IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Finite element analysis of aircraft wing using carbon fiber reinforced

polymer and glass fiber reinforced polymer.
To cite this article: Salu Kumar Das and Sandipan Roy 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 402 012077

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 190.233.105.52 on 13/09/2020 at 22:59

2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

Finite element analysis of aircraft wing using carbon fiber

reinforced polymer and glass fiber reinforced polymer.

Salu Kumar Das1, Sandipan Roy*1

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology,
Kattankulathur.
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract. A wing is a structural component of aircraft which is used to produce lift during the
flight. Wing is initially inclined at certain angle of attack. When the flow passes over it, due to the
pressure difference at top and bottom surface of the wing lift force is generated. The aim of this
present study is to analyze the wing of an aircraft using Carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CRFP),
Glass fiber reinforced polymer (GRFP) and compare with Al alloy to find suitable material for
wing. The wing is designed in solid modeling software CATIA V5 R20 and analysis is done using
finite element method by using ANSYS. Static structural analysis of the wing is done to find
deformation, stress, and strain induced in the wing structure. Modal analysis is done to find the
natural frequency of the wing to reduce the noise and avoid vibration. Finally fatigue life analysis
is carried out to find out the damage, life and factor of safety of the wing due to applied pressure
loads. In this study, the trainer aircraft wing structure with skin, 2 spars and 15 ribs is considered
for the analysis. The ribs are running from leading edge to trailing edge and 2 spars running
longitudinally along the length of wing. Front spar is made “I” section and rear spar having “C”
section according to design.

Keywords. Finite element analysis, Modal analysis, Aircraft Wing, CFRP, GFRP

1. Introduction
The wing is a primary structural component of aircrafts (air breathing engines) which is used to
produce lift force during flight. When the engine is started air is sucked into the compressor through
the inlet increasing pressure ratio at the exit of the compressor. Then air and fuel is mixed inside
combustion chamber and burnt. When high pressure, high temperature gases is accelerated through the
nozzle, thrust force is produced which propels the aircraft in forward motion. Due to this forward
motion, air flows over the wing which is aerodynamic in shape. Due to the aerodynamic shape of the
wing along with Bernoulli’s principle the velocity of flow is less at bottom of the wing and high at top
of wing. Due to this pressure difference is created between top and bottom surface of wing and thus
lift is generated [1]. Wing must have high strength to weight ratio, high fatigue life since it is
subjected to alternate repeated loadings during flight. The main aim of this research is to find the
suitable material for the wing like composite to replace the conventional Aluminum 2024 T3 (Al-2024

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

T3) by which skin of the wing is made with. The cross section of wing is called airfoil which is made
aerodynamic in shape to reduce drag [3]. The aerodynamic efficiency of wing is expressed in terms of
lift/drag ratio. Fuselage and empennage are other structural components of aircraft. Fuselage houses
passengers, crew, and cargo etc. while as empennage provides stability to the aircraft during flight.
Aluminum is widely used material for aircraft structure. About 80% of the structure is made up
aluminum and aluminum alloys [5]. Composite material is made of two materials one is matrix which
surrounds and binds the reinforcement material and another is reinforcement material [6]. In this
analysis epoxy is used as matrix material and fiber as reinforcement materials. Fibers can be glass
fiber, carbon fiber etc. A composite laminate is an assembly of layers of fibrous material like carbon
fibers, glass fibers; aramids lay in the matrix material which can be joined to provide required specific
and desired properties [9]. A laminate is formed by stacking number of individual lamina one above
another in desired orientation. A fiber which is embedded in the lamina in different orientation carries
the load. The matrix material provides support to the fibers and protects fibers from damage [12]. The
main function of the matrix is to transfer load to the fiber and keep the fiber in predefined position and
orientation.

2. Materials and Methods

In this study, trainer aircraft wing structure with skin, spars and ribs is considered for the detailed
analysis. The wing structure consists of 15 ribs and two spars with skin. Front spar having “I” section
and rear spar having “C” section [11]

Table 1. Input parameters for wing design

Parameters Dimensions
Root chord 2400mm
Tip chord 700 mm
Semi span length 5500mm
Exposed Length of wing 4750mm
Airfoil (Root) NACA-64A215
Airfoil (Tip) NACA-64A210
Front Spar 18-25% of chord
Rear spar 62-70% of chord

2
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

Figure 1. Airfoil Co-ordinates

The airfoil co-ordinate is taken from NASA website and exported to Microsoft Excel. From the help of
macros the airfoil shape is generated in Catia. The airfoil is divided in 15 sections at an equal distance
from reference plane with thickness of 100mm [13]. Front spar, rear spar and holes are created as per the
assumptions. The complete design of the wing structure is formed. Before importing the CAT file to the
ansys workbench, the file has been converted into IGS format.

.
Figure 2. Wing Structure
2.1 Material Characteristics:

Ex, Ey and Ez are Young’s modulus along X, Y and Z directions respectively. μ(xy), μ(yz), μ(zx) are
Poison’s ratio in xy, yz, and zx plane respectively. Gxy, Gyz and Gzx are modulus of rigidity in xy, yz and
zx plane respectively. The material properties are taken from different research papers [4, 7, 8, 10, 14, and
17] and matched with Ansys library.

3
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

Table 2. Material Properties

Materials Epoxy-Carbon Epoxy-Carbon Epoxy E- Epoxy S-Glass Al-2024 T3

UD Woven Glass
Ex(Gpa) 121 61.34 45 50
Ey(Gpa) 8.6 61.34 10 8 73.1
Ez(Gpa) 8.6 6.9 10 8
µ(xy) 0.27 0.04 0.3 0.3
µ(yz) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.33
µ(zx) 0.27 0.3 0.3 0.3
Gxy(Gpa) 4.7 19.5 5.0 5.0
Gyz(Gpa) 3.1 2.7 3.846 3.486 26.6
Gzx(Gpa) 4.7 2.7 5.0 5.0
ρ(kg/m^3) 1490 1420 2000 2000 2770

2.2 Boundary Condition:

The loads and boundary conditions along with finite element model are shown in figure 3 below. One end
of the wing is fixed because it is embedded inside the fuselage and other end is left free with 6 degree of
freedom. Pressure force of 500Pa is applied at the bottom surface of the wing at center of pressure [16].
Center of pressure is a point at which total pressure is assumed to be act [2].

Figure 3. Mesh

4
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

Figure 4. Boundary Condition

3. Static structural analysis results

Table 3. Static Structural Analysis Results

Materials Total deformation Equivalent Equivalent

(mm) stress (Mpa) strain
Epoxy-carbon UD 4.223 16.225 0.00016508
Epoxy S-glass UD 9.8794 16.145 0.00040288
Aluminum 2024 T3 6.7377 16.034 0.00022722
Epoxy-carbon Woven 7.9845 15.709 0.00030371
Epoxy E-glass 10.943 15.943 0.00044117

Table 4. Static Structural Analysis under different Speeds

Materials Speed Total Equivalent Equivalent

(km/hr) deformation stress strain
(mm) (Mpa)
200 4.1013 17.382 0.00018043
400 4.1106 48.259 0.00048840

5
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

Epoxy-carbon UD 600 4.1501 102.69 0.00010383

800 4.2540 179.16 0.00181151
1000 4.4651 277.62 0.00280721
200 9.7966 20.068 0.00049880
400 9.8664 62.051 0.00153883
Epoxy S-glass UD 600 10.086 133.82 0.00331862
800 10.597 234.77 0.00582183
1000 11.611 364.71 0.00904401
200 6.6401 25.051 0.00035280
400 6.7384 84.141 0.00118511
Aluminum 2024 T3 600 7.0510 183.79 0.00258862
800 124.94 321.76 0.00453193
1000 462.41 502.04 0.00707101
200 8.2013 17.080 0.00033361
400 8.2590 46.266 0.00089541
Epoxy-carbon 600 8.3816 98.275 0.00190540
Woven 800 8.6483 171.33 0.00331470
1000 9.1602 265.43 0.00513490
200 10.847 20.066 0.00054441
400 10.927 62.048 0.00168010
Epoxy E-glass 600 11.175 133.82 0.00362340
800 11.749 234.77 0.00635650
1000 12.886 364.70 0.00987450

(a) Total deformation using Epoxy-Carbon UD

6
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

(b) Total Deformation using Epoxy S-Glass

(c)Total Deformation Using Aluminum 2024 T3

7
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

(d) Total Deformation using Epoxy-Carbon Woven

(e) Total Deformation using Epoxy E-Glass

Figure 5 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e) Total deformation contour plots

8
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

Deformation versus Speed curve

15
14
13 EPOXY-CARBON UD
12
11 EPOXY S-GLASS UD
Deformation(mm)

10 ALUMINUM 2024 T3
9
8 EPOXY-CARBON WOVEN
7
6 EPOXY E-GLASS
5
4
3
2
1
0

Speed(km/hr)

Figure 6. Deformation versus Speed curve for different materials

Stress versus Speed curve

550
500
EPOXY-CARBON UD
450
400 EPOXY S-GLASS UD
350 ALUMINUM 2024 T3
Stress(Mpa)

300
EPOXY-CARBON WOVEN
250
200 EPOXY E-GLASS UD
150
100
50
0

Speed (km/hr)

Figure 7. Stress versus Speed curve for different materials

9
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

4. Modal Analysis Results

Modal analysis is a study of dynamic properties of vibrating structures. It is used to determine the
natural frequency of continuous structural members. Lowest frequency mode is desired because vibration
will be less as compared to higher frequency modes. From the Modal Analysis result it can be seen that
Epoxy-carbon UD has relatively high natural frequency than other materials. At high natural frequency
resonance can be delayed.

Table 5. Natural frequency (Hz) for different materials

Mode Epoxy- Epoxy S- Aluminum Epoxy- Epoxy E-

shape Carbon Glass 2024 T3 Carbon Glass
UD Woven

1 20.136 11.205 11.446 14.698 10.636

2 95.864 69.375 71.416 91.124 65.959

3 124.56 83.381 91.407 118.07 83.099

4 149.56 87.626 159.48 177.87 83.444

5 295.95 191.28 198.73 250.95 182.07

6 339.32 253.22 385.80 480.17 252.29

Table 6. Maximum amplitude(mm) of vibration

Mode Epoxy- Epoxy S- Aluminum Epoxy- Epoxy

shape Carbon Glass 2024 T3 Carbon E-Glass
UD Woven
1 0.84036 0.7176 0.60774 0.84665 0.7172
2 1.38780 0.8117 0.61325 0.85416 0.7855
3 1.10660 1.3689 0.60580 0.84461 1.3456
4 0.79319 0.7027 1.08580 1.50790 0.7043
5 1.63000 0.7843 0.62033 0.85557 0.7491
6 1.61390 1.4494 0.63568 0.90700 1.4152

10
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

5. Fatigue Life Analysis Results:

Table 7. Fatigue life analysis data

Materials Life Damage Factor Of Safety

Epoxy-Carbon UD 1e8 10 5.1696
Epoxy-Carbon Woven 1e8 10 5.2869
Aluminum 2024-T3 1e8 10 5.2344
Epoxy S-Glass 1e6 1000 5.4533
Epoxy E-Glass 1e6 1000 5.4533

6. Results
As per the calculated design requirement, the modeling of wing of a trainer aircraft with 15 ribs
and 2 spars was done with the help of designing software CATIA V5R20 and finite element
analysis was carried out to find deformation, stress, strain, frequency and life of wing. The
structural analysis of the wing section was carried out for materials such as Epoxy-Carbon UD,
Epoxy-Carbon Woven, Epoxy S-Glass, Epoxy E-Glass and Aluminum 2024-T3 with the help of
ANSYS Static Structural. The modal analysis was carried out to find the frequency and maximum
amplitude of vibration of wing for same materials. From the above analysis it can be concluded
that epoxy-carbon gives better strength, low weight and minimum deformation than aluminum
2024-T3. It can be seen from the above graph.1 that the deformation and stress value is increasing
with increasing rotational speed. But for aluminum 2024-T3 the deformation curve abruptly
increases beyond 600rad/sec. Epoxy-carbon material offers less stress an aircraft wing than
aluminum alloy. 6 mode shapes have been created from the modal analysis for the different
materials to find the natural frequency and maximum amplitude of vibration. Lowest frequency
mode is desirable for any structure (wing) because it has less amplitude of vibration. These results
hold true for trainer aircraft wing with 15 ribs and 2 spars as designed. And results may vary
accordingly with different aircraft wing and design.

7. Conclusion
From the comparisons of results it can be seen that Epoxy-Carbon UD has better structural
characteristics than other materials. It has less deformation, high strength, light weight as compared
to Aluminum 2024 T3 and other materials. So it is concluded that Epoxy- Carbon UD is suitable
material for making aircraft wing.

As future enhancement, different materials can be tested with different boundary conditions to find
more suitable materials with good aerodynamic and structural characteristics, number of main load
carrying members can be changed and analysis can be performed.

11
2nd International conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering (ICAME 2018) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 402 (2018) 012077 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/402/1/012077
1234567890‘’“”

8. References
[1] A M H Abdul Jalil, W Kuntjoro and J Mahmud 2012 Wing structure static analysis using
super Element, Procedia Engineering. 41, 1600 – 1606
[2] T V Baughn and P F Packman 1986 Finite element analysis of an ultra-light aircraft,
Journal of Aircraft. 23, 82-86
[3] Yuvraj S R and Subramanyam P 2015 Design and analysis of Wing of an ultra-light Aircraft
International journal of innovative research in science, engineering and technology. 4,78-85
[4] John D Anderson Introduction to flight, 6th Edition
[5] Kuntjoro W 2008 An Introduction to The Finite Element Method, Mc Graw-Hill
[6] Fiorina A, Seman B, Castanie K M, Ali C, Schwob and L. Mezeix 2017 Spring-in prediction
for carbon/epoxy aerospace composite structure, Composite Structures. 168,739–745.
[7] K Sommerwerk, B Michels, K Lindhorst, M C Haupt and P Horst 2016 Application of
efficient surrogate modeling to aero elastic analyses of an aircraft wing, Aerospace Science
and Technology. 55, 314–323
[8] J Splichal, A Pistek and J Hlinka 2015 Dynamic tests of composite panels of aircraft wing,
Progress in Aerospace Sciences.78, 50–61
[9] H Hu and H Kao 2009 Model Validation of an ultralight aircraft using experimental modal
analysis Journal of aeronautics, astronautics and aviation, series A. 41,271-282
[10] J Schijve 2004 Fatigue of Structures and Materials, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[11] J Schijve 2009 Fatigue Damage in Aircraft Structures Not Wanted but Tolerated,
International Journal of Fatigue .31,998-1011
[12] F.H.Darwish, G.M.Atmeh, Z. F. Hasan 2012 Analysis and Modelling of a General Aviation
Aircraft, Jordan Journal of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering .6, 183–191
[13] G. R. Benini, E. M. Belo and F. D. Marques 2004 Numerical Model for the Simulation of
Fixed Wings Aeroelastic Response, Journal of the Brazil Society of Mechanical Science and
Engineering. XXVI, 129-136
[14] Michael C and Y. Niu, 1989 'Airframe structural design', Conmilit press Ltd.,
[15] F Al-Mawahra and O Zaza 2009 Structural Analysis of an Aircraft Wing, Thesis submitted
to the faculty of engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology
[16] A Ramesh Kumar 2013 Design of an Aircraft Wing Structure for Static Analysis and
Fatigue Life Prediction, International Journal for Engineering Research & Technology.
2,129-135
[17] F H Darwish, G M Atmeh, Z F Hasan Design 2012 Analysis and Modeling of a General
Aviation Aircraft, Jordan Journal of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering.6, 183-191.

12