See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341977815

Topology optimisation of a wing box rib using Ansys

Conference Paper · January 2020

CITATION READS

1 1,982

6 authors, including:

Mohammad Fotouhi Abduraouf Ajaj

Delft University of Technology University of the West of England, Bristol
143 PUBLICATIONS 2,674 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roya Akrami Sakineh Fotouhi

University of Strathclyde University of Glasgow
11 PUBLICATIONS 121 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 282 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hafiz Tauqeer Ali on 06 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The 28th Annual International Conference of Iranian Society of Mechanical Engineers-ISME2020
27-29 May, 2020, Tehran, Iran.

ISME2020-XXXX

Topology optimisation of a wing box rib using Ansys

Mohamad Fotouhi1, Amir-MusaAbazari2, Abduraouf Mohmoud Ajaj3, Roya Akrami4, Sakineh Fotouhi5, Hafiz
Tauqeer Ali6

1
University of Glasgow, School of Engineering, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
3
Department of Engineering, Design and Mathematics, University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol BS16 1QY, UK
4
Your Engineered Structures LTD, Glasgow, UK
5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
6
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract necessary to obtain a predefined stiffness, and how

The selection of material and design of components are should it be distributed? Such investigations typically
two fundamental topics in the industry for producing occur during the concept design stages. The conflicting
sustainable and competitive products. To fulfil the goals of stiffness maximization and mass minimization
safety, strength and endurance requirements of a lead to a continuum of possible optimal solutions,
component, design tools such as topology and shape depending on how the goals are balanced against each
optimisation can be utilised during the early stages of other. Thus, a topology optimisation can provide
the design process. The topology and shape optimisation efficient design solution in a lesser timeframe as
are sub-fields within structural optimisation. This paper compared to the traditional design process. A
examines the current state of topology optimisation comparison between the traditional design and topology
technology and investigates how topology optimisation optimised design process is depicted in Figures 2 & 3
can be utilised in the aerospace industry. The objective respectively. It can be noticed that the time saving is
is to minimise the overall weight of an aircraft and achieved majorly by reducing the number of design
increase fuel efficiency, thereby reducing the operating iterations.
cost and greenhouse gas emissions. This is achieved by
exploring the problem of minimizing the mass of an
aircraft wing box rib structure without compromising its
structural integrity. The optimisation is performed using
Ansys Workbench. The results obtained are then
manually interpreted to ensure that it conforms to
manufacturing constraints. Manual design modifications
were required to ensure that the design was one
continuous part and that the optimized design could be
manufactured easily. A weight saving of about 40%
compared to the baseline rib design is achieved with
only 10% increase in max stress, which is well within
the acceptable limits, i.e.; almost 100 times lower than
the yield strength of the material used.

Keywords: Generative design, topology optimisation,

weigh reduction, 3D printing.

Introduction
The purpose of topology optimisation is to distribute
material based on applied stresses and therefore reduce
the weight of an existing assembly/part without
compensating its structural integrity. This technique will Figure 1. Examples of the combined use of topology
allow the designer to distribute material optimally under optimization and additive manufacturing to make a light rider
given conditions without changing the boundaries of the motorbike [2], and a future concept for aircrafts [3].
design space [1]. Topology optimisation of the solid
structures allows holes, cut-outs and connectivity to be
included in the optimisation procedure (see Figure 1).
This will determine which area should have material and
which points should be remain void.
Topology optimisation in a structural mechanics Figure 2: Traditional structural design.
context can provide answers to the following questions
assuming that you know the loads on the structure, a)
which distribution of the available material maximizes
stiffness? Or, conversely, b) how much material is

ISME2020, 27-29 May, 2020

 three-dimensional 10-node tetrahedral element with each
node having three degrees of freedom: translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions. The element has plasticity,
hyper elasticity, creep, stress stiffening, large deflection,
and large strain capabilities.
Figure 3: Topology optimisation process.

In this paper, topology optimisation of a conventional

wing box rib design is performed in order to achieve an
optimised structural performance while reducing the
overall weight of the structure. The results showed
weight saving of about 40% compared to the baseline rib
design.
Figure 6: Non-optimised Model.
Methodology
The geometry creation and the optimisation are
performed using Ansys Workbench interface. ANSYS
Workbench platform offers a comprehensive and Figure 7: Mesh generated for the non-optimised rib geometry
integrated simulation system. It can solve a wide variety
of mechanical problems including static, dynamics In order to solve a finite element problem, it is
structural analysis, fluid problems and also heat transfer. necessary to close the partial differential equations with
It provides an easier way of managing the workflow appropriate boundary and loading conditions which
between different Ansys applications such as CAD needs to be specified in the solver. These conditions
modelling, numerical meshing, finite element analysis imitate the physical environment of the model under
and topology optimisation. The workflow within the consideration. The leading and trailing edges of the wing
Ansys Workbench environment for the present study is rib are assigned with fixed support boundary condition
shown in Figure 4 which is also elaborated using a flow as shown in Figure 8. This replicates the attachment of
chart shown in Figure 5. the rib to the leading and trailing edge spars of the wing.
The data gathered with respect to the loads acting on the
chosen wing rib, mainly the aerodynamic loads
(pressures) on the upper and lower surfaces of the wing
were used to identify the loading profile exclusive to the
wing rib under consideration. The loading profile
obtained from the work of [4] for a similar sized rib has
been used as the reference for creating a loading profile
Figure 4: Workflow in Ansys Workbench on the top and bottom surfaces of the rib (see Figure 11).
Since the present study is focused on optimising the rib
geometry in a computationally least expensive way, the
profile shown in Figure 11 is further simplified by
applying the maximum load value observed in the profile
as a uniformly distributed load on the top and bottom
surfaces of the rib (300N along the top surface and 50N
along the bottom surface). This approach ensures that the
design is robust and have a good margin of safety over
the entire rib profile. After applying the appropriate
Figure 5: Topology optimisation in the present study boundary conditions to the model, static structural
analysis is performed to identify the stress distribution
A conventional rib geometry as shown in Figure 6 with the rib design.
served as the reference to model a “Non-Optimised” rib
structure. The baseline design of the rib shown in Figure
6 has a total weight of 5.35kg. Aluminium alloy with a
density of 2770 kg/m3 with a Yield strength of 2.8E+08
Pa is used as the material for manufacturing the wing rib
model. Aluminium alloys are the most commonly used
material for aircraft construction apart from steel. The
geometry consists of a thin plate-like structure with
additional stiffening members in the form of webs and
flanges. The preliminary model is transferred into a Figure 8: Fixtures are indicated by black arrowheads
finite element solver where the geometry is subdivided
into many small tetrahedral elements as shown in Figure
7. The SOLID187 element types are used for the study
presented study. SOLID187 element is a higher order

ISME2020, 27-29 May, 2020


Figure 9: Loading Profile for the Wing Ribs [4].
Results and discussion
Validation and mesh sensitivity:
Simulation is performed using Ansys Workbench. The
geometry was created in Ansys SpaceClaim and the
meshing and FEA analysis were performed within static
structural solver. A comparison between the results
obtained from the present model and the published
results from the literature, [5] on the left-hand side and
the optimisation using OptiStruct from the work of [6] in
the middle, are shown in Figure 10. The results show
that the optimised geometry obtained from the current
numerical model is in a very good match with the
published results obtained using different numerical
solvers. It can be noticed that that the material is
removed from the unloaded corners of the beam and
from the inside of the beam which makes it a hollow
structure. Thus, the final solution can be assumed as a
3D continuum structure with various thickness structural
members, i.e. a combined beam-plate structure.
Figure 10: Validation of the optimisation tool against the results
from a) meshless solution from (DeRose Jr. and Díaz, 2000) b)
from OptiStruct by (Hämäläinen, 2013) and c) present solution
With the successful validation of the model, the
numerical methodology and the tool is then applied for
the optimisation of the problem in hand, which is the
optimisation of the wing box rib structure.
A mesh sensitivity analysis was performed for three
different mesh sizes namely, coarse, medium and fine, to
demonstrate the effect of mesh resolution in topology
optimisation. The coarse mesh is defined by 2700 nodes
and 2200 elements whereas the medium-sized mesh
consists of 15000 nodes and 7200 elements. The fine
mesh is the most refined one with 57000 nodes and
29000 elements. A comparison between different three
different mesh generated, and the results obtained from
each mesh in the form of optimised geometry is shown
in Figure 11. It is evident from the figure that the
topology of the optimised geometry is drastically
different when the mesh resolution is changed from
coarse to a fine mesh.
ISME2020, 27-29 May, 2020
Figure 11: Mesh sensitivity analysis a) coarse mesh, b) medium
mesh and c) fine mesh
One can clearly see that the fine mesh could capture
the variation in thickness at certain locations which was
treated as a cut-out in the medium and coarse mesh. The
distribution of von-Mises stress obtained from each
mesh is depicted in Figure 12. The distribution is more
diffused in the coarse mesh compared to the medium and
fine mesh. Since the maximum number of elements in
the domain is limited to 30,000 by the educational
version of the software, and the mesh sensitivity analysis
has shown that the result changes with the increase in
mesh resolution, the fine mesh with ~29000 elements is
used for the optimisation study. The higher von-Mises
stresses, shown in Figure 12, are generated near the four
edges of the rib as highlighted in red circles in the figure.
The reinforcements present in the rib in the form of webs
present in the rib provide additional structural support
which resulted in almost negligible stress in the middle
region of the rib. Hence, the middle is the region where
the material can be removed for potential weight
reduction without affecting the integrity of the structure.
Figure 12: Comparison of equivalent von-Mises stress a) coarse
mesh b) medium mesh and c) fine mesh.
Topology optimisation of the wing box rib structure
The optimisation is performed with an objective to
minimize the mass of the rib with a target of a maximum
of 50% of its original mass. The result obtained from the
optimisation analysis is shown in Figure 13. It can be
noticed that the material is removed from the areas
where the von-Mises stresses were minimum in the
previous simulation. The optimisation provided a weight
reduction of approximately 39.5%. However, the
 geometry obtained from this simulation is very complex
and cannot be manufactured. This geometry needs to be
re-engineered further to ensure that design is feasible to
manufacture, and it is cost-efficient.
Figure 13: Optimised geometry from the solver.
In order to convert the optimised geometry obtained
from the optimisation solver into practical geometry, the
result from the optimisation is transferred into a CAD
modeller (SpaceClaim). The key cut-out features
observed in the optimised geometry is then extracted and
then simplified in to easily machinable features. Special
care has been taken to leave an appropriate room at the
top and bottom edge of the rib to accommodate cut-outs
for installing the stringers (which is not shown here).
The modified final geometry with optimised cut-outs is
shown in Figure 14. The benefits of topology
optimisation methodology can be appreciated from the
non-conventional shape of the cut-outs that would be
impossible to arrive at using a conventional design
process.
Figure 14: Optimised and corrected geometry
The modified geometry is then transferred back into
the structural solver where it is meshed, ~24000
tetrahedral elements, and analysed to identify the stress
distribution across the optimised geometry. The stress
distribution obtained for the optimised and non-
optimised ribs are shown in Figure 15. It can be noticed
that the stress is much more uniformly distributed in the
new design compared to the baseline design. This is
because in the optimised geometry, the redundant
structural surfaces where the stress values were low or
negligible, have been removed and only those regions
where the structural load is concentrated.
Figure 15: Optimised and corrected geometry, deformation (m).
A detailed comparison between the original non-
optimised and the optimised wing rib design is given in
Table 1. The advantages of the optimised design over the
ISME2020, 27-29 May, 2020
View publication stats
baseline design will become obvious if we look at the
values given in the table. The topology optimised rib
design not only offers savings in terms of weight
reduction but also can offer cost savings if manufactured
using appropriate techniques such as additive layer
manufacturing.
Table 1. Comparison between the original and optimised design.
Optimised
Number Original design
design
Weight (kg) 5.35 3.35
Max Stress (Pa) 2.15×106 2.38×106
Max deflection (m) 1.81×10−5 3.02×10−5
Min Stress (Pa) 2.81 3.35
Conclusions
Topology optimisation is performed on an aircraft wing
box rib structure with an objective to reduce its weight
without affecting the structural strength of the
component. Through optimisation, a 39.5% reduction in
weight of the rib in comparison with the baseline design
is obtained, for only a small increase in maximum stress.
Considering the number of ribs in an aircraft wing
structure, this reduction in weight will be a greater value
add in the aviation industry.
Although topology optimisation is an automated
process using Ansys solver, the results obtained from the
solver needs to be re-engineered to confirm with the
manufacturing constraints which requires input from the
designer. This is one of the limitations of the model.
However, this process is much faster and efficient than
the conventional design iteration process.
References
[1] Bendsøe, M.P., and Kikuchi, N., 1988. “Generating
optimal topologies in structural design using a
homogenization method”. Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 71(2), pp.
197–224.
[2] See URL https://blog.altair.com/altair-is-making-
headlines/
[3] See URL https://www.ge.com/reports/3d-printed-
bionic-parts-revolutionize-aerospace-design/
[4] Rinku, A., and Ananthasuresh, G., 2015 “Topology
and Size Optimization of Modular Ribs in Aircraft
Wings”. in 11th World Congress on Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimisation. Sydney Australia.
[5] DeRose, G.C.A., and Díaz, A.R., 2000. “Solving
three-dimensional layout optimization problems using
fixed scale wavelets”. Computational Mechanics, 25(2–
3), pp. 274–285.
[6] Masters thesis, Hämäläinen, J.A., 2013.
“Substructure topology optimisation of an electric
machine”. MSc thesis, AALTO UNIVERSITY.