1.

INTRODUCTION
1.1 GOALS AND SIGNIFICANCE

The goal of this project is to simulate the wing box design process in industry and to
encourage team work. Integrally Stiffened Panel (Internal blade section) of wing box skin
was chosen for Casa NC212

• To understand structural design criteria

• To able to define the structure function,

• To select the appropriate layout

• To choose the right material and processes

l
• To able to size and analyse the configuration

tia
• To draw the model using CAD
en
fid
on
C

1
1.2 PROJECT ORGANIZATION

Firstly, choose material for each part of the wing box base on knowledge about structural
design criteria.

Secondly, determine load distribution on the wing rely on every section, as Figure 1.

l
tia
en
fid
Figure 1
on

Thirdly, use y, c, SF, BM as the initial parameter for designing wing box including
“rough” wing mass, with difference of stringer pitch and rib pitch in order to parametric study
for the last part.
C

Where, y: distance of each cross section from the central line

c: chord at each cross section

SF: shear force at each cross section

BM: bending moment at each cross section

2
 2. FEARTURE OF INTEGRAL STIFFENED PANELS

Present trends toward higher performance levels in machines and equipment continue to
place more exacting demands on the design of structural components. In aircraft, where
weight is always a critical problem, integrally stiffened structural sections have proved
particularly effective as a light weight, high-strength construction. Composed of skin and
stiffeners formed from the same unit of raw stock, these one-piece panel sections can be
produced by several different techniques. Size and load requirements are usually the
important considerations in selecting the most feasible process.

l
tia
en
fid
on

Typical integral stiffened panels (planks)

C

For highly loaded long panels, extrusions or machined plates are most commonly
employed. Section discontinuities such as encountered in the region of cutouts can often be
produced more easily from machined plate. From a cost standpoint it is usually better to
machine a section from the extruded integrally stiffened structures than to machine a section
of the same size from a billet of plate.
From a structural standpoint, appreciable weight savings are possible through the
integral-section design which also develops high resistance to buckling loads. In addition, the
reduction in the number of basic assembly attachments gives a smooth exterior skin surface.
In aircraft applications, the most significant advantages of integrally stiffened structures over
comparable riveted panels has been :
● Reduction of amount of sealing material for pressurized fuel tank structures

3
● Increase in allowable stiffener compression loads by elimination of attachment flanges.
● Increased joint efficiencies under tension loads through the use of integral doublers, etc.
● Improved performance through smoother exterior surfaces by reduction in number of
attachments and nonbuckling characteristics of skin

● Light weight structures

Integrally stiffened structures have their greatest advantage in highly loaded applications
because of their minimum section size. Investigations have indicated that an integrally
stiffened section can attain an exceptionally high degree of structural efficiency. A weight
reduction of approximately 10-15% was realized by the use of an integrally stiffened
structure.
It should be noted that in order to obtain the true weight difference, all non-optimum

l
factors must by taken into account. The integrally stiffened design will have a relatively low

tia
weight for the so-called non-optimum features. This is attributed to the machined local
padding and reinforcing material and permitted by integral cover construction. In contrast, the
builtup type of design generally requires a relatively large non-optimum weight because of the
en
many chordwise splices for ease of tank sealing and fabrication, discrete doublers, etc.

From the foregoing one concludes that the lightest cover panel design can be obtained with an
fid
integrally stiffened cover structure supported by sheet metal ribs with a preference for a large
spacing. If the use of integral skin is prohibited for such reasons as exfoliation, etc, then
special attention must be given to the non-optimum factor for using builtup skin-stringer
on

panel. End grain exposure and residual stresses (threshold stresses) due to fabrication “pull-
up” presented a stress corrosion risk. Airplane operator objections, due to experience with
integrally stiffened panels on some competitors’ airplane, led to a decision not to use them on
C

some of these commercial airplanes.

4
 3. DESIGN WING BOX IN DETAIL
3.1 MATERIAL SELECTION

As airframe design concepts and technology have become more sophisticated, materials’
requirements have accordingly become more demanding. The steps from wood to aluminum,
and then to titanium and other efficient high strength materials has involved some very
extensive development activities and the application of a wide range of disciplines.

Structure weight and therefore the use of light materials has always been important.
When a modern full-loaded subsonic transport takes off, only about 20% of its total weight is
payload. Of the remaining 80%, roughly half is empty weight and the other half is fuel.
Hence, any saving of structural weight can lead to a corresponding increase in payload.
Alternatively, for a given payload, saving in aircraft weight means reduced power

l
tia
requirements. Therefore, it is not surprising that the aircraft manufacturer is prepared to invest
heavily in weight reduction[1].

Lower wing skin particularly prone to fatigue through the long-continued application and
en
relaxation of tension stress, so the standard material is aluminum alloy designated 2024-T3.
For upper wing skins, which have to withstand mainly compression stresses as the wing flexes
upwards during flight, 7075-T6 is used.
fid

With integrally Stiffened Panel (Internal blade section) of

wing box skin . Just several material can be chosen because need
on

to pay attention to the thickness of form of material (Clad sheet,

bar and extrusions, sheet and strip,…) for machining.

In this design, following ESDU 76016, material can be chosen for upper skin is 2L 88-
C

T6 (Plate 40 mm< t < 63 mm) and material for lower skin is 2L 93-T651 (Plate 40 mm< t <
63 mm) or 2L 95-T651 (Plate 25 mm< t < 75 mm).

Anyway, in purpose to compare with another design, we choose the same material for
every part of wing box

Al 7075-T6 (DTD 5014) : Upper skin, spar web, rib web,…

Al 2024-T3 (DTD 5070B): Lower skin

Untimate tensile strength Shear strength E c2 fn ρ

Mat. Prop m
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg/m3)
Al 7075-T6 (DTD 5014) 572 331 76000 487 22.2 444 2810
Al 2024-T3 (DTD 5070B) 483 283 73100 342 16.6 301 2780

5
3.2 DETERMINE LOAD DISTRIBUTION ON THE WING

3.2.1 Specification of Casa NC212

Gross weight at crusing 7450 kg

One Engine weight 329.98 kg

Fuel weight (for half of wing) 800 kg

Air density at cruising altitude (2438 m): ρ = 0.967 kg / m 3

Vcruise = 96.6 m/s

S = 40 m2

b = 19 m

l
tia
Taper ratio = 2

3.2.2 Wing model

en
Base on real wing planeform, model of half-wing is illustrated as Figure 2, Fuel tank
outboard
fid
on
C

Figure 2

3.2.3 Lift distribution

Using Shrenk’s method to estimate the lift distribution on the wing.

6
 Lift coefficient on each section

1⎛ 4S 2y ⎞
c planformcl = ⎜⎜ c planform + 1 − ( ) 2 ⎟⎟ (1)
2⎝ πb b ⎠

with
cplanform: chord length of section (m)
cl : lift coefficient on section in case lift coefficient is 1.0
y : position of section from central line (m)
S : wing area (m2)
b : wing span (m)

Since cl in equation (1) for lift coefficient is 1.0, real Cl is obtained by multiplying cl

with CL at crusing condition.

l
tia
L = Wcr
1
⇒ Wcr = ρVcr2CL S (2)
2
⇒ CL =
enWcr
=
7450 × 9.81
= 0.4
1 1
ρVcr S
2
× 0.967 × 97 × 40
2

2 2
fid
So lift on each section is

1
ΔL = ρV 2 cl ΔS (3)
2
on
C

3.2.4 Shear force distribution

Using equilibrium condition on each section, calculate shear force for it

SF2 = ΔL1 + ΔL2 = SF1 + ΔSF2

General equation
SFi = SFi −1 + Δ Li

7
 3.2.5 Bending moment distribution

Similar to shear force, using equilibrium condition on each section, calculate bending
moment for it

⎛ Δy ⎞ Δy
BM 2 = ΔL1 × ⎜ Δy2 + 1 ⎟ + ΔL2 × 2
⎝ 2 ⎠ 2
Δy Δy
= ΔL1 × 1 + ΔL1 × Δy2 + ΔL2 × 2
2 2
⎛ SF − SF1 ⎞
= BM 1 + ⎜ SF1 + 2 ⎟ × Δy2
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ SF + SF2 ⎞
= BM 1 + ⎜ 1 ⎟ × Δy2
⎝ 2 ⎠
BM 2 = BM 1 + ΔBM

l
tia
General equation

Δy
BM i = BM i −1 + ( SFi −1 + SFi )
2
= BM i −1 + ΔBM i
en
fid
3.2.6 Result

In this part, detail of load distribution in case Rib pitch (L) = 0.35 m and Stringer pitch
(b) = 0.1 m
on

A/ Shear Force and Bending Moment distribution

C

8
 C
on
fid
en
tia
l

9
 B/ Shear Force diagram (Figure 3)

Shear Force Diagram

SF (N) 30000
25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
y (m)

Figure 3

C/ Bending Moment diagram (Figure 4)

l
tia
Bending Moment Diagram
BM (N.m) 100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
en
40000
30000
20000
10000
fid
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5
y (m)

Figure 4
on

D/ Conclusion

Maximum Shear Force and Bending Moment occur at the wing center line (SFmax =
C

25,011 N; BMmax = 94,488 Nm). Choose wing root at the center line, so use these values to
design wing box at root.

3.3 WING BOX DESIGN

3.3.1 Wing box geometry selection

From airfoil NACA 653-218, choose shape of two-spars wing box showed in Figure 5.

• Wide of wing box (w) = 40% chord.

• Height of wing box (h) = 0.8 thickness = 14.4% chord

10
 Chord at each cross section of the wing is different so w and h are also different

Figure 5

%c (FS) %c(RS) %c max d (max thickness at root) (m)

20 60 18 0.45

3.3.2 Design procedure

l
tia
y, c, SF, BM

en
Sizing spar web (front and rear)
tw (front), tw (rear)
Due to overall torsion moment
Checking buckling due to shear
fid
Initial sizing upper skin panel
Intial tskin (upper)
on

Checking local buckling and crippling

Number of stringer Actual sizing upper skin panel
Checking buckling for panel due to
Distance of stringer tskin , tw , b , bw compression and shear
C

Initial sizing lower skin panel

Intial tskin (lower)

Checking for tension (Mises Hensky

Number of stringer Actual sizing lower skin panel
Criteria)
Distance of stringer tskin , tw , b , bw Checking buckling due to shear

Sizing rib webs Due to concentrated loads

Rib flanges (thickness, width) Due to shear loads
tRW Due to crushing loads and checking
buckling due to compression and shear

The reason why sizing spar web was done first is getting shear flow on upper and lower
skin to check buckling due to shear when sizing upper and lower skin, illustrated in Figure 6

11
 3.3.4 Sizing Spar Webs ( Front Spar Web and Rear Spar Web)

Untimate tensile strength Shear strength E c2 fn ρ

Mat. Prop m
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg/m3)
Al 7075-T6 (DTD 5014) 572 331 76000 487 22.2 444 2810

Spar webs shall be sized by using shear criteria :

τ all
≥ 1.0
τs
where

τ s : applied shear stress

l
τ all : allowable shear stress of the panel, which is the smallest value of:

tia
• skin shear local buckling stress

• allowable shear stress of the material used

en
A. Due to Overall Torsion Moment
fid
Estimate the enclosed area, A, of the primary structural box at representative sections
across the span.
on

The corresponding shear flow is:

T
QT =
2A
C

with
Load factor: 2.5
Factor of Safety: 1.5

Figure 6

12
 Note that (from Figure 6), it’s evident shear flow in the rear spar web (+) larger than
shear flow in the front spar web (-), so rear spar web thickness will be thicker than rear spar
web thickness. This was proved in design results

Where T is now the applied distributed torsion, and QT will be nose up or nose down and
hence positive or negative depending on the sign convention

Select the allowable shear stress, f s as appropriate

The mean material thickness needed to react the torsion moment is then:

T
tq =
2 Af s

Combined with vertical shear loads

l
tia
• The shear flow in the webs due to the shear force is then:

V
QV =
hT
en
where V is the applied vertical shear force

• The net shear flow in the web is then approximately given by:
fid

x
Qw = QV ± 2 QT
w
on

(+) for rear spar web thickness and (-) for front spar web thickness

Where x is the chordwise location of particular web relative to the mid point of the box
C

• The web thickness is then

Qw
tw =
fs
B. Checking due to shear
2
⎛t⎞
σ cr = K S E ⎜ ⎟
⎝b⎠

Figure 7
13
 Consider spar webs, skin (upper and lower), ribs as narrow panels with heavy skin, so
this panel will act as if it had hinged edges (panel 4 in Figure 7). Look up in Figure 5.4.6 ([1],
a
pp 139) with in line 4 to get value of K s .
b

a
Since always larger than 4, K s = 5 is used when checking buckling due to shear for
b
spar webs, skin (upper and lower) except ribs.

When choosing K s = 5 (minimum value), structure will be safe for all case but we pay
by make it heavier. Anyhow, the increasing weight for this carefulness is not too much, so it
is acceptable. In case sizing ribs web, buckling due to shear is the most dangerous, so try to
make K s = 8 (maximum value) by using stiffener for ribs web.

l
tia
3.4.2 Sizing Upper Skin
en
Untimate tensile strength Shear strength E c2 fn ρ
Mat. Prop m
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg/m3)
Al 7075-T6 (DTD 5014) 572 331 76000 487 22.2 444 2810
fid

A. Intial sizing Upper skin

i. At various points across the span evaluate the idealised depth of the primary
on

structural box, h (Figure 8)

ii.
C

Figure 8

iii. Calculate the effective direct loads, P, in the top and bottom surfaces required to
M
react the appropriate bending moment, M, at each section from: P =
h

14
 iv. Evaluate the allowable stress, f b

When the concept is based on a distributed flange construction the allowable bending
stress at ultimate loading may be assumed to be the lesser of the 0.2% proof stress or f b ,

where f b may be approximately represented by: P 1/ 2

⎛ ⎞
f b = A FB ⎜ ⎟
⎝ wL ⎠

where

L: the local rib or frame spacing

w: the width of the box perpendicular to the bending axis

P: the effective end load

l
A : a function of the material

tia
FB: dependant upon the form of construction.
en
fid
on

„ Note that the value of A are appropriate

to allowable stress and (P/wL) in MN/m2
units. In general the values of A give
conservative values for FB at stresses
C

below the limiting value.

„ Typical values for FB are also given.

With intergral blade stringer, get A = 138 and FB = 0.81

v. Evaluate the skin thickness is required at each section

• For a distributed flange assume initially a uniform effective thickness across the width,
w, to give
M
t=
hwf b

15
 • Typically this thickness will be made up of skin and stringer area. The effective stringer
are being about half of that of the skin area. Thus the actual skin thickness is about

0.65M
t=
hwf b

Follow optimization of value tw and bw in [1] pp 155-165 , so

from t, b get tw and bw

tw bw
= 2.25 and = 0.65
te b

B. Checking (compression and shear interaction criteria, buckling)

l
tia
B1. Using compression and shear interaction criteria
τs
σc σ comp τ s2
+ ≤ 1.0
σ cr τ cr2
σc τs
en
σ comp : applied compression stress
fid

τs : applied shear stress

σ cr : critical compression stress (property of material)

on

τ cr : critical shear stress (property of material)

C

Applied compression stress was calculated by

P
σ comp =
Aeff

where

P : the effective end load

Aeff : effective area (area of skin and stiffeners)

Applied shear stress was calculated by

tq
τs =
te (initial )

16
where

tq : shear flow due to torsion moment (from sizing spar webs)

te (initial ) : initial skin thickness (from initial sizing)

B1. Checking local buckling of skin and crippling stringer due to

compression

Use ESDU-70003 to check local buckling of skin panels

2
⎛t⎞
f be = KE ⎜ ⎟ f b = ηf be f c = (c2 f b )1/ 2
⎝b⎠

l
where

tia
f be : average elastic compressive stress in panel at which local buckling first occurs

K : buckling stress coefficent

en
f b : average compressive stress in panel at which local buckling first occurs

η : plasticity reduction factor defined by f b = ηf be

fid

f c : crippling stress

c2 : 0.2% compressive proof stress of strut material

on

B2. Checking global buckling of skin panel

C

2
⎛t ⎞
f cr , skin = KE ⎜ e ⎟
⎝b⎠

K = 3.62 K = 6.32

17
 In this design report, two kind of skin panels were checked for local buckling. However,
just need to check with hinged edge is enough

B3. Checking buckling due to shear

Do the same process with part B (B. Checking due to shear) in 2.3.2 Sizing Spar Webs
2
⎛t⎞
to get σ cr = K S E ⎜ ⎟
⎝b⎠

B. Actual sizing upper skin

From the initial skin thickness t, try to reduce it as thin as possible with condition that
satisfy requirements below. Finally, skin thickness (t) at each section is obtained.
σ comp τ s2

l
+ ≤ 1.0 and σcomp < min(fbe, fc , fcr,skin,σcr )

tia
σ cr τ cr2

3.4.2 Sizing Lower Skin

en
Untimate tensile strength Shear strength E c2 fn ρ
Mat. Prop m
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg/m3)
fid
Al 2024-T3 (DTD 5070B) 483 283 73100 342 16.6 301 2780
on

Do the same process of sizing upper skin but the difference here is design criteria.

Upper skin withstand mainly compression stresses as the wing flexes upwards during
flight, so almost unstable problem due to bucking, so checking buckling is the most
C

importance.

Beside that, lower skin particularly prone to fatigue through the long-continued
application and relaxation of tension stress, so checking damage tolerance is the most
importance. However, for checking damage tolerance take long time and need more detail
information about flight hour, and sizing without damage tolerance get value of skin thickness
(t) too much smaller than upper skin thickness. So get lower skin thickness equal to upper
skin thickness at each section.

Tension and shear interaction criteria for lower skin sizing is showed below

18
 Using tension and shear interaction criteria for lower skin sizing

σ all
≥ 1 .0
σ comb
where as material failure according to Von Mises :
σ comb = σ comp + 3τ 2

σ all : allowable tension stress of the material used (material property)

σ comp : applied tension stress

τ : applied shear stress

l
Note that Lower panel is also critical due to fatigue. The criteria have to be considered is :

tia
σ all −1G
−1 ≥ 0
σt
3.4.2 Sizing Ribs Web
en
ρ
fid
Untimate tensile strength Shear strength E c2 fn
Mat. Prop m
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (kg/m3)
Al 7075-T6 (DTD 5014) 572 331 76000 487 22.2 444 2810
on

A. Intial sizing ribs web

i. Due to concentrated loads (attachments: engine, flaps, etc):

C

Can be taken as a cantilever beam loaded by a vertical shear force equal to the hinge
reaction and a bending couple due to the offset of the hinge chordwise from the rear
spar location. The spar web will react most of the vertical shear, and in practice if the
hinge fitting is perpendicular to the rear spar, the rib flanges at the spar will be loaded
by direct forces given by:

x
R = ±V .
h
where

V: the hinge reaction

x: the offset of the hinge from the spar

h: the depth of the rib at the spar

19
• Estimating lift on flap (V) at Take-off:

Assum that:

Take off velocity (Vtake _ off ) = 50 m/s

Cl (with alpha 80 ) = 2.25

ρ air (at sea level) = 1.226 kg/m3

Lift on flap at each section (do the same as lift on wing at each section )

1
ΔV = ρVtake
2
_ off ClΔS flap
2
Vi = Vi −1 + Δ Vi

l
• Estimating Flange area:

tia
R
A flange =
en σ ys

Choose Flange thickness ⇒ Flange width

fid
ii. Due to shear loads :

R
on

rib (i+1)

rib (i)

rib (i-1)
C

Qz1 Qz2

Shear flow on the ribs web R = Qz1 − Qz 2

R
q3 = (daN/mm) = shear flow
2. h

hFS + hRS
h=
2

20
 iii. Due to crushing loads :

Crushing load act on the ribs web was given by:

2.σ 2 .t panel .L
σn =
E.h.trib _ web σn

where σupper

σn : crushing stress at rib σlower

σn
; L = rib

σ upper : normal stress at upper panel

σ lower : normal stress at lower panel

H : rib height

l
tia
q3
trib _ web : rib web thickness with trib _ web =
σ shear _ strength

t panel : tskin actual

en
abs (σ upperpanel ) + abs (σ lowerpanel )
σ= = σ upperpanel
2
fid

B. Checking buckling (due to compression and due to shear)

Checking buckling due to compression

on

2
⎛t ⎞
f cr , rib web = KE ⎜⎜ rib _ web ⎟⎟
⎝ w ⎠
C

Checking buckling due to shear K = 3.62

Do the same process with part B (B. Checking due to shear) in 2.3.2 Sizing Spar Webs
2
⎛t ⎞
to get σ cr , ribweb = K S E ⎜ rib _ web ⎟ . With KS = 8
⎝
( )
⎜ w ⎟
3 ⎠

q3
σ cr , ribweb was compared by σ shear =
trib _ web

21
 If stiffener for ribs web was not use, rib webs thickness would be so thick ⇒ structure
would be very heavy. In this design, rib webs was added two stiffener ⇒ divide rib webs into
three part as figure below. Finally, get reasonable weight of ribs web

C. Actual sizing ribs web

l
tia
q3
From the initial ribs web thickness trib _ web = , try to reduce it as thin as
σ shear _ strength
possible with conditions that satisfy requirements below. Finally, skin thickness (t) at each
en
section is obtained.

σ n < fcr,ribweb and σ shear < min(σ cr,ribweb,σ shear_ strength)

fid

3.4 RESULT
on

3.4.2 Data result

The main results of sizing wing box were shown in three tables below with three couple
value
C

(b) Stringer pitch (m) = 0.08 0.10 0.12

(L) Rib pitch (m) = 0.30 0.35 0.40

The purpose of given Stringer pitch in this report is to determine the number of stringers.
The number of stringer is still kept for all cross sections so stringer pitch of each cross section
will be different and decreased from root to tip. That’s why in the result stringer pitch is not
equal to the number above.

22
 C
on
fid
en
tia
l

23
 C
on
fid
en
tia
l

24
 C
on
fid
en
tia
l

25
 3.4.2 Figure result

In this report, shape of cross section wing box at root was drawn from the
real scale for a general view. (Using Auto CAD to draw them)

A. Wing box with Rib pitch L = 0.3 m and Stringer pitch = 0.08 m

l
tia
en
Figure 9
fid
on
C

Figure 10

26
B. Wing box with Rib pitch L = 0.35 m and Stringer pitch = 0.1 m

Figure 11

l
tia
en
fid
on
C

Figure 12

27
C. Wing box with Rib pitch L = 0.4 m and Stringer pitch = 0.12 m

Figure 13

l
tia
en
fid
on
C

Figure 14

28
 4. PARAMETRIC STUDY

From the design results, draw mass of (upper skin, lower skin, spars, ribs)
vs stringer pitch and rib pitch.
(b) Stringer pitch Upper skin mass Lower skin mass Spars mass Ribs mass Mass of hafl wing
(m) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
0.08 84 83 42 24 232
0.10 96 95 40 20 252
0.12 123 121 40 18 303

mass (kg)
Parametric Study
350

300

l
250

tia
W_upper skin
200
W_lower skin
W_spars
150
W_ribs
W-total
100
en
50

0 Stringer pitch (m)

fid
0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13
on

(L) Rib pitch Upper skin mass Lower skin mass Spars mass Ribs mass Mass of hafl wing
(m) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)
0.30 84 83 42 24 232
0.35 96 95 40 20 252
C

0.40 123 121 40 18 303

mass (kg)
Parametric Study
350

300

250

W_upper skin
200
W_lower skin
W_spars
150
W_ribs
W-total
100

50

0 Rib pitch (m)

0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41

29
 It is evident that stringer pitch and rib pitch have the important role in mass
of half wing and also every part of wing box. Increasing stringer pitch and rib
pitch (reducing number of stringers, number of ribs) → mass of spars and ribs
reduce insignificantly, but the stringer have to be longer, thicker and skin also
→ mass of skins (including stiffener) increase promptly in order to keep
stability with the same loading (compression and shear).

In this report, lower skin thickness was chosen to be similar to upper skin
thickness, so mass of them is not different too much (just different from density
of material).

From Figure 15, it is obvious to observe the change of wing box cross

l
tia
section shape when L and b were changed.

The difference between wing box mass in case (L = 0.3m and b = 0.08m)
en
and in case (L = 0.35m and b = 0.1m) is not too much (232 kg → 252 kg) but
the difference between wing box mass in case (L = 0.35m and b = 0.1m) and in
case (L = 0.4m and b = 0.12m) is significantly (252 kg → 303 kg). It mean that
fid
case of (L = 0.4m and b = 0.12m) is not good and it will never be using for
design.
on

In case of (L = 0.3m and b = 0.08m), length of stringer still to long

(54mm). In order to compare to anther design, this results was still kept.
Unfortunately, time is not enough for design other case, so it is kept for further
C

study.

Figure 15

30
 5. FURTHER STUDY

• Reduce L and b to get more number of stringers and get less length of
stringer and less weight of skin (including stringer).

• Understand the influence of individual L and b.

From two suggestions above, withdrawn the optimization of wing mass and
configuration of the wing

l
tia
en
fid
on
C

31