The bending stress beam formula will give erroneous values
if used up to complete failure of the wing section since the formula is based on linear o-c relation of the wing section
The non-linearity in the wing section stress-strain relation first comes due to skin buckling and second time comes from stringer buckling
x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . How do we calculate this ultimate bending resistance of the beam section? Use beam equation: f The aim here is to bring in modifications such that the linear theory beam formula can still be used to predict accurately the stresses in the beam cross section right up to the failure bending moment
It essentially means to play around with I x and Z in such a way as to make this expression still relevant to predict failure of the wing section in pure bending after elasto-plastic buckling deformations
x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f In the above discussion, the stringers (c) were considered to hold their ultimate buckling load during considerable additional axial strain
This can be verified experimentally by testing practical columns.
Practical columns are not perfect relative to straightness, uniformity of materials etc
Fig A19.18 shows the load Vs lateral deflection of the column midpoint as a column is loaded to failure and fails by elastic buckling
Fig A19.19 shows similar result when the failure is by inelastic bending
f Fig A19.18 shows that when the compression member finally fails in elastic bending, it normally continues to carry approximately the maximum load for a considerable additional deformation
Even in in-elastic buckling it still does not fail but carries some load for a considerable additional straining
f The bending stress beam formula does not take care of this non-linear o - c response
x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be computed fairly accurately by using this formula
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t t t t t C C C C C M da z da z da z da z da z da z da z da z dA g dA g dA g dA g dA g o o o o o o o o o o o o o = + + + + + + + + + + + + f Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be computed fairly accurately by using this formula
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t t t t t C C C C C M da z da z da z da z da z da z da z da z dA g dA g dA g dA g dA g o o o o o o o o o o o o o = + + + + + + + + + + + + x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be computed fairly accurately by using this formula
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t t t t t C C C C C M da z da z da z da z da z da z da z da z dA g dA g dA g dA g dA g o o o o o o o o o o o o o = + + + + + + + + + + + + f Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be computed fairly accurately by using this formula
f Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be computed fairly accurately by using this formula
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t t t t t t t t C C C C C M da z da z da z da z da z da z da z da z dA g dA g dA g dA g dA g o o o o o o o o o o o o o = + + + + + + + + + + + + f Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be computed fairly accurately by using this formula
The stress engineer usually addresses this issue by using a modified cross section, usually referred to as effective cross section
x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f A19.11 Effective section at failing load
The effectiveness of the skin panels will be considered first
When a compressive load is applied to a sheet stringer combination, the thin sheet buckles at rather low stress
Upon further loading the compressive stress varies over the panel width as illustrated in fig A19.20
Skin panel (buckled) stringer Variable stress distribution on the buckled skin panel Stress on the skin over the stringer o st o c A19.11 Effective section at failing load
The stress in the sheet at the stringer attachment line is the same as in the stringer since sheet cannot buckle and takes the same axial strain of the stringer between the stringers, the sheet stresses decrease due to buckling as shown in the figure
f This variable stress condition is difficult to predict using the beam formula since it is at the same distance away the neutral axis
x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f The stress engineer makes a convenient substitution by replacing the actual sheet with variable stress by a width of sheet carrying a uniform stress equal to the stringer stress x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f This effective width = 2W with uniform stress (= stringer stress) is shown in fig A19.21.
2W is estimated such the total load carried by the effective width at o st stress is the same as the total load carried by the actual width of the panel (stringer pitch) with variable stress
f This effective width is given by
where K = 1.9, t = skin thickness, o st = stringer stress
This effective width 2W of skin is considered now as part of the stringer area which takes bending load
o st can be predicted by the beam formula and we have maintained the total load carrying ability of the buckled skin by replacing the skin with actual width by the effective width
1/ 2 2 st E W Kt | | = | o \ . f Therefore, if we know the stress in the stringer we can find the effective width of the sheet to go with the stringer to obtain the effective section to take care of skin buckling
f Effective Factor for buckled stringers Consider the beam section in fig A19.17 If we take a stringer (c) of length = rib spacing, attach a piece of sheet equal to 2W, the effective width, brace it in a plane parallel to the sheet and test in compression, the resulting stress Vs compressive strain curve (c) of fig A19.22 will result
1/ 2 2 st E W Kt | | = | o \ . f The corner members (a) or (b) in fig A19.17 is stabilized in two directions and will fail by local crippling. Thus if a piece of corner member (a) of length equal to rib spacing, with effective width 2W attached on top and another 2W attached on one side and braced against column buckling is tested, curve (A) of fig A19.22 will result
f Curve (c) shows that the stringer holds approximately its maximum load for a considerable axial strain range
Curve (A) shows that for the same unit strain corner member (a) can take considerably higher stress
If we take a unit strain of 0.006, the strain at which the corner member develops the maximum stress of 47,000 psi, the stringer stress will be 38,000 psi only
f Since the distance Z from the N.A to the stringer (c) and the corner members (a) or (b) is the same, this formula will compute only one value both for the stringer and the corner member
b M Z I | | o = | \ . f As shown in the experimental curves of fig A19.22, at a c = 0.006 it cannot be made to predict two different values (47,000 for corner member and 38,000 for stringer)
b M Z I | | o = | \ . f The stress engineer designs the section in such a way that using the beam formula he predicts the corner flange failure stress near to 47,000 psi
He also is forced to compute the same 47,000 psi as the stress developed in the stringer but multiplies this value with a factor such that the true stress developed in the stringer is obtained (approximately 38,000 psi)
x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f This factor is referred to as stringer effectiveness factor given by:
Ultimate strengthof stringer Stringer effectiveness factor Ultimate strengthof corner members | | = | \ . 38000 0.808 47000 | | = = | \ . f To summarize the concept of predicting the elasto-plastic ultimate bending moment carried using linear beam formula:
First the buckling of skin and next the column buckling of stringer take place well before the wing beam section develops its failing bending resistance
These two buckling phenomena make the o-c relationship non- linear
Therefore the beam equation which is based on a linear relationship between o-c (axial stress and axial strain) in its original form cannot be used to predict the internal stresses developed in the skin, stringers and corner members right up to the failing bending moment M x
x b x M Z I | | o = | \ . f
Referring to fig A19.17, the cross section will have an unique value of I x . In addition the distances of the skin, stringers and corner members from the neutral axis are the same (one value)
As a consequence, the compressive bending stress calculated from this beam equation will give a single value for the skin, the stringers and the corner members
b M Z I | | o = | \ . f At the design bending moment at which the corner members fail in compressive crippling, the stresses in the skin, the stringer and the corner members are different
At the given design B.M these three different stresses cannot be predicted by the beam formula
In order to be able to use the beam equation to predict the ultimate bending moment carrying capacity of the cross section where at the time of failure the stresses in the skin, in the stringer and in the corner members are different we have to bring in the following modifications. f One can say that:
1) the corner member is fully effective in resisting compressive bending stress right up to failure B.M
2) the stringer plus the effective width of skin is less effective and is unable to go up to the corner member stress due to column buckling
3) the skin is even less effective due to buckling at very low load
f
In the tensile stress side of the neutral axis in figure A19.17 the skin, the stringer and corner members will have same tensile stress value at the time of failure as all are fully effective in taking tensile stress
f On the other hand, in the compression side of the neutral axis the effectiveness of skin, stringer and corner members are different
In the beam equation, this ineffectiveness is accounted for in the term I. A modified I is computed based on an effective section area in compression in place of the geometrical area
b M Z I | | o = | \ . f The actual width of skin between stringer center lines is replaced by an effective width which is much less than the actual width. Thus the effective area under compression is reduced 2 1.9 st E W t = o f Even in this approximation care has been taken to see that the total compressive load carried by the actual width of the skin is still carried by 2W but with a constant stress = o st
The areas of the stringers and corner members are increased by 2W.t (the effective area of the skin)
The ineffectiveness of this new stringer area is accounted for by multiplying by the effectiveness factor (0.808 in this case)
Thus the stringer effective area is reduced
Both of these will modify the I of the section f A19.12 Example problem:
The wing section in fig A19.23 is subjected to a design bending moment about X-axis of 5,00,000 in lb, acting in a direction to put the upper portion in compression
The problem is to determine the margin of safety for this design bending moment