BEAMS WITH FLAT STIFFENED WEBS IN INCOMPLETE DIAGONAL-TENSION

by Cezar I. Moisiade

An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved: _________________________________________ Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Hartford, Connecticut August, 2009

 Copyright 2009 by Cezar I. Moisiade All Rights Reserved

ii

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF SYMBOLS...................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGMENT .................................................................................................. xi ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... xii 1. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND........................................................................ 1 2. METHODOLOGY, ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF BEAMS IN INCOMPLETE DIAGONAL TENSION .............................................................................................. 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 Limitations and Assumptions of IDT Theory .................................................... 4 Recommended Design Limitations .................................................................... 4 Web, Post-Buckling Analysis ............................................................................ 5 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 2.3.7 2.3.8 2.3.9 Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss)................. 5 Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf) .......................................................... 5 Critical shear stress (Fscr) ....................................................................... 7 Diagonal-tension factor (k) .................................................................... 8 Angle of diagonal-tension () ................................................................ 8 Flange flexibility factor (wd).................................................................. 9 Angle and stress concentration factors (c1, c2, c3).................................. 9 Web peak nominal stress (fs_max).......................................................... 10 Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all)................................................... 10

2.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb) ............................................................ 10 2.4 Upright Analysis .............................................................................................. 11 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.5 Upright column buckling ..................................................................... 11 Upright forced crippling....................................................................... 13

Analysis of Fasteners ....................................................................................... 14 2.5.1 Web To Flange Fasteners..................................................................... 14

iii

2.5.2 2.5.3 2.6

Upright to Flange Fasteners ................................................................. 14 Upright to Web Fasteners .................................................................... 15

Flange Analysis................................................................................................ 16 2.6.1 2.6.2 Compression Flange............................................................................. 16 Tension Flange ..................................................................................... 16

2.7

Web Stress Components .................................................................................. 17

3. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF A BEAM IN INCOMPLETE DIAGONAL TENSION .................................................................................................................. 18 3.1 3.2 3.3 Input Data for IDT Analysis of beam III-25-6D [Ref. # 5, pg. 36] ................. 19 Limitations IDT Theory, Verification.............................................................. 20 Web, Post-Buckling Analysis .......................................................................... 21 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.7 3.3.8 3.3.9 Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss)............... 21 Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf) ........................................................ 21 Critical shear stress (Fscr) ..................................................................... 23 Diagonal-tension factor (k) .................................................................. 24 Angle of diagonal-tension () .............................................................. 24 Flange flexibility factor (wd)................................................................ 25 Angle and stress concentration factors (c1, c2, c3)................................ 25 Web peak nominal stress (fs_max).......................................................... 26 Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all)................................................... 26

3.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb) ............................................................ 26 3.4 Upright Analysis .............................................................................................. 27 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.5 Upright column buckling ..................................................................... 27 Upright forced crippling....................................................................... 29

Fasteners Analysis............................................................................................ 30 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 Web To Flange Fasteners..................................................................... 30 Upright to Flange Fasteners ................................................................. 30 Upright to Web Fasteners .................................................................... 31 iv

3.6

Flange Analysis................................................................................................ 32 3.6.1 3.6.2 Compression Flange............................................................................. 32 Tension Flange ..................................................................................... 32

3.7

Web Stress Components .................................................................................. 33

4. RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA ........................................... 34 4.1 4.2 Margins of Safety Summary ............................................................................ 34 Analytical vs. Test Results, Comparison ......................................................... 35

5. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 37 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 38 APPENDIX A. ATTACHED ELECTRONIC FILES.................................................... 39 APPENDIX B. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS - PRELIMINARY ........................... 40

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Margin of Safety Summary ............................................................................... 34 Table 2. Analytical vs. Test Results, Comparison........................................................... 35 Table 3. Current Methodology vs. NACA Analytical Prediction ................................... 36 Table 4. Analytical Predictions vs. Test Results ............................................................. 36

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Beam with Stiffened Webs in IDT, Tested by NACA. ...................................... 2 Figure 2. Beam with Thin Stiffened Webs in Incomplete Diagonal Tension. .................. 3 Figure 3. Finite Element Model and Boundary Conditions............................................. 41 Figure 4. Eigen-Buckling Results, 44th Eigenvalue, Relative Z Displacement [in]. ....... 42 Figure 5. Nonlinear-Buckling Results, Z Displacement [in]........................................... 43 Figure 6. Nonlinear-Buckling Results, 1st Principal Stress [psi]. .................................... 44 Figure 7. Nonlinear-Buckling Results, Shear Stress [psi]. .............................................. 44

vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS
DT PDT IDT Afc Aft Au Aue bu c1 c2, c3 cc, ct CR d dc E eu ef fu fu_max fs fs_max ffc fft Fs_all Fc Fcc Ffc Fty Ftu Fsu diagonal-tension pure diagonal-tension incomplete diagonal-tension cress-sectional area of compression cap-flange, in2 cress-sectional area of tension cap-flange, in2 cress-sectional area of upright, in2 effective cress-sectional area of upright, in2 width of outstanding leg of upright, in angle factor. stress concentration factors. distance from centroid of cap-flange to extreme fiber of flange, in upright column buckling reduction factor. spacing of uprights, in clear upright spacing, measured as shown in Figure 2 elastic modulus, psi distance from median plane of the web to centroid of (single) upright, in distance from median plane of the web to centroid of (single) upright, in upright stress caused by diagonal-tension, psi maximum upright stress caused by diagonal-tension, psi shear stress applied to web, psi web peak nominal stress, psi stress in compression flange caused by diagonal-tension effect, psi stress in tension flange caused by diagonal-tension effect, psi web nominal stress allowable, psi upright column buckling allowable, psi upright crippling allowable, psi upright forced-crippling allowable, psi yield tension allowable, psi ultimate tension allowable, psi ultimate shear allowable, psi viii

Fscr_el Fscr h he hc hu Ic It Iu k Kss Le Mfc Mft Mf_max matu matw Nu Nuf Ngusset Ps Pu Pu_DT Puf_all Ptens_ult Pfc Pft

elastic critical shear stress, psi critical shear stress corrected for plasticity effects, psi depth of beam, in effective depth of beam, measured between centroids of flanges, in clear dept of web, measured as shown in Figure 2, in upright length, measured between controids of upright-to-flange rivet patterns, in compression cap-flange cross-sectional moment of inertia about neutral axis, in4 tension cap-flange cross-sectional moment of inertia about neutral axis, in4 upright cross-sectional moment of inertia about neutral axis, in4 diagonal-tension factor theoretical shear buckling coefficient for a simply supported plate effective upright length, in moment in compression cap flange, not related to DT, in-lb moment in tension cap flange, not related to DT, in-lb maximum flange primary bending moment caused by DT effect, in-lb flag, defining upright material type flag, defining web material type flag, defining number of uprights upright to flange, number of fasteners (one end only) numbers of upright fasteners reacting upright load in gusset action. load applied to the beam that generates shear q in the web load in upright, not related to DT, to upright, lb load in upright, caused by DT, lb upright to flange fasteners, total joint shear allowable, considering gusset action, lb upright fasteners, required ultimate tension strength, lb load in compression cap flange, not related to DT, lb load in tension cap flange, not related to DT, lb ix

Pwf_shear_ult Puf_shear_ult Puw_shear_ult Puw_tens_ult Puu_shear_ult q qf qu qu_all Qu Rf Ru swf suw tf tu tw wd PDT u

web to flange fasteners shear ultimate allowable, lb upright to flange fasteners shear ultimate allowable, lb upright to web fasteners shear ultimate allowable, lb upright to web fasteners tensile ultimate allowable, lb upright-to-upright fasteners shear ultimate allowable (for double uprights only), lb shear flow in web, lb/in shear flow reacted by the flange fasteners, lb/in required upright fasteners shear flow to prevent premature column buckling (for double fasteners only). upright fasteners single shear allowable (for double fasteners only). static moment about neutral axis upright (for double uprights), in3 web fixity coefficient at the flange web fixity coefficient at the uprights web to flange fasteners spacing, in upright to web fasteners spacing, in thickness of flange, in thickness of upright, in web thickness, in flange flexibility factor. angle of pure diagonal tension relative to natural axis of the beam, deg. angle of incomplete diagonal tension relative to natural axis of the beam, deg. upright cross-section centroidal radius of gyration about axis parallel to web, in

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to dedicate my work to my son that will be born in few months, and express my love and gratitude to my beloved wife; for her understanding, patience and endless love, through the duration of my studies. I would like to convey thanks to Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, my project adviser, for his guidance and valuable feedback, during the completion of my Master Project and during my graduate studies at RPI.

xi

ABSTRACT
In aeronautical applications, beams with thin stiffened webs are often designed considering the post-buckling capability of the web under shear load. Web buckling under shear load does not represent failure. The web has additional post-buckling capability to carry load in diagonal-tension. The analysis of post-buckling webs is tedious and time consuming, and the use of a numerical program that incorporates the methodology and performs the calculations is desired. The effort for the current project was focused on developing a numerical program using MathCad, for analyzing beams in incomplete diagonal tension. The current report presents the methodology and a numerical analysis for predicting ultimate failure of beams in incomplete diagonal tension. The numerical analysis was performed for a beam that was tested by National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in reference #5. An evaluation of the analytical results and a comparison with the test results from reference #5 was performed in order to validate the methodology. The analytical prediction was different by only 2.6% from the actual failure resulted from test. A MathCad file including the program that performs the analysis of beams in incomplete diagonal tension is attached in Appendix A. The curve-fits for the charts from reference #1 were completed in Microsoft Excel and a file including the resulted data is attached in Appendix A.

xii

1. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND
The development of the diagonal-tension webs it was an outstanding step forward in the structural aeronautical design. Original work on beams in diagonal-tension was performed by National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in 1928 and documented in reference #6. The most complete theory of beams in incomplete diagonal tension was developed by NACA in 1952, and presented in references #1 and #5. Additional improvements were developed in 1969 by a NASA funded program, and performed by Grumman Aerospace, presented in reference #2. Post-buckling capability of a beam with stiffened thin webs, under shear load, is far greater then the load producing buckling of the web. The structure does not fail when the web buckles; the web forms diagonal fold and functions as a series of tension diagonals, while the stiffeners act as compression posts. The web-stiffener system changes from a structure with shear resistant webs towards a truss structure. When the structure works as a truss, the web carries the entire load in diagonal-tension and none in shear, the web is in a state of pure diagonal-tension. A shear-resistant web carries the entire load in shear and none in diagonaltension. Truly shear-resistant webs are possible but rare in aeronautical practice. Practically, all webs fall into the intermediate region of incomplete diagonal tension, where the web carries part of the load in shear, and the rest of it is carried in diagonal tension. The state of incomplete diagonal tension is an interpolation between the theoretical states of shear-resistant and pure diagonal tension. The analysis of beams with stiffened webs, in incomplete diagonal tension, is tedious and time consuming, and the use of a numerical program that incorporates the methodology and performs the calculations is desired. The effort for the current project was focused on developing a numerical program using MathCad, for analyzing beams in incomplete diagonal tension. The methodology used in the current report, for predicting failure of beams with stiffened webs in incomplete diagonal tension is based on the theory and empirical data form references #1 to 4. The numerical analysis was performed for a beam that was tested by NACA in reference #5. An evaluation of the analytical results and a comparison with the test 1

results from reference #5 was performed in order to validate the methodology. The analytical prediction was different by only 2.6% from the actual failure resulted from test. A MathCad file including the program that performs the analysis of beams in incomplete diagonal tension is attached in Appendix A. The completion of a program that performs IDT analysis, required having available equations for all the charts from reference #1. The curve-fits were completed in Microsoft Excel and a file including the resulted data is attached in Appendix A. An example of a beam with stiffened webs in incomplete diagonal tension, tested by NACA in reference #5, is shown in Figure 1, where the diagonal web wrinkles can be seen.

Figure 1. Beam with Stiffened Webs in IDT, Tested by NACA 1 .

Reference #1, page 103.

2. METHODOLOGY, ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF BEAMS IN INCOMPLETE DIAGONAL TENSION

The methodology presented below is based on the theory developed in references 1 to 4, and is applicable to beams with thin stiffened webs, having single or double uprights or cap flanges as shown in Figure 2.

Double Uprights dc bu tu dc

Single Uprights

eu

Ps d

Cap tf tw Web hc hu h he

Upright

Flange Cap

Figure 2. Beam with Thin Stiffened Webs in Incomplete Diagonal Tension. Note: In Figure 2, for both, upper and lower cap, positive moment is reacted by flange cap in compression. The theory of webs incomplete diagonal tension is a method for interpolating between the two limiting cases of shear-resistant and pure diagonal tension, the limiting cases being included.

Failure modes for beams with stiffened webs in incomplete diagonal-tension are defined in four categories: a) Sheet failure rupturing of the sheet prior to any instability in the uprights (stiffeners). b) Upright local failure by forced crippling local buckling of one or more uprights, causing a significant drop in the uprights sustained load, resulting in sheet failure or total collapse, due to redistribution of loads. c) Upright failure by column buckling long column buckling of one or more stiffeners, that eventually results in collapse of the structure. d) Fastener failure not common in a good design. e) Flange failure not common in good design.

2.1 Limitations and Assumptions of IDT Theory

The following geometrical limitations shall be considered, due to limitation of test data:
115 < hc tw < 1500 0.2 < dc hc < 1.0 tu tw > 0.6

Assumptions that were made: Web and uprights are made from the same material. Open section upright riveted to the web.

2.2 Recommended Design Limitations

To prevent premature fatigue failure due to excessive wrinkling for ultimate loads, it is recommended that,
K < Klimit

where:

Klimit := 0.78

tw in

0.012

For fatigue critical webs, it is recommended that,

fs Fscr 5

2.3 Web, Post-Buckling Analysis

2.3.1 Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss) 2

The theoretical shear-buckling coefficient for a plate with simply supported edges is given by:

dc dc Kss := 2.865 + 0.787 + 4.807 hc hc

2.3.2

Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf) 3

The coefficients Ru and Rf are coefficients of web edge restraint, taken as R = 1 for simply supported edges and R = 1.62 for clamped edges. In actual beam webs, the edge supports are determined by the flanges and the uprights; the panel edges are thus neither simply supported nor clamped. The web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for single uprights:
tu tu tu Ru1 := 0.3299 + 0.2904 + 0.0015 if 0.6 tw tw tw tu tu 0.9977 0.3011 if 0.6 < 1.25 tw tw
2

tu tu tu tu 0.2667 1.7829 t + 4.0405 t 1.8343 if 1.25 < t 2.5 tw w w w tu 0.04 + 1.1917 otherwise tw

2 3

Ref. 1, pg. 106, fig. 12(a). For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A. Ref. 1, pg. 106, fig. 12(b). For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A.

Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for double uprights:

Ru2 := tu tw if tu tw 1
3 2

tu tu tu tu 0.1511 1.0476 + 2.5772 0.6802 if 1 < t t t 2.5 tw w w w tu 0.09 + 1.3508 otherwise tw

Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, considering single or double uprights is:
Ru := Ru1 if Nu Ru2 if Nu 1 2

Web fixity coefficient at the cap-flanges, for single flange:

tf tf tf Rf1 := 0.3299 + 0.2904 + 0.0015 if 0.6 tw tw tw tf tf 0.3011 if 0.6 < 0.9977 1.25 tw tw
2

tf tf tf tf 1.7829 + 4.0405 1.8343 if 1.25 < 0.2667 2.5 tw tw tw tw tf 0.04 + 1.1917 otherwise tw
Web fixity coefficient at the cap-flanges, for double flange:
Rf2 := tf tw if tf tw 1
3 2

tf tf tf tf 1.0476 + 2.5772 0.6802 if 1 < 0.1511 2.5 tw tw tw tw tf 0.09 + 1.3508 otherwise tw

Web fixity coefficient at the cap-flanges, considering single or double flanges is:
Rf := Rf1 if Nf Rf2 if Nf 1 2

2.3.3

Critical shear stress (Fscr)

Theoretical formulas for the critical shear stress are available for plates with all edges simply supported, all edges clamped, or one pair of edges simply supported and the other pair calmed. With sufficient accuracy for practical purposes, NACA developed a formula for critical shear stress, which includes the effect of web fixity, by using the theoretical formulas, supplemented by empirical restraint coefficient. Elastic critical shear (Fscr_el) 4 , including the effect of web fixity:
tw Fscr_el := Kss Ew dc
3 dc dc 1 Ru + ( Rf Ru ) if 1 2 hc hc 2 3 tw hc 1 Kss Ew Rf + ( Ru Rf) otherwise hc 2 dc 2

Critical shear stress corrected for plasticity effects (Fscr) 5 : For Clad AL 7075-T6:
Fscr_7075T6 := Fscr_el if Fscr_el 5ksi 0.8056 Fscr_el + 0.9722ksi if 5ksi < Fscr_el < 41ksi 0.2211Fscr_el + 24.937ksi if Fscr_el 41ksi

For Clad AL 2024-T3:

Fscr_2024T3 := Fscr_el if Fscr_el 10ksi 0.0003 ksi
2

Fscr_el

0.0367 ksi

Fscr_el + 1.7357 Fscr_el 3.8817ksi if Fscr_el > 10ksi

4 5

Ref. 1, pg. 42, or pg. 26 formula 32. Ref. 1, pg. 107, figure 12c. For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A.

Considering materials listed above the critical shear corrected for plasticity effects is:
Fscr := Fscr_7075T6 if matw Fscr_2024T3 if matw 7075 2024

2.3.4

Diagonal-tension factor (k) 6

A diagonal-tension factor of 1.00 defines a web in pure diagonal tension (no load carried in shear), and a diagonal tension factor of 0.00 defines a web, carrying load in pure shear.
k := tanh 0.5 log

fs if fs Fscr Fscr

0 otherwise

Where fs is the web shear stress:

q fs := tw

2.3.5

Angle of diagonal-tension ()

The effective cross-sectional area 7 of the stringer is:

A ue := Au if Nu 2 1

where:

eu 1+ u
A u if Nu

u :=

Iu Au

6 7

Ref. 1, pg. 18, formula 27 Ref. 1, pg. 41, section 4.1

The buckling angle for pure diagonal-tension 8 is:

4 h tw 1+ A fc + A ft PDT := atan d tw + 1 A ue

The buckling angle for incomplete diagonal-tension was calculated by linear interpolation:
:= 45deg k 45deg PDT

2.3.6

Flange flexibility factor (wd) 9

4

wd := d sin ( )

1 + 1 tw I I 4h c e t

2.3.7

Angle and stress concentration factors (c1, c2, c3)

Angle factor 10 :
c1 := sin ( 2 ) 1 1

Stress concentration factors 11 :

c2 := 0 if wd 1 0.0573 wd 0.2074 wd + 0.2994 wd 0.15 if 1 < wd 3 0.54 wd 1.19 otherwise
3 2

8 9

Ref. 1, pg. 10, formula 15 Ref. 1, pg. 11, formula 19 Rer. 1, pg. 27 Ref. 1, pg. 112, figure 18. For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A.

10 11

c3 :=

1 if wd 1 wd 0.0648 wd + 0.1204 wd + 0.9391 if 1 < wd 5 0.0053 0.58 otherwise

3 2

2.3.8

Web peak nominal stress (fs_max) 12

fs_max := fs 1 + k c1 1 + k c2
2

Stress in the web is expressed as nominal shear stress for k = 0 and nominal diagonaltension stress for k = 1.

2.3.9

Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all) 13

2 1 1 Ftu_web 1 3 Fsu_web Fs_all := 0.9 Fty_web 1 + 1 + ( 1 k) 2 F 2 ty_web Ftu_web 2

Web nominal stress allowable satisfies shear failure for pure shear ( k = 0 ) and tensile failure for pure diagonal-tension ( k = 1 ).

2.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb)

MSweb := Fs_all fs_max 1

12 13

Ref. 1, pg. 27, formula (33a). Ref: 2, pg. 16

10

2.4 Upright Analysis

2.4.1 Upright column buckling

Upright effective length 14 :

Le := hu d 1 + k 3 2 h u
2

if d 1.5 h

h u otherwise

Upright stress due to diagonal-tension 15 :

k fs tan ( ) fu := A ue + 0.5 ( 1 k) d tw

Upright Euler column buckling stress allowable:

Le Fc := Eu 2 u
2

if Nu

(Single uprights) (Double uprights)

Le Eu u
2

if Nu

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Fc := min Fc , Fcy_upright

For double uprights only, the fasteners holding the uprights together need to be checked if they have the capability to transfer the following shear flow:

14 15

Ref. 1, pg. 46, formula 35 Ref. 1, pg. 19, formula 30a

11

q u :=

2.5 Fcy_upright Qu b u Le 0 otherwise

if Nu

Uprights fasteners single shear allowable:

q u_all := Puu_shear_ult s uw

If fastener shear allowable (qu_all) is less then applied shear, the allowable stress for column failure must be multiplied by the following reduction factor 16 :
2 q u_all q u_all CR := 25.609 + 50.831 + 73.753 if 0 < q u_all < qu 100 qu qu

1.00 otherwise

Recalculate upright column buckling stress allowable ( Fc ):

Fc := CR Fc

Upright margin of safety for column buckling:

MSu_col_bukling := Fc Pu A ue + fu 1

16

Ref. 1, pg. 116, figure 21. For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A.

12

2.4.2

Upright forced crippling

Upright maximum stress ( fu_max ) 17 :

d fu_max := fu ( 1 k) 0.7729 0.6366 h + fu u

Upright forced crippling stress allowable ( Ffc ) 18 :

3

Ffc :=

32500 k
3

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

( ( ( (

7075 Nu

) ( ) ( ) ( ) (

) ) ) )

(Single uprights, 7075-T6)

26000 k
3

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

2024 Nu

(Single uprights, 2024-T3)

26000 k
3

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

7075 Nu

(Double uprights, 7075-T6)

21000 k

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

2024 Nu

(Double uprights, 2024-T3)

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Ffc := min Ffc , Fcy_upright

Upright margin of safety for forced crippling:

MSu_forced_crippling := Ffc fu_max 1

Note: Natural crippling is not a controlling factor in the design. 19

17 18 19

Ref. 1, pg. 110, figure 15. For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A. Ref. 1, pg. 46-47, formulas 36 and 37 Ref. 3, pg. C11.18

13

2.5 Analysis of Fasteners

2.5.1 Web To Flange Fasteners

The fasteners that connect the web to the cap-flange are required to have the capability to carry the following shear flow 20 :
q f := q he hu ( 1 + 0.414 k)

Web to flange fasteners margin of safety:

MSwf_fasteners := Pwf_shear_ult s wf q f

2.5.2

Upright to Flange Fasteners

The fasteners that connect the upright to the flange-cap are required to have the capability to carry the upright load into the flange. Upright Load due to DT ( Pu_DT ) 21 :
Pu_DT := fu A ue

Total fastener joint shear allowable considering gusset action:

Puf_all := Nuf Puf_shear_ult + Ngusset Nuf Puw_shear_ult if Ngusset > Nuf Nuf Puf_shear_ult otherwise

Upright to flange fasteners margin of safety:

MSuf_fasteners := Puf_all Pu_DT 1

20 21

Ref. 1, pg. 34, formula 34. Ref. 1, pg. 48, formula 39.

14

2.5.3

Upright to Web Fasteners

Upright to web fasteners required to have enough tension strength 22 to prevent tension failure caused by the web wrinkles:
Ptens_ult := 0.22 tw s uw Ftu_web if Nu 0.15 tw s uw Ftu_web if Nu 1 2

Upright to web fasteners margin of safety:

MSuw_tens_fasteners := Puw_tens_ult Ptens_ult 1

22

Ref. 1, pg. 49, formulas 41 and 42

15

2.6 Flange Analysis 23

2.6.1 Compression Flange
k q h e cot ( ) 2 A fc

Compressive stress in flange caused by DT:

ffc :=

Primary maximum bending moment in the flange (over an upright) is:

M f_max := k c3 q h e d tan ( )
2

12 h

Compression flange margin of safety:

MSc_flange := Fcc_flange

Pfc Mfc cc Mf_max cc + f + fc I Ic A fc c

2.6.2

Tension Flange
k q h e cot ( ) 2 A ft

Tension stress in flange caused by DT:

fft :=

Tension flange margin of safety:

MSt_flange := Ftu_flange

Pft Mft ct Mf_max ct + f + ft + I It A ft t

23

Ref. 1, pg. 50, sec. 4.16

16

2.7 Web Stress Components 24

Tension in direction:
f := sin ( 2 ) 2 k fs + ( 1 k) fs sin ( 2 )

Compression in + /2 direction:
f90 := ( 1 k) fs sin ( 2 )

Shear in plane:
fs := ( 1 k) fs cos ( 2 )

Maximum principal stress direction:

:= 1 2 atan

tan ( 2 ) k

Principal tension (in direction):

f1 := sin ( 2 ) k fs + fs 1 + k
2

1
2

sin ( 2 )

Principal compression (in + /2 direction):

f2 := sin ( 2 ) k fs fs 1 + k
2

1
2

sin ( 2 )

Principal shear (in + /4 plane):

f3 := fs 1 + k
2

1
2

sin ( 2 )

24

Ref. 2, pg. A9, formulas A.10 to A.16

17

3. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF A BEAM IN INCOMPLETE DIAGONAL TENSION

The analysis was performed for beam III-25-6D 25 , from reference # 5, applying the methodology presented in the prior chapter. The beam mentioned above was tested, by NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), up to failure. A comparison between the analytical results and the test data results from reference #5 is presented in next chapter. Beam III-25-6D was chosen to validate the methodology of the previous chapter for the following reason: NACA analytical prediction for beam III-25-6D was one of the most unconservative predictions from a set of 49 beams 26 . NACA analytically predicted failure at a load 7% higher then actual failure load resulted form test.

The general built-up structure of beam III-25-6D is as follow:

beam height is 26.1 web is 0.0295, 7075-T6 AL Clad double uprights: two back-to-back angles (0.625 x 0.625) fabricated for 0.049, 7075-T6 AL Clad double flange: two back-to-back extruded angles (2.00 x 2.00 x 0.188), 7075T6 AL Extrusion.

Loading of the structure: The cantilever beam III-25-6D was loaded at the free end with a transversal load Ps = 11,699lb, representing the ultimate load at failure, based on methodology from previous chapter.

25 26

Ref. # 5, pg. 36, Table 1. Ref # 5, pg. 37 and 39, Tables 2 and 4.

18

3.1 Input Data for IDT Analysis of beam III-25-6D [Ref. # 5, pg. 36]
The following data was used as input for the MathCad Code from Appendix A. Applied Loads: Web shear flow:
q = 481 lb in

generated by applied transversal load: Ps = 11699lb, where:

q := Ps he

Internal stiffener and flange loads:

Pu := 0lb Pfc := 0lb M fc := 0in lb Pft := 0lb M ft := 0in lb

Note: For both, upper and lower cap, positive moment is reacted by Flange Cap in compression.

Web Properties:
t w := 0.0295in h e = 24.3 in h c := 22.1in Ew := 10500000psi Fsu_web := 44000psi

Fty_web := 63000psi matw := 7075

Ftu_web := 74000psi

(matw=7075 for material AL 7075-T6; matw=2024 for material AL 2024-T3)

Upright Properties:
d := 15.00in Au := 0.107in
2 3

d c := 14.375in eu := 0.00in b u := 0.625in

h := 26.1in Iu := 0.00857in

h u := 23.3in
4

t u := 0.049in

Qu := 0.0038in Nu := 2 matu := 7075

(for double uprights only)

(N u=1 for single uprights; Nu=2 for double uprights) (matu=7075 for material AL 7075-T6; matu=2024 for material AL 2024-T3) Fcy_upright := 63000psi

Eu := 10500000 psi

19

Flange Properties:
t f := 0.188in Afc := 1.5in Fcc_flange := 70000 psi Nf := 2
2

Aft := 1.5in Ic := 0.348in Ftu_flange := 79000psi cc := 0.547in

It := 0.348in ct := 0.547in

(Nf=1 for single flange; N f=2 for double flange)

Fasteners Properties: Web to flange fasteners ultimate joint allowable and spacing:
Pwf_shear_ult := 613lb

(HL18-5 in 0.0295 AL Clad 7075-T6, double shear).

swf := 0.85in

Upright to flange fasteners ultimate joint allowable, and number of fasteners reacting the upright load in gusset action:
Puf_shear_ult := 2466lb
Nuf := 1

(1 x HL18-6 in 0.049 AL Clad 7075-T6, 2 x single shear).

Ngusset := 2

Upright to web fasteners ultimate joint allowable and spacing:

Puw_shear_ult := 613lb
Puw_tens_ult := 1440lb

(HL18-5 in 0.0295 AL Clad 7075-T6, double shear).

suw := 0.85in

For double uprights only, upright-to-upright single shear fastener joint allowable.
Puu_shear_ult := 1096lb (HL18-5 in 0.049 AL Clad 7075-T6, single shear).

3.2 Limitations IDT Theory, Verification

The following geometrical limitations shall be considered, due to limitation of test data:
hc tw dc hc tu tw = 749 115 < hc tw dc hc < 1500

= 0.65

0.2 < tu tw

< 1.0

= 1.66

> 0.6

The beam meets all geometrical limitations shown above.

20

3.3 Web, Post-Buckling Analysis

3.3.1 Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss)

From section 2.3.1, theoretical shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel is:

dc dc Kss := 2.865 + 0.787 + 4.807 hc hc

Kss = 6.531

3.3.2

Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf)

The web fixity coefficients are calculated based on the methodology from section 2.3.2. Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for single uprights:
tu tu tu Ru1 := 0.3299 + 0.2904 + 0.0015 if 0.6 tw tw tw t u tu 0.3011 if 0.6 < 0.9977 1.25 tw tw
2

tu tu tu tu 1.7829 + 4.0405 1.8343 if 1.25 < 0.2667 2.5 tw tw tw tw t u 0.04 + 1.1917 otherwise tw
Ru1 = 1.18

Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for double uprights:

Ru2 := tu tw if tu tw 1
3 2

tu tu tu tu 1.0476 + 2.5772 0.6802 if 1 < 0.1511 2.5 tw tw tw tw tu 0.09 + 1.3508 otherwise tw

Ru2 = 1.403

21

Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, considering single or double uprights is:
Ru := Ru1 if Nu Ru2 if Nu 1 2 Ru = 1.403

Web fixity coefficient at the cap-flanges, for single flange:

tf tf tf Rf1 := 0.3299 + 0.2904 + 0.0015 if 0.6 tw tw tw tf tf 0.3011 if 0.6 < 0.9977 1.25 tw tw
2

tf tf tf tf 1.7829 + 4.0405 1.8343 if 1.25 < 0.2667 2.5 tw tw tw tw tf 0.04 + 1.1917 otherwise tw
Rf1 = 1.447

Web fixity coefficient at the cap-flanges, for double flange:

Rf2 := tf tw if tf tw 1
3 2

tf tf tf tf 1.0476 + 2.5772 0.6802 if 1 < 0.1511 2.5 tw tw tw tw t f 0.09 + 1.3508 otherwise tw

Rf2 = 1.924

Web fixity coefficient at the cap-flanges, considering single or double flanges is:
Rf := Rf1 if Nf Rf2 if Nf 1 2 Rf = 1.924

22

3.3.3

Critical shear stress (Fscr)

The following calculations are based on methodology from section 2.3.3. Elastic critical shear (Fscr_el):
tw Fscr_el := Kss Ew dc
3 dc dc 1 Ru + ( Rf Ru ) if 1 2 hc hc 2 3 tw hc 1 Kss Ew Rf + 2 ( Ru Rf) d otherwise hc c 2

Fscr_el = 426psi

Critical shear stress corrected for plasticity effects (Fscr): For Clad AL 7075-T6:
Fscr_7075T6 := Fscr_el if Fscr_el 5ksi 0.8056 Fscr_el + 0.9722ksi if 5ksi < Fscr_el < 41ksi 0.2211Fscr_el + 24.937ksi if Fscr_el 41ksi

Fscr_7075T6 = 426psi

For Clad AL 2024-T3:

Fscr_2024T3 := Fscr_el if Fscr_el 10ksi 0.0003 ksi
2

Fscr_el

0.0367

Fscr_el + 1.7357 Fscr_el 3.8817ksi if Fscr_el > 10ksi ksi

Fscr_2024T3 = 426psi

Considering materials listed above the critical shear corrected for plasticity effects is:
Fscr := Fscr_7075T6 if matw Fscr_2024T3 if matw Fscr = 426psi 7075 2024

23

3.3.4

Diagonal-tension factor (k)

From section 2.3.4, the applied shear stress is:

q fs := tw fs = 16320psi

From section 2.3.4, the diagonal-tension factor is:

k := tanh 0.5 log

fs if fs Fscr Fscr

0 otherwise
k = 0.659

3.3.5

Angle of diagonal-tension ()

The following calculations are based on the methodology from section 2.3.5. Effective cross-sectional area of the stringer is:
A ue := Au if Nu 2 1

where:

eu 1+ u
A u if Nu
2

u :=

Iu Au

2 u = 0.283 in

A ue = 0.107 in

Buckling angle for pure diagonal-tension is:

4 1 + h tw A fc + A ft PDT := atan d tw + 1 A ue
PDT = 35.1deg

24

Buckling angle for incomplete diagonal-tension was calculated by linear interpolation:

:= 45deg k 45deg PDT = 38.49deg

3.3.6

Flange flexibility factor (wd)

From section 2.3.6, the flange flexibility factor is:

4

wd := d sin ( ) wd = 1.91

1 + 1 tw I I 4h c e t

3.3.7

Angle and stress concentration factors (c1, c2, c3)

The following calculations are based on the methodology from section 2.3.7. Angle factor:
c1 := sin ( 2 ) 1 1

c1 = 0.0264

Stress concentration factors:

c2 := 0 if wd 1 0.0573 wd 0.2074 wd + 0.2994 wd 0.15 if 1 < wd 3 0.54 wd 1.19 otherwise c2 = 0.064
3 2

c3 :=

1 if wd 1 0.0053 wd 0.0648 wd + 0.1204 wd + 0.9391 if 1 < wd 5 0.58 otherwise

3 2

c3 = 0.97

25

3.3.8

Web peak nominal stress (fs_max)

From section 2.3.8, the web peak nominal stress is:

fs_max := fs 1 + k c1 1 + k c2
2

fs_max = 17206psi

Stress in the web is expressed as nominal shear stress for k = 0 and nominal diagonaltension stress for k = 1.

3.3.9

Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all)

From section 2.3.9, the web nominal stress allowable is:

2 1 1 Ftu_web 1 3 Fsu_web Fs_all := 0.9 Fty_web 1 + 1 + ( 1 k) 2 F ty_web 2 Ftu_web 2

Fs_all = 28997psi

Web nominal stress allowable satisfies shear failure for pure shear ( k = 0 ) and tensile failure for pure diagonal-tension ( k = 1 ).

3.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb)

MSweb := Fs_all fs_max 1

MSweb = 0.69

26

3.4 Upright Analysis

3.4.1 Upright column buckling

The following calculations are based on the methodology developed in section 2.4.1. Upright effective length:
Le := hu d 1 + k 3 2 h u
2

if d 1.5 h

h u otherwise Le = 17.64 in

Upright stress due to diagonal-tension:

k fs tan ( ) fu := A ue + 0.5 ( 1 k) d tw fu = 20760psi

Upright Euler column buckling stress allowable:

Le Fc := Eu 2 u
2

if Nu

(Single uprights) (Double uprights)

Le Eu u
2

if Nu

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Fc := min Fc , Fcy_upright Fc = 26672psi

27

For double uprights only, the fasteners holding the uprights together need to be checked if they have the capability to transfer the following shear flow:
q u := 2.5 Fcy_upright Qu b u Le 0 otherwise q u = 54 lb in if Nu 2

Uprights fasteners single shear allowable:

q u_all := Puu_shear_ult s uw lb in

q u_all = 1289

If fastener shear allowable (qu_all) is less than applied shear, the allowable stress for column failure must be multiplied by the following reduction factor:
2 q u_all q u_all CR := 25.609 + 50.831 + 73.753 if 0 < q u_all < qu 100 qu qu

1.00 otherwise CR = 1.00

Recalculate upright column buckling stress allowable ( Fc ):

Fc := CR Fc Fc = 26672psi

Upright margin of safety for column buckling:

MSu_col_bukling := Fc Pu A ue MSu_col_bukling = 0.28 + fu 1

28

3.4.2

Upright forced crippling

The following calculations are based on the methodology developed in section 2.4.2. Upright maximum compressive stress ( fu_max ):
d fu_max := fu ( 1 k) 0.7729 0.6366 h + fu u fu_max = 23327psi

Upright forced crippling stress allowable ( Ffc ):

3

Ffc :=

32500 k
3

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

( ( ( (

7075 Nu

) ( ) ( ) ( ) (

) ) ) )

(Single uprights, 7075-T6)

26000 k
3

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

2024 Nu

(Single uprights, 2024-T3)

26000 k
3

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

7075 Nu

(Double uprights, 7075-T6)

21000 k

2 tu

tw

psi if matu

2024 Nu

(Double uprights, 2024-T3)

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Ffc := min Ffc , Fcy_upright Ffc = 23327psi

Upright margin of safety for forced crippling:

MSu_forced_crippling := Ffc fu_max 1

MSu_forced_crippling = 0.00

Note: Natural crippling is not a controlling factor in the design.

29

3.5 Fasteners Analysis

3.5.1 Web To Flange Fasteners

As shown in section 2.5.1, web to flange fasteners react the following shear flow:
q f := q he hu ( 1 + 0.414 k)

q f = 639

lb in

Web to flange fasteners margin of safety:

MSwf_fasteners := Pwf_shear_ult s wf q f

MSwf_fasteners = 1.13

3.5.2

Upright to Flange Fasteners

As shown in section 2.5.2, upright to flange fasteners react the load existing in the upright, due to DT into the flange. Upright Load due to DT ( Pu_DT ):
Pu_DT := fu A ue Pu_DT = 2221 lb

Total fastener joint shear allowable considering gusset action:

Puf_all := Nuf Puf_shear_ult + Ngusset Nuf Puw_shear_ult if Ngusset > Nuf Nuf Puf_shear_ult otherwise Puf_all = 3079 lb

Upright to flange fasteners margin of safety:

MSuf_fasteners := Puf_all Pu_DT 1

MSuf_fasteners = 0.39

30

3.5.3

Upright to Web Fasteners

As shown in section 2.5.3, upright to web fasteners required to have enough tension strength to prevent tension failure caused by the web wrinkles:
Ptens_ult := 0.22 t w s uw Ftu_web if Nu 0.15 t w s uw Ftu_web if Nu Ptens_ult = 278.332lb 1 2

Upright to web fasteners margin of safety:

MSuw_tens_fasteners := Puw_tens_ult Ptens_ult 1

MSuw_tens_fasteners = 4.17

31

3.6 Flange Analysis

3.6.1 Compression Flange

The following calculations are based on the methodology presented in section 2.6.1. Compressive stress in flange caused by DT:
ffc := k q h e cot ( ) 2 A fc

ffc = 3234psi

Primary maximum bending moment in the flange (over an upright) is:

M f_max := k c3 q h e d tan ( )
2

12 h

M f_max = 4273 in lb

Compression flange margin of safety:

MSc_flange := Fcc_flange

Pfc Mfc cc Mf_max cc + f + A fc I Ic fc c

MSc_flange = 6.04

3.6.2

Tension Flange

The following calculations are based on the methodology presented in section 2.6.2. Tension stress in flange caused by DT:
fft := k q h e cot ( ) 2 A ft

fft = 3234psi

Tension flange margin of safety:

MSt_flange := Ftu_flange

Pft Mft ct Mf_max ct A + fft + I + It ft t

MSt_flange = 6.94

32

3.7 Web Stress Components

The following calculations are based on the methodology presented in section 2.7. Tension in direction:
f := sin ( 2 ) 2 k fs + ( 1 k) fs sin ( 2 ) f = 27507psi

Compression in + /2 direction:
f90 := ( 1 k) fs sin ( 2 ) f90 = 5416psi

Shear in plane:
fs := ( 1 k) fs cos ( 2 ) fs = 1253psi

Maximum principal stress direction:

1 2

:=

atan

tan ( 2 ) k

= 40.7deg

Principal tension (in direction):

f1 := sin ( 2 ) k fs + fs 1 + k
2

1
2

sin ( 2 )

f1 = 27555psi

Principal compression (in + /2 direction):

f2 := sin ( 2 ) k fs fs 1 + k
2

1
2

sin ( 2 )

f2 = 5463psi

Principal shear (in + /4 plane):

f3 := fs 1 + k
2

1
2

sin ( 2 )

f3 = 16509psi

33

4. RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA

4.1 Margins of Safety Summary
A summary of margins of safety calculated in previous chapter are presented in Table 1 below. Applied transversal load, at the free end of the cantilever beam III-25-6D was Ps = 11,699 lb.

Structure

Critical Failure Mode

MS

Web Upright

Sheet Failure due to IDT Column Buckling Forced Crippling

0.69 0.28 0.00 1.13 0.39 4.17 6.04 6.94

Fasteners - Web to Flange - Upright to Flange - Web to Upright Compression Flange Tension Flange

Bearing in Web Bearing in Upright Fastener Tension Natural Crippling Tension Strength

Table 1. Margin of Safety Summary As shown in Table 1, the failure mode of the beam is upright forced crippling (lowest margin of safety). The beam is expected to fail at an applied transversal load Ps = 11,699lb, for which the upright forced crippling margin of safety is zero.

34

4.2 Analytical vs. Test Results, Comparison

Beam III-25-6D was tested to failure by NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) and the test results are documented in reference # 5. A comparison between the analytical results and the test results is presented in Table 2.

Result to Compare

Units

NACA Test Results

NACA Analytical Prediction

Current Methodology Analytical Prediction

Symbol

Web Critical Shear Stress DT Factor Ult. Column Buckling Load Ult. Forced Crippling Load

Fscr k Fc Ffc

Psi --lb lb

------11,400

410 0.662 14,800 12,200

426 0.659 14,610 11,699

Ult. Load Web Failure

Fw -

lb

---

20,500

19,530

Failure Mode

--

---

F.C.

F.C.

F.C

Table 2. Analytical vs. Test Results, Comparison Note: F.C. stands for upright forced crippling.

35

A comparison of the current methodology to NACA analytical prediction, based on the results listed in Table 2, is shown in Table 3.

Result to Compare

Current Methodology vs. NACA Analytical Prediction

Web Critical Shear Stress DT Factor Ult. Column Buckling Load Ult. Forced Crippling Load

+3.9% +0.5% -1.3% -4.1%

Ult. Load Web Failure

-4.7%

Table 3. Current Methodology vs. NACA Analytical Prediction

A comparison of the analytical predictions to the NACA test results, based on the results listed in Table 2, is shown in Table 4.

Result to Compare

Current Methodology Analytical Prediction vs. NACA Test Results

NACA Analytical Prediction vs. NACA Test Results +7.0%

Ult. Forced Crippling Load

+2.6%

Table 4. Analytical Predictions vs. Test Results

36

5. CONCLUSIONS
1) As can be seen in Table 2 and 4, NACA analytical prediction for upright forced crippling (Ffc) was 7.0% higher then the load at failure resulted from test. The current methodology analytical prediction was only 2.6% higher then the actual load at failure. That shows that the current methodology presented in Chapter 2 of this report is at least as accurate as NACA analytical prediction. 2) Both analytical predictions (NACA and current methodology form Chapter 2) showed unconservative results for upright forced crippling failure. Considering that for ultimate failure analysis the loads have a built in a factor of safety of 1.5, the 2.6% variation from the test failure is negligible. 3) Current methodology prediction of the uprights ultimate column-buckling load is 1.3% more conservative than NACA analytical prediction. 4) Current methodology prediction of the ultimate load for web failure is 4.7% more conservative than NACA analytical prediction. 5) Based on the comparison shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4, the methodology presented in Chapter 2 is considered valid and applicable in practice.

37

REFERENCES
1) "NACA-TN-2661" A Summary of Diagonal Tension, Part I Methods of Analysis, NACA, Washington, May 1952. 2) "NASA-CR-101854" Investigation of Diagonal-Tension Beams with Very Thin Stiffened Webs, Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York, July 1969 (Includes an improvement to the NACA method. Study completed by Grumman Aerospace for NASA). 3) "Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures" (Chapter C11), by E.F. Bruhn, Jacobs Publishing, June 1973. 4) "Airframe Stress Analysis and Sizing" 2nd Edition, by Michael Niu (Chapter 12), Hong Kong Conmilit Press, 1997. 5) "NACA-TN-2662" A Summary of Diagonal Tension, Part II Experimental Evidence, NACA, Washington, May 1952. 6) "NACA-TM-490" Structures of Thin Sheet Metal, Their Design and Construction, NACA, December 1928.

38

APPENDIX A. ATTACHED ELECTRONIC FILES

The electronic files listed below are compressed in file: Appendix A, MP Beams in IDT, C_Moisiade.zip File Name Beams_in_IDT_Cezar_Moisiade_ 07-11-2009.xmcd NACA_Charts_Cezar_Moisiade_0 7-11-2009.xls File Type MathCad 13 Description Includes the numerical methodology to perform analysis of beams in IDT. Includes curve fits for NACAMicrosoft Excel TN-2661 charts used in IDT analysis.

39

APPENDIX B. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY

Additional efforts have been done on performing a finite element simulation of a stiffened web in incomplete diagonal tension. The efforts have not been completed. The simulation got as far as developing the methodology and getting preliminary results for a test model that was used to validate the methodology. The nonlinear post-buckling analysis was performed in ANSYS 8.0, following three steps: 1. Static Linear Analysis - of a panel under shear load. 2. Eigen-Buckling Analysis performed for the pre-stress panel, using the results from step 1. 3. Nonlinear Buckling Analysis the panel had the geometry perturbed based on a specific eigen-value resulted from step 2, then a large deflection analysis, using arc-length method was performed. The panel geometry was 0.020 x 12.0 x 12.0, and the material AL 7075-T0. For this preliminary run, the stiffeners and flanges were defined by an area of 0.10 in2, area moment of inertia of 0.010 in4, and elastic modulus of 30e6 psi. The panel was modeled with shell elements # 181, and the stiffeners and flanges were modeled with beam elements # 4. Fasteners were simulated using rigid coupled constrains. All electronic files for Appendix B, are compressed in folder: Appendix B, MP Beams in IDT, FEAnalysis, C_Moisiade.zip

40

The finite element model including boundary conditions is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Finite Element Model and Boundary Conditions.

41

Preliminary out of plane displacement results from the eigen-buckling analysis are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Eigen-Buckling Results, 44th Eigenvalue, Relative Z Displacement [in].

42

Preliminary results from the nonlinear buckling analysis are shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7. The applied shear load got up to 43.4 lb/in. The analysis will have to continue to get to higher loads.

Figure 5. Nonlinear-Buckling Results, Z Displacement [in].

43

Figure 6. Nonlinear-Buckling Results, 1st Principal Stress [psi].

Figure 7. Nonlinear-Buckling Results, Shear Stress [psi]. 44

The ANSYS input file for the three analysis steps, listed above, is shown below.
!********************************** !* Step 1, Static Linear Run * !********************************** /SOLU ! F=100 P=.00001 fscale,F sfscale,pres,P ! antype,static EQSLV,SPAR, ,0, NLGEOM,0 PSTRES,ON ! SOLVE FINISH ! /POST1 FINISH ! !********************************* !* Step 2, Eighen Buckling * !********************************* /SOLU ANTYPE,buckle BUCOPT,LANB,50,0,0 MXPAND,50,0,0,yes,0.001, SOLVE FINISH ! /POST1 FINISH ! !********************************* !* Step 3, Nonlinear Buckling * !********************************* /PREP7 sfdele,all,all UPGEOM,0.01,1,44,'ms05-ev','rst' ! F=600 fscale,F ! /SOLU nl_cntrl=1 ! ANTYPE,STATIC NLGEOM,ON OUTRES,ALL,ALL, ! *if,nl_cntrl,eq,0,then time,F SOLCONTROL,ON NROPT,FULL NSUBST,50,1e4,25 *elseif,nl_cntrl,eq,1 SOLCONTROL,OFF NSUBST,50,1e4,25 AUTOTS,OFF ARCLEN,ON,25,.0001 ARCTRM,U,.02,102,UX *endif ! SOLVE FINISH

!shear force applied (lbs) !side pressure applied (psi)

!delete pressure !perturb geometry per 44th buckling mode !shear force applied (lbs)

45