Wing Structure/Stress question.
Wing Structure/Stress question.
(OP)
I am attempting to convert the Carbon Dragon Ultra-lite Sailplane to aluminum structure. There is a spec. in Basic Glider Criteria (FAA) for a 150# limit load at the tip. Depending on the assumptions made with the wing structure the axial loads on the rear spar are from 3000# to 1500#. The latter is calculating a Phantom beam at the Leading edge, and the former is for no inclusion of the Leading edge in the calculation. How do experienced aircraft designers stress a D box leading edge structure,... fabric aft of the rear spar. Do you position a phantom beam at the centroid or some other place for the calculation of the stress????





RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
i'd expect that the spar/fuselage attachment is designed to take all the lift moment, and that torque would come out of the wing as a shear, and the drg moment might be a couple between some fwd attmat (D-nose?) and the rear spar.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
If your aluminum changes lead to increased structural weight, then the loads on the airframe will increase in proportion, and your stress analysis/tests will be affected.
I don't remember hearing of a "phantom" beam method. It's been a long time since I looked at the VLA or LSA requirements. If I read your question correctly, I believe you are referring to a wing drag case. If you could tell us where you are on the V-N diagram then we would be sure we understand your question clearly (rb1957 and I seem to be disagreeing so far).
The 150# is applied horizontally at the wing tip, and then applies a compressive force on the rear spar. Correct so far? Where does the specific 150 pounds come from? The reason for considering drag like that is that the attachment must not buckle or wrinkle when subjected to this compressive load. All members of the attachment and the rear spar itself must withstand this - in COMBINATION with the lift loads that will also be experienced at the same time.
These loads should be related to maximum speed X safety factor combined with an appropriate lift acceleration load factor (say, 2g, check this) and then transition to the maneuving condition where the speed is reduced but the lift load factor is increased to the maximum (what is it for the Dragon - 5g?).
The normal aircraft category regulations known as FAR 23 have an excellent explanation of these terms and the V-N diagram. Once you become familiar with that diagram you can specify which load condition is your concern.
STF
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
if the 150 lbs is horizontal then there'll be a horizontal couple at the wing root. the entire rear spar will be in tension (or compression) and the other 1/2 of the couple will be somewhere else.
150 lbs is a lot of drag from a wing (even if it is a "ground handling" case.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
couple between RS and centroid of Dnose. if the load acts only aft, then the rear spar will be in compression and the Dnose in tension.
do we need FE to solve this ?
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
rear spar is node 39 - node 20 ?
Dnose is node 17 ??
node 16 is ? wait, there are two 16s ??
and what's that blue diagonal line ??
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
the effectivity of the Dnose depends on how its attached to the fuselage.
why call your effective Dnose a "phantom beam" ?
as i understand your sketch, i'd use the main spar and the rear spar inbd to where the drag spar picks up and the rear spar to drag spar inbd of that. and you have to check the effects of the kick load from the drag spar ...
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
I downloaded the plans from IHPA.ie and studied the wing drawing. Your FEA model is wrong.
I think you should set aside Grape for a while (though it is an excellent FEA program) because you have made some errors that will not be clear unless you deliberately draw by hand free-body diagrams of the wing structural attachment. In this case, the wing is clearly designed to avoid the need for any FEA in the design or analysis of the structure.
FEA is great for solving problems where there are redundant pathways for loads to transfer from one structure to another. Even then, if you can't draw a FBD you will quickly get into trouble.
STF
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
I also have drawn only the solid ribs, main spar, drag spar, rear spar. horizontal load at tip.
I also have drawn only the solid ribs, main spar, drag spar, rear spar. horizontal load at tip. and phantom spar at the LE. Each gave different axial loading for the Rear spar as should be expected.
I have successfully done many school problems truss analysis with answers with Grape.
The assumptions that are made as to the loading and geometry certainly will affect the answer.
All of the above are drawn, which would you like to see.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
couple between RS and centroid of Dnose. if the load acts only aft, then the rear spar will be in compression and the Dnose in tension.
2.)if there's a main spar and a rear spar, isn't that the natural loadpath for drag moments ? but then it looks as though there's a "drag" spar increasing the effective section.
the effectivity of the Dnose depends on how its attached to the fuselage.
3.)as i understand your sketch, i'd use the main spar and the rear spar inbd to where the drag spar picks up and the rear spar to drag spar inbd of that. and you have to check the effects of the kick load from the drag spar ...
why call your effective Dnose a "phantom beam" ?
Ok I see 3 different answer above, I do not know the correct answer which is why I asked the question.
I call it a phantom beam because it is a load path of the centroid of the LE and there is not really a beam there.
I am converting the structure to aluminum, I am not necessarily copying the wood structure in aluminum. I am starting out that way to understand the process but I have thoughts of changing the structure when I understand how to.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
The original aircraft was wooden construction with carbon fiber spars.
B.E.
You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Planed on solid root rib and bolt and fitting at LE....Note this is not per carbon dragon plan, and would cause different results from same.
attached are the different diagrams I have looked at. My fittings are assumed fixed, Rear spar attach, Main Spar attach, LE fitting. Main spar fitting is in the center of the aircraft.
I am only investigating Rear Spar Buckle from only one load case the tip load of 225 ultimate "Wing Tip Landing".
" if there is a rear spar and a "drag" spar then this is probably the right base for drag moments (i suspect that is why there's a drag spar)."
I was using the LE for structure, however case 1 shows just main spar,.. rear spar,... drag spar, and solid ribs as per CD drawing. This loading had the highest axial load as would be expected. I was hopping for something better.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
ok, so the Dnose has a solid rib and a pin into the fuselage, so it sounds as though it's at least somewhat effective.
your sketches confuse me ...
3) why the kink on the fwd edge ? is that showing the centroid of the Dnose (your "phantom" beam) kinking fwd to the Dnose fuselage attachment (which should be on the centroid) ?
4) and 5) have the narrower chord fwd cell ... Dnose centroid ? but looks less than 3) ??
2) and 6) look alike, just with different ribbing schemes ??
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Yes a little bit of fudging. case 3 is the LE centroid kinking forward to the LE fitting. case 4 and 5 did not give good results as the end of that load path was not at the LE fitting.
"(which should be on the centroid) "
For some reason I thought the fitting should be at the LE. Reacts to CLm torque better there (more moment arm).
"4) and 5) have the narrower chord fwd cell ... Dnose centroid ? but looks less than "
case 4 and 5 did not give good results as the end of that load path was not at the LE fitting.
"2) and 6) look alike, just with different ribbing schemes ?? "
2 and 6 are a load path at the nose, LE, it gave the lowest numbers but was not at the centroid. The different ribs are the solid ribs per CD drawing, and all the ribs per CD drawing.
"meant to ask ... why only one loadcase ?"
Well I need to do them one at a time (I believe) before I can combine them. I would think it would be better to have separate threads for each load case and then combine them as another separate case thread. It would probably get confusing all in this thread. I understand there are other loadings...later on those.
Assuming you do not get tired of me asking all these basic questions.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
react the load as you want to (you really should be able to draw a FBD) and test it later. it's very hard for us to validate your assumptions 'cause we don't see the whole puzzle.
i'd've thought that you wanted just about the minimum number of wing/fuse attachments (due to transport ?); which would be close to 4 or 6 (two at each spar) possibly 4 (two at the middle spar, one at the frone and rear). How does your base design attach ?
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Thank you very much.
"i'd've thought that you wanted just about the minimum number of wing/fuse attachments (due to transport ?); which would be close to 4 or 6 (two at each spar) possibly 4 (two at the middle spar, one at the frone and rear). How does your base design attach ? "
For the Semi span One pin (bolt) at the main spar other two to be determined. Probably AN4 attached to a steel tube fuselage, I can put the fittings where I want and design the fuselage to accommodate. 5 total for the wing (not including flapperon)
One of my initial conditions is for the aircraft to live outside assembled, That is why I wanted it out of aluminum.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
I'd design the wing for max/min bending and then look into these "funny" cases.
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
I'd design the wing for max/min bending and then look into these "funny" cases.
I have the spar bending/shear designed (maybe,... perhaps or needs work) see "Built up Spar Question" this forum also attachment. The Hombuilt site will not check calculations, I assumed the same here. I can mount all my assumptions and results.
This is the next most severe case, the wing drag being calculated at a around 107# which is distributed along the semi span of the wing. that is a fairly simple calculation I can mount should you wish to see it.
On your forum I found a fantastic explanation to Buckling which referred me to Bruhn C7.16 and C7.17 and I was able to calculated the rear spar buckling 3 different ways. assuming the axial loads are reasonable.
I only have "black Box" verification of Clm torque form the Wilford design spread sheets, and I need to better understand that before I am satisfied.
RE: Wing Structure/Stress question.
Since you are obviously interested in building an ultralight sailplane , you may be interested in attending the Experimental Sailplane Associations, Western workshop At Mountain Valley Airport (L94)
Tehachapi, CA
This will be held over the Labor day weekend (Friday 20th August to Monday Sept 1st) There will be speakers, exhibitors and workshops and lectures.
Feel free to attend.
B.E.
You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.