I am a research associate in nonlinear structures at the University of Bristol and specialise in the lightweight design of aerospace components. This means I try to make wings, fuselages, rocket shells, etc. as light as possible without them breaking, snapping, crushing … basically failing in service before they are meant to.

Why nonlinear?

Because designing lightweight structures typically entails optimises one aspect of the structure which is the dominant design driver. However, optimising the performance can make the structure very fragile to collapse once it does eventually break. The sudden and often drastic deformations that are involved in these collapse events can only be modelled accurately on a computer when nonlinearities are accounted for. On the other hand, sometimes we want structures to reliably snap into other shapes if this optimises the performance under changing loading conditions. This is known as shape morphing and is generally how nature goes about solving the problem of optimising for different environments.

You can find my contact details and a list of select publications below. To get in touch, please leave a comment and I will get in touch ASAP.

Rainer Groh, PhD MEng

Postdoctoral Research Associate in Nonlinear Structures

LinkedInTwitterResearchGate, Scholar

Advanced Composites Centre for Innovation and Science (ACCIS)
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol
Queen’s Building, University Walk, Bristol, BS8 1TR

PhD Thesis

RMJ Groh (2015). Non-classical e ffects in straight-fi bre and tow-steered composite beams and plates. University of Bristol. Bristol, UK.


A Madeo, RMJ Groh, G Zucco, PM Weaver, G Zagari, R Zinno  (2017). Post-buckling analysis of variable-angle tow composite plates using Koiter’s approach and the finite element method. Thin-Walled Structures, 110, (pp. 1-13). DOI: 10.1016/j.tws.2016.10.012.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2016). Deleterious localized stress fields: the effects of boundaries and stiffness tailoring in anisotropic laminated plates. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 472 20160391. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2016.0391.

C Thurnherr, RMJ Groh, P Ermanni, PM Weaver (2016). Higher-order beam model for stress predictions in curved beams made from anisotropic materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 97–98, (pp. 16–28). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2016.08.004.

G Zucco, RMJ Groh, A Madeo, PM Weaver (2016). Mixed shell element for static and buckling analysis of variable angle tow composite plates. Composite Structures, 152, (pp. 324–338). DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.05.030.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2016). A computationally efficient 2D model for inherently equilibrated 3D stress predictions in heterogeneous laminated plates. Part II: Model validation. Composite Structures, 156, (pp. 186-217). DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.077.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2016). A computationally efficient 2D model for inherently equilibrated 3D stress predictions in heterogeneous laminated plates. Part I: Model formulation. Composite Structures, 156, (pp. 171-185). DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.078.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver, A Tessler (2015). Application of the Refined Zigzag Theory to the modeling of delaminations in laminated composites. NASA/TM-2015-218808.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2015). On displacement-based and mixed-variational equivalent single layer theories for modelling highly heterogeneous laminated beams. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 59, (pp. 147–170). DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2015.01.020.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2015). Static inconsistencies in certain axiomatic higher-order shear deformation theories for beams, plates and shells. Composite Structures, 120, (pp. 231–245). DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2014.10.006.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2014). Buckling analysis of variable angle tow, variable thickness panels with transverse shear effects. Composite Structures, 107, (pp. 482–493). DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.08.025.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver, S White, G Raju, Z Wu. (2013). A 2D equivalent single-layer formulation for the eff ect of transverse shear on laminated plates with curvilinear fi bres. Composite Structures, 100, (pp. 464–478). DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.01.014.

Conference Papers

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2015). Full-field stress tailoring of composite laminates. IN: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Composite Materials. Copenhagen, Denmark.

RMJ Groh, PM Weaver (2015). Mass Optimization of Variable Angle Tow, Variable Thickness Panels with Static Failure and Buckling Constraints. IN: Proceedings of AIAA SciTech: 56th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, structural dynamics and materials conference. Kissimmee, FL, USA.


Collier Research HyperSizer/AIAA Structures Best Paper Award at AIAA SciTech: 56th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, structural dynamics and materials conference. Kissimmee, FL, USA.

Ian Marshall’s Award for Best Student Paper at the 17th International Conference on Composite Structures, Porto, 2013.


7 Responses to Contact

  1. Hello, Rainer! I’m a pilot in the U.S., flying a Boeing 737. I’ve always been interested in the hows and whys of aircraft design (not all pilots are so interested, though). I’ve always wondered: the 737 cockpit is rather noisy in flight, especially above 250 knots indicated airspeed. Why are some nose designs so different, and how do they affect aerodynamic efficiency and cockpit noise? For instance, the de Havilland Comet used a completely faired nose. But, the 707/727/737 use a stepped nose design, with considerable sharp corners and angles. The 757 nose is much more streamlined (at least it looks that way), and I’ve wondered if it results in less drag than the 707/727/737 nose. Also, all the new-generation aircraft (Boeing 787, Bombarier C-Series, Embraer 170/190) use a completely faired nose section, like the Comet. Could you do an article discussing these traits, and particularly, addressing if the 737 nose section is particularly “draggy?” With the 737MAX on the horizon, I’d like to know if Boeing missed an opportunity to do away with the old 1950’s-era nose section. Thanks! I enjoy your blog.

    • admin says:

      Hi Steve, as you pointed out the shape of the nose is heavily influenced by attempts to reduce drag and thereby maximise aerodynamic performance. The optimum shape of the nose is often determined by the desired flight velocity and therefore the type of flow that passes over the nose section. For commercial subsonic flight pressure-drag due to boundary layer separation is largely non-existent, so most of the drag is a result of skin-friction drag. The shear stresses that cause skin friction are also directly responsible for the noise levels within the cockpit. Skin-friction drag depends on the wetted area and type of flow (laminar or turbulent). For minimum friction and noise you ideally want laminar flow over the nose, which is really difficult to maintain due irregularities in the surface (bugs, scratches, dents) and the presence of any discontinuities in the shape that may trip the boundary layer. So for your 737 you ideally want a short, blunt and smooth elliptical shape. However, the shape of the nose is of course also influenced by packaging constraints for electronic and hydraulic actuating systems etc. and effectively channeling the flow to the rear parts of the aircraft where most of the lift is generated. So as is typically the case, some sort compromise has to be struck in order to maximise the overall performance. I am by no means an expert on the detail design of noses though, so I will do some research and then write an article about the findings. Cheers for reading the blog!

  2. Emma V says:

    Hello Rainer, I’m a high school student about to apply to Engineering. I was wondering whether you thought applying for general engineering and then specializing in aeronautics in the third and fourth year would be a waste of time compared to a 4 years solid aeronautics degree. I’m fascinated by the articles in this blog, but still unsure about whether I’d prefer getting to know all the different disciplines better before making a clear choice (especially because I’ve very intrigued by Mechanical engineering)or just throwing myself into aeronautics and hope for the best. Sorry for this confused comment! Love the blog though!

  3. George Aragon says:

    Hi Rainer, my name is Jorge Gerardo Aragón Villarreal, I´m mexican and currently live in Monterrey, México. I´m in the International Baccalaurete 2 year program and as part of it I need to make a research paper. Mine is about airfoils and I constructed a wind tunnel to make the experimentation. I´m lost in one aspect, however very important.

    How I´m supposed to quantitatively visualize the critical angle of attack in an airfoil? is there any guide or criteria I could use to do it ? how can I determine if the angle of attack in a particular airfoil is , if i just have an wind tunel with smoke visualising ?


  4. Howard Beye says:

    I stumbled onto your blog while looking for Aeronautical Engineering blogs and am very much enjoying it.

  5. Stephen Fraser says:

    Hi Rainer,

    Can you explain horizontal tail dihedral (or anhedral sometimes); what are the main drivers for rigging dihedral in a tailplane?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.