REPORT No. 35.

‘THE STRENGTH OF ONE-PIECE SOLID, BUILT-UP AND LAMINATED WOOD AIRPLANE

WTNG BJMMS.
By JOHN H. NELSON.

The present wsr has caused an unprecedented demand for sekcted spruce for airplane
construction. The incressed demand hss necessarily caused a greatly incressed output.
However, the magnitude of the requirements and methods of Cmatructioq whereby a large
part of the seIected stock is wssted in the construction of the one-piece besms, makes the
prcbkm of fumishhg sufficient seIected stock a very serious one, even with the enlarged output;
The remedy for this condition Iies either in the discovery of a perfectly satisfactory sub-
stitute for the spruce now used, or in the development of some method of construction which
WU conserve the present supply by utilizhg more of the selected material.
In an attempt to Jind a solution of the above probhm, certain experiments were conducted
during the psst year at the Bureau of Standsrds. Testi wwe made on several of the more
common wooda to determine their suitabtity as substitutes for spruce. Further, beams built
up of three pi- or of Iaminated construction have been tested to determine their strength
in comparison with the one-piece construction.
The buih-up and laminated constructions ehninate the wasti involved in the process of
cutting an I section from solid timber. Ih such construction it is also possible to use wood
in short lengths, and though the cost of manufacturing built-up beans is somewhat great=
than that of producing the solid beams, the c&t of the raw materhl utilized is much 1=s thsn -
the cost of the careftdly salected timbers used for solid beams.
The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of all wood airplane wing beans
tested to date in the Bureau of Standsrds laboratory @ order that the various kinds of wood
and methods of construction maybe compared.
All besma tested were of an I section and the majority were somewhat similar in size and
cm= section to the front wing beam of the Curtiss J&4 machine.
As ta methods of construction, the beams maybe classed as (1) solid beams cut from did
stock; (2) three-piece beams, built up of three pieces, web and flanges ghed tagethm by a
tongue-and~ove joint; and (3] laminated besms built up of thin laminations of wood glued
together.
This report includes three sets of -t data:
(a) Fourteen solid beams, designated by English numerats in this report, were made in
the Bureau of Staudards shop. The purpose of these tests was (1) ta determine the suitability —
of h and cypress woods for airpl~e use, compared with Sitka spruce, and (2) to determine
whether a plain rectangdar I+mction beam possessed any advantage over the oblique I-section
besm, which is used at present, other than the advantsge of simplicity in shop practice.
(b) Fifteen beams were submitted for test by the Naval &rcrsft Factory, Philadelphia.
These beams were designated by the Roman No. ~ to identify the series, followed by sub-
numbers 5 to 19, ta indicate the beams of the series. These beams were sll built of spruce;
seven were solid besms and eight were thret+piece beams. Th- km% were made (1) ta deter-
mine the advantsge of the rectangular I-section over the obfique I-section, if SDY; (2) to coq~e
three-piece besms-with solid beams; and (3) to determine the effect of splicing three-piece beams.
354
 -. .
..._. .— .-

%cSIONSOF
LAMNAT= kFUtiE b-l:
Tns W%. L& %&..
21620 17- \92
22640 01\6AlFJ
2’2640 .01 IS E la

BUREAU OF %ANDMW
WA5kUNGT0t+ ,TJ.C.
Diw.?15-I. Feb.&,19~8 F V.\

Ez YIL
—

— .—,

sEc-r&!cF,
LAMINATEDW06D
AmwumEBEAMS
-rins2262- Lab H&?

x XII m

m m mu

233
 STRENGTH OF AIRPIANE WING BEAMS. 355

(c) Twenty-three laminated beams were submitted for test, 14 by the West l’l%odworking
Co. of Chicago, and 9 by Aeronautical Equipment @c.), of New York City. These beams .—.
me designated by Roman numerals throughout this report. Four of thwe beams were built ,.r

of cypress wood and the remainder of spruce; a number of the spruce beams had additional
laminations of hardwood pkced advantageously in the beam section. These beams were tested
to determine the merits of laminated beam construction, with the view of using it as a substitute
for solid beams.
.-
All beams were 90 incheg long. A sketch of each beam section, giving its dimensions and
propertim, is shown on the following pages. Photographs are ako shown of sections cut from .-
laminated beams I to X.X.
METHODS OF TEST. .
.-
AH beams were tested for transverse stren@h by two-point Ioadhg. Load was applied —
at points 24 inches from supports in an 84-inch span.
A vibratory or repeated stress t=t was made on beam No. X to note the ef?eot of vibrations
upon a laminated beam. The beam was loaded repeatedly” to a stress of about two-thirds
the elastic limit. Applications of stress occurred at the rate of 74 per minute for 14 hours. --
It was then loaded to rupture and the results noted.
Shear tests of glued joints were made on sections cut from a nu~ber of the tit laminated
hwus, to determined the ability of the glue joints, between the web and flanges, to withstand
shear stresses. To avoid unnecessary cohmms of figures, the glue shear test data will be omitted
from this report. The results showed the glue joint b be stronger in shear than the wood
web section in the case of relatively dry test specimens, and also in the csse of moist specimens
exposed for four and one-half days in a humidity chamber (relative humidity 65 per cent
saturation, at 65° F) before being tested.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS.

While this report doas not contain data from an exhaustive series of tests on builkup
beam constructions, it is apparent that the resuh obtained are conclusive enough to warrant
the acceptance of certain definite conclusions. This is true notwithstanding the fact that
the work wae carried out under conditions which precluded certaj.n desirable scientific require-
——
ments such as identicd material for alI beams.
1. It is apparent that beams of fir can be produced which, weight for weight, will prove
as strong as those made of spruce, but -wiI1not, however, show quite the same stiffness;
further, that cypress can not be considered as a satisfactory substitute for spruce. (Cf. data
on beams 1 to 15 solid besma; hems WI and VIII of laminated construction.)
2. On the basis of equal section moduli the rectangular sections are stronger than the
okdique sections. (Cf. data on beams 1 to 15 solid.)
3. Beams made up of three pieces can be produced which wilI be as strong es the solid
beam construction. ITMe these tests indicate that a Iarger variation in strength may be
expected with the three-piece beams, such variation is apparently not more than that which is
ordharily expected with wood construction. The solid beams with which the three-piece
beams were compared gave rmarkably consistent strengths for wood construction.
4. Beams of the laminated construction ctin be built which will be as stro~m as the one-
piecel (soIid) construction.
5. The detaila of construction employed in thre+piece and huninated constructions have
a large influence on the strength of the fhished beam:
(a) Three-piece and Iaminated beams are not weakened when properly spliced. Scarf
joints only are permissible for splices. Butt joints are unsatisfactm-y. A suitable scarf joht
is made by cutting the ends to be spliced with a slope of thre+fonrths in 10; these ends are then

overlapped and glued. (Cf. beams 1-5 to 1-19 and remarks on beams I to IV, XVI to XVIII,
and XXIII.)
356 ~NUAL REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOB AERONAUTICS.

1=49/ 1= 44W6
sk7kwaf&&?l Z? SectAm-#’

P’si

f -aW I“z3/2#.4 I-2.64ti ●

Section of Beonis-IX,X. Secfim Of&Mm aim Secfkw at?eom AT.

OY .&
I-2.67A”
.%d&Md4Ms.mzE7 &cfmdl%ansJnnm

r--A47-% —.

I=z.um? I=2N7M4
S&C?lm.olvw??zzz sut@m3f6&mm.
 STRENGTH OF AIRPLANE WING BEAMS. 357

.
#%mm’fofkrl%-z#7 #&fafMi.z#7 ~ofherfti-ZZ@ ~ttf~&**m 4%rHfaf..fu=z3.n
sutidL%d-P3. Sai%m#’’s4-3-6. SuttiafAms-7-&9. &dZwdBemwAYR. .%c&w%ws-.ws

.. .- -.

1= ZY96it* J.j#~4
Sec/%nofi%’ms&6fz SKfbof8evmiI%! F9. .%cfkw w%%i%-mA@F/t stw!imGm?ufns F&%? -. —..

●
❆
r {

L_#-_.L5’’Ll-&.d
f.~~4

secfkwa’A4w5.

.
 CL2
WI
aJ
&wmM?

iyqufw
m
@@?9
@?p#
#i7@z9
@?7w
@ww
#uyw

, , ,r
I

1 I I
.!,

1 I
I I I
, !
/5 * A /57.
I [ II Ii 1
i I I II
, 1 r 1
:--w-l
T J -k , , , , ~ I I # ( I . .
i I 1 1 1 I I

I I ! I 1 t I 1 I I I ! I t I 1 1 t ! I I 1 1 I I I 1 I ( I I 1 1 I i I
 STRENGTH OF AIRPLANE WIN(3 BEAMS. 359

(6) The laminations should be raMively thick and preferably not 1sss than one-eighth
inch thick. It wiU be noted by comparing the ~tspdc strengths,” given on summary curve,
with the corresponding beam sections that the beams with thicker laminations have the higher
specific strengths.
(c) Web and flange reinforcement of densa-wood veneers increases the strength of the
beams decidedly. Many of the failures were mainly web failures, due to horizontal shearing
Btresses. The reinforcement of the web by a centerpiece of a dense-wood veneer having its .—
grain placed vertical would prove ef3icient reinforcement against horizontal shear failures; and
this fact is no doubt largely rmponsible for the increased strength shown by beams thus con-
struotad. (Cf. Cornp=e beam XV, XVI with XVII and XVIII md beam XII with XIII and
XIV.)
(d) Beams of glued construction are apparently not weakened by continued vibrations.
(Cf. twts of beam x.)
(e)CXued comtmtions areasstronginshearas the wood from which they sre made, even
when the beams have been exposed to moisture.
(f) Built-up besms will show stiflness equal to that of the solid beams ordy when the con-
struction is of the highest type.

.6’ummmy of t-ssh an soWmaod atiphw btam.

[M bmWtilq Wfu~m_~_ti tio_%_timp~hmWM~]
.-
Su!tion I LoadP(pounds).
Fibustceds (lbs.sq.h.).
—
UIttmate.
.—. . -—.

1 T
Spnms
...................
k:::.....do.................. 7.8 O.mo 9.acd
w 1.494 am

1 ifa
?.% .636 1.362 160
8 :::: .fido . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 .660 %363 2.407
4 ........................ .476 %362 1.407 1.494 g
5. . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t; mm M6!4 3.407 L4W
6. . . . . . . ..do- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spraea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k: :@
k: . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .&a
-do ;: .676
1%::: “t-.....:::::::::::::::::: 11.6 .&m

k::
14. . . .
::::2%::::::::::::::::::.7.2
7.1
15. . . . .!%’% . . ---””---””-””----”- 1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “----”----”-
.. . . . . .. . . . .
.-.. --——
Tatdata
ofspruca wing btwm.
[Tsstsd far Naval Mmsft l?-ry. Es& bemn W fItCh6S
1~~==f= dM@I by Imd@eit tWOPOhtS 24 Imhed &cm SUppCdS

‘5srStreu(lhs.sq. fn.).
Hwcd
No. moduhs ..-— —
(hu). @m. m.bnsts.

14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.442 ‘ 2480 IL 2 2196 L686

I-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .439 Mm ;:: a. 1s6 1.685 ;g
I-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .440 a.am a. 196
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .64a 2.340 ILo 6.418 k% (640 .—
:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .&a 2.840 10.7 8. Ma a.a20 6,W3
l.M .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44a 2.7W3 L7M 6,970
I-n .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .442 2.7s0 1.703
r.D .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4s6 a.w 2,!%
- .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A& %164 %
;-H . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.164 1.6-M ?E
.-
I.M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q4 9.876 9.3 9.lE4 L&% 7,710
1-16 2.tin *.m L 760 9,060 —
L17". """-" "-""" .."" ------" """--" """--" -... "-"-" ""-"" "-"-"- :E 2.626 It: Zaal L7E0 &440
Ills"---"-"-"--" "-"--"""-"""-"-"---"-"---"---"--""--"-"".- .464 MM 6.9 9.724 L7W 6#g
L19-"--"--------"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . -"-"
. . . . -"----"
. . . . . . . .""-"
. . . -"----"
. . . . . . . ""-"
. . . . --""
. . . . ----"
. . . . . ------
...... .464 l.tila 6.6 %.734 1.7W , -----
----
360 ANNUAL REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COhHWrT’EE FOE AERONAUTICS.

Sumnlq of t-41#on lmninutd ui7pl@ hma.

p3achMm 90 Inohealong, fsstrdfor transverse strength by Ioeding at two pofnts !44fnches frum supports in an S4-fnchspan.]

had I’ (pcwds). ‘Iberstres(hksq

.in.).

E!!!!.
Per cent K=ci Sectbrr
No. Kfnd Of WOOd. m modnhls
Mc4@llm. perlrl. @.,). (~.q
LtP Iiroft. mtkow. u r Urntt,
mm.
.
I
..”------
11. . . . . . . .
III . . . . . . .
. .....__.....1
?#&+ ............. & Cd&l & 674
:E
8.
8.870
4.910
m :0#

awl
~
686
ml
650
#.#
#
6,940
6,Sm
6,8W
:g
;V . . . . . . . $#::::::ti::::::l”” “’g !4,s79 4.466 *W 876 825 >% S,C80
. .. . . . . . ................ 7i,lz 2,fill 1,91!4 670 b,840 8,420

VI . . . . . . . . .. JIB.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .674 &m !4.603 1.M2 s,a40 0, 4!4a

WI...... 6ypre9s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;... +;. .6XI 8.121 Zflfe ;e& ; g 4,400 7,840
VIII . . . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .W 8.ml 2“632 :,770
ix . . . . . . . Spruce%.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 7.22 .640 94% 2.694 i 616 #’ O& 6& t%
........ . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 6.76 . 4s a 4s0 2.603 L 626 I 9,660

XI . . . . . ..~. . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- 6.89 .676 8.848 2.am L 670 SW 6,4m 12,860
XII . . . . . . . . . ..do . ............... 9.644 !Z.64U 1.ml E 746 S,wl ll&
XIII . . . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l z 461 2.638 1.6ao m m S,mo
XIV . . . . . . . . ..do . ............... g 9.ml %6s4 1.6m 678 6,810 8:746
xv . . . . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] !: !4.41!4 9.670 1.624 z 486 4,810 7,lm

XVI......-... do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,69 .501 2.412 9.670 1.6!44 m 426 4,440

XVII . . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.78 .6Z9 .9.41!J %670 1.024 666 f#6#
XVIII . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.M .Mn 2.419 2.6m 1.624 “% 6!47 ,
~..... . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . &!& .626 1.w m 460
. .. . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a 04 .629 k% t% L 600 w 487 ~%

XXL . . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .m 2.&6 := 1.7s0 050 Ma 4& 7,460

XXII . . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WJ 8.X46 1.040 876 m 7,060
XXTfI . . . . . . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :% 9.4.53 !4.Om L6U S$o 465 4;M0 7,M0

REMARKS ON TESTS.
Solid beam of Bureau of Standmdadtop (Nos. 1 to 15).—AU solid wood beams of spruce and
fir (Nos. 1 to 12) failed in compression. B~am No, z was a poor specimen as it contained a pitch
pocket; this accounts for failure at such a low load. The solid beam of cypress wood, No. 14,
failed in tansion and horizontal shear. Cypress beam No. 15 failed in tension.
Solid hums~rom Naval Aircraft Factoy (Nos. I-6 h 1-11) .—Each of these beams failed in
compression. The compression failures in bemns I-5 and I-7 were foIlowed by horizontal
shear failures. These beams ran quite uniform, as is shown by the values for” specific strength”
on the summary chmt of results.
Thre.@ece hmms ~rom Niwal Ah@” Facto-rg(Nos. 1-12 to I-19).—Each of thwe beams
faiIed in compression. Failure was not due to splices in the case of the spliced beams (Nos. 1-14,
1-15,1-18, and 1-19). While these beams do not run as uniform in strength as the solid beams
above, the variation is not greater than is to be expected in wood. Moreover, the average
specific strengths of the three-piece beams is a trifle greater than for the solid beams.
Lamin.uttdbeunw-Beams I and III of spruce and II and IV of cypress failed in compres-
sion. These beams were poorly constructed, A number of laminations in each beam were
sphced; the splices were butt joints which were not cIowily butted, Consequently failure in
each beam occurred at a lamination splice.
Beams V and VI were better constructed and were equal to solid wood in specific straugth.
Beams VII and VIII “of cypress wood failed in tension. The wood in these beams was of
poor quality and appeared to be deoayed.
Beam No. X-failed in conqmeati. —Beam No. X was given a vibratory or repeated stress
test before being subjected to the reguIar transverse t~t. The purpose was to deterfie
whether or not the sti.tTnessor strength of the beam would be aEected by a test of this nature.
The results indicate that the vibratory test had no shot upon the beam. The vibratory tmt
was not of a very severe nature. This beam faded in compression at the center, and in shear
over the entire length of the web. The beam contained no splices in the laminations.
Beam No. XI was a rear wing beam of a larger section than the other beams, This beam
carried an exceedingly high load,
Beam No. XII, although classed as a hunina~d be~, is quiti different from the others.
The biroh lamination or veneer in the center has the grain running in the direction of the depth
of the beam section. This beam was bowed laterfly to the extent of + inch at the center
 STRENQTH OF AIRPLANE WING BEAMS. 361

and the left side of the section was cracked in the web from the birch veneer center to the out-
side for the entire length, as shown in the photograph. The left side wss on the convex side
of the bow. In spite of these defects, this beam carried a very high load, whioh shows that this -.
is 8 very good type of construction.
Beams XIII and XIV both failed in compression. While these beams were not m strong
ss some of the preceding ones, they are practically eqmd in strength ta the solid wood beams.
Beams XV and XVI were not as strong as solid wood beams. This was evidentiy due to the ....—
facts that thehmination splices were poorly made and that the laminations are too thin. FaiIure
occurred at lamination splicw.
Beams XVII and XVIII are equsl to solid wood beams. These two beams contained poor ..
hunination spIices, practically the ssme as beams XV and XVI. The superiority of these beams
over beams XV and XVI was due to the mahogany caps on the top and bottom and the
mahogany veneer in the center. Failure occurred at Lu@nat,ion splicw.
Beams .XIX and XX were inferior to solid wood beams even though they had mahogany
caps and veneer. This is undoubtedly due to the faot that the laminations were too thin.
Beam XIX failed at a lamination splice, but XX did not.
Beams XXI and XXII were built similar to beam XI. Both faiIed in compression; failuras
occurred very slowly. These beams were both inferior to solid wood beams. This was probably
due ta the high moisture content es is shown on the ohart of results.
Beam No. XXIII was built similar to beam XXII, and in addition each half of the section
was sp%d, splicm being located at points of maximum moments. This beam proved to be
inferior to solid wood beams due to poorly seleckd wood and not to the fact that it contained
splices. The spruce wood was greined diagonally, the grain sloping 1 in 10; the vaueer was
soft gum wood having a low shear strength; and the oaps were of ash which is not suitable for
this purpose. The results of this test demom+rate that this type of beam mm be spliced without
causing a weak point.