Building a Loading Diagram for Aircraft Fuselage Lateral Direction

  • Thread starter Thread starter laurens
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around constructing a loading diagram for the lateral direction of an aircraft fuselage, particularly in response to dynamic forces such as gusts affecting the vertical fin. Participants explore the challenges of calculating loads in a non-static scenario and the implications of inertia forces on the structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their initial approach of creating a loading diagram for the z-direction under static conditions, balancing weights during straight and level flight.
  • The same participant raises the complexity of calculating lateral loads when subjected to dynamic forces, such as gusts, and questions the validity of using static methods for this scenario.
  • Another participant suggests treating the problem as a dynamics issue, emphasizing the importance of considering inertia forces and the effects of acceleration on the aircraft's center of mass.
  • A participant expresses confusion over their calculations, noting discrepancies in resultant forces and accelerations, and seeks assistance in reviewing their work.
  • Later, the participant identifies a calculation error regarding the sideways acceleration, which resolves their earlier discrepancies and aligns with the previous explanation about inertia forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the necessity of treating the problem as a dynamics issue rather than a static one. However, there remains uncertainty regarding the specific methods for constructing the loading diagrams and the implications of various assumptions made during calculations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the initial assumptions about static equilibrium and the need for a more nuanced understanding of dynamic forces acting on the aircraft structure. The calculations presented depend heavily on the accuracy of the applied forces and the assumptions regarding the aircraft's rigidity.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in aircraft structural analysis, dynamics, and loading diagrams, particularly in the context of lateral forces and dynamic responses.

laurens
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I try to build a loading diagram in the lateral direction of an aircraft, however have not succeeded yet.

For example, in the z-direction (direction where weights and lift of the aircraft point). I have made a simple loading diagram. I first assumed a simple beam, which is hinged at the wing and the horizontal tail surface. Then adding all the weights to the aircraft, I could balance them when I assumed that the aircraft was flying in a straight and level flight. An example of this can be seen in the attached files.

Now this was assumed to be just a static case. However now I want to calculate the loads in lateral direction, for example when a gust hits the vertical fin. In the attached files I put a top-down view of such a load case. In this picture I also drew the shear force and moment, as I though they would act on the aircraft. Since there is no static equilibrium anymore I first assumed I could maybe simplify it as this. However when calculating with "real" values, I got incredibly high stresses at the nose of the aircraft.

So although this is not a static problem, is there any possibility to draw a shear force and moment diagram as I would have done in the static case?

Can I maybe assumed that I cut somewhere in the tail and then assume from the cut to the rear of the fuselage as beam. Which is then clamped at the cut? As an example I drew the third picture. So that in the rest of the fuselage the bending moment is constant? Or is this really not allowed to use as a first estimation of the fuselage loading? If this is not allowed, maybe someone has a suggestion to build such loading diagrams?
 

Attachments

  • loadingdiagram_z_direction.png
    loadingdiagram_z_direction.png
    1.5 KB · Views: 782
  • loadingdiagram_y_direction.png
    loadingdiagram_y_direction.png
    6.5 KB · Views: 768
  • suggestions.png
    suggestions.png
    10.2 KB · Views: 735
Engineering news on Phys.org
The correct way to do this is to treat it as a dynamics problem. Restraining an arbitrary point on the structure will give the wrong answers, if there are any reaction forces at the restraint.

If you apply a side force to the tail, there will be a sideways acceleration of the center of mass of the aircraft, and an angular acceleration about the COM. If you assume the aircraft is rigid, you can find the corresponding inertia forces (mass x acceleration) distributed along the length of the fuselage. Now, if you apply MINUS those forces to the structure as well as the force on the tail fin, the resultant load on the whole aircraft is zero, and you can restrain it anywhere convenient without getting a reaction force.

That is equivalent to working in a coordinate system fixed to the aircraft. The "fictitious inertia forces" are caused by the fact that the coordinate system is accelerating.

You can find more on this by googling for "inertia relief".
 
Thanks for the quick answer AlpehZero, it seems pretty logical how you explained it. I think I can make it work now :).
 
Okay, so I tried a to make a sample calculation, but I have the feeling somewhere it goes horribly wrong. The resultant force on the aircraft is not zero. But when calculating the acceleration with the final resultant force I also get an acceleration a factor 10x smaller than with the initial external force. Could someone maybe take a look at the sample calculation? As provided in the attachments?

EDIT: The red bars are basically the masses, so it is not the "white space" which is 10kg, but the red bar.
 

Attachments

  • example1.png
    example1.png
    29.8 KB · Views: 776
  • example2.png
    example2.png
    25.2 KB · Views: 719
Last edited:
Well for those wondering (including me), I found the error. The sideways acceleration is 60 m/s^2 and not 66.667 m/s^2, which was a calculation mistake. Using 60 m/s^2, the resultant load leads to zero again, as AlephZero explained.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
33
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K