AmericanB763ER
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:41 pm

"Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:17 am

I have done a search on this subject but it didn't return anything to my satisfaction so here goes (quite a simple question):

What's the benefit of a circular fuselage cross section vs. a "double-bubble"-layout. It almost seems to me the circular version is gaining ground as most of the newer aircraft types (all the airbus types + the 777) have that one (OK Emb170/190 and the A380 are exceptions here) - as opposed to the "double-bubble" found on the 767, the older Boeings + Douglas types which have a more or less visible "kink" between the cabin and the cargo hold? Sure there must be aerodynamic reasons behind this.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Javier F. Bobadilla - Iberian Spotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Maartenw


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeroen Hribar
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert Matthews - FliteZoneImages


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Denis Roschlau
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eduard Brantjes



Thanks
Marco
 
411A
Posts: 1788
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 10:34 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:20 am

No, not aerodynamics, just the desire to utilize older tooling left over from previous designs.

Boeing...for example.

The first truly sucessful design for very long range flights (Stratocruiser) used the B29 design plus an extra fuselage lobe, to enhance passenger appeal/space.
This was then ingrained in Boeing thinking, as it is slightly less expensive to design a double lobe fuselage, for the required space desired, yet keep the structure weight down.
This was carried over to the B707 design...and beyond.

Circular is all well and good, but it would appear that some may disagree.
Douglas, for example, when they developed the DC6.
The fuselage might look circular, but it is not (slightly taller than wide) and this was specifically done so that passengers would have more head/shoulder room.
How do I know?
My dear old Dad was the engineering project manager...DC6/DC7.
And, DC8.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:46 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 1):
The first truly sucessful design for very long range flights (Stratocruiser) used the B29 design plus an extra fuselage lobe, to enhance passenger appeal/space.

The Curtiss C46 had a double bubble fuselage but I do not know what the range was....I remember putting my old man on a Stratocruiser for a flight to the UK back in 1956....
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:16 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 1):
No, not aerodynamics

This is not correct. The E170 cross section is a double bubble, and there was no use of old tooling whatsoever. The explanation lies in balancing the desired internal dimensions (pax cabin and cargo compartment) against the drag generated by the fuselage.

To fit the desired dimensions of the E170 into a circular cross-section would mean a significantly larger frontal area and commesurate increase in drag. The same goes for the A380, if the fuselage were circular it would be huge with a lot more volume than necessary, with the extra volume in places that are not practical to use.

The tradeoff is that a non-circular cross section will increase the weight of the fuselage slightly, since a circular section is the ideal shape to resist the pressurization loads.

Several other factors affect the cross section, such as the inclination of the "walls" in the passenger cabin (you want them to be as close as possible to vertical in the area adjoining the seats) and the required volumes for systems.

The crew rest areas in the 777 are a good example of using otherwise unproductive space in a circular cross section.

mrocktor
 
pilotpip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 3:26 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:32 am

The "double-bubble" is also a good marketing tool. Embraer has used this heavily to show the 170/190 family have a larger passenger cabin which would be appealing to Joe Public.
DMI
 
AmericanB763ER
Topic Author
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:19 am

so in the end whatever cross section a manufacturer goes for- each one has its advantages + shortcomings.



Thanks to you all for your replies.


Btw the Vanguard/Merchantman is another great example for a double-bubble - just look how high above the ground the pax door is despite the low sitting fuselage.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Günter Grondstein
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Brian Robbins

 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:24 am

So am I to assume, aerodynamics and structural maters aside, that in fact in a perfect world for cargo and passengers, the best cross section design would be a square?

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:53 am




Quoting UAL747 (Reply 6):
So am I to assume, aerodynamics and structural maters aside, that in fact in a perfect world for cargo and passengers, the best cross section design would be a square?



Shorts certainly thought so:




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Danny Fritsche - Airplanespotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joule





View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © E.S
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Unmuth - VAP







2H4


Intentionally Left Blank
 
User avatar
ZSOFN
Posts: 1379
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:20 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:41 am

One issue not raised is that of pressure. Obviously the most resistant cross sectional shape to the pressures of the cabin vs external pressures in high altitude flight is the circle. So with a "double bubble" are there weaknesses/pressure points to overcome? Are they serious considerations?
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:49 am

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 8):
One issue not raised is that of pressure. Obviously the most resistant cross sectional shape to the pressures of the cabin vs external pressures in high altitude flight is the circle. So with a "double bubble" are there weaknesses/pressure points to overcome? Are they serious considerations?

Mroctor touch upon this in reply 3. It is a factor in the design decision, which will be a trade off with other demands. Also there can be in service issues, such as the 747 fatigue problems in the area where the forward fuelage is not circular (resulting in section 41 mods).

Where the cabin shape is not circular the skin will not be in pure tension, but will have bending loads as well trying to force the skin circular. Either the cabin structure will have to be heavier, or the differential pressure limit will be less. It's possible that the shape can lead to local stress concentrations which will lead to premature fatigue failure.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Aviation
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:28 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:09 pm

Here is the ultimate Double-Bubble design:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralph M. Pettersen



StratoFreighter is the ultimate in the double bubble design

Thanks,
Aaron J Nicoli
Signed, Aaron Nicoli - Trans World Airlines Collector
 
HiFi
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:36 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:08 pm

Quoting ZSOFN (Reply 8):
One issue not raised is that of pressure. Obviously the most resistant cross sectional shape to the pressures of the cabin vs external pressures in high altitude flight is the circle. So with a "double bubble" are there weaknesses/pressure points to overcome? Are they serious considerations?

With a double-bubble, your fuselage is usually heavier, since it needs to be thicker.. Internal volume is reduced (but of course you have the second bubble to add even more volume than with a simple circular cross-section).
no commercial potential
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:48 pm

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 9):
Either the cabin structure will have to be heavier, or the differential pressure limit will be less. It's possible that the shape can lead to local stress concentrations which will lead to premature fatigue failure.

Exactly. Double bubble designs mitigate this issue by placing the "floor" at the level where the bubbles connect. The floor acts like a cross beam and helps to bear the pressure load. In a circular cross section the floor structure is practically unloaded.

Still, the double bubble design will be heavier than a circular design of the same internal volume. The thing is, sometimes the shape of the volume is very important. In airliner design you will be most likely comparing a larger circular cross section versus a smaller double bubble cross section - for the same useful volume.

It boils down to a drag vs weight vs manufacturing cost analysis.

mrocktor
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:23 am

In both circular and double-bubble (assuming the floor attaches exactly where the two bubbles meet) designs, the skin is simply in tension where metals are strongest. In other shapes (including the WhaleJet's ovoid), the pressure loads change the shape (not just the size) of the fuselage. Resisting such deformations requires extra strength which adds extra weight.

Note that the surface area/volume ratio is higher for a double-bubble than a circle. Increasing the surface area increases the weight. A circle would definitely be the best design if all the volume inside could be used effectively, but that is not always the case.

Also note that all the nearly square fuselage cross sections pictured above are unpressurized. A pressurized nearly square cross section would be excessively heavy.
 
LeanOfPeak
Posts: 496
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:18 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:32 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
Also note that all the nearly square fuselage cross sections pictured above are unpressurized. A pressurized nearly square cross section would be excessively heavy.

Witness the 3.3 psi differential pressure limit on the Cessna P337 and P210, 3.9 psi on the Beech 58P Baron, and 5.1 psi on the Piper Malibu/Mirage series, which rose to 5.5 psi for the Meridian.

Such low differential pressure limits are not practical for aircraft cruising at jet altitudes. Therefore, the shape of the cross-section becomes more important.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:22 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 13):
In both circular and double-bubble (assuming the floor attaches exactly where the two bubbles meet) designs, the skin is simply in tension where metals are strongest. In other shapes (including the WhaleJet's ovoid), the pressure loads change the shape (not just the size) of the fuselage. Resisting such deformations requires extra strength which adds extra weight.

The A380 is a triple bubble design. It uses both floors as cross beams - one floor exactly at each junction between the three bubbles.

Neither double bubble nor triple bubble designs require extra strength, except that the floors must be designed to take the tension at the bubble junctions.

The A380 triple bubble design makes it a lausy outsize cargo plane. It needs the two floors to keep the three bubbles in perfect bubble shape. If anyone of the floors were removed the fuselage would break apart when pressurized.

The mostly circular fuselage on the 747 (especially with front loading door) is in a totally different league concerning outsize cargo. Even if the floor on the upper deck also is a cross beam on the forward double bubble part. The "problems" on the 747 is where the double bubble part blends gradually into the circular (single bubble) part. That is one very complicated piece of structure.

The British military Nimrod is also a very obvious double bubble, but different. The upper bubble is an ordinary Comet circular single bubble, and the lower bubble is not pressurized. No cross beam needed.

And the A300 Beluga: Not pressurized at all. Only the flight deck is pressurized.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:49 pm

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
If anyone of the floors were removed the fuselage would break apart when pressurized.

I doubt that very much. The floor contributes to the strength of the structure, but is not a critical part of the design, or shouldn't be.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
mrocktor
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Sat Oct 01, 2005 5:29 am

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 16):
I doubt that very much. The floor contributes to the strength of the structure, but is not a critical part of the design, or shouldn't be.

All certification tests are performed with the floor in place, given the geometry, the floor is loaded - thus the floor's contribution is used for certification purposes.

Maybe the fuselage would not burst with the floor removed, since all structures are overdesigned by a specific safety margin, however the structure would certainly not meet certification specs without the floor.

mrocktor



[Edited 2005-09-30 22:30:45]
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:30 am

Quoting 411A (Reply 1):
The first truly sucessful design for very long range flights (Stratocruiser) used the B29 design plus an extra fuselage lobe, to enhance passenger appeal/space.

It wasn't much of a moneymaker, though. The DC-7 seemed to be better at that, although they all had the engine reliability issues (-7C, 1649A, Stratocruiser).


And I'm not sure if describing the A380 as a triple bubble design is quite accurate. I've lost the picture, but I saw a graphic (from Airbus) showing how they came up with the A380's cross-section. It was two large circles, with two smaller internally tangent circles. It basically is a double-bubble design.
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: "Double Bubble" Vs. Circular Cross Section

Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:53 pm

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 12):
The floor acts like a cross beam and helps to bear the pressure load. In a circular cross section the floor structure is practically unloaded.

Then that explains the differences I've felt underfoot walking in a B737 and A320....no one has been able to explain the "flimsier" feeling of the A320 when compared to the B737....until now. Now, it makes perfect sense.

I love how answers to questions get answered in such roundabout ways! Wink
Delete this User

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests