FinalReport-2.0

WINGLET ATTACHMENT SYSTEM
Team TJK
Members:
Jeremy Cox
Keyur Patil
Jay Jiang
Thoai Le
Submitted to
Dr. Mir Atiqullah
On
July 16th, 2015
ME 4202 Senior Design II
Summer 2015
Mechanical Engineering Department
Kennesaw State University
Marietta Campus, Marietta GA

1
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
1.0 Introduction 3
1.1 Initial Needs 9
1.2 Initial DesignStatement 9
2.0 Customer Needs Assessment 10
2.1 Weighting of Customer Requirements 12
3.0 RevisedNeeds Statement and Target Specifications 12
4.0 External Search 13
4.1 Applicable Standards 13
4.2 Applicable Constraints 13
5.0 Concept Generation 17
6.0 Concept Selection 22
6.1 Data and Calculations for Feasibility and Effectiveness Analysis 22
6.2 Concept Development 29
7.0 Final Design 29
7.1 How does it Work? 31
7.2 Materials Researchand Selection 32
7.3 Cost Analysis 33
7.4 DesignDrawings and FEE Simulations 33
8.0 Conclusion 34
Acknowledgements 36
References 37
Appendix 38

2
Abstract
Our team, Team TKJ, worked with Sharp Aero Structures to design a composite winglet
attachment system for their aircraft fleet of 248 airplanes. The aircrafts are operated by
SpeedAir with routes mainly between the US and Europe. The aircraft the system will be
designed for is a HA624, 200 passenger class, twin engine turbo jet. Our design was created to
withstand the forces the jet places on it during flight and be cost effective by reducing
unnecessary weight. Our final design was able to meet all aircraft requirements as outlined in
MMPDS and FAR 25, and also accomplish all of the specifications given to us by the client,
SAS.

3
1.0 Introduction
The aircraft the winglet system was designed for creates 40,000 lbs per engine, has a fuel
capacity of 12,000 gallons and a take-off weight is 250,000 lbs. With these numbers, the design
had to be strong and durable while reducing overall weight added to not decrease the miles per
gallon of the aircraft. The system we designed would allow the winglet to seamlessly fit with the
wing and is able to be removed for upkeep and cleaning. This was a key requirement from SAS
as it could not be welded nor have a permanent fixture. Our design would also have to comply
with all aircraft standards and regulations in order to be a legal attachment. That includes
adherence to MMPDS and FAR 25 which outline the rules and regulations for aircraft parts.
The system we were tasked with creating will allow the winglet fit onto the aircraft which
optimize the airflow for the aircraft. With the airflow improved over the wing, the aircraft will
travel easier through the air with less drag. That will require less fuel to go the same distance as
without the winglet which saves on fuel costs. The fuel costs can be astronomical for aircraft so
adding the winglet can save millions of dollars over time. For the attachment system, it must be
lightweight and strong in order for the winglet to perform its job. If it is heavy then it will
reduce the improved fuel costs from the winglet and lessen the impact of the attachment. If it is
too weak, then the winglet will not be sturdy and reduce the optimized air flow over the wing
which will cut down on the performance ability of the winglet. The attachment system we
design must also not compromise the hull integrity or create increased stresses on areas already
designed and calculated to handle a certain load. This means that the parts and any fasteners
must fit on certain places and not onto the outside of the wing itself.
The scope of the project is that we must stay within the guidelines of SAS which included
specific lists of materials to consider and a timeline to finish by. The cost limit of the project
was not given to us but a condition of reasonable use was issued to us. This means that we must
use common sense in the design process and not make an over complicated design or highly
expensive material to meet the objectives given to us. The overall scope is limited due to the
amount of constraints given by the client and laws to adhere to. This is helpful as it limits the
choices we can make from infinite to a few to choose from and test.
The objectives that we were given to judge the design by are as follows:
● does not violate any government rules or regulations such as FAR25
● can withstand the forces and moments of flight of the aircraft within a given factor of
safety of 1.5
● the total cost of design and assembly must be cost effective
● the final design weight must not be excessive to a point of harming the fuel increase from
the winglet
● the project must be fully completed by July 16,2015

4
Figure 1.0 Aircraft View
The winglet composition includes a composite, semi-monocoque skin and an aluminum alloy
substructure for the ribs and spars. For the wing, there are two spars that are single-cell with a
torsion box that had a fuel bulkhead closing rib. The wingspan of the wing is 108.25 as shown in
the following diagrams. The tip chord is 8.33 feet and the leading edge sweep is at 30 degrees.
The trailing edge sweep is at 17.76 degrees.
Figure 2.0 Wing Geometry

5
Figure 3.0 Internal Wing View

6
Figure 4.0 Wing Model
Figure 5.0 Winglet Overview

7
Figure 6.0 Aerofoil Specifications
Figure 7.0 Isometric ViewofSpars

8
Figure 8.0 Spar Diagrams
Figure 9.0 WingletDiagram

9
1.1 Initial Needs
Airlines want to update their existing fleet of commercial aircrafts (Type: HA624) with a newly
designed composite airplane wing tip. The wing tip is to be installed on to the existing airplane
wing in order to improve airplane fuel economy. Sharp Aero-Structures (S.A.S.) has designed a
new wingtip and requests the TKJ Engineering Team to design the winglet attachment system.
The attachment system must be light and strong to allow for optimum strength while not
affecting the fuel economy of the aircraft with excess weight.
1.2 Initial DesignStatement
Our team, Team TKJ, is tasked with the job of designing an attachment system for Sharp Aero
Structures for their winglet on their HA624 passenger jet, to improve fuel economy while not
negatively impacting the fuel economy of the aircraft. The design must not violate any
government rules or regulations while remaining strong enough to withstand the forces and
moments experienced during flight.

10
2.0 Customer Needs Assessment
Our customer, SAS, had a specific list of specifications of what we could and could not do for
the attachment system. Since the attachment system is for an aircraft, it must interact with the
other parts comprising the aircraft flawlessly and without hindering their function. The specific
list showed what the design had to follow and what the final design had to have implemented
into it. The initial customer requirements were collected from meetings with Mr. Sharp of SAS
and e-mails sent back and forth from SAS. Mr. Sharp had come to Southern Polytechnic State
University and given a presentation from which many of the requirements were shown. Those
requirements were compiled and added with our data taken from several meetings with him.
That list was then added to the objective list and converted into statements along with specific
requirements stated by Mr. Sharp.
Table 1.0 Initial Customer Requirements List from Interviews and Observations
● Legal
● Removeable
● Strong enough for forces and moments
● Durable
● Easy to maintain
● Not overly expensive
● Not negatively affect the winglet function
● Safe
● Contained within the wing and winglet, no exposed parts
● Some flexibility for movement
● Light to not add excessive weight
● 2 or more separate parts is ideal

11
Table 2.0 Customer Requirements List with Constraints Included
1. The design must not violate any government rules or regulations
2. The design must be finished by July 16th, 2015
3. No exposed parts can be on the design outside of the winglet/wing
assembly
4. The wing tip will be removed and replaced by winglet via winglet
attachment system.
5. The winglet should be removable from the wing to gain access to the
Satcom avionics a telecommunication system that uses satellites
positioning in space.
6. A gap of 4.0 inches exists between the wing’s closing rib and wing let's
root rib to provide space for the installation of the winglet attachment
hardware.
7. The primary way to attach the winglet to wing would be at the wing’s
front and rear spars.
8. All parts shall be manufactured from aircraft approved materials with
published design allowable values.
9. All attachment hardware shall be to aircraft approved specifications with
published design allowable strengths.
10. All mechanical attachments shall be installed in close tolerance fit holes
unless bolt loads are very low and a justification shown for the necessity
of large diameter clearance holes.
11. Hole fasteners should be pitched at a minimum 4D (4 times the diameter
of the fastener)
12. Hole fastener edge distances shall be located exactly at 2D (2 times the
diameter of the fastener)
13. Countersink depths shall not exceed 80% thickness of the material
14. Minimum diameter of all structural fasteners shall be 0.190 inch.
15. Minimum diameter of hexagon headed bolts shall be 0.25 inch
16. Surface finish of machined parts shall be 125 micro-inches or better
17. All parts shall be protected against environmental conditions and
corrosion (finish depending upon material used may be obtained from
SAS)
18. Out-of-plane loading of lugs should be avoided
19. Clamp-up residual stresses of clevis fittings shall be avoided
20. Grain direction of lugs shall be chosen to avoid short-transverse direction
21. No welding is permitted

12
2.1 Weighting of Customer Requirements
Weighting allows the designers to prioritize what to focus on when designing the part and when
making a decision, what to lean towards if both choices are important. This will allow for an
optimum design adhering to as many of the customer needs as possible within the given time
frame. Some of the priorities can be flexible and changed while some are ironclad and must be
followed to the letter. If not then the part may not be legal or violate the terms of the contract for
what we promised to deliver to our client.
For our team, we were given many rules to adhere by for the designed part to be legal to put
onto the aircraft. Those were our first priority as our design being legal to attach to an aircraft
was not debatable and allowed no room for compromise. Then, we made sure the part fit all of
the specific design requirements given to us on how the parts and holes in the part had to
interact. Once our design was qualified to meet all the requirements, we then focused on making
the part strong enough to withstand all the forces it would undergo on the aircraft. That would
allow the part to have quality and durability which is expected of us from SAS. That was the
basis of our contract with them and was given priority as there was no room for compromise in
that area. Either the part was strong enough or it would fail. We then made sure it was flexible
enough for the minute movement it would experience in an aircraft. That ensured the life of the
part would hold up.
Then, priority was given to making the part weight efficient and cutting out unnecessary weight
to reduce having a negative impact on the fuel efficiency of the aircraft. This was more flexible
as the material of the part could be adjusted now that we know the exact strength needed in order
for our part to be acceptable to our client. We could also play around with the design more by
cutting out extra weight and trying to only have the parts that helped the strength of the part
overall.
3.0 RevisedNeeds Statement and Target Specifications
Our initial problem statement was found to be lacking after several meetings with Mr. Sharp and
a better understanding of what he wanted. We needed to make sure the part would not fail any
rules or regulations given by the government. The requirements given on the part and how it had
to be constructed given to us by SAS and ensuring the part was strong and durable enough for
flight was taken into account. The part also had to compliment the winglet by not taking away
from the benefits of it with excess weight or size. After reviewing these objectives with SAS, we
are confident we now have a clear needs goal that targets the specific goals we will achieve
during the course of the project.

13
4.0 External Search
Our external search on our design was mainly focused on the expertise of Mr. David Sharp who
works for SAS. We had several meetings with him to discuss problems and issues and initially
he gave a presentation to our class which we were able to ask questions about. We referenced
his Power Point many times during the project as it had many pictures and graphs that we used to
calculate the values for our design constraints. Later on, we received other graphs from him with
details such as strength of certain materials as the material we were allowed to use did not show
up in SolidWorks. We also corresponded with him several times through email and received data
and equations to use for our particular case. Since SAS is hired through the government, we
were not allowed to see all the information we wanted as it was either classified or proprietary
information. This limited our ability to find data elsewhere as the data that was provided to us
was directly relevant to the case. Mr. Sharp had also expressed a desire for us to focus on a
design made specifically for his aircraft and not similar to another attachment system to increase
our creativity and ingenuity.
4.1 Applicable Standards
The standards our team had to abide by were the MMPDS and FAR 25. Both of those reference
what can and cannot be done to an airplane flying in public domain. MMPDS stands for
Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization which is a manual that is key to
aircraft design. It shows relevant materials and their properties when designing parts for flight.
The section used for our design was MMPDS-07: Design Mechanical and Physical Properties of
B-Basis. This is impactful for our project as it takes out massive amount of calculation by being
able to use a table with the values and data that we would need when considering what materials
to use for the design. The FAR 25 stands for Federal Aviation Regulations and has all of the
rules and regulations aircraft and their parts must adhere to by law. The FAR 25 is key for the
design because if part of the design violates it, it will not be able to be delivered to the client
regardless of the positive aspects of it. Both of the documents are excessively lengthy and could
not be included into the report but they both were referenced and used in the design process.
4.2 Applicable Constraints
The constraints we had to deal with were specific in all aspects. We had to adhere to the FAR 25
regulations in order for the part we designed to be legal to put onto an aircraft. That was the
biggest factor and what we designed around as there was no flexibility with that constraint.
Another constraint we were given was the time limit to design the system by. The timeline given
to complete the project was given from January 2015 to the end of July 2015. This was not
flexible either and dictated the speed at which we worked. This was represented by a Gantt chart

14
and what our progress should look like and specific milestones we needed to achieve by a certain
date.
Figure 11.0 Gantt Chart
Another constraint we dealt with was the specifications the client gave us of what the part had to
abide by. Since the part was crucial to the aircraft, there were many inflexible rules that the part
had to be designed to. This would help our process by taking out the consideration of other parts
interacting with our parts and the consequence of that. The rules given to us will prevent any
interaction that will cause problems in the installation, use and removal of the system. This is
represented by a weighted chart showing the requirements we had and the importance of what
we ranked them in the designing process.

15
Table 3.0 Rank Ordering of Constraints

16
Table 4.0 Weighting Factor of Constraints
We were also given boundaries for the materials we could use for the design as well. All the
prohibited materials were uncommon for airplane design but something to check over for any
fasteners or nuts that we did not design ourselves.
Table 5.0 Prohibited Materials
Materials Cannot Contain
Cadmiumandcadmiumcompounds
Berylliumandberylliumcompounds
Chromiumandchromiumcompounds
Depleteduranium
Lead compounds(exceptsolder)
Lithium
Nickel andnickel compounds
Mercury and mercurycompounds
The client gave us a choice between two materials for what to design the majority of the part out
of. These two choices were aluminum alloy and low alloy steel. The difference between the two
is aluminum is significantly lighter and would be less impactful on the fuel economy. This
would be the ideal choice as it would reduce the weight but the constraint would be if it could
hold up to the forces from the plane. If it proved too weak the low alloy steel would be the best
choice. This would be heavier but significantly stronger. We added in Titanium 6AL4V for
comparison for the material analysis. This would be the best material if it was not so expensive.

17
The client also gave us constraints of the design must be put through a fatigue test. The fatigue
analysis had a scatter factor of 4, a lifetime of 85,000 hours and the time per block is 100 hours.
Under those details, the fatigue analysis will allow an accurate representation of how the part
will fair under aircraft wear over time. This is crucial to the durability of the part and is factored
into the designing stage.
Figure 12.0 Recommended Material Choices
5.0 Concept Generation
When we first started to think of designs for the project, we started with a part that would open
and close similar to a lock on springs. We tried to have something that could open and close
easily as we focused on the removability of the part first. This was then discarded as the
complexity of the springs made it hard to try and calculate the possible forces. Our next part
involved parts that would interlock leading to a tight fit of parts. This was designed with the
purpose of reducing excess force on the part where it would be weak as in the previous design,
the springs could not handle much of the forces. This was discarded as well due to the
complexity of it as the forces became complicated. Our next part was designed with simplicity
in mind for the calculations. This led to 2 parts that would attach through bolts and when
attached, would function as 1 plate but have the flexibility of separate plates. Our final design
would be a variant of the third design that was optimized to be structurally stronger. We had
found that there were considerable forces on the part and our previous designs were thought to

18
not be able to manage those forces. This design was 2 parts that attached through bolts so like the
previous design, it would be flexible for the movement involved in flight but strong like 1 plate.
All of the designs we considered all passed the requirements given to us in the customer needs
list except for the strength to manage the forces. That was the problem area in our design and
what led to other designs being considered when 1 design was not strong enough. SAS or Mr.
Sharp were informed weekly of the progress and problems encountered during the designing
stage. Suggestions were made on how to fix the issues or recommendations to abandon the
design all together. Their influence was prioritized due to their experience in the field and
knowledge of previous systems.
Figure 13.0 Design 1

19
Figure 15.0 Design 3 Winglet
Figure 16.0 Design 3 Winglet

20
Figure 17.0 Design 3 Wing

21
Figure 19.0 Design 4 Wing Attachment

22
6.0 Concept Selection
Once we had our concepts designed, we then put them through testing and calculations to affirm
our initial thoughts on which ones would be ideal. This included simulations to see how the part
would react in a similar environment to what it would be placed in. Once we were initially able
to see how the parts reacted and what the forces on each part would be, we started to come to the
final design being the ideal design. This led to many of the calculations and simulations being
done on the final design in order to manage time as there was a strict schedule to stick to. Some
of the sample calculations and files are included in the appendix if they are too lengthy to include
in the body of the report.
6.1 Data and Calculations for Feasibility and Effectiveness Analysis
Figure 20.0 Equations Used

23
Figure 21.0 Allowable Forces

24
Figure 22.0 Calculations for Spar Lengths
Figure 23.0 Calculations for Forces in X,Y and Z Directions
Figure 24.0 Calculations for Forces Continued

25
Figure 25.0 Calculations for Moments

27
Table 6.0 Bolt Diameter vs Plate Thickness (Partial View)

28
Figure 26.0 Displacement for Final Design
Figure 27.0 Strain for Final Design
Figure 28.0 Stress for Final Design

29
6.2 Concept Development
Based off the calculations and simulations we ran, we decided to stick with the last design we
made as our final design. It was an improvement from 2 other designs and allowed for the best
strength to handle the loads from the aircraft. It became fairly easy to come to this conclusion as
that design was the only one that could even handle the loads which supported our initial theories
that led to the construction of this design in the first place. This became our final design as what
was created met all the requirements and the copious amounts of calculations led to not trying to
change anything more or risk running behind on schedule, which was a requirement from the
customer.
7.0 Final Design
Our final design was the last design we came up with as it was the only design that could
withstand the forces of the aircraft over time. We perfected the last design from the previous one
as we reduced the thickness of the parts to reduce stress placed over the whole parts which gave
us the appropriate factor of safety. Once that was achieved, our simulations showed how it
would react accurately in an aircraft. We then used that data to figure out what bolts and
fasteners to use. Our client SAS, gave us a list of recommended bolts and fasteners to use with
varying weights and strengths. We chose the one that was the strongest as we wanted durability

30
and fatigue resistance as we concluded the little extra weight was worth the strength. FMEA was
used to organize how the design changed and what areas were prioritized.
Figure 29.0 FMEA
Figure 30.0 Fracture Toughness

31
Table 7.0 Hardware and Materials
Hardware
NAS64XX, Hex Head Bolt
MS17826, Castellated nut, thin
NAS1149, Washer, Plain
NAS1160, Shoulder Bolt
Hi-Lok Pins, HL18, HL19,Hl20,HL21
7.1 How Does it Work?
Our system is made for installation by professional aircraft technicians and is removable per
instruction by SAS. This allows for easy maintenance of the parts and service that may be
needed. This determined that our system had to be easy to remove and repair and not a
permanent fixture. The following are the steps in assembling and installing the parts onto the
wing and winglet.
Assembly Step:
1. Remove the outer shell of the wing
2. Drill 7 holes on each spar at the size of 0.453 inch
3. Drill 4 holes on each rib of the winglet at the size of 0.453 inch
4. Clean the holes and the side of attachment, ensure there is no deflection (make sure the
attachment places on the outside of the spar)
5. Attach washers to the Hi-Lock pins, attach Hi-lock pin and washers into the holes
6. Place the front wing attachment into wing side mounts and tighten.
7. Be sure the wing side attachment is centered with spar.
8. Looking from the side of the attachment and make sure the hole is aligned.
9. Put a buckle set at diagonal corners of the hole(top left and bottom right)
10. Attach washers to the Hi-Lock pins, attach Hi-lock pin and washers into the holes on the
winglet
11. Tighten the winglet attachment into the winglet
12. Tighten attachment parts by Hi-lock into wing and winglet need to be precise so the wing
attachment perfectly fits inside of the winglet attachment.
13. Repeat step 4 to 12 for the rear attachments.
14. Since all parts are precisely attached into wing and winglet, have another technician hold
the winglet parallel to the wing.
15. Carefully fit the winglet attachments over the wing attachments where lugs are fitted
together and can be see through.
16. Put the given bolts through lugs, a washer for each bolt, and tighten them with given nuts
( bolts, one washer, and one nut for each bolts only)
17. Check if all four lugs are done with step 16, and tighten the the nuts again at given
aircraft industry standard torque
18. Cover 4 inches gap that the attachment parts created between the wing and winglet by
specific aircraft’s sheet alloy (skin-cell)

32
19. Applied rivets to enforce skin-cell perfectly smooth as the desired aircraft industry
standard
20. Recheck everything to make sure everything fit perfectly.
21. The winglet attachments are done.
7.2 Materials Researchand Selection
For our system, we researched many different types of materials and compared different
strengths of each in regard to the weight. We were given only 3 options from the client to
consider but added a few more for a better understanding of an application of materials. The
material we ended up choosing was a steel variant, the AISI8740 specifically based on the
strength for our system. Other materials were better selections but were not given in the list of
materials from the client. With the chart given in Figure 31.0, we were easily able to see the
strength of the material options and cross reference to the forces found through calculation that
the parts would undergo. That left us to the steel as aluminum was too weak. The steel variant
we chose was the only one in the options that fit the specific strengths we needed. The full
technical drawings of our final designs with 5 different materials are shown in the appendix.
Figure 31.0 Materials Comparison

33
7.3 Cost Analysis
Figure 32.0 Cost Analysis
7.4 DesignDrawings and FEE Simulations
We did several design drawings of the final assembly which is shown in the appendix. These
drawing showed how all the parts fit together and interact. The simulations we ran were on each
individual part and each part met the requirements we needed of them. Those simulations are
shown in the appendix as well. We did use springs in the simulations so replicate the forces
from a bolt on the holes as there is force in the x,y and z direction. This allowed us to optimize
the holes locations and design.

34
Figure 33.0 Bill ofMaterials
8.0 Conclusion
Our project met the goals that the client presented to us in the timeline given. We completed all
of the goals in our original problem statement. While the only specifications given to us from
the client were to design a part to handle the forces of a plane, our design was able to handle that
requirement and fulfill all legal requirements as well. Any specific numbers on forces was data
we calculated and therefore an inherent requirement. The previous figures and tables shown in
previous sections show the forces the aircraft exerts on the part and the simulations show the part
handling the forces with a factor of safety of 1.5 This allows for a successful completion of
objectives for the client and a completion of our problem statement. Our part was also consistent
with the guidelines Mr. Sharp had expressed on what direction he thought we should go with.
This makes our design acceptable to the government, SAS and Mr. Sharp which means all
parties that the part affects have had their needs fulfilled.
Our part will remain inside an aircraft and therefore has no environmental concerns and has no
power source either for discharge. This makes it environmentally friendly as it puts very little to
no strain on the environment, the only possible strain would be related to its relation to the
aircraft which would be indirect. Our part also has very little political ties as it was for a
company that has a government contract. This makes it a stable contract and during a short time
period it will not change. However, when examined over the course of more than 4 years when

35
political leaders change, our part does increase fuel efficiency which is beneficial for the
environment which would appeal to certain political parties over others. There should be little
negative response to our part as it is uncontroversial.

36
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank all who had a part in contributing to our project including:
● Southern Polytechnic State University
● Kennesaw State University
● Dr. Mir Atiqullah
● Dr. Richard Ruhala
● David Sharp
● Lockheed Martin
● Staples
● Mechanical Engineering Department of SPSU
● SPSU Library

37
References
1. "Homepage." Mmpdsorg. 6 June 2014. Web. 16 July 2015.
2. "FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS, 14 CFR)." FAR Part 25: Airworthiness
Standards: Transport Category Airplanes. Web. 16 July 2015.

38
Appendix
Figure 34.0 Fastener Selection Sheet

39
Figure 35.0 Lug Analysis Spreadsheet

40
Figure 36.0 Clevis Moment Equation
Figure 37.0 Sample Calculations

41
Figure 38.0 S-N Graph
Figure 39.0 S-N Graphs Continued

43
Simulationof FRONT
wing attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout)
Date: Thursday, July 16, 2015
Designer: Solidworks
Study name: Static 3
Analysis type: Static
Table of Contents
Description......................................................................43
Assumptions ...................................................................44
Model Information........................................................44
Study Properties.............................................................45
Units .................................................................................45
Material Properties........................................................46
Loads and Fixtures.........................................................46
Connector Definitions ...................................................47
Contact Information......................................................48
Mesh Information..........................................................49
Sensor Details.................................................................50
Resultant Forces.............................................................50
Beams...............................................................................51
Study Results ..................................................................52
Conclusion.......................................................................57
Description
No Data

44
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)
Current Configuration: Default
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Treated As Volumetric Properties
Document Path/Date
Modified
Cut-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:4.50373 kg
Volume:0.000572913 m^3
Density:7861.1 kg/m^3
Weight:44.1365 N
C:UsersKeyurDesktopSi
mulationsDesign #4 -
Version 7Version 7.3AISI
8740FRONTFRONT wing
attatchment (V3.1 -
Cutout)FRONT wing
attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout).SLDPRT
Jul 16 11:11:11 2015

45
Study Properties
Study name Static3
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Thermal option Include temperatureloads
Zero strain temperature 298 Kelvin
Include fluidpressure effectsfrom
SolidWorksFlowSimulation
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Inertial Relief: Off
Incompatible bondingoptions Automatic
Large displacement Off
Compute free body forces On
Friction Off
Use Adaptive Method: Off
Resultfolder SolidWorks document
(C:UsersKeyurDesktopSimulationsDesign#4-
Version7Version7.1- WithSpring
FastnersStaticFRONTFRONTwingattatchment
(V3.1 - Cutout))
Units
Unitsystem: SI (MKS)
Length/Displacement mm
Temperature Kelvin
Angular velocity Rad/sec
Pressure/Stress N/m^2

46
Material Properties
Model Reference Properties Components
Name: AISI 8740
Model type: Linear Elastic Isotropic
Default failurecriterion: Max von Mises Stress
Yield strength: 4.15064e+008 N/m^2
Tensilestrength: 6.9637e+008 N/m^2
Elastic modulus: 2.04774e+011 N/m^2
Poisson's ratio: 0.29
Mass density: 7861.1 kg/m^3
Shear modulus: 7.99792e+010 N/m^2
SolidBody 1(Cut-
Extrude5)(FRONT wing
attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout))
Curve Data:N/A
Loads and Fixtures
Load name Load Image Load Details
Force-1
Entities: 1 face(s), 1 plane(s)
Reference: Front Plane
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, -12330.9,2413.6
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, 10417.3,160.69
lbf

47
Connector Definitions
Connector name Connector Details Connector Image
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 7 face(s)
Type: Elastic Support
Normal stiffness value: 300000
Shear stiffness value: 300000
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Pin/Bolt/Bearing Connector
Model Reference Connector Details Strength Details
Counterbore with Nut-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Head diameter: 18.0975 mm
Nut diameter: 18.0975 mm
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Young's modulus: 2.1e+011
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Type X-Component Y-Component Z-Component Resultant
Axial Force (N) 0 0 1361.2 1361.2
Shear Force (N) 348.3 131.43 0 372.27
Bending moment (N.m) -7.3654 -1.9262 0 7.6131
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
No Data

48
Preload units: N.m
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 1265.4 1265.4
Shear Force (N) 254.23 57.947 0 260.75
Bending moment (N.m) 8.1391 -1.234 0 8.2321
Contact Information
No Data

49
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MesherUsed: Curvature basedmesh
Jacobian points 4 Points
Maximumelementsize 0 in
Minimumelementsize 0 in
MeshQuality High
Mesh Information - Details
Total Nodes 6832
Total Elements 3410
MaximumAspect Ratio 6.9746
% of elementswithAspectRatio < 3 82
% of elementswithAspectRatio > 10 0
% of distortedelements(Jacobian) 0
Time to complete mesh(hh;mm;ss): 00:00:01
Computername: KEYURPC

50
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Selectionset Units Sum X Sum Y Sum Z Resultant
Entire Model N 454.6 8512.06 -11451 14275.4
Reaction Moments
Entire Model N.m 0 0 0 0

52
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Stress1 VON: von Mises Stress 0.0350424 ksi
Node: 6269
48.7724 ksi
Node: 566
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max
Displacement1 URES: Resultant Displacement 0.00717781 in
Node: 270
0.277268 in
Node: 142

53
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Strain1 ESTRN: EquivalentStrain 3.1589e-006
Element: 1325
0.00311888
Element: 2432

54
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Factor of Safety1 Automatic 1.2343
Node: 566
1717.92
Node: 6269

55
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type
Fatigue Check1 Fatigue Check Plot

56
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Fatigue Check-Fatigue Check1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 6269
48.7724 ksi
Node: 566

57
Conclusion

58
Simulationof Front
winglet attachment
(V2.1)
Table of Contents
Description......................................................................58
Assumptions ...................................................................59
Units .................................................................................60
Sensor Details.................................................................65
Beams...............................................................................66
Study Results ..................................................................67
Conclusion.......................................................................71
Description
No Data

59
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: Front winglet attachment (V2.1)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified
Boss-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:9.37348 kg
Volume:0.00119239 m^3
Weight:91.8601 N
8740FRONTFront winglet
attatchment (V2.1)Front
winglet attachment
(V2.1).SLDPRT
Jul 16 11:16:33 2015

60
Study Properties
Study name Static2
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
Version7Version7.2StaticFRONTFrontwinglet
attatchment(V2.1))
Units
Temperature Kelvin

61
Material Properties
Name: AISI 8740
SolidBody 1(Boss-
Extrude5)(Front winglet
attachment (V2.1))
Curve Data:N/A
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, -12330.9,2413.6
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, 10417.3,160.69
lbf

62
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 5 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 363.98 363.98
Shear Force (N) -1286 -63.944 0 1287.6
Bending moment (N.m) -1.7969 24.32 0 24.387
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
No Data

63
Preload units: N.m
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 132.63 132.63
Shear Force (N) -316.07 392.38 0 503.85
Bending moment (N.m) 8.1907 5.9125 0 10.102
Contact Information
No Data

64
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 9066
Total Elements 4522
% of elementswithAspectRatio > 10 0.0221

65
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 909.204 17024.1 -22902 28550.8
Reaction Moments

67
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1424
53.1993 ksi
Node: 5271
Front winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 388
0.334342 in
Node: 120

68
Front winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Element: 724
0.00131571
Element: 2012

69
Front winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 5271
312.984
Node: 1424

70
Front winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1424
53.1993 ksi
Node: 5271

71
Conclusion

72
Simulationof REAR wing
attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout)
Table of Contents
Description......................................................................72
Assumptions ...................................................................73
Units .................................................................................74
Sensor Details.................................................................79
Beams...............................................................................80
Study Results ..................................................................81
Conclusion.......................................................................85
Description
No Data

73
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified
Cut-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:4.29013 kg
Volume:0.000545742 m^3
Weight:42.0432 N
8740REARREAR wing
attatchment (V3.1 -
Cutout)REAR wing
attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout).SLDPRT
Jul 16 11:20:54 2015

74
Study Properties
Study name Static3
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
Resultfolder SolidWorksdocument
(V3.1 - Cutout))
Units
Temperature Kelvin

75
Material Properties
Name: AISI 8740
SolidBody 1(Cut-
Extrude5)(REAR wing
Curve Data:N/A
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -238.291, -8220.58,1609.07
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: 103.291, 4952.72,1609.07
lbf

76
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 7 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 839.84 839.84
Shear Force (N) 364.65 50.06 0 368.07
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
No Data

77
Preload units: N.m
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 710.42 710.42
Shear Force (N) 380.91 -20.294 0 381.45
Contact Information
No Data

78
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 6667
Total Elements 3323
% of elementswithAspectRatio < 3 82.7

79
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 600.51 14536.2 -14315 20410.3
Reaction Moments

81
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 6118
56.4675 ksi
Node: 3314
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 4931
0.267428 in
Node: 139

82
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Element: 1249
0.00378028
Element: 2416

83
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 3314
1156.05
Node: 6118
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type

84
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Fatigue Check-Fatigue Check1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 6118
56.4675 ksi
Node: 3314

85
Conclusion
Simulationof Rear
winglet attachment
(V2.1)
Table of Contents
Description......................................................................85
Assumptions ...................................................................86
Units .................................................................................87
Sensor Details.................................................................92
Beams...............................................................................93
Study Results ..................................................................94
Conclusion.......................................................................98
Description
No Data

86
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: Rear winglet attachment (V2.1)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified
Boss-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:9.05058 kg
Volume:0.0011754 m^3
Density:7700 kg/m^3
Weight:88.6957 N
8740REARREAR winglet
attatchment (V2.1)Rear
winglet attachment
(V2.1).SLDPRT
Jul 16 11:18:37 2015

87
Study Properties
Study name Static2
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
Version7Version7.2StaticREARREARwinglet
attatchment(V2.1))
Units
Temperature Kelvin

88
Material Properties
Name: Alloy Steel
Default failurecriterion: Unknown
Mass density: 7700 kg/m^3
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
1.3e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Boss-
Extrude5)(Rear winglet
attachment (V2.1))
Curve Data:N/A
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -238.291, -12330.9,1609.07
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: 103.291, 4952.72,1609.07
lbf

89
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 5 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 736.5 736.5
Shear Force (N) -1288 -867.79 0 1553.1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
No Data

90
Preload units: N.m
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) -0 -0 -576.04 -576.04
Shear Force (N) -841.05 -525.74 0 991.85
Contact Information
No Data

91
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 9169
Total Elements 4636

92
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 1201.01 65639.3 -28629.9 71621.4
Reaction Moments

94
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 110
88.8068 ksi
Node: 7371
Rear winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 2284
0.468557 in
Node: 118

95
Rear winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Element: 2084
0.00206681
Element: 2918

96
Rear winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 7371
283.082
Node: 110

97
Rear winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 110
88.8068 ksi
Node: 7371

98
Rear winglet attachment (V2.1)-Static 2-Stress-Stress2
Conclusion

99
Simulationof FRONT
Cutout)
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Table of Contents
Description......................................................................99
Assumptions .................................................................100
Model Information......................................................100
Study Properties...........................................................101
Units ...............................................................................102
Material Properties......................................................102
Loads and Fixtures.......................................................103
Connector Definitions .................................................104
Contact Information....................................................105
Mesh Information........................................................106
Sensor Details...............................................................107
Resultant Forces...........................................................107
Beams.............................................................................108
Study Results ................................................................109
Conclusion.....................................................................113
Description
No Data

100
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: FRONT wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified

101
Cut-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:1.60416 kg
Volume:0.000572913 m^3
Density:2800 kg/m^3
Weight:15.7207 N
Version 7Version
7.3Material Analysis - Al
Alloy
2024StaticFRONTFRONT
wing attatchment (V3.1 -
Cutout)FRONT wing
attatchment (V3.1 -
Cutout).SLDPRT
Jul 15 20:48:16 2015
Study Properties
Study name Static3
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
(V3.1 - Cutout))

102
Units
Temperature Kelvin
Material Properties
Name: 2024 Alloy
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
2.3e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Cut-
Curve Data:N/A

103
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, -12330.9,2413.6
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, 10417.3,160.69
lbf

104
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 7 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForcesNoData
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data

105
Contact Information
No Data

106
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 6832
Total Elements 3410

107
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 454.6 8512.06 -11451 14275.4
Reaction Moments

109
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 6086
50.5953 ksi
Node: 566
FRONT wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 28
0.226948 in
Node: 142

110
FRONT wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Element: 1325
0.00215223
Element: 2079

111
FRONT wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 566
304.873
Node: 6086

112
FRONT wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type

113
FRONT wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Fatigue Check-Fatigue Check1
Conclusion

114
Simulationof Front
winglet attachment
(V2.1)
Table of Contents
Description....................................................................114
Assumptions .................................................................115
Units ...............................................................................116
Sensor Details...............................................................121
Beams.............................................................................121
Study Results ................................................................122
Conclusion.....................................................................125
Description
No Data

115
Assumptions
Model Information
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified
Boss-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:3.33869 kg
Volume:0.00119239 m^3
Density:2800 kg/m^3
Weight:32.7191 N
Version 7Version
Alloy
2024StaticFRONTFront
winglet attatchment
(V2.1)Front winglet
attachment (V2.1).SLDPRT
Jul 16 11:18:24 2015

116
Study Properties
Study name Static2
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
attatchment(V2.1))
Units
Temperature Kelvin

117
Material Properties
Name: 2024 Alloy
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
2.3e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Boss-
attachment (V2.1))
Curve Data:N/A
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, -12330.9,2413.6
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, 10417.3,160.69
lbf

118
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 5 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 414.28 414.28
Shear Force (N) -2589.7 -173.96 0 2595.5
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data

119
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 165.51 165.51
Shear Force (N) -593.96 827.33 0 1018.5
Contact Information
No Data

120
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 9066
Total Elements 4522

121
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 909.203 17024.1 -22902 28550.8
Reaction Moments
Beams
No Data

122
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1424
53.9691 ksi
Node: 5271
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1680
0.350386 in
Node: 8720

123
Name Type Min Max
Element: 3427
0.00386986
Element: 2012
Name Type Min Max
Node: 5271
61.3995
Node: 1424

124
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1424
53.9691 ksi
Node: 5271

125
Conclusion
attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout)
Table of Contents
Description....................................................................125
Assumptions .................................................................126
Units ...............................................................................128
Sensor Details...............................................................133
Beams.............................................................................134
Study Results ................................................................135
Conclusion.....................................................................139
Description
No Data

126
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: REAR wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified

127
Cut-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:1.52808 kg
Volume:0.000545742 m^3
Density:2800 kg/m^3
Weight:14.9751 N
Version 7Version
Alloy
2024StaticREARREAR
Cutout)REAR wing
attatchment (V3.1 -
Cutout).SLDPRT
Jul 15 20:59:52 2015
Study Properties
Study name Static3
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
(V3.1 - Cutout))

128
Units
Temperature Kelvin
Material Properties
Name: 2024 Alloy
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
2.3e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Cut-
Extrude5)(REAR wing
Curve Data:N/A

129
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -238.291, -8220.58,1609.07
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: 103.291, 4952.72,1609.07
lbf

130
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 7 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data

131
Contact Information
No Data

132
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 6667
Total Elements 3323

133
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 600.507 14536.2 -14315 20410.3
Reaction Moments

135
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 5956
57.2588 ksi
Node: 3314
REAR wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 255
0.225327 in
Node: 139

136
REAR wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Element: 1249
0.00259318
Element: 2416

137
REAR wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 3314
202.495
Node: 5956

138
REAR wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type

139
REAR wing attatchment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Fatigue Check-Fatigue Check1
Conclusion

140
Simulationof Rear
winglet attachment
(V2.1)
Table of Contents
Description....................................................................140
Assumptions .................................................................141
Units ...............................................................................143
Sensor Details...............................................................146
Beams.............................................................................146
Study Results ................................................................147
Conclusion.....................................................................147
Description
No Data

141
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: Rear winglet attachment (V2.1)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified
Boss-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:3.29112 kg
Volume:0.0011754 m^3
Density:2800 kg/m^3
Weight:32.253 N
Version 7Version
Alloy
2024StaticREARREAR
winglet attatchment
(V2.1)Rear winglet
Jul 16 00:09:45 2015

142
Study Properties
Study name Static2
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
Version7Version7.2StaticREARREARwinglet
attatchment(V2.1))

143
Units
Temperature Kelvin
Material Properties
Name: 2024 Alloy
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
2.3e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Boss-
Extrude5)(Rear winglet
attatchment (V2.1))
Curve Data:N/A

144
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -238.291, -12330.9,1609.07
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: 103.291, 4952.72,1609.07
lbf

145
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 5 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data

146
Contact Information
No Data
Mesh Information
No Data
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
No Data
Beams
No Data

147
Study Results
No Data
Conclusion

148
Simulationof FRONT
Cutout)
Table of Contents
Description....................................................................148
Assumptions .................................................................149
Units ...............................................................................151
Sensor Details...............................................................156
Beams.............................................................................157
Study Results ................................................................158
Conclusion.....................................................................163
Description
No Data

149
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified

150
Cut-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:1.62135 kg
Volume:0.000572913 m^3
Density:2830 kg/m^3
Weight:15.8892 N
Version 7Version
Alloy 7050-
T7651StaticFRONTFRON
T wing attatchment (V3.1 -
Cutout)FRONT wing
attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout).SLDPRT
Jul 15 21:06:08 2015
Study Properties
Study name Static3
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
(V3.1 - Cutout))

151
Units
Temperature Kelvin
Material Properties
Name: 7050-T7651
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
2.36e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Cut-
Curve Data:N/A

152
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, -12330.9,2413.6
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, 10417.3,160.69
lbf

153
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 7 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 1361.2 1361.2
Shear Force (N) 348.3 131.43 0 372.27
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
No Data

154
Preload units: N.m
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 1265.4 1265.4
Shear Force (N) 254.23 57.947 0 260.75
Contact Information
No Data

155
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MesherUsed: Standardmesh
Automatic Transition: Off
Include MeshAuto Loops: Off
ElementSize 0.547917 in
Tolerance 0.0273959 in
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 6832
Total Elements 3410

156
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 454.6 8512.06 -11451 14275.4
Reaction Moments

158
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 6269
48.7724 ksi
Node: 566
Name Type Min Max
Node: 270
0.277268 in
Node: 142

159
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Element: 1325
0.00311888
Element: 2432

160
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 566
2028.07
Node: 6269

161
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type

162
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Fatigue Check-Fatigue Check1
Name Type
Displacement1{1} Deformed Shape

163
FRONT wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Displacement-Displacement1{1}
Conclusion

164
Simulationof Front
winglet attachment
(V2.1)
Table of Contents
Description....................................................................164
Assumptions .................................................................165
Units ...............................................................................166
Sensor Details...............................................................171
Beams.............................................................................171
Study Results ................................................................172
Conclusion.....................................................................175
Description
No Data

165
Assumptions
Model Information
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified
Boss-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:3.37446 kg
Volume:0.00119239 m^3
Density:2830 kg/m^3
Weight:33.0697 N
Version 7Version
Alloy 7050-
T7651StaticFRONTFront
winglet attatchment
(V2.1)Front winglet
Jul 16 11:35:31 2015

166
Study Properties
Study name Static2
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
attatchment(V2.1))
Units
Temperature Kelvin

167
Material Properties
Name: 7050-T7651
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
2.36e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Boss-
attachment (V2.1))
Curve Data:N/A
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, -12330.9,2413.6
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: -51.0992, 10417.3,160.69
lbf

168
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 5 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 414.74 414.74
Shear Force (N) -2610.2 -175.98 0 2616.1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data

169
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 165.78 165.78
Shear Force (N) -598.25 834.05 0 1026.4
Contact Information
No Data

170
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 9066
Total Elements 4522

171
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 909.202 17024.1 -22902 28550.8
Reaction Moments
Beams
No Data

172
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1424
53.9851 ksi
Node: 5271
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1680
0.350759 in
Node: 8720

173
Name Type Min Max
Element: 3427
0.00392485
Element: 2012
Name Type Min Max
Node: 5271
396.95
Node: 1424

174
Name Type Min Max
Node: 1424
53.9851 ksi
Node: 5271

175
Conclusion
attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout)
Table of Contents
Description....................................................................175
Assumptions .................................................................176
Units ...............................................................................178
Sensor Details...............................................................183
Beams.............................................................................184
Study Results ................................................................185
Conclusion.....................................................................189
Description
No Data

176
Assumptions
Model Information
Model name: REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)
Solid Bodies
Document Name and
Reference
Document Path/Date
Modified

177
Cut-Extrude5
Solid Body
Mass:1.54445 kg
Volume:0.000545742 m^3
Density:2830 kg/m^3
Weight:15.1356 N
Version 7Version
Alloy 7050-
T7651StaticREARREAR
Cutout)REAR wing
attachment (V3.1 -
Cutout).SLDPRT
Jul 15 21:09:39 2015
Study Properties
Study name Static3
Analysistype Static
Meshtype SolidMesh
Thermal Effect: On
Off
Solvertype FFEPlus
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Friction Off
(V3.1 - Cutout))

178
Units
Temperature Kelvin
Material Properties
Name: 7050-T7651
Thermal expansion
coefficient:
2.36e-005 /Kelvin
SolidBody 1(Cut-
Extrude5)(REAR wing
Curve Data:N/A

179
Loads and Fixtures
Force-1
Type: Apply force
Values: -238.291, -8220.58,1609.07
lbf
Force-2
Type: Apply force
Values: 103.291, 4952.72,1609.07
lbf

180
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 7 face(s)
Units: lbf/in
Elastic Support-1
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
Preload units: N.m
No Data
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 839.84 839.84
Shear Force (N) 364.65 50.06 0 368.07
Entities: 2 edge(s)
Type: Bolt(Head/Nut
diameter)(Counte
rbore)
Nominal shank
diameter:
12.065
Preload (Torque): 0
No Data

181
Preload units: N.m
ConnectorForces
Axial Force (N) 0 0 710.42 710.42
Shear Force (N) 380.91 -20.294 0 381.45
Contact Information
No Data

182
Mesh Information
Meshtype SolidMesh
MesherUsed: Standardmesh
Automatic Transition: Off
Include MeshAuto Loops: Off
ElementSize 0.547917 in
Tolerance 0.0273959 in
MeshQuality High
Total Nodes 6667
Total Elements 3323

183
Sensor Details
No Data
Resultant Forces
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 600.51 14536.2 -14315 20410.3
Reaction Moments

185
Study Results
Name Type Min Max
Node: 6118
56.4675 ksi
Node: 3314
Name Type Min Max
Node: 4931
0.267428 in
Node: 139

186
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Displacement-Displacement1
Name Type Min Max
Element: 1249
0.00378028
Element: 2416

187
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Node: 3314
1364.77
Node: 6118

188
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
Name Type

189
REAR wing attachment (V3.1 - Cutout)-Static 3-Fatigue Check-Fatigue Check1
Conclusion

FinalReport-2.0

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Similar to FinalReport-2.0

Similar to FinalReport-2.0 (20)

FinalReport-2.0