Aircraft have changed enormously over the last century from
the early Wright Flyer flown at Kittyhawk to the supersonic SR-71
Blackbird flown today. Of course the developments in aeronautical
engineering can be broken down into separate divisions that have
developed at different rates: a) the aerodynamics, b) power plant
engineering, c) control, radios and navigation aids, d) airframe
engineering (e.g. hydraulic/electrical systems, interior fittings etc.),
and finally e) the structural design. For example, power plants have
developed in two large steps separated by a series of sudden burst of
ingenuity. In order to facilitate the first successful flight the Wright
Brothers had to find a light yet powerful engine system. The next
stride was the
ingenious invention of the jet engine
prior and during WWII by Sir Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain. In
between, the power output of piston engines “increased almost 200 times
from 12 bhp to over 2000 bhp in just 40 years, with only a ten times
increase in mass (3) “. As will be outlined in this article, the design
of aerospace structures on the other hand has only made one fundamental
stride forward, but this change was sufficient to change the complete
design principle of modern aircraft. Today however, the strict
environmental legislation and advent of the composite era may induce
further leaps in structural design.
Fig. 1. A schematic drawing of the Wright Flyer (1)
Fig. 2. The modern supersonic SR-71 Blackbird (2)
1) Wire Braced Structures
If we look at the early design of aircraft such as the Wright Flyer
in Figure 1 there can really be no misunderstanding of the construction
style. The entire aircraft, including most notably the wings, forward
and rear structures were all constructed from rectangular frames that
were prevented from shearing (forming a parallelogram) or collapsing by
diagonally stretched wire. There were two major innovative thoughts
behind this design philosophy. Firstly, the idea that two parallel wings
would facilitate a lighter yet stronger structure than a single wing,
and secondly, that these two wings could be supported with two light
wires rather than with a single, thicker wooden member. The structural
advantage of the biplane construction is that the two wings, vertical
struts and wires form a deep light beam, which is more resistant to
bending and twisting than a single wing. Much like a composite sandwich
beam it can be treated as two stiff outer skins for high bending
rigidity connected by a lightweight “core” to provide resistance to
shear and torsion.
Fig. 3. Cutaway drawing of the 1917 Sopwith Camel (3)
Fig. 4. Cutaway drawing of the 1935 Hawker Hurricane (3)
The biplane construction with wire bracing was the most notable
feature of aircraft construction for much of the following years and
paired nicely with lightweight materials such as bamboo and spruce
(Figure 3). Wood is a composite of cellulose fibres embedded in a matrix
of lignin and the early aeronautical engineers knew to take advantage
of its high specific strength and stiffness. Strangely enough, after the
era of metals we are now returning back to the composite roots of
aircraft, albeit in a more advanced fashion. The biplane era lasted
until the 1930s at which point metal was taking over as the prime
aerospace material. Initially the design philosophy was not adapted to
take full advantage of thin sheet metal manufacturing techniques such
that wooden spars and struts were just replaced by thinner metal tubing.
Consequently there remained a striking similarity in construction
between a 1917 (Figure 3) and a 1931 (Figure 4) fighter. Even though
some thin metal sheets were being used these components generally did
not carry much load such that the main fuselage structure featured 4
horizontal longerons supported by vertical struts and wire bracing. This
so called “Warren Girder” design can also be seen in some of earliest
monoplane wing constructions such as the 1935 Hawker Hurricane.
Aeronautical engineers were initially “unsure how to combine the new
metal construction with a traditional fabric covering (3)” used on
earlier aircraft. The onset of WWII meant that some safe and
conservative design decisions were made to facilitate monoplane wings
and the “Warren Girder” principle was directly copied to the internal
framework of monoplane wings (Figure 5). These early designs were far
from optimised and perfectly characterise the transition period between
wire-frame structures and the semi-monocoque structures we use today.
Fig. 5. The Hawker Hurricane wing construction (3).
2) Semi-Monocoque Structures
The internal cross-bracing was initially acceptable for the early
single or double seater aircraft, but would obviously not provide enough
room for larger passenger aircrafts. To overcome this, inspiration was
taken from the long tradition and expertise in boat building which had
already been applied to construct the fuselages of early wooden flying
boats. The highest standards of yacht construction at the time featured
“bent wooden frames and double or triple skins…with a clear varnished
finish…and presented a much more open and usable fuselage interior (3)”.
The well-established boat building techniques were thus passed on to
aircraft construction to produce newer aircraft with very smooth,
aerodynamic profiles.
Fig. 6. Semi monocoque fuselage construction of an early wooden flying boat (4)
The major advantage of this type of construction is that the outer
skin of the fuselage and wing no longer just define the shape and
aerodynamic profile of the aircraft, but become an active load-carrying
member of the structure as well. Thus, the structure becomes
“multifunctional” and more efficient, unlike the braced fuselage which
would be just as strong without the fabric covering the girders. As a
consequence the whole structure is generally at a uniform and lower
stress level, reducing stress concentrations and giving better fatigue
life. Finally, as the majority of the material is located at the outer
surface of the structure the second and polar moments of area, and
therefore the bending and torsional rigidities are much increased. On
the other hand, the thin-skinned construction means that compression and
shear buckling become the most likely forms of failure. In order to
increase the critical buckling loads the skins are stiffened by
stringers and broken up into smaller sections by spars and ribs.
Fig. 7. Components of a semi monocoque wing (5)
Because the external skin is now a working part of the structure this type of construction became to be known as
stressed skin or
semi-monocoque,
where monocoque means ”shell in one piece” and “semi” is an english
addition to describe the discrete discontinuities of internal
stiffeners. The adoption of the
semi-monocoque construction and
a change from wood to metal naturally coincided since sheet metal
production allowed a variety of thin skins to be easily manufactured
quite cheaply, with better surface finish and superior material
properties. Furthermore, metal construction was conducive to riveting
which would overcome the adhesive problems of
early wooden semi-monocoque aircraft such as the deHavilland Mosquito.
Fig. 8. Cutaway Drawing of the recently released A400M aircraft (7).
Figure 8 shows the typical construction of a modern aircraft. There
have been numerous different structural arrangements over the past
number of years but all generally feature some sort of vertical
stiffener (ribs in the wings and rings in the fuselage) and longitudinal
stiffener (called stringers). Over the years the main driver has been
towards a) a reduction in the number of rivets by reverting to bonded
assembly or ideally manufacturing separate components as a single piece
and b) understanding
the effects and growth of cracks under static and fatigue loading by
building structures that can easily be inspected or have multiple
redundancies (load paths). The design and manufacturing methods of
semi-monocoque
aircraft are now so automated that the development of a new aluminium,
medium sized airliner “could be regarded as a routine exercise (1)”.
However, the continuing legislative pressure to reduce weight and fuel
consumption provides enough incentive for further development.
3) Sandwich Structures and Composite Materials
One of the major disadvantages of thin-skinned structures is their
lack of rigidity under compressive loading which gives them a tendency
to buckle. A sheet of paper nicely illustrates this point, since it is
quite strong in tension but will provide no support under compression.
One way of improving the rigidity of thin panels is by increasing the
bending stiffness with the aid of external stiffeners, which at the same
time break the structure up into smaller sections. The critical
buckling load is a function of the square of the width of the plate over
which the load is applied. Therefore skins can be made 4 times stronger
in buckling by just cutting the width in half. As a wing bends upwards
the main compressive loads act on the top skin along the length of the
wing and therefore a large number of stringers are visible across the
width.
Fig.
8. Buckling analysis of a stiffened wing panel. The stiffeners break
the buckling mode shapes into smaller wavelengths that require higher
energy to form compared to a single wave (7)
Another technique to provide more rigidity is sandwich construction.
This generally features a very lightweight core, such as a honeycomb
lattice or a foam, sandwiched between two thin yet stiff outer panels.
Here the role of the sandwich core is to carry any shear loads and
separate the two skins as far as possible. The second moment of area is a
function of the cube of the depth and therefore the bending rigidity is
greatly increased with this technique. Ideally, in this manner it would
be possible to design an entire fuselage without any internal rings or
stringers and the Beech Starship is an excellent example of a successful
application. However, there are problems of forming honeycomb cores
onto doubly curved shells since the material is susceptible to strong
anticlastic curvature, forming a saddle shape when bent in one
direction. Furthermore, there are problems with condensation and water
ingress into the honeycomb cells and the ability to guarantee a good
bond surface between the core and the outer skins. There is the
possibility to use foam cores instead, but these tend to be heavier with
lower mechanical properties. Perhaps the current trend is away from
sandwich construction (10).
Fig. 9. A carbon fibre composite/honeycomb sandwich panel (9)
Fig. 10. The Beech Starship whose fuselage was design using sandwich construction with minimal internal bulkheads and ribs (8)
One of the major applications of honeycomb structures has been in combination with
composite materials.
Stiff carbon composite panels are the ideal candidate for the outer
skins and the whole assembly can be co-cured together in an autoclave
without having to perform any secondary bonding operations. Furthermore,
the incredible specific strength and stiffness of carbon composites
makes this combination an ultra lightweight yet resilient structure for
aerospace applications. Indeed, we are now at the start of the “black”
carbon age in commercial aircraft design. Apart from their excellent
specific strength and stiffness properties composites exhibit the
ability to tailor optimum mechanical properties by orientating the
majority of plies in the direction of the load and allowing for less
material waste during manufacture. As a result, the first generation of
commercial aircraft that contain large proportions of composite parts,
such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350 XWB, are planned to
enter service throughout the next years.
Fig. 11. Considerable delamination leading to catastrophic failure (11)
Considerable effort has been made to mature composite technology in order to reduce manufacturing costs,
guarantee reliably high quality laminates, understand the
highly complex failure criteria and built
hierarchical,
multifunctional or
self-healing structures.
One of the major shortcomings is that the structural advantages of
fibre-reinforced plastics must be viewed with respect to applications
where the primary loads are aligned with the fibre direction. However,
if a composite plate is subjected to significant out-of-plane stresses
subsurface delaminations may develop between layers due to the weak
through-thickness cohesive strength of the composite. These intralaminar
delaminations are a significant problem as they are difficult to detect
by visual inspection and may reduce the compressive strength of the
laminate by up to 60%.
4) Novel Designs
With environmental legislation becoming ever so strict it is adamant
that new concepts for lightweight and fuel efficient aircraft are found
swiftly. Although the pressure on developing advanced composite
materials is high it must be remembered that 100 years of innovation
were required to reach the stage that large metal
semi-monocoque
structures could be manufactured in the 1940s and another 30 years to
fully understand all failure criteria. Thus we may still require
significant research and development before all current issues with
composite materials are resolved. Apart from carbon fibre and other
composites other researchers have been looking into completely
redefining the shape of aircraft. Researchers at MIT have been
developing the
blended wing concept and NASA are exploring the technology of
morphing or shape-changing aircraft, taking inspiration directly from nature.
Fig. 12. Illustration of the MIT Silent Aircraft concept (12).
Fig. 13. NASA morphing wing aircraft (13)
Whatever the final solution might look like the next 5o years in
aerospace engineering will be incredibly innovative, ground-breaking and
an exciting industry to be part of!
References
(3) Cutler, John (1992).
Understanding Aircraft Structures. 2nd Edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
(10) Potter, Kevin (1996).
An Introduction to Composite Products: Design, Development and Manufacture. Springer, 5th Ed. Chapman & Hall, London.
Images
(1) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wright/images/flye-lotech.gif
(2) http://thexodirectory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Air-to-air-overhead-front-view-of-an-SR-71A-460×361.jpg
(4) http://imgc.artprintimages.com/images/art-print/j-r-eyerman-workmen-building-flying-boat-that-was-designed-by-millionaire-howard-r-hughes_i-G-37-3793-OAAIF00Z.jpg
(5) http://www.nomenclaturo.com/wp-content/uploads/Airplane-Wing-Part-Diagram-Terminology.png
(6) http://pds13.egloos.com/pds/200906/24/60/a0118060_4a4194709ef22.jpg
(7) http://www.dnv.com/binaries/PULS-buckling_tcm4-284864.JPG
(8) http://www.bobscherer.com/Images/Pages/Starship/Starship%20page/NC-6%20Over%20Foggy%20Hills.jpg
(9)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Steinbichler_Shearography_Honeycomb_with_CFRP_Top_Layer_Artificial_failures_that_simulate_layer-core_delaminations_Material.jpg
(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Delamination-CFRP.jpg
(12) http://silentaircraft.org/
(13) http://www.espaciolutacoot.com.mx/images/postcard/large/nave1.jpg