AIRFRAME STRUCTURAL DESIGN Practical Design Information and Data on Aircraft Structures By MICHAEL CHUN-YUNG NIU Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company Burbank, California CONMILIT PRESS LTD,© 1988 Conmilit Press Lid. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval devices or systems, ‘nithout prior written permission from the publisher. ‘Second printing, January, 1989 Allenquiries should be directed to: CONMILIT PRESS LTD. 22/F, Sing Pao Building 101 Ring's Road North Point HONG KONG Thx: 62489 CANID HX or: TECHNICAL BOOK COMPANY 2056 Westwood Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90025, USA, Telephone: (213}475-5 Any suggestions and comments, please forward to: Michael C. Y. Niw ‘Author of the book “AIRFRAME SfRUCTURAL DESIGN™ cfa TECHNICAL BOOK COMPANY ISBN No: 962-7128-04-XPreface This book is intended to advance the technical understanding and practical knowledge of both py engineers and students. The book represents several decades of data collection, research, conve Gifferent airframe specialist, plus the author's more than twenty years’ experience in aifframe structs design. In addition, the text 1s partly based on the author's lecture (Structures, Symposium of Airframe Design) for the Lockheed Extension Education Program (LEEP). Its, therefore, equally useful to these aves primary degrees in engincering fields as.a reference for designing advanced structures, From a structural standpoint, the book is intended to be used asa tool to lelp achieve strctuel integrity according to, government regulations, specications, criteria, te, for designing commercial or miltary transport, military fighters, as well as genera aviation airraft 1 ean also be consiered as a toubeshootg bide for airline structural maintenance and repair engineers ov as a supplementary handbook in teaching suteraft structural design in college. Airerat design encompasses almost al he engineering daciplines ard is not prattcal to cover all the information and data within one book, Instead, relevant relerenese ane Dresented at the end of each chapter so thatthe reader can explore his own personal imerests tr preter detail. This book does not cover basic strength of materials and Structural (or stress) analysis Its seemed that the reader already has this background knowledge [This book is divided into a total of sixteen chapters and emphasizes itemized write-ups, tables, graphs and iihsrations to lead directly to points of intrest, The data can be used for designing and sizing drframe structures and, wherever needed, example calculations are presented for clatfication. As. technslogy continues to progress, basic technical data hold true, however, to suit today’s design such as advanced ‘composite structure some modification to the analysis may be required. In preparing this book, it was necessary to obtain and collec! vast amounts of information and data from many sources, (Information and data used in this book does not constitute official endorsement, elther expressed or implied, by the manufacturers or the Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company) Sincere appreciation is given to the Technical Information Center of Lockheed Actottautical Systems Company (LASC) for their gracious help. Thanks also to those who conributed to this book. my colleagues at Lessee and other specialists from various companies. Special thanks 0 Mr. Richard W Baker (Research wad Development Engineer of LASC) for his valuable comments in reviewing most of thc drafts Also, | would lke £0 express my appreciation to Mr. Anthony C Jackson (Composite Design Depariment Manager of LASC) for bis comments on Chapter 14.0, Advanced Composite Structures; and to my daughter Nints Niu for her help with this book. Lastly, itis my hope that this book, with its wide scope and information on the application of technology on aircraft structural design wil prove not only to be a valuable reference tool for desgning sound airframe ith structural imegrty but also as a “bridge” to carry over the valuable experience and knowledge from those who have retired from the aircraft industry 10 the next generation of engineers, However, ay Suggestions and comments for revision would he greatly appreciated by the author. Michact Chun-yung Niw California USA, Mareh, 1988CONTENTS Preface CHAPTER 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1 Introduction 2 Development Progress 3. Planning and Structural Weight 4 Computer Aid CHAPTER 2.0 DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Engineer's Responsibility 2.3 Producibility 2.4 Maintainability 25 Tooling 2.6 Other Considerations CHAPTER 3.0 AIRCRAFT LOADS 3.1 Introduction 3.2. Aeroelasticity 3.3. Flight Maneuvers 3.4 Basic Data 3.5 Wing Design Loads 3.6 Empennage Loads .7 Fuselage Loads 3.8 Propulsion Loads 3.9 Landing Gear Loads 3.10 Miscellaneous Loads 3.11 Example of An Airplane Loads Calculation CHAPTER 4.0 MATERIALS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Material Selection Criteria 4.3 Aluminum Alloys 44. Titanium Alloys 4.5 Steel Alloys 4.6 Composite Materials 4.7 Corrosion Prevention and Control CHAPTER 5.0 BUCKLING AND STABILITY 5.1 Introduction 5.2. Columns and Beam-Columns 5.3. Crippling Stress 5.4 Buckling of Thin Sheets 5.5 Thin Skin-Stringer Panels 5.6 Skin-Stringer Panels 5.7 Integrally Stiffened PanelsCHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER 6.0 61 6.2 63 64 65 66 7.0 71 72 73 74 75 76 27 78 8.0 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 9.0 91 92 93 o4 95 96 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 104 11.0 m1 1.2 n3 na us n6 17 cuTouTs Introduction Lightly Loaded Beams Heavily Loaded Beams Cutouts in Skin-stringer Panels Cutouts in Curved Skin-stringer Panels Fuselage Cutouts for Big Cargo Doors FASTENERS AND STRUCTURAL JOINTS Introduction Rivets Bolts and Screws Fastener Selection Lug Design and Analysis Welded and Adhesive Bond. Fatigue Design Considerations Shim Control and Requirements WING BOX STRUCTURE Introduction Wing Box Design Wing Covers Spars Ribs and Bulkheads: Wing Root Joints Variable Swept Wings Wing Fuel Tank Design WING LEADING AND TRAILING EDGES: Introduction Leading Edges Trailing Edges Wing Control Surfaces Fixed Leading and Trailing Fdges Design Considerations EMPENNAGE STRUCTURE Introduction Horizontal Stabilizer Vertical Stabilizer Elevator and Rudder FUSELAGE Introduction Fusclage Configurations Fuselage Detail Design Forward Fuselage Wing and Fuselage Intersection Stabilizer and Aft Fuselage Intersection Fuselage Opening. 162 162 165 173 177 186 204 207 207 210 214 218 219 227 230 243 247 247 251 256 269 277 282 288 296 303 303 326 335 347 352 355 358 358 363 369 371 376 376 379 380 398 406 412 417CHAPTER 12.0 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 CHAPTER 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 134 13.5 13.6 CHAPTER 14.0 141 142 143 44 45 CHAPTER 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 154 15.5 15.6 15.7 158 CHAPTER 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 164 Appendix A: Appendix B: Index LANDING GEARS Introduction Development and Arrangements Stowage and Retraction Selection of Shock Absorbers Wheels and Brakes Detail Design Testing ENGINE MOUNTS Introduction Propeller-driven Engine Mounts Inlet of Jet Engines Wing-pod (Pylon) Mounts Rear Fuselage Mounts and Tail Mounts Fuselage Mounts (Fighters) ADVANCED COMPOSITE STRUCTURES Introduction Composite Materials Design Structural Joint Design Manufacturing FATIGUE, DAMAGE TOLERANCE AND FAIL-SAFE DESIGN Introduction Performance and Functions Design Criteria and Ground Rules Structural Life Estimation Fail-safe Design Detail Design Sonic Fatigue Design and Prevention Verification Tests WEIGHT CONTROL AND BALANCE Introduction Weight Prediction Performance and Configuration Influences Balance and Loadability CONVERSION FACTORS (U‘S. unit vs. SI unit) LIST OF CUTAWAY DRAWING: 430 430 442 449 454 461 464 466 471 471 415 478 479 487 489 492 492 500 509 520 526 538 538 543 547 548 554 561 567 370 581 581 585 590 591 599 602 609CHAPTER 1.0 GENERAL 1.1. Introduction ‘There are many aspects of design of aircraft structures as shown in Fig. 1.1.1. For modern jet aircraft, the design must incorporate clear aerodynamic shapes for Jong range flight near or at supersonic speeds, and/or wings fo open up like parachutes at very low speeds. “The wings must serve as fuel tanks and engine support structures. All structures must withstand bail and lightning strikes, and must operate in, and be pro lected against, corrosive environments indigenous (0 all climates. The structure must be serviceable from 15 0 20 years with minimum maintenance and still be Tight cnough to be economically competitive. The design must incorporate new materials and processes that advance the state of the art. Using new techniques often require developing still newer processes. operons FIND Tueaage edule Nose Janta gear Hovzentatstabaser A good overall structural concept incorporating all these factors is initiated during preliminary design, At the very beginning of a preliminary design effort, the designer writes a set of specifications consistent with the needs. I should be clearly unclerstood that during preliminary design it is not always possible for the designer to meet all the requirements of a given set of specifications. Infact, itis not at all uncommon to find certain minimum requirements unattainable. It is then necessary 10 compromise. The extent to whiich com- promises can be made must be left to the judgment of the designer. However, if must be kept in mind that to achieve a design most adaptable to the specified Purpose of the airplane, sound judgment must be exercised in considering the value of the necessary ‘modifications and/or compromises. Vertical sti Common gested Main anding gear (a) Mary figher Fig. LL Aircraft structural breakdown, Airframe Structural Design 16) Commercial aitner Fig. 11.1 (continued)The fist task of the designer is to familiarize himself thoroughly” with the specifications of the airplane upon which the design is to be based. Also, if the airplane is to be sold to more than one customer, all avilable information should be obtained to mini mize the design that might be required in the future. ‘There should be no thought of making a general purpose aixplane, suitable for any purchaser or any Ese, because thal ian impossibility. However, itis Frequently possible to arrange a design which would simplify future changes without sacrificing, either Siructural or aerodynamic efficiency or taking a weight penalt Rear, the designer should faniirize himself with all existing airplanes of the same general type as that proposed, If possible, it is advisable to collect all Comments, both positive aad negative, of pilots passengers, maintenance groups, and operators using the existing equipment. ‘The designer should not bindly copy any existing design just because it happens to be available. On the other hand, not to take advantage both of the suecesses and mistakes of ‘others is inefficient. Today's jet airplanes have much greater payloads at longer ranges and at higher speeds than past models. A great many shapes and sizes of and empennages were coxsidered. Various wing Shapes should be examined in depth for aerodynamic high and low speed performance, fuel capacity, range, torsional and) weight characteristics, and system compatibility High it and lateral control deviees, pitch and yaw devices on the empennage. and sizes were established. ‘As the final configuration was determined, statements fof work deseribing the structure were supplied 10 ‘manufacturing for Scheduling purposes. Joints in the structure were established based on manufacturing’s facies, Subeonttact programs, raw material ava billy, and schedules The aircraft industry has for the past wo decades spent considerable research and development effort 16 exploit the very alractive structural efficiencies achievable through the use of advanced compos structures. Advanced. composites offer promise of substantial weight savings relative to current metallic stcuctures. Further, the number of parts required (0 build 2 composite component may be dramatically less than the numberof parts needed to construct the same component of metal alloy. This can lead to signiticant labor savings, sometimes offsetting the Somewhat higher price of the present composite materials. These features, together with the inherent resistance to corrosion, make composites very altesc= tive candidate materials fr future aera structures, 1.2 Development Progress ‘The modern aeronautical engineering of aircraft design has been an evolutionary process accelerated tremendously in recent times from the demanding requirements for safety and the pressures of com petitive economics in structural design. For example: 1900-1915 In this period, the Wright Brothers’ demonstration’ of practical mechani- cal ight, power requirements, stabil lay and canteot were overriding eon: siderations. A successful flight was ‘one which permitted repair and turn around in a few weeks or days Strength considerations. were sub ordinate and ultimate strength of 2 few critical parts was the extent of sieuetural analysis ‘World War I accelerated the solution of power plants and. stability and control prabiems. Engine reliability was improved by ground qualifiea- tion (fatigue) testing. Commercial development of metal aircraft for public. transport took place in this era. Design and analysis emphasized. static ultimate strength nd, except for the engine, had litle gx no consideration for airame fatigue During this period, there grew an increasing avareness of the fatigue potential in airframe safety. A latpe tnercase in performance capability resulted from WW. Il technology Higher material stati strengths were developed without a coresponding increase in fatigue strength. Static ultimate design alone was not suff cient; it was joined by fatigue desig. 193S~present. Safety from fatigue alone was. rec ‘ognized 10 be inadequate; fail-safe and damage tolerance, ic, static strength of damaged requires ade~ quate inspection intervals to discover and repair fatigue and other damage before eracks reach catastrophic pro- portions 1915-1930 1930-1940 1940-1955 So today we design for Static uimate (and yield) strengch. «Fatigue life of the arirame (crack initiation). 4 Static residual strength of damaged structure + Fatigue lite of damaged structure (inspection imtervaly. ‘Thermal stress analysis and design of supersonic sinerat ‘The primary objective of the structural designer is to achieve the maximum possible safety maggin and achieve a “reasonable” hfeuime of the aireraftstuc= ture, Economie obsolescence may not come a5 son 2 anticipated. For example, some of the old DC-3's stil fying today are approaching or exceeding 100,000 hours of service. This record is achieved only by failsafe structure, knowledge of when and where 10 Took for eracks, and replacement of & few vital parts, Iti the purpose of this book to diseuss, in some derail, the ‘design procedures, analysis "method material properties and experimental data necessary to equal or Detter the past structural safety record in the lace of ever increasing performance, adverse environments, and complexities of future aircraft Al airframe structural design goes through these phases ‘Specification of function and design esteria + Determination of basic external applied loads, + Caleuation of internal clement loads Airframe Structural Design 3‘* Determination of allowable clement streneths ‘and margins of safer, ‘* Experimental demonstration or substantiation test program (Fig. 1.2.1) Engineering is experimental, empirical, and theore- ical in that order. The physical facts must be known, first; they may be empirically manipulated before the “perfect theory” is available. Failure to recognize this ‘order of priority can lead to disaster if theoretical analyses are relied upon without thorough and careful ‘experimental substantiation Comoression Curves cock acpansee Sp snd rst sven Suinger sole Wing tuseloon toe loads are relatively predictable from model data and substantiation for a certification program should be ‘more of less routine. The laboratory development test rogram is an important feature of any new vehicle program; both to develop design data on materials and shapes, and to substantiate any new theory oF Structural configuration. Assuming ‘clear-cut objec. tives, design criteria, and adherence to design rules and development test evaluations, the certification test program will demonstrate suecess without degencrat- Ing into more and expensive development work Lonotuias actre sae eophtees EH staat Frame eoie fave Risto stinger joint Fig. 1.2.1 Development testing of a transport airplane. ‘This does not mean we do not need theory. It does ‘mean that we may and do need to progress beyond the capability of theory. But when we do, we must recognize and account for this fact wherever it may be critical. The engineering system evolved to handle any Situation, be it a method of design, a component, or a vehicle design is illustrated in Fig. 1.2.2. Of primary significance are the three boxes in heavy outlines, Laboratory development testing * Flight test data + Centfication or substantiation test program. ‘The dotted arrows indicate feed-back where ex: Perimental data is utilized to modify the design as hhevessary, The feed back loop for Might data on basic loads for conventional airplane vehicles is not as mportant as it once was simply beeause a vast store of research, experimental data, empirical know-how, and substantiated theory on the subject exists. Bas 4 Airframe Seeuctural Design ‘Design Specfeation tow Bas auratee FL | ten, Cenieation Test Progam r ‘Approved Type Fig. 1.2.2 Airplane design, development and certification,1.3 Planning and Structural Weight [A good design isthe result of proper planing and Scabahting, Ths means scheduling mot only the ier responsiblity but also scheduling the data fom oer rou or sal. Hrmust have al the data required, Stch'hs loads from stress, acrodynamis requements, fysems date sch a6 contol electrical fel, and Rldrauicimerfaces, aterchangesbity, "malta ably, ervicesbit, spect sine requirements, and tack more Al mus be wale nly manne {Denulrea good negated design. The designers Gniyrone who knows when he noes this dala based in ichadtes he is commited 1, He ithe one who must make his requremuns kiown and when he med then He is the one who must follow up as Sten as necessary {0 ensure Tecetving the data. He must fecognize tea somncone eles performance Cetsoctey nme to take tp hough his Supe fort remedy the siuation, There no other Sa fasion) way t0 schedule interchange of sian data fice esa “phe and. ake” situation, parteulty Benreen design groups. Loads and acrodynamic data requirements can be scheduled someuhat more pre CGoety, but iti ail the designer’ responsi to framtin a constant monitoring of sess and ac ymunie progress, Remember, is the designers Atumate responsibilty to release dekgrs on sede to the shop, Fig, 121 shows an example of hat Shartag design purposes, I is paricalty usefl in geting management stirred nt ation, "The fact that sirctural designers or sires eng neers who determine. struciral sis should be Concerned vith weight should ot srike One as Strange: Neverihclss in, today’s speization, there mechanics of his job and to forget the fundamental reasons for that job It has been said, sometimes in jest and again in eamnest, that the weight engincer is paid to worry about weight. However, unless every aircraft enginect in a company is concerned about weight, that company may find it difficult to mect competition or, in other words, to design a good performance ait plane. Weight engineers can estimate or calculate the tseight of an airplane and its component parts. Actual weight savings, However, are always made by design- cers or stress engineers. A very small margin of weight can determine the difference between excellent and poor performance of an airplane. Ifthe structure and ‘equipment of a successful model were increased only '5% of its gross weight, the consequent reduction in fuel or pay load may’ well mean cancellation of @ contract. In transport aiceraft the gross-weight limit Gefinitely stipulated; thus, any increase in emp ‘weight will be offset by a reduction in fuel or pay load (Fig, 132) ‘The weight break-down of aircraft structure over the years. shows. a remarkable consistency in the values of the structure weight expressed as 20-40% of the take-off gross weight (or all-up weight) realized in serviee, irrespective of whether they were driven by ‘propellers or by jet engines At the project stage, if performance and strength are kept constant, a saving of structure weight is also accompanied by savings in ful, the use of smaller ‘engines, smaller wings to keep the same wing loading and so on, such that the savings in take-off weight of the aircraft to do the same job is mich greater than ‘the weight saved on the structure alone ‘The object of structural design is to provide the steueture that wil permit the aircraft, whether military is a tendency to narrow one's viewpoint to the or civilian, to do the job most effectively; that is with 1968 169 070 won Test Type PERCENT PEED] APD E LT hE PPLE Sone a 1 T 1 Mesos 90% stare fs E olan Fight ™ Ge E on, pals Beveopment + estate, tatque, fase end sn fate esting lane proot vsitzaton Drmamic Te geere |] [7] oun vration test —t ‘Sain Fate (ary (Sse stam ran [_Tessseiteno Fig. 13.1 L-1011 complete structura test program schedule for praject commitment. Airframe Structural Desion 5the least total effort, spread over the whole life of the aircraft from inital design until the aireraft is thrown ‘on the scrap heap. here is thus, an_all-embracing simple criterion by which the success of the structural Gesign can be judged. I is not sufficient to believe that percentage structural weight is of iself an adequate measure of effective design, either of the complete ainplane or of the structure itself, A well-known example is the provision of increased aspect ratio 3 the expense of structural weight, which may give increased fuel cconomy at cruise and reduction in the total aircraft weight, Nevertheless, percentage struc- tural weight is a useful measure, provided its limila- tions ate recognized, to 15 Lio 5 £7” [=% ineressa in BWM = transport OEW-200,000 tb)| es so _——__|_ "80000 vs oot pea ompey wih (OF inte, Fig. 1.3.2 Example of 5% increase in OEW and 25% reduction of payload, or t keep the samwe payload and redesign to achieve a 9% Tif drag ratio. 1.4 Computer Aid The requirements of structural analysis are under- going changes duc to different environments (ie, tahitude, speed, ete.) different construction, refined detail, expanded analysis coverage, and broadened analytical concepts as shown in Fig. 14.1. Motivated by these changes in analytical requirement, the digital computer and is effective use have assiimed paar mount importance. Environmental changes ‘have Precipitated the scarch for improved structures. The changes in altitude and speed have not only motivated 4 search for lighter structures but have necessitated the considerations of heared structure, Different environment © Expanded analysis coverage Broadened analytical concepts Stress analysis for composite structures Fig. 14.1 Changes requirements for modern airplane design 6 Airframe Structural Design Finite Element Modeling (FEM) Probably the most versatile tool in structural analysis isthe use of finite element modeling (FEM), Before FEM, industrial stress analysis was largely an approw mate science. L:quations were available for deter mining stress and strain exactly in simple hears shown in Fig 142. A major structural discontinuity occurs atthe juncture of components such as tho wing and body, At such siructuraljunetions, a major ede tribution of stresses must oceur and the flexural dic Similarities of the wing and body must be designe) for. Regutdless of the construction details atthe juncture, the major components affect each other. In those cases where the proportions of component are such that beam analysts (or theory) can be employed, its common practice to assume the behavior of ons of the components and correspondingly analyse the tiher component. Inthe case of She aoe juncture as mentioned previously, such a procedure Gould assume the body'to provide cantilevered sup. por boundary for the wing and then analyze the wig by beam bending theory ? Fig. 1.4.2 Equilibrium and compatibility analysis Such conventional procedures will essentially ‘ensure that the analytical forces that occur between the wing/body will be in equilibrium. Unfortunately, the actual clastic structural compatibility that is resent usually enforces a different distribution of forces between these two major structures, Thus change in. the analytical requirements is present and the analytical technology must be powerful enough to censure both force equilibrium and deflection com patibility at the structural discontinuity, Most of the aircraft construction is such that not only must the force equilibruim be satisfied, but the elastic deflection compatibility must also be repre. sented. This represents a broadening of the analytical concepts, whercin it is required to ehange the anal tical technoiogy to include both equilibrium and compatibility concepts which give the actual structure! load oF stress distributio However, most practical structures, especially aircraft structures, are very redundant ‘or indeter ‘minate which means the analysis of redundant struc- tures leads 10 the need to solve sets of simultaneous Finear algebraic equations. If the actual redundant Siructure is large, the set of sisultancous equations will also be large, ‘The finite clement modeling represents a part with a mesh-like “network of simple’ geometrie. shapes combined in building-block fashion as. shown inFig. 14.3. Entire airframe finite element model Fig 4.3, Bach element has characteristics easly found from simple equations. So the behavior of the entire structure is determined by solving the resulting set of simultaneous equations (or by matrix tech- niques) forall the elements In the early days, finite clement models were built manually (the element mesh was drawn by hand) Then node coordinates, element connectivity and other pertinent data were written on lengthy tabula- lion sheets and wansferred to computer cards via a keypunch machine. Because of the huge amount of data to be handled, manual mode-building is tediow time-consuming, costly, and error-prone. In addition the resulting model may be less than optimal becauss the lengthy construction time prohibits the analyst fining the model with altern and configurations. To overcome Ciencies, prepracestors or 3D. mesh graphics program from CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing) system were developed to aid in model building. These programs reportedly reduce model-building time and costs by as ‘muchas more than 80% ‘Many FEM programs have heen written. However, only a few are satisfactory for general use. These programs handle linear static and dynamic structural analysis problems. Some of them perform a type of Mi ansfer analysis and damage tolerance analysis ‘One of the earliest FEM programs and probably the most well-known is NASTRAN (NASA STRuc- tural ANalysis), developed hy NASA in the mid 1960 to handle the analysis of missiles and aircraft structures. NASTRAN ig one of few major programs with public domain versions available. Several major aerospace companies have modified NASTRAN for their particular applications, Various types of graphic scopes. are available showing model deformed-shape and displacements, For dynamic analysis, these deformed shapes are somtimes animated in slow motion © show how the structure bends, twists, and rocks during operation, CAD/CAM System ‘The use of interactive computer graphics for data handling in design, manufacturing and product support programs quickly spread from aerospace to automotive applications and gradually permeated the broad hase of general industry during the past decade. CAD/CAM. (Computer-Aided-Design and Con puter-Aided-Manufacturing) provides a common dai base of the elected design for all disciplines such as preliminary design studies, ofting production design, tool design, numerical «: ‘control, product support, can be accessed 10 other design groups like airplane payloads, controls, hydraulics, powerplant, electrical, maintenance, ele, to narrow the gap between design and manufacturing and also to open up a riew oppor tunity for excellence in all design. It is no exaggeration CAD/CAM system has heen considered as the second industrial revolution of this century, The large-scale computer (tmainframe) is the heart of the CAD/CAM system thst can provide a rapid and uncomplicated interface between engineer and We to produce the geometric and mathematic for different the. large-scale computer isthe center of this systemn and the graphics terminal as shown in Fig. 14 provides the e and machine interface. The other components of the hardware system provide fast response and recovery ‘of work in the event of @ hardware failure or prawer failure, the ability for the compusier 40 operate on multiple tasks, magnetic tapes for control of machines Airframe Structural Design 78 Airframe Structural Designto make parts of plot drawings, and disk drives for accounting data and storage of the work accom plished. Fig. 1.4.5 shows the typical hardware system ‘components and the data flow. CAD/CAM system is a broad data base system ‘and most of the companies simply do not need this complete system. These companies find automated drafting system 2 more reasonable way to get started in CAD/CAM. The automated drafting system increases in productivity from two to sixfold and sometimes more. The drawing is stored in computer memory and can easily be changed and replotted in a ew minutes t0 accommostaie engineering, modific tions. Automated drafling increases productivity by ‘coupling the creativity of the engineer with the ‘computer's high speed and huge memory. This frees the engineer from performing the time-consuming, repetitive tasks such as drawing the same shape many times, making the same change to soveral drawings, or painstakingly measuring and dimensioning apart, ‘And the drawing is produced in minutes with the push of a button. As'a result, the engincer-machine team can produce a drawing more quickly and more accurately than would otherwise be possible. REFERENCES 11, Anon: Aigrame & Powerplant Mechanics, ACBS-15, Department of Transportation: Federal Aviation Administration, 1.2, Mekinley IL ind Bent R.D. Rasic Science for Aero space Vehicles: McGraveHill Book Company, New York, NY. 1953, 13. Torenbeck E: Shmehesis of Subsonic Airplane Design Deli University Press, Nether, 197. 14, Nicolai, LM Fundamentals of Airy Design University of Dayton. Dayton, Ohno 45469. 1975, 1S. Williams, De An iiueoduction 10 The Theory of Aire Srucraes. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd aadon, 1960. 1.6. Bruhn. EF: Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Simccures. Iei-State Otter Company, Cincineat ‘Ohio 45202, 1965, LI. Corning. G: Supenunic and Subsonic CTOL ant VTOL, Auplane Design PO, Box No. 14, College, Maryland. 1976, LR. Wood, K. De Aerospace Vehicle Devien, Vol — Alrerajt Design ohnson Publishing. Company, Boulder, Colorado, 1968 1.9, Newell, A Fe Impressions of de Structural Design of American Civil Airerai’ The Acvephine, (Aug 1S. 1958), 229-232. 110. Megsou, HG: Airerufé Sinatures for Engineering Students. Edward Araold (Publishers) Lid, Londo WIXSEE. 1972 LAL. Sandifer, RE. “Airerat Design Philosophy® Journal Of The “Royal Acronuutea! Socien, (M39, 1956). 301-330. 112. Newell, AF. and Howe, D: Aeralt Design Trends Auvcrfi Engineering, (May, 1962), 132-139, 113, Way, WAWs Advantages of Aircraft System Marty” SAE paper No. 730977 (1973), 1d, North.” DM: Soviets Test Tworscar MIG-25 Version? Aviation Weck & Spare Technolog, (Mat 28,1977) 17, 415, Sweetman, Bs ‘Poxbat — Something Compl Different” Hight International, (Apr 23.197 U2 124 116, Smyth, $3. °CADAM Date Handling (rom Concep: tal Design Through Product Supt! ALAA paper No, 79-1846, (1979) LIT, Wehiman, MD: CAD Produced Aieratt Drawing, AAA puper No. S-0722R, (1981) imton, Dz The Anatom of The Acraplane, Ameti= fan Ehevicr Publishing Company Ine. New York NY, 1956, EC: Oporational Aspects of Jet Transp! “Nero Digest (May 1953) 120. Epstein, A. Some Etfets of Structural Deformation in Airplane Design’ Acro Digest (Feb. 1949) 17 121, Anon: "Tomorrow's Fighter” Updated’ or out: ated." Aviation Week & Space Technology, (Ang. 10, 1987), 61-108 1.22, Woad, C: Carpe Plane Design Considerations” Aer Digest, (Dee. 1983), 203, 123 Rieger, NP: “asic Course in Finite-clement Analysis? Machine Design (in Ii, 1981). 124. Anons "Russia's New Long diate” Flight fuer ational (Agus 20, 1977), 928 1.25. Laser:"Design Probe — Another Look at the Square Cube Law.” Flight tnvemnananal, (Oct. 17.1968), 615616, 126. Cleveland, FA! ‘Size Effects in Conventional Aireratt Design’ Jourial of Aircraft, (Now “Dee 1970), 483-512, 1.27, Black RE. and Stem, JA» “Advanced. Subsonic ‘Transports —"A Challenge for the 197s) Journal of Avra May 1976). 321-326, 128. Anon= “Two or Taree Engines?” Fight Inrematioual (Sepl. 18, 1969). 446—447, 1.20. Higgins, RW: "The Choice Betwoon One Engine oF Two - An Appreciation of the Factors involved Choosing “A Single or. Tain-Engine Layo for Military Tactical Airceal Aireraft Engoncerng. (Now rues) 30. Miggirs, RW: “The Choice Between One aging oF Two for Tactical Strike’Clase Support Aireralt” The Aeronautical Journal of The Royal Aeronautical Society. Jul. 1964), 620-62. 131, Lachmana, GV! Blwndary Layer ond How Control Its Principles and Apphicaton. Vol, | and Vol. 2 regamon Press, New Vark, NY. 1961 1.32, Teichmann, EK. Airplane Design Manual Pi Publishing "Corporation, New» York, N.Y Eaion, 1958 LAX. Anan! NATOS File Nations. Frank O'Shanohan ‘AS« Ltd, London ECAA ID. Ld, Foods, “Je “The Air Force/Moing Advanced Mediuin STOL Transport Prototype” SAL puper No. 7H5,(Apuit 197%), 135, Hates, RE" Structural Development of The DC-10, Dougias paper No 040, Stay 1972} 1.36, Sputings EH “Trends'in Madera Aire Design’ SAE puper No. 92, (May, 1987) Mackey. DJ and Simons, HL: “Stractural Develop. iment of the IO Tyestan’ ATAA paper Ni 22-93 (apn 1972), Lax. Man. MD. fh Struct Technical Basis for The STOLE Characiensties of The McDonnell Douula iSAE YES Protoiype Airplane” SAL" paper Nein (apni 1973}, Airframe Structural Design 91. La 192, 143, Magruder, WM: ‘Development of Requicement, Configuration and Design for the Lockheed 1011 let Transport’ SAE puper No 80583 (Oxt. 1968). Monisset,'J: “Tupoley 144 aad Concane’ — The ‘ficial performances are compared for the fist me NASA TTF 15446,(Apiil 1974, Kropul, 8, ‘and’ Herbst, WB: “Design for Air Combat: ALAA paper No. 72-749,(Aup 1972), Woolsey IP: “US. Airplane Builders Finding Many Barriers to New Programs’ Air Transom World, (Feb. 1976), 12-17, Sandor, PL: ‘Structural Design of Future Commer: ne Structural Design 144 145. 146, 17, 148, ‘ial Transpons: ALAA paper No. 7-20, (Jan, 1973), Foontt, H.R: Design of Fighter Altera” sero Digest (eb, 1948) Anion: “Aircraft Design at the ALAA. Flight Inter atonal, Sept 8, 1973). Barton, C: "Spruce Gosse — Plerodacty! of World war Il" Popular Mechanics, (Nov. 1977) Aronson, RA: “Blownwing STOLS on Trial Machine Design, Oct.1977), 36-1 Satie, P "Supersonic Aie Transport — and Misconceptions” Journal of Aaverafe 1976), 3-12. ue Problems FebCHAPTER 2.0 DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING 2A Introduction Design and manufacturing are successive phases of @ single operation; the ultimate objective of which is the ‘emergence of an acceptable final product. In aero space context, such acceptability has several com- ponents: market viability, operational efficiency, ‘capacity for further development and structural integrity. Less obvious but just as important, a struc- ture must not be so complex or difficult in’ concept that its realization will create great difficulties, or increase the cost of the manufacturing process. Design has always carried with it — indeed — a degree of prestige; because its effectiveness can be seen in the final product and a successful design ean confer something approaching glamour upon those responsible. Production, on the other hand, emerged later as a specialized Branch of engineering and is sandwiched between the designer's drawings and the final product. Consequently, ts achievement is less apparent and frequently, in the past, i has not been accorded alike degree of considcration or ered. Yet, itis the production phase of the operation that tras” lates the design into hardware (se Fig 2.11), ‘An aircraft is conceived 2s a compleve structure, bbut for manufacturing purposes must be divided into sections, or main components, which are in turn split into sub-assembles of decreasing size that are finally resolved into individual detail parts, Each main component is planned, tooled and built av a separate Unit and joined withthe others in th intermediate and final assembly stages (ee Fig 2.1.2) Saley Setedating +” Contact-arplanen Delivery schedule design + Aisplane quantity Monitors & coordinates + Spectications ¢ Detvery schedule P+} + Timespanfvom'Gir-Ahead"t Pe} # Research & tests Contracisrspare completion Deval design + Gastomers requirements + Tomintain on-time detveies #_Peaaduetion design Production Control Manufaciring Fgineeting Machine shop orders |, | “Manufacturingsombly rcs li’ Plant Engineering + Took Machine shop orders = "Plant space Matos + Tool requirements © Machinery ee o Pacts Tooting : te equipment + "Design and produce tools * Other equipments + Special tool for composite structures 7 - : T Tiaaeaeanay Fabrication Beeline Cot 9 Major structure atest + Manpomer allocations Sundae Gems assembly 3 Machinery + Detall production + Standard procedures, + Finished produ Matera 2, Deal > Statens tunetions and T t Production analysis responsibilities Quay Contot ‘Control of quality through inspection of ‘material, pasts and finished product + Insure to meet the engineering speciications TARR) Ue al Convers Designs to Transpons Pr] # Biletmaterial «Materia 4 Requicement Par Lt Purchases & Stores Finished product Flight Operations light wests each airplane ‘¢ Trains customer fight crews Raw maori ‘+ Purchased parts Ships & Receives Pars Materials ‘© Atreralt equipment Fig. 211 How airplane is but. Airframe Structural Design 11‘Tooling is required for each stage of the building of each component — detail tooling of individual parts, ‘of which there may be many thousands, followed by assembly tooling of increasing size and complexity for the stages of progressive assembly Fig. 2.1.2 Final assembly of airplane There is nothing new in attempting to design an aircraft to give trouble-free operation, This has, of course, always been one of the major paris of a designer's job. In recent years there has been incor porated the “maintenance tequitements in every engineering drawing before going into production. If aireraft have become too difficult to maintain, itis not entirely due to lack of appreciation of the problem in the drawing, but mainly to the very great inercase in complexity of modern aircraft, particutarly in the past few decades. A great deal of this complication is due toequipment and automatic gadgetry. Between 25 to 40 per ceat of the total direct operating cost (DOC) of an airplane is duc 10 main- tenance, quite apart from the losses due (0 airplanes ‘ot being serviceable when required. 2.2 Engineer's Responsibility The design engincer is the “general practitioner” to the engineering profession as compared with staff or research types or engincers. Design engincers must diagnose the symptoms of potential structural failures and service problems early in the design stage. On the shoulders of the design engineer rests the final total design integration responsibitiy. To do a thorough job, the design engineer must: (2) Coordinate thoroughly and integrate the design package into the overall structure! # Use design data type diagram 10 make co- ‘ordination definite * Donot depend on oral covordi (2) Exablish hasies as early as possible aced on functional requitements # Loads and materials — make sure to use the tight foads and materials to avoid needless drawing changes ‘+ Aerodynamic requirements © Geomeury nformation. interehange- repairability, replace 12 Airframe Structural Design ability, maintainability, ee. + Identiication of problem dei backiracking in design (3) Spend adequate time to plan the job: * Plan layouts and drawings to represent the work 4 Make schedules realistic # Study the requitements and select an optimum solution (4) Mt you encounter interface problems, make adequate sections to show * Where clearances are required and the re- quirement for such clearances + ‘The interface to which the detail attaches (8) Review processes, finishes, assembly procedures. et Heat treatment requirements * Provent stress risers which cause structural fatigue + Rough machine requirements wo eliminate mocking stresses ‘Cold work treatment on machined surfaces to imerease structural fatigue life, such as shot. peening ‘= Surface piating ‘Forming and machining techniques (6) Subcontractor built production joints for assem- blies that must conform to shipping limitations (1) Production joints resulting from raw material size restrictions of size of fabrication tool, ie, skin rls, stringer mills, stretch presses, protective finish tank see (8) The subassembly plan andl how these subassem- blies are loaded into the final assembly foxtures. ‘The design engineer is essentially involved putting together a structural igsaw puzzle (0) After all, the most important one, is that the cengincer should dedicate himself (or herse) to the job. 2.3 Producibility In aircraft design, time is always the essence of the contract, and the pressure is always on. There is never sutficient time (and, frequently, not the information) to consider objectively all the possible ways: of doin job and thereby co arrive, on the first aecasion, at the ‘optimum metho. Because of the difficulties of assessing (under the ‘combined pressures of technical requirements; econo ‘mic realities and time) the best method of achieving a given objective in terms of function and cost, the Initial process of collaboration and analysis has, over the last several decades, tended to develop almost into fa new form of specialized engincering activities under the name of producibility engineering, ‘The name is no ‘more than a convenient label for an analytical process now, perhaps, more concenteated andl consciously applied than formerly — that has always been & part of good design and engineering practice, The frst lage 18 t0 make available ta the earliest days of the design, before anything is committed to materials or ‘methods, all available information that sill to the conception of an efficient desiga mis. It is not possible, however, tw have all the necessary information available at the moment when it is needed, regardless of the amount of inteligent Is early to avoidforecasting that is applied, and problems of materials, processing, or continuing design development usually compel reconsideration of the methods used for reasons of time and cost. Principles of Producibility Design (U)_ General configuration: Rectangular vs, tapered wing sections, flaps and control surfaces Minimum number of major structures Cylindrical, straight, or conical surfaces vs. sonpoundeuratne (weg 231) + Extend of fairing and filleting required, see Fig2.3.2 (2) Major breakdowns: Adequate access for assembly Fase of handling and transportation * Completeness of master breakdown units + Assembly joints Effectiveness (see Fig. 2.3.3) Fig. 2.3.1 Requires no forming operations since the flat skin: may be wrapped anto its supporting (3) Structure and equipment: Structure includes all primary and secondary. structure. Equipment Includes everything within the structural frame, ie. controls, furnishings, instruments, powerplant, accessories, snd all functional installations ‘© Simplicity = Adequate access for fabrication and. sub- assembly — Avoid compound curvature — Free body principles (see Fig. 23.4) = Alignment relations (see Fig. 2.3.5) = Minimum fabricating and processing opera- tions = Straight line systems — Mechanical simplicity (avoid "Gadgetry”) © Parts — Multiple use and minimum number of different parts — Minimum total number of parts = Minimum amount and types of attachments — Effective use of standstd parts, materials, and material sizes wgeabilty, which applies to inter changeable items. that remanufactured with the aid of controlled media, and require only the application of attachi means for theit installation. Interchange: able items shall be eapable of being readily installed, removed, or replaced without alteration, misalignment, or damage 10 items being installed or to adjoining items or structure — Adjustment and take-up (see Fig. 2.3.6) = Tolerance — Adequate clearances (see Fig. 2.5.0) — Rework margins = Adequate fastener edge distance — Machining economy Ld. <= Fig. 2.32 Fairings and fillets: interchangeability is dificult to achieve because ofthe tolerance Accumulation at these pots an should be used only wher essential, xd SS SS Tig. 23.3. The degree of breakdown should be dictated solely onthe basis of its overall efeet apon producibiity. improved producibilily docs not necessarily follow ant increase in egree of breakdown. The effective breakdono of the Center section in the ower news proorabie to tua shown in the rpper view Airframe Structural Design (3Comet Rib design cconect Spar vertical ifeners Fig. 2.34 Ribs porate! with the airplane of symmetry often result i acute augle of alachment to the spar or leading edge fs illustrated in the left view. By ignoring wnreiated airplane daturt lines, improved produciblity is achieved ‘Another exaniple, as tlustrated in Bice, i that tte lower view desig results not only in saving Jabricating operations, but the parts ean be used an the right ana left hand side Fig. 2.35. When tis impossibe to such related parts in different assembles, these fittings should nt be mourted on surfaces paralfel with or normal to the centerline, but means of adjustment should usually be provided. The lower view ilustrates the greater simplicity b surfaces normal or pavalel to tv sing caring 2.4 Maintainability The proper outlook on maintenance must be instilled into everyone from the start. Iris believed that in the ‘ole-fashioned system of two oF three years maintain ability training must be in the works before going into the drawing alfiee. This petiod cannot be skippest if person is to become a designer. It is very important 14 Airframe Steuetural De Floor structure Tate up angle Fig.2.3.6 Hone flange of a chanel isto be installed against the undersurface of a floor structure dane te other flange is to be against the upper surface ofa Tower fuselage frame, difficulties would undoubtedty be ‘encountered, Therefore, one fag of the channel should be replaced with a separate so-called take-up angle drilled for the channel at assembly that designors and drafismen should be in constant contact with the shops and service departments so that they can see the dilfculties which aceur in the paris that they have designed. It is of the grea should he in close maintenance department of the us airplane is being designed. It is not sufficient 10 eck‘on some published book of requirements. A. large proportion of these are sure 10 be out of date or do not refer to the problem in hand. Between military and civil transport aircraft, the first and most important difference is in the amount of flying done by the two types. A modem civil transport aircraft will probably have 0 last for 1520 years, and fly between 2000 and 3000 hours a year, that is a total life of 30,000 10 45,000 hours. The average flying fife of a fighter during peacetime will probably have a total of 4000 to 8000 hours. These times do not, of course, apply to transport command aircraft or 10 trainers, and probably not to most types used by coastal command, which do long periods of patrol. It is evident that the whole problem of design for main- teamnoe presents an ely dtereat spect in the wo classes of aircraft. Tn the case of transport aircraft, lie of components ‘and wear of the aircraft. generally become very ‘important. The aim will be to keep the airplane flying every day thus putting @ premium on the ability 10 change components quickly. Military aircraft, how= ever, will spend long periods on the ground, Even in wartime a military aircraft would spend a great deal of its time on the ground between relatively short periods of intense activity Facilities for maintenance in the case of military aircraft, especially under wartime conditions, are very much inferior to those available to the civil operator I would seem logical, therefore, to cut down to the very minimum the amount of maintenance to be carried out by the squadrons of operational machines. With today's types of fast military aircraft having very thin wings and slim fuselages, it may be quite im- possible io provide the same degree of accessibility {ee Fig. 241) for easy removal of components that it thas been used 10 in the past Iis suggested that much (of this equipment can be built-in and, provided itis properly developed and tested, should be capalle of functioning satisfactorily between major overhauls. Fig. 24.1 Accessable openings for F-16 mavntenanee. In general, a low-wing transpost layout is better from a servicing standpoint than high wing since ‘engines and refuclling points are mare readily access ble without the use of steps. The low-wing layout has considerable advantages ftom the point of view of installation of control cables, hydraulic pipes, electric cables and equipment, etc, all of which can be run under the cabin floor and reached for inspection and maintenance through doors in the underside of the fuselage without having to disturb cabin upholstery, and minimizes the need for maintenance personnel 10 ‘work in the passenger eabio. Position of service joints in the main structure can be of considerable importance to the operator; if possible, a fighter aireraft wing joint should be located at the side of the fuselage. This allows wings and fuse- ages to be transported more casily than the conven- tional stub wing which is more or Jess permanently attached to the fuselage. ‘A modern aitline technique is to change the com= ponent or items of equipment which have given trouble or have reached their service life. Th viously means providing good accessibility to item which may have to be changed. 1 is very desirable to separate routine maintenance and changing points, so at a number of men can work on the airplane at the same time without all being crowded into one small space In civil transport, Air Transport Association of America (ATA) specification number 100 titled “Specification for Manufacturer's Technical Data” was devised by the aidline industry in order to standardize the treatment ofall subject matter andl to simplify the user's problem in locating technical information for designing transport aircrall to meet maintainability ce- ‘quirements 25 Tooling 30. years ago, manufacturing and interchangeability specifications were not taken too seriously in the presentation of a tool estimate, but such cannot be the case today. These increased customer requirements are supplemented by closer engineering tolerances dictated by higher performance requirements. All of this adds up to higher costs of tooling which can be reduced only by a tempering of specifications or by improved production engineering and tooling. Thus it is recognized that the closest coordination among sales, engineering and tooling is essential in order that allare traveling the same path, Lis of prime importance that the type of engincer- ing he determined at the beginning in order that the tooling and manufacturing plan be properly estab- lished, Of course, the type of engineering is hased on the requirements specified in the bid proposal. If the airplane is to be experimental with no. production ‘engineering, the airplane will be fabricated in the experimental department with tooling of a type suitable for experimental manufacturing. I the re= quirements specify by quantity or by quality that the contract shall he on a production basis, the engineer ing and tooling must be adapted to suit, This isthe all- important time when the pattern is made for all to follow. The company makes or loses money on the ability of cach dep (0 live Up to its estimate Any Airframe Scructural Design 15Fig. 25.1 Precision forging products ‘changes in the original specifications or bid proposal ‘ust eventually require renegotiation with all depart- ‘ments concemed. H such decisions are made without this consideration, some department may siray from the agtecd upon path of direction and an unbslanced operation results with an end result of possible financial losses, Im order to reduce the cost of tools and manufuc- turing time, the design engineer must consider the rethod of manufacturing of each part individually and the quantity per airplane, plus a careful look at the specification. The evidence of the work that can be done in this field is the number of tools that must, bbe mace in order to meet drawing requirements. ‘There are as many or more tools on nearly every con- tract than there are parts. This means that all of these tools must be catalogued, sumbered, stored and c ‘inually kept up-to-date to all changes, The savings resulting from the elimination of each unnecessary tool is very apparent Low cost production is only possible with an ‘engineering drawing that has incorporated in it every possible manufacturing advantage. It is understood that the practicability of the extent to which this can bbe approached is dependent upon many factors whieh inevttably restrict the design engineer. It is noted that an objective attitude towards the engineer's problem by the wol engineer, serving as manufacturing division's representative, should result in a more standard, consistent working plan. This Fesultanmt standardization should enable the desien engineer to become better acquainted with the “best” production design. While itis true that an airplane is not built until it is designed, itis also a fact that an airplane is not designed until itis built, ‘An aircraft is conceived as a complete structure but obviously cannot be built ay a single unit. The structure is divided into a number of main com: ponents, which are further broken down into. sub assemblies that are finally resolved into individual parts Individual parts may be forged, east, extruded, press-formed or machined from solid or pre-forged 16 Airframe Structural Design shape. Today, two new processes have been develop- cd, ic. precision forging as shown in Fig. 2.5.1 which requires little or no further machining. and super- plastic forming as shown in Fig. 2.5.2. These two pro- cesses have altracted great altention to reduce both cost and weight, The complexity of tooling and its durability and the degree of performance are deter mined by the number of parts to be made, the rate of production called for, and the quality required in the part. Ifthe result can be obtained only with expensive {ooling, that method must be adopied even if the number required is small, 25.2 Superplastc forming of aluminum, 0.030 inch thick Numerical Controt Numerically controtied (NC) machining of large integral “components constitutes a considerable Proportion of the NC techniques employed in the production of the modern airframe. Programming the machining of a component is an extended process of itanseribing the information hit defines the shape of the finished part into the particular programing language (or tapes) that has been used extensivelytoday. The need to speed up the programming of ma- chines and 19 develop procedures ess prone to human error hus ted to the increased: use-of eom- pulets inthe early stages of NC program preparation. ‘The computer graphic programming of componcns, ‘or parts sa technique for communicating with com puters by means of words and diagrams. In this way a picture of the shape or part required can he created And its machining simulated on the sereen ofa display console linked to a computer in order to check the ‘operations involved. “Te principal objectives of these program develop- ments are to simplify part programming procedures, to diminish programming errors, 10 reduce the cos of producing accurate control tapes, to shorten the time {aken 0 produce these tapes and, in s0 doing, to shorten the preproduction period NC is a method of Simulating functions of a smachine operator through the use of a control tape The geometry of a part is mathematically described and related via the computer to the coordinate system of an NC machine. When machining instructions are fkdded, this new complete information, on tape, is ‘used 19 control the machining operation, Robots Robots are machines which are programmable and ccan_be reassigned tasks by changing its instructions, Robots can improve the quality, productivity, safety and reliability of a manufacturing process. Robots have an arm that functions as a human arm; ie, the arm can pick up objects, move them around and put them down again, all with great prect- sion and repeatability. A robot arm is able to move ia at least three directions: in and out, up and down, and. around, When a robot hand is added, another three ‘of motion are yaw, pitch and roll, as shown in Fig. 253. Fig. 2.5.3 Robot movement capability Robots, by functions, fll into four basic categor Pick and place (PNP): A PNP robot is the simplest ‘one, its function i to pick up an object and move it to another location. Typical applications inckide machine loading and unloading and general mate rials handling tasks. + Point to point (PTP}: Similar to PNP robots, 2 PTP unit moves from point to point, but it can move to literally hundreds of points in'sequence. At each point, it stops and performs an action, suc ay spot ‘welding, glueing, ding, deburvng tasks, # Continuous path (CP): A CP robot also moves from point to point, but the path it takes is entica This Is because it! performs its task while i is moving. Paint spraying, seam welding, cutting and inspection are typical applications # Robotic assembly (RA): The most sophisticated robot of all, RA combine the path control of CP robots with the precision of machine tools. RA often work fasier than PNP and perform smaller, smoother, and more inuicale motions than CP Robots. ‘Shot-peen Forming ‘An example illistrates the design of the Jong, narrow, ‘and slightly contoured wing skins such as for the Boving 747, Lockheed L-1011, DC-10 etc, whic takes advaniage of shot-peen forming technique, and is much less expensive to produce then the earlier “ereep-formed” airplane wing skins. Fig. 25.4 shows an integrally stiffened wing skin being pecned in a peenmatic gantry machine which has the necessary controls to compensate for varying ‘curvature requirements along the skin, varying thie ness, cut-outs and reinforcements, as well as distor- tion caused by machining or heat treatment, No dics are requited for peet-forming. However, for severe forming applications, stess-peen fixtures are som times used, Peen-forming is effective on all metals. In the same manner in which shot-pecning_ has been used to straighten parts, it ean be used to form certain parts in production. integrally stiffened wing skins are an excellent application of shot-pecn- forming, as frequently no other forming process can bbe used to produce the required chordwise curvature Although peer-formed parts usually require shot- peening on one side only, both sides will have com- Dressve stresses in the surface, Besides forming and Increasing fatigue strength, these compressive stresses serve to prevent stress corrosio Some parts should be shot-peened all over prior w performing to further improve these characteristics. Parts of this kind which have been cold formed are often shot-peened to overcome the hatmful tensile stresses setup by bending Assembly Fixture Basically, all assembly tooling locates and clamps, individual workpieces or units while they are being, joined together, The resultant assembly isa larger section of the final sirframe sturcture and, in the next stage, may itself be one of the units to be joined with ‘others. Any assembly fixture must. be. sufficiently accurate and stable (0 guarantee that the assembly. built within i conforms to design tolerances and will retain them after removal; it must be sufficiently rigid to withstand distortion by the assembly itself, All ‘mating hoies and pick-up points with other assemblies ‘oF unils must be accurately located and maintained, wing-r00t. fin and tailplane filings are obvious for fighter airplane examples of such pars whose inter Airframe Structural Desipn. 17Cchangeability must be assured to meet military re- irements. NA problem that arises ia the design of large as- sembly fixtures is that of thermal expansion and contraction. With large airframes, movement can considerable and it is essential to match the thermal distortion of the fixture to that of the airframe unit assembled in it, The method usually adopted is 10 match the cocfficient of expansion of assembly with that of the fixture or, at least, t0 use ‘material for the locations on the fixture that have the same coefficient of expansion as the assembly. This may not solve the problem entirely, because thermal inertia can cause the expansion of the fixture to lag behind that of the assembly. In these circumstances tt may be necessary to incorporate some provision for free movement in the fixture location to aecommodate this differential, Fixture design is governed by the accurate location of pars, rigidity of clamping, accessibility to all parts, Peering meshing si and provision for rapid removal of the completed assembly. tis probably quite important to make every part of a component in its assembly fixture instantly and elforlessly accessible, Tearly in the design, surfaces om the structure are agreed upon by both manufacturing and engineering a8 a tooling surface. The agreement is that manufac {uring will to! to the designated surfaces where engi neering agrocs never to change these surfaces. Exain- ples are shown in Fig. 25.8 for reference. The advan {ages of establishing tooling surfaces are as follows: * Tooling can get started on design early. * Documentation of tooling surfaces early in the design to reduce subsequent coordination effort. + Structural component can be easily and cheaply changed for structural revisions or beet-up for future growah, In addition, designers should understand the manu- facturing and assembly sequence to have excess edge margin in order tallow float as shown in Fig 2.5. Fate Wing poet Fig. 254 Shat-peening operation, Assembly Th eae A t Unie cap ont TE i (Wing pane! assombly-svinges) Wing Soar sxe © ting sae LA — swembtyoat Fig. 2.5.5 Tooling surface examples, 18 Airframe Structural Design © = Ceara aowances Fig. 2.5.6 Design for assembly tolerancesi 11) Web siilfeners on ribs should be located 10 2.6 Other Considerations (OD ow use of ether ols and mus of pulltype (1) If liaison finds trouble with your design, don’t ockbolts for rib cap to panel stringer attach: 0 on the defensive — find out if it is ® truc _ment as far as is practical. ‘This should be kept ‘problem and fx it early. in mind for all areas. Make room for lockbolt (2) Maxing of fastener materials and types in any and Hi-Lok fastener equipment if possible. ‘one fastener patiern or area should be avoided. (12) Angle rib cap should be flanged inboard when (3) Ends of rib and spar web stiffeners should be ever practical for ease of fabricating open square-cut to allow saw cutting (0 length and 10 angles, allow turning the stiffener end for end (see Fig. (13). Skin and stringer detail drawings should show 2.344), thus using # common part on both the stations or some datum lines (reference) as well left and right hand. The outstanding leg should as direction arrows such as FWD, INBD, UP bbe chamfered to reduce weight. for orientation of the part in relation to the (4) All desiens should consider supplier capability, airplane. particularly in sizes and kinds of raw materials (14) All length dimensions shovlé originate from a fr standards, so that at Jeast two sources are machine reference plane. This should include available. Competition for orders is thus main- step cuts and end trims. tained, and not dependent on a single source in (15) On. machine parts consider commonality of ase of emergency, tools, The most important of these is cutter (5) Tolerances less than +0.03 for length, depth radius, Use as few different adil as possible and width, and £0.01 for machine thicknoss consisient with the function of the part and should be coordinated with the manufacturing ‘weight consideration (6) Make ribs normal to the front or rear spars (16) All edge trims should be dimensioned from a where practical to minimize tooling and master machine reference plane on the straight tooling, tooling template problems. surface (see Fig, 25.5) side of the web. The (7) Crawt holes through ribs and spars should be a feference plane surface should be maintained as minimum of 12 inches by 18 inches. Larger flat plane whenever possible holes should be used where alloned by shear (17), Manufacturing recommends stringer tolerances siress in minimum gage areas. Considerati as follows: Thickness £0101, width and length should he given ta hole locations in adjacent 140.03, height £0.03. Special deviations may be fibs for maintenance. Sharp corners and pro- made on basic gage taper dimensions and cutter tusions around erawl holes should be chime radii, All tolerances should be reviewed for nated, ‘weight savings within the established economic (8) Structural stiffeners oF plates should not_be limnts incorporated across crawl holes unless a fail- (18) All skin tolerances should be as follows: Thick safe condition exists, in case they are inadver- ness 20.005, edge trim and critical location tently left off during maintenance. Producibility coordinates 20.03 will also be enhanced with an unencumbered (19). ‘The minimum machine gage on stringers should hole be 008. ‘The maximum flange thickness-to- ©) Aluminum alloy upset hend rivets oF pull-type widih ratio may be 1 10 15 when the flange ean lockbolts should be used for web and stifener be supported during machining. Otherwise, use riveting wherever possible. Design should con @ maximum 1 to 10 ratio unsupported. The sider automatic riveting. maximum flange runout angle should be 13" (10), Edge margins of rib cap to panel stringer attach ‘The maximum thickness taper angle should be bolts shal be standardized for each diameter of 6. fastener. A standard (ool can then be used for (20). See Reference 2.17. drilling these holes in the wing assembly fixture, Machine Design, Now, 1953), 112=123 Reference 24 Ppwcn, A. Some Elect of Sutra Deformation 24 Peuonic, G::Produsibiity in Design’ SAE paper No in Aieplane Design’ Aero Dige. (Feb, 1949). 71748 097), 2.7 Gott, WE “Design for Production” Flight tern. 22° Brooks. Jr, DT. Designing for Predueibitty: De- ton (Oct. 25,1973), 702 sien-Infuenced Production Cost Program” SAE 28 Dougherty, JES "EAA Appraisal of Aircraft Dexign paper No. 710747,(1971}. for Mainainabiliy SAE paper No. 710431, (1971). 23. Terget, $1. Productity Considerations in Praduc 29° Gilmaer, GW and Olson. B.D: "Maintenance — The tion Pisnnigg for New Accra” SAE Duper: No. alesizners Sipchild: ATAA Paper No 68-210 (19%) 710746, (197, 210. dares, CW and Hiaders, UA: Design-toncost fr 24 Jones, W. Rand Hartson, HLM: ‘Design Prodci- the ACI Clase” Air Support Aircraft” AUAA paper iy Serves he Industry, (Part) Acro Digest (AM No. 74-963, (1974) 1948) 40 241 Knowles, Jt. GIB: -Muteriat ‘Thickness Contr ‘Design Preduciity Serves the fodustry, (par Hh Through’ Manufacturing Process Refinement? Jo) Aero Digest (Sept. 24%), Atif Duly 1920), 207-409. 25 Grose, EAL Siaphiciy — key wo ywoductity’ 242 Anon! “Elements OF Aircraft Production Design Airframe Structural Design. 19Engincering Training Moterals issued by Lockheed Aires Corp. 2.43 Anon: ‘Lockheed Engineering Developments for Better Production Design. fsued by Lockheed Air. craft Corp. (1954), 2.44 Foster, RB: 'An Approach to the Problem of Air- plane Production.” Aero Digest (Ma. 1, 1944) 245 Anon: Vol. 2— teat Treating, Cleaning and Finsh- ‘ng; Vol. 3— Machining’ Vol.4 ~ Forming. Vol. 5 Forging and Casting. American Society tor Metals, Metals Park, Ohio 44073, 246 Anons Assembly Engincering, Hitchcock Publishing Company, Wheaton, Iiwis 60188, 20 Airframe Structural Design 207 28 219) 220 221 Anon: ATA Specificurion. Air Transport Association of America, Washington, D.C. 20006 ‘Anon: “Interchangeabilty and Replaceabilty of Component arts for Aerospace Vehicles’ Mil 8500 D. (Mar. 1980). Lermer,” Et: “Unplugeing CAD/CAM from the Mainframes’ Aeropace america (Oct. 1986). Grand, RL: Manufacturing” Enginger’s Marna, McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York, N-Y. 1971 Wit, RH. and Ferrer, AL: "Titanium Near Net Shape Components for Demanding Airftame Appl ‘ations’ SAMPE Quarterly, (Apr, 1986), 556