequate time to plan the job * Plan layouts and) drawings to represent the work ‘+ Make schedules realistic + Study the requicements and select an optimum solution (4) I you encounter interface problems, make ee gee © Where clearances are required and the re- quirement for such clearances + The interface (0 which the detail ataches (5) Review processes, finishes, assembly procedures. ete: ‘Heat treatment requirements ‘Prevent siress risers which cause structural fatigue ‘+ Rough machine requirements 1 climinate mocking sresses ‘+ Cold work treatment on machined surfaces to increase structural fatigue life, such a5 shot pening ‘+ Surface plating ‘Forming and machining techniques (6) Sebcontractor-buit production joints for assem- bles that must conform to shipping limitations, (1) Production joints resulting from raw material size restrictions or size of fabrication tools, ie. skin mills, stringer mills, stretch presses, protective finish tank size (8) The subassembly plan and how these subass blies are loaded into the final assembly fixtures. The design engineer is essentially involved in putting ogethera structural jigsaw puzzle ©) After all, the most important one, is that the fengincer should dedicate himself (or herself) to the jb. 2.3 Producibility In aircraft design, time is always the essence of the ‘contract, and the pressure is always on, There is never sutficient time (and, frequently, not the information) to consider objectively all the possible ways of doing & job and thereby to arrive, on the first occasion, at the ‘optimum method. Because of the difficulties of assessing (under the combined pressures of technical requirements; ecano= ‘mic realities and time) the best method of achieving a given objective in terms of function and cost, the initial process of collaboration and analysis fas, over the last several decades, tended to develop almost into ‘4 new form of specialized engincering activities under the name of producibility engineering, ‘The name is 0 ‘more than a convenient label for an analytical process now, perhaps, more concentrated and consciously applied than formerly — that has always been & patt of good design and” engineering practice. The first lage iS to make available ia the eatliest days of the design, before anything is committed to materials or ‘methods, all available information that will contribute to the conception of an efficiont desiga at mininiut conts. It is not possible, however, to have all the necessary information available at the moment when it is needed, regardless of the amount of intelligentforecasting that is applied, and problems of materials, processing, or continuing design development usually compel feconsideration of the methods used for reasons of time and cost Principles of Producbility Design oO) @ Fig. @ General configuration: ©” Rectangular vs, tapered wing sections, flaps and control surfaces ‘© Minimum number of major structures © Chindrical, straight, or conical surfaces vs. ‘compound curvatute (see Fig. 2.3.1) © Extend of fairing and filling required, see Fig2.32 Major breakdowns © Adequate access for assembly Fase of handling and transportation ‘Completeness of master breakdown units Assembly joints Effectiveness (see Fig, 2.3.3) 2.31 Requires no forming operations since te flat skin may be wrapped anto its supporting frames. Structure and equipment: Structure includes all primary and secondary” structure. Equipment Includes everything within the structural frame, ie. controls, furnishings, instruments, powerplant, accessories, and all functional installatior = Simplicity = Adequate access for fabrication and suby assembly — Avoid compound curvature — Fice body principles (see Fig, 2.3.4) = Alignment relations (see Fig. 2.3.5) — Minimum fabricating and processing opera- tions — Straight fine systems = Mechanical simplicity (avoid “Gadgetry") © Pants Multiple use and minimum number of different parts = Minimum total number of parts = Minimum amount and types of attachments — Effective use of standard parts, materials, and material sizes ‘+ Detail design lerchangeability, which applics to inter- changeable items that are manufactured with the aid of controlled media, and require only the application of att means for their installation, Interchange: able items shall be capable of being readily installed, removed, or replaced without iNcration, misaligiment, or damage to sms heing installed or to adjoining items orstructure — Adjustment and take-up (see Fig. 2.3.6) = Tolerance — Adequate clearances (see Fig. 2.5.6) — Rework margins = Adcquate fastener edge distance — Machining economy LL = Fig. 2.3.2 Fairings and fillets: imerchangeability is Ahificuit to achieve because ofthe tolerance accumulation at these points andl should be used only when essential a See SS Fig. 2.33 The degre of lveakdewn shonid be dictated solely onthe basis ofits overall eect pon producibiity, Improved producibally does not necessarily follow at increase in degree of breakitown. The effective breakdoron of the enter section in the lower view ts proerable tort shotew in the upper view Airframe Structural Design 13correct ‘ib design cconect Spar vertical stiffeners Tig. 2.34 Ribs parallel with the airplane of symmetry often result in acute angle of attachment to the spar or leading edge fas illustrated inthe lef ew. By ignoring related airplane datuns lines, improved producibility is uchieved. “Another example, as illustrated in right view, is that the lowwr tiew design results not only in saving fabricating operations, but the parts ean be Fig. 2.3.5. When iti impossible to avoid the location of suclr related parts im different assemblis, these fittings should not be mounted on surfaces parallel with or normal to the centerline, but means of adjustment should usually be provided. The lower view ilustrates the greater simplicity by using surfaces normal or paraliel to tte bearing 2.4 Maintainability ‘The proper outlook on maintenance must be instilled into everyone from the star. It is believed that in the ‘old-fashioned system of two or three years maintain ability raining must be in the works before going. into the drasing office. This period cannot be skipped if a person is 10 become a designer. It is very important 14 Airframe Steuctural De con the righ ana left hand side. Fonelage tame! Tate up ale Fig. 2.3.6 Ifone flange of 2 channel is to be installed against the under surface of a floor structure 4nd the other flange is to be against the upper surface ofa lower fuselage frame, difficulties would undoubtedly be ‘encountered, Therefore, one lage of the channel should ke replaced with a separate so-called take-up angle drilied for the channel at assembly lat designers and draftsmen should be in constant contact with the shops and service departments 0 that they can see the difficulties which occur in the paris that they have designed It is of the greatest importance that designers Id be in close touch with the engineering and maintenance department of the users for whou the airplane is being designed. It is not sufficient to ecly‘on some published book of requirements. A large Proportion of these are sure to be out of date ar do not refer to the problem in hand. Between military and civil transport aircraft, the first and most important difference isin the amount of flying done by the two types. A modern civil transport aircraft wil probably have to last for 15~20 years, and fly between 2000 and 3000 hours a year, that is a total life of 30,000 to 45,000 hours. ‘The average flying life of a fighter during peacetime will probably have a total of 4000 to 8000 hours. These times do not, of course, apply to transport command aircraft or to trainers, and probably not to most types used by coastal command, which do long periods of patrol. It is evident that the whole problem of design for main- tenance presents an entirely different aspect in the two classes of aircraft, In the case of transport aircraft, life of components and wear of the aircraft generally become very important. The aim will be to keep the airplane flying every day thus putting a premium on the ability 10 change components quickly. Military aircraft, how= ever, will spend long periods on the ground. Even in wartime a military aircraft would spend @ great deal of its time on the ground between relatively short periods of intense activity Facilities for maintenance in the case of military aircraft, especially under wartime conditions, are very ‘uch inferior to those available to the civil operator. It would seem logical, therefore, to cut down to the very minimum the amount of maintenance 10 be carried out by the squadrons of operational machines, With today’s types of fast military aircraft having very thin wings and slim fuselages, it may be quite im- possible to provide the same degree of accessibility (sce Fig. 2.4.1) for casy removal of components that it hhas been used (o in the past. Its suggested that much of this equipment can be builtin and, provided it properly developed and tested, should be capable of functioning satisfactorily between major overhauls Fig. 24.1 Accessable openings for F-16 maintenance. In general, a low-wing transport layout is better from a servicing standpoint than high wing since ‘engines and refuelling points are mare readily accessi- ble without the use of steps. The low-wing layout hss ‘considerable advantages {rom the point of view of installation of control cables, hydraulic pipes, electric cables and equipment, cte., all of which can be run under the cabin floor and reached for inspection and maintenance through doors in the underside of the fuselage without having to disturb cabin upholstery, and minimizes the need for maintenance personnel 10 work in the passenger cabin Position of service joints in the main structure can be of considerable importance to the operator, if possible, a fighter aircraft wing joint should be located at the side of the fuselage. This allows wings and fuse- lages to be transported more easily than the conven- tional stub wing which is more or less permanently attached to the fuselage. ‘A modern aitline technique is to change the com- ponent or items of equipment which have given trouble or have reached their service life, This ob- viously means providing good accessibility to items which may have to be changed. It is very desirable to separate routine maintenance and changing points, so that a number of men can work on the airplane at the same time without all being crowded into one small space In civil transport, Air Transport Association of America (ATA) specification number 100 titled “Specification for Manufacturer's Technical Data” was, devised by the aidline industry in order to standardize the treatment ofall subject matter and to simplify the user's problem in locating technical information for designing transport aircralt to meet maintainability re- quirements, 25 Tooling 30 years ago, manufacturing and interchangeability specifications were not taken too seriously” in the presentation of a tool estimate, but such cannot be the ‘ease toslay. ‘These increased customer requirements are supplemented by closer engineering tolerances dictated by higher performance requirements. All of this adds up to higher costs of tooling which ean be reduced only by a tempering of specitications oF by improved production engineering and tooling. Thus it is recognized that the closest coordination among sales, engineering and tooling is essemtal in order that allare traveling the same pth Lis of prime importance that the type of engincer- ing be determined at the beginning in order that the tooling and manufacturing plan be properly estab- lished. OF course, the type of engineering is hased on the requirements’ specified in the bid proposal. If the airplane is to be experimental with no. production, ‘engineering, the airplane will be fabricated in the experimental department with tooling of a type suitable for experimental manufacturing. If the Fe quitements specify by quantity or by quality that the ‘contract shall he on a production basis, the engineer= ing and tooling must be adapted to suit, This isthe all- important time when the pattern is made for all to fallow. The company makes or loses money on the ability fof each depariment 10 live up to its estimate Any Airframe Scructural Design 15Fig. 2.5.1 Precision forging products ‘changes in the original specifications or bid propos must eventually require renegotiation with all depart- ments concemed. Hf such decisions are made without this consideration, some department may stray from the agreed upon path of direction and an unbalanced operation results with an end result of possible Financial losses, In order to reduce the cost of tools and manufse- turing time, the design engineer must consider the nethod of manufacturing of each part individually and the quantity per airplane, plus a careful look at the specification. The evidence of the work that can bbe done in this field is the number of tools that must bbe macle in order t meet drawing requirements, ‘There are as many or more tools on nearly every con- tact than there are parts This means that all of these tools must be catalogued, cumbered, stored and con Cinually kept up-to-date to all changes. The savings resulting from the elimination of each unnecessary tool is very apparent Low cost production is only possible with an ‘engineering, drawing that has incorporated in it every possible manufacturing advantage. It is understood that the practicability of the extent to which this can bbe approached is dependent upon many factors which inevitably restrict the design engineer. I is noted that an objective altitude towards the engineer's problem by the Wol engineer, serving as anufacturing division's representative, should result in a more standard, consistent working. plan. This resultant standardization should enable the design engineer to become better acquainted with the “hest production design. While itis true that an airplane is ‘Rot built until it is designed, itis also a fact that an airplane isnot designed until itis bail, ‘An aircraft is conceived as a complete structure 1 obviously cannot be built as a single unit, The structure is divided into a number of main com- poncnis, which are further broken down into sub- assemblies that are finally resolved into individual Darts. Individusl parts may be Torged, east, extruded, press-formed or machined from solid or pre-forged 16 Airframe Structural Design shape. Today, two new provesses have been develop: ed, ic. precision forging as shown in Fig. 2.5.1 which requires litle or no further machining, and super plastic forming as shown in Fig. 25.2. Thesc two pro= ‘cesses have altracted great altention to reduce hoth cost and weight. The complexity of tooling and its durability and the degree of performance are deter mined by the number of parts to be made, the rate of production called for, and the quality required in the part. If the result can be obtained only with expensive tooling, that method must be adopted even if the ‘number required is small, Fig. 2.5.2 Superplastic forming of alumina 1.030 inch tick Numerical Controt Numerically ‘controlled (NC) machining of targe integral“ componenis constitutes a considerable proportion of the NC: techniques employed in the Production of the modern airframe. Programming, the machining of a component is an extended process of lwanseribing the information that defines the shape of the finished part into the particular programming, Fanguage (or tapes) that has been used extensivelytoday. The need to speed up the programming of ma- chines and 10 develop procedures ess. prone 10 hhuman error has ted to the increased use of com- puters in the early stages of NC program preparation. ‘The computer-graphic programming of components, ‘or parts, isa technique for communicating with com puters by means of words and diagrams. In this way a picture of the shape oF part required can be created and its machining simulated on the screen of a display console linked 10 a computer in order to check the ‘operations involved. The principal objectives of these program develop- ments are to simplify part programming procedures, to diminish programming errors, to reduce the cost of producing accurate control tapes, to shorten the time taken 10 produce these tapes and, in so doing, to shorten the preproduction period. NC is 4 method of simulating functions of a machine operator through the use af a control tape. ‘The geometry of a part is mathematically described and related via the computer to the coordinate system ‘of an NC machine. When machining instructions are added, this new complete information, on tape, is "used 19 control the machining operation, Robots Robots are machines which are programmable and can be reassigned tasks by changing ity instructions Robots can improve the quality, productivity, safety and reliability of a manufacturing process. Robots have an arm that functions as a human arm; ie, the arm can pick up objects, move them around and put them down again, all with great preci sion and repeatability. A robot arm is able to move in at least three directions: in and out, up and down, and around. When a robot hand is added, another three ‘axes of motion are yaw, piteh and roll, as shown in Fig. 253. ‘eo Gaara Fig. 25.3 Robot movement capability Robots by functions. all into four basic categories: Pick and place (PNP): A PNP robot is the simplost ‘on, its function i to pick up an object and move i to another location. Typical applications inehade machine loading and unloading and general mate rials handling tasks. ‘© Point to point (PTP): Similar to PNP robots, 2 PTP unit moves from point to point, but it can move to literally hundreds of points in sequence. At each point, it stops and performs an action, such as spot welding, glueing, drilling, deburring, or similar tasks © Continuous path (CP): A CP robot also moves: from point to point, but the path it takes is eritical This is because it performs its task while it is moving. Paint spraying, seam welding, cutting and inspection are typical applications. # Robotic assembly (RA): The most sophisticated robot of all, a RA combine the path control of CP robots with the precision of machine tools. RA. often work fasier than PNP and perform smaller, smoother, and morc intricate motions than CP Robots. ‘Shot-peen Forming ‘An example illustrates the design of the long, narrow, and slightly contoured wing skins such as for the Bocing 747, Lockheed L-1011, DC-10 etc, which takes advaniage of shot-peen forming technique, and is much less expensive 10 produce than the eier “ereep-formed' airplane wing skins Fig 25.4 shows an integrally stiffened wing skin being pecned in a peenmatic gantry machine which has the necessary controls to compensate for v curvature requirements along the skin, varying thick: ness, cut-outs and reinforcements, as well as distor- tion caused by machining or heat treatment. No dies are sequited for peen-forming. However, for severe forming applications, stress-peen fixtures are some- times used. Peen-forming is effective on all metals. {In the same manner in which shot-peening. has been used to straighten parts, it can be used to form certain parts in production, integrally stiffened wing skins are an excellent application of shot-pecn- forming, as frequently ao other forming process can bre used to produce the required chordwise curvature Although peen-formed parts usually require shot- pening on one side only, both sides will have com- pressive stresses in the surface. Besides forming and Increasing fatigue strength, these compressive sUtesses serve to prevent stress corrosion Some parts should be shotspeened all over prior to ppeen-forming to further improve these characteristics. arts of this kind which have been cold formed are often shot-peened 10 overcome the harmful tensite sesses setup by bending Assembly Fixture Basically, all assembly tooling locates and clamps. individual workpieces or units while they are being, joined together. The resultant assembly is a larger section of the final airframe sturcture and, in the next lage, may isell be one of the units to be joined with fothers. Any assembly fixture must be sufficiently accurate and stable 10 guarantee that the assembly. built within it conforms (o design tolerances and will retain them after removal; it must be sufficiently rigid to withstand distortion by the assembly itself, Al ‘mating holes and pick-up points with other assemblies fot units must be accurately located and maintained; fin and tailplane fitings are fighter airplane examples of such pars whose inter Airframe Structural Desig (7cchangeability must be assured to meet military re- quirements. ‘A problem that arises in the design of large as- sembly fixtures is that of thermal expansion and contraction. With large airframes, movement can be considerable and it is essential to match the thermal distortion of the fixture to that of the airframe unit assembled in it, The method usually adopted is 10 match the coefficient of expansion of the airframe assembly with that of the fixture or, at least, to use ‘material for the locations on the fixture that have the same coefficient of expansion as the assembly. This, may not solve the problem entirely, because thermal inertia can cause the expansion of the fixture to Tag. behind that of the assembly. In these circumstances, may be necessary to incorporate some provisi free movement in the fixture location to aecor this differential, Fixture design is governed by the acc ‘of parts, rigidity of clamping, accessiil Fig. 254 Posse wh skin ng soar assem) (ing ane! assombly-atnne @~ tinhg sure A= Avembiyont Fig. 2.5.5 Tooting surface evamples 18 Airframe Structural Design and provision for rapid removat of the completed assembly. It is probably quite important to make every art of a component in its assembly fixture instantly and effortlessly accessible, Early in the design, surfaces on the structure are agreed upon by both manufacturing and engineering a tooling surface. The agreement is that manufac turing will ool to the designated surfaces where en neering agrecs never to change these surfaces. Fxam- piles are shown in Fig. 25.5 for reference. The advan- tages of establishing tooling surfaces are as follows: Tooling can pet started on design early. * Documentation of tooling surfaces early in the design (o reduce subsequent coordination effort. ‘© Structural component can be easily and cheaply changed for structural revisions or bect-up for future growth, In addition, designers should understand the manu- facturing and assembly sequence to have excess edge ‘margin in order to allow float as shown in Fig. 2.5.6, ¥ Shin Spar © + Cleaenallowances Fig. 2.5.6 Design for assembly tolerances2.6 Other Considerations (1) If liaison finds trouble with your design, don’t 0 on the defensive — find out if it is ® true ‘problem and fix teary. (2) Maxing of fastener materials and types in any ‘ne fastener patiern or area should be avoided. (3) Ends of rib and spar web stiffeners should be square-cut to allow saw cutting to length and 10 allow turning the stiffener end for end (see Fig. 2.344), thus using & common part on both the left and right hand. The outstanding ley should be chamfered to reduce weight (4) All deSions should consider supplier capability, particularly in sizes and kinds of raw materials fr standards, so that at least two sources are available, Competition for orders is thus main~ tained, and not dependent on a single source in case of emergency, (5) Tolerances less than 0.03 for length, depth and width, and 40.01 for machine: thickness should be coordinated with the manufacturing (6) Make ribs normal to the front or rear spars where practical to minimize tooling and master tooling template problems. (1) Craw holes through ribs and spars should be a minimum of 12 inches by 18 inches. Larger holes should be used where allowed by shear siress in minimum gage areas. Consideration should be given to hole locations in adjacent ribs for maintenance. Sharp comers and pro- trusions around craw! holes should be clime nated, (8) Structural stiffeners or plates should not_be incorporated across crawl holes unless a fail= safe condition exists in case they are inadver tently leit off during maintenance. Producibility will also be enhanced with an unencumbered hole, (°) Aluminum alloy upset head rivets o¢ pull-type lockbolts should be used for web and stiffener riveting wherever possible. Design should con sider aucomatic riveting. (10), Fage margins of rib cap to panel stringer attach bolts shal be standardized for each diameter of fastener. A standard tool ean then be used for duilling these holes in the wing assembiy fixe, (11) Web stitfeners on rips should be located to allow use of either bolts and nuts or pul-type fockbolts for rib cap 10 panel stringer attach iment a far as is practical, This should be kept in mind for all areas. Make room for lackbolt and Hi-Lok fastener equipment i possible. (12) Angle rib cap shoukt be Manged inboard when fever practical for ease of fabricating open angles (23) Skin and stringer dotal drawings should show Stations or some datum lines (elerenee) as well as ditection arrows such as FWD, INBD, UP for orientation of the part in relation 40 the airplane. (14) All length dimensions should originate from a machine reference plane. This should include step cuts and end trims. (15) On muchine parts consider commonality of tools. The mest important of these is cutter radius. Use-as few cilferent radii as possible consistent with the funetion of the part and ‘weight consideration (16) ‘All ecige trims should be dimensioned from a ‘machine reference plane on the straight tooling surface (see Fig, 25.5) side of the web. The reference plane surface should be maintained as fla plane whenever possible (27), Manufacturing recommends stringer tolerances a follows: Thickness 2001, width and length +£0.03, height 40.03. Special deviations may be rade on basic gage taper dimensions and cutter radii, All tolerances should be reviewed for ‘weight savings within the established economi Tims (18) All skin tolerances should be as follows: Thick- ress 0.005, edge trim and eritical location coordinates £0.03 (29) Thetminimum machine gage on stringers should be 0.08. ‘The maximum flange thickness-to- ‘wiih ratio may be T 10 15 when the Mange can be supported during machining. Otherwise, use 2 maximum 1 to 10 ratio unsupported, The maximum flange runout angle should be 13 The maximum thickness taper angle should be u (20) See Reference 2.17. Reference 21 Petonic, GProduciity in Design’ SAE paper No "788.0971, 22° Brooks Jr, BIT: ‘Designing for Preaerity: De- Sninivenced Production Cost Program” SAB paper No 310747,1971) Tenet, $1. "Produstulty Considerations in Pro tion Plannieg for New Aucra™ SAE) Puper No 1744 (199 24 ones, W. R land Harnaon, HM: Design Prod bay Serves the Industry, (Pat I} Aero Dig (Aue Tok) at. ‘Design Prudueiity Serves the lndusty, (pa ‘Aero Digs Sept, 108), aot 25. Green, EAS Simpicny — key to produaiiiy” ‘Machine Desig (Now, 1953), 112 26 ipstein, A. “Some Effects of Stegciutal Deformation in Airplane Design.’ Aero Dagess (Feb, 1949), 2.7 Goff, WE: ‘Design for Production’ Flight Faterne fuomal, (Oct. 25, 1973) 107 28 Dougherty, JE: "EAA Appraisal of Aircraft Design for Maintainability: SAK paper No. 710481, (1971). 29 Gilmaer, GAW. and Olson, BD: Maintenance — the designers Stepehild? ALAA Paper No. 8-210, (1968), 2.10 Adams, CW and Hinders, UA ‘Design-to-cost for the AT Close Ait Support Alerafi” AIAA paper No. 74-13, (1974), 241 Knowles, Je, GBs Material Thicknes Control ‘Through’ Manufaetanng Process Refinement! J. 0 Atreraf July 1976), 4657469 212 Anon: “Plements of Airset Production Desi Airframe Structural Design 19Engincering Training Morerale isued by Lockheed Airerst Corp. 2.13. Anon: ‘Lockheed Engineering Developments for Bette! Production Design’ sued by Lockheed Air craft Corp, (1958), 2.14 Foster, RBs An Approach to the Problem of Air- plane Production.” Aero Digest, (Ma. 1, 1944) 245 Anon; Vol. 2— Hear Treating Cleaning and Finish ‘ng, Vol. 3— Machining: Vor. 4 — Forming. Vel. 8 Forging and Casing American Society for Metals Metals Park, Ohio d073, 2.16 Anon Assembly Engincering, Hitchcock Publishing Company, Wheaton, llinois 60188, 20 Airframe Structural Design Anon: ATA Specification Air Transport Associ ‘of America, Washington, DC. 20016, ‘Anon: “Interchangeabilty and Replaceabilty uf Component Pars for Aerospace Vehicles’ Mig 8500 D. (Mar. 1980), Lermcr,” Et: “Unplugging CAD/CAM. fiom 1 Mainframes’ Aeropace America (Oct. 1986). Grand, KI: Munfacturing” Engincer’s » Marval, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York, NY. 1971 Witt, RH, and Ferrer, AL: Titanium Near Ni Shape Components for Demanding Airframe Appt ‘ations: SAMPE Quarterly, (Apr, 1986), 58-61