AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES:

RIGID AND ELASTIC

Dr. John Valasek
Aerospace Engineering
Texas A&M University

AERO 401
November 1999

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

1
 INTRODUCTION
early motivations
The main factor that governs the choice of materials and structural form is the
ratio of the load on the structure to its dimensions.
mission type and speed
Very early aircraft operated at low speeds, and therefore loads were low in relation
to aircraft size. Wing loadings were typically 5 - 10 psf.
best option was to concentrate compression loads into a few small rod-like members
and diffuse tensions into fabric and wires
Low power engines of the time made structural lightness an expedient
wood and fabric were best choice, and simple to obtain
aircraft of similar dimension were less than the weight of comparable modern ones
metals were entirely out of the question
Biplanes were prevalent because early monoplanes suffered from catastrophic
structural failures (probably caused by aeroelastic effects which were unknown at
the time).
WWI dogfight load factors could be as high as 4g

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

2
 INTRODUCTION
modern motivations
For high speed flight, the main factor that governs the choice of materials and
structural form is the high temperature environment caused by kinetic
heating in sustained supersonic flight.
Except for one or two exceptions, the top speed of fighter aircraft have
traditionally been limited not by aerodynamics or propulsion but by the choice
of materials.
without advances in structural efficiency the performance improvements due to
advances in aerodynamics and propulsion would not have been realized
Existing fighter aircraft as a rule do not have long supersonic endurance, and so
have metalic leading edges (for reasons of rain and birdstrikes).
The proposed U.S. High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) is critically dependent
on advanced structures and materials technology.

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

3
 WING LOADING
fighter aircraft trends (1910 - 2000)
160
Wing loadings based on maximum F-16C
F-104A
takeoff weight. 140 MiG-31
F-14A
The great rise in wing loading F-15E
120 F-4E F-15C
occurred during the 1930s and 40s. Thick
Thick F-4B
Skinned
Skinned MiG-29A
The generation of fighters with thick 100 Jets
Jets F-84G
Kfir Rafale

Wing Loading (psf)

skins lessened the trend slightly. F-84D
F-16A
80 YF-12A
EF2000
Note the difference in F-16 takeoff J-37
Mirage 2000

wing loadings: 60 Fw 190A

F-106A Deltas
Deltas
F-16A air superiority J-35D
Bf-110A
F-16C multi-role 40
Wood
Wooden P-26 Meteor Hurricane II
Biplanes
Biplanes Gladiator Metal
20 Metal
Gauntlet Monoplanes
Pup Monoplanes
0
1910 1930 1950 Year 1970 1990 2010
Thick Skinned Jets Deltas
Metal Monoplanes Wooden Biplanes

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

4
 WING CONSTRUCTION
the early years (1900 - 1918)
Fabric covering wooden spars.
Load carried by internal structure
plus bracing wires.
Typical of WWI aircraft.
Load bearing members are
positioned near aerodynamic
surfaces where the stresses are highest.
Upper surface in compression, lower surface in tension. Stresses near the neutral axis
are low and lightening holes can be used.
Susceptibility to structural failure
due to wood rot.
Buckling of wings in flight
called a striptease in the
vernacular of the period.

Moraine-Saulnier Type N Bullet

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
5
 STATIC LOADS TESTING
1920
Determining ultimate flight loads by testing to destruction

Military Wing Sopwith D.1 No. 243 Squadron

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

6
 WING CONSTRUCTION
the inter-war years (1919 - 1938)
Built up steel spars with wood
reinforcement, covered with fabric.
Warren type truss.
Load carried by internal
structure plus bracing wires.
Intended to be the best of both
worlds in terms of greater
structural strength due to inclusion of steel, and lower cost, ease of manufacture,
and ease of maintenance due to fabric covering.
Ended up being worst of both worlds
mix of steel and wood not as strong as Hawker Hurricane Mk. XII
steel alone
fabric unable to withstand higher speeds
permitted by stronger structure

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

7
 WING CONSTRUCTION
WWII to Korea and after (1939 - 1955)
A major conceptual breakthrough:
most of the structural load is carried
by the external structure.
Semi-Monocoque construction
the thin skin can easily handle tension
to handle compression without
buckling, the skin is attached to the spars and stringers
Stressing the skin results in an even higher load carrying capability.
total result is a structure very stiff in bending.
requires mechanical fasteners (rivets).
Messerschmitt Me 262 Sturmvogel
permits higher speeds / lower drag.
Discovered in 1925 by Dr. H. Wagner,
termed the Wagner Theory of the
Diagonal-Tension Field Beam,
Standard construction type today.
Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
8
 WING WEIGHT
fighter aircraft trends (1930 - 1980)
1.2

P-51B Normalized to P-51 baseline

1
P-26A span (accounting for planform,
P-36A section, materials).
Modern jet wings are much
0.8
lighter than 1940s prop wings
Normalized Wing Weight

P-51 14.5% WTO

0.6 F-86A F-15A 3% WTO
If modern wings had to be built
F-84F
0.4 using 1940s technology, they
F-104A would virtually be solid
F-4C
F-111
F-14A
aluminum alloys or steel.
F-100C
0.2 F-16A
F-106A F-15A Structural efficiency has
improved greatly with time.
0
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Year of Service Entry

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

9
 WING CONSTRUCTION
supersonic to post Vietnam (1955 - 1975)
High transonic and supersonic flight speeds mandated wings with
very low thickness ratios
large bending strength
sweepback torsion
thicker skins
and therefore more structural material.
Solid wings were one answer (F-104).
A better solution is integral wings
skin and stringers are machined from a single large piece of material
eliminates mechanical fasteners
good surface finish (low drag)
Wet Wing; no bladders, but integral: McDonnell F-101A Voodoo
fuel tank
torque box
skin
significant increase in fuel volume
structural synergism

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

10
 INTERNAL FUEL LOAD
fighter aircraft trends (1945 - 2000)
12000
YF-22
Comparison of integral
F-15E YF-23
tanks and bladder tanks. 10000 Su-27(o)

For the same area, integral Integral

Integral Tanks
Tanks Su-27
Mirage 4000
tanks offer greater capacity. 8000

Internal Fuel Volume (kg)

F-14A
Notable aircraft:
F-18E Deltas
Deltas
F-101A fuselage fuel 6000 F-101A
F-15C
F-16XL

F-15E conformal tanks F-18C

F-15A
Javelin FAW.9

F-105D J37
Su-27 overload condition F-8A
J-8 EF2000
4000 Rafale D
F-16C
F-100C
Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker F-104G
Bladder TanksTanks
F-5E
Lavi
Mirage 2000 Bladder
J35D
Pre-1955
Pre - 1955
F-84F
2000
F-86H
Hunter F.6
F-86F
MiG-15

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
2
Wing Area (m )

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

11
 WING CONSTRUCTION
contemporary (1976 - )
The quest to save weight while still retaining good mechanical properties.
Concept: reduce structural mass by reducing material density, instead of increasing
mechanical properties like
strength
stiffness
toughness
For most materials:
10% strength increase, 3% weight reduction
10% density reduction, 10% weight reduction
Execution is usually in the form of various types of alloys and composites.
Drawbacks include
cost
difficulty in manufacturing
undesirable aeroelastic effects
such as reduced roll rates and
aileron reversal

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

12
 STATIC LOADS TESTING
1998
Non-destructive testing including accurate measurement of deflections

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
13
 TOTAL GROSS WEIGHT REDUCTION
projected

TILTROTOR 5 23 2 8
Structures
STOL Short Range 16 2 14 5 Aerodynamics
STOL Medium Range 9 5 10 7 Propulsion
Systems
GLOBAL CARGO Short 16 5 8 6

GLOBAL CARGO Long 22 11 15 7

LONG HAUL Blended 19 12 12 3

LONG HAUL Conv. 24 5 13 9

SUPER Business 8 18 13 18

SUPER Premium 8 13 12 13

SUPER Long Haul 11 13 12 15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Gross Weight Reduction (% )
Source: Aerospace America, November 1997
Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
14
 THE COMET STORY (1)
1949 A New Era Begins

The DeHavilland D.H. - 106

ushers in the jet age in
commercial air passenger
transport

DeHavilland D.H.-106 Comet 1949

48 pax
490 MPH
3540 nm
Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
15
 THE COMET STORY (2)
1953 - 1954 Tragedies
Five aircraft are lost
two due to stall at takeoff
three inflight, due to unknown causes
BOAC Comet Yoke-Peter, serial G-ALYP, (the first Comet I in scheduled
service) crashes off the island of Elba in the Mediterranean Sea, 10 January
1954. 35 pax plus crew are lost.
South African Airways Comet crashes off the island of Stromboli in the
Mediterranean Sea, 8 April 1954. 14 pax plus crew are lost.
Deep sea salvage using sonar and underwater television cameras is used for the
first time to locate aircraft wreckage.

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

16
 THE COMET STORY (3)
1955 The Cause Revealed
The Particulars
pressurized cabin
multiple pressurizations / depressurizations
square windows
The Mechanism
crack propagation
The Result
structural failure resulting from repeated loading/unloading cycles
The Phenomena
Cyclic Fatigue

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

17
 THE COMET STORY (4)
America responds

Boeing 367-80 1954 Douglas DC-8 1958

118 pax* 132 pax
582 MPH 600 MPH
3530 nm 3550 nm

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

18
 THE COMET STORY (5)
the lead is lost for good
The improved safe version Comet 3 (1955) and improved range (transatlantic) Comet 4
(1958) are offered.

In 1958 the Comet 4 begins the very first regularly scheduled transatlantic jet service.
westbound flights still had to refuel at Gander, Newfoundland
One year later, the DC-8 and B707 firmly captured the market due to higher speed and
significantly larger passenger capacity.
Comet 4: 76 pax at 500 MPH
B707: 176 pax at 600 MPH
Comets are eventually sold to the Royal Navy as Nimrod AEW aircraft.

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

19
 FATIGUE TESTING
ensuring long term structural integrity
V-22 design life is 10,000 hours, or 20 years of flying ops.
Airplane and helicopter induced loads will be encountered.
takeoffs
landings
airplane and helicopter maneuvers
rough field and shipboard operations
ground maneuvers (braking and taxiing) Boeing V-22 Osprey

For acceptance, structural integrity of

airframe is tested to multiple lifetimes.
Two for low-cycle loadings (20,000 hrs),
three for high-cycle loadings (30,000 hrs)
Minimum 7,000 hours in airplane mode,
3,000 hours in VTOL mode.
No damage at 4g, 310 kts, and 2.8g, 345 kts.
At end of first test lifetime, airframe is
disassembled and inspected.

Dr. John Valasek Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, 20 April 1998 Aerospace Engineering
20
 THE ELASTIC AIRPLANE
fact or fiction?

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

21
 AEROELASTICITY
when flexible structure meets dynamic

pressure

Source: Air International, Vol. 52 No. 3, March 1997

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
22
 ELASTIC AIRCRAFT
practical considerations
All aircraft are elastic to some extent.
The designed-in level of airframe elasticity is dictated by:
operational requirements and constraints
aerodynamics
materials
economics
safety, e.g bend but dont break
Some aircraft types are significantly more elastic than others:
Rutan Voyager
Aircraft which are generally rigid
fighters F-15 Eagle
general aviation Cessna 172
homebuilts made of conventional materials Thorpe T-18
Aircraft which are generally elastic
supersonic cruise Concorde
large and long range transports and bombers Boeing 777
homebuilts made of composite materials GlassAir

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

23
 AEROELASTIC EFFECTS (1)
steady-state stability derivatives
Example: Boeing Model 707-320B
Weathercock Stability Boeing Model 707-320B

Elastic stability derivatives are a

strong function of dynamic pressure
and therefore speed and altitude.

Compared to the rigid aircraft:

elastic weathercock stability has
essentially equal yet opposite slope for 0.1
M 0.9
elastic weathercock stability is reduced
85% at M = 0.9
Boeing Model 707-320B
Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

24
 AEROELASTIC EFFECTS (2)
aft fuselage bending
Example: elevator effectiveness degradation due to fuselage flexure.
Model the horizontal tail as a flexible cantilever beam:

Under a vertical load Lh the fuselage will produce an elastically

induced angular deflection KLh. An up load produces a negative
change in horizontal tail angle-of-attack. The total aerodynamic
Boeing Model 707-320B load is: h h
b
L CL w ih e e KLh qS g
Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam

Note that Lh is a function of itself. Solving for this load: Lh

b
C L h w ih e e qS g
e1 C L h KqS j
At high dynamic pressure the loads decreases because the denominator grows large. Converting to a
C i e e lh
pitching moment coefficient Cm L w h
b g
and differentiating with respect to e,
h

h
e1 C L h j
KqS c
Cm
CL h e lh

Dr. John Valasek

e
e
1 C KqS jc
L h
Aerospace Engineering
25
 MODELING AEROELASTICITY
perturbed-state stability derivatives
Analytical derivatives are obtained
by influence coefficient methods.
Aerodynamic [A]
rigid body
Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam
Each element aij is the aerodynamic
force induced on panel i as a result
of a unit change in angle-of-attack
on panel j. The column of aerodynamic
forces oF t is related to [A ] and
AEi ij

the airplane angle-of-attack distribution

n sby oF t q A n s.
Ji AEi ij Ji

Converting to pitching moment coefficient and

Cmq
2
2 xi
Sc
l q A lx q
T
ij i taking the derivative with respect to pitch rate,
gives the rigid body pitch damping derivative.
Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering
26
 JIG SHAPE (1)
equilibrium states of elastic aircraft
It is assumed that:
The aircraft is held in its elastic equilibrium shape by an elastic
equilibrium load distribution (gravity, aerodynamic, thrust).
The aircraft is elastically deformed in the equilibrium state.
strain energy is pent up in the structure
While under equilibrium loads, the center of gravity does not
correspond to a specific point on the structure of the airplane.
When equilibrium loads are removed, the C.G. is a fixed point on the
structure of the aircraft in its undeformed or jig shape.
Undeformed or Jig Shape

Source: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic

Flight Controls, Part II by J. Roskam
Elastic Equilibrium State

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

27
 JIG SHAPE (2)
equilibrium states of elastic aircraft
Elements of a calculated jig shape matrix must be translated into
jigging points for the assembly jigs.
Determination of the jig shape is usually performed by computer.
Computer controlled laser-guided alignment is used during assembly.

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

28
 ELASTIC AIRCRAFT
summary
Multiple and simultaneous aeroelastic behaviours are typically encountered:
aileron reversal
wing divergence
loss of longitudinal control power due to aft fuselage bending
Aeroelastic effects on stability and control derivatives are usually significant
and always vary strongly with flight condition.
Steady-state and perturbed state stability and control derivatives are
fundamentally different for elastic aircraft:
inertial effects due to mass distribution invoke elastic deformations, altering the
aerodynamic loading
Elastic aircraft must be designed, manufactured, and built to a jig shape to
achieve a specific desired cruise shape under flight loads.
Many analytical modeling techniques exist of varying complexity and
accuracy.

Dr. John Valasek Aerospace Engineering

29