2011395

Aerospace Structures
Assignment
ME3630

Question 1a)
Derivation of Deflection “w(x,y)”

∞ ∞
𝑚𝜋𝑥 𝑛𝜋𝑦
𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ 𝑃𝑛𝑚 sin sin
𝑎 𝑏
𝑛=1 𝑚=1

∞ ∞
𝑚𝜋𝑥 𝑛𝜋𝑦
𝑊(𝑥, 𝑦) = ∑ ∑ 𝐴𝑛𝑚 sin sin
𝑎 𝑏
𝑛=1 𝑚=1

𝑏 𝑏 ∞
𝑛′𝜋𝑦 𝑚𝜋𝑥 𝑛𝜋𝑦 𝑛′𝜋𝑦
∫ 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) sin 𝑑𝑦 = ∫ ∑ 𝑃𝑛𝑚 sin sin sin 𝑑𝑦
𝑏 𝑎 𝑏 𝑏
0 0 𝑚=1
𝑛=1

𝑏 ∞
𝑛′𝜋𝑦 𝑏 𝑚𝜋𝑥
∫ 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) sin 𝑑𝑦 = ∑ 𝑃𝑛𝑚 sin
𝑏 2 𝑎
0 𝑚=1
𝑛=1

𝑎 𝑏
𝑚′𝜋𝑥 𝑛′𝜋𝑦 𝑎𝑏
∫ ∫ 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) sin sin 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑦 = 𝑃
𝑎 𝑏 4 𝑚′𝑛′
0 0

𝑎 𝑏
4 𝑚′𝜋𝑥 𝑛′𝜋𝑦
𝑃𝑚′𝑛′ = ∫ ∫ 𝑃(𝑥, 𝑦) sin sin 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑦
𝑎𝑏 𝑎 𝑏
0 0

𝑞0
∇4 𝑤 =
𝐷
∞ 2 2
𝑚𝜋 4 𝑚𝜋 2 𝑛𝜋 2 𝑛𝜋 4 𝑃𝑛𝑚 𝑚𝜋𝑥 𝑛𝜋𝑦
∑ (𝐴𝑛𝑚 (( ) + 2 ( ) ( ) +( ) )− ) sin sin =0
𝑎 𝑎 𝑏 𝑏 𝐷 𝑎 𝑏
𝑚=1
𝑛=1

2
𝑚2 𝑛 2 𝑃𝑛𝑚
𝐴𝑛𝑚 𝜋4 ( + ) =
𝑎2 𝑏 2 𝐷

𝑃𝑛𝑚
𝐴𝑛𝑚 = 2
𝑚2 𝑛 2
𝜋 4𝐷 ( 2 + 2)
𝑎 𝑏

𝑎 𝑏
4𝑞0 𝑚𝜋𝑥 𝑛𝜋𝑦
𝑃𝑚𝑛 = ∫ ∫ sin sin 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑦
𝑎𝑏 𝑎 𝑏
0 0

Page | 1
 2011395

𝑚𝜋𝑥 𝑎 𝑛𝜋𝑦 𝑏
4𝑞0 − cos 𝑎 − cos
𝑏 ]
𝑃𝑚𝑛 = [ 𝑚𝜋 ] [ 𝑛𝜋
𝑎𝑏
𝑎 0 𝑏 0

4𝑞0
𝑃𝑚𝑛 = (− cos 𝑚𝜋 + cos 0)(− cos 𝑛𝜋 + cos 0)
𝜋 2 𝑚𝑛

16𝑞0
𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑛, 𝑚 𝑜𝑑𝑑 𝑃𝑛𝑚 =
𝜋 2 𝑚𝑛

𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑛, 𝑚 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑃𝑛𝑚 = 0

16𝑞0
𝐴𝑛𝑚 = 2
𝑚2 𝑛 2
𝜋 6 𝐷𝑚𝑛 ( 2 + 2 )
𝑎 𝑏
∞ ∞
16𝑞0 𝑚𝜋𝑥 𝑛𝜋𝑦
𝑊(𝑥, 𝑦) = 2 ∑ ∑ sin sin
𝑚2 𝑛2 𝑎 𝑏
𝜋 6 𝐷𝑚𝑛 ( 2 + 2 ) 𝑛=1 𝑚=1
𝑎 𝑏

𝐸𝑡 3
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝐷 =
12(1 − 𝑣 2 )

Question 1b)
Excel Spreadsheet

An excel spreadsheet was constructed for calculating the deflection in the rectangular plate
using the derivations above. The number of terms selected for the summation was 20 by 20
as the previous 10 by 20 summation gave a result for the maximum deflection as 203.6902mm
and the 20 by 20 summation gave a value of 203.6887mm, therefore having a convergence
tolerance of less than 0.0008% well below the 2% predefined tolerance. From initial analysis
and observation this deflection seemed unreasonable as it is irrationally large in comparison
to the plate size, however, as discussed later in the report, the FEA performed on Abaqus
produced also extremely large deflections. This is likely to be because of the relatively low
Young’s Modulus of the material used in addition to the large pressure of a small area of only
0.06m2 for the plate. At these forces for such a small plate, the material will likely yield therefore
producing unrealistic and unreliable results as the equations assume the material will not
reach the elastic limit. For the position of (70,40), the excel spreadsheet provided a deflection
of 114.91mm which once again would result in critical failure of the plate.

Question 1d)
FEA Abaqus

As discussed previously the FEA produced unreasonable results and did not provide mesh
independency as the more elements the mesh contained the deformation exponentially
increased. For a mesh containing 2500 elements, a maximum deflection of 588.9mm was
recorded as seen in figure 1.

Page | 2
 2011395

Figure 1 - Self Created Image of Deflection in a Flat Rectangular Plate with 2500 Elements

Question 2a)

Creation

The model was created in Abaqus CAE, a software used for Finite Element Analysis (FEA).
To begin, a sketch of the cross-section of the wing was created in the part module of the
software, using a 3D Shell Extrusion. Once the cross-section was created the shell was
extruded by 1200mm. The next parts to be sketched were the left and right C-Spars, using a
3D Solid Extrusion, each with a thickness of 3mm and length of 1200mm to span the length
of the wing.

Once all the parts of the model were created, section properties could be assigned. This began
with the creation of an elastic material with a Young’s Modulus of 70,000 MPa and a Poisson’s
Ratio of 0.28. Two sections were created, the first being for the homogenous shell element,
assigned the material created previously and 1.5mm thick. The second was for the two C-
Spars requiring a solid homogeneous section assignment.

The next step in the creation of the model was the assembly of all the created parts. An
instance of the wing shell was created with both C-Spars having a coincident point constraint
as described in the brief. Once the parts had been fully assembled a loading step was created
in which the load of 0.1MPa was applied on the top of the wing. The constrained boundary
conditions were assigned to the initial step. At this point, interactions could be defined between
the parts. Two ‘tie’ constraints were created, the first tying the bottom of the wing to the bottom
of both C-Spars and the second constraining the top of the parts. A mesh can now be created
for all parts.

Page | 3
 2011395

Mesh Convergence

The initial mesh created for the entire model was very coarse having only 4380 elements
across the whole model, this produced a maximum deflection of 46.78mm. Subsequent finer
meshes were created with a final refined mesh containing 78240 elements with a converged
maximum deflection of 40.87mm. At this point, the mesh convergence study was carried out
for all the meshes created. From figure 2, it can be seen that the deflection in the wing
somewhat converged at around 40000 elements. As the mesh got finer the deflection
decreased to a value around 40.80mm, even though there were still fluctuations in the result,
the model is still believed to be independent of the mesh refinement as the percentage
tolerance between results was 0.24% which is lower than the recommended 1% convergence
tolerance.

Figure 2 - Self Created Graph showing Mesh Convergency Study for the Wing

Analysis of Results
Once the mesh independency had been confirmed, the finest mesh results were analysed.
From the contour plot in figure 3, it can be seen that the maximum deflection across the whole
beam was 40.82mm positioned on the top side of the shell element at the furthest side from
the initial boundary conditions, it is also visible that the two C-Spars were beginning to buckle
under the pressure load on top of the wing with a deflection of around 22mm. This could cause
serious deformation or even critical failure if the wing was to experience larger forces. From
figure 4, it is clear that the maximum von-Mises stress was located at the base of the wing,
this appears to be the correct positioning for this as this is where the wing is constrained
resulting in high shear stresses. The maximum stress value was recorded to be 635.2MPa
which is incredibly high for an aircraft wing, much larger than the yield stress for aluminium
being only 400MPa.

Page | 4
 2011395

Figure 3 - Self Created Image of Deflection in a Wing with only C-Spars Supports

Figure 4 - Self Created Image of von-Mises Stress in a Wing with only C-Spar Supports

Page | 5
 2011395

Question 2b)
Creation

The model was altered using a single rib and a Z-Stringer to half the deflection and decrease
the maximum stress below the yield stress of aluminium. A sketch of the Rib and Z-Stringer,
seen in figures 5 and 6, were created using a 3D Solid Extrusion with a thickness of 5mm and
3mm respectively. Once the cross-sections were created the Rib was extruded by 1200mm to
stretch the entire wingspan and the Z-Stringer was extruded 244mm, the distance between
the two C-Spars created previously.

Figure 5 - Self Created Image of dimensions for the Rib Support Figure 6 - Self Created Image
of dimensions for the
Z-Stringer Support

Once the new supports for the wing were created, they were assigned the same section
properties as the C-Spars again requiring a solid homogeneous section assignment with the
same material properties of the C-Spars, being a Young’s Modulus of 70,000 MPa and a
Poisson’s Ratio of 0.28.

The next step in the alterations of the model was the assembly of newly created parts. An
instance of the Rib was created and positioned at the midpoint between the two C-Spars using
another coincident point constraint and positioned vertically along the span of the wing. The
Z-Stringer instance was then created and positioned between the two C-Spars at the midpoint
between the top and bottom side of the wing skin using a face-to-face constraint on both ends
of the Z-String and each C-Spar, as seen in figure 7. The original ‘tie’ constraints were edited
to include the top and bottom surfaces of the Rib. A further three tie constraints were made
for the Z-Stringer, two tying each side to the respective C-Spar and the final tying the Z-
Stringer to the Rib. Both the Rib and Z-Stringer were then meshed independently resulting in
84567 total elements for the entire model.

Figure 7 - Self Created Image of Support Assembly

Page | 6
 2011395

Analysis of Results

From the contour plot in figure 8, it can now be seen that the maximum deflection across the
whole beam was 16.23mm positioned again on the top side of the shell element however this
time just to the right of the new Rib Support at the free end of the wing. This maximum
deflection is now 39.76% of the original deflection, less than the recommended half as
requested. The two C-Spars that were buckling previously are now not deflecting in the x-
direction as compared to the 22mm previously.

Figure 8 - Self Created Image of Deflection in a Wing with only Full Supports

From figure 9, it is clear that the maximum von-Mises stress is still located at the base of the
wing, however, the maximum recorded value is now 264.6MPa a total decrease of 58.34%
and only reaching 66.15% of the maximum yield stress of aluminium at 400MPa. In conclusion,
the implementation of the single Rib and Z-Stringer more than halved the maximum deflection
of the wing and will be able to perform at these conditions without a critical failure if aluminium
was used for the manufacturing of this design.

Figure 9 - Self Created Image of von-Mises Stress in a Wing with only Full Supports
Page | 7