Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:08:19.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influences on optimal structural designs of the modelling processes and design concepts

Part II: All composite, rib wing design concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

P. T. Anastasiadis ,
A. J. Morris ,
H. R. E. M. Hornlein  and
J. Krammer
P. T. Anastasiadis
Affiliation:
Eng R & D Directorate Hellenic Aerospace Industry Tanagra, Greece
A. J. Morris
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace ScienceCollege of Aeronautics, Cranfield University Bedford, UK
H. R. E. M. Hornlein
Affiliation:
Military Aircraft Division Daimler-Benz Aerospace Munich, Germany
J. Krammer
Affiliation:
Military Aircraft Division Daimler-Benz Aerospace Munich, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper examines the influence on optimal structural designs of changing the design criteria and concepts for an unmanned air-vehicle wing, for both single and twin-spar rib configurations. The results indicate that the influence of such factors as panel buckling, aeroelastic efficiency, the number of design variables and the number of ribs can be significant. It is also shown that the best design is given by the twin-spar layout.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 102 , Issue 1013 , March 1998 , pp. 137 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Krammer, J. Practical architecture of design optimisation software for aircraft structures taking the MBB-Lagrange code as an example, AGARD-LS-186, AGARD, Paris. May 1992, pp 2-1 to 2–16.Google Scholar
2. Cornault, C. and Petiau, C. Structural optimisation of aircraft, AGARD-LS-186, AGARD, Paris, France, May 1992, pp 3-1 to 3–17.Google Scholar
3. Sobieski, J. Multidisciplinary design and optimisation, AGARD-LS-186, AGARD, Paris, France, May 1992, pp 4-1 to 4–15.Google Scholar
4. Snell, M.B. and Bartholomew, P. The application of geometric programming to the structural design of aircraft wings, Aeronaut J, August/September 1982, 96, (957), pp 259–268.Google Scholar
5. Snell, M.B. and Bartholomew, P. Initial design of stringer stiffened bend boxes using geometric programming, Aeronaut J, January 1983, 97, (961), pp 21–25.Google Scholar
6. Stirz, A.G. and Venkayya, V.B. Multidisciplinary optimization using ASTROS, AGARD-R-784, AGARD, Paris, France, pp 8-1 to 8–29, February 1992.Google Scholar
7. Kellerer, H. Influence of structural modelling and design variable linking on the results of structural optimisation of a wingbox structure under stress constraints, Diplomarbeit, Technische University, München, July 1992.Google Scholar
8. Groos, D., Mathias, D.W. and Rohrle, H. The influence of mesh refinement and element type on final weight in structural optimization, Presented: GARTEUR Meeting AG 13, University of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK, 19-20 October 1993.Google Scholar
9. Anastasiadis, P.T. and Morris, A.J. The influence on optimal structural designs of the modelling processes and design concepts, Part I: All composite sandwich wing design concepts, Aeronaut J, May 1996, 100, (995), pp 165–176.Google Scholar
10. Dasa/Lagrange, Daimler-Benz Aerospace, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
11. Lynch, R.W. et. al., Aeroelastic tailoring of advanced composite structures for military aircraft, Vol III-Modifications and user's guide for procedure TSO, AFFDL-TR-76-100, February 1978.Google Scholar