See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322740580

Topology Optimisation of Multi-Element Wingtip Devices

Conference Paper · January 2018

DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-1390.c1

CITATIONS READS

0 517

2 authors:

Elliot Bontoft Vassili Toropov

Queen Mary, University of London Queen Mary, University of London
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    198 PUBLICATIONS   3,686 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Around MDO topic View project

Structural Analysis of Delivery Drones/UAV Landing Gears using Topology Optimisation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elliot Bontoft on 11 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Topology Optimization of Multi-Element Wingtip Devices

E.K. Bontoft1 and V.V. Toropov2,3

Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, England.

Abstract

Topology optimization of wingtip devices with more than one wing element, including a Split Scimitar
winglet and Three-Pronged Multi-Element winglet, is investigated. Approximate flight loads were
calculated using the small aspect ratio lifting line theory for flight conditions experienced by a
McDonnell MD-11 aircraft at cruise. It was found that optimal topology resembled that of a truss-spar
wingbox. Manufacturing constraints (member size control and extrusion direction constraints) were
used to simplify the obtained structure. Additionally, the effect of the tensile stress created by a
negative cant winglet element on the overall bending moment was investigated, and found to be small
in comparison to the bending stress.

Nomenclature

𝑬(𝒙) = Element Young’s Modulus

𝝆(𝒙) = Element Density
𝑷 = Penalization Index
𝑬𝟎 = Young’s Modulus of Isotropic Material
𝑨 = Aspect Ratio
𝒃 = Wing Span
𝑺 = Wing Area
𝑲 = Small Aspect Ratio Reduction Factor
𝝉 = Induced Flow Angle Constant
𝜶 = Angle of Attack
𝑪𝑳 = Coefficient of Lift
𝒂 = Lift Curve Slope
𝒂′ = Small Aspect Ratio Lift Curve Slope
𝒌𝟏 = Small Aspect Ratio Variable
𝑪𝑫 = Coefficient of Drag
𝜹 = Small Aspect Ratio Drag Constant
𝑴 = Mach Number
𝜸 = Specific Heat Ratio
𝑹 = Specific Gas Constant (Air)
𝑻 = Temperature
𝑽 = Velocity
𝑳 = Lifting Force
𝑫 = Drag Force
𝒎 = Mass
𝑺𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 = Specific Compliance
𝒉 = Wingbox Height
𝒕 = Skin Thickness
𝑰𝒛 = Second Moment of Area
𝑭 = Force
𝝈 = Stress

1
PhD Student, School of Engineering and Material Science, AIAA Student Member.
2
Professor of Aerospace Engineering, School of Engineering and Materials Science, AIAA Associate Fellow.
3
Institute of Information Technology, Mathematics and Mechanics, Lobachevsky University of Nizhny Novgorod,
Russia.

1
 I. Introduction

W ithin in the aerospace industry there is high demand for lighter and more efficient aircraft. Due to the high price
per unit mass of aerospace equipment, there is scope for greater amounts of research to be performed and
increased complexity of aerospace design.
During the 1970s there was a rise in jet fuel costs that led to vast amounts of research within the aerospace industry into
improving aerodynamic and structural efficiency [1]. The research was first successfully performed by Richard T.
Whitcomb at NASA Langley Research Centre in 1976 [2], although the first patent for a flat plate at the end of a wing was
placed in 1897 [3]. The success of Whitcomb’s winglet arises from the inbound force created from a cambered wingtip.
However, it was noted by Whitcomb that the introduction of a winglet increased the wingtip deflection, and hence
increased the structural stress on components within the wing [2].
Early research into the use of multi-element wingtips devices such as wingtip sails was performed by pioneering
engineers such as J.J. Spillman in the late 1970s [4]. Since then further research into the use of multiple wingtip elements
has been performed by Smith et al., 2001; Catalano and Ceron-Muñoz, 2004; La Roche and La Roche, 2004 and Coiro
et al., 2008 [5]–[8].
In recent years, there has been increased pressure on aircraft manufacturers from regulatory bodies to reduce carbon
emissions. Aircraft manufacturers have been introducing environmentally conscious projects as a result. An example of
this is Airbus’ Blue5 initiative, where new methods of achieving greater aircraft efficiency are being researched and
implemented. Airbus estimate a 15% more efficient A320 with the use of wingtip devices such as Sharklets and more
fuel-efficient engines [9].
Due to the nature of winglet design increasing the aerodynamic efficiency (coefficient of lift to coefficient of drag ratio),
they are attractive components to long range aircraft and sailplanes. Research into the optimal shape of a winglet for
sailplane use has been performed by Maughmer and Masak in recent years [10]–[12].
It is equally fundamental to optimize the structure of an aircraft as is it to the aerodynamics – a saving of 1 ton in a
Boeing 737’s structure can reduce the fuel consumption by up to 200 tons per year[13]. Topology optimization is a method
of suggesting structural designs that minimize mass. It is a computational system that uses finite element analysis (FEA)
coupled with a sensitivity and density filtering in order to distribute material within a design space. A converged
optimization will indicate the optimal topology for a component with input loads, constraints, objectives and responses
[14]
. The use of topology optimization within the aerospace sector is particularly appealing due to its innovative results.
This yields beneficial weight savings in the design of components with and without a known structural configuration[15]–
[18]
.

Fig. 1 Schematic of the Whitcomb winglet, the first Fig. 2 Flow of computations for a topology
wingtip device proven to be successful [2]. optimization material distribution process [19].

Fig. 3 Rendering of a three-pronged multi-element winglet with labelled design parameters [20].

2
 II. Structural Considerations

A. Bending Wing Moment

A wingtip device’s aerodynamic pressure inherently
produces a bending moment within the wing. This is due to
two reasons. The increased lifting force experienced at the
tip causes the effective lifting force location to be relocated
further from the fuselage. Thus, creating a greater root-tip
bending moment arm. Additionally, the inbound force
generated by a wingtip device induces a compressive force
and vertical moment arm in the same direction as the lifting
force, as shown in Fig. 4.
A study by Teixeira and Campelo[21] investigated the multi-
objective optimization of a winglet. It was concluded that the
aerodynamic efficiency was proportional to the bending
moment produced. Thus, an aero-structural trade-off is
inevitable. As a result of this, the increased stresses Fig. 4 Schematic of the winglet induced bending
experienced in the wing must be considered and accounted moment [12].
for by the structural design.

B. Pitching Moment
There is a pitching moment produced via the pressure
distribution over an airfoil at a positive angle of attack to a
flow. This induces torsional shear stresses into the wing [23].
A study by Narayan and John [22] investigated the effect of
wingtip devices on the pitching moment induced in a wing.
It was found that the number of wingtip elements was
inversely proportional to the pitching moment magnitude. A
study by Reddy et al. [20] produced results in agreement with
this finding.
By reducing the torsional moments experienced in the
wing, the shear stresses are too reduced. Thus, by doing so Fig. 5 Bending moment vs. the inverse of the
wing components will benefit from longer fatigue life [24]. aerodynamic efficiency [21].

C. Structural Limitations
A significant limitation of wingtip devices is the increased
wing span; this is often constrained by airport gate
regulations. Methods of vertically orientated wingtip
devices, such as a split scimitar configuration increase the
wingspan by less; although the ‘effective’ wingtip span is
increased [25].
Another limitation to be considered is the increased
structural weight of wing due to the increased bending
moment experienced. This is a due to the mass of additional
reinforcements required within the top skin. Fig. 6 Pitching moment experienced by the wing
However, the weight of a traditional single element winglet vs. angle of attack for several types of wingtip
itself is often seen as negligible in comparison to the wing element [22].
itself (usually less than 1% of the wing weight) [26].

3
 III. Aerodynamic Considerations
A. Multi-Element Wingtip Devices
The fundamental aerodynamics behind the theory of multi-element wingtip devices is that by dividing the wingtip, the
wingtip vortex is also divided into several smaller vortices. The strength of a vortex is proportional to the radius; therefore,
by reducing the vortices sizes, the lift-induced drag is reduced [7],[27],[28]. Additionally, reduced vortex strength suggests
airport take-off and landing intervals can be reduced as the turbulent airflow on the run way will be reduced [29].
Spillman and Allen, in 1978 [4], concluded that a fan-like array of multiple wingtip sails, separated by a minimum of 15
degrees, could reduce the lift induced drag by 40%. A similar finding in regard to the orientation of multiple wingtip
elements is presented in a more recent study by Cosin et al. [30]. Wingtip element configurations separated by 30 degrees
were investigated. It was found that a wingtip device with elements of positive and negative cant angles performed worse
than the configurations with all positive cant angles; but the models with negative cant angle elements increased the
bending moment experienced by the wing by a lesser amount.

Narayan and John, in 2016 [22], stated that a correctly designed multi-element wingtip device can increase the
aerodynamic performance by 33.2% more than that of a single element blended winglet.
The design of a multi-element wingtip device can be considered biomimetic. The separated element mimic the large
extended feathers of soaring birds [31],[32].
Methods of non-planarity within lifting surfaces have been investigated by Kroo [33]. It is concluded that methods such
as the ‘Split Tip’ (two-pronged multi-element) wingtip device offer significant reductions in vortex drag, along with
stability and control benefits [1],[33]–[35].

a)

b)
Fig. 7 Magnitude of the vortices produced by: Fig. 8 Pressure at the wing-winglet transitional
a) Baseline wing. point [36].
b) Multi-element wingtip device [8].

B. Aerodynamic Limitations
Increasing the number of lifting elements decreases the lift-induced drag but, by the addition of surface area, the profile
drag is increased. Thus, there is an optimal number of wingtip elements. A study by Narayan and John [22], found that the
optimal number of wingtip elements is three. Beyond this, the profile drag becomes larger than the reduction in lift-
induced drag and therefore, the net aerodynamic performance is reduced.
Additionally, the introduction of non-planarity means there are regions within the flow where there is an increased risk
of separation. A study by Kubrynski [36] investigated the presence of transitional flow experienced locally at the wing-
winglet transition. It was found that a blended transition reduces the wave drag generated by reducing the pressure
coefficient experienced at the transition – displayed in Fig. 8.

4
 IV. Topology Optimization
A. Solid Isotropic Material Penalization
The software used to perform the topology optimization within this experiment is Altair’s HyperWorks OptiStruct. This
model uses a Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization (SIMP) approach to distribute material of variable density within
a design space. There is complete design freedom to distribute material along the main load paths; unless directed
otherwise by manufacturing constraints [37].

Fig. 9 Unconstrained topology optimization results for a monocoque wing segment [38].

The SIMP approach introduces a penalization power P to account for and eliminate grey, undefined regions produced
by intermediate element values. The penalization power uses a power law to enhance the elimination of intermediate
values - the value is commonly 3 [39]. The penalization power allows for density 𝜌(𝑥) sensitivity analysis for each element.
The Young’s modulus 𝐸(𝑥) for each element is calculated from the constant Young’s modulus of the isotropic material
𝐸K multiplied by the density penalization parameter [1],[14].
𝐸(𝑥) = 𝜌(𝑥)M 𝐸K
0 ≤ 𝜌(𝑥) ≤ 1
B. Manufacturing
The complexity of the topology optimization results produced is often a challenge to realizing the manufacturing
potential. Methods such as additive layer manufacturing are well suited to topology optimization, due to design freedom
in the material placement [40]–[42]
Although additive layer manufacturing is becoming commonplace within the aerospace sector, it is not yet feasible for
larger designs. Thus, manufacturing constraints such as minimum dimensions, draw and extrusion directions must be
considered, which suggests simplicity when creating feasible manufactural shapes [24],[43],[44]
C. Applications
Topology optimization is well suited to use within aerospace designs due to its significant weight saving. Airbus estimate
1000kg per A380 aircraft due to the optimization of the wing ribs’ topology [16].
Another form of topology and size optimization is the research into SpaRibs by Locatelli, Mulani and Kapania, in 2011
[45]
. Their research into weight optimization presented that, with the use of curvilinear spars and rib elements, the wingbox
could be reduced to 54.5% of the baseline wing’s mass.
A recent application of topology optimization within aviation design was performed by Aage et al., in 2017 [13]. This
paper investigated the unconstrained topology optimization of a Boeing 777 wing – estimating a saving of 200-500kg per
wing. The results drew parallels to the work performed by Locatelli on SpaRibs [46].

a) b)

Fig. 10 Results of wing optimization:

a) High fidelity unconstrained topology optimization [13]
b) Topology and size optimization investigating SpaRibs [46]

5
 V. Wingtip Device Design
A. Dimensions
In 1985 the Boeing 747-400 became the first commercial aircraft to use a wingtip device. In 1990 the McDonnell
Douglas MD-11 incorporated a multi-element wingtip device that resembled the Whitcomb winglet [25]. After the
companies merged in 1997 the MD-11 became a freighter. The enhanced lift resulting from the winglet enabled larger
payloads and extended range, which suited this role well [47], thus justifying the choice of this model for the dimensions
of the wingtip devices investigated within this experiment.

B. Structure
The Boeing 737-700 aircraft winglet structure can be seen in Fig. 11. The structure of the wingtip resembles that of a
conventional wingbox design [24]. Due to the competitive nature of the aerospace industry, very little information is
available on the structure of wingtips. Thus, Fig. 11 will be assumed to be a model of conventional winglet configuration.

C. Material
The material used within this investigation is aluminum alloy 7075-T6. This alloy composition is common within
aircraft structures due to its higher strength than other aluminum alloys [48]. However, carbon fiber reinforced polymer
composites (CFRP) are regularly used for wingtip device structures in modern aircraft, due to the increased strength and
reduced mass [49].

Fig. 11 Boeing 737-800 Blended winglet topology [50]. Fig. 12 Schematic of McDonnell Douglas - MD-11
aircraft [51].

Fig. 13 Schematic showing the development of winglet design:

A – Initial design with angular transition
B – Winglet with constant curvature radius transition
C – Blended winglet with a variable curvature radius (dihedral angle) transition [52]

6
 VI. Computational Procedure

A. Models
The optimization process initially involved the creation of a model; this was a)
performed in a CAD software, Autodesk Inventor.
The model was designed with the dimensions of a McDonnell Douglas MD-
11 wingtip [51].
The models produced for this investigation are:
§ Split-Scimitar Winglet
§ Three-Pronged Multi-Element (three) Winglet
Both models consisted of a NACA0012 airfoil at the base and tip. It was
assumed there is no angle of incidence at the base of the wingtip device, nor
at the tip. However, it is understood that in practice a wingtip airfoil includes
a high camber at the tip in order to create an inbound force on the flow [29].
Each model was investigated in 2D and 3D.

B. Meshing
b)
The quality of the model geometry is a crucial factor to the success of the
meshing operator. The models within this investigation required editing of the
3D geometry before meshing the part. A ‘Boolean Surface’ between each
element was created to ensure the elements did not intersect [53].
The mesh was then created using a 2D automesh on the component surfaces.
The surface mesh was restricted to 2D triangular elements with a size set to
25-30mm deviation. A 3D volume tetramesh can then be input to using the 2D
elements as an enclosed surface.
The 2D elements were set to act as a non-designable skin of thickness 10mm
– this was set to be enlarged to prevent material distribution to the skin and Fig. 14 2D HyperMesh models:
allow material to be distributed as key structural members. The 3D elements a) Split Scimitar winglet
combined to subsequent components, this allows for a deviation in designable b) Three-Pronged Multi-Element
and non-designable elements. The volume with the wingtip device’s non- winglet
designable skin was set as the design space.

C. Load Distribution and Constraints

In order to replicate the lifting pressure experienced in practice, the lifting force was orientated normal towards the
bottom surface, and away from the top surface. However, by doing so, an assumption is made that uniform pressure is
experienced over the surface. Additionally, it was assumed the top skin experiences twice the magnitude of pressure to
the bottom skin. This assumption was made based on the fact in practice a wingtip device would have a cambered airfoil
and thus would experience a larger pressure (suction) on the top surface [27].
The models are constrained at the spars at the base of the wingtip device. By doing so, it is assumed that the wingtip
will experience no deflection and is parallel to the flow, which is an approximation of the real wing behavior [54].

D. Topology Optimization Parameters

The objective function of this investigation was the minimum compliance (maximum stiffness) for a model with a
constrained volume fraction value. An investigation on the appropriate volume fraction value was performed to determine
the best volume fraction value required for this study. The volume fraction values examined for the 3D models were:
0.050, 0.075, 0.100 and 0.125.
The volume fraction values examined for the 2D models were: 0.05, 0.10, 0.15 and 0.20. The best value was chosen to
be 0.075 for the 3D models and 0.15 for the 2D models. This was due to the material distribution’s tendency to be placed
on the skin at higher volume fraction values on the 3D model.
Furthering this, the effect of the penalization factor values was investigated for the 3D models. The penalization factor
values investigated were: 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5. It was found that a penalization factor value of 1.5 provided the best result
– by enhancing connectivity within the structural members.
Thus, this paper investigated 3D components with a volume fraction value of 0.075 and penalization factor of 1.5; and
2D components with a volume fraction value of 0.15 and penalization factor value set at 1.

7
 E. Manufacturing Constraints
A powerful tool within topology optimization is the use of manufacturing constraints. Manufacturing constraints are
implemented to restrict the size, shape and direction of the material distribution. By implementing manufacturing
constraints, the complexity of the optimized topology can be reduced – hence allowing for a more manufacturable
structure. Minimum member size, maximum member size and minimum gap size constraints were used. All three member
size constraints were employed together for best results. For the 3D model the member size variables investigated are:
Minimum member size = 100mm; Maximum member size = 200mm and Minimum gap size = 3000mm.
For the 2D model the values of the member size constraints investigated are decided to be smaller and greater than the
dimensions of the wingtip width (132.3 mm). The member size constraints used are: Minimum member size = 120mm
and Minimum member size = 160mm. It was found that the most desirable topology was obtained from the 160mm
minimum member size constraint.
In addition, extrusion direction constraints were investigated for the 3D models. The extrusion directions are:
§ Longitudinal to the wing
§ Transverse to the wing
§ Vertically through the wing
The coupling of the two manufacturing constraints (member size control and extrusion direction) is also explored within
this study.

F. Post Processing
The use of Altair’s HyperWorks OSSmooth can then be used enhance connectivity and smoothness within the model’s
optimized topology. Additionally it can allow exporting of the optimized model to a CAD file for further post processing
[37]
.

a) b)

Fig. 15 3D HyperMesh models:

a) Split Scimitar winglet
b) Three-Pronged Multi-Element winglet

8
 VII. Estimation of Loads and Stresses
A. Wingtip Load Equations
1. Aspect Ratio
The aspect ratio of a wing can be calculated via the square of the wing span by the surface area. This is performed in
order to verify each wingtip element as a small wing with a small aspect ratio (<5).
𝑏S (1)
𝐴=
𝑆

2. Small Aspect Ratio Lifting Line Theory

The lifting line theory utilizes the lift curve slope for an airfoil (derivative of the coefficient of lift w.r.t the angle of
attack). The value for this at zero incidence to the flow is found initially.
𝛿𝐶Y (2)
𝑎K = V [
𝛿𝛼 K
For a standard sized wing (with aspect ratio greater than 5) equation (3) can be used. Where the 𝜏]._ is a constant for
the flow induced angle for a wing aspect ratio of 1.5.
𝜋𝑎K 𝐴 (3)
𝑎=
𝜋𝐴 + 𝑎K (1 + 𝜏)
𝜏 = 𝜏]._ ≅ 0.05
It is stated by Hoerner that a small aspect ratio wing is reduced by a factor (K) [55].
2𝜋𝐴 𝑎K 𝑎K (4)
𝑎′K = 𝑎K 𝐾 = 𝑎K e tanh k lm = 2𝜋𝐴 tanh k l
𝑎K 2𝜋𝐴 2𝜋𝐴
Thus, a conditioned form of the coefficient of lift slope can be derived for small aspect ratio wings. This metric was
used by Lingard in 1995 where small aspect ratio of curvilinear parachute designs was investigated [55].
𝜋𝑎′K 𝐴 (5)
𝑎′ =
𝜋𝐴 + 𝑎′K (1 + 𝜏)
The coefficient of lift, 𝐶Y , can be broken down into lift caused by circulation (𝐶Yn ) and the lift increment (∆𝐶Y ).
𝐶Y = 𝐶Yn + ∆𝐶Y (6)
The coefficient of circulatory lift can be calculated via equation (7).
𝐶Yn = 𝑎′(𝛼 − 𝛼K ) (7)
The lift increment coefficient can be determined by equation (8). Where 𝑘] is a variable with respect to the aspect ratio
and 𝛼rY is the angle of attack at zero-lift.
∆𝐶Y = 𝑘] (sinS (𝛼 − 𝛼rY ) cos(𝛼 − 𝛼rY ) (8)
The equation for 𝑘] is presented in equation (9).
𝑘] = 3.33 − 1.33𝐴 (9)
The coefficient of lift can therefore be derived as a function of the aspect ratio.
𝐶Y = 𝑎x (𝛼 − 𝛼K ) + 𝑘] (sinS (𝛼 − 𝛼rY ) cos(𝛼 − 𝛼rY )) = 𝑓(𝐴) (10)
The coefficient of drag can be divided into profile drag and lift-induced drag.
𝐶z = 𝐶zK + 𝐶z{ (11)
The profile drag value for a NACA0012 airfoil is a constant value presented in equation (12).
𝐶zK ≅ 0.01 (12)
The induced drag can be calculated as a function of the circulatory lift coefficient and the aspect ratio. Where 𝛿]._ is a
constant for wings with an aspect ratio of 1.5.
𝐶Yn S (1 + 𝛿) (13)
𝐶z{ =
𝜋𝐴
𝛿 = 𝛿]._ ≅ 0.003
Thus, by substituting equation (13) and (12) into (11), a final equation for the coefficient of drag can be derived [55].
𝐶Yn S (1 + 𝛿) (14)
𝐶z = 0.01 +
𝜋𝐴

3. Lift Force
The lift force can be calculated from the coefficient of lift and known flight parameters.
1 1 S (15)
𝐿 = 𝜌𝑉 S 𝐴𝐶Y = 𝜌~𝑀€𝛾𝑅𝑇„ 𝐴𝐶Y
2 2

9
4. Drag Force
Additionally, the drag force can be calculated from the coefficient of drag and known flight parameters.
1 1 S (16)
𝐷 = 𝜌𝑉 S 𝐴𝐶z = 𝜌~𝑀€𝛾𝑅𝑇„ 𝐴𝐶z
2 2

B. Specific Compliance Equation

The specific compliance parameter equated as a ratio of compliance by mass.
𝑆 (18)
𝑆†‡ˆ‰{Š{‰ =
𝑚

C. Induced Stresses Equations

The stresses induced in the wing can be approximated via structural idealization of the wingbox. In doing so, the
effective area of the wingbox at the root of the wingtip device was assumed to act in hollow rectangular shape [23].
Thus, the area of effective shape is calculated.
𝐴 = ℎ𝑏 − [(ℎ − 𝑡)(𝑏 − 𝑡)] (19)
The effective moment of inertia about the neutral axis (z-axis along the center chord line) can be determined.
(𝑏ℎ’ ) − [(𝑏 − 𝑡)(ℎ − 𝑡)’ ] (20)
𝐼‘ =
12

Fig. 16 Schematic of the effective force direction of a winglet element – where 1 and 2 denote the upper and
lower winglet element respectively.
Therefore, by treating the lifting pressure as a concentrated point load (F) at the midpoint of each winglet, the
directional forces can be calculated.
𝐹” = 𝐹 sin 𝜃 (21)
𝐹– = 𝐹 cos 𝜃
The tensile or compressive stress component induced into the wingtip base wingbox and then be calculated, where 𝑖
denotes the wingtip element.
𝐹” (22)
𝜎™ˆš†{›ˆ/‰•ž‡.Ÿ = Ÿ
𝐴
The bending stress induced can be calculated via the bending moment induced by the effective lifting force’s offset.
𝑀𝑦 ¤~𝐹”Ÿ 𝑦{ „ + (𝐹–Ÿ 𝑥{ )¥ × 𝑦§ (23)
𝜎 ˆš¡{š¢ = =
𝐼‘ 𝐼‘
The summation of these stresses will give an indication of the magnitude of the stress induced in wingbox by each
winglet element
𝜎™•™¨›Ÿ = 𝜎 ˆš¡{š¢Ÿ + 𝜎™ˆš†{›ˆ/‰•ž‡.Ÿ (24)
The summation of the element stresses will give an indication of the magnitude of the stress induced in wingbox by a
wingtip device
š
(25)
𝜎ž•¡ˆ› = © 𝜎™•™¨›Ÿ
{ª]
where ‘n’ represents the total number of elements.

10
 Fig. 17 Schematic of the structural idealization process performed for the wingbox effective area [26].

VIII. Numerical Data

Table 1 Model dimensions.

Upper Wing Mid Wing Lower Wing
Model Feature Units
Element Element Element
Base Airfoil Chord mm 3685.0 - 3685.0
Wingtip Airfoil Chord mm 1105.8 - 1105.8
Cant Angle ˚ 60.0 - -70.0
Split Leading Edge Sweep Angle ˚ 42.6 - 52.2
Scimitar Singular Wing Span mm 2560.2 - 1825.2
Surface Area 𝑚𝑚S 12904568 - 9230945
Aspect Ratio - 2.032 - 1.444
Radius of Curvature mm 2371.5 - 1476.3
Base Airfoil Chord mm 3685.0 3685.0 3685.0
Wingtip Airfoil Chord mm 1105.8 1105.8 1105.8
Cant Angle ˚ 75.0 50.0 20.0
Multi Leading Edge Sweep Angle ˚ 78.6 57.4 21.9
Element Span mm 1777.5 1855.3 1972.6
Surface Area 𝑚𝑚S 8885298 9091560 8946747
Aspect Ratio - 1.422 1.514 1.740
Radius of Curvature mm 7032.7 2367.5 2597.5

Table 2 Flight conditions [56].

Flight Conditions Units Value
Altitude (ℎ) m 11000
Angle of Attack at Cruise (𝛼‰«¬{†ˆ ) ° 3.0
Specific Heat Ratio of Air (𝛾¨{« ) - 1.4
Individual Gas Constant of Air (𝑅¨{« ) 𝐽/𝑘𝑔 𝐾 286.9
Ambient Air Density (𝜌¨ ) 𝑘𝑔/𝑚’ 0.364
Ambient Temperature (𝑇¨ ) K 216.6
Ambient Pressure (𝑃¨ ) Pa 22615.7
MD-11 Cruise Mach No. M 0.83
Cruise Velocity 𝑉 m/s 244.9

11
 Table 3 NACA0012 airfoil data [57].
NACA0012 Angle of Incidence
Value 𝒂𝟎 (rad) 𝒂𝟎 (°)
Properties Degrees Radians
0 0.000 0 - -
𝐶Y 3 0.052 0.360 6.875 0.120
5 0.087 0.600 6.875 0.120
𝐶z 0 0.000 0.010 - -

Table 4 Calculated wingtip elements parameters from the lifting line theory for small aspect ratios.
Feature Units Split Scimitar Three-Pronged Multi-Element
Element Upper Lower Upper Mid Lower
Wing Surface Area 𝑚S 12.9 9.23 8.89 9.09 8.95
Aspect Ratio - 2.03 1.44 1.42 1.51 1.74
𝐾] - 0.628 1.41 1.44 1.32 1.02
𝑎′K 𝑑𝑒𝑔 ´] 6.28 5.80 5.78 5.89 6.09
𝑎′ 𝑑𝑒𝑔 ´] 0.0539 0.043 0.0428 0.0447 0.0490
𝐶Yn - 0.162 0.130 0.128 0.134 0.147
𝐶Y - 0.163 0.134 0.132 0.138 0.150
𝐶z - 0.0141 0.0137 0.0137 0.0138 0.0140

Table 5 Wingtip element forces calculated from the lifting line theory for small aspect ratios.
Model Element Lift Force (𝒌𝑵) Drag Force (𝒌𝑵)
Upper 23.0 1.99
Split Scimitar
Lower 13.4 1.38
Upper 12.8 1.33
Multi-Element Lower 13.6 1.37
Mid 14.6 1.36

Table 6 Material properties for aluminum alloy 7075-T6 [58].

Property Units Value
Modulus of Elasticity (E) MPa 71.7
Shear Modulus (G) GPa 26.9
Density (𝜌) 𝑘𝑔/𝑚’ 2810
Poisson’s Ratio (g) - 0.33

Table 7 HyperMesh model properties.

Model Region Mass (𝒌𝒈) Volume (𝒎𝒎𝟐) No. of Elements Avg. Element Size (𝒎𝒎)
Whole 7.08E+04 2.57E+09 1.10E+06 13.3
Split Scimitar
Design 5.50E+04 1.99E+09 7.83E+05 13.7
Three-Pronged Whole 6.67E+04 2.42E+09 1.10E+06 13.0
Multi-Element Design 5.06E+04 1.83E+09 7.76E+05 13.3

12
 IX. Results
A. Model 1 –Split Scimitar Winglet
The results presented in Fig. 18 for the 3D Split Scimitar model immediately indicate the presence of spars running
longitudinally along the winglet elements. Additionally, it can be noted the presence of a truss-spar on the upper element
starting approximately mid-way between the base spars. Another observation is the presence of one spar that forks off
into two separate truss-spars on the lower element.
a) b)

Fig. 18 Topology optimization results for the 3D Split Scimitar winglet under member size constraints.

A consideration that can be made from the Split Scimitar winglet results is the
patterned nature on the unconnected material distribution. The material appears to
be distributed in a way that curves around the wing’s base element spars, travelling
in a direction that resembles the shape of the letter ‘n’. This is similar to a SpaRib
configuration [46]. By connecting said elements as a connected beam, a curvilinear
rib configuration could be created. This is displayed in Fig. 19 where the green and
red lines represent the ribs and spar respectively.

The OSSmooth simulation results show clearly the presence of truss-spar Fig. 19 Topology
structures within the topology. By masking the unconnected material, the primary optimization results for the
components can be examined. 3D Split Scimitar winglet with
The upper wing elements present three spar-like configurations. The two spars ‘SpaRib’ configuration.
closer to the leading edge could be manipulated
to be connected within an engineering a) b)
interpretation – as they both resemble a truss-
spar.
The larger spar in the upper wing (closer to
the trailing edge), can be treated as a beam. The
material spreads out as it contacts the surface –
implying the use of spar-feet or an I-beam.
Within the lower wing, less material was
distributed. This is likely to be as it is a smaller c)
element, a monocoque structure is more
acceptable as a design. The topology present
within the lower wing suggests a primary spar
stemming from the trailing edge spar on the
base element. The spar can be seen in image (c)
of Fig. 20 to fork off into two truss-spars. Fig. 20 OSSmooth results for the 3D Split Scimitar winglet
optimized topology under member size constraints – with
unconnected members masked from view:
a) Entire model
b) Isolated upper wing
c) Isolated lower wing

13
 By investigating the 2D optimized topology presented in Fig. 21, it
can be inferred to be the optimized structure of material at the location
of base spars. The results suggest a truss like pattern. This is an
expected result for structures resisting shear.
A primary feature of the 2D truss structure is the ‘>’ shaped structure
connecting the base element to the outer vertex of the Split Scimitar
winglet’s surface. However, there is no material connecting this
primary structure to the truss like material within the wing elements.
Therefore, in an engineering interpretation this connection would be
input manually.
This structure is consistent with what is found in the 3D Split
Scimitar winglet with member size constraint results – suggesting it
would be an acceptable design for a truss-spar configuration.
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 22 Topology optimization results for the 3D Split
Scimitar winglet under member size constraints and
extrusion direction constraints:
a) Longitudinal to the wing
b) Vertically through the wing
c) Transverse to the wing
14
Fig. 21 Topology optimization results for
the 2D Split Scimitar spar winglet with
member size constraint applied.
The results in Fig. 22 (a) display the optimized
topology when the material is constrained to being
displaced longitudinally to the wing. The results
suggest two primary spars in the upper wing and no
spars in the lower wing – but instead the emergence
of structural elements which act as pillars between
the non-design skin. The pillars appear to align in
rows of similar heights, suggesting the presence of
ribs.
When the material is distributed in a vertical
direction, as displayed in Fig. 22 (b), two spars are
created. Within this design we can see a reinforced
region of increased material displacement at the
vertex between the winglet elements on the outer
surface. Additionally, without the member size
control applied to the vertical extrusion, we can also
see the presence of stringers on the surface of the
winglet – displayed in Fig. 23 below.
Fig. 23 Topology optimization results for
the 3D Split Scimitar winglet with vertical
extrusion direction constrain, without
member size constraints.
In Fig. 22 (c) the use of a transverse extrusion
constraint is shown. It is clear that the results
produced suggest a rib formation – with 4 in the
upper wing and 2 in the lower wing. Furthermore,
it can be seen that 2 diagonally angled ribs are
positioned at the root of the wingtip to support the
outer skin vertex between the two elements. This is
consistent with what was produced at the root of the
winglet in the 2D study.
 B. Model 2 –Three-Pronged Multi-Element Winglet
The topology optimization results presented in Fig. 24 for the three pronged multi-element winglet present spar
configurations of a unique design. It can be observed that the upper winglet element is primarily supported by an array
of three beam spars and one truss-spar leading from the base airfoil’s trailing edge spar. The beam spars travel from the
root to the tip of the winglet – resisting bending, whereas the truss-spar travels transversely across the upper wing. Due
to the swept nature of wingtip devices, the transverse truss-spar may be positioned to resist torque experienced within the
winglet – as well as resisting the pressure directly on the skin. The truss-spar results are consistent with those found in
recent work in an extremely high-fidelity topology optimization performed by Aage et al. [13]. The material distributed
from the leading-edge base spar can be interpreted to have a primary function of supporting the wingtip’s hub space –
where the device deviates into 3 separate elements.

Fig. 24 Topology optimization results for the 3D Three-Pronged Multi-Element Winglet under member
size constraints.

a) b)
An OSSmooth study, presented
in Fig. 25, investigates the
topology with unconnected
structural elements hidden. It can
be seen that the primary support
stems from the spar closest to the
trailing edge of the winglet.
By examining each winglet c)
element individually, it appears
that each one is comprised of spars
that stem from a bulk of material
located near the spar at trailing
edge of the model.
Each wingtip element shows a
d)
minimum of two spars that run
directly up the center of the
element and toward its trailing
edge vertex at the tip.
Furthermore, on the lower
element it can be seen that all four
spars fork off in a truss-like
fashion. We know from practice Fig. 25 OSSmooth results for the 3D Three-Pronged Multi-Element
that this often suggests the Winglet optimized topology under member size constraints – with
member is resisting shear stresses. unconnected members masked from view:
a) Perspective view
b) Isolated upper wing
c) Isolated middle wing
d) Isolated lower wing

15
 The results for the two-dimensional topology optimization
with member size control at the location of a spar (Fig. 26)
present a truss web. This resembles a shear web, and
suggests that the spar structure is resisting shear forces
within the skin. This is likely to be caused by bending forces
inducing compressive forces in the top skin of each element
and tensile forces in the lower skin [24].
The structure of the region of space by the hub of the
model clearly display a region of thick material with density
close to 1, in the configuration an optimized topology for a
2D bracket [59].
Fig. 26 Topology optimization results for the 2D
Three-Pronged Multi-Element winglet with
member size constraint applied.
a)
The effect of direction extrusion
constraints coupled with that of the
member size control is displayed in Fig.
27.
The results displayed in Fig. 27 (a)
present the results of the longitudinal
extrusion constraint. The results show the
upper two elements feature a spar that stem
from the trailing edge root spar and forks
into two diverging spars. The uppermost
element has an additional spar close to its
trailing edge. The bottom winglet element
has a spar that stems from a point in- b)
between the two winglet root spars. The
winglet root front spar has a negligible
amount of material distributed from it,
suggesting it has a minimal role in resisting
the loads experienced at cruise.
The results of the vertical extrusion
constraint show similar results to the
longitudinal extrusion. However, the
material does stem from the leading-edge
spar to resist loads in the upper two winglet
elements in this case. The bottom winglet
element features a curvilinear rib-like
member – this too resembles the work of c)
Locatelli, Robinson and Kapania’s
SpaRibs [60].
The transverse extrusion investigation
presents a rib configuration. Although the
results from this optimization seem chaotic
and unusable, the leading-edge view
shows the optimum configuration of ribs at
the root of the model well. This result
shows the ribs are positioned in a way that
is consistent with the 2D study. This
conformity suggests this result should be
considered in an engineering interpretation
made from this optimization study.
Fig. 27 Topology optimization results for the 3D Three-Pronged
Multi-Element Winglet under member size constraints and
extrusion direction constraints:
a) Longitudinal to the wing
b) Vertically through the wing
c) Transverse to the wing

16
 Table 8 Optimization results for the 3D models with and without manufacturing constraints.
Dimension Extrusion Design Specific
Volume Penalizat Compliance
Model Size Direction Mass Compliance.
Fraction ion Factor (m/N)
Constraint Constraint (kg) (m/N kg)
0.050 1.0 9.48E+07 2850 33249
0.075 1.0 7.06E+07 4230 16702
0.100 1.0 5.71E+07 5601 10190
None 0.125 1.0 4.82E+07 6976 6905
0.100 1.5 6.39E+07 5601 11409
None 0.100 2.0 7.54E+07 5601 13460
0.100 2.5 1.45E+08 5601 25829
Split Longitudinal 0.075 1.5 9.98E+07 4230 23599
Scimitar Vertical 0.075 1.5 1.12E+08 4230 26445
Transverse 0.075 1.5 1.66E+08 4230 39293
Min 0.075 1.5 7.13E+07 4230 16859
Min. Max. None 0.075 1.5 1.14E+08 4230 26882
0.075 1.5 1.16E+08 4230 27481
Min. Max. Longitudinal 0.075 1.5 1.31E+08 4230 30923
Gap. Vertical 0.075 1.5 3.07E+08 4230 72604
Transverse 0.075 1.5 3.32E+08 4230 78443
0.050 1.0 1.14E+08 2528 44944
0.075 1.0 8.04E+07 3793 21201
0.100 1.0 6.33E+07 5057 12520
None 0.125 1.0 5.35E+07 6321 8460
0.100 1.5 7.51E+07 5057 14847
None 0.100 2.0 9.56E+07 5057 18905
Three- 0.100 2.5 2.04E+08 5057 40381
Pronged Longitudinal 0.075 1.5 1.37E+08 3793 36043
Multi- Vertical 0.075 1.5 1.24E+08 3793 32616
Element Transverse 0.075 1.5 3.31E+08 3793 87248
Min. 0.075 1.5 8.37E+07 3793 22066
Min. Max. None 0.075 1.5 1.38E+08 3793 36333
0.075 1.5 1.50E+08 3793 39629
Min. Max. Longitudinal 0.075 1.5 1.88E+08 3793 49622
Gap. Vertical 0.075 1.5 1.74E+08 3793 45852
Transverse 0.075 1.5 5.92E+08 3793 156170

Table 9 Optimization results for the 2D models with and without Manufacturing Constraints.
Specific
Manufacturing Volume Compliance Mass
Model Compliance
Constraint Fraction (m/N) (kg)
(m/N kg)
0.05 7.176 0.847 8.474
0.10 4.343 0.989 4.391
Split Without
0.15 3.195 1.131 2.823
Scimitar
0.20 2.566 1.274 2.014
(S.S.)
120 mm 0.15 4.017 1.131 3.550
160 mm 0.15 4.366 1.131 3.858
0.05 4.345 0.791 5.490
0.10 2.099 0.931 2.254
Multi Without
0.15 1.420 1.071 1.326
Element
0.20 1.092 1.211 0.901
(M.E.)
120 mm 0.15 1.570 1.071 1.466
160 mm 0.15 1.784 1.071 1.666

17
 a)

b)

Fig. 28 Specific compliance vs. volume fraction for each 3D optimization with and without manufacturing
constraints, where S.S. and M.E. stand for Split Scimitar and Three-Pronged Multi-Element respectively:
a) Full Range of Data
b) Selected Range of Data

Fig. 28 presents the numerical results of the specific compliance (model compliance per kilogram) by the volume
fraction for the 3D models. It can be seen that as the volume fraction is increased, the specific compliance plateaus.
Suggesting that as volume fractions of 0.075 and above will have a small difference in how efficiently the material is
distributed.
The effect of the penalization factor can be seen to increase the specific compliance; thus, reducing the efficiency of the
material distributed. However, the increased connectivity of the members within the visual results suggest that a small
increase in the penalization factor is justified.
Manufacturing constraints can be noted to increase the specific compliance also. The use of member size controls does
not have a significant effect on the specific compliance; nor does the longitudinal extrusion constraint. However, the
transverse and vertical extrusion constraints both induce a dramatic increase in the specific compliance. The extrusion
constraints do however introduce a large amount of structural simplicity.

18
 Fig. 29 Specific compliance vs. volume fraction for each 2D optimization with and without manufacturing
constraints, where S.S. and M.E. stand for Split Scimitar and Three-Pronged Multi-Element respectively.

The results of the specific compliance in the 2D models again present that as the volume fraction used increases, so does
the efficiency of the material distributed. However, it can be noted that the plateau in specific compliance occurs at a
higher volume fraction than that 3D models - approximately at a volume fraction of 0.2.
The results suggest that there is a minimal difference in the specific compliance with and without member size control
constraints. A notable result that can be observed is that the magnitude of minimum member size constraint is proportional
to the specific compliance. Thus, the efficiency of the material distributed is reduced as the minimum member size
constraint is increased.

Table 10 Orientation and magnitude of the wingtip element lift forces.

Vertical Horizontal
Lift F Cant Angle Fx Fy
Model Element Distance Distance b
(N) (deg) (N) (N)
a (m) (m)
Split Positive Cant -23000 60.0 0.850 0.954 -19900 -11500
Scimitar Negative Cant -13400 -70.0 -0.564 0.713 12600 -4590
Blended
Upper -23000 60.0 0.850 0.954 -19900 -11500
Winglet
Two-Pronged Upper -13400 70.0 0.564 0.713 -12600 -4590
Multi-Element Lower -23000 60.0 0.850 0.954 -19900 -11500
Upper -12800 75.0 0.922 0.434 -12400 -3320
Three-Pronged
Mid -13600 50.0 0.774 0.728 -10400 -8770
Multi-Element
Lower -14600 20.0 0.449 0.977 -4990 -13700

b=2000mm
h=400mm
t=5mm

Fig. 30 Idealised and simplified wingbox structure dimensions [26].

Thus:
If we use Eq. 19 to calculate the effective shape area.
𝐴 = ℎ𝑏 − [(ℎ − 𝑡)(𝑏 − 𝑡)] = 0.0120𝑚S
Additionally, effective moment of inertia can be calculated using Eq. 20.
(𝑏ℎ’ ) − [(𝑏 − 𝑡)(ℎ − 𝑡)’ ]
𝐼‘ = = 4.21 × 10´¹ 𝑚¹
12

19
 Table 11 Resulting stresses induced to the wingbox by each element and model.

Model Element 𝝈𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒍𝒆/𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑. (Pa) 𝝈𝒃𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 (Pa) 𝝈𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 (Pa) 𝝈𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒍 (MPa)
Positive cant -1.66E+06 -1.33E+07 -1.49E+07
Split Scimitar -18.8
Negative cant 1.05E+06 -4.94E+06 -3.89E+06
Blended Winglet N/A -1.66E+06 -1.33E+07 -1.49E+07 -14.9
Percentage difference between the Split Scimitar and Blended Winglet (%) -21
Two-Pronged Multi- Upper -1.05E+06 -4.94E+06 -3.89E+06
-20.7
Element Lower -1.66E+06 -1.33E+07 -1.49E+07
Percentage difference between the Split Scimitar and Two-Pronged Winglet (%) 11
Upper -1.03E+06 -6.11E+06 -7.14E+06
Three-Pronged Multi-
Mid -8.73E+05 -6.88E+06 -7.75E+06 -22.8
Element
Lower -4.17E+05 -7.44E+06 -7.86E+06
Percentage difference between Split Scimitar and Three-Pronged Winglet (%) 21

The results for the induced stress into the wing for each model (displayed in Table 11 above) suggest that the positive
tensile stress created by the lower split scimitar wingtip has a minimal effect on the overall stress on the model.
This finding can be noted by investigating the percentage difference between a Split Scimitar and a Blended winglet.
By introducing the lower negative cant winglet element on the Split Scimitar winglet model, the resulting stress induced
in the wing and the root of the wingtip device is increased by 21%. However, without a negative wingtip element, as
presented in the Two-Pronged Multi-Element and Three-Pronged Multi-Element winglet’s results, the induced stress in
the wing is increased by 11% and 21% respectively, compared to the Split Scimitar winglet.
It should be noted that this is the induced stress in the wing experienced at the root of the wingtip devices accounts for
a small percentage of the stress experienced within the wing from other causes. Thus, the difference between the induced
stresses the wingtip devices can be considered small. However, it is a motivation to opt for a multi-element wingtip device
with a negative cant angle.

20
 X. Discussion
A. Split Scimitar Winglet a)
The results for the split scimitar winglet presented in this paper suggest the
optimum topological configuration is an I-beam and truss-spar structure.
Additional supports of stringers and ribs can also be noted. This finding of a
structure consisting of two primary spars is confirmed in Fig. 11, which shows
the structure of a Boeing 737 winglet consisting for two spars and two ribs.
The effect of volume fraction, penalization factor and manufacturing
conditions on the compliance per unit kilogram (specific compliance) for each
model, is presented in Fig.s 28 & 29. The model with member size control and
longitudinal extrusion constraints achieve 112.5% of the specific compliance b)
value of the model with only member size control at a volume fraction of 0.075.
This can be considered a relatively small difference in regard to the enhanced
simplicity of the topology introduced.
After noticing the presence of truss-like members in the 3D topology, a 2D
study was performed. The results produced a shear web - confirming the
distribution of material in a truss-spar configuration. The purpose of this is to
resist and distribute the bending stresses experienced within the winglet
elements. Stringers, Rib-Feet or an I-beam structure can be implemented to aid
resistance of the bending moment experienced [24]. Structural members such as
this have been used before in aircraft where weight saving was paramount – such Fig. 31 Schematic of the
as the Concorde, large bombers and amphibious aircraft like the Boeing B17 and design interpretation of the Split
B314 Clipper [61]–[63]. An engineering interpretation of such a truss-spar design Scimitar model:
for the Split Scimitar Winglet is presented in Fig. 31. a) 2D view of spar configuration
b) 3D view of spar configuration
a) b)

Fig. 32 Internal structure of

rectangular wing optimized
Fig. 33 Diagram of the application of truss-spars within aviation using curvilinear SpaRibs[45].
history [64]:
a) Concorde wing topology, 1969
b) FFVA wing topology, 1942

From Fig. 18 and Fig. 22 Part (a) it can be seen that there are regions of unconnected material distributed within the
design space. Although this material may seem unsystematic – by inspecting the location of this material from the front
view (facing the spars on the model) it can be seen that if they were connected they would resemble a rib configuration.
Fig. 19 shows how the material could be connected in a curvilinear fashion to replicate a SpaRib topology. Whereas, Fig.
22 Part (a) show the unconnected material in rows parallel to the ground – suggesting a standard rib configuration, which
we can see is confirmed by the transverse extrusion constraint study – in Fig. 22 Part (c).
A 3D engineering design interpretation of this model would include spars, ribs and stringers. The difference in a wingtip
device topology, influenced by a traditional wingbox compared to that influenced by topology optimization results, is the
involvement of truss-spars and/or SpaRibs. Furthermore, the optimized structure of ribs is already known [16] and would
increase manufacturing feasibility [65].
The use of stringers within a structural design of a semi-monocoque structure is often implemented. This is to enable
enhanced longitudinal support and to reduce the effective panel size. By doing so, the risk of severe buckling is reduced.
The topology achieved in the results of this study suggested increased structural supports toward the trailing edge of the
structure. However, the buckling of the skin was neglected by the software, as this would require a separate study.
Therefore, the use of stringers within an engineer’s design interpretation is a justified assumption to make [24],[66].
The Split Scimitar model induced 17.6% less stress into the wing than the Three-Pronged Multi-Element model. The
use of a negative element was calculated to have a small effect in this regard. However, the split-scimitar model proved
to have a higher specific compliance for every volume fraction compared to the three-pronged multi-element winglet.
Thus, it would require more mass to achieve the same stiffness within the structure.

21
 a) b)

Fig. 33 Schematic of the design interpretation of the 3D Split Scimitar Model, where red, orange, green and
dashed blue lines represent spars, truss-spars, ribs and stringers respectively:
a) Interpretation influenced by Truss-Spar wingbox structures
b) Interpretation influenced by SpaRib wingbox structures

B. Three-Pronged Multi-Element Winglet

The results of the Three-Pronged Multi-Element Winglet display the optimized topology suggesting that the primary
load paths stem from the base airfoil’s trailing edge for all three elements. The primary structural components of
dimension controlled topology optimization is an array of I-beams and truss-spars fanning out within each element.
Due to the complex and unconventional configuration of a multi-element wingtip device, there is little or no available
information on the structure. A primary benefit of performing topology optimization simulations is the complete design
freedom without input of pre-existing structures. Thus, new pioneering aircraft designs without a known structure can be
determined with far greater ease and in a reduced time span [15],[17],[18]. Furthermore, topology optimization can be used to
validate or innovate existing structural designs. Aage et al. presented the optimization of a Boeing 777 wing with an
unconstrained optimization [13]. The results are impressive but un-manufacturable due to the tiny and complex designs.
Until advancements are made in additive manufacturing allowing the production of large components, manufacturing
constraints have to be used to simplify the optimized topology. Additionally, the results do not allow space for internal
components of the wing, such as fuel tanks.
a) b)

Fig. 34 Optimized topology within the trailing edge flap of a Boeing 777 aircraft [13] (a) and the optimized
topology Three-Pronged Multi-Element Winglet (b).

The numerical results obtained in this study suggest that the specific compliance of the models begins to plateau as the
volume fraction is increased. This is the compliance per kilogram of material, and therefore can be considered the
efficiency of the material used. It was found that the transversely constrained extrusion produced results that indicated a
significantly more inefficient use of material than the unconstrained model – which can be considered the optimum value.
This result can be explained by the stresses experienced within the elements. The bending stresses are resisted by
longitudinal members, such as spars and stringers. Without structural supports, longitudinally the structure is susceptible
to large bending deformations. This is likely to increase the rate of fatigue and therefore increase the maintenance costs
[24]
.
Thus, the engineering design interpretation of this model would include the use of spars (I-beam and truss), made of a
material with high flexural strength, such as titanium. However, this is likely to cost the structure in mass. A design
interpretation for the primary structural load paths is presented below in Fig. 35 (a) and (b). An increased array of truss-
spars at the trailing edge could be included as manufacturing limitations are reduced in future years.
To reduce the structural weight of a model with large wetted area, the use of a composite skin could be suggested. This
would increase the loading potential of the panels, thus requiring less structural components and reducing the structures
22
 mass. However, the complexity of the deformation within a model such as this a)
would prove to be a challenging design for the orientation of the composite
stack [49].
An engineering interpretation of the two-dimensional structure of the Three-
Pronged Multi-Element wingtip device at the location of the spars in presented
in Fig. 35. It was previously discussed that there is a resemblance between the
optimized structure to a bracket and the 2D Three-Pronged Multi-Element
topology, presented in Fig. 26. This is a result of the bending forces experienced
within the wingtip device. The use of reinforced panels between the primary
truss orientation suggested, would provide additional support if required. Upon
doing this, the plate structure could be optimized further to include weight b)
saving holes in areas of material that are non-integral to the load carrying paths
[16],[24]
.
As mentioned previously, the transverse extrusion created an unusual
configuration of ribs at the base of the element. Due to the increased amount of
vertices present due to several lifting elements, there is an increase in the
number of stress concentrations experienced [48]. Thus, it is important to
reinforce these regions, which is what is illustrated in Fig. 27 Part (c), and is
carried forward into the design interpretations presented below, in Fig. 36 (a) &
(b). Fig. 35 Schematic of the design
Intersections between structural members and vertices are designed in a interpretation of the Three-
particular way to conform with the reduction of stress elements – as mentioned Pronged Multi-Element model:
above. Therefore, within the design interpretations it can be seen that the a) 2D view of spar configuration
structural members will change their design, direction or end at reinforced point, b) 3D view of spar configuration
such as an intersection with a rib.

a) b)

Fig. 36 Schematic of the design interpretation of the 3D Split Scimitar model, where red, orange, green and
dashed blue lines represent spars, truss-spars, ribs and stringers respectively:
a) Interpretation influenced by truss-spar wingbox structures
b) Interpretation based solely on topology optimization results

XI. Conclusion / Further Study

To conclude, this study evaluated the optimized topology of multi-element wingtip devices such as the Split Scimitar
and Three-Pronged Multi-Element winglet as 2 and 3 dimensional models. This was performed at approximate loading
conditions expected for a McDonnell Douglas MD-11 aircraft flying at cruise.
It was found that the optimal topology of a Split Scimitar winglet resembled that of a Concorde’s wing topology, but
with the lower element diverging into two truss-spars. Additionally, it can be seen that the optimal topology could be
interpreted to resemble that of a SpaRib. The Three-Pronged Multi-Element winglet, however, has a far more complex
topology – demonstrating an array of approximately 3 spars running through each wing element. Due to the
unconventional design of a three-pronged multi-element winglet, the topology optimization can be used as a template for
an engineering interpretation. Such interpretations presented suggest the use of truss-spars (to support the wings) and ribs
(to support the hub from which the wing element protrude).
The 2D study results suggest that in both models the optimal topology of a spar configuration through the model
resembles that of a shear web. Thus, a truss-spar structure can be interpreted for both models.
Both models investigated increases in the bending moment implemented into the wing as a result of the use of a wingtip
device. The increased bending moment creates an undesirable compressive stress in the top skin of the wing. It was found
23
that the negative cant angle of the Split Scimitar winglet provided a tensile force to the wing – that reduced the locally
induced stress in the winglet by 11% compared to the same model with both elements featuring a positive cant angle.
An extension of the study would be to investigate weighted compliance of several flight conditions. This could be
performed by extracting the pressure on the cell nodes via a CFD simulation for several loading conditions experienced
within aircraft flight; e.g. take-off/landing (high lift), banked turns and cruise. The compliance for each load scenario can
then be determined by topology optimization. The values of the compliance can be used as a proportionate value for the
‘weighting’ of the topology for each load case. This methodology was introduced by Neimann et al. [67].

XII. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr E. Avital for his suggestions on the calculations of the approximate lifting forces acting on the
winglet elements and suggested literature sources. Elliot Bontoft is grateful to the School of Engineering and Materials
Science of Queen Mary University of London for the support to attend the conference. Vassili Toropov is grateful for the
support provided by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 16-11-10150.

XIII. References

[1] Bontoft, E. K., and Toropov, V. V., “Topology Optimisation of Non-Planar Lifting Surfaces used for Enabling Compressive
Stress Alleviation in the Top Skin of an Aircraft Wing Section,” QMUL SEMS Literature Review, vol. 1, 2017, pp. 8–15.
[2] Whitcomb, R. T., “A design approach and selected wind tunnel results at high subsonic speeds for wing-tip mounted winglets,”
Nasa Tn D-8260, 1976, pp. 1–33.
[3] Hitchins, F., The Encyclopedia of Aerodynamics, Andrews UK Limited, 2015.
[4] Spillman, J. J., and Allen, J. E., “Use of Wing Tip Sails To Reduce Vortex Drag.,” Aeronaut J, vol. 82, 1978, pp. 387–395.
[5] Smith, M. J., Komerath, N., Ames, R., and Wong, O., “Performance Analysis of a Wing with Multiple Winglets,” Technology,
2001, pp. 1–10.
[6] La Roche, U., and La Roche, H. L., “Induced Drag Reduction Using Multiple Winglets, Looking Beyond the Prandtl-Munk
Linear Model,” 2nd AIAA Flow Control Conference, 2004, pp. 1–21.
[7] Catalano, F. M., and Ceron-Muñoz, H. D., “Experimental Analysis of Aerodynamics Characteristics of Adaptative Multi-
Winglets,” 24th International congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2004, pp. 1–9.
[8] Coiro, D. P., Nicolosi, F., Scherillo, F., and Maisto, U., “Single versus multiple winglets: Numerical and experimental
investigation,” ICAS Secretariat - 26th Congress of International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences 2008, ICAS 2008, vol.
3, 2008, pp. 1–11.
[9] Airbus, “Environment & Sustainability” Available: http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/corporate-social-
responsibility/Environment-and-Sustainability.html.
[10] Maughmer, M. D., “Design of Winglets for High-Performance Sailplanes,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 40, 2003, pp. 1099–1106.
[11] Maughmer, M. D., “The Design of Winglets for Low-Speed Aircraft,” 2006.
[12] Masak, P., “Winglet Design for Sailplanes” Available: http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Technical/Winglets/Masak.htm.
[13] Aage, N., Andreassen, E., Lazarov, B. S., and Sigmund, O., “Giga-voxel computational morphogenesis for structural design,”
Nature, vol. 550, 2017, pp. 84–86.
[14] Bendsøe, M. P., and Sigmund, O., Topology optimization: theory, methods, and applications, 2003.
[15] Eves, J., Toropov, V. V, Thompson, H. M., Gaskell, P. H., Doherty, J. J., and Harris, J., “Topology optimization of aircraft
with non-conventional configurations,” 8th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, June 1-5,
2009, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009, pp. 1–9.
[16] Rao, J Kiran, S., “Topology Optimization of Aircraft Wing Box Ribs,” CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1542, 2015, pp.
33–36.
[17] Wei, B., and Petersson, Ö., “Topology Optimization of the Wing-Cabin Junction of a Blended Wing Body Aircraft,”
Technische Universität München, vol. Institute, 2010, pp. 1–20.
[18] Singh, G., Toropov, V., and Eves, J., “Topology optimization of a blended wing body aircraft structure,” 17th AIAA/ISSMO
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2016, pp. 1–20.
[19] Sigmund, O., Aage, T. N., Alexandersen, J., Casper, S., Andreassen, E., Clausen, A., Christiansen, A. N., Jensen, J. S.,
Johansen, V. E., and Lazarov, B., “Topology optimization and Additive Manufacturing,” 1991, pp. 1–24.
[20] Reddy, S. R., Sobieczky, H., Dulikravic, G. S., and Abdoli, A., “Multi-Element Winglets: Multi-Objective Optimization of
Aerodynamic Shapes,” Journal of Aircraft, 2015, pp. 1–9.
[21] Teixeira, M. A. M., and Campelo, F., “Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization of Winglets,” GECCO Proceedings of the
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 2016, pp. 1021–1028.
[22] Narayan, G., and John, B., “Effect of winglets induced tip vortex structure on the performance of subsonic wings,” Aerospace
Science and Technology, vol. 58, 2016, pp. 328–340.
[23] Megson, T. H. G., “Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students,” Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, 2013, pp.
629–642.
[24] Niu, M. C. Y., Airframe Structural Design, Hong Kong Conmilit Press limited, 1999.
[25] Neal, L., Harrison, N., and Mujezinovic, D., “Wingtip Devices,” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. …, 2004,
pp. 1–27.
[26] Elham, A., Rocca, G. La, and Vos, R., “Refined Preliminary Weight Estimation Tool for Airplane Wing and Tail,” SAE
AeroTech Congress & Exihibition, 2011, pp. 1–11.
[27] Anderson Jr, J., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 2011.
[28] Kroo, I., “DRAG DUE TO LIFT : Concepts for Prediction,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2001, pp. 587–617.
[29] Komatsu, P. J., De Mattos, B. S., and De Paula, A. A., “Considerations about Wingtip Devices Design of Transport Airplane,”
AIAA Aviation, vol. 16th AIAA/, 2015.
24
[30] Cosin, R., Catalano, F. M., Correa, L. G. N., and Entz, R. M. U., “Aerodynamic Analysis of Multi-Winglets for Low,” 27th
International congress of the Aeronautical Sciences, 2010, pp. 1–10.
[31] Tucker, V., “Gliding birds: reduction of induced drag by wing tip slots between the primary feathers,” Journal of Experimental
Biology, vol. 180, 1993, pp. 285–310.
[32] Al-Atabi, M., “Aerodynamics of Wing Tip Sails,” Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, vol. 1, 2006, pp. 89–98.
[33] Kroo, I., “Nonplanar wing concepts for increased aircraft efficiency,” … and Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft,
2005, pp. 1–29.
[34] Smith, S. C., “A Computational and Experimental Study of Nonlinear Aspects of Induced Drag,” NASA Report No 3598,
1996, p. 27.
[35] Coiro, D., Nicolosi, F., Scherillo, F., and Maisto, U., “Design of Multiple Winglets to Improve Turning and Soaring
Characteristics of Angelo D’Arrigo’s Hang-Glider: Numerical and Experimental Investigation,” Aerotecnica Missili e Spazio,
vol. 87, 2007, pp. 74–85.
[36] Kubrynski, K., “Wing-Winglet Design Methodology for Low AIAA 03 – 0215 – UPDATED,” AIAA, vol. Aerospace, 2015.
[37] Krog, L., Grihon, S., and Marasco, A., “Smart design of structures through topology optimisation,” 8th World Congress on
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2009, pp. 1–9.
[38] Walker, D., Liu, D., and Jennings, A., “Topology Optimization of an Aircraft Wing,” AIAA, vol. Structures, 2015, pp. 1–8.
[39] Zhang, W., Zhong, W., and Guo, X., “An explicit length scale control approach in SIMP-based topology optimization,”
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 282, 2014, pp. 71–86.
[40] Tomlin, M., and Meyer, J., “Topology Optimization of an Additive Layer Manufactured (ALM) Aerospace Part,” The 7th
Altair CAE Technology Conference 2011, 2011, pp. 1–9.
[41] Gaynor, A. T., Meisel, N. A., Williams, C. B., and Guest, J. K., “Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing:
Considering Maximum Overhang Constraint,” 15th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference,
2014, pp. 1–8.
[42] Brackett, D., Ashcroft, I., and Hague, R., “Topology optimization for additive manufacturing,” Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, 2011, pp. 348–362.
[43] Strömberg, N., “Topology optimization of structures with manufacturing and unilateral contact constraints by minimizing an
adjustable compliance-volume product,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 42, 2010, pp. 341–350.
[44] Zhou, M., Fleury, R., Shyy, Y. K., Thomas, H., Brennan, J. M., Engineering, A., Way, M., and Ca, I., “Progress in Topology
Optimization With Manufacturing Constraints,” 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and optimization,
2002, pp. 5614–5614.
[45] Locatelli, D., Mulani, S. B., and Kapania, R. K., “Wing-Box Weight Optimization Using Curvilinear Spars and Ribs
(SpaRibs),” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 48, 2011, pp. 1671–1684.
[46] Locatelli, D., “Optimization of supersonic aircraft wing-box using curvilinear sparibs,” PhD Thesis, 2012.
[47] National Research Council (U.S.) Air Force Studies Board, Assessment of Wingtip Modifications to Increase the Fuel
Efficiency of Air Force Aircraft, National Academies Press, 2007.
[48] Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach Fourth Edition, 2006.
[49] Baker, A., Dutton, S., and Kelly, D., Composite Materials for Aircraft Structures, AIAA, 2004.
[50] Faye, R., Laprete, R., and Winter, M., “Aero 17 - Blended Winglets” Available:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_17/winglet_story.html#fig13.
[51] MD-11.org, “General Airplane Dimensions - Model MD-11,” 2015, pp. 10–11.
[52] The Flying Engineer, “Winglets and Sharklets” Available: http://theflyingengineer.com/flightdeck/winglets-and-sharklets/.
[53] Altair Engineering, I., “HyperWorks Starter Manual,” 2011, pp. 1–23.
[54] Barnard, R. H., and Philpott, D. R., Aircraft Flight: A Description of the Physical Principles of Aircraft Flight, Prentice Hall,
2010.
[55] Lingard, J. S., “Ram-Air Parachute Design,” 1995, pp. 1–51.
[56] QMUL SEMS, “Properties of the Standard Atmosphere,” 2013.
[57] Abbott, I. H., and Von Doenhoff, A. E., “Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil data,” Press, vol. 11,
1959, p. 693.
[58] ASM, “Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. - Aluminium Alloy 7075-T6 Material Data Sheet,” Webpage Available:
http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA7075T6.
[59] Maute, K., Dunn, M., and DeLuca, C., “Structural Topology Optimization Incorporating Hyperelasticity,” Centre for
Aerospace Structures Available:
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/public_html/structuralTopologyOptimizationIncorporatingHyperelasticity.html.
[60] Robinson, J. H., Doyle, S., Ogawa, G., Baker, M., De, S., Jrad, M., and Kapania, R. K., “Aeroservoelastic Optimization of
Wing Structure Using Curvilinear Spars and Ribs (SpaRibs),” 17th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization
Conference, 2016, pp. 1–15.
[61] “LITOT: B-17 index” Available: http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/B17/B17_index.html.
[62] “LiTOT: Boeing Clipper index” Available: http://rebertsrules.com/LiTOT/Other/B314_index.htmlNo Title.
[63] Sausmarez, S. De, “Concorde wing” Available: https://www.heritageconcorde.com/the-wing.
[64] Vakulenko, S., “Trusses and frames. Statically determinate trusses,” 2015.
[65] Hsu, Y.-L., Hsu, M.-S., and Chen, C.-T., “Interpreting results from topology optimization using density contours,” Computers
& Structures, vol. 79, 2001, pp. 1049–1058.
[66] Gokhale, N. S., Deshpande, S. S., and Bedekar, S. V., Practical Finite Element Analysis, Finite To Infinite, 2008.
[67] Niemann, S., Kolesnikov, B., Lohse-Busch, H., Huhne, C., Querin, M., Toropov, V. V, and Liu, D., “The Use of Topology
Optimisation in the Conceptual Design of a Next Generation Lattice Composite Fuselage Structures,” Aeronautical Journal,
vol. 117, 2012, pp. 1139–1154.

25
 XIV. Appendix

i. ii. iii. iv.

Fig. A1 Topology optimization results for the 3D Split Scimitar winglet and Three-Pronged Multi-Element
winglet for penalization factor 1 and variable volume fractions:
i. Volume fraction = 0.050
ii. Volume fraction = 0.075
iii. Volume fraction = 0.100
iv. Volume fraction =0.125

i. ii. iii. iv.

Fig. A2 Topology optimization results for the 3D Split Scimitar winglet and Three-Pronged Multi-Element
winglet for volume fraction 0.1 and variable penalization factors:
i. P=1.0
ii. P=1.5
iii. P=2.0
iv. P=2.5

26
 i. ii. iii.

Fig. A3 Topology optimization results for the 3D Split Scimitar winglet and Three-Pronged Multi-Element
winglet for variable dimension constraints:
i. Minimum member size = 100mm
ii. Minimum Member Size = 100mm, Maximum member size = 200mm
iii. Minimum Member Size = 100mm, Maximum member size = 200mm, Minimum gap = 3000mm

i. ii. iii. iv.

Fig. A4 Topology optimization results for the 2D Split Scimitar winglet and Three-Pronged Multi-Element
winglet spar configuration for variable volume fractions:
i. Volume fraction = 0.05
ii. Volume fraction = 0.10
iii. Volume fraction = 0.15
iv. Volume fraction =0.20

27
 i. ii. iii.

Fig. A5 Topology optimization results for the 2D Split Scimitar winglet and Multi-Element winglet with and
without manufacturing constraints:
i. Unconstrained member size
ii. Minimum member constraint = 120mm
iii. Minimum member constraint = 160mm

28
 i. ii. iii.

Fig. A6 Topology optimization results for the 3D Split Scimitar winglet and Three-Pronged Multi-Element
winglet for variable extrusion direction constraints:
i. Longitudinal constraint
ii. Vertical constraint
iii. Transverse constraint

i. ii. iii.

Fig. A7 Topology optimization results for the 3D Split Scimitar winglet and Three-Pronged Multi-Element
winglet for variable extrusion direction constraints with member size control (min.=100mm, max.=200mm, min.
gap=3000mm):
i. Longitudinal constraint
ii. Vertical constraint
iii. Transverse constraint

29
 1105.8

1907.5
1425.6
37.8°
47.4°

300.0

1699.6
52.9°

441.10

1127.8
42.8°

3685.0
DRAWN
Elliot Bontoft 15/01/2017
CHECKED QMUL SEMS DEN318
25/03/2017
QA
TITLE
MFG
131 25/03/2017
APPROVED Split-Scimitar Wingtip Device
25/03/2017
SIZE DWG NO REV
A4 S.S. Final DWG 4
SCALE
131 0.02 SHEET 1 OF 1

Fig. A8 Engineering drawing of the Split Scimitar winglet CAD design.

1456.3

1945.4

300.0 868.7
1105.8
1105.8 1105.8 132.3
132.3

30.0° 132.3
36.4°
1844.6

1548.6

42.8°
897.2

441.1

3685.0

DRAWN
Elliot Bontoft 01/02/2017
CHECKED QMUL SEMS DEN318
11.4° 25/03/2017
QA
TITLE
32.6° MFG
25/03/2017
68.1°
APPROVED Multi-Element Wingtip Device
25/03/2017
SIZE DWG NO REV
A4 M.E. Final DWG 3
SCALE
1 / 45 SHEET 1 OF 1

Fig. A9 Engineering drawing of the Three-Pronged Multi-Element winglet CAD design.

30

View publication stats