Xxxxxxxx

Assignment 1 – Dynamic
Finite Element Analysis
xxxxxxxx
School of Engineering, RMIT University

Abstract
The aim of this report is for educational purposes, to learn how to analyse complex dynamic
motion and vibration of a structure using FEM analysis using technologies such as the provided
Abaqus software. The knowledge that is gained within this report will guide the reader/student
with design and optimisation of critical engineering structures such as the wing, while meeting
the required performance criteria along with durability and safety.
Understanding the mechanical vibration of structures is critically important for the design and
operation of many engineering structures, such as those used in aerospace, transport,
automotive, marine, and mining industries, in this case, an aircraft wing. Extreme vibration when
unchecked can cause large physical loads, which may result in the overall performance drop and
even possible structure failure.

KEY WORDS: Vibration, FEM, Abaqus, structures, bending modes of vibration,

Introduction understanding of deformation

The aim of this report is to explore the use characteristics and vibrational behaviour
of ABAQUS in Finite Element Analysis in with the intention of reducing weight in
order to reduce the weight of the wing as aerospace structures.
much as possible while adhering to a set list
of design criteria which include certain Task
constraints on geometry, static deformation,
strength, and vibration behaviour. Table 1 – Design Requirements
The weight of the wing is so important in
terms of aircraft design since it will impact Requirement
performance, range, speed and altitude – The length of the wing 14m
this is why aerospace engineers always
strive to reduce the weight where possible. The chord of the wing 3m
The technology that will be used within this
report far exceed that was available to the The total fuel mass, equally split between 10,887
likes of Kelly Johnson and the Skunk Works two tanks kg
engineers in the 1950s and so, through this Wing must be capable to supporting all
report it will be attempted to see if a better loads
job of designing the wings of a U-2, within a Safety factor 2
similar design space it possible using said
technology. Throughout this report an Total dry weight 7,257
analyse will performed on a simplified wing kg
structure using computational modelling Maximum wing tip displacement 1m
(finite element method). Through this report
the structural response of one wing under Natural frequencies tolerance 1200 rpm 20%
both static and dynamic loading conditions
will be explored in order to gain an
Method

1 AERO 2357 Assignment 1 – Dynamic FEM Analysis

 Xxxxxxxx

These parameters will be decided on first

A brief summary of the process is described: based on an educated guess and necessary
1. Select an appropriate airfoil changes will be applied iteratively.
2. Determine a suitable skin thickness.
Note that other components such as The chosen parameters are described
ribs, spars and stringers are below:
excluded.
3. Find an appropriate material.
4. Generate the beam profile in Schematic of the wing sections and
Abaqus statement of the thicknesses
5. Find the weight of the wing
6. Find lift load by:
1 1
W dry + W fuel + W wing, (1)
2 2
7. Analyze these load cases:
a. Static with fuel wight and Table 2 – Airfoil Details
wing weight
b. Static with fuel and wing Name NACA 23015
weight and lift. Chord(mm) 3000
c. Dynamic vibration with fuel Radius(mm) 0
d. Dynamic vibration without Thickness(%) 100
fuel. Origin(%) 0
8. Find the maximum vertical
Pitch(deg) 0
deflection and Von Mises stress for
Skin Thickness 0.0015
cases a. and b. as well as the first
three natural frequencies.
9. Plot the fundamental mode shape Mechanical properties of the material
for cases c. and d. selected
10. Iteratively change the input
Table 3 – Titanium Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al
parameters until design
requirements have been met.
Density 4.65 g/cc
Through this method, at least two airfoils
Tensile Strength, 1260 MPa
and two materials should be used to
Ultimate
compare the results.
Tensile Strength, Yield 1170 MPa
Elongation at Break 10 %
Modulus of Elasticity 107 GPa
Compressive Yield Min 1145 MPa
Strength
Ultimate Bearing Min 1613 MPa
Strength
Ultimate Bearing Min 1958 MPa
Strength
Results Bearing Yield Strength Min 1565 MPa
Input parameters: Bearing Yield Strength Min 1800 MPa
- Geometry of wing,
Poisson's Ratio 0.32
o Airfoil coordinates
Fatigue Strength 490 MPa
o Skin thickness
Fatigue Strength 910 MPa
o Chord and span
Fatigue Strength 945 MPa
- Material Properties
Fracture Toughness Min 44 MPa-
o Young’s Modulus
m˝
o Shear Modulus
Shear Modulus 42.1 GPa
o Mass Density

2 AERO 2357 Assignment 1 – Dynamic FEM Analysis

 Xxxxxxxx

Shear Strength Min 669 MPa

Base Frame - Titanium
Table 4 – Aluminium 7075

Density 2.81 g/cc
Hardness, Brinell 150
Hardness, Knoop 191
Hardness, Rockwell A 53.5
Hardness, Rockwell B 87
Hardness, Vickers 175
Ultimate Tensile Strength 572 MPa
Tensile Yield Strength 503 MPa Eigenvalue: 0
Elongation at Break 11 % Frequency: 0
Elongation at Break 11 % Max Deflection: 0
Modulus of Elasticity 71.7 GPa
Poisson's Ratio 0.33
Fatigue Strength 159 MPa Frame 1 - Titanium
Fracture Toughness 20 MPa-m˝
Fracture Toughness 25 MPa-m˝
Fracture Toughness 29 MPa-m˝
Machinability 70 %
Shear Modulus 26.9 GPa
Shear Strength 331 MPa

Boundary Conditions:

Wing root: FIXED Eigenvalue: 132.66

U1 0 Frequency: 1.833hz
U2 0 Max Deflection: 234.5mm
U3 0
UR1 0
UR2 0 Frame 2 - Titanium
UR3 0

Weight of the wing

Mass: 4.06810e+01

Center of mass:
7.00000e+00,
1.37049e-01,
-1.48292e+00
Eigenvalue: 3678.2
Table 5 - Moment of inertia about the origin
Frequency: 9.652hz
Ixx 1.22046e+02 Max Deflection: 226.7mm
Iyy 2.77871e+03
Izz 2.65899e+03
Frame 3 - Titanium
Ixy -3.90272e+01
Iyz 7.31180e+00
Izx 4.22286e+02

3 AERO 2357 Assignment 1 – Dynamic FEM Analysis

 Xxxxxxxx

2. Dally, J. W. and Riley, W. F. (1991)

Experimental Stress Analysis. McGraw-
Hill, New York.

Eigenvalue: 8155.6
Frequency: 14.373hz
Max Deflection: 1047mm

Figure 1 - Bending Mode

Conclusion
Analytical FEM techniques make the
assumption that the structures being
analysed have constant cross sectional and
material properties throughout the
structure, while in actuality this may not be
the case due to manufacturing differences
and complex structures such as aircraft
wings. FEM proves to be a very efficient way
to make these analysis’s for the very little
resource and time consumption as
compared to hand calculations and physical
experimentations. FEM also gives the
advantage over experimental results due to
the reduction in error from human factors
which allows computational FEM to be
accurate for high precision applications such
as that in the aerospace industry.

References

1. Meek, J. L. and Beer, G. (1976) Contour

plotting of data using isoparametric
element representation. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 10, 954–957.

4 AERO 2357 Assignment 1 – Dynamic FEM Analysis

 Xxxxxxxx

Appendix
0.000584 0.009528
-0.000417 0.004647
0.000584 0.009528
0.000000 0.000000
0.003021 0.014630
0.001787 -0.004309
0.006907 0.019927
0.004894 -0.008184
0.012249 0.025386
0.009290 -0.011639
0.019047 0.030960
0.014945 -0.014691
0.027296 0.036596
0.021826 -0.017362
0.036983 0.042234
0.029897 -0.019677
0.048087 0.047806
0.039123 -0.021668
0.060580 0.053243
0.049471 -0.023366
0.074423 0.058474
0.060906 -0.024804
0.089573 0.063425
0.073395 -0.026018
0.105975 0.068030
0.086906 -0.027041
0.123569 0.072223
0.101410 -0.027909
0.142287 0.075948
0.116879 -0.028653
0.162055 0.079156
0.133286 -0.029305
0.182795 0.081808
0.150606 -0.029892
0.204422 0.083878
0.168814 -0.030440
0.226853 0.085349
0.187885 -0.030971
0.250000 0.086220
0.207793 -0.031501
0.273777 0.086499
0.228508 -0.032043
0.298097 0.086209
0.250000 -0.032605
0.322876 0.085382
0.272233 -0.033187
0.348033 0.084062
0.295166 -0.033785
0.373488 0.082301
0.318756 -0.034389
0.399166 0.080161
0.342950 -0.034979
0.424995 0.077707
0.367693 -0.035533
0.450909 0.075010
0.392922 -0.036022
0.476913 0.072124
0.418571 -0.036409
0.502965 0.069078
0.444563 -0.036655
0.528996 0.065901
0.470751 -0.036731
0.554937 0.062619
0.497035 -0.036636
0.580719 0.059260
0.523340 -0.036375
0.606275 0.055850
0.549592 -0.035952
0.631537 0.052415
0.575715 -0.035374
0.656440 0.048979
0.601637 -0.034646
0.680918 0.045564
0.627282 -0.033774
0.704906 0.042191
0.652577 -0.032764
0.728341 0.038879
0.677450 -0.031625
0.751162 0.035645
0.701831 -0.030365
0.773308 0.032505
0.725649 -0.028992
0.794719 0.029472
0.748838 -0.027518
0.815338 0.026557
0.771331 -0.025954
0.835109 0.023773
0.793067 -0.024313
0.853979 0.021127
0.813983 -0.022610
0.871895 0.018628
0.834022 -0.020859
0.888809 0.016282
0.853128 -0.019078
0.904673 0.014094
0.871250 -0.017284
0.919442 0.012069
0.888337 -0.015496
0.933075 0.010211
0.904344 -0.013733
0.945533 0.008523
0.919228 -0.012015
0.956780 0.007007
0.932950 -0.010361
0.966784 0.005665
0.945473 -0.008793
0.975514 0.004500
0.956765 -0.007328
0.982946 0.003512
0.966797 -0.005987
0.989057 0.002702
0.975542 -0.004785
0.993829 0.002072
0.982980 -0.003739
0.997248 0.001621
0.989091 -0.002863
0.999303 0.001350
0.993859 -0.002169
0.999989 0.001260
0.997274 -0.001666
0.999326 -0.001362
1.000011 -0.001260

5 AERO 2357 Assignment 1 – Dynamic FEM Analysis