Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

Bachelor in Aerospace Engineering

Wing-box upper panel sizing considering

stability

Martín Alejandro Moracho García 100428643

Rodrigo Martín Ortiz 100432541
Jorge Sanz Serrano 100450822
Contents
1 Introduction 1

2 Preliminaries 1
2.1 Wing-box simplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 Material properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3 Minimum weight sizing of stiffened panels 3

3.1 Z-shaped stringers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Integral stringers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4 Minimum weight sizing of stiffened panels (manufacturing constraints) 8

4.1 Z-shaped stringers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Integral stringers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5 Effect of different material properties 11

5.1 Ti-6Al-4V Aged Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.1 Unconstrained Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.2 Constant Pitch Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2 Al 2024-T3 Extruded Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.1 Unconstrained Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.2 Constant Pitch Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3 Al 2090-T83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3.1 Unconstrained Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3.2 Constant Pitch Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6 Final Discussions 16
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

1 Introduction
This report aims to perform the panel sizing of the A321 wing-box for the same three sections
that were worked in project I: Fuselage section, Kink section and Tip section located at 75%
of the semi-wingspan from the symmetry axis. In fact, results for the lightest wing-box in the
previous project were taken (bending moments acting on the each section, skin thicknesses, airfoil
shape, chords,etc.).
It is desired to apply this problem considering two different types of stringers: one with
Z-shaped stringers and the other with integral stringers. Moreover, this panel design is done
using two different approaches. In the first one, the stringer pitch in each section is considered to
be variable and in the second one, this value is considered fixed and was selected a typical value
corresponding to this type of aircraft.

2 Preliminaries
2.1 Wing-box simplification
This first task is dedicated to the obtainment of the different geometrical parameters as
well as a recovery of the already calculated data in the previous project. For the purpose of
simplifying the analysis, several assumptions were made:
• The section is assumed to be rectangular (not considering the airfoil shape).
• Stress variation within the panel is neglected.
Which means that only spars at the edges are considered and the upper and lower skins are
considered to be a straight unique skin at the top and at the bottom of the section.
For this purpose the following parameters were defined:
⇝ As = stringer cross section area
⇝ t = skin thickness
⇝ b = stringer pitch
⇝ w = wing-box width
⇝ d = max airfoil thickness
⇝ zCG = panel centre of gravity coordinate
⇝ M = bending moment
⇝ N = axial load per unit width
where N = M
w·bw is the axial load per unit width.
Maximum thicknesses of the airfoils were obtained by taking the NACA airfoil corresponding
to each section and looking for the highest and lowest point and sum their absolute magnitudes:
d = max(|zu | + |zl |).
The width of the wing-box is obtained knowing the optimal spar positions dimensionalizing
with the cord length. For the tip and kink sections the leading and trailing edge spar positions
are located at a normalized position with respect to the chord of 0.2 and 0.65 respectively and
for the fuselage section these are 0.1609 and 0.5229.

Page 1
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

2.2 Material properties

For the material selection of the skins and stringers some of the most common aerospace
materials are provided in the table below with their mechanical properties that will be used later
on during the sizing of the stringers. To simplify and avoid too much extension of the report, it
is asked to perform the analysis particularly for Al 7075-T6, Al 2024-T3 extrusion, Al 2090-T83
and Ti-6Al-4V sheet aged. But it is important to note that the same analysis can be performed
with any other material provided the necessary mechanical properties.

Ti-6Al-4V
7075-T6 7075-T6 7075-T73 Ti-6Al-4V
Extr. Units
Bare-Sheet Clad-Sheet Extrusion Sheet Aged
Anneal.
σtu 538 517 469 896/1014 896/1034 [MPa]
σty 483 455 400 827/917 827/965 [MPa]
σcy 475 448 400 855/979 855/1000 [MPa]
σp 343 384 359 741/849 746/872 [MPa]
σ0.7 496 455 402 874/1007 875/1030 [MPa]
n 9.2 19.5 27 21 22
E 71016 71016 71705 118590 113074 [MPa]
Ec 72395 72395 73774 118590 113074 [MPa]
ν 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.31
γ 2.81 × 103 2.81 × 103 2.81 × 103 4.43 × 103 4.43 × 103 [kg/m3 ]

2024-T3 2024-T3 2024-T3 7050-T7451 2090-T83

Units
Bare-Sheet Clad-Sheet Extrusion Bare-Plate (Al-Li)
σtu 441 414 393 510 517 [MPa]
σty 324 303 290 448 483 [MPa]
σcy 269 255 234 414 434 [MPa]
σp 220 183 183 353 374 [MPa]
σ0.7 264 246 226 418 437 [MPa]
n 15 9 12 19 20
E 72395 72395 74463 71016 79290 [MPa]
Ec 73774 73774 75842 73084 81358 [MPa]
ν 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34
γ 2.78 × 103 2.78 × 103 2.78 × 103 2.83 × 103 2.59 × 103 [kg/m³]

Table 1: Properties of different common aerospace materials

Let’s define now some additional mechanical properties:

E
Et (σ) =  n−1 (1)
3
1+ 7 · n · σσ07

E
Es (σ) =  n−1 (2)
3 σ
1+ 7 · σ07

√
Et · Es
τ= (3)
E

Page 2
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

which are respectively the tangent modulus for plate plastic correction, the secant modulus for
column plastic correction and the buckling plasticity correction factor. From the table of material
properties and using these expressions plots for the different materials are shown.

Figure 1: Tangent modulus (Plate plastic Figure 2: Secant modulus (Column

correction) plastic correction)

Figure 3: Buckling plasticity correction factor

From these Figures it is observed as expected that the young moduli of the titaninium alloys
are greater and are able to withstand higher stresses than the aluminium alloys.

3 Minimum weight sizing of stiffened panels

For this section the material used for the sizing corresponds to Al 7075-T6 bare-sheet.

Page 3
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

To obtain the lightest design, local and flexural instability should coincide at the highest
stress. Let’s define some important equations for panel sizing:
N
σa = (4)
t̄
π2 · c · E · τ π2 · E · τ
σEul = = (5)
(L/ρ)2 (L′ /ρ)2
 2
t
σL = η · E (6)
b

4
σopt = σa2 · σEul · σL (7)

Substituting equations 4 , 5 and 6 into 7 yields

r
N · E · τ̄
σopt = α · (8)
L′
which is the optimal stress. This stress needs to be maximized, so that the structure can
withstand larger loads without buckling while being as small as possible.
In order to do so, it is necessary to maximize the Structural Efficiency, which is a function of the
shape of our panel and stringer system, i.e., the ratios Abts and tts .
In order to perform the sizing of the stringers without manufacturing constraints, an iterative
procedure using two nested loops needs to be implemented, since τ̄ = f (σ) and σ = f (τ̄ , N ).
r
Es Et
0.5
τ̄ (σ) = (η · τ ) = (9)
E Es
Firstly, N is given an initial value, for which the iterative calculation of the correct τ̄ for a
given σ is implemented using the secant method. Once having found σopt , it is possible to obtain
t and b for a given N .

Figure 4: Sizing formulas

With the help of our defined shape ratios, all the sizing parameters are obtained, which can
be used to obtain a new center of gravity, which is used to update the N value.
h AS
zCG = (10)
2 A
This nested loop is performed until N convergence is achieved. Then, N and σopt values are
stored and then used to obtain the final sizing of the structure.

Page 4
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

3.1 Z-shaped stringers

First, stringers with z-shape will be considered. The geometry of these stringers is defined in
figure 5.

Figure 5: Z-stringers sketch

α value will be fixed to its maximum value in equation 8, in order to find the optimum
geometry capable of withstand the maximum stress.

r
√ ρ·t
α=π· π·k 0.25
· (11)
b · t̄

Figure 6: Structural Efficiency for Z-stringers

αmax = 0.9535 (12)

From Figure 6, it is observable that the maximum achievable structural efficiency is 0.9535, which

Page 5
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

defines the following shape of our structure:

d
= 0.3 (13)
h

As
= 1.5 (14)
bt

ts
=1 (15)
t

As
h
= ts
bt
= 0.9375 (16)
b t · (1 + 2 · hd )

After performing our analysis these are the results for the 3 sections:

Figure 7: Fuselage section Figure 8: Kink section Figure 9: Tip section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d [mm]
1 36.16 299.54 876.99 4.38 15.57 14.60 1.17 1.17 4.38
2 33.41 337.45 1173.07 4.87 17.32 16.24 1.39 1.39 4.87
3 21.37 340.05 1197.42 4.91 17.47 16.38 1.41 1.41 4.91

Table 2: Sizing results of the Z-shaped stringers with variable b

It is observable that in order to withstand the maximum load, the lighter structure has
numerous stringers very close to each other. This configuration is able to bear a stress of the
order of 300 M P a, allowing small dimensions reducing the weight.

3.2 Integral stringers

Now, an integral geometry will be analysed in order to compare the results with the obtained
before.

Page 6
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

Figure 10: Integral stringers sketch

As in the z-shaped stringers α will be set to its maximum.

Figure 11: Structural Efficiency for Integral Stringers

From Figure 10, it is observable that the maximum achievable structural efficiency regarding
integral stringers is 0.81, which again defines the shape of our structure:

As
= 1.5 (17)
bt

ts
= 2.3 (18)
t

As
h
= bt
ts = 0.6522 (19)
b t
The results for integral stringers are the next ones:

Page 7
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

Figure 12: Fuselage Figure 13: Kink section Figure 14: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]
1 42.35 259.18 888.83 9.13 29.17 19.02 1.37 3.15
2 38.82 298.51 1205.79 10.00 31.94 20.83 1.62 3.72
3 25.30 305.83 1274.59 10.19 32.54 21.22 1.67 3.83

Table 3: Sizing results of the integral stringers with variable b

The results are very similar compared with the z-shape results, the optimum configuration
is with multiple stringers of small dimensions. Because of its smaller structural efficiency, the
dimensions of each stringer need to be higher, leading to a higher stringer pitch. Z- shaped
stringers have proved to be a better option than integral stringers in the case of maximum
structural efficiency. But, this condition is only achieved with a very small dimensions, these
dimensions are sometimes impossible to get from the point of view of the manufacturing process.
For this reason, the analysis will be done again with some manufacturing constraints.

4 Minimum weight sizing of stiffened panels (manufacturing con-

straints)
Manufacturing constraints generally impose a constant stringer pitch, which in turn makes it
impossible to obtain the maximum structural efficiency. An estimate for the constant stringer
pitch for similar aircraft was found online, which stated that a common stringer pitch is about
150 mm.
A parameter representing structural efficiency for constant stringer pitch αb is introduced, which
fulfills the following expressions: r
3 2
4 N · L · η
b = αb · (20)
E · τ̄ 3
√
k
αb = As
(21)
(1 + bt ) · α1.5
Where L is the rib spacing and a value of L = 0.61 m chosen according to the aircraft type (A321)
was selected. The design procedure taking manufacturing constraints into account is described
now:
1. Fix a tts value, for which an interval of possibilities is assigned depending on whether the
design considers Z or Integral stringers.

Page 8
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

2. Select the couple [ tts , bt ]

As
that results in αmax , to be used as an initial value for the plasticity
correction loop.
3. Update the α value to perform the σopt calculations. For each value of [N ,τ̄ ], a value of
αb is obtained, for which we need to recalculate α using Eq. 20. The value of α will be
smaller than αopt , since the constant pitch requirement will affect the achievable structural
efficiency.

4.1 Z-shaped stringers

Figure 15: Fuselage Figure 16: Kink section Figure 17: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d [mm]
1 179.24 69.32 1006.16 50.17 150 159.38 5.38 5.38 47.81
2 160.86 92.19 1543.01 50.17 150 159.38 6.20 6.20 47.81
3 119.22 126.95 2493.66 50.17 150 159.38 7.27 7.27 47.81

Table 4: Sizing results of the Z-shaped stringers with fixed b

We can see big differences in the results, applying manufacturing constraints the dimensions
are higher and the weight of the structure is 3-4 times greater.

4.2 Integral stringers

Figure 18: Fuselage Figure 19: Kink section Figure 20: Tip section
section

Page 9
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]
1 81.24 141.93 933.69 26.04 150 93.75 2.92 5.85
2 70.98 178.87 1321.09 26.04 150 93.75 3.28 6.56
3 47.60 201.62 1581.09 26.04 150 93.75 3.49 6.97

Table 5: Sizing results of the integral stringers with fixed b

In contrast with the analysis with variable stringer pitch, applying manufacturing constraints,
integral stringers show a better behavior. This shows that when dimensions are higher, integral
stringers are better withstanding loads without buckling locally, allowing to a reduction in mass.
The difference in sizing results imposing manufacturing constraints is evident. Due to the
constant pitch requirement, and the consequent structural efficiency reduction, larger stringers
are needed to prevent buckling. When a member is subjected to a compressive load, it is sus-
ceptible to buckling failure, which occurs when the member deflects laterally due to a critical load.

The stringers must withstand the compressive load transferred to them from the wing skin. If
the stringer height is not sufficient, the compressive load can cause the stringer to buckle, leading
to failure of the entire structure.

In the free design, the stringer height can be optimized for each location based on the local
load and bending moment, leading to smaller and more efficient stringers. However, in the con-
strained design, the fixed stringer pitch limits the ability to optimize the stringer height, leading
to larger and less efficient stringers that can withstand smaller compressive loads without buckling.

Therefore, to prevent buckling in a fixed pitch design, the stringers need to be taller, stiffer,
and stronger to resist the compressive loads. However, this results in an increase in weight, which
can affect the overall performance of the aircraft.

In summary, the larger stringer height in the constrained design is due to the need to prevent
buckling under compressive loads, which limits the ability to optimize the stringer height and
results in larger and less efficient stringers.

The increased height may seem counter-intuitive at first, due to previous knowledge of column
buckling, where the longer a column is, the lower its critical load is. However, in the case of
aircraft wing stringers, the stringers are not free-standing columns, but are rather part of a larger
structure that provides lateral support. The wing box structure provides support against buck-
ling of the stringers by distributing the load and constraining the stringers from buckling sideways.

Therefore, the critical buckling load for the stringers in an aircraft wing box is not solely
determined by the length of the stringers but also depends on other factors such as the stiffness
of the surrounding structure and the magnitude and direction of the loads.

In the constrained design with fixed stringer pitch, the stringers need to be taller and stiffer
to resist the compressive loads and prevent buckling, as mentioned earlier. The increased area of

Page 10
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

the stringers provide additional resistance against buckling.

5 Effect of different material properties

The same analysis was performed using 3 different materials. The results are presented in
this section.

5.1 Ti-6Al-4V Aged Sheet

5.1.1 Unconstrained Results

Figure 21: Fuselage Figure 22: Kink section Figure 23: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d[mm]
1 44.37 384.1 875.6 3.8 13.6 12.7 0.91 0.91 3.8
2 39.89 443.7 1168.3 4.1 14.6 13.7 1.1 1.1 4.1
3 25.39 447.2 1186.5 4.1 14.6 13.7 1.1 1.1 4.1

Figure 24: Fuselage Figure 25: Kink section Figure 26: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]
1 52.55 328.3 886.1 8.1 25.8 16.8 1.1 2.5
2 47.54 381.6 1197.3 8.7 27.8 18.1 1.3 2.9
3 30.72 390.4 1253.3 8.8 28.1 18.3 1.3 3.0

Page 11
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

5.1.2 Constant Pitch Design

Figure 27: Fuselage Figure 28: Kink section Figure 29: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d [mm]
1 242.0 80.9 1006.2 50.2 159.4 4.6 4.6 47.8
2 217.2 107.6 1543.0 50.2 159.4 5.3 5.3 47.8
3 160.9 148.2 2493.7 50.2 159.4 6.2 6.2 47.8

Figure 30: Fuselage Figure 31: Kink section Figure 32: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]

1 109.7 165.7 933.7 26.0 93.8 2.5 5
2 95.8 208.8 1321.1 26.0 93.8 2.8 5.6
3 64.2 148.2 1581.1 26.0 93.8 3.0 6.0

Page 12
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

5.2 Al 2024-T3 Extruded Bar

5.2.1 Unconstrained Results

Figure 33: Fuselage Figure 34: Kink section Figure 35: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d[mm]
1 34.3 311.9 876.6 4.2 15.1 14.1 1.1 1.1 4.2
2 30.9 360.5 1171.1 4.6 16.2 15.2 1.3 1.3 4.6
3 19.7 363.8 1192.7 4.6 16.3 15.2 1.3 1.3 4.6

Figure 36: Fuselage Figure 37: Kink section Figure 38: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]
1 40.7 266.7 888.4 9.0 18.7 28.6 1.3 3.1
2 36.9 310.5 1203.6 9.7 20.1 30.9 1.6 3.6
3 23.9 318.7 1268.5 9.8 20.4 31.3 1.6 3.7

Page 13
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

5.2.2 Constant Pitch Design

Figure 39: Fuselage Figure 40: Kink section Figure 41: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d[mm]
1 174.5 70.4 1006.2 50.2 159.4 5.3 5.3 47.8
2 156.5 93.5 1543.0 50.2 159.4 6.1 6.1 47.8
3 116.1 128.9 2493.7 50.2 159.4 7.2 7.2 47.8

Figure 42: Fuselage Figure 43: Kink section Figure 44: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]

1 79.2 144.0 933.7 26.0 93.8 2.9 5.8
2 69.9 179.6 1321.1 26.0 93.8 3.3 6.5
3 47.9 198.3 1581.1 26.0 93.8 3.5 7.1

Page 14
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

5.3 Al 2090-T83
5.3.1 Unconstrained Results

Figure 45: Fuselage Figure 46: Kink section Figure 47: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d [mm]
1 31.2 319.9 876.6 4.2 14.9 14.0 1.1 1.1 4.2
2 29.13 356.5 1172.4 4.8 16.9 15.9 1.3 1.3 4.8
3 18.7 358.4 1196.1 4.8 17.1 16.0 1.3 1.3 4.8

Figure 48: Fuselage Figure 49: Kink section Figure 50: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] b [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]
1 36.7 275.1 888.1 8.8 28.2 18.4 1.3 3.0
2 33.4 318.6 1203.1 9.6 30.6 20.0 1.5 3.5
3 21.7 326.1 1268.0 9.8 31.2 20.3 1.3 3.6

Page 15
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

5.3.2 Constant Pitch Design

Figure 51: Fuselage Figure 52: Kink section Figure 53: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm] d [mm]
1 159.2 71.9 1006.2 50.2 159.4 5.2 5.2 47.8
2 142.9 95.6 1543.0 50.2 159.4 6.0 6.0 47.8
3 105.9 131.7 2493.7 50.2 159.4 7.0 7.0 47.8

Figure 54: Fuselage Figure 55: Kink section Figure 56: Tip section
section

Sec m [kg/m] σ [MPa] N [kN/m] zcg [mm] h [mm] t [mm] ts [mm]

1 72.2 147.2 933.7 26.0 93.8 2.8 5.6
2 63.0 185.6 1321.1 26.0 93.8 3.2 6.3
3 42.3 209.2 1581.1 26.0 93.8 3.4 6.7

6 Final Discussions
Analyzing the results obtained for different materials, it can be observed that the mass per
unit length of the different sections of the wing-box increases when imposing the constraint of
constant pitch (b = 150 mm) which is in general terms, of the order of 10 times greater than for
the case of a variable pitch. As a consequence, stringers corresponding to the constrained pitch
design have bigger dimensions, since there are less number of stringers per section and in this
way they compensate the need to support the same internal forces and moments as the sections
with the variable pitch that are smaller but greater in number.

Page 16
Wing-box upper panel sizing Stability and integrity of aerospace structures

Moreover, note that the mass of the section decreases from the fuselage to the tip (which
is quite evident). On the other hand, stresses, axial loads, center of gravity and the rest of the
parameters are observed to increase as getting further from the fuselage section.
Regarding the choice of the optimal material, it is important to check if the section guarantees
structural integrity and will not collapse. For that purpose, it is needed to observe that the
buckling design stresses are below the yield stress, since the structure would fail by plastic
deformation. Apart from this, a light wing-box is obviously desired.
It can be observed that from the unconstrained results of the Al 2024-T3 Extruded Bar that
this way of sizing with this material is not appropriate since the stresses are above the yield
strength and therefore the material is being deformed. The other 3 materials analyzed do not
offer any disadvantages regarding this behaviour. On the other hand titanium is observed to have
a greater optimal stress due to its good mechanical properties but on the contrary its heavier
than the aluminium alloys.
All in all, the use of Al 2090-T83 is observed to provide the lightest wing-box as well as
offering a wing-box below the plastic regime. Therefore this material would be a first choice for
an optimal design.

Page 17