Cessna Wing Cross-Section with Ribs and Spars
EMCH 308 Intro to Finite Element Stress Analysis
5/3/2021
1
1. Problem Introduction
During a typical mission, an aircraft will experience many different forces such as lift and
drag. These forces can have adverse effects such as bending and torsion loads on the aircraft
structure with dominant effects on the wings. All of these effects need to be properly accounted
for to ensure a safe flight for both passengers and civilians on the ground. More importantly, there
are many different criteria to consider which will affect the loads and structural integrity of the
aircraft such as the material choice. In recent years, carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP), a type
of composite, have made a significant impact in the aerospace industry providing strong structures
while cutting the weight of an aircraft dramatically. These materials are used by most aerospace
companies nowadays with the most notable application being the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. This
aircraft is over 50% composite by weight [1], using the majority of its composite components in
the fuselage. The goal of flight has always been to reduce the weight of the vehicle and increase
overall efficiency, so it is not far-fetched to believe that the industry is moving towards full
composite structures. Therefore, as the popularity of this material grows in the aerospace industry,
it becomes increasingly important to understand how it reacts under certain loading conditions
when compared to more typical aircraft materials, such as aluminum.
2. Problem Statement
Air travel is an important aspect of life from the mobility and economic standpoint.
Understanding how changing designs from traditional methodologies to new creations like the
Boeing 787 Dreamliner can bring light to how it will affect the day to day life. To concentrate on
the elements of aircraft performance the focus will be drawn to the wing of the aircraft rather than
the fuselage. When observing the aircraft and its performance the lift generating devices, primarily
wings, are of great importance in accomplishing the job of any aircraft whether it is passenger or
cargo transport. To understand how new materials will impact the future of aircraft design and air
travel an analysis must be conducted on the pros and cons of material innovation. In order to assess
the material performance of an industry standard like aluminum and the newly incorporated
composite materials in aircraft applications, a standardized wing can be taken into consideration
when thinking about the physics of flight. During flight, an airplane wing experiences a multitude
of forces, among which forces of weight and pressure forces like lift and drag create stress
distributions and displace the wing. To counteract the large forces required for flight a wing
contains vital components such as ribs, spars, and stiffeners to strengthen the wing’s outer shell,
the skin. Aluminum material is commonly used in the aerospace industry due to its lightweight
and strong nature; all of the components of the wing are made of this versatile material and provide
sufficient stiffness and strength to the wing designed to withstand the forces required for flight.
Composite materials on the other hand are a recent commodity when it comes to wing design as
the material is complex to manufacture but provides a lightweight solution to the wing design
problem. To assess which of the two materials is better at withstanding the large deflections and
flexing of the wings along side the high stress concentrations due to pressure forces respectively a
wing must be tested under the loading of a typical flight. This matters because understanding an
experimental model of the two materials can help foresee the excellency and drawbacks of either
wing model. A straight, unwept wing with a constant taper ratio, ribs/spars/struts like that of a
Cessna 172 will be sufficient to grasp the physics associated with flight and the role material
composition plays within the aircraft wing. The wing is to be fixed to represent the attachment of
2
the wing root to the fuselage of the plane, the high-pressure distribution is located at the bottom of
the wing and it is trying to reach the low-pressure zone located at the top of the wing. This adverse
pressure distribution causes the lift forces needed to make the aircraft fly. As lift is the main force
acting on a wing caused by the pressure distribution it is a solid foundation for analyzing the
structural impact on flight performance.
3. Engineering Goal
The goal when modeling the aircraft wing for the two material considerations is to evaluate
the stress, displacement, and bending the wing undergoes during typical flight at takeoff and
landing conditions. In the analysis it is important to compare the two material configurations in
order to get an understanding of which material is truly more efficient in managing the flight
forces. Another goal is to see how the stiffeners, ribs, and spars uphold the structural integrity of
the wing when force is applied and how the difference in material can demonstrate the
improvement of the structure. A lifting force applied to the skin of the wing simulates the forces
experienced during flight, it is important to observe the variation of stress and displacement from
root to wing tip and how that is affected by the material strength and stiffness. There will be two
considerations to the model, one which will focus on the landing of the aircraft when the weight
of the plane is at its minimum condition, or empty weight and when the aircraft is at take-off
condition thus at the maximum weight condition, or maximum take-off weight. The main focus
lies in the support the aluminum and composite materials provide to the wing under the two flight
loading conditions.
Since the lifting force must generate the counter force to weight only the lifting force will
be used as it would not be true to the real aircraft wing to place all the aircraft weight along the
wing body. Another portion of the analysis that will be different is the drag acting on the aircraft,
since the wing follows an airfoil shape the drag acting on the wing itself is very small. Most drag
force occurs over the plane’s fuselage, thus it would also be inappropriate to propagate the high
fuselage drag force to the wing itself.
The limitation of this analysis is that the total weight of the aircraft will remain the same
to ensure a constant lift pressure force, thus allowing for a proper experimental analysis. This way
the material properties are tested under the same flight loading condition regardless of the material
weight itself. This imposes a limitation to analyzing the weight reduction benefit of the composite
material as the weight will remain constant for both models. One other limitation is that the drag
forces will not be incorporated to the analysis, thus strictly focusing on the impact of lift, necessary
for flight, on the wing stress and deformation.
4. Problem Specification
The following section will define all details related to the aircraft wing analysis. These
parameters will include the geometry of the model, the chosen materials, the desired loading and
support configurations, as well as the tie constraints between individual components of the wing.
3
4.1. Geometry
The geometry of the wing for this analysis roughly resembled that of a Cessna 172
Skyhawk, which is known to have a wingspan of 11m and a wing area of 16.17m2. Slight sizing
modifications were made resulting in a wing with a wingspan of 10m and a chord length of 1.5m
resulting in a wing planform area of 15m2. However, since an aircraft wing is symmetric about the
xz-plane, only one half of the wing was modeled to reduce computational expense. Since an
aircraft wing is made up of different components, these parts were all modeled separately and
combined at the end.
4.1.1. Wing Shell
The first part that was produced was the outer cover/shell of the wing using a 3D shell
extrude. To model this component, an ellipse was made from the origin with a major axis of
900mm and a minor axis of 180mm, and then it was trimmed to be a quarter model. Then, an arc
was made connecting the end of the airfoil to the ellipse to produce the top section of the airfoil.
Finally, the modeled was mirrored over the x-axis to produce a symmetric airfoil with a chord
length of 1500mm and a thickness of 180mm resulting in a thickness to chord ratio, t/c = 0.12. The
sketch was saved, extruded 5000mm, and then assigned a section of 2.5mm since wing covers are
generally very thin.
g
Figure 4.1: Wing Shell
To model the rib, a part was made using a 3D solid extrude, and the wing shell sketch was
loaded into the sketch editor to ensure the wing shell and rib had the same outer dimensions to
constrain the components later on. Circle cutouts were added to the sketch to reduce the weight of
the rib, which is a common industry practice. After finishing the sketch, the rib was extruded by
an arbitrary amount, and then the command, “Create Shell: From Solid” was used to make the rib
a shell. Finally, it was assigned a section thickness of 10mm.
4
Figure 4.2: Wing Rib
4.1.3. Wing Spar
To model the wing spars, a 3D shell extrude part was created, and the sketch from the shell
was loaded into the sketch editor again. For this wing, it was decided that the front spar would
have an I-beam profile while the rear spar would have a C-frame profile. The web of the front spar
was placed at 450mm from the leading edge or 30% of the chord. The web had a length of 180mm,
connecting the upper and lower surfaces of the wing, and the flanges were both 100mm long.
The C-frame was placed at 1050mm from the leading edge or 70% of the chord. Similar to
the front spar, the rear spar web connected the upper and lower surfaces of the wing, but it had
flange lengths of 50mm. For both of these spars, the flanges were tangent to the wing shell sketch.
Figure 4.3: Wing Spars
4.1.4. Wing Stiffeners
The final components modeled for the wing were the stiffeners, which are used to “stiffen”
the wing shell since it is extremely thin. To construct this part, the wing shell model was copied,
and then four planes located an equal distance from each other in the zy-plane were created
between the leading and trailing edges. These planes were used to partition the face of the wing
shell to determine the location of the wing stiffeners. Then the command “create wire: from
selected edges” was used. This wire frame was then converted to an orphan mesh to remove any
extra edges not acting as stiffeners.
5
The stiffeners were given a T-shape beam profile according to the dimensions in the image
below. Finally, the orientations of each beam were defined individually to ensure the flanges were
all tangent to the outer wing shell.
Figure 4.5: Stiffener Beam Profile
Figure 4.6: Wing Stiffeners
4.1.5. Assembly of Components
After modeling all of the wing’s components separately, the full wing needed to be
assembled. First, the wing rib was placed in the assembly and patterned in the z-direction, adding
11 ribs with an offset distance of 500mm. Then, the spars were added to the assembly and merged
with the ribs to create a new part consisting of the combined ribs and spars as shown below.
Figure 4.7: Rib Spar Merged Geometry
6
After the new part was made, the wing shell, the rib spar combination, and the stiffeners
were all placed into the assembly to create the full wing. The image of this wing can be seen below.
Figure 4.8: Full Wing Assembly
4.2. Materials
For this analysis, two different materials were used to understand how changing the
material affect stresses and deflection of the wing during flight. The first type of material that was
analyzed was aluminum which is an extremely common material used in aircrafts. It has an elastic
modulus of 70GPa with a Poisson’s ratio of 0.33. [2]
The second material of choice was carbon reinforced composite. The composite materials
have become a novelty in aircraft design primarily favored for the high strength to weight ratio the
material provided. We decided to complete a model with the carbon reinforced plastics following
the material description of CFRP from class [3]:
E1 Modulus E2 Modulus Nu 12 G12 Shear G13 Shear G23
of Elasticity of Elasticity (Poisson’s modulus in modulus Shear
(strong (weak ratio) fiber transverse modulus
direction) direction) direction unaligned
145 GPa 10 Gpa 0.25 4.8 Gpa 4.8 Gpa 3.2 Gpa
Table 4.1: Composite Material Properties [3]
4.3. Loading/Support
To properly constrain the wing, one of the outer faces of the wing’s cross section was fully
encastered to remove all rotational and translational degrees of freedom. This type of constraint
was used to simulate the wings connection to the fuselage during flight, and it was the only
constraint required for the model.
7
5. Modeling Approach
The following section will describe the approach taken to properly define the individual
components of the model. During a finite element analysis, it is vital to make sure all parts are
modeled using the proper element types. It is also important to optimize the mesh to make efficient
models and reduce simulation time. Therefore, justification will be given to all chosen element
types, and a mesh convergence analysis will be provided.
5.1. Representation in Finite Element Model
The aerospace industry is known for its use of thin walled structures in design to reduce
the weight of an aircraft. Therefore, most of the components constructed for this analysis were
made using shell elements and beam elements.
To model the outer wing cover, shell elements were used. Shell elements are an extremely
efficient way to model structures where one dimension is significantly smaller than the other
dimensions. For the case of the wing shell, it was modeled with a chord length of 1500mm, a
length of 5000mm, and a thickness of 2.5mm. Clearly, the thickness of this component is much
smaller than the other two dimensions which made it a clear candidate to model with shell
elements. While meshing the wing cover, the default shell element of S4R was used. This element
type can be used with thick or thin shelled elements and has reduced integration and hourglass
control. After running the simulations, the model was checked for hourglassing to determine if
these elements were the proper choice, and there was no significant hourglassing present.
Similarly, the ribs of the wing were also modeled using S4R shell elements. The rib of the
wing has a length of 1500mm, a height of 180mm, and a thickness of 10mm. Although difference
between the thickness and next largest dimension was not as substantial as the wing cover, the
height of the rib was still 18 times larger than the thickness. Therefore, this component was also a
good choice to use shell elements. Like the wing, the ribs were checked for hourglassing after
running the simulation since S4R elements are prone to this type of behavior.
Furthermore, the stiffeners of the wing were represented by beam elements. After
partitioning the face of the wing cover, it was easy to create a wire frame for each of the stiffeners
which could be easily assigned to beam elements. More importantly, the stiffeners take on some
of the bending loads of the wing, which is the purpose of a beam. Therefore, beam elements were
the logical choice for analysis of the stiffeners. Specifically, B31 elements were used to perform
this analysis. These elements are shear flexible, following the Timoshenko beam theory, so they
will be able to capture any shear effects unlike Euler-Bernoulli beams. Also, since the analysis
only analyzed flight conditions, there was not a significant amount of deformation, so the linear
interpolation provided between these elements were sufficient for capturing accurate results. [5]
Last, but not least, the spars of the wing were modeled with shell elements. The spars are
responsible for taking the majority of the bending loads on the wing during flight, which is why
there was a potential to model them with beam elements. However, beam elements do not all the
same modeling flexibility as shell elements. In the case of the stiffeners, it was very easy to define
10
5.3. Alternative Models
During the early stages of the project, attempts were made to model the entire wing and all
of its components with 3D elements and contact between the parts. It was determined very quickly
that this type of approach would require too much computing power leading to long wait times
between simulations. Therefore, it would have been too difficult to run a mesh convergence. As a
result, it was decided to model the entire structure using beam and shell elements to conserve
computing power and run more efficient simulations.
Furthermore, attempts were made to model the spars with beam elements since they carry
the majority of the bending loads. However, as previously mentioned, beams do not allow for
much modeling flexibility, so it was decided to model the spars with shell elements instead.
6. Results
This section will focus on the simulation results obtained from Abaqus and how they
pertain to the overall analysis. The figures from the model simulation are included along with
discussion of the meaning of each visualization. The results display the difference between the
aluminum and composite models, thus providing insight into which material is favorable for a
structurally sound design of the aircraft wings. The first part of this section focuses on the empty
weight lift condition with the stress, displacement, rotational displacement, and the strain energy
experienced by the composite and aluminum models. The second section focuses on the maximum
take off weight lift condition with stress, displacement, rotational displacement, and strain energy
for the aluminum and composite wing structure models, respectively.
6.1 Empty Weight Model Results
In the results the two wing configurations and their loading will be compared. For the
empty weight conditions the wing stress, displacement, and rotation were tested to simulate the
loads a wing can experience during landing with minimum weight applied. This model simulates
the wing reaction to lift forces needed to cruise at the lowest weight condition. The following graph
13
shows the comparison between the aluminum and composite wing stress under the empty weight
loading condition:
Figure 6.1: Mises stress on aluminum and composite wing under empty weight load
As seen in Figure 6.1 both wings experience maximum stress loads at the fixed root of the wing.
This is due to the resistance to bending provided by the spars and stiffness within the wing skin.
Comparing the two materials it can be seen that the maximum stress of the aluminum wing
structure is 8.24 while the composite structure has a greater stress value of 14.65. This comparison
clearly displays the properties of the material, as the aluminum shell and rib-spar components are
much more effective in handling the stress loads. However, the composite structure, although
lighter, is not capable of handling the stress as effectively, thus having a greater maximum stress
value at the root of the wing. The composite wing model experiences 77.7% higher stress value
than the aluminum wing at the wing root.
Following the stress handling ability of both structures, the displacement of the wing was
analyzed for the empty weight lift condition. As this analysis simulates the lower end of lift loads
that a wing can experience, the displacement in the two models will be that of slight wing flexing
which occurs naturally during flight. The following figure will display the maximum displacement
14
of the wing:
Figure 6.2: Maximum displacement (mm) of the wing for empty-weight lift condition
Observing the color gradient of wing structures in Figure 6.2, it is evident that due to lift
induced flexing the maximum displacement occurs at the aft edge of the wing tip. This is because
during flight the pressure distribution responsible for producing lift creates a concentrated pressure
at the leading edge and high pressure at the bottom of the wing thus pushing the wing aft and up.
In both models the maximum lift occurs in the same location, however the composite wing
experienced higher maximum displacement of 8.773 mm whereas the aluminum wing experienced
a maximum displacement of 7.104 mm. From this model it can be concluded that the composite
wing is much more flexible and ductile than its aluminum counterpart. Based on the model data
the composite wing has a 23.5% greater deflection magnitude than the aluminum wing model.
Next in the analysis the two wing configurations compared the maximum rotational
displacement caused by the moment on the wing. As the wings are fixed to the fuselage at one end,
the lifting forces create a moment arm that causes rotational displacement in both configurations.
The following figure will display the rotational displacement experienced by both wings:
Figure 6.3: Rotational displacement due to lift induced moment.
15
Observing the rotation displacement in both models, both wings experience higher rotational
displacement when moving away from the fixed end, however the lower wing shell has an
interesting distribution of rotational displacement occurring in the center of the wing. This is likely
due to the lack of spars and stiffeners to prevent the skin from experiencing this slight
displacement. Compared to the displacement the wings experience due to lift, this rotational
displacement is significantly lower by a factor of 1000. Although the rotational displacement is of
lower magnitude, once again the aluminum structure proves to be more resistant to displacements
than the composite structure, the aluminum wing experienced 0.003 mm rotational displacement,
while the composite wing experienced 0.004 mm of rotational displacement.
Finally for the empty-weight loading condition the artificial strain energy was plotted to ensure
the models were accurate. The following image illustrates the energy graphs for both models:
Figure 6.4: Artificial strain energy vs total energy in the model for empty weight loading
As seen above the two models energy is represented by the chart with the aluminum energy on the
left and composite on the right. The blue line represents the total true strain energy in the model
while the red line is the artificial strain energy of the model. Observing the data in the charts, both
model’s artificial strain energy lies closely to the zero line, thus proving that our model is accurate.
The percentage of artificial strain energy to true strain energy for the aluminum model is:
(1.22569/2932.62)*100 = 0.0418%, thus the artificial strain energy is insignificant proving that
the results in the modeled system provide accurate values. The percentage of artificial strain energy
to true strain energy for the composite model is: (1.59561/3615.65)*100 = 0.0441% is the
percentage of artificial strain energy in the model.
6.2 Maximum Take-Off Weight Model Results
For the second loading condition the two wing models were subject to a Maximum Take
Off Weight (MTOW) load. This loading condition represents the extreme forces a Cessna aircraft
is likely to see during takeoff. Both models were simulated according to this load, with the lift
force equaling that of the maximum takeoff weight. The following image shows the maximum
stress experienced by the aluminum and composite wing models:
16
Figure 6.5: Maximum stress in aluminum(left) and composite(right) wing models.
In Figure 6.5 it is seen that the maximum stress for the MTOW lift condition occurs at the
root of the wing. This is because the skin along with ribs, spars, and stiffeners are resisting the
upward flexing caused by the lifting force. The two models have radically different maximum
stress values, with the aluminum model having maximum stress of 12.585 and the composite
model having maximum stress of 22.372. Expanding on this stress behavior the composite
structure has significantly higher stress than the aluminum structure, and that is due to the larger
displacement in the composite model. The skin and spar are experiencing higher stress due to their
contact in the composite model, while in the aluminum model a stress gradient exists with a
maximum occurring at the fixed end where the spar contacts the skin. The higher flexibility and
lower efficiency of handling stress of the composite material is responsible for such a large
difference in the total maximum stress. The composite wing structure under the same loading
experiences 77.7% greater stress loads at the wing root, this can be due to the nature of composites
being extremely strong in the x and y directions while lacking in the z direction stiffness. This
downside is likely responsible for higher stress loads at the concentrated location.
Once again, the displacement of the wing was analyzed with respect to the new loading
condition. Since the magnitude of lift has to be much larger to support the maximum take-off
weight, the wing will experience the most extreme deflection and flexing. The following image
will illustrate the magnitudes of the maximum displacement both wing models experience:
17
Figure 6.6: Deflection magnitude of the wing models for MTOW
In Figure 6.6 the maximum deflection for the aluminum and composite model occur at the
wing tips at the trailing edge. The lift generating pressure distribution has a larger magnitude, thus
the displacement experienced by both wings in figure 6.6 is much larger than that of the empty-
weight load condition. The maximum displacement for the aluminum wing is 10.85 mm, while the
maximum displacement for the composite wing is 13.399 mm. The 23.5% difference in deflection
magnitude is present due to the material properties of composite lamina. While the composite wing
structure has a lower material weight, it experiences greater magnitudes of wing flexing due to the
same applied lift force.
For the next part in the model analysis, the total vs artificial strain energy graphs were
plotted for both models under the MTOW load condition:
Figure 6.7: ALLAE vs ALLSE graph for the two models
It can be seen that the total energy for both models is linear and is of much greater
magnitude than that of the artificial strain energy. The higher total energy in the composite model
is due to the higher magnitudes of forces that particular model experiences compared to the
aluminum wing. The percentage of the artificial strain energy compared to the total true strain
energy in the aluminum model is: (2.85899/6840.51) *100 = 0.0418% and for the composite
model: (3.72186/8433.72)*100 = 0.04413%. These values show that the model does not have any
18
significant hourglassing that could give false values. This means that the two models are accurate
representations of the model behavior under the specified load condition.
7. Summary, Conclusions, and Discussion
With new innovations for aerospace industry on the way, its important to see the
implications these changes can have. After the analysis was conducted, much is still left to learn
about composite materials and their role in the aircraft design. However, from the models
described in this report it is evident that material and its properties play a huge role in determining
the resilience of the wing structure. From the results in both flight conditions the aluminum model
prevailed in handling the stress most efficiently and deforming the least no matter the magnitude
of force applied. It is also notable to mention that the increase in stress and displacement of the
aluminum model was much less than that of the composite model, thus illustrating the resistance
to change the aluminum model has in the analysis. As discussed in the beginning of this report,
composite materials are attractive for their lightweight qualities which provide higher fuel
efficiency and lower power required for flight in commercial and military applications,
nevertheless when assessing the resilience and strength of material the composite wing structure
has its drawbacks. From the results the composite lamina had much greater magnitudes of stress
and deformation, greater wing flexing and bending moments, undermining the structural integrity
of the wing. From the analysis it can be inferred that in a real-world scenario, the composite
structure would reach a failure condition before the aluminum wing structure would. This means
that there cannot be a single best material for the use in wings but synthesizing an integration of
these materials within the aircraft structure can utilize the high resistance to stress of aluminum
and the lightweight properties of carbon fiber composite materials. Looking forward to the future
of air travel, both materials have beneficial qualities and their respective drawbacks, thus new and
emerging aircraft like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner carefully incorporate both types of material into
the aircraft design. The analysis of the wing for the two materials and two loading conditions was
very effective providing lots of data on the wing structure response clearly demonstrating the
contrast between the material types.
For the future work and consideration this analysis could tackle the more complex question
of aerospace materials, such as the balance between the benefits of weight reduction and strength
of material. The complexity of the future modification would lie in properly calculating the change
in required lift, aircraft weight, and take-off/landing conditions for the varying material. In case of
aluminum the values would hold true to the Cessna 172 aircraft database, while the composite
material model would need to use intricate statistical regression to accurately determine weight of
aircraft made of composites. Formulas of flight dynamics and mechanics would need to be used
to determine the lift required for take-off and landing of the composite aircraft further adding to
the complexity and approximation of the results. Another consideration for future models is to
include the profile and pressure drag along with a more complex tapered, swept wing with
changing airfoil cross section along the wing from root to chord. These future considerations would
provide very close results to those experienced in a true wing configuration on a Cessna 172
aircraft.
In closing the wing models showed that the aluminum wing configuration is more resistant
to deflection and deformation and is more efficient at handling the stress created by lift. The
composite model under the same load magnitude experiences higher deflection and higher stress
19
concentration due to the flexibility and lower strength in the non-fiber directions. The aluminum
wing model has greater structural integrity and is able to withstand higher loads at lower stress
levels at the cost of higher weight. The future of aircraft design is likely to utilize the strengths of
both materials to fabricate an optimal aircraft for safe and economically efficient travel.
References:
[1] Boeing, "Boeing: 787 By Design", Boeing.com, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/787/by-
design/#:~:text=The%20chief%20breakthrough%20material%20technology,materials%2C%20
most%20notably%20the%20fuselage. [Accessed: 03- May- 2021].
[2] C. Comte and J. Stebut, "Aluminum", Mit.edu, 2002. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mit.edu/~6.777/matprops/aluminum.htm. [Accessed: 03- May- 2021].
[3] A. Gross, "Example: Boeing 787 aft pressure bulkhead. Unidirectional CFRP laminate
properties", 300 Main St. Columbia SC, 2021.
[4] Textron, "Cessna Skyhawk", Cessna.txtav.com, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://cessna.txtav.com/en/piston/cessna-skyhawk. [Accessed: 03- May- 2021].
[5] "3DPassport | Login - Dassault Systèmes", Help.3ds.com, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://help.3ds.com/2020/english/dssimulia established/simacaeelmrefmap/simaelm-c-
beamelem.htm?contextscope=all. [Accessed: 03- May- 2021].
Cessna Image
[6] P. Garrison, "How is it Best to Build a Bird?", Flying, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.flyingmag.com/how-is-it-best-to-build-bird/. [Accessed: 03- May- 2021].
Appendix 1: Mesh Convergence Code
# from driverUtils import executeOnCaeGraphicsStartup
# executeOnCaeGraphicsStartup()
#: Executing "onCaeGraphicsStartup()" in the site directory ...
from abaqus import *
from abaqusConstants import *
from caeModules import *
import odbAccess
import numpy as np
def meshConv(numberElemSize):
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing'].parts['Beams']
p1 = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['Beams']
p1 = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['WingShell']
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['WingShell']
p.deleteMesh()
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['WingShell']
p.seedPart(size=numberElemSize, deviationFactor=0.1, minSizeFactor=0.1)
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['WingShell']
20
p.generateMesh()
p1 = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['Stiffeners']
session.viewports['Viewport: 1'].setValues(displayedObject=p1)
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['Stiffeners']
p.deleteMesh()
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['Stiffeners']
p.seedPart(size=numberElemSize, deviationFactor=0.1, minSizeFactor=0.1)
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['Stiffeners']
p.generateMesh()
p1 = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['RibsSparCombo']
session.viewports['Viewport: 1'].setValues(displayedObject=p1)
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['RibsSparCombo']
p.deleteMesh()
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['RibsSparCombo']
p.seedPart(size=numberElemSize, deviationFactor=0.1, minSizeFactor=0.1)
p = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].parts['RibsSparCombo']
p.generateMesh()
a = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].rootAssembly
a.regenerate()
session.viewports['Viewport: 1'].setValues(displayedObject=a)
session.viewports['Viewport: 1'].assemblyDisplay.setValues(mesh=ON,
optimizationTasks=OFF, geometricRestrictions=OFF, stopConditions=OFF)
session.viewports['Viewport: 1'].assemblyDisplay.meshOptions.setValues(
meshTechnique=ON)
a = mdb.models['AircraftWing-2'].rootAssembly
a.regenerate()
session.viewports['Viewport: 1'].assemblyDisplay.setValues(mesh=OFF)
session.viewports['Viewport: 1'].assemblyDisplay.meshOptions.setValues(
meshTechnique=OFF)
mdb.Job(name='Wing Element Size ' + str(numberElemSize),
model='AircraftWing-2', description='', type=ANALYSIS,
atTime=None, waitMinutes=0, waitHours=0, queue=None, memory=90,
memoryUnits=PERCENTAGE, getMemoryFromAnalysis=True,
explicitPrecision=SINGLE, nodalOutputPrecision=SINGLE, echoPrint=OFF,
modelPrint=OFF, contactPrint=OFF, historyPrint=OFF,
userSubroutine='',
scratch='', resultsFormat=ODB, multiprocessingMode=DEFAULT,
numCpus=1,
numGPUs=0)
mdb.jobs['Wing_Element_Size_' +
str(numberElemSize)].submit(consistencyChecking=OFF)
mdb.jobs['Wing Element Size ' + str(numberElemSize)].waitForCompletion()
elementCounts = np.round(np.linspace(100,20,17))
for e in elementCounts:
meshConv(int(e))
def postProcess(jobName):
exOdb = odbAccess.openOdb(jobName + '.odb')
uValues = exOdb.steps['Load'].frames[-1].fieldOutputs['U'].values
dispList = []
for v in uValues:
dispList.append(v.magnitude)
maxU = max(dispList)
21
sValues = exOdb.steps['Load'].frames[-1].fieldOutputs['S'].values
stressList = []
for v in sValues:
stressList.append(v.maxPrincipal)
maxS = max(stressList)
return [maxU, maxS]
jobNameList = []
for e in elementCounts:
jobNameList.append('Wing Element Size ' + str(int(e)))
for jobName in jobNameList:
postProcess(jobName)
results = []
for jobName in jobNameList:
results.append(postProcess(jobName))
results = np.array(results)
np.savetxt('meshConvResults.txt',results)
22
