AE442: Aerospace Systems Design

Aircraft Structures

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 1
(Aircraft)
Purpose of Preliminary Structures
• Determine preliminary sizing of structural components
– To create more refined weight
– Layout of major structural pieces

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 2
(Aircraft)
Lecture Overview
• Aircraft loading
– V-N and gust diagrams
– Schrenk’s approximation for spanwise lift distribution
• Wing Component Sizing
– Spar sizing
– Structural idealization
– Skin thickness
– Rib spacing and thickness
• Fuselage Components
• Aeroelastic Phenomenon
• Structural Analysis Software
• Advanced Concepts

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 3
(Aircraft)
Aircraft Loads

Figure 1. Typical aircraft loads (Raymer, 1992)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 4
(Aircraft)
Maneuver Loads
• Maneuver loads are usually lift induced vertical loads that will
drive the sizing of the structure (worst case loading)
• Load Factor – expresses loading induced by aircraft maneuver
as a multiple of gravity, g.
• At lower speeds max load factor is determined by max lift, at
higher speeds max load factor can be based on expected use
Table 1. Typical Load Factors (Raymer, 1992)
𝒏𝒏𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏
General Aviation – Normal 2.5 to 3.8 -1 to -1.5
General Aviation – Utility 4.4 -1.8
General Aviation – Aerobatic 6 -3
Transport 3 to 4 -1 to -2
Strategic Bomber 3 -1
Tactical Bomber 4 -2
Fighter 6.5 to 9 -3 to -6
AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 5
(Aircraft)
Loading
• Limit Load – highest expected load
• Ultimate Load – limit load multiplied by the prescribed factor
of safety (FS).
• Per FAR Part 25.303, unless otherwise specified a factor of
safety of 1.5 must be applied to prescribed limit loads
• Recall, can calculate the margin of safety using:
𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = −1≥0
𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∗ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = −1≥0
𝜏𝜏𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ∗ 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
• A 10% margin of safety can be a good starting point

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 6
(Aircraft)
V-N Diagram
• Wing/fuselage critical loading conditions defined by the V-N
diagram
• Equivalent airspeed is used (independent of altitude)
1
𝜌𝜌 2
𝑉𝑉𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝜌𝜌𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

Figure 2. Example maneuver V-N diagram (Raymer, 1992)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 7
(Aircraft)
V-N Limit Load
• Maneuver limit load factor defined in CFR 23 +CFR 25
24,000
𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 2.1 +
10,000 + 𝑊𝑊
𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = −0.4𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 CFR 23 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = −1.0 (CFR 25)
– Where 𝑊𝑊 = design take off gross weight in lbs
– CFR 23 and 25 also define load factor ranges
– Negative limit load factor varies linearly from 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 to 𝑉𝑉𝐷𝐷
𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝

𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 8
(Aircraft)
V-N Positive Stall Line
• Positive 1-g stall speed (𝑛𝑛𝑧𝑧 = 1) from Roskam:
‒ 𝑆𝑆 = wing area in ft2
𝑊𝑊 ‒ 𝜌𝜌 = air density in slugs/ft2
2
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 = 𝑆𝑆
‒ 𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = maximum normal force coefficient
𝜌𝜌𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
‒ In preliminary design can set 𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.1 𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
‒ Note MIL-A-8861B includes an additional factor k
• Compute stall line: 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛𝑧𝑧
positive stall line

𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 9
(Aircraft)
V-N Negative Stall Line
• Negative stall speed from Roskam:

𝑊𝑊 ‒ In preliminary design can set:

2
𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝑆𝑆 𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = 1.1𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
𝜌𝜌𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁max𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛

• Compute stall line: 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 = 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛𝑧𝑧

negative stall line

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 10
(Aircraft)
V-N Design Points
𝑊𝑊
• Design cruising speed: 𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶 = 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐
𝑆𝑆
𝑊𝑊
– where 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 = 33 for normal & utility category airplanes w/ < 20 psf
𝑆𝑆
𝑊𝑊
– 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 varies linearly from 33 to 28.6 as varies from 20 to 100 psf
𝑆𝑆
– FAR25 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 ≥ 𝑉𝑉𝐵𝐵 + 43 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
• Design diving speed: 𝑉𝑉𝐷𝐷 ≥ 1.25𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐
• Design maneuvering speed: 𝑉𝑉𝐴𝐴 ≥ 𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑉𝑉𝐴𝐴
𝑉𝑉𝐷𝐷 (𝑞𝑞 − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙)

𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 11
(Aircraft)
V-N Gust Diagram
• All gust load factor lines begin at n = 1
𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝛼𝛼
𝑛𝑛lim = 1 +
𝑊𝑊
498
𝑆𝑆
• 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = derived gust velocities
• 𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔 = gust alleviation factor:
𝑊𝑊
0.88𝜇𝜇𝑔𝑔 2 𝑆𝑆
𝐾𝐾𝑔𝑔 = 𝜇𝜇𝑔𝑔 = ̅ 𝐿𝐿𝛼𝛼
5.3+𝜇𝜇𝑔𝑔 𝜌𝜌𝑐𝑐𝑔𝑔𝐶𝐶
– Where:
– 𝜌𝜌 = air density at cruise altitude (slug/ft3 )
– 𝑐𝑐̅ = wing mean aerodynamic chord (ft)
– 𝑔𝑔 = gravitational constant (32.2 ft/ s2 )

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 12
(Aircraft)
Derived Gust Velocity
• For 𝑉𝑉𝐶𝐶 gust lines
– 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 50ft/s between sea level and 20,000 ft
– 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = [66.67 – 0.000833h] ft/s between 20,000 and 50,000 ft
• For 𝑉𝑉𝐷𝐷 gust lines
– 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 25ft/s between sea level and 20,000 ft
– 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = [16.67-0.000417h] ft/s between 20,000 and 50,000 ft
• FAR25 also includes 𝑉𝑉𝐵𝐵 gust lines
– Where 𝑉𝑉𝐵𝐵 = design speed for maximum gust intensity
– 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 66ft/s between sealevel and 20,000 ft
– 𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = [47.33-0.000933h] ft/s between 20,000 and 50,000 ft

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 13
(Aircraft)
Gust Diagram

Figure 3. Example gust V-N diagram per FAR25 (Roskam, 1986)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 14
(Aircraft)
Combined Maneuver/Gust V-N Diagram
• Overlay gust and maneuver diagrams and retain outermost
boundary
• Load factor is limited by greater of maneuver or gust lines

Figure 4. Combined V-N Diagram per FAR23 (FAA, 2011)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 15
(Aircraft)
Regulations
• Check regulations for specific aircraft type when creating V-N
diagram
– Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 23 Airworthiness
Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category
Airplanes Subpart C – Structures
– Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 25 Airworthiness
Standards: Transport Category Airplanes Subpart C – Structure
• Jets with >10 seats or a MTOW > 12,500 lb
• Propeller-driven airplanes >19 seats MTOW > 19,000 lb
– MIL-A-8861B, Military Specification: Airplane Strength and Rigidity
Flight Loads

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 16
(Aircraft)
Spanwise Loading
• Asymmetric spanwise lift distribution
– For asymmetric maneuvers max load factor is set by max structural
load that can be sustained by wing

Figure 5. Spanwise lift distribution (Brandt, 2004)

• Combined wing loading

Air load

Wing Weight
Nacelle Weight

Equivalent
concentrated loads

Figure 6. Combined wing loading (Raymer, 1992)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 17
(Aircraft)
Schrenk’s Approximation
• Semi-empirical method to describe spanwise load distribution
• Ideal for non-swept, untwisted, trapezoidal wing planforms
• Actual lift distribution will be an average of the actual
planform shape and an ellipse of the same area
𝓛𝓛(𝒚𝒚)
50.0 ℒ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (𝑦𝑦)
ℒ𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 (𝑦𝑦)

ℒ𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (𝑦𝑦)

0.0
0 𝑏𝑏 𝒚𝒚
140
℄ 2
Figure 7. Spanwise lift distribution
AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 18
(Aircraft)
Schrenk’s Approximation Cont.
• Given the chord distributions for the trapezoidal planform:
2𝑦𝑦
𝐶𝐶 𝑦𝑦 = 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟 1 − 1 − 𝜆𝜆
𝑏𝑏
• And the chord distribution for the elliptical planform:
2
4𝑆𝑆 2𝑦𝑦
𝐶𝐶 𝑦𝑦 = 1−
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 𝑏𝑏

• Recall,
𝑏𝑏 2𝑆𝑆
𝑆𝑆 = 1 + 𝜆𝜆 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟 → 𝐶𝐶𝑟𝑟 =
2 𝑏𝑏 1 + 𝜆𝜆
• Using Schrenk’s Approximation set:
𝑆𝑆 = 𝐿𝐿 = 𝑛𝑛𝑧𝑧 � 𝑊𝑊 � 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
Where 𝑛𝑛𝑧𝑧 = maximum load factor, 𝑊𝑊 = max weight of aircraft, 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = Factor of safety
Note: if include factor of safety here, do not include it in later calculations

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 19
(Aircraft)
Schrenk’s Approximation Cont.
• Now can find lift distributions:
2𝐿𝐿 2𝑦𝑦
ℒ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = 1− 1 − 𝜆𝜆
𝑏𝑏 1 + 𝜆𝜆 𝑏𝑏
2
4𝐿𝐿 2𝑦𝑦
ℒ𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 1−
𝜋𝜋𝜋𝜋 𝑏𝑏

• Again following Schrenk’s, average both lift distributions

ℒ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑦𝑦 + ℒ 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑦𝑦
ℒ 𝑦𝑦 =
2
• Use numerical integration to find the shear and moment
diagrams for wing, recall that shear and moment are zero at
tip of the wing

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 20
(Aircraft)
Schrenk’s Approximation Cont.
• Can find:
𝑏𝑏/2 𝑦𝑦
0.0 250000.0
0 140

𝑀𝑀𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢

𝑉𝑉𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢

0.0
-5000.0 0 140
𝑏𝑏/2
℄ ℄ (b)
(a)

Figure 8. Shear (a) and bending moment (b) diagrams

• Determine ultimate shear load and moment outboard of

centerline, where wing attaches to fuselage
• Conservative since it ignores cabin interaction
AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 21
(Aircraft)
Wing Structure Components

Figure 9. Typical wing structure (Niu, 2001)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 22
(Aircraft)
Wing Structure Components Cont.
• Wing box – (also referred to as wing torque box) consists of
the spar, skin, rib assembly.
• Structural Aspect Ratio – Similar to aerodynamic aspect ratio,
but instead defines area between spars
𝑏𝑏2
𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 =
𝑆𝑆𝑊𝑊𝑊𝑊

Wing Torque Box

Figure 10. Aircraft wing box (Roskam,

AAE 442 Aerospace SystemFigure
1986). Design11.
I Cross section of wing (Brandt, 2004).
11/29/2023 23
(Aircraft)
Spar Sizing and Analysis
• Spars are sized for bending loads from wing loading
• For common two spar design
– Front spar is generally located between 12-17% chord
– Aft spar is located between 55-60% chord (control surfaces)
• Assume ultimate shear load (from Schrenk’s) acts through the
center of pressure of wing
– Use statics to resolve the percent of shear force on each spar

Figure 12. Center of pressure in wing (Bruhn, 1973).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 24
(Aircraft)
Spar Sizing and Analysis Cont.
• Apply flexure formula to size spars:
𝑀𝑀𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑦𝑦
𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏 =
𝐼𝐼
– 𝑀𝑀𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 is the ultimate moment at the root of the wing (from Schrenk’s)
– 𝑦𝑦 is the perpendicular distance to the neutral axis, determined by
thickness of wing
𝐴𝐴
– 𝐼𝐼 = ∫ 𝑦𝑦 2 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is the second area moment of inertia
– 𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏 is the bending stress experienced by spars
• Modify parameters of spar cross section, to change 𝐼𝐼, so that
𝜎𝜎𝑏𝑏 ≤ 𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 , the ultimate tensile strength of selected materials
• Recall some assumptions of flexure formula:
– Homogeneous and isotropic (or quasi-isotropic), neutral axis is located
at beam centroid, small deflections, etc.

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 25
(Aircraft)
Spar Sizing and Analysis Cont.
• For preliminary design of I-beam spars:
– spar caps will provide most of bending resistance therefore can ignore
spar web in initial inertia calculations
– Use parallel axis theorem:
𝐼𝐼 = ∑ 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝐴𝐴𝑑𝑑 2
– Where:
• 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 is moment of inertia of the spar cap
• 𝐴𝐴 is the cross sectional area of the spar cap
• 𝑑𝑑 is the distance from the centroidal axis to
the centroid of each spar cap

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 26
(Aircraft)
Spar Sizing and Analysis Cont.
• Check spar web for shear stress
• Average shear stress:
𝑉𝑉
𝜏𝜏 =
𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ℎ
• Where:
– 𝑉𝑉 is shear force acting at wing root
– 𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 is the thickness of the spar web
– ℎ is height of web to mid-thickness of flanges
– Set 𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 so that 𝜏𝜏 ≤ 𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
• With refined web thickness can iterate through design

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 27
(Aircraft)
Wing Box Idealization
• Idealization of wing box sections results in a simpler analysis
• Stringers and spar flanges are replaced with circular area
concentrations known as booms
– Assume axial stress over stringer/spar cap cross section is constant
– Assume stringers/spar caps carry most of bending moment
• Spar webs can still carry a significant amount of axial stress so
lump skin and web area at stringer/spar flange locations to
find the total “effective area”

spar caps

Idealized

stringers
Figure 13. Wing box idealization.
AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 28
(Aircraft)
Wing Box Idealization Cont.
• In order to find the effective area the idealized panel and non-
idealized panel must be statically equivalent yielding:
𝑡𝑡𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 𝜎𝜎2 tbb 𝜎𝜎1
𝐴𝐴1 = 2+ A2 = 2+
6 𝜎𝜎1 6 𝜎𝜎2
• However, since 𝑀𝑀1 = 𝑀𝑀2 and 𝐼𝐼1 = 𝐼𝐼2 then:
𝑀𝑀1 𝑦𝑦1
𝜎𝜎1 𝐼𝐼1 𝑦𝑦1
= =−
𝜎𝜎2 − 𝑀𝑀2 𝑦𝑦2 𝑦𝑦2
𝐼𝐼2

Figure 14. Lumped area method for skins/webs (Megson, 2013).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 29
(Aircraft)
Wing Box Idealization Example
𝑏𝑏12
𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠
1 𝑡𝑡12
2 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑧𝑧
𝑏𝑏14 𝑥𝑥
Neutral Axis
𝑡𝑡14
𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠
3
4
𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠

Lump areas at stringer locations: Now:

𝑏𝑏12 𝑡𝑡12 𝑧𝑧2 𝑏𝑏14 𝑡𝑡14 𝑧𝑧4
𝐴𝐴1 = 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 2+ + 2+ 𝐴𝐴1 𝐴𝐴2
6 𝑧𝑧1 6 𝑧𝑧1
⋮
In a generalized form:
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑧𝑧𝑥𝑥 𝐴𝐴3
𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 = 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + � 𝐴𝐴4
6 𝑧𝑧𝑛𝑛

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 30
(Aircraft)
Check Bending Stress
• Check bending stress in stringers if used in design
• Calculate moment of inertia of idealized structure
𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 = ∑𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖2
• Apply flexure formula
−𝑀𝑀𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖
𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 =
𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
• Check that bending stress in stringers 𝜎𝜎𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 ≤ 𝐹𝐹𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (ultimate
tensile strength of selected materials)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 31
(Aircraft)
Single Cell Shear Flow
• Assumes idealized structure with applied shear force
• Cut one panel of structure to find open cell shear flow
𝑚𝑚
𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−𝑚𝑚 =− � 𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 𝑧𝑧𝑛𝑛
𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
𝑛𝑛=1
• Sum moments about convenient point (centroid of cross
section, line of action of force etc.) and solve for 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,0
∑𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴 = ∑2𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛−𝑚𝑚 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−𝑚𝑚 + 2𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,0 = 𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥𝐴𝐴
• Find total shear flow in each panel
𝑞𝑞𝑛𝑛−𝑚𝑚 = 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−𝑚𝑚 + 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠,0
• Find shear stress in each panel
𝑞𝑞𝑛𝑛−𝑚𝑚
𝜏𝜏𝑛𝑛−𝑚𝑚 =
𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛−𝑚𝑚

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 32
(Aircraft)
Single Cell Shear Flow Example
𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏−2 = 0
1 2 𝐴𝐴2−3
𝐴𝐴4−1 z 𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧
N.A.
x
3
4
∑𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖
Find: 𝑥𝑥̅ = ∑𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖
Open Cell Shear Flow ∑𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = ∑𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧 𝑥𝑥𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧
𝑉𝑉 ∑𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = ∑2𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛−𝑚𝑚 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−𝑚𝑚 + 2𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠𝑠
Use: 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−𝑚𝑚 = − 𝐼𝐼 𝑧𝑧 ∑ 𝐴𝐴𝑛𝑛 𝑧𝑧𝑛𝑛
𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥
Set ∑𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = ∑𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 and solve for 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠𝑠
Take cut: 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏1−2 = 0
𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧 Find shear flow in each panel
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏2−3 = 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏−2 − 𝐴𝐴 𝑧𝑧
𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 2 2 𝑞𝑞𝑛𝑛−𝑚𝑚 = 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏−𝑚𝑚 + 𝑞𝑞𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏3−4 = 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏2−3 − 𝐴𝐴 𝑧𝑧 = 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏𝑏−2
𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 3 3
𝑉𝑉𝑧𝑧
𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏4−1 = 𝑞𝑞𝑏𝑏3−4 − 𝐴𝐴 𝑧𝑧
𝐼𝐼𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 4 4

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 33
(Aircraft)
Rib Sizing and Analysis
• Rib thickness is determined to resist shear flow
𝑞𝑞 𝑀𝑀
𝜏𝜏 = where 𝑞𝑞 =
𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 2𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
Size 𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 so that
𝐹𝐹𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠
𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑆𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 = −1≥0
𝜏𝜏
• In detail design can remove area in low stress regions of rib
(using FEA to predict these low stress regions)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 34
(Aircraft)
Rib Spacing
• Bending in wing due to lifting causes a distributed
compressive force in skin, 𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥
• Skin panel can be modeled so that:
– 𝑎𝑎 is distance between ribs
– 𝑏𝑏 is distance between spars/stringers
• If skin panel is fastened with single row of rivets can be
considered simply supported, double row of rivets can be
considered fixed

Figure 15. Plate buckling in compression (Megson, 2013).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 35
(Aircraft)
Rib Spacing Cont.
• Can define the critical buckling stress of the thin plate as:
𝑘𝑘𝜋𝜋 2 𝐸𝐸 𝑡𝑡 2
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 =
12 1 − 𝜈𝜈 2 𝑏𝑏
– Where 𝑘𝑘 = buckling coefficient, dependent on a, b, and edge supports
– 𝐸𝐸 = elastic modulus of material
– 𝜈𝜈 = possion’s ratio of material
– 𝑡𝑡 = sheet thickness
• Calculate compressive stress
𝑃𝑃 𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥 𝑏𝑏 𝑁𝑁𝑥𝑥
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = = =
𝐴𝐴 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑡𝑡
• Then modify 𝑎𝑎, until:
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = −1>0
𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹

Figure I16. Plate buckling coefficient (Megson, 2013).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design
11/29/2023 36
(Aircraft)
Rib Direction Considerations
• Two options for rib orientation for swept wings
(a) Perpendicular to spar
• Somewhat more conventional
• Easier to install to spar
• Will be easier to calculate buckling
(b) Parallel to flight path
• Smooth aerodynamic shape
• May be heavier
• Easier to mount to fuselage

Figure 17. Comparison of rib direction (Niu, 2001).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 37
(Aircraft)
Fuselage Sizing and Analysis
• Fuselage structure design considerations
– Width of fuselage sized for number of seats (Roskam - historically)
– Volume must be sufficient for people and cargo
– Access panels for systems
– Wing attachment structure
• Structural analysis considerations:
– Wing attachment and related lifting loads
– Empennage loads
– Pressurization loads
– Landing gear loads
– If engines are attached to the fuselage, propulsive loads
• Complete design/analysis in similar manner as wing box
design

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 38
(Aircraft)
Fuselage Structure Components
• Frame, floor beam, skin, longeron, stringers, bulkheads
(pressure), keel (center beam)
• Longerons – run lengthwise along plane, normally carry more
load than stringers and area attached to frames or ribs.

Figure 18. Fuselage components (Nicolai, 2010).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 39
(Aircraft)
Initial Fuselage Design
• Follow similar procedure from wing box idealization and
analysis for fuselage design
– Roskam provides typical frame depth, spacing and longeron spacing
for metal structure (see part III chapter 3, page 124)
– Refer to appendix in Megson for an overview of fuselage calculations
– Or see Bruhn chapter A20
• Account for distributed weight, lifting loads, empennage
loads, landing loads and other applicable loads

Figure 19. Idealization of fuselage cross section (Megson, 2013). Figure 20. Fuselage loads during landing (Niu, 1988).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 40
(Aircraft)
Fuselage Pressurization Loads
• Above 15,000 ft pressurized cabin is usually required
• Determine pressure differential
– Most commercial transport are designed for 8,000 ft altitude
pressurization (~10.92 psi)
– Some executive transport
– Pressure differential is used to define minimum thickness requirement
• Refer to Niu for more details about this analysis

Figure 21. Fuselage bulkhead placement and Design (Niu, 2001)

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 41
(Aircraft)
Static Aeroelasticity
• Divergence
– Aerodynamic forces are balanced by torsional rigidity of wing below a
certain speed
– Swept back wings have an increased divergence speed
• Control effectiveness and reversal
– Insufficient torsional stiffness characterized by movement that is
opposite of the desired control input

Figure 22. Divergence and control reversal (Nicolai, 2010).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 42
(Aircraft)
Dynamic Aeroelasticity
• Flutter is a coupling of aerodynamic and elastic forces
– Design wings that are stiff enough to avoid vibrational modes, or fly at
slower speeds
– X-56 is attempting to use active controls in order to compensate for a
lighter weight more flexible wing design
– See: NASA video on X-56 and flutter

Figure 23. Depiction of flutter (Megson, 2013).

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 43
(Aircraft)
Structural Analysis Software
• Finite Element Analysis
– ANSYS (APDL/Workbench)
– Abaqus
– MSC Patran/Nastran
– Femap
• Damage tolerance analysis
– NASGRO
• Structural Optimization
– HyperSizer
Figure 24. Finite element analysis of a wing box.

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 44
(Aircraft)
My Opinion on Finite Element Software
• ANSYS (APDL/Workbench)
– Workbench: more user friendly, less options, define unit system at
beginning, does have a database of material properties
– APDL: less user friendly, more versatile, can write commands in batch files
and execute, you are responsible for your unit system and material
properties
– LS-Dyna solver (non-linear transient dynamic FEA explicit time integration)
• Abaqus
– Output files are .odb, which cannot be opened with other types of finite
element software
– A user friendly GUI while allowing for quite a bit of user control as well
• MSC Patran/Nastran
– Nastran is pre-processor/post processor, Patran is solver, must be ran
independently
• NX Femap
– Must be used with a solver (Student Edition is bundled with NX Nastran
Solver)
As always garbage in = garbage out.

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 45
(Aircraft)
Advanced Structural Concepts

Sine wave webbed spar (FAA, 2012). Optimized aircraft nose rib (Rao, 2007).

Pultruded Rod Stitched Efficient Unitized

Structure – PRSEUS (Velicki and Jegley, 2011).
AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I
11/29/2023 46
(Aircraft)
References
Brandt S., Stiles, R., Bertin J., Whitford, R., “Chapter 7 Structures”. Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design
Perspective, 2nd ed., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston Virginia, 2004.
Bruhn, E., Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Jacobs Pub., 1973.
Megson, T.H.G., Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, 5th ed., Elsevier Ltd., Massachusetts, 2013.
Nicolai, L. and Carichner, G., “Chapter 19 Structures and Materials”, Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship
Design, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Washington DC, 2010.
Niu M., Airframe Stress Analysis and Sizing, 2nd ed., Hong Kong Conmilit Press Ltd., Hong Kong, 2001.
Niu, M., Airframe Structural Design. Conmilit Press Ltd., Hong Kong, 1988.
Peery, D., Aircraft Structures. Dover Publication Inc. New York, 2011.
Raymer, D., “Chapter 14. Structures and Loads”, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., Washington DC, 1992.
Roskam, J., Part III: Layout design of cockpit, fuselage, wing and empennage: cutaways and inboard profiles,
Design, Analysis and Research Corporation (DARcorporation), Kansas, 1986.
Roskam, J., “Chapter 4 Class II Method for Estimating Airplane Component Weights”, Part V: Component Weight
Estimation, Design, Analysis and Research Corporation (DARcorporation), Kansas, 1986.
Schrenk, O., “A Simple Approximation Method for Obtaining Spanwise Lift Distribution,” NACA TM-948, August
1940.

AAE 442 Aerospace System Design I

11/29/2023 47
(Aircraft)