Big Project | Project | Project Manager |
|---|---|---|
Post-comp fixed wing | Wings |
Task Description
Replicate https://semarakilmu.com.my/journals/index.php/CFD_Letters/article/view/113/62 to determine the internal stresses on the ribs and determine if design changes need to be made. Main area of concern will be the square cutout for the spar but it will also be interesting to see how the stress is around the elliptical holes.
Constraints
Constraints | Written By | Append Date |
|---|---|---|
Locate peak stresses |
| |
Determine if stresses will damage ribs |
|
Relevant Contacts
Subteam | Contact | Contact Description |
|---|---|---|
Subteam collaborating with | @ of contact | what is the contact responsible for? |
Assignees
Assignee | Asana Task | Date |
|---|---|---|
|
Task Progression/Updates
Author: Sohee Yoon Date: 2024/09/15
Ansys Analysis
Setup for the simulation:
Before downloading the Solidworks Assembly as a STL file, I had to remove the airfoil skin to better replicate the study
Materials had to be assigned to the individual components; ABS for LE and TE covers, Aluminium for the wingspar, and Balsa wood for the ribs based off of these properties https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet_print.aspx?matguid=81c269f50f424573a4f9978cfcb41bc8
The research study runs a Static Structural Analysis
There is a mesh error which seems to be caused by the TE covers, hence for this FEA study it is removed
The forces acting on each rib was calculated based on how the study calculated their load
Assume 10 kg drone: 10 kg x 9.81 m/s = 98.1 N (over two wings) → 98.1 N / 2 = 49.05 N (over one wing) → 49.05 N / 8 (ribs) = 6.131 N per rib
The fixed point and node points are similar to the study. Two types of simulations were run:
Force on the node points
Force on the bottom face of the ribs
Ansys Study Conclusion:
(b) could not be simulated because of errors related to the spar ~ will look into that in the future
Unlike the research study, there wasn’t a lot of stress near the end of the spar (the part attached to the drone)
There were no stresses along the other cut outs except for the spar cut out
The main areas of stress lie along the corners of the spar cut out and the LE spacer cut out
Solidworks Analysis
Setup for the simulation:
Similar to the Ansys setup, however, the two types of simulations that were run:
Force on the top face of the ribs
Force on the bottom face of the ribs
The wing spar had to be fixed in place to prevent any bending or movement in the simulation
Note: the TE covers are present in this simulation
Solidworks Study Conclusion:
Surprisingly the Ansys and Solidworks studies visually showed different results but this may be caused by the material properties, the fixed points, and location of forces.
The Solidworks study resembled the original research article the closest as the other cut outs had stresses along the edges.
There is barely any stress visible near the LE and TE cut outs/spacers
(a) and (b) deemed similar results, slight difference in the amount of stress at the top/bottom but almost identical
Both the Solidworks and Ansys studies display high stress concentrations near the corners of the cut outs, especially for the wing spar cut out
Final Conclusion from this study:
Because Balsa wood doesn’t have a defined yield point (yield strength), the modulus of elasticity is used to determine the point of fracture, 3.0 GPa.
Based on the Ansys results, there is concern near the corners of the spar cut out as the colours indicate a greater stress value than the modulus of elasticity, but the Solidworks results point in the opposite direction where no point goes over the limit.
Future steps → fillet the corners of the spar cut out and run the simulation on Ansys to see any changes
Possibly run the Solidworks simulation more closely or similar to Ansys to have obtain a better comparison. Ex: Fix the point instead of the whole spar, try applying force on node points instead of the surface