Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:42:35.404Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Joint fixity effect on structural design of a box wing aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

P. O. Jemitola ,
J. Fielding  and
P. Stocking
P. O. Jemitola*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
J. Fielding
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
P. Stocking
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A computational study was performed to compare the stress distributions in finite element torsion box models of a box wing structure that result from employing four different wing/end fin joint fixities. All considered wings were trimmed in pitch. The joint fixities refer to the type of attachment that connects the tip of the fore and aft wings to the end fin. Using loads from a vortex lattice tool, the analysis determined the best wing-joint fixity of a statically loaded idealised box wing configuration by comparing the stress distributions resulting from the different wing joints in addition to other essential aerodynamic requirements. Analysis of the wing joint fixity indicates that the rigid joint is the most suitable.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 116 , Issue 1178 , April 2012 , pp. 363 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Frediani, A. The Prandtlwing, Lecture series on innovative configurations and advanced conceptsfor future civil aircraft ISBN 2-930389-62-1, Von Karman Institute, VKI 2005-06, 2005.Google Scholar
2. Prandtl, L. Induced drag of multiplanes, Technische Berichte, 1924, III, (7).Google Scholar
3. Munk, M. The minimum induced drag of airfoils, Report 121, NACA, March 1923.Google Scholar
4. Wolkovitch, J. The joined wing: an overview, J Aircr, March 1986, 23, pp 161–178.Google Scholar
5. Nangia, R.K., Palmer, M.E. and Tilman, C.P. Unconventional High Aspect Ratio Joined-Wing Aircraft with Aft and Forward Swept Wing Tips, AIAA-2003-0605, 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Nevada, USA, January 2003.Google Scholar
6. Hajela, P. Weight Evaluation of the Joined Wing Configuration, CR – 166592, NASA, June 1984.Google Scholar
7. Addoms, R.B. and Spaid, F.W. Aerodynamic design of high performance biplane wings, J Aircr, August 1975, (12), 8, pp 629–630.Google Scholar
8. Bagwill, T. and Selberg, B. Aerodynamic Investigation of Joined Wing Configurations for Transport Aircraft, AIAA-96/2373, 14th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Washington DC, USA, June 1996.Google Scholar
9. Lin, H, Jhou, J and Stearman, R. Influence of Joint Fixity on the Structural Static and Dynamic Response of a Joined-Wing Aircraft, AIAA 90-0980, 31St AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Long Beach, California, USA, April 1990.Google Scholar
10. Joined-Wing Aircraft, AIAA 90-0980, 31st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Long Beach, California, USA, April 1990.Google Scholar
11. Drela, M. and Youngren, H. Athena Vortex Lattice User Manual, Version 3.26, http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/, 2006.Google Scholar
12. Strand7, Release 2.3.8 User’s Guide, Strand7 Pty Ltd, 2007.Google Scholar
13. Howe, D. Aircraft Loading and Structural Layout, Professional Engineering Publishing Limited, London, UK, 2004.Google Scholar