Aerospace Group Design Structures CAD de

School of Engineering and Technology BEng Group Design Project Report
Aerospace Group Design

- Structures
- CAD Design
Group 12
Amit Ramji
10241445
University of Hertfordshire - Aerospace Engineering
Year 4 – Aerospace Performance, Propulsion And Design -
6ENT1010
23rd June 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Structures .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Weight Distribution & Centre of Gravity .............................................................................. 3
1.2 General Loads/Load-paths for all structural components. .................................................. 3
1.3 Specification of Engine Mounts .......................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Wing Pod Mount & Pylon Design ................................................................................ 4
1.4 Undercarriage ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Load Paths and Ultimate Loads .................................................................................. 7
1.4.2 Energy Absorption ....................................................................................................... 9
1.4.3 Undercarriage Parts & Materials ............................................................................... 10
1.4.4 Wheels & Brakes ....................................................................................................... 11
1.4.5 Kinematics and Shock Absorption ............................................................................. 12
1.4.6 Strut Buckling and Bending ....................................................................................... 13
1.4.7 Mounting Structure and Lug Representation............................................................. 13
1.5 Wing Structure .................................................................................................................. 15
1.5.1 Loading...................................................................................................................... 16
Wing Loads (YZ Flight Loads) ............................................................................................... 16
1.5.2 Wing Stress – Direct Stress in Booms ...................................................................... 19
1.5.3 Wing Stress – Skin Shear .......................................................................................... 20
1.5.4 Further Sizing............................................................................................................. 21
1.6 Tail plane and Fin Structure ............................................................................................. 21
1.7 Fuselage Integrity and Pressure Loads ............................................................................ 22
Fuselage Stiffeners: ............................................................................................................... 22
Fuselage Loads (XZ - Static Ground Loads) ......................................................................... 23
Fuselage Loads (XZ - Flight Loads) ...................................................................................... 24
Fuselage Stress ..................................................................................................................... 25
Buckling ................................................................................................................................. 25
1.8 Fuselage & Wing Box Joint .............................................................................................. 25
2 CAD Design ............................................................................................................................. 26
3 General Arrangement Drawing ................................................................................................ 27
4 Aircraft Specifications .............................................................................................................. 28
References ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 2

1. Structures
The design of an aircraft involves many aspects to consider, for the aircraft structure this involves the
efficient use of materials and an overall good concept in the preliminary design stage. All structures must
withstand the operating flight and landing conditions with a known safe operating life. However to certify a
passenger aircraft for flight it must withstand greater loads as defined in the certification and testing
engineers report and additionally highlighted in section 1.5 below. The structural design engineer’s role is
to aim for an adaptable design, owing to changes across the aircraft development timeline. The main
structure of the aircraft must be defined during the early milestones of a design project and later changes
should involve only detail design modifications. Primary structures of an aircraft is a key responsibility in the
aerospace sector where care and diligence must be taken during design and working with other
departments.
1.1 Weight Distribution & Centre of Gravity

The Weight distribution of an aircraft is of critical importance as it affects payload, controllability,
manoeuvrability, fuel burn, and specifically aircraft structures. Obtaining the Centre of Gravity (CofG) for an
entire aircraft is a huge task for an initial sizing stage, therefore major components of mass were
considered; including payload, fuel, landing gears, engines, and other major fluid storage tanks and
equipment. Later this task was handed back to the Stability and Control Engineer for a more in depth CofG
calculation while considering the most forward (FWD) and rear (AFT) cases for a flexibility range. The
calculation for CofG is based on moment and moment centres, while further reading can be found in
Chapter 9 of R.C.Hibbeler [1] where in most cases area and section centroids are considered.
Generally the importance of knowing the CofG from a structures standpoint allows the structures engineer
to optimise and size the structure according to the requirements of the structure and payload configuration.
Wing position and wing box sizing is then carried out accordingly; this is an iterative process for
optimisation. In the primary locations below, this iteration process has not been carried out due to time and
resource constraints.
1.2 General Loads/Load-paths for all structural components.

The load paths of any structure is significance for static and dynamic structures, a consideration must also
be made for detailed fatigue studies in critical areas of the aircraft as the dynamic loading of flight will
render some components to be undersized. These components vary from wings, landing gears, mounting
points, fuselage pressure variations and many more areas. A consideration must also be made for
Sustained Engine Imbalance (SEI), a phenomenon that can cause cyclic loading of structural components
during One Engine Inoperative (OEI) conditions and engine failure.
Generic design practices have been followed for the consideration of fatigue resistance, as modelling and
analysing all components for fatigue is a very lengthy process and beyond the scope of this conceptual
design. Practices such as avoiding of sharp edges, corners and sudden changes in sections reduce the
stress concentration of components. Chamfering, gradual sloped geometry, symmetry, appropriate edge
distances and hole patterns have been considered as a generic design practice. Features involving cut-
outs such as doors, windows and compartments, are reinforced with additional material and its geometry
designed to provide fatigue resistance and stress relief [2-4]. Highly stressed components are considered
for buckling, shear, combined loading, bending and torsion. However this is limited to critical components
as the entire aircraft sizing in detail is a
monumental task for the purpose of this
conceptual design.

Advice is provided to design, manufacturing and
certification in order to consider materials and
manufacturing processes to provide the most
suitable materials and processes for the given
applications. Examples of material selection and
processes include wing and fuselage skins,
where Carbon Reinforced Polymer (CFRP)
Composites are considered for fatigue
resistance, optimised via principle stress axis
fibre alignment in addition to weight/cost saving.
Figure 1 - Generic Materials Use for Structural Components

1.3 Specification of Engine Mounts

Engine mount specifications in detail are usually best carried out with refined geometry and
design values. The major component considered in this section is the pin and lug attachments
where the pylon attachment uses a traditional 3-point truss configuration. The material in the lugs
are assumed to have direct shear forces where the member involved is subject to direct forces
applied by the pin and subjected to primarily shear stress, with negligible bending. Bearing failure
in this preliminary design is not considered as this level of detail only becomes apparent during a
detailed design stage [2, 3, 5]. Additional failures of shear stress and direct stress are considered
in rivets, bolts, pins, threads, and short lugs. The actual stress distribution is of complex nature
and indeterminate due to the influence of fit and tolerance. Further analysis can be carried out
with the geometry and materials involved during coupon testing and overall structural testing. It is
therefore assumed that the shear and direct stress is uniformly distributed on the critical section
and therefore is a sufficient guide for sizing purposes in this preliminary design.
1.3.1 Wing Pod Mount & Pylon Design
There is vast significance in the detailed design of lugs and pins as previous aviation failures such
as the Boeing 747-258F (EL AL Flight 1862 – 4th October 1992) [6]. The cause of failure was due
rapid fatigue crack propagation of a double lug in oblique loading. Failure at 1 of the 4 structural
fuse pin failures of the No.3 Engine as a result of repetitive shear and pin bending at the Inboard
Midspar [6, 7]. Classic lug failure of a single side of the double lug had caused the opposing lug
and pin to be overloaded, resulting in a complete failure of the attachment. Later followed by static
loading failure at the Outboard Midspar due to bending failures caused by eccentric loading when
the Inboard pylon attachment was lost at the No.3 Engine. For fatigue resistance, the material
must be free of impurities and surface imperfections to avoid possibilities of a stress concentration
being formed alongside external geometry control of stress raisers [8-10]. The material grain
direction is also important, as grain direction must line up with the axis of principal stresses
thereby reducing the possibility of grain boundary sliding.
Additionally Fatigue analysis should also be considered based on cycles of loading and vibration
due to SEI and OEI; involving a number of calculations. The methods are empirical, meaning they
are based on test data that can allow for conservative estimates as required. Using the stress
amplitude (S) and cycles performed (N) test data [8-12], one would obtain a curve for the material.
The S-N curves contain an ultimate tensile strength, yield strength and a fatigue limit; loading
below the fatigue limit means no fatigue problems in the foreseeable future. The region can also
be separated into low cycle fatigue and high cycle fatigue, where a low fatigue stress would take
longer and thus be on the lower end of the loading cycles, the high fatigue stress being the
opposite.
In the case below, the thrust force and weight forces are considered with a 1.5 safety factor
applied to each direction of load for simplicity. However this is an initial sizing exercise for
demonstration purposes only. Side loads, gust loads, foreign object impact and break away
design loads among many others shall need to be considered. As can be seen below, the
Minimum RF=2.16 (FWD Lug-Figure 5) with the selected geometry and material (Figure 4a), this
is a static demonstration exercise and many other failure modes and loading criteria must be
considered prior to test and flight certification.
Nacelle
Nacell AFT 4 Spoke Lug
FWD Double Lug e
Engine
Engine
Figure 2 - FWD (a) & AFT (b) connections for engine mounting
using 3-point mounting frame onto pylon.

FWD
Figure 3 - Engine and Pylon structure - View from Portside
Figure 4 – Lug analysis for Transverse (a) and Shear Out Bearing Stress (b) for FWD Pin
Figure 5 – Lug analysis under Oblique Loading for FWD Pin.

Figure 6 – Lug analysis for Transverse (a) and Shear Out Bearing Stress (b) for AFT Pin
Figure 7 - Lug analysis under Oblique Loading for AFT Pin.
1.4 Undercarriage
The Undercarriage/Landing Gear for commercial passenger aircraft are fairly complex mechanisms, that
must be required to absorb energy on landing in addition to enabling ground manoeuvres. Particularly
for passenger aircraft, the correct specification and design of a landing gear must conform to
EASA/FAR/JAR requirements in addition to comfort level testing. The manoeuvres involved for a
landing gear operation include braking, turning, taxiing, towing, hoisting, as well as the efficiency
requirements to be retracted and stowed during flight.
For commercial landing gear design, non-linear numerical methods and contact models are usually
adopted, where loads in each component are determined over the whole range of flight and ground
manoeuvre load sets. Below is a static representation required for initial sizing where progress can be
made to the design stage. Fatigue analysis and spring damper vibration representations can be used to
idealise the landing gear mechanism once further progress has been made in the design stage. In
addition to undercarriage structural requirements, the correct mathematical prediction of vertical forces
during touchdown required the use of energy absorption calculations of which are shown for initial sizing
in section 1.4.2 below. The wheels and brakes take most of the direct contact energy from the landing
gear system and therefore are designed to withstand repeated cycles of landing and braking during its
operating life.

1.4.1 Load Paths and Ultimate Loads

The following steps are needed in order to calculate the position of the Main Landing Gear (MLG)
from Chapter 3.1 of AIAA – N.S. Currey [13]:
• Determining the Mean Aerodynamic Chord (MAC).
• Locating the Forward and Aft CG position (Centre of Gravity) limit on the MAC.
• Selecting the Location between the FWD and AFT limits.
• Rechecking that the MLG position is approximately 50-55% of the MAC (from existing
passenger aircraft and N.S. Currey [13])
Figure 8 - Layout of Main and Nose Landing Gear as per 3.1 of [13]
MLG Longitudinal Position from Leading Edge:

2 �!""# �!"# 2 8.238×2.4714
�� = � + �!"# − = 8.238 + 2.471 − = 5.872�
3 !""# �!""# + �!"# 3 8.238 + 2.471
�!"#$ !"#$%&' !"#$ !" !""# = 0.55 �!!! − �!!! = 0.55 37.537 − 25.522 = 6.608�
(Fwd and Aft CG values from Stability & Control engineer and confirmed MAC with Aerodynamics
engineer)
MLG Lateral Position from wing root:

��!"#$%& !"#$ �!""# − �� 23.324 8.238 − 5.872
�!"#$ !""# = = = 9.569�
�!""# − �!"# 8.238 − 2.471
(Span and Chord values from Aerodynamics Engineer)
Nose Landing Gear (NLG) Position:

The NLG length and position is an important consideration at the conceptual design stage to
ensure the tail does not strike the ground in addition to manoeuvrability constraints on the ground.
From the history of passenger aircraft design as depicted in figure 3.1 of N.S. Currey [13] and
Figure 8 above, 15° is used initially from the AFT CG limit in order to calculate the NLG length and
position for consideration of tail tipping and AFT towing. Additionally if the load at the NLG is less
than 6% of Aircraft Weight, it must be moved further aft to allow better load sharing between MLG
and NLG and allow steering ability [13]. From CAD Data it is evident that a tail strike angle is 13°,
hence the position of the NLG is 5m from the nose.
(Confirmed with Stability and Control engineer)

Load Calculations:
Considering figure 3.3 from N.S. Currey [13],
� �−� 180,000× 19.4 − 5.232�� 13
�!"# !"#"$% !!" (!"# !"#$") = = = 66,349.93×� �
2� 2×19.4
!×!!,!"#.!"
Therefore the percentage of total mass taken by both MLG struts are: ×100 = 73.72%
!"#,!!!
Assuming both MLG have equal contact.
� �−� 180,000× 19.4 − �!!! − 5

�!"# !!"!#$ !"#$ !"#$ !"#$ = = = 10,410.3×� �
� 19.4
Ground Manoeuvres:
The ground manoeuvrability of the aircraft is one of the landing gear’s most overlooked roles as
certain parameters and geometric restrictions must to be met. The landing gear should to be able
to withstand landing, steering and braking loads, in addition to safe and smooth taxi manoeuvres.
The operation of all of these manoeuvres and conditions is especially important for passenger
aircrafts, as increased comfort levels are perceived as a good aircraft.
When taxiing the aircraft should be able to remain stable using the tri-gear layout, the stability of
the landing gear will depend on the wheelbase of the wheel track. Increasing the wheel track is an
option however may cause the aircraft to have a wider turning radius therefore restricting the
number of airports it is able to operate at.
N.S. Currey [13] describes some of the following consideration to be made when designing the
steering system and landing gear layout of an aircraft:
• Larger steering angles (±60°) have a restriction on the mechanisms needed to steer the
nose wheel, these will complicate the steering system design however some aircraft
require the nose wheel to turn through 360° and is described in MIL-SPEC (MIL-S-8812)
[13].
• Large aircrafts as such the one in this study should be able to turn 180° on a 150ft runway
in addition to being able to maneuver on a 75ft taxiway adequately (see figure 9.3 of [13]).
• Before the nose gear is retracted into its stowed position, all steering systems must be
disconnected to eliminate interference with the retraction system. The use of mechanical
systems is a reliable method of disconnecting the steering system however can add
additional mass to the NLG (See figure 9.2 of [13]).
• The NLG power steering system torque should be able to steer the wheels without
forward motion of the aircraft.
The torque required for a particular turning radius is calculated as follows:

�
� = �×�� 90 − � + = 16.5�
2
Where � = 19.4� = wheel base, � = 60! = steering angle & � = 10.6� = wheel track.
For the torque parameters: � = 0.645� = Distance between wheels, � = 0.675�.

8� 8×0.675
�!"##$%&' = 0.4×�!"# !"#"$% !"#! !"#$ !"#$ × � + = 0.4×10,410.3×�× 0.645 +
3� 3�
= 49,754 ��

1.4.2 Energy Absorption

The prime requisite of a landing gear is to transfer and absorb kinetic energy during landing. As a
result of loading conditions of the aircraft, correctly sized shock absorbers are required. The oleo-
pneumatic (Oil and Air) type of shock absorber is the best for the passenger aircraft applications,
as the solid or oil types do not have suitable damping characteristics [13].
The calculation of kinetic energy in the downward direction is:

!
�!"#$%"&'$( = �� ! (where � = mass & � = sink velocity component)
!
The energy to be absorbed by the tyre is (Eqn 3.2 from L Jenkinson [14]):
�! ×�! ×�×�×� where �! = deflection, �! = tyre absorbtion efficiency,
!
� = Reaction factor, � = Aircraft landing mass & � = 9.81 ! = sink deceleration
!
The energy to be absorbed by the strut is (Eqn 3.3 from L Jenkinson [14]):
�×�! ×�×�×� where � = wheel travel distance & �! = absorber efficiency
Adding together these main absorption components:

�!
= � �! ×�! + �×�!
2�
Jenkinson [14] showed that typical values for � = 3.5 �/� and � = 2 are for passenger jet aircraft,
�! is known from tyre test data and �! can be assumed to be 0.47. �! = 0.8 for oleo-pneumatic
shock absorption systems. N.S. Currey described the load factor, � = � = 0.75 − 1.5 for large
aircraft [13], and has the energy equation written as follows:
�� !
�! ×�! ×�×� + �! ×�! ×�×� = + � − � � + �!
2�
Tyre Energy + Strut Energy = Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy
From this above data, the travel distance for the shock absorber is calculated to be:
3.5!
= 2 0.47×90 + �×0.8 ∴ � = 0.27� = 270��
2×9.81
Using pneumatic tyres, the load capability is calculated to be (from L Jenkinson [14]):
� = �×�×�× �×� !.! where � = constant from tyre data, � = tyre deflection
� = Inflation Pressure, � = Tyre Diameter, � = Tyre Width
For the Main Landing Gear (MLG) : “P/N: 309Q62-1 – Flight Radial by Goodyear (used on A320)”,
� = 30×25.4 = 762��, � = 8.8×25.4 = 223.52��, � = 120�� = 0.827��
The load capability cannot be calculated, as the deflection ratings are not known and intellectual
property to Goodyear. Hence the tyre selection at this initial stage is completed by comparison to
the size and mass of the A320.
For the Nose Landing Gear (NLG): “P/N: 275Q22-1 – Flight Radial by Goodyear (Used on B737)”
� = 27×25.4 = 685.8 ��, � = 7.75×25.4 = 196.85 ��, � = 120�� = 0.827��.
Once again, as complete tyre data is not available and is subject to test data, the calculated load
carrying capability is not comprehensive.

1.4.3 Undercarriage Parts & Materials

The main workings of a landing gear consists of a shock absorption mechanism comprising of a
piston, a thick wall housing, oil and air chambers alongside crucial seals. Commercial aircraft use
oleo-pneumatic shock absorbers owing to their efficiency at absorbing energy and reliability,
where the detailed mechanism can be found from chapter 3.9 of Niu [15]. The design comprises
of viscous oil being forced through compression seals as the piston is compressed, thereby
dissipating energy and compressing the air or nitrogen. This action has an effect on the oil and as
a result, forces the oil back through the recoil seals into the recoil chamber. An illustration is
shown in Figure 13 below for idealised geometry for simplification, however in reality the oil
pathways can be fairly complex in order to increase seal life.
The nose landing gear consisting of two wheels has a retraction jack to enable stowage in the
rearward direction as depicted in Figure 10 & Figure 11. The support leg of the nose gear shall
have a telescopic oleo-pneumatic strut that is connected to the nose gear mountings. The nose
gear consists of a torque shock stabiliser link that will restrict the lower strut cylinder from rotating
during operation, however allows the strut to compress and extend. The operation of the doors
are to open and closed simultaneous with the gear by use of independent actuators, thus
improving the reliability of the doors and reduces localised load sharing structural impediments.
The main landing gear drawings (Figure 9) show the intermediate alongside final stages during
deployment and stowage. The MLG is located on the wing and retracts inboard towards the
fuselage centre line to be stowed in the fuselage wing-box interface. The main gear will provide
the required braking for the aircraft in addition to the air braking at the wing discussed by the
aerodynamics specialist. The braking provided by the main gear and the wing surfaces should be
enough to allow the aircraft to stop safely within certifiable distances. A calculation of braking
distance, time and energy is calculated in 1.4.4 below. The use of highly reliable carbon ceramic
brakes is the intended braking system to use with full radial actuators on each wheel and is shown
pictorially in Figure 12.
Drawing and General Arrangement

(Image sources for Figure 9 through Figure 12 by Amit Ramji for GD12-325 using on CATIA V5R21)
Starboard Main Landing Gear (STBD MLG)
Figure 9 – STBD MLG Deployed (a), 45 Deg (b) & Stowed (c) - View from Front

Nose Landing Gear (NLG)
Figure 10 - NLG Deployed (a), 45 Deg (b) & Stowed (c) - View From Port
Figure 11 - NLG Deployed (a), Stowed (b) – Views From Front & NLG Stowed Doors Closed (Port) (c)
Exploded View of Undercarriage
Figure 12 - Exploded View of STBD MLG (a) & NLG (b)
1.4.4 Wheels & Brakes

In order to calculate the wheel and brake sizes, one must first work out the forces involved during
braking and rolling, there are two of many methods shown below for calculating the braking
energy required. Although braking specifications and certification is usually carried out by brake
manufacturers, the sizing and estimated dimensions must be carried out during the initial design
stage as below.

Simplified Approach
The Rolling resistance without braking is calculated as:
(with coefficient of rolling friction taken as 0.01 from Goodyear tyre data on dry asphalt)
!"#,!!!
!
�!"##$%& !"#$#%&'("_!!!!" = �×�� = 0.01× 4 ×9.81 = 2207.25 � (Per MLG Wheel)
!"#,!!!
�!"##$%& !"#$#%&'("_!"#$% = �×�� = 0.01× ×9.81 = 8829 � (Per Bogie)
!
!
! ! !!!""#$%&! !! !!"#!
� ! = � ! + 2�� | � = 1,800 � | � = = = −3.1802 �/� !
!! !×!,!""
(� = −3.1802 �/� ! = −10.4337 ��/� ! which agrees with table 4.2 from N.S. Currey [13])
where distance is a conservative estimate, and approach velocity is 208 Knots=107m/s.
(confirmed with performance and propulsion engineer)
�!"#$%&' !"#$% = �� = 180,000× −3.18 = −572,450 � (acting in the rearward direction).

This braking force does not include any drag effects or air brakes and consideres all the braking to be
from the MLG wheels.
!!! !!!"#
� = � + �� | ∴ � = = = 33.645 ��
! !!.!"#$
(This is a fairly short and accurate landing time considering a conservative distance is being considered).
Kinetic Energy Method

(Integration method not used due to unknown engine performance characteristics at this stage)
From Chapter 4 of N.S. Currey [13]:

� = 0.0423 | � = 180,000�� = 396,832 �� | �!"" = 208 �� = 107�/� (approach speed used)
!
�!"#$%"& = �×�×�!"#$$_!"#$%&'' = 0.0423×180,000×107! ×10!! = 87.1726 ��
1.4.5 Kinematics and Shock Absorption

The deflection of the shock absorption system of a landing gear is significant due to absorption of energy
during landing and taxi vibration. It is particularly important to correctly size the shock absorption
mechanism due to potential damage to the aircraft structure with low and high deflections. The distance
at stationary position is also important to overcome obstacles, airport traffic and containers. The
calculations below show how sizing of an oleo-pneumatic strut is carried out.
Oleo-Pneumatic shock sizing using methods from N.S. Currey [13] for a large aircraft:
Static to extended ratio= 4/1 & Compressed to static ratio= 3/1
!
�!"#"$% = 180,000 �� | �!"#$%&$& = 180,000 = 45,000 �� | �!"#$%&''&( = 3×180,000 = 540,000 ��
!
Using a static to compressed ratio of 15% as per table 5.1, total stroke distance is 14" = 355.6��.
!"#,!!!!"
Piston Area assuming 1500psi, � = = 0.021755� !
!"#$#%!.! !/!!
!! ! !!
Piston Diameter, � �� = ,�= = 0.1664� = 166.433��
! !
Figure 13 - Oleo-Pneumatic Shock Design

1.4.6 Strut Buckling and Bending

Using Euler’s formula for strut buckling calculations for the main landing gear:
� = 202,500�� = Modulus (from PH13-8Mo_Bar – Aims 01-04-002 – MMPDS 05)
� = 0.28 = Poisson’s ratio
�!" = 1100�� |
�!"#$% = 0.1664� = 166.433�� (From Oleo-Pneumatic Sizing - 1.4.5)
�!""#$ = 150.433�� (Assuming a cylinder wall thickness of 8mm at this stage for initial analysis)
� �� 2 – �� 2
Unsupported Length, � = 1.45� | Area, � !"#$ !"#$%& = = 3981.86�� !
4
� �� 4 – �� 4
Second Moment of Area, �!"# = = 12,525,432.2 �� !
64
��
Radius of Gyration, � = = 56.085��
��
Assuming, �� = 0.707� = 1.02515� as an equivalent length due to Landing gear
(MLG) being fixed at the root and pinned at the bogie chassis (See Figure 12).
� ! ��!"#
�!"#$ = = 23.82 MN
(��)!
�2 � �
Buckling Limit, �!"#$ = ∙
��
= 2.33198�
Direct Stress is calculated by conservatively assuming equal load sharing of MLG and 70% of
MTOW without the consideration of fuel jettison systems as a result of little progress made in the
systems design at this stage:
0.7
180,000×�× 2
�!"## = = 155.211 ��
��
�!"
��!"## = = 7.087
�!"##
The MLG also needs to be sized as an entire assembly using a 1.5 Safety Factor (SF) alongside
acceleration factors in X, Y and Z directions (gx, gy, gz) as suggested in Megson et al [16], Bruhn
et al [3] and Peery [17]. The Nose Landing Gear (NLG) has been sized using a moment balance
from the CG position and also checking the load levels accordingly to provide the reaction load to
support the aircraft. Additionally sized and positioned by applying sizing factors for safety and
flight certification (tail-strike). The masses found in the stability and control section of this report
are on the conservative side hence structural sizing will therefore be an optimisation exercise
during later detailed design.
Additionally the landing gear systems as with any component of an aircraft structure must undergo
testing for various conditions, including drop tests, flooded runway, structural limit load and fatigue
testing. Wheel and braking tests must also be carried out as coupon tests prior to flight tests to
ensure the aircraft can land safety within certifiable distances. The certification engineer defines
the testing and certification for all aspects of the current passenger aircraft design in the testing
and certification report.
1.4.7 Mounting Structure and Lug Representation

The mounting structure of an aircraft landing gear is of prime significance as the inertia and
contact loads of the aircraft occur through this location. Correct sizing of components as with the
buckling criteria is important, below is the main landing gear static stress calculation for a stowed
and deployed case with a safety factor of 1.5. As can be observed from the geometry from Figure
14a, the size of the main lug pin from Figure 12a is sufficient and provides the lowest reserve
factor to be 6.69 under oblique loading (Figure 15).

Figure 14 - Lug analysis for Transverse (a) and Shear Out Bearing Stress (b) for Mounting
Pin of MLG (See Figure 12a)
Figure 15 - Lug analysis under Oblique Loading for

Mounting Pin of MLG (See Figure 12a).

1.5 Wing Structure

The structure of a wing along with most aircraft structures is of prime importance due to the
primary lift mechanism being from the wings. The wings must be able to withstand lift forces from
the aerodynamic centre line of the wing along with torsion and bending. The torsion is a result of
the engines propulsion, drag and lift forces as a consequence of swept wings. Furthermore,
another loading is bending moments due to the suspended undercarriage, engines and the span
wise moment due to lift. The calculations as a result of these loading mechanisms are carried out
in section 1.5.1 below, where two cases are considered at this stage in design. The flight loads
and the ground loads are two very different however essential loading considerations to make in
the design stage of aircraft structural design.
In the GD12-325, J-Sections are used for stringers, C-Section front and rear spars in addition to
lightened ribs. The rear spar also has a further attachment (Figure 16) for the main landing gears
alongside a further internal thickened rib section for the engine pylons. The load sharing of each
of these critical components is important if an efficient structure is to be designed.
The entire airframe structure (metallic and composite) is divided into categories for primary and
secondary structures, the wing structure is also divided. Secondary components include brackets
and mounts for systems, fuel tanks, and any other non-essential attachments. Analysis, supported
by strength testing of the structure to limit and ultimate load is to be carried out by static wiffle tree
loading jigs and dynamic structural testing prior to test flight certification. This is typically the case
for new structures not being certified by comparison to similar structures. Three basic material
types are to be used in the wing-box and wing manufacturing, including Metallic, Composite and
Hybrid materials.
Damage tolerance considerations with multiple load paths, containment geometry and importantly
single load paths are to be considered for further development. Structures must demonstrate the
ability to carry redistributed limit loads following the failure of any element or redundant feature.
- Limit Load are maximum loads to be expected in service, see EASA CS25 part 25.301,
“Loads”.
- Ultimate Load are limit loads increased by prescribed factors of safety.
- Ultimate Factor is prescribed factor of safety applied to limit load, see EASA CS25 part
25.303, “Factor of Safety”. The ultimate factor of safety is 1.5 for an aircraft with no
system or structural failures.
- Proof Factor is applied to limit load giving the load level above which permanent
deformation is acceptable for metallic structure and not applicable to composite structure.
The proof factor is 1.0 for primary and secondary structures for commercial aircraft for
metallic, composite and hybrid structural materials.
Wing Layout (Stringers omitted for clarity)
Portside
WingBox
Engine
Pylon
Front Spar
Rib_P1
Rib_P2
1
Rear Spar
Figure 16 - General Portside Wing Layout (a) & Dimensions for STBD Engine placement with increased
trailing edge for landing gear spar (b)

1.5.1 Loading
Loads on the wings are most conservatively considered as a combination of cases from 10% Residual
fuel with max lift loads, to fully loaded on ground with fuel cantilever effect, alongside shear and torque
considerations. However as data for fuel burn and relevant mass parameters are scarce at each flight
stage, a 20% reduction throughout the entire wing span (assumption for fuel and structure) along with
engine and landing gear consideration has been carried out in Table 2.
For each of these cases, simplifications and conservative assumptions are made in order to size the
structural components. Methods found in Megson et al [16], Bruhn [3], Peery [17], M Niu [2] and various
ESDU analysis methods have been analysed and found to be beyond the scope of this initial sizing
exercise with the addition of time constraints. Boom element idealisation calculators provided by S.J. Guo
[18] has also been utilised as an initial sizing method, excerpts of which are shown below. Wing layout
along with local coordinates and stringer skin sizing are also displayed below.
From the above assumptions, Figure 17a shows the skin thickness and stringer spacing for each boom
element along with preliminary boom area calculations for later analysis. Figure 17b calculates the flights
loads during cruise conditions where the maximum shear forces, bending and torsion moments are
calculated. In order to determine the load distribution on a wing, one must make use of Prandtl’s lifting
line model where the use of vortex filaments are introduced to enable optimization of a wing for minimum
drag while also considering the structural load distributions. Further reading for Prandtl’s lifting line model
can be found from Figure 5.26 and section 5.6 by Houghton et al [19]. For this exercise however, the
program developed by S.J. Guo [18] uses a non-elliptical lift distribution in order to calculate the
aerodynamic lift loads based on wing planform geometry as calculated by the aerodynamicist. It is widely
accepted that the Elastic Axis (EA) is at 35% Chord (Figure 18) and the Aerodynamic Centre (AC) is 25%
of the Chord.
Wing Loads (YZ Flight Loads)
Figure 17 – Stringer Spacing Idealisation (a) & Wing Lift During Cruise (b) [18]

Boom Element Layout for NACA2316 ‐ MainWingRootChord=8238
1000
500
0
‐200 800 1800 2800 3800 4800 5800 6800 7800 8800
‐500
‐1000
Figure 18 - Wing root section with Boom element idealisation (From Figure 17a) with Front and Rear Spar
Engine Weight (N) (11700 Kg/2)*9.81) 57388.5

Engine Position Y (m) [From Root] 6.3
Engine Position X (m) [FWD of the Elastic Axis] 4.2843
MLG (N) (8928 Kg/2)*9.81) 43791.84
MLG Position Y (m) [From Root] 2.2
MLG Position X (m) [AFT of the Elastic Axis] 3.6482
Table 1 - Reduction factors to cruise loads
(Positions from CAD and mass confirmed by stability and Control engineer)
Wing Loads including CofG for Engine, MLG’s, Structure and Fuel applied consecutively
(No Thrust Torque Considered)
Section No Y‐Coord from root (m) Shear Force (N) Bending Moment (N.m) Torque (N.m)
0 0.0 650188.08 5477680.65 363193.56
1 2.1 539221.72 4238646.95 307646.42
2 4.2 437190.63 3221652.45 258743.06
3 & Engine 6.3 344094.80 2408068.01 225489.89
4 8.3 317322.74 1658748.64 195442.64
5 10.4 242097.45 1075581.06 134605.92
6 12.5 175807.43 639936.12 87363.2
7 14.6 118452.67 333184.68 51997.96
8 16.7 70033.17 136697.60 26793.43
9 18.8 30548.9 31845.76 10033
10 20.8 0 0 0
Maximum 650188.08 5477680.65 363193.57
Table 2 - Wingloads data with Engine, Fuel and MLG Reduction (See Figure 16b)

Aerodynamic Shear Force at Cruise Aerodynamic Shear Force at Cruise
(From Wingloads.exe) (With 20% Fuel, Engine & MLG ReducSon ConsecuSvely)
1000 800
884.47 650.188
800 600
600
400
SF (KN)
SF (KN)
400
200 200
y (m) [From Root] y (m) [From Root]
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 19 - Cruise Shear Force (a) & Cruise Shear Force with Reduction (b)
One can easily observe from the above raw data (Figure 19a), that the max shear force is 884.5 KN, this
should be half the lift force for the MTOW (180,000Kg) of the aircraft.
2 ��
��!"# = 884.47 ×10! � × = 180320 ��
�
Aerodynamic Bending Moment at Cruise Aerodynamic Bending Moment at Cruise
(From Wingloads.exe) (With 20% Fuel, Engine & MLG ReducSon ConsecuSvely)
8000 7299.04 6000
5477.68
6000
4000
BM (KN.m)
BM (KN.m)
4000
2000
2000
y (m) [From Root] y (m) [From Root]
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 20 - Cruise Bending Moment (a) & Cruise Bending Moment with Reduction (b)
As can be observed from Figure 20, the maximum bending moment is at the wing root, also comparison of
Figure 20a & Figure 20b shows a reduction in 25% when considering the fuel, structure, engine and landing
gear. For an accurate and optimised design, careful adjustments and consecutive applications of mass
considerations and weight reductions are carried out for an efficient wing structure in reality. A further look into
the thickness of materials and optimisation of materials comes much later in the design where more information
is known about the structure.
Aerodynamic Torque at Cruise Aerodynamic Torque at Cruise
(From Wingloads.exe) (With 20% Fuel, Engine and MLG ReducSon ConsecuSvely)
800 761.33 400
363.19
600
300
T (KN.m)
400
T (KN.m)
200
200
100
y (m) [From Root]
0 y (m) [From Root]
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 21 - Cruise Torque (a) & Cruise Torque with Reduction (b)
As can be observed in Figure 21, one can realise a reduction in torque when engine placement and landing
gears are considered, this will eventually allow for efficient sizing, hole cut-outs for rib sections and the entire
wingbox structure. In addition to rib and wingbox structures, the torque calculation can be used for skin sizing of
thin walled structures per rib section as described in Chapter 19 by Megson et al [16].

Additionally Figure 17b shows the structure is separated into 10 sections for initial sizing, however observations
from similar aircraft show the requirement of 20+ rib sections (Figure 16a) for efficient torque application.
Further consideration of leading and trailing edge devices and other systems alongside torque generated by
engine thrust will further refine the structure efficiency. Moreover these considerations must all be complied in
separate load cases and tested for static ultimate loads and fatigue loads as introduced above in section 1.5.
Figure 22 calculates the boom areas for

direct and shear loading in addition to the
coordinates for torsion and bending
calculations. The script makes use of the
leading edge and trailing edge angles to
calculate the boom tip coordinates for a
swept wing structure.
Figure 22 - Calculation of Boom Coordinates for Outboard Sections [18]
1.5.2 Wing Stress – Direct Stress in Booms
Figure 23 - Direct Stress Input (a) & Output (b) of TWboxs [18]
The direct stress input file (Figure 23a) contains the reduced loading of shear, bending and torque from Table 2
above and considers the loading to be at ¼ chord position at the elastic axis. For direct stress, the boom
element area’s are constant and assumes a constant stringer area of 570.97 �� ! as calculated in Figure 17a.
The output file (Figure 23b) results in a direct stress peak of 70.34 �� at boom 24 near the rear spar. This is
assuming spar webs of 12�� which of course is far too thick hence why the low stress levels observed. The
spar web thickness can be reduced as long as the skin shear stress is sufficient and within allowable limits.

1.5.3 Wing Stress – Skin Shear
Figure 24 - Shear Stress Input (a) & Output (b) of TWboxs [18]
The shear stress input file (Figure 24a) contains the reduced loading of shear, bending and torque from
Table 2 above and considers the loading to be at ¼ chord position at the elastic axis as with the direct
shear calculation. For shear stress, the boom element area’s are not constant and uses boom element
idealisation method to calculate the idealised area’s considering stringer spacing and spar locations as
output from Figure 22. The output file (From Figure 24b) results in a shear stress peak of 111.7 �� at
panel 22-23 again at the rear spar and is tensile. The spar web thickness can be reduced, as this peak
stress is far below most material allowable’s. However von misses criteria must be satisfied for this
combined loading effect.
Using Von Mises stress at the root section requires the failure mode representation in the 6 DOF for
ductile materials. The Von Mises stress is a single stress value, which is equivalent to the actual
combined state of stress and is fairly conservative [20, 21].
At the wing root:

�!! = 0 (Drag and thrust not considered)
�!! = 0 (Considered in TWBoxs.exe)
�!! = 70.34 �� (Max Direct Stress in Stringers - Figure 23b)
�!" = 111.7 �� (Max Shear Stress in Skin -Figure 24b)
�!" = 0 (Considered in TWBoxs.exe)
�!" = 0 (Drag and Thrust no considered)
! ! !
�!" = �!! − �!! + �!! − �!! + �!! − �!! ! ! + �! + �!
+ 6 �!" =
! !" !"
! ! !
70.34 + 70.34 + 6 111.7! = 205.86 ��
!
320
∴ �� = = 1.554 ∴ �� = �� − 1 = 0.554
205.86
Where properties of isotropic aluminium alloy 2024-T6 (MMPDS) of �!" = 320 �� is considered for
comparison at this preliminary stage, the use of CRFP composites will substantially increase the RF and
allow for reduction in skin thickness in most locations.

To enable the compression and shear buckling interaction of the skin-stringer booms, the following
stress ratios must be used:
! !
�! = ! �! = ! Where �! is negative for tension replacing �! .
!!"#$ !!"#$
2 2
�� = −1= − 1 = 1.10144
�� + �2� +4�2� 70.34 70.34 2 111.7 2
320
+ 320
+4 320
(see also section 2.4.3.4 by J. Lusk [22])
1.5.4 Further Sizing

Further sizing in addition to using numerical tools provided by S.J. Guo [18] which include methods for
stringer and skin sizing based on geometry of the wing and flight lift profiles of which extracts are shown
above. Fastener methods for bolt groups, shear-out, pull-through, lug analysis and pin sheer analysis
are to be applied to major components and where skin-fastening is required using methods described
by M Niu [2]. Wing skin stress concentration factors near access panel cut-outs, joints and fastening
positions are significant as has been observed from aircraft failures in the past. Therefore stress
concentration factors (Kt) [4, 5] are to be applied to sample area’s of the aircraft in order to determine
the failure criteria using skin stressing methods. Thin plate representations used in Chapter 7 of Megson
et al [16] along with laminate sheer and peel bonding methods as calculated in ESDU methods are
accepted methods of detailed stress analysis.
Combined cantilever beam bending for wing spars as shown above (Figure 20) is used to size the
structure however further analysis is to be carried out for optimised tapered structures for a given NACA
air foil section. Analysis for tapered structures can be calculated with the use of taper ratios in the span-
wise direction as illustrated pictorially and defined in more detailed by Megson et al [16] (Chapter 22.6).
Considerations and calculations for cut-outs is also explained in chapter 22.8 by Megson et al [16],
however cannot be computed at this stage due to bing in the early design stage.
1.6 Tail plane and Fin Structure

The tail plane and fin structure shall is designed to withstand shear, bending and torque as was
completed for the main wings as per section 1.5 however with a smaller structure. The rudder attached
to the vertical fin subjects the tail of the aircraft to encounter combined bending, shear and torsion when
the pilot applies a yaw motion. The structure should withstand these forces and a similar method to that
carried out at the main wingbox can be applied using thin walled structure idealisation. The horizontal
tail-plane and elevators are designed in a similar manor to the main wings however with a less defined
wingbox structure. Similar to the main wings, the horizontal tail wings are subject to combined shear,
bending and torsion. Furthermore this part of the structure is crucial for controlling the aircraft and also
contains a majority of the manoeuvrability loading mechanisms owing to a concentrated region of high
loading for a particular fuselage section.
The front and rear spar sizing of the tail structure is to be designed in a similar manor to the main wings;
their placement is decided upon calculation of the loads involved. Using the area’s of the vertical and
horizontal tails along with its control surfaces, the flight and manoeuvre loads can be calculated for a
given aircraft velocity. The horizontal and vertical tail join together internally in a three-spoke structure
often surrounding the Auxiliary Power Unit at the tail cone. With the condition of One Engine Inoperative
(OEI), the surface area of the rudder (sized by the Stability and Control Engineer) requires the structure
to handle much larger deflections of the rudder. The extra rudder loads require the tail structure to
withstand larger torsion loads that are calculated by integrating loads from the rudder at various
positions and using thin wall cone representations to calculate the skin stress under torsion.
Figure 25 – Vertical Tail Structure, view from above (a) & view from Aft (b)

1.7 Fuselage Integrity and Pressure Loads

Design of fuselage integrity is one of the most important considerations to make, as the history of
failures in aviation is evident for. The fuselage must be strong enough to support its own weight,
cargo, passengers, fuel and resist flight loads. The fuselage should be able to resist bending,
torsion and shear loading in addition to cabin pressurisation forces as a result of altitude and
internal pressurisation.
For the design of frame sections, the traditional C-Section configuration is chosen to maintain the
fuselage shape during various stages of flight. The C-Sections would be cut and joint to J-Section
stringers with riveted fastening mechanisms in addition to structural bonding. Locations at the floor
deck interfaces require additional brackets and mounts of which is a detailed design exercise.
The wing and fuselage skin is to be manufactured from Carbon Fibre Reinforce Polymer (CFRP)
composites in the various layups and fibre orientation (Figure 1). The continuous fibres for the
fuselage shall be filament wound over a mandrel in the directions main of principal loading of
which is to be justified in the manufacturing section by the manufacturing engineer. The skin is to
be structurally bonded and riveted where required to the frames and stringers throughout the
fuselage.
Fuselage Stiffeners:
As previously highlighted, the J-Section stringers will be used for the fuselage owing to their
loading efficiency and resistance to free flange buckling from their location on the structure. CRFP
composites of 6mm thickness shall be used for the fuselage skin thickness in most locations at
this preliminary stage in the design, the fuselage skin can be varied across the fuselage however
requires detailed analysis and information on local load paths and their respective geometries.
Below (Figure 26) are the parameters used for the initial stringer spacing and sizing calculations
and their respective outputs of which the stringer spacing (400.88 ��) and geometry is most
significant.
For the stringer spacing requirements,

boom element idealisation shall be used
using a tabular based Visual Basic
program (TWPanels.exe) developed by
S.J.Guo [18]. Figure 26 uses structural
idealization of the stringers and skins as
one entity as was carried out for the wing
stringer spacing. The cross sectional
area’s of each boom element can now be
separated into two cases, one for direct
stress of the stringers (assuming constant
stringer sections) and another for shear
stress of the skins. The method used in
this tool is derived from Chapter 19 by
Megson et al [16] where the formula for
calculating the boom cross-section areas
B1, B2..Bn is shown in Figure 19.3 of
Megson et al [16]. The necessity for
idealisation between these structural
components is due to both components
acting as one entity when considering
liner loading analysis and do not have
physical discontinuities after loading,
however they have discontinuities in
stress magnitudes and directions.
Figure 26 - Fuselage Skin Thickness and Stringer spacing using TWPanels.exe [18]

Fuselage Loads (XZ - Static Ground Loads)

Structural Uniformly Distributed Load: �!"#$%&'$ = 2.3884 ��/�
(Calculated from structure load and assumed uniform distribution across length)
�! � �! �
(Distance (Distance
Distributed Loads: from Nose) �! ��/� from Nose)
#1:Bus_Class_R1-R4 10.30 2.3082 14.38
#2:Econ_Class_R6-R12 16.89 11.1357 21.33
#3:Econ_Class_R13-R15 22.07 9.5449 23.55
#4:Econ_Class_R16-R40 24.29 9.9426 42.05
#5:Econ_Class_R41-R42 42.79 6.3632 43.53
#6:Cargo_LD3_Under R1-R13 10.30 19.8784 22.07
#7:Cargo_LD3_Under R16-R40 24.29 13.1739 42.05
Table 3 - Static Distributed Loads for Fuselage
�! �
(Distance
Point Loads: from Nose) � ��
#1:Econ_Class_R5 16.15 2.35
#2:Wing_Structure 30.40 42.38
#3:Tail_Structure 55.00 8.48
#4:2 Engines 29.50 114.78
#5:Pilots 3.60 1.77
#6:Landing_Gear_React (MLG) (From Strut Load X2) 29.50 -1301.79
#7:Landing_Gear-React (NLG) (From Max NLG Strut Load) 5.00 -102.13
#8:Fuel 29.00 441.45
Table 4 - Static Point Load Idealisation for Fuselage
600.0
Shear Diagram for XZ Static Loads
Shear (KN)
400.0 376.45
200.0
x (m)
0.0
0.00
3.41
6.81
10.22
13.63
17.03
23.85
27.25
30.66
34.07
37.47
40.88
44.29
47.70
51.10
54.51
20.44
-200.0
-340.14
-400.0
Figure 27 - Static Shear force for Fuselage
2000.0
959.75 Moment Diagram for XZ Static Loads
1000.0
x (m)
0.0
0.00
3.41
6.81
10.22
13.63
17.03
23.85
27.25
30.66
34.07
37.47
40.88
44.29
47.70
51.10
54.51
20.44
Moment (KN.M)
-1000.0
-2000.0 -2098.15
-3000.0
Figure 28 - Static Bending Moment for Fuselage

Fuselage Loads (XZ - Flight Loads)

(This section is a conservative estimation and uses cruise conditions at ISA-SL
conditions where the density at ground level is used as a result of no input from
performance and propulsion engineer. The Aircraft should never be flying at cruise
velocities at sea level, however for initial estimation this assumption is sufficient.)
Structural Uniformly Distributed Load: �!"#$%&'$ = 2.3884 ��/�

(Calculated from structure load and assumed uniform distribution across length)
Distributed Loads: Same as Table 3
Point Loads: �! � (From Nose) � ��

#1:Econ_Class_R5 16.15 2.35
#2:Wing_Structure 30.40 42.38
#3:Tail_Structure 55.00 8.48
#4:Engine 29.50 114.78
#5:Pilots 3.60 1.77
#6:Landing_Gear (MLG) 29.50 87.58
#7:Landing_Gear(NLG) 5.00 26.49
#8:10% of Remaining Fuel 29.00 44.15
#9:Main_Wing_Lift_Load=0.5 x ρ x (v^2) x S x CL
=0.5x1.226x(241.77^2)x310x0.12 30.40 -1333.96
#10: Tail_Wing_Lift_Load=0.5x1.226x(241.77^2)x70.11x0.12 55.00 -301.37
Figure 29 - Flight Point Load Idealisation for Fuselage
1000.0 Shear Diagram for XZ Cruise Flight Loads

Shear (KN)
500.0 479.62 444.86
0.0
0.00
3.41
6.81
10.22
13.63
17.03
23.85
27.25
30.66
34.07
37.47
40.88
44.29
47.70
51.10
54.51
20.44
x (m)
-500.0
-783.00
-1000.0
Figure 30 - Flight Shear force for Fuselage
Moment Diagram for XZ Cruise Flight Loads x (m)

0.0
0.00
3.41
6.81
10.22
13.63
17.03
23.85
27.25
30.66
34.07
37.47
40.88
44.29
47.70
51.10
54.51
20.44
-2000.0
Moment (KN.M)
-4000.0
-6000.0
-6792.42
-8000.0
Figure 31 - Flight Bending Moment for Fuselage

Fuselage Stress
Using the Maximum bending moment, the skin and stringer stress can be calculated using
Roark’s [5] for cylindrical shells with assumed uniform radial load from thin walled pressure
vessels:
� = 6�� = Skin thickness | � = 3.1� = Mean radius | � = 10� = Height

� = 276 �� = Modulus of Elasticity (Hexcel® IM7 Carbon Fibre 6000 Filaments – Matweb 2014)
� = 0.3 = Poissons Ratio | � = 40�� (Simmons “Pulse Pressure Loading of Aircraft structural
! !
panels” [23]) | Valid for > 10 where = 516.667 | From the max fuselage bending moment
! !
above:
�� 6792.42 ��∙� × 3.1
Meridional stress = �! = = 4 = 4,355,405 �/� ! = 4.355��
� �
64
6.24 − 6.2−6×10−3
�×�
Circumferential stress = �! = = 20.667 ��
�
��2
Radial displacement of circumference = �� = = 0.232��
��
−��
Change in height = �� = = −0.225��
��
Now using the method for skin stresses and unstiffened shells with the cabin pressurised to 8000ft
with a cruise ceiling of 40,000ft:
Longitudinal stress at cross section using pressure loading
0.25×��×� 0.25× 18,800�/�2 −75,300�/�2 ×3.1
= �! = = = 7.297�/� !
� 6×10−3
Hoop stress using 80% pressure loading:

0.8×��×� 0.8× 18,800�/�2 −75,300�/�2 ×3.1
�! = = = 23.35 �/� !
� 6×10−3
Buckling
Using ESDU 81047 [24] for laminate plate buckling analysis with a safety factor of 1.5 to
encompass fatigue consideration at this initial stage where �! = 8.6 for clamped plates:
� !
�!" = 1.5×�! �! = 187.4 ��
�
1.8 Fuselage & Wing Box Joint

The wing box of an aircraft plays an important role in withstanding the primary loads during flight
and landing. The wing box structure is the aircrafts most strengthened component containing the
most redundancies. The wings act as a continuous structure through the wing box that transmits
stresses for lift, drag and landing related shear, bending and torsion using a box type construction.
The front and rear spar of the wing box are rigidly connected to the wing box structure and rely on
the elasticity of the assemblies to prevent the bending or torsion to become too great. The wing
box is internally connected to the fuselage floor beams, bulkhead frames and also to the stringers,
where stringers are reinforced due to being discontinuous in this cut-out region.

2 CAD Design

The following CATIA V5 CAD design and drawings has been completed by Amit Ramji and later
handed over to the Design Engineer for carrying out rendered views for the CDR presentation:
• Fuselage (All fuselage sections)
• Wings, Wing-box and wing tips
• Tail wings, vertical stabiliser and Tail cone
• MLG and NLG with scaling
• Nose, Cabin spacing and joint interfaces
• GA Drawing
The above CAD list has been completed solely by the structures engineer due to delayed
progress and approaching CDR milestones. In order to allow the group to proceed with their
speciality roles and for accelerated progress in other areas of the design, the task had been
undertaken to allow the systems engineer, stability & control, and marketing engineer to progress
towards CDR deliverables.

3 General Arrangement Drawing


4 Aircraft Specifications

References
1. Hibbeler, R.C., Statics and Dynamics, ed. 12th. 2010: Prentice Hall.
2. Niu, M.C.Y., Airframe stress analysis and sizing. Hong Kong Conmilit Press Limited,
1997.
3. Bruhn, E.F. and R.J.H. Bollard, Analysis and design of flight vehicle structures. 1973: SR
Jacobs Indianapolis.
4. Pilkey, W.D. and D.F. Pilkey, Peterson's stress concentration factors. 2008: John Wiley &
Sons.
5. Young, W., Budynas R. Roark’s formulas for stress and strain. 7. 2002, McGraw-Hill.
6. Board, N.A.S., Aircraft Accident Report 92-11, Boeing 747-258F 4X-AXG, Bijlmermeer,
Amsterdam, Final Report: Hoofddorp. 1994.
7. R.J.H. Wanhill, N.A.L., Some notable aircraft service failures investigated by the NLR,
NLR-TP-2009-001. January 2009.
8. ESDU, 81029, Stress Intensity Factors In Lugs (Through-Thickness Cracks). Jan 2004.
9. ESDU, 82022, Endurance of Steel Lugs with Clearance-Fit Pins (Tensile Mean Stress).
Jan 2004.
10. ESDU, 83033a, Stress Intensity Factors for Corner Cracks in Loaded Holes in Lugs and
Wide Plates. Jan 2004.
11. ESDU, 84003a, Fatigue Crack Propagation Rates and Threshold Stress Intensity Factors
in High Alloy & Corrosion Resistant (Stainless) Steel. Jan 2004.
12. ESDU, 91027a, Non-Destructive Examination – Choice of Methods. Jan 2004.
13. Norman, S.C., Aircraft landing gear design: principles and practices. 1988: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
14. Jenkinson, L.R., D. Rhodes, and P. Simpkin, Civil jet aircraft design. 1999: Arnold.
15. Niu, C., Airframe structural design: practical design information and data on aircraft
structures. 1988: Conmilit Press.
16. Megson, T.H.G., Aircraft structures for engineering students. 2012: Access Online via
Elsevier.
17. Structures, A., Peery, 1950. McGraw Hill (out of print).
18. Guo, D.S.J., A PACKAGE OF AIRFRAME PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ANALYSIS FOR
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING STUDENTS. Aerospace, Civil & Mechanical Engineering -
ed. 12th. May 2001, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire.
19. Houghton, E.L. and P.W. Carpenter, Aerodynamics for Engineering Students. 2003:
Elsevier Science.
20. McGraw, H., McGraw-Hill dictionary of engineering. 2003: McGraw-Hill.
21. Myer, K., Mechanical Engineers' Handbook: Materials and Mechanical Design. Other
Information: Part of four volume set. Also published in one volume, ISBN 0-471-44990-3,
3600 pp. 2005: Wiley.
22. Lusk, J., Wing and Fuselage Structural Optimization Considering Alternative Material
Systems. 2008: ProQuest.
23. Simmons, M.C. and G.K. Schleyer, Pulse pressure loading of aircraft structural panels.
Thin-Walled Structures, 2006. 44(5): p. 496-506.
24. ESDU, 81047, BUCKLING OF FLAT RECTANGULAR PLATES
(Isotropic, orthotropic and laminated composite plates and sandwich panels.). 1981.

Aerospace Group Design Structures CAD de

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aerospace Group Design Structures CAD de

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School of Engineering and Technology BEng Group Design Project Report

Aerospace Group Design

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 2

1.1 Weight Distribution & Centre of Gravity

1.2 General Loads/Load-paths for all structural components.

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 3

1.3 Specification of Engine Mounts

1.3.1 Wing Pod Mount & Pylon Design

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 4

Figure 3 - Engine and Pylon structure - View from Portside

Figure 5 – Lug analysis under Oblique Loading for FWD Pin.

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 5

Figure 7 - Lug analysis under Oblique Loading for AFT Pin.

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 6

1.4.1 Load Paths and Ultimate Loads

MLG Longitudinal Position from Leading Edge:

MLG Lateral Position from wing root:

Nose Landing Gear (NLG) Position:

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 7

� �−� 180,000× 19.4 − �!!! − 5

The torque required for a particular turning radius is calculated as follows:

For the torque parameters: � = 0.645� = Distance between wheels, � = 0.675�.

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 8

1.4.2 Energy Absorption

The calculation of kinetic energy in the downward direction is:

Adding together these main absorption components:

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 9

1.4.3 Undercarriage Parts & Materials

Drawing and General Arrangement

Starboard Main Landing Gear (STBD MLG)

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 10

Nose Landing Gear (NLG)

Exploded View of Undercarriage

Figure 12 - Exploded View of STBD MLG (a) & NLG (b)

1.4.4 Wheels & Brakes

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 11

�!"#$%&' !"#$% = �� = 180,000× −3.18 = −572,450 � (acting in the rearward direction).

Kinetic Energy Method

From Chapter 4 of N.S. Currey [13]:

1.4.5 Kinematics and Shock Absorption

Figure 13 - Oleo-Pneumatic Shock Design

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 12

1.4.6 Strut Buckling and Bending

1.4.7 Mounting Structure and Lug Representation

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 13

Figure 15 - Lug analysis under Oblique Loading for

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 14

1.5 Wing Structure

Wing Layout (Stringers omitted for clarity)

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 15

Wing Loads (YZ Flight Loads)

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 16

Engine Weight (N) (11700 Kg/2)*9.81) 57388.5

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 17

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 18

Figure 22 calculates the boom areas for

Figure 22 - Calculation of Boom Coordinates for Outboard Sections [18]

1.5.2 Wing Stress – Direct Stress in Booms

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 19

1.5.3 Wing Stress – Skin Shear

At the wing root:

Amit Ramji – 10241445 | Group 12 | GD12-325 20

1.5.4 Further Sizing