MECA0462 : Material Selection

Material Selection For Light Weigth Aircrafts

Authors: Instructor:
Cem BIZ (s225522) Anne Mertens
Emrah ALTIN (s211162) Davide Ruffoni
Verel DJOMO (s205794) Assistant:
Herrim Seidou

The academic year 2023-2024

Contents
1 Introduction 4

2 State of Art 5

3 Statement of objectives and material constraints 6

3.1 Components of the Wing Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2 Wing Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 Essential Assumptions for Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 Design requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5 Objectives and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.6 Shape Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.1 Elastic bending of beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.2 Failure of beams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7 Cost Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Material selection and properties 10

4.1 Granta level 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2 Granta Level 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 Methods for multi-objective selection 14

6 Results and discussion 15

7 Conclusion 16

1
List of Figures
.1 Model of the first airplane from wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
.2 Representation of the wing and its internal components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.3 Forces acting on aircraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
.4 Classification based on Young’s modulus over density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
.5 Applied stresses on an airfoil wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
.6 Refine classification based on Young’s modulus over density, minimum tensile strength
325Mpa, minimum compression strength 300Mpa, Shear modulus 25MPa . . . . . 12
.7 Young’s modulus(GPa) with respect to density(Kg/m3 ) × price(EUR/Kg) . . . . . 13

2
List of Tables
1 Design requirements for a plane wing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Table of properties of those 5 families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Table of properties of the best 5 last choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 Rank of the criteria among the five materials - ki grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5 Rank of the importance of the 3 criteria - Ni grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6 Final grading of the analytical method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7 Material selection in terms of mass and cost constraint. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3
1 Introduction
Since the pioneering days of aviation with the Wright brothers’ first flight, the construction of
aircraft has been open to innovation. The wings, in particular, have transitioned from the initial
use of wood to the prevalent utilization of advanced composite materials. This shift has been
driven by a multitude of factors, including the need to optimize weight, adapt to specific functional
requirements, and address challenges posed by evolving flight conditions.
In this exploration of materials for aircraft wings, we navigate through historical transitions,
from wood to metals, and eventually to materials like carbon fibers, silicon nitride, and advanced
aluminum alloys. The connections between material properties, geometric considerations, and
functional requirements form the backdrop against which the optimal selection of materials.
This paper employs a systematic approach, integrating both theoretical analysis and practical
considerations, to guide the selection process. An emphasis is placed on three pivotal criteria:
mechanical strength, weight implications, and cost efficiency. These criteria are systematically
evaluated for five promising materials – Titanium commercial purity, Carbon fibers, Silicon nitride,
Aluminium 2024 T5810/8511, and Duralcan Al-20SiC cast.
Through analytical methodologies and advanced software tools, the study aims to provide
valuable insights into the multi-faceted process of material selection for lightweight aircraft wing
structures. The ultimate goal is to contribute to the ongoing pursuit of aerospace engineering
excellence by identifying materials that offer the best compromise between performance, weight
considerations, and cost.

4
2 State of Art
Since the advent of aviation in the early 20th century with the Wright brother’s first flight, the
structure of aircraft has continuously evolved. This evolution has been driven by various factors,
including the need to reduce the overall weight of aircraft and to adapt the constituent materials
to fulfill specific functions. This is particularly evident in the case of wings, which have undergone
a remarkable transformation from the initial use of wood (shown in Figure .1) to the current
predominant use of composites.
At the outset, engineers of that era turned to wood due to its availability and lightweight
properties. This material played a significant role in the construction of aircraft, including notable
examples like le Bouleau and l’Epicea [7].

Figure .1: Model of the first airplane from wood.

However, due to its limited malleability, wood saw a rapid decline in use. It was gradually
replaced in the 1930s by metal, which offered significantly greater strength. This material became
a cornerstone in the construction of the first Boeing aircraft, including their wings, as exempli-
fied by the Boeing 247, which featured wings capable of withstanding substantial bending forces
arising from pressure differentials between its upper and lower surfaces. These metallic materials,
initially composed of steel and aluminum, saw a relatively short-lived period of dominance (1930-
1940) before scientists began considering potential improvements. This transition first involved
a shift towards aluminum alloys, which offered an excellent strength-to-weight ratio and corro-
sion resistance, and then culminated in the emergence of composite materials based on fiberglass
around the 1960s.
Indeed, this material emerged as a highly viable alternative to metals due to its lower weight and
increased corrosion resistance. Additionally, it enabled wings to bear the loads emanating from
the fuselage and the rest of the aircraft. Following this, in the category of fiber-based materials,
came carbon fibers: extremely resistant to flight conditions and lighter. For instance, at that time,
the Boeing 787 featured wings made of carbon fiber.
After the success of fiber-based materials in the 1960s and 1970s, a new material gained pop-
ularity towards the end of the 20th century, in the 1980s: metal matrix materials [9]. Primarily
employed to address thermal stresses from both engines and flight weather conditions. These
materials combine the hardness of metals with good temperature resistance.
The most recent materials discovered are high-quality carbon fibers (1990), smart materials,
and 3D printing. The first mentioned is essentially an enhancement of basic carbon fibers, uti-
lizing carbon nanotubes to provide high-temperature resistance, improved impact strength, and
enhanced stiffness. In the case of smart materials and 3D printing, they are currently the subject
of advanced scientific research.

5
3 Statement of objectives and material constraints

3.1 Components of the Wing Structure

Typically, a semi-monocoque approach is used to design an aircraft wing. Wing construction is
made up of three main parts: skin, spar, and ribs. The skin is the wing’s outer layer, which
provides aerodynamic form and smoothness. The spar is the primary longitudinal beam that runs
down the wing and bears the majority of the bending stress. Ribs are transverse features that
shape and reinforce the wing by connecting the spar and the skin. A representation of the wing
is shown in Figure .2. The wing skin is represented in light gray, the ribs in dark orange, and the
spars in blue.

Figure .2: Representation of the wing and its internal components.

A key issue in wing design is balancing wing loads and bending. Wing loading, or the weight-
to-wing-area ratio, influences lift, drag, and stall characteristics. Bending is the deformation of
a wing caused by lift and weight forces, which affects stress distribution and fatigue life. Wing
loading increases bending load and stress while decreasing wing area and drag.

3.2 Wing Loads

Designing a light aircraft wing entails assessing maximum expected loads during diverse flight
conditions to ensure structural integrity. The distribution of lift across the wing, leading to shear
forces and bending moments, is crucial. Considerations in structural design encompass material
selection, wing geometry, wing structure type (e.g., cantilever or strut-braced), and load transfer
method to the fuselage. The objective is to enable the wing to withstand aerodynamic loads,
maintain structural integrity, and adhere to safety standards. Important load distributions for
light aircraft Drag force, thrust forces, weight forces and lift forces are shown in the Figure: .3.

Figure .3: Forces acting on aircraft.

6
3.3 Essential Assumptions for Material Selection
In order to choose the material for the aircraft wing, it is necessary to make some assumptions.
Some assumptions will be made for values such as the type of aircraft, the load distribution on
the wing, the wing geometry, etc.

1. For light aircraft, the procedures followed were taken into consideration. Among the forces
affecting the wing which means that thrust and drag forces are ignored.

2. The theory of pure bending serves as the foundation for the bending equation. Generally,
when having the maximum bending moment, the shear force is zero.

3. Only the main spar is affected by the bending moment. Wing rigidity is provided by ribs
and skin.

4. The distribution of lift force on the wing is linear. The average weight for light aircraft is
5670 [kg]. Wing length is 10.92 [m]. The critical bending moment S* in the wing is 151.850
[Nm].

3.4 Design requirements

There is certainty regarding the wing’s length and width when choosing a material. The cross-
section area that needs to be taken into account when choosing a material can be thought of as a
free variable.
The primary objective of the wing spar is to minimize mass while maintaining required stiffness
levels, with a fixed length for the pole. Table 1 outlines the Design Requirements for the structural
material of the plane wing, considering objectives such as fatigue performance, corrosion resistance,
and recyclability.

Function Structural material for plane wing

Objectives Mass Minimization (main)
Cost Minimization (second)
Constraints Specified stiffness (S specified): must not deflect too much under design loads
Length specified (L) : Most of the time, wing span size is determined by design.
Free Variables Material Selection
Cross-Section Shape

Table 1: Design requirements for a plane wing.

3.5 Objectives and constraints

The main objective is to reduce the mass that can be described by;

m = ALρ = b2 Lρ (.1)

where ρ is the density of the material, V = b2 · L is the volume of the beam and L is its length.
The beam’s bending stiffness S needs to be at least S*.

7
 C2 EI
S= ≥ S∗ (.2)
L3
where C2 is a constant,I represents the second moment of area for a square section beam. Now
that b has been removed from the objective function of the mass, the material index can be found.

1/2
12S∗ L3
  ρ 
m= (L) 1/2 (.3)
C2 E
From the equation: .3 is written in the form of a performance equation;

P = f1 [F] · f2 [G] · f3 [M],

where f1 [F] is a function depending on the functional requirements, f2 [G] is a function depending
on the geometric parameters and f3 [M] is a function depending on the material properties. To
find the material index, we can find it by maximizing f3 [M]. As a result, there are two material
indexes. These are stiffness limited design [M1 ] and strength limited design [M2 ] .

2/3
E 1/2 σf
M1 = M2 = (.4)
ρ ρ

3.6 Shape Factor

Material selection in engineering is a critical process, and shape considerations play a pivotal
role in achieving optimal performance. In our project, we carefully considered factors such as
aspect ratio, surface area-to-volume ratio, and cross-sectional shape. Ultimately, we chose an I-
beam due to its advantageous cross-sectional geometry, which allows for effective elastic bending
moments. This decision contributes to a sturdier beam, enhancing the overall efficiency of our
design solutions. The elastic bending characteristics of the I-beam ensure resilience within its
elastic limits, aligning with our goal of creating a robust and reliable structure. In engineering,
the interplay between material properties and shape is key to designing structures that not only
meet but exceed performance expectations.

3.6.1 Elastic bending of beams

A dimensionless shape factor φ is introduced to take into account the efficiency of a cross-section.
In the case of a beam in bending, the shape factor for bending factor φBe is defined as equation:.5
and the minimum bending stiffness (S∗ ) can defined as in equation:.5:

12I EI
φBe = SB = C1 (.5)
A2 L3
The minimum bending can be found by arranging equations .5 and ?? in accordance with the
second moment of area:

C1 E e 2
SB = φ A (.6)
12 L3 B
Finally the mass in Equation .3 can be expressed with Equation .6 by eliminating the area A
as;

8
 1/2 " #
12SB∗

ρ
m= L5/2 (.7)
C1 (φBe E)1/2
To find the material index, we can find it by maximizing the material properties ( f3 [M]). The
lightest material-shape combination for elastic bending of beam is found as follows.

(φBe E)1/2
M1 = (.8)
ρ

3.6.2 Failure of beams

Equations governing the failure analysis of beams involve optimizing the section shape for a given
length L to support a specified load F while minimizing weight. The criterion for failure is defined
by the moment M, which must not exceed the limit given by M = Zσ f , where Z is the section
modulus and σ f is the stress at failure.

f Z 6Z
φB = = 3/2 (.9)
Zo A
f
Introducing the shape factor φB from Equation .9 , the failure condition becomes:

σ f f 3/2
M= φ A (.10)
6 B
Substituting this expression into Equation:.1 for the mass of the beam yields:
" #2/3
ρ 3/2
m = (6M)2/3 L f
(.11)
φB σ f
To find the material index, we can find it by maximizing the material properties ( f3 [M]). The
lightest material-shape combination for the failure of the beam is found as follows.
 2/3
f
φB σ f
M2 = (.12)
ρ

3.7 Cost Minimization

The indices shift once more when reducing cost is the main objective instead of mass. The cost of
the material to create a component of mass m is just mCm if the material price is Cm $/kg. This
makes the following the objective function for the beam’s material cost;

C = mCm = ALCm ρ (.13)

The material index stiffness formulas for material selection, limited design [M1 ] and strength
limited design [M2 ] will be as follows.
 2/3
f
1/2
(φBe E) φB σ f
M1 = M2 = (.14)
ρ ∗Cm ρ ∗Cm

9
4 Material selection and properties
The part reserved for the selection of the materials that maximize all the indexes is going to be
studied. For that, the software GRANTA EDU PACK is useful. First, level 2 of this software
will be used to find and come out with classes, categories, or families of materials that meet the
requirements. And then finally level 3 will step in, to filtrate the previous sort.

4.1 Granta level 2

1
(E) 2
Let us get to the heart of the content. The considered material index is M = . That
ρ
1
leads on log(M) = 2 · log(E) − log(ρ). Then, the later equation gives after rearranging terms,
log(E) = 2 · log(ρ) + 2 · log(M). This equation is translated by a line of slope 2, with M = cst, and
can be used to narrow the selection.

For a first naive selection, the line were pushed up until the Titanium family (nothing prevented
it from going higher, except that for a first naive selection, it is a good way to have Titanium,
based on the knowledge and the past of the subject, even if this choice still leaves with 38 families
to filter). The fact that the steel family is not in this first selection is not penalizing because steel
has a much bigger weight than usual materials in aircraft structures. It is possible to see that the
selection at this stage, is not precise.
The level 2 of Granta gives the following families:

Figure .4: Classification based on Young’s modulus over density.

As explained before, the selected materials are above the lines because the goal is to maximize
the stiffness over the density. In this first selection process, there are 38 families that are above the
line. There are some historical materials like wood and its variants (hardwood, softwood..), glass-
ceramic (fiber composite glass), AL alloys, metals like alumina, and CFRP epoxy matrix (carbon
fiber materials). There are also some actual materials like titanium, glass ceramic (composites),
and CFRP epoxy matrix. On the opposite, some materials can never be used in a wing like cement
(due to its very high density and its incompatible mechanical properties with aeronautic), rigid

10
polymers (which are mostly used in drones and very small aircraft), wood (because of its brittle
behavior), silicon carbide to quote only those. For then refine the selection, the most suitable
thing to do is to find a specific limiting criterion that will leave the analysis in the right place.
Like, service temperature, minimum tensile/compressive strength, Fracture toughness...
To continue, based on the compression and tension stresses typically experienced by commercial
aircraft wings, the list has been significantly narrowed down. Statistically, the upper part and
the lower part of a wing must be able to withstand compression forces of at least 300 MPa [6].
Meanwhile, both of these parts must resist tensile forces of at least 325 MPa (figure ( .5) shows
forces applied on the wing).

Figure .5: Applied stresses on an airfoil wing

Considering that these wings also experience shear forces, the material must have a shear modulus
around 25MPa [6]. This information has been put into GRANTA to refine the selection.
There are remaining families are fewer than 38. By reducing the main ones;
• Titanium alloy
• CFRP epoxy matrix
• Silicon nitride
• Age-hardening wrought Al-alloy
• Aluminium/silicon carbide composite
Silicon Carbide is directly removed from the list cause of its sensitivity with respect to hot
temperature variation. It is known that the turbo-machinery of airliners are most of the time
placed near the wing. Normally, this should also be the case for silicon nitride, which is not
intuitively suitable for aircraft structures. But it’s less sensitive to temperature than carbides,
which gives it the benefit of the doubt.

4.2 Granta Level 3

After obtaining the list of candidate material families for our application, it is time to make the
selection more specific. To accomplish this, Granta’s Level 3 will be the primary tool.

11
Figure .6: Refine classification based on Young’s modulus over density, minimum tensile strength
325Mpa, minimum compression strength 300Mpa, Shear modulus 25MPa

Let’s begin by reviewing the families of each material along with some of their characteristics.

Families E ρ× 10−3 σT σC Price

[MPa] [Mg/m3 ] [MPa] [MPa] [EUR/Kg]
Titanium alloy 110-120 4.43-4.79 763-1190 680-1150 21.6-23.7
CFRP 69-150 1.5-1.6 550-1050 440-840 32.4-36
Silicon nitride 302-318 3.16-3.23 476-525 7940-8750 29.9-47.7
Al-Alloy (Age) 68-76 2.67-2.84 288-571 245-521 3.02-3.2
Al/silicon Composite 81-100 2.66-2.9 290-365 280-325 4.41-5.47

Table 2: Table of properties of those 5 families

Passing from Level 2 to Level 3 with the 5 families, one obtains 298 materials. Based on some
research, materials that are used in wing design approach a minimum value of 76GPa for the
stiffness. This is to avoid bending due to structural load like the weight of the fuselage on the
wings. This criterion leads us to 194 remaining materials, rather than the 298 initially. Note by
passing from Level 2 to Level 3, All the materials of Silicon Carbide have reappeared. It is useful
to ignore them for a good exploitation of data. So instead of 194 materials, the focus will turn on
180.
It can be observed that an additional criterion is needed to select the right materials for our
aircraft wing. For this, the criterion of cost minimization should be considered. This criterion
involves the shape factor to differentiate our materials. Therefore, the cost criterion will be applied
1
(φBe ×E) 2
with this additional factor.Then, M = ρ×Cm. That leads on log(M) = 12 · log(φBe × E) − log(ρ ×
Cm ). Then, the later equation gives after rearranging terms, log(φBe × E) = 2 · log(ρ) + 2 · log(M).
This equation is translated by a line of slope 2, with M = cst, and can be used to narrow the
selection.

12
 Figure .7: Young’s modulus(GPa) with respect to density(Kg/m3 ) × price(EUR/Kg)

The slope passes by the point x = 345.8 and y = 3.75e − 5 (same approach in [5]. With this
slope, 105 remain. The best materials of each family are taken with respect to their highest index
value. Directly associated with their own properties.
f
Materials E ρ × 10−3 Index value φB Price σf
[MPa] [Mg/m3 ] [-] [EUR/Kg] [MPa]
Titanium commercial 105-120 4.54-4.55 3.45e-5 21 12.8-14.3 550
purity, grade 4
Carbon fibers 225-260 1.8-1.83 6.91e-5 1 21.4-28.6 3000-7000
High strength (5 micron, f)
Silicon nitride 302-318 3.1-3.2 3.02e-5 14.2 30-45.8 600-900
(hot pressed)(5% MgO)
Aluminium 2024 74-77.8 2.75-2.78 3.33e-4 19 1.8-1.99 400-490
T8510/8511
Duralcan Al-20SiC (p) 97-99 2.76-2.78 1,17e-4 24 5.29-7.06 200-350
cast (F3S20S)

Table 3: Table of properties of the best 5 last choice

13
5 Methods for multi-objective selection
To identify the optimal material for the structural composition of a lightweight aircraft wing, an
analytical selection method, and shape factor will be used. This method involves the consideration
of three distinct criteria to determine the most suitable material from a pool of five options
obtained from Ansys GRANTA. The criteria under evaluation encompass the mechanical strength
of the material (essential for supporting the aircraft’s weight), the weight of the structure (directly
influencing flight characteristics), and the overall cost of the structure and assembly.
The ranking of materials based on these criteria is established using a grading system presented
in Table 4. The grades range from 5 (indicating the best) to 1 (representing the least favorable).
Additionally, the importance of each criterion is delineated through the Ni grading, as illustrated
in Table 5. These grades highlight the significance of each criterion, designating the 1st, 2nd, and
3rd decisive criteria.

Grade Rank
ki = 5 Best Grade Importance
ki = 4 Very Good Ni = 3 1s tdecisive criterion
ki = 3 Good Ni = 2 s
2 t decisive criterion
ki = 2 Satisfactory Ni = 1 3st decisive criterion
ki = 1 Worst
Table 5: Rank of the importance
Table 4: Rank of the criteria among the of the 3 criteria - Ni grading
five materials - ki grading

Each material’s overall score (S j ) is calculated based on its mechanical strength, weight, and
cost, utilizing the formula:
3
S j = ∑ Ni kij = N1 k1j + N2 k2j + N3 k3j (.15)
i=1
The final grading of the analytical method is summarized in Table 6, displaying the scores and
rankings for each material across the specified criteria.

Material Cost Weight Mechanical Strength Score

(Ni = 1) (Ni = 2) (Ni = 3) Sj
Titanium commercial k11 = 3 k12 = 1 k13 = 3 14
purity, grade 4
Carbon fibers k21 = 2 k22 = 5 k23 = 4 24
High strength (5 microns, f)
Silicon nitride k31 = 1 k32 = 2 k33 = 5 20
(hot pressed)(5% MgO)
Aluminium 2024 k41 = 5 k42 = 4 k43 = 1 21
T5810/8511
Duralcan Al-20SiC k51 = 4 k52 = 3 k53 = 2 16
cast (F3S20S)

Table 6: Final grading of the analytical method

This comprehensive analysis provides a structured approach to material selection, offering a

clear basis for decision-making in the construction of the aircraft wing. Based on the scores and
rankings, Carbon fibers with high strength (5 microns, f) emerge as the most promising material,
excelling in mechanical strength, weight considerations, and overall cost.

14
 In order to investigate further with the already defined shape factor constraints M2 (withoutcost)
and M2 , it is possible to see the optimum material in terms of weight and cost prioritized. Since
the shape factor is taken into account in the mathematical expression of the material index, it
could be said that it is more accurate compared to the analytical method. the comparison of the
two material indexes is shown in Table7.
Material M2 (withoutcost) M2
Titanium commercial 4.3 7.85
Carbon fibers 200 7
Silicon nitride 171 3.7
Aluminium 2024 160 80
Duralcan Al-20SiC 190.5 27

Table 7: Material selection in terms of mass and cost constraint.

In evaluating the table, it is essential to note that higher values for both M2 (withoutcost)
and M2 are desirable, as they indicate a better balance between the material’s weight and cost.
Therefore, according to this analysis, Carbon fibers maintain their position as the optimal material,
demonstrating superior performance in both mechanical strength and weight. However, in terms of
cost constraints, Aluminium 2024 outperforms the others, while Carbon fibers excel in meeting the
weight constraint. Therefore, the choice between Carbon fibers and Aluminium 2024 depends on
the specific priorities of the aircraft wing design. If minimizing cost is a higher priority, Aluminium
2024 might be the preferred choice, whereas if reducing weight is paramount, Carbon fibers remain
the optimal material.

6 Results and discussion

The selection of carbon fiber as the optimal material is heavily influenced by its exceptional
mechanical strength and minimal weight. These two criteria carry the highest importance grades,
emphasizing the significance of these factors in the context of a lightweight aircraft wing. The
scoring system, combining the assigned grades for importance and the performance grades for each
criterion, provides a nuanced and weighted evaluation, ensuring that the final decision aligns with
the specific needs of the project.
It’s important to note that while carbon fiber excels in mechanical strength and weight, its cost
is considered quite high compared to the other materials, but also it can be worth it in terms
of the project budget. Therefore, in terms of cost sensitivity, the cost factor, though factored
into the grading, requires additional consideration. For projects with strict budget constraints,
materials like Aluminum or Duralcan may offer a more favorable balance between optimality and
cost. Moreover, in terms of weight impact, while carbon fiber excels in weight reduction, the
impact on the overall aircraft design should be carefully assessed. If the weight reduction justifies
the cost, carbon fiber may still be the preferred choice.
Furthermore, another important criterion for aviation is resistance of corrosion. Titanium and
Silicon Nitride generally exhibit excellent corrosion resistance, while Carbon Fibers, Aluminum
2024 T5810/8511, and Duralcan Al-20SiC Cast may require additional measures (such as coatings
or treatments) to mitigate corrosion risks.
The conclusion, therefore, is a result of a balanced consideration of multiple factors, allowing for
a strategic decision that prioritizes the key requirements of the lightweight aircraft wing structure.
Lead engineers are encouraged to review and understand the transparent decision-making process,
and should project requirements evolve, a reassessment of material selection may be warranted.

15
7 Conclusion
In summary, this exploration into the evolution and selection of materials for aircraft wings tra-
verses the historical roots of aviation, progressing from wood and metals to advanced composites.
The paper employs a systematic approach, focusing on mechanical strength, weight considerations,
and cost efficiency in the selection process.
The state-of-the-art analysis illuminates the dynamic shifts in wing materials over the years,
highlighting the continuous quest for excellence in aerospace engineering. The objectives and con-
straints section outlines the components of wing structures, load considerations, and the essential
assumptions guiding material selection.
Utilizing Granta Level 2 and Level 3 analyses, the study narrows down material choices based
on mechanical properties and specific requirements. A multi-objective selection method, incorpo-
rating a shape factor, is employed to rank materials based on mechanical strength, weight, and
cost considerations.
Results indicate carbon fibers, particularly high-strength variants, as the most promising ma-
terial, excelling in mechanical strength and weight. However, the final choice between carbon
fibers and alternatives like Aluminum 2024 hinges on project-specific priorities, considering cost,
corrosion resistance, and overall design impact.
In conclusion, the transparent decision-making process presented in this paper provides a struc-
tured approach for material selection in lightweight aircraft wing structures. The dynamic interplay
of mechanical properties, weight considerations, and cost efficiency underscores the complexity of
material choices in aerospace engineering. Periodic reassessment is recommended to align with
evolving project requirements and advancements in materials science.

16
References
[1] Ashby, M. F. (2017). Materials selection in mechanical design. Butterworth-Heinemann.

[2] Selection of materials for aircraft structures on JSTOR. (n.d.). www.jstor.org.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44434047

[3] Analysis and Fabrication of Composite Wing Spar, T.Kumaraswamy , Volume No: 3 (2016),
Issue No: 9 (September-2016)

[4] Light-Airplane Wing Structural Analysis and Material Selection, Honors College, A THESIS
submitted to Oregon State University June 2021

[5] Analysis into the Most Effective Material for Wing Design Constrained under Stiffness,
Strength, Cost and Weight, structured and materials, Montfort University

[6] Aircraft Structures for Engineering students, Sixth Edition, T.H.G Megson

[7] Tango. (2023, March 9). Quels sont les bois utilisés en construction aéronautique. Codefa.
https://codefa.fr/quels-sont-les-bois-utilises-en-construction-aeronautique/

[8] Toutes les annales du B.I.A. (n.d.). https://annales-bia.fr/qcm.php?annee=2001&theme=cda

[9] Thomas, J. (2022, December 14). How aerospace materials advanced. Past, present, fu-
ture. Advanced Structural Technologies. https://astforgetech.com/how-aerospace-materials-
advanced-past-present-future/

17