English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

There exist different kinds of aircrafts, such as conventional airplane, rotorcraft, fighter, and unmanned aerial vehicle. Their shape and feature are dependent upon their own assigned mission. One of the fundamental analyses performed during the aircraft design is the structural analysis. It becomes more complicated and requires severe computations because of the recent complex trends in aircraft structure. In order for efficiency in the structural analysis, a simplified approach, such as equivalent beam or plate model, is preferred. However, it is not clear which analysis will be appropriate to analyze the realistic configuration, such as an aircraft wing, i.e., between an equivalent beam and plate analysis. It is necessary to assess the limitation for both the one-dimensional beam analysis and the two-dimensional plate theory. Thus, in this paper, the static structural analysis results obtained by EDISON solvers were compared with the three-dimensional results obtained from MSC NASTRAN. Before that, EDISON program was verified by comparing the results with those from MSC NASTRAN program and other analytic solutions.

Comparison between Numerical Results of 1D Beam and 2D Plane Stress Finite Element Analyses Considering Aspect Ratio of Cantilever Beams