INTRODUCTION

In Aerospace Structures and Design you have done a lab and an analytical study of cantilevered
beams with a focus on the landing gear of a Pazmany PL4. The main focus of this assignment will be
a numerical analysis of that same lab and landing gear. Your tasks will be to carry out two
simulations, firstly on one of the experiments, secondly on your strut design. The rationale for this is
described below.

RATIONALE
In numerical analysis we often talk about a trinity of complementary methods; experimental,
analytical and numerical. Ideally when trying to prove the performance of a component we would
like to conduct all three of these, often that is impractical and some limitations are accepted. The
logic behind wanting all three is important though, particularly when implementing the limitations as
a professional engineer. To understand this better it's worth looking at what we achieve from each of
these in a little detail.

EXPERIMENT
Experiments give us actual data, we have to have some form of experiment to describe the
behaviour of a type of material or a geometry of part. The problem is that materials don't always
behave the same way twice and geometry is subject to inaccuracies (or tolerances!). It's also
expensive to test complicated finished parts, and the test may well be limited in it's loading and
constraining; this means that our test might not represent the real behaviour of the part, and we
don't want to find the answers at 35,000 feet.

A NALYTICAL
If we can describe the part analytically then we can attempt to use simple test data to inform our
analytical solution of a complex part and then attempt to predict the behaviour. This is a well-tested
approach, and we do a lot of calculations based on simple tensile test data (using the yield stress for
instance). Problems exist here in that exact analytical solutions are not always possible, we use
approximations (plane stress and plane strain) to give us definitive solutions, but the approximation
introduces uncertainty. Recall yield criteria and how they give us a good indication, but don't all work
for all materials all the time.

N UMERICAL
The answer to all our problems? Well, no. The computer can only solve the problem with the
information you give it, and that means taking an analytical solution and turning it into a series of
numerical equations, discretising them and trying to tune the solution to match a real behaviour. It
does allow us to consider some complicated shapes and sizes, but it needs a good analytical model
in a reliable numerical format to produce realistic results.
In an ideal world we'd do all three, a simple experiment, check our 'theory' works with an analytical
solution to the simple problem, and compare both of those to a numerical model before using the
numerical tool on a more complicated case. This process of checking against an experiment and a
theory is called Validation and Verification. It is what we'll complete between these two modules.

PART 1 EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION

You should already have a comparison of experimental and analytical data for one of the simple
beams from the ASD Lab. Replicate the geometry, loading and boundary conditions in ANSYS and
compare the deflections to your previous data. You should document the stages for your report,
take screen shots as you go and make notes of your process, another person should be able to
repeat your results from the information in your report. An indicative list of stages is below:
1. Create a geometry based on the measurements of one of the beams
2. following the stepwise guide on Bb:
a. Implement an appropriate fixture condition
b. Apply appropriate loading
c. Generate an initial mesh
3. Solve the model for the current settings, save the output
4. Compare the data, does it match the experiment?
5. If there are discrepancies follow the notes on mesh refinement to improve, record your
results at each stage so you can show a plot of convergence.
NOTE - you are not submitting the same work twice, so cite your past assignment in your
references.

PART 2 FULL SCALE DESIGN

Using the design you produced for a tapered landing gear strut replicate the geometry and load
case in ansys to confirm the performance. It would be sensible to tackle the loads one at a time so
you can describe the following individually prior to confirming overall suitability:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Bending load to evaluate deflection (remember this is our design criteria and must be met)
Compressive load to determine buckling stability
Torsion to consider rotation of strut
Combination to determine if the complex stress state will cause failure to the landing gear.

PART 3 REPORT
Your report should be in a standard format, with contents and section headings, you are free to
choose how you present it but there are also marks for professional presentation. As previously
stated, someone should be able to repeat your work from your report, so include enough detail of
your modelling strategy. The main focus should be documenting the work you have done and
discussing the findings. A critique of your results is essential. Remember, the focus isn't on
producing the best design, it is on using a numerical tool in a competent manner. A typical list of
content is given below, these aren't necessarily section headings:

Introduction
Validation experiment
Validation analysis
FEA of validation and verification of geometry
Discussion and justification of technique
Set up of model for full scale
o Geometry
o loading and constraints
o mesh generation **convergence study**
Results
Discussion and critique

EXTRA MILE WORK

I always include the opportunity to gain extra marks by doing things I haven't listed in the brief.
There are 80 marks available for the required sections, the last 20 will be for making a bit more of
an effort. Suggested extra mile work is below, but feel free to add anything you think is
complementary.
1. Detailed element selection
2. Multiple validation or verification approaches
3. Optimisation of final design