UNITED STATES

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

THESIS
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSES
OF

THICK SKINNED SWEPT WING PANELS

Paul Whitney Parcells

December 1967
V&t$ K2 Document Display

Private STINET
Home I Collections
View-Saved-Searches I Viewshopping Cart I View Orders

Citation Format: Full Citation (IF)

Accession Number:
AD0829405
Citation Status:
Active
Citation Classification:
Unclassified
Reld(s) & Group(s):
010303 - ATTACK AND FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
Corporate Author:
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA
Unclassified Title:
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSES OF THICK SKINNED SWEPT WING PANELS.
Title Classification:
Unclassified
Descriptive Note:
Master's thesis,
Personal Author(s):
Parcells, Paid Whitney
Report Date:
01 Dec 1967
Media Count:
33 Page@)
Cost:
$7.00
Report Classification:
Unclassified
Descriptors:
(*JET FIGHTERS, ("SWEPTBACK WINGS,
AIRPLANE PANELS), STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES), THICKNESS, SHEAR STRESSES,
STRAIN(MECHANICS), THEORY, MATHEMATICAL MODELS, FORCE(MECHANICS),
LOADS(FORCES), THESES, STRAIN GAGES
Identifiers:
F-8 AIRCRAFT, F8U-3 AIRCRAFT, SKIN(STRUCTURALMEMBER)
Abstract:
The validity of conventional skin and stringer type analyses is verified experimentally for a thick
milled skin aircraft structure. The accuracy of solution is evaluated by comparing the strain energies in
a mathematical model to that obtained experimentally from a wing panel of a high performance
aircraft. Results indicate that the conventional methods of a skin-stringerlmatrix force approach are
valid for a thick milled skin aircraft structure of this type provided the panel loading is neither severe
nor concentrated. Additionally the grid elements chosen must be small enough to preclude any gross
averaging errors. (Author)
Abstract Classification:
Unclassified
Distribution Limitation(s):
01 - APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Source Code:
251450
Document Location:
DTIC
- Verity K2 Document Display Page 2 of 2 '
- I
ST-A USNPS LTR, 1 OCT 71

Priv-acy &-SecU..tyYN-oti~
-- 1 Web Ac_cessibili_ty_
s~tin~t@dticCrni1
 THEORETTCAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSES

OF

THICK SKINNED SWEPT WING PANELS

by

P a u l Whikney garcells
L i e u t e n a n t , U n i t e d States N a v y
B. S, , U n i t e d States ~ a v a A i c a d e m y , 1960

.
S u b m i t t e d in- p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of .the
- requirements for the degree of
MASTER O F SCIENCE I N AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING I
1 from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Signature of A u t h o r

A p p r o v e d by G w Thesis A d v i s o r

-
C h a i r m a n , D e p a r t m e n t of A e r o n a u t i c s

I Academic Dean
 -. .

ABSTRACT

The v a l i d i t y o f conventional s k i n and s t r i n g e r type

a n a l y s e s i s v e r i f i e d experimentally f o r a t h i c k m i l l e d s k i n
a i r c r a f t structure. The accuracy o f s o l u t i o n i s e v a l u a t e d
by comparing t h e s t r a i n e n e r g i e s i n a mathematical model t o
t h a t obtained experimentally from a wing p a n e l o f a h i g h
performqnce a i r c r a f t .
s..a.,c*&*@
4
R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t 'he""Eonventiona1 methods o f a
skin-stringer/matrix f o r c e approach a r e v a l i d f o r a t h i c k
m i l l e d s k i n a i r c r a f t s t r u c t u r e o f t h i s type pro-vided t h e
panel loading i s n e i t h e r s e v e r e nor concentrated. Addi-
t i o n a l l y t h e g r i d elements chosen must be small enough t o
p r e c l u d e any gr'oss a-vergging e r r o r s .
 ~ U ~ L E ~ , K NLIBRARY
OX
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MONTEREY CA 93943-5101

TABLE O F CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION 13

11. THE,QRETICAL ANALYSIS 16

28
IIX. D I S C U S S I O N O F T H E O m T I C A L ANALYSIS

IV. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

30

V: DISC'LTSSION O F EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

46

48
VI. COMPARISON O F RESULTS

V I I. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIQNS

52

REFERENCES
54

APPEWIX A THEORETICAL DETERMINATION O F SHEAR FLOWS 56

61
APPENDIX B EQUIPMENT CALIBRATION CURVES
62
APPENDIX C S T R A I N GAGE LOCATIONS

APPENDIX D S T R A I N GAGE INSTRUMENTATTON . 64

APPENDIX E P R I N C I P A L S T R E S S E S AND QRIENTATIONS 66

 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

I. T h e o r e t i c a l Panel Parameters 22

I T h e o r e t i c a l S t r a i n Energy D i s t r i b u t i o n 27
1 Average Sub-panel E x p e r i m e n t a l glzresses 42
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE . PAGE

Sketch of F8U-3 Wing Center S e c t i o n

Center S e c t i o n o f F8U-3 P o r t Wing
I d e a l i z e d Panel on F8U-3 P o r t Wing 20

Panel S h ~ w i n gDimensions f o r Edge Loading R a t i o s 23

Exploded View o f I d e a l i z e d Wing 25

Sketch of S t r a i n ~ a Locations
~ e (outer skin) 34

Sketch o f S t r a i n Gage L o c a t i ~ n s ( I n n e r s k i n ) 35

Sketch of Planform of P a r t i t i o n e d Panel 41

Skin Thickness V a r i a t i o n w i t h Span 43

Experimental P r i n c i p a l S t r e s s e s 45
 LIST OF PLATES

PLATE PAGE

1. F8U-3 Wing T e s t I n s t a l l a t i o n 31
2. Wing Mounting f o r Load A p p l i c a t i ~ n 32
3. I n t e r i o r S t r a i n Gage I n s t a l l a t i o n 36

4. Equipment I n s t a l l a t i o n
 TaBLE OF SYMWLS

Inclosed wing c e l l area, square Lnches

Panel width ( t i p ) , inches

Panel width ( r o o t ) , inches

Panel end loading (tip), pomds

Panel end loading ( r o o t ) , pour&

Aft intermediate beam

Panel length, inches
Center intermediate beam
E - Modulus of E l a ~ t i c i t y ,poqnds per squasre -inch
F3 Front beam
FIB Front intermediate beam
Forward intermediate beam
Shear modu&us, pounds per square inch
Panel span (forward), inches
Panel span { a f t ), inches

Shear f l o w , pounds per inch

Rear beam
RIB Rear intermediate beam
T Torque, inch pounds
Panel thickness ( t i p ) , incbes

Panel thickness (root) , inches

Internal s t r a i n energy, inch p o m s
Constant voltage source, v o l t s
Wheatstone Bridge output voltage, volts
 . - ?

Panel edge l e n g t h , i n c h e s

Panel edge l e n g t h , i n c h e s

x-axis c o - o r d i n a t e o f wing, inches

-,
y-axis c o - o r d i n a t e 'of wing, i n c h e s

P Panel a n g l e (AFT-IB t o p i v o t r i b ) , d e g r e e s

6 Panel a n g l e (RIB t o i n t e r m e d i a t e r i b ) , d e g r e e s

P Poisson's r a t i o

(z S t r a i n , micro-inches p e r =rich.

CT Normal s t r e s s e s , pounds p e r s q u a r e i n c h

T Shear s t r e s s e s , pounds p e r s q u a r e i n c h

I 8 Angle of t w i s t p e r u n i t l e n g t h , r a d i a n s p e r i n c h
Angle o f p r i n c i p a l a x i s measured from t h e f i r s t
@P
gage of t h e r o s e t t e , d e g r e e s
 XixcraE& s t r u c t u r e s i n general,, and wings i n p a r t i -
culax, have been eons-truc ted us the coniverztional s t r i n g e r
sheet methods. This foxm a f can$buction, by nature not
a s b p 3 e s t r u c t u r e , introduced ithe pxob1en-1.of how $0 accu-
1
xakely p r e d i c t t h e load d ~ ~ t r i b x x k i o-'ann61 especially the
akress concentrakions t h a t could be de~eloped. '!I?o&
ldest
Ir
I
! r e g ~ e s ~ e n t a k i oscheme
n for the discre'tie eaement analysis oY
I
I
,W prahlem evolved as the axial. 5oxce nreaiber-she.ar panel
1
iI &d&aLizationt h a t i s described i n Reference 9. %is metbod

. i s p a r t i c u l a r l y acceptable t o the a i r c r a f t induskry, as it

r.eadily Lends i t s e l f W various matrix techniques t h a t a r e

e r a l l y speaking, t h i s ,method oif $elution sakes no provbi;ozn

1
i
'WLdih advent 0 5 the very heavy milled skins of

~1I
modern high performance aircoaf t, m e inmediabely questions

~ !j tf3.e val8dity of the conventional 5or.m of so9u.tbon, In wder

ta p x o p r l y account for b e n d i n g - ~ r s h n in'terac tio.n, chord-

I'I
1.
wise curvatures,, sweep coupling, shear def lectiions , and the

increasing use of large cutouts,, several a l t e r n a t i v e methods

1
I of arialys i s have been developed.
I

The most widely used solution ee&niqwe i s outlined by

J, H. Argyris and S. Kelaey i n R e f e r w e 2. me a i r c r a f t

skructure is, molded i n t o a l a r g e assemblage of e l a s t i c ele-

I; merits,. which permits matrix formul;a"tion of the solution i n

terms o f t h e d i f f e r e n t energy theorems. The fundamental

p r i n c i p l e s o r i g i n a t e d by Maxwell and Mohr o f v i r t u a l f o r c e s

and v i r t u a l displacements a r e used i n t h e energy method o f '
1
solution. A p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s technique i s

i n c l u d e d i n References 3 and 4,
The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o determine t h e v a l i d -
i
i t y o f t h i s lumped parameter form o f a t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s I

f o r t h i c k skinned s t r u c t u r e s . Because o f t h e g e n e r a l energy

approach t o t h e s o l u t i o n , t h e method chosen t o determine t h e
accuracy o f t h e r e s u l t s was t o compare t h e t o t a l i n t e r n a l
s t r a i n energy o f an i d e a l i z e d p a n e l w i t h t h a t o f an a c t u a l
I
I
t h i c k m i l l e d s k i n a i r c r a f t s t r u c t u r e o f t h e same dimensions. I
I

The s t r u c t u r e would have t o b e t h i c k enough t o b e a b l e t o

s u p p o r t any b e n d i n g - t o r s i o n i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t may e x i s t i n
a d d i t i o n t o t h e i n p l a e e loadings.
'i
1
-
I
,
The ~ b j e c t i v eo f t h i s r e p o r t was t o b e achieved by i

csmparing t h e t h e o r e t i c a l s t r a i n energy of a s t r u c t u r e w i t h
t h a t determined e m p i r i c a l l y from s t r a i n gage r e a d i n g s . The
s t r u c t u r a l specimen t o b e analyzed was a s i n g l e wing p a n e l
t a k e n from t h e p o r t wing upper s k i n o f a Mach 2.5 a l l -
J

weather f i g h t e r p r o j e c t which was c a n c e l e d by t h e U. S.

Navy b e f o r e t h e s t r u c t u r a l t e s t program was completed.

The n e c e s s a r y s t r a i n gage r o s e t t e s and accompanying
instrurnenkation were i n s t a l l e d , and a comparison of t h e
t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s e s was made.
A l i t e r a t u r e s e a r c h d i d n o t r e v e a l any r e f e r e n c e t h a t

made a comparison o f t h e energy l e v e l i n an i d e a l i z e d '-. '.

s t r u c t u r e to t h a t of an a c t u a l wing panel element. The
importance of a comparison o f t h i s type is apparent when one
r e a l i z e s t h a t t h e i n t e g r a t e d behavior of a s t r u c t u r e i s
dependent upon t h e energy accounting in the system.
This study was completed during t h e 1967-1968 academic
year a t t h e Naval Postgraduate @c!hool, Monterey, C a l i f o. r, n i a ,
Acknowledgement i s g r a t e f u l l y made t o Professor C. H. Kahr
r guidance and consulta-
o f t h e Aeronautics Department f ~ his
tion as thesis advisor; R, A. Besel and T. B. Dunton,
l a b o r a t o r y technicians; and CAPT D, 3. Messerschmidt, USMC
who, while working on a s i m i l a r t h e s i s p r o j e c t , aided i n
, >
t h i s seudy.
 CHAPTER I1 (

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

The s t r u c t u r e chosen f o r s t u d y was t h e wing c e n t e r

s e c t i o n o f an F8U-3 t y p e a i r c r a f t . The p a r t i c u l a r p a n e l
analyzed w a s t h e p o r t s e c t i o n bounded l o n g i t u d i n a l l y by t h e
p i v o t and i n t e r m e d i a t e ribs. and l a t e r a l l y by t h e a f t -
i n t e r m e d i a t e and r e a r - i n t e r m e d i a t e beams. The wing c e n t e r
s e c t i o n and s p e c i f i c p a n e l a r e grapkiically d e p i c t e d i n
F i g u r e 1.
The t y p i c a l i n d u s t r i a l approach t o a n a l y z i n g a s t r u c -
t u r e o f t h i s n a t u r e would b e t o determine what v a l i d simy ...

p l i f y i n g assumptions c o u l d b e made i n o r d e r t o c r e a t e a

mathematically simple i d e a l i z e d s t r u c t u r e . m e resulting

model would c o n s i s t o f a x i a l l o a d c a r r y i n g b a r a and p l a n e
shear carrying constant thickness panels. The i d e a l i z e d
model was developed and i s thoroughly d i s c u s s e d i n

References 3 and 4.
The load a p p l i c a t i o n was accomplished by a p p l y i n g a
t o r s i o n a l moment a t t h e wing f o l d r i b , about t h e l o a d
reference axis (CIB). Considering khe p o r t wing inboard o f
t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e r i b , t h i s couple must be d i s t r i b u t e d ,

u s i n g elementary t o r q u e t h e o r y , t o t h e e q u i v a l e n t l o a d s on
a streamwise c r o s s - s e c t i o n (intermediate r i b ) a t s t a t i o n

YW
= 81-98 ( F i g u r e 2)- The l o a d i n g was t h e n d i v i d e d among
t h e s i x c e l l s o f t h e wing. The s h e a r flow f o r each c e l l
was determined i n accordance w i t h Reference 1 by e q u a t i n g
 FIG. 2
CENTER SECTION- F8U-3. PORT WING
(Main structural elements)

Scale Data
I

Wing station, y, in.

 the angle of twist of one c e l l with the remaining f i v e and
equating torsional moments as follows :

The r e s u l t s and calculations of the shear flows were

calculated i n Reference 3 and are included i n t h i s report
as Appendix A with inappropriate sections deleted. Using
the planform dimensions of Figure 2 , the shear flow for each
c e l l was determined as oriented perpendicular t o the CIB,
Figure 3 shows the idealized panel section of the wing
with pertinent dimensions obtained from Reference 5. The
i n t e r n a l s t r a i n energy of t h i s skewed shear panel was
calculated i n accordance with S. J, Garvey ( ~ e f e r e n c e6) as
follows 2
"Since by similar t r i a n g l e s , the perpendicular distance
-
of any point i n a trapezoidal panel t o a p a r a l l e l edge i s
proportional t o the depth of the panel a t t h a t point
measured p a r a l l e l with a side, the well-known r e s u l t follows
t h a t the "shear flow" i n a trapezoidal panel i s inversely
proportional t o the square of the depth. '16

To find the s t r a i n energy, using these geometric sim-

*
p l i f i c a t i o n s of a trapezoid, one must solve the following
eqwation:
where:

Table I l i s t s t h e a p p r o p f i a t e dimensions and c o n s t a n t s

needed f o r t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s . The volume o f t h e

p l a t e was determined f o r t h e i d e a l i z e d panel from:

This approach o f u t i l i z i n g t h e average t h i c k n e s s w i l l ob-

v i o u s l y l i m i t t h e accuracy o f t h e r e s u l t i n g t h e o r e t i c a l
s t r a i n energy; however, t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s p a r t o f t h e
a n a l y s i s i s t o o b t a i n t h e s t r a i n energy by t h e same conven-
t i o n a l methods c u r r e n t l y being used by i n d u s t r y ,
A s p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , t h e p l a t e edge loadings were

determined from a l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n using t h e planform

dimensions. These s h e a r p a p e l edge loadings were d i s t r i -
buted around t h e perimeter o f t h e p a n e l , i n accordance with
Reference 4, by f i r s t a s s i g n i n g a u n i t shear f o r c e t o t b e
o u t e r edge o f each panel, Considering a t y p i c a l p a n e l as
shown i n Figure 4 and t a k i n g moments about a p p r o p r i a t e
p o i n t s t o ensure t h e maintenance of equilibrium, t h e follow-
ing r a t i o s o f edge f o r c e s were derived:
PANEL PARAMETERS
 The M a t r i x Force Method i s d e s c r i b e d i n Reference 11
and waq used t o determine t h e end edge l o a d i n g s on t h e

panels. These l o a d s were o b t a i n e d from p r e v i o u s c a l c u l a -

t i o n s i n Reference 3. The end edge l o a d f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r
p a n e l s t u d i e d i n t h i s r e p o r t ( F i g u r e 5) was t h e n s c a l e d t o
t h e edge u t i l i z e d i n t h e s t r a i n energy c a l c u l a t i o n of
Equa.tion ( 2 ) . This s c a l e d l o a d was t h e n d i v i d e d by t h e
l e n g t h o f t h e same edge. The r e s u l t w a s t h e d e s i r e d edge
s h e a r flow (q4 = 325.97 6 pounds p e r i n c h ) .
S u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e v a l u e s from Table I and
t h e computed s h e a r flow i n t o Equations ( 2 ) , ( 3 ) , and (4)
w i l l , y i e l d t h e t o t a l s h e a r p a n e l i n t e r n a l s t r a i n energy.
!The r e s u l t i n g v a l u e w a s 33.280 i n c h pounds.

The i d e a l i z e d model, b e i n g a p u r e s h e a r p a n e l , was i n -

c a p a b l e o f s u p p o r t i n g any a x i a l l o a d i n g s . For t h i s r e a s o n
t h e e f f e c t i v e c r o s s s e c t i o n a l a r e a o f t h e p l a t e was d i v i d e d
evenly and d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e a d j a c e n t f l a n g e s ( ~ i g u r e s3
and 5). The a x i a l l o a d s were t h e n assumed t o b e a p p l i e d
d i r e c t l y t o the flanges.
I n accordance w i t h Reference 9, s e t s o f a d d i t i o n a l
a x i a l f o r c e s (dashed f o r c e s i n F i g u r e s 3 and 5) were a p p l i e d
t o the ends o f t h e f l a n g e s . The f o r c e s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o
a c c o u n t f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l s t r a i n energy s t o r e d by t h e a x i a l
components o f s h e a r flows caused by t h e sweep e f f e c t o f t h e
rran-*rectangular p a n e l s . It i s important t o r e a l i z e t h a t

t h e s e sweep c o u p l i n g l o a d s a r e i n t e r n a l f o r c e s and would n o t

be included i n t h e e q u i l i b r i u m e q u a t i o n s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e .
From an energy s t a n d p o i n t , t h e s e dashed f o r c e s account
f a r t h e a d d i t i o n a l s t r a i n energy s t o r e d i n t h e p a n e l . The
energy i s accounted f o r i n t h i s manner because t h e l o n g i -
t u d i n a l flanges contain t h e e f f e c t i v e a r e a of t h e panel.
The c o n t r i b u t i o n o f a uniform b a r under l i n e a r l y vary-
ing a x i a l f o r c e s t g t h e t o t a l i n t e r n a l s t r a i n energy i s
g i v e n i n Reference 9 a s ,

where Pi and Pj a r e t h e a x i a l f o r c e s a p p l i e d t o t h e ends

o f t h e bar. I n t e g r a t i o n o f Equation (8) y i e l d s :

"P:+
' 6A,E + p,E) (9)

!("he Slange l o a d i n g s were determined a s a p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e

t o t a l l o a d b a s e d on t h e r a t i o of t h e e f f e c t i v e f l a n g e a r e a
of t h e p a n e l bo t h e t o t a l f l a n g e a r e a .
S u b s t i t u t i o n of a p p r o p r i a t e p a n e l parameters and p r e -

v i o u s l y determined f l a n g e l o a d i n g s i n t o Equation (9) y i e l d s

t h e a d d i $ i o n a l s t r a i n e n e r g i e s r e q u i r e d t o complete t h e
t h e o r e t i c a l energy accounting. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e
e n e r g i e s i s l i s t e d i n Table 11.

26
Shear Panel 33,280 kncB pounds
Forward Flange 0.3 13 inch pounds
R e a r Flange 1-067 inch pounds
 CHAPTER 111

DISCUSSION @F THEORETICAL RESULTS

The concept o f t h e i d e a l i z a t i o n , a s d i s c u s s e d i n
Reference 11, i s simply t o a s s i g n a l l t h e d i r e c t s t r e s s
c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y of t h e s t r u c t u r a l m a t e r i a l t o t h e a x i a l

f o r c e members and t h e s h e a r c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y t o t h e
s h e a r panel.

The i d e a l i z a t i o n y i e l d s a t h e o r e t i c a l s o l u t i o n t o t h e
problem t h a t u t i l i z e s s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t a v e r a g i n g p r o c e s s e s ;
however, khe o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s r e p o r t i s t o a n a l y z e t h e
a c c e p t e d c o n v e n t i o n a l methods c u r r e n t l y i n use i n t h e
a i r c r a f t industry.
The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e p a n e l a r e a t o t h e a d j a c e n t
f l a n g e s i s complicated by t h e a p p a r e n t double use o f t h e
a r e a n e a r t h e t i p of t h e panel. S e v e r a l wing a n a l y s e s have
d e s c r i b e d a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f i n c l u d i n g t h e r i b f l a n g e i n

the idealized structure. It i s of i n t e r e s t t o n o t e t h a t

t h e t h e o r e k i c a l r e s u l t o f t h e s t r a i n energy determined f o r
t h e rib f l a n g e i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t when compared t o t h e o t h e r
components o f t h e s t r a i n energy i n t h e s t r u c t u r e . Because
o f t h e s m a l l energy o f t h e r i b f l a n g e p o r t i o n o f t h e p l a t e
c o n t r i b u t i o n , one could conclude t h a t t h i s f l a n g e and s i m i -
l a r p i e c e s do n o t c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o t h e o v e r - a l l
wlng b e h a v i o r . Theregore, as d i s c u s s e d i n Reference 1 2 ,
a n a l y s e s o f wings w i t h a p p l i e d normal l o a d i n g s could b e
s i m p l i f i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y by assuming z e r o f l e x i b i l i t y f o r

t h i s flange. It should b e n o t e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f
chrdwise Laads sn~>uLdrequire that &ese elements be in-
cluded, This agpraach would appreciably decrease the number
of redwdants i~ a w i n g analysis.
 CHAPTER I V

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS

I n o r d e r t o determine t h e a c t u a l s t r a i n energy and

-
compare it w i t h t h e value p r e d i c t e d from t h e o r y , an e x p e r i -
mental i n v e s t i g a t i o n was completed on a p a n e l o f an F8U-3
wing a c q u i r e d from t h e Ling-Temco-Vought Corporation. The
I
p a n e l s e c t i o n was a t y p i c a l t h i c k m i l l e d s k i n p o r t i o n a f
I

,
t h e wing and was t a p e r e d along t h e span a s w e l l a s i n t h e
chordwise d i r e c t i o n .
The d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e wing i n s t a l l a t i o n and
l o a d i n g i s i n c l u d e d i n Reference 3; t h e r e f o r e , o n l y t h e
II
h i g h l i g h t s of i n s t a l l a t i o n and any m o d i f i c a t i o n s incorpora- !
I C
t e d by t h e a u t h o r w i l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h i s r e p o r t .

The wing was mounted i n v e r t e d on a r i g i d s u p p o r t jhg. *

I t w a s f a s t e n e d t o t h e j i g a t t h e two f u s e l a g e p i v o t l u g s

and t h e two p o i n t s on t h e main box f r o n t beam d i r e c t l y

o p p o s i t e t h e bumper p o i n t s ( P l a t e 1). Aluminum pads were
i n s t a l l e d under t h e j i g t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e l o a d i n g t o t h e
laboratory floor.
The e n t i r e wing was s u b j e c t e d t o two p u r e t o r q u e l o a d s
a p p l i e d a t each wing f o l d r i b about t h e C I B ( P l h t e 2 ) . The
p o s i t i o n o f t h e e l a s t i c a x i s was o b t a i n e d from manufac-
t u r e r ' s d a t a and i s shown i n F i g u r e 2. The C I B i s approxi-
mately p a r a l l e l t o t h e e l a s t i c a x i s i n t h e outboard s e c t i o n
o f t h e wing. I t r e f l e c t s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c breakdown i n
t h e concept o f a l o a d a x i s toward t h e r o o t of a swept wing.
The predetermined 1 (8,008 pounds o r 336,000 &cEk

pounds of torque) was measured with 10,000 poitp~d d y n m -

meters connected i n s e r i e s with each hydraulic loa&Bng
cylinder. Phey were graduated i n 100 pound kneremenes but
could be read accurately t o t e n paunds, The f k a E loiacl
magnitudes were determined with hydraulic manifold p r e s s w e
readings r e l a t e d t o pressure-load calibration. curves fox
tbe c y l i n d e r s found i n Appendix IT, The load w a s well

within the e l a s t i c l i m i t of the wing skructure but s t i l l

of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude t o y i e l d adequate s t r a i n l e v e l s

throughout t h e s t r u c t u r e .
A l l outer surface s t r a i n gage i n s t a l l a t i o n s an me test
panel were i n s t a l l e d by t h e author. The i n t e r n a l gages

w e r e i n s t a l l e d by laboratory technicians. A l l s t r a i n s were

measured with SR-4 s t r a i n gage r o s e t t e s of t h e type AR-7-2

manufactured by t h e Baldwin-Lima-HamiLt~a Corporatkm.
Appendix C i s a l i s t of a l l 102 gages, their gage f a c t o r s ,
r e s i s t a n c e s and co-ordinate l o c a t i o n s on t h e pane&, The
r o s e t t e s on the o u t e r surface were i n s t a l l e d back t o back
with t h e inner gages i n order t o give an i n d i c a t i o n o f any
d i f f e r e n t i a l bending e f f e c t s through the thickness of t h e
panel t h a t may have existed. Figures 6 and 7 g r a p h i c a l l y
d e p i c t the s t r a i n gage l o c a t i o n s on t h e panel, and P l a t e 3
shows the i n t e r i o r gage i n s t a l l a t i o n , A twenty channel

Budd Company switching and balancing u n i t was connected t o

an e x t e r n a l l y p ~ w e r e dWheatstone bridge c i r c u i t . The bridge

and a l l associated c i r c u i t r y w e r e an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f a
@ u d d / ~ a t r a nD i g i t a l S t r a i n I n d i c a t o r ( ~ o d e Tl C Z ) t h a t r e a d
o u t s t r a i n d i r e c t l y i n micro-inches p e r inch. Calibration
of a l l equipment preceded each run. The e l e c t r o n i c set-up
i s d e s c r i b e d i n Reference 3 and i s reproduced i n t h i s r e p o r t
as Appendix D.
Fhe procedures used i n conducting a l l t e s t runs w e r e
a s follows:
1. The d i g i t a l indicator was c a l i b r a t e d b e f o r e
each run ensuring t h a t s u f f i c i e n t time was
taken between r u n s t o p r e c l u d e any e r r o r s
being induced from h y s t e r e s i s e f f e c t s .
2. The switching and b a l a n c i n g u n i t l e a d s w e r e
plugged i n t o twenty gage t e r m i n a l s a t the
junction panel (Plate 4). .
3. A l l s t r a i n gages and dynamometers were zeroed.

4. The h y d r a u l i c t o r q u e loading was a p p l i e d and

a d j u s t e d t o agree w i t h a l l p r e v i o u s runs.
5. Equal couple loadings a p p l i e d t o each wing
t i p were ensured by comparing t h e dynamumeter
readings.
6. Fhe s t r a i n r e a d i n g s were taken and recorded.
7. The l o a d s were removed. Hysteresis e f f e c t s
were removed by allowing s u f f i c i e n t time (8 t o
10 minutes) b e f o r e commending the n e x t run.
Because of ambient l a b o r a t o r y temperature changes, t h e
sun s t r i k i n g w e wing, and o u t s i d e e l e c t r i c a l i n t e r f e r e n c e ,
*- l

a l l t e s t runs were conducted a t n i g h t . To e n s u r e s t e a d y

 : ,.
a;,

s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s an adequate (approximately one h a l f hour)

warm-up time was used f o r a l l a s s o c i a t e d equipment. Repeat-

a b i l i t y of s t r a i n gage readings was ensured by check runs

being made p e r i o d i c a l l y and compared w i t h those p r e v i o u s l y
obtained. The percentage d i f f e r e n c e i n readings was minute

and was considered t o have an i n s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on t h e

analysis.
A s stated e a r l i e r , t h e o b j e c t i v e of t h e experimental

phase o f t h i s a n a l y s i s was t o c o r r e l a t e t h e t h e o r e t i c a l
r e s u l t s t h a t were p r e v i o u s l y obtained: t h e r e f o r e , once t h e
recorded s t r a i n d a t a were obtained, t h e experimental t o t a l
s t r a i n energy i n t h e p l a t e was t o b e determined. Refereii-d

ence 7 d i s c u s s e s t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of s t r a i n energy i n a
s t r u c t u r e i n a g e n e r a l form t h a t i s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p a n e l
considered i n t h i s r e p o r t . The g e n e r a l form of t h e t o t a l

s k r a i n energy i s given by,

I n t h e wing p a n e l of t h i s r e p o r t , where , /ryt ,

and Ter. a r e a l l nearly zero for plates/panels of t h i s &

type, t h e s t r e s s c o n d i t i o n i n d i c a t e d by Equation (10)

reduces t o t h e following:
 i
!

This s t r a i n energy formula of t h e s t r e s s s t a t e i n

I

C a r t e s i a n c o - o r d i n a t e s i s t h e same a s that r e l a t e d by
,
A. B. M. G r z e d z i e l s k i i n Reference 8, Mere t h e terms have
2 I

t h e following meanings: TxY term r e p r e s e n t s t h e s h e a r

energy o f t h e p a n e l . The & and terms r e f l e c t
I

I
i
.

t h e i n p l a n e and b e n d i n g / t o r s i o n e n e r g i e s . The term c o n t a i n -

i
ing CKG3 i n t r o d u c e s t h e ~ o i s s o n ' sr a t i o coupling.
S t r a i n gage d a t a were programmed i n t o an IBM ~ystem/360
Model 67 d i g i t a l computer t o o b t a i n t h e p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s e s
and d i r e c t i o n s a t a l l r o s e t t e l o c a t i o n s , A FORTRAN I V

program "RECROSE" was w r i t t e n t o c o n v e r t t h e s t r a i n r e a d i n g s

t o the desired stresses. The d i s c u s s i o n s f t h e computer
program and t h e r e s u l t s a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h i s r e p o r t a s
Appendix E.
The t e s t p a n e l was t h e n p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o f i f t e e n sub-
p a n e l elements. The p a r t i t i o n i n g o f t h e p a n e l ( F i g u r e 8)
would p e r m i t a summation o f s t r a i n e n e r g i e s over t h e p a n e l
t h a t would y i e l d t h e t o t a l s t r a i n energy- This p r o c e s s i s

a c l o s e approximation t o t h e i n t e g r a t i o n r e q u i r e d i n
Equation (11). The s t r a i n r e a d i n g s were averaged where more I
I

t h a n one gage e x i s t e d . Both t h e i n s i d e and o u t s i d e r o s e t t e s I

1

on each sub-panel were included. The r e s u l t s o f t h e sub- I

p a n e l averaging a r e l i s t e d i n Table 111.
*
The sub-panel I
1
*

t h i c k n e s s e s used t o compute t h e volumes were t h e average

s u b - p a n e l t h i c k n e s s e s o b t a i n e d from Reference 10. A graph

of t h e panel thickness versus yw i s included i n t h i s

r e p o r t a s F i g u r e 9.
I
i

40 I

1
 TABLE PIP

1 AVERAGE SUB-PANEL STRESSES

Panel No.
 The d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i n n e r and o u t e r s u r f a c e
stresses (Appendix E) i n d i c a t e t h a t a bending/tors ion e f f e c t
d e f i n i t e l y does e x i s t ; however, assuming a l i n e a r v a r i a t i o n
o f t h e s t r e s s through t h e t h i c k n e s s of t h e p l a t e produces a
s t r a i n energy t h a t i s l e s s t h a n one p e r c e n t d i f f e r e n t from
a d i r e c t s t r e s s averaging technique. Therefore, t h e mid-
p l a n e s t r e s s e s o b t a i n e d by averaging t h e i n n e r and o u t e r
s u r f a c e s t r e s s e s were used i n t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f t h e e x p e r i -
mental s t r a i n e n e r g i e s .
The i n d i v i d u a l sub-panel s t r a i n e n e r g i e s were computed
f r ~ mEquation (11) u s i n g t h e r e q u i r e d s t r e s s e s l i s t e d i n
Appendix E. The sub-panel e n e r g i e s were t h e n summed t o
o b t q i n t h e t o t a l s t r a i n energy o f t h e e n t i r e wing p a n e l .
The r e s u l t o f t h i s summation w a s 3 3 . 7 14 i n c h pounds.
The i n t e r n a l s t r a i n energy t h u s o b t a i n e d w a s n e a r l y
t h a t determined t h e o r e t i c a l l y i n Chapter I1 and was con-
s i d e r e d a r e a s o n a b l y a c c u r a t e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e a c t u a l
s t r a i n energy t h a t e x i s t e d i n t h e swept p a n e l element.
F i g u r e 10 i s a p l o t o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s e s o b t a i n e d
from "RECROSE" v e r s u s l o c a t i o n on t h e p a n e l . The purpose
o f t h i s graph i s t o g i v e t h e r e a d e r a f e e l i n g f o r t h e over-
a l l p a n e l l o a d i n g under t h e a p p l i e d l o a d i n g o f t h e whole I

wing.
 CHAPTER V

D I S C U S S I O N O F EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

The s t r a i n gages on t h e o u t e r s u r f a c e were mounted back

t o 'back with t h e i n t e r i o r r o s e t t e s , The purpose o f t h i s
i n s t a l l a t i o n was t o d e t e c t any bending p r e s e n t t h a t would
b e r e f l e c t e d i n a d i f f e r e n c e dn i n n e r and o u t e r s t r a i n
readings. Examination o f F i g u r e 10 a d Table E4 i n
Appendix E i n d i c a t e s t h a t bendilig d e f i n i t e l y does e x i s t .
However,. whes a linear v a r i a t i o n o f s t r e s s through t h e .. . .

thieJcrr@qs of the p l a t e i s assumed, t h e s t r a i n energy does

.. . 1

not 9ary a p p r e c i a b l y from t h a t computed by d i r e c t averagihg; 1

& h e r e f o r e , even though t h e wing p a n e l does e x h i b i t the , i

I

e f f e c t s o f bending and t w i s t i n g , t h e i n t e r n a l s t r a i n energy

computations do n o t seem t o r e f l e c t t h i s e f f e c t , The
experimental a n a l y s i s averages t h e i n a e r and o u t e r v a l u e s
o f s t r e s s e s b e f o r e determining t h e p a n e l s t r a i n energy;
k h e r e f o r e , t h i s method u t i l i z e s t h e midplane s t r e s s e s t h a t
a r e t h e mean o f t h e two s u r f a c e s t r e s s e s , It i s s i g n i f i c a n t

t o n o t e t h a t t h e s t r e s s e s along t h e r o s e t t e l e g s must be
u t i l i z e d f o r t h i s computation. The p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s e s
cannot b e used because t h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e i n n e r and;),
outer s t r e s s e s w i l l not be p a r a l l e l .
I .

The experimental r e s u l t o b t a i n e d u t i l i z e s d i f f e r e n t I

degrees of an averaging process. Obviously, t h i s w i l l n o t

!i
y i e l d p r e c i s e l y t h e s t r a i n energy t h a t a c t u a l l y e x i s t s i n
t h e p a n e l ; however, t h e p a r t i t i o n e d p a n e l s t f a i n energy
t h g t was computed by summing the sub-panel. energies must be

a s close as possible t o the actual i n t e r n a l s t r a i n energy

that exists- The f u r t h e r p a r t i t i o n i n g of the panel i n t o
smaller elements would require the i n s t a l l a t i o n of more
s t r a i n gage r a s e t t e s . This would possibly further iinprove

upon t h e accuracy of the experimental s t r a i n energy r e s u l t s ;

however, t h i s approach was precluded by both time and
monetary considerations .
The optimum i n s t a l l a t i o n of the s t r a i n gage r o s e t t e s
would have been .to place them i n Che center of each of the
f i f t e e n sub-panel elements; however, t h e i n t e r n a l gages -
hawing been previously mounted and t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y of
mounting the inner and outer gages back t o back precluded
the optimum i n s t a l l a t i o n . Additionally, because o f thes
lack of any s t r e s s concentrations, the s t r e s s e s did ndt

&radically over the panel. For these reasons t h e

r o s e t t e i n s t a l l a t i o n s were considered adequate f o r t h i s
analys is.
 CHAPTER VI

COMPARISON OF RESULTS

The comparison o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l and e x p e r i m e n t a l ,

r e s u l t s , o b v i o u s l y , i n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s depends on how
w e l l $he energy o f t h e mathematical model approximates t h e
t r u e energy o f t h e system. A s s t a t e d i n Reference 8 , one

should n o t e x p e c t a c o r r e c t r e s u l t from e i t h e r a mathema-

t i c a l model o r a lumped averaging p r o c e s s s i m i l a r t o t h e
e m p i r i c a l approach t a k e n i n t h i s r e p o r t u n l e s s t h e l o a d
d i s t r i b u t i o n i s uniform over t h e p a n e l . The s t r a i n energy
e r r o r becomes s m a l l e r i f a more f i n e l y p a r t i t i o n e d g r i d i s
used. Thus, when t h e p a n e l i s subdivided i n t o s m a l l e r
elements, t h e lumped i n t e g r a l form o f computing s t r a i n
energy w i l l i n c r e a s e i n accuracy.
The e r r o r o c c u r r i n g i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e
t h e o r e t i c a l s t r a i n energy i s o b t a i n e d from t h e following:

e' - 't
= percentage e r r o r (12)
Ue

Utilizing t h e r e s u l t s obtained i n these analyses, the

p e r c e n t a g e e r r o r i n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l s t r a i n energy computa-
t i o n was found t o b e 2.94 p e r c e n t ,
I t appears t h a t t h e r e have been no g r o s s e r r o r s made

i n t h e energy accounting procedures. The comparison made

i n d i c a t e s a remarkably c l o s e agreement between e x p e r i m e n t a l
and t h e o r e t i c a l r e s u l t s .
 \

SuperficiaPly, one might expect the experknenkaf; s t r a i n

energy t o be greater than t h a t c~)mputed£ram the idealized

model, This wauld seem reasonable when one considers t h a t
the theoretical s o l u t i s n for a shear panel carmot passibly
include S;he s t r a i n energies induced f r o m bending, torsion,

and m y cross coupling e f f e c t s m a t may exist i n the a c t u a l

thick milked skin panel: however, caref uk scrutiny of the
idealized model reveals &hat the Paisson's effect is not

included: and therefore, there is no mechanism t o include

the chordwise stresses. I n fact, they axe neglected. On
the other hand, i n the empirical $rialysis it is shown t h a t

appreciable chordwise s t r e s s e s do exist. !€%is i s a contra-

dictton t o the close agreement (2-94per cent) in the
compar ison of the s t r a i n energies,
From t h i s discussion one m u s t conclude t h a t the
s-esses determined theoretically i n Reference 3 must have
been i n excess of t h e i r t r u e values. This excess af span-
wise and shear s t r e s s e s would compensate for t h e lack of
chordwise stresses, This i s W e only logical explanation
for the close comparison of the t w o analyses.
I n order t o determine the validity of t h i s reasoning,
the prineipaL s t r e s s e s a t s t a t i o n & = 34.50 inches were

compared. The s t r e s s e s i n t h e model were: Cmax

= 714 psi

and max = 596 psi, Similarly, the experimental s t r e s s e s

obtained f r o m Figure 10 were: rmax
= 525 p s i and

,f = 517 psi.
 A s w a s p r e d i c t e d , t h e i d e a l i z e d normal s t r e s s e s were

c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r (26.30 p e r c e n t ) t h a n t h o s e o b t a i n e d
empirically. S i m i l a r l y , t h e t h e o r e t i c a l s h e a r s t r e s s e s were '.
h i g h e r (13.25 p e r c e n t ) . I n g e n e r a l , t h e s e overestima
*
s t r e s s v a l u e s compenstted f o r t h e l a c k o f chordwise s t r e s s e s

I when t h e t h e o r e t i c a l s t r a i n energy was computed. -

The l o c a t i o n o f t h e t e s t p a n e l on t h e wing d i d n o t lend

i t s e l f t o t h e d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e v e r e bending- and/or
t o r s i o n a l loads. One can conclude, t h e r e f o r e , from t h e
r e s u l t s o f Chis r e p o r t t h a t when even t h i c k skinned a i r c r a f t
s t r u c t u r e s a r e analyzed using t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l lumped
s t r i n g e r and s h e a r p a n e l method, t h e a n a l y s i s w i l l b e v a l i d
provided t h e r e a r e no s e v e r e bending o r t o r s i o n l o a d s

a p p l i e d d i r e c t l y t o t h e panel. I n general, t h e conventional

method i s v a l i d , provided t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y
-
p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o a f i n e enough g r i d s t r u c t u r e and t h e load
distribution i s n o t t o o i r r e g u l a r ,
I n c o n c l u s i o n , one should n o t e x p e c t from an a n a l y s i s ,
based on t h e lumped s t r i n g e r and s h e a r p a n e l concept a I

s a t i s f a c t o r y agreement w i t h experiment f o r i s o l a t e d load-

i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y when they a r e r e p r e s e n t e d a s p o i n t f o r c e s
i n a theoretical analysis. I n t h e p a n e l s t u d i e d and i n r '.

oth.er s i m i l a r c a s e s t h e r e w i l l always b e ample s t r u c t u r a l *

m a t e r i a l t o f u r t h e r p a r t i t i o n t h e model. This ~ a r t i t i o h i n ~

of a s t r u c t u r e p e r m i t s t h e d e s i r a b l e a t t e n u a t i o n of t h e [ *
e f f e c t of load concentrations, These l o a d c o n c e n t r a t i o n s
can c r e a t e d i s c r e p a n c i e s between computational and e x p e r i -
mental r e s u l t s . I
 In an associated study, the wing center section i s

being included i n the over-all w i n g analysis. The inclu-

s i o n of +he energy contribution from the center sectton

., w o u l d not be expected t o change the theoretical analysis i n

the vicinity of the particular panel considered i n t h i s
repart. This i s because of the massive construction of the

w i n g i n t h P s specific area. E%en though the pivot r i b is

not i n f i n i t e l y rigid i n the cho?2dwise direction. it i s
nearly so and m a y be assumed t o have zero flexibility.
Reference 3 v e r i f i e s this assumption by the close agreement
hetween the theoretical and experimental sesults i n the
vicinity of the particular panel considered.
 CHAPTER V I I

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEJYDATIONS

-
Conclusions ,

It can t h e r e f o r e be concluded t h a t a v a l i d comparison .

w a s achieved-between t h e o r e t i c a l and e x p e r i m e n t a l s t r a i n
e n e r g i e s of a t h i c k m i l l e d s k i n a i r c r a f t s t r u c t u r e . . The
accuracy of t h e a n a l y t i c a l method i s s u b j e c t t o t h e absence
of concentrated loadings. Additionally, for a theoretical
s t r u c t u r e , a f i n e element p a r t i t i o n i n g procedure i s
required.

The a n a l y t i c a l method provided remarkably a c c u r a t e

r e s u l t s (2.94 p e r c e n t e r r o r ) and i s a v a l i d approach t o
a i r c r a f t s t r u c t u r e s o f t h i s s p e c i f i c type.

-
Recommendations

It i s recommended t h a t even though t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s

s t u d y a r e f a v o r a b l e , a n o t h e r a n a l y s i s should b e made on a
p a n e l t h a t i s s u b j e c t e d t o more s e v e r e non-planar loadings.
P o s s i b l y a p a n e l outboard of t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e r i b c o u l d b e
used on t h e same wing. The l o a d would t h e n b e a p p l i e d t o a
t h i n n e r s e c t i o n o f t h e wing where t h e r e i s l e s s t o r s i o n a l
r i g i d i t y , and t h e p o i n t o f l o a d a p p l i c a t i o n would b e c l o s e r
t o the panel t o be studied. Another p o s s i b i l i t y would b e
t o o b t a i n some means o f a p p l y i n g s i n g l e p o i n t l o a d s t o t h e
same p a n e l a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e r i b and
t h e spanwise beams. S t i l l a n o t h e r method would be t o apply
the same torque used in this analysis at the intermediate
rib.
An additional recommendation, that was previously dis-

cussed in Chapter III, is that a study be conducted to

determine the validity of a wing analysis that neglects the
presence of any rib flanges.
 REFERENCES

1. Peery, David J., A i r c r a f t S t r u c t u r e s , McGraw-Hill

Book Company, New York, 1950,

2. A r g y r i s , J. H. and Kelsey, S . , Energy Theorems and

, S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s , B u t t e r w o r t h s , London, 1960.

Holgren, Marvin A. and Comfort, Clayton L., Comparison

o f Experimental S t r e s s e s and D e f l e c t i o n s w i t h Those

P r e d i c t e d by a S t r a i n Energy Method f o r an F8U-3

Wing Loaded in Torsion, . M

. .S. .T. h. e s i s , Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e
School, 1963 0

Smith, F. C., S t r e s s and D e f l e c t i o n A n a l y s i s o f

A i r c r a f t S t r u c t u r e s Using S t r a i n Energy Theory i n

Conjunction w i t h E l e c t r o n i c D i g i t a l Computers,

Chance Vought A i r c r a f t I n c o r p o r a t e d , D a l l a s , Texas,

1957.

Bilodeau, J. W., F8U-3 S t r u c t u r a l D e s c r i p t i o n Report,

Chance Vought A i r c r a f t I n c o r p o r a t e d , D a l l a s , Texas,

1957.

Garvey, S. J. , "The Q u a d r i l a t e r a l Shear P a n e l , I'

A i r c r a f t Engineering, May, 1951.

Wang, Chi-Teh, Applied E l a s t i c i t y , McGraw-Hill Book

Company, New York, 1953.

G r z e d z i e l s k i , A. L. M., Theory of Multi-Spar and

Multi-Rib Wing S t r u c t u r e s , N a t i o n a l A e r o n a u t i c a l

Eskablishment, Ottawa, Canada, 1961.

54
 9. Bruhn, E F., Analysis and Design o f F l i g h t Vehicles

S t r u c t u r e s , T r i - S t a t e O f f s e t Company, C i n c i n n a t i ,

Ohio, 1965.
10. &me, D. A , , Wing s t r e s s A n a l y s i s , Chance Vought

A i r c r a f t I n c o r p o r a t e d , D a l l a s , Texas, 1958.
. ,
11. Gallagher, Richard H. , A C o r r e l a t i o n Study of ~ e t h o d 's

o f Matrix S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s , The MacMillan Company,

New York, 1964.

12. Eggwertz, Sigge, C a l c u l a t i o n of S t r e s s e s i n a Swept

. M u l t i c e l l C a n t i l e v e r Box Beam w i t h Ribs Perpendicular

t o t h e Spars and Comparison w i t h T e s t R e s u l t s , The

A e r o n a u t i c a l Research I n s t i t u t e of Sweden, Stockholm,

 APPENDIX A
*
THEORETSCAL DETERMINATION OF S ~ FLOWS
R
AT SECTIONS PERPENDICULAR TO C I B AT

Yw = 98.7 and yw = 74.3 (Reference 3 )

The t h e o r e t i c a l ,* a h e a r flows a t s e c t i o n s p e r p e n d i c u l a r
iJ '

t o t h e C I B a t y w ~ =98.70 and yw = 74-30 were c a l c u l a t e d i n

. -. *

o r d e r t o determine t h e s h e a r flows a t b o t h s e c t i o n s which ,

would b e used t o produce t h e e q u i v a l e n t a p p l i e d f o r c e s a t
t h e streamwise i n t e r m e d i a t e r i b , y = 81-98. The c r o s s -
W
, '

s e c t i o n s a r e shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n F i g u r e A l . The t h i c k -
' "<
n e s s e s were averaged-mia-panel v a l u e s , and t h e web h e i g h t s
en as t h e mid-panel h e i g h t between t h e upper and
lower s k i n s ,
A box s t r u c t u r e w i t h s e v e r a l c e l l s w i l l have one l e s s
redundant t h a n t h e number of c e l l s , In t h i s case, there a r e
f i v e redundant webs, It is desired t o w r i t e s i x equations

i n s i x unknown s h e a r flows. This was done by e q u a t i n g t h e

ang:Le o f t w i s t of one c e l l w i t h t h e remaining f i v e , which

g i v e s f i v e e q u a t i o n s , and t h e n w r i t i n g an e q u i l i b r i u m o f
t o r s i o n a l moments e q u a t i o n .
The f i r s t f i v e e q u a t i o n s were o b t a i n e d by e q u a t i n g t h e
angle of t w i s t per u n i t length, 0 , o f one c e l l w i t h t h e
o t h e r f i v e u s i n g t h e well-known e x p r e s s i o n f o r a box beam,
 , .
FIG, Af
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF SECTIONS
*
PERPENDICULAR TO THE C.I.B.
AT y, = 98.7 AND 74.3
..r

yw = 98.7

10.4 10.1 9.9 8.7 8.0

1
c.
R.B. C.1.0. F.B.

+.

Upper surf ace

756 6.42 7
q

1 1.3
f t .
-

11.4
~ q b

1 1.2
+ ~ q

11.2
d t ~

10.4
q ~

10.1
qat'5
t , ~ q ~ t ~

R.B. C.I.B. E B.

* Yw = 74.3
N o t e : dimensions in
inches
(ref. 10)

57
 The e q u i l i b r i u m o f t o r s i o n a l moments may b e w r i t t e n a s

I n using Equation A2 t h e summation i s c a r r i e d o u t . .

around t h e e n t i r e p e r i m e t e r o f each c e l l . The u n i t l e n g t h ,

L, and t h e c o n s t a n t f a c t o r 2G drop o u t , l e a v i n g f o r c e l l s a
and b,

L-As= y * -
Aa b Abt

The value of q f o r any e x t e r i o r web of c e l l a is

and f o r t h e i n t e r i o r web i s (qat - qbt). Using t h e
following a b b r e v i a t i o n s ,

Equation A 3 i s r e w r i t t e n ,

The terms and gbb r e p r e s e n t summations around t h e

e n t i r e p e r i m e t e r o f t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c e l l s and the
value f o r t h e i n t e r i o r web. The enclosed a r e a s were taken
a s t h e average web h e i g h t times t h e d i s t a n c e between webs.

58
 Equating t h e angle of t w i s t per u n i t length oh c e l l : a
to t h e remaining f e l l s y i e l d s Ehe following equations:

MBking appropriate s u b s t i t u t i o n s , performing the indicated

algebraic operations and rearranging, one obtains f i v e
equations i n terms of t h e s i x shear flows with constant
coefficients. The required sixth equation was derived a s
previously described.

The solution t o these s i x simultaneous equations was

obtained from a d i g i t a l computer using a FORTRAN program
which i s included i n Reference 3 . It u t i l i z e s ~ a u s s ' s

method of elimination with row pivoting and back s a s t i t u -

t i o n and i s designed t o y i e l d solutions £or one o r more
column vectors forming the r i g h t hand s i d e of the s e t of
equations. This means t h a t it would produce solutions for
one or. more values of applied torque. The check values of

q were hqnd calculated using an i t e r a t i v e procedure

suggested by Bruhn i n Reference 9 and within s l i d e r u l e
accuracy agree well with the computer solutions.
 APPENDIX B
CALIBRATION CURVES FOR DILLON DYNAMOMETERS
AND HYDRAULIC PRESSURE SYSTEM

Riehle reading Ib. x lo-"

 APPENDIX C

CO-ORDINATE' LOCATION OF S T R A I N GAGES

F8U-3 WING PANEL

Noke: Co-ordinate o r i g i n s a r e a s follows :

xt, = 0 = I n t e r s e c t i o n o f c e n t e r s e c t i o n droop
l e a d i n g edge and t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f
the aircraft.

yw = 0 = The a i r c r a f t c e n t e r l i n e .

UPPER SWN INSIDE GAGES

Gage Number .

83 -84-85
86-87 -88
89-90-91
92-93-94
95~96-97
98-99-100
101-102-103
104-105-106
107 -108-109
110-111-112
113-114-115
116-117 -118
119-120-121
122-123-124
125-126-127
128-129-130
40-41-42

NOTES

1. A l l s t r a i n gage r o s e t t e s werei:mounted a t t h e Naval

P o s t g r a d u a t e School and o r i e n t e d w i t h one l e g p e r p e n d i c u l a r
t o t h e C I B , t h e 45 d e g r e e gage p o i n t i n g outboard and a f t ,
and t h e t h i r d l e g p a r a l l e l t o t h e CIB.

2. A l l gages were manufactured by t h e Baldwin-Lima-

Hamilton C o r p o r a t i o n , t a k e n from l o t B-31 and r a t e d a t
120.5 2 0.5 ohms w i t h a gage f a c t o r of 1.97 2 2 p - er cent.

3. The low numbered r o s e t t e l e g i d e n t i f i e s t h e gage

'and i s t h e l e g p a r a l l e l t o t h e Load Reference Axis.

62
 4. Gage No. 98 y i e l d s q u e s t i o n a b l e r e s u l t s .

UPPER SKIN OUTSIDE GAGES

Gage Number

580-581-582
583-584-585
475-476-477
5867587-588
589-590-591
592-593-594
595-596-597
598-599-600
601-602-603
604-605-606
607 -608-609
610-611-612
613-614-615
616-617 -618
619-620-621
622-623-624
625-626-627

. 1. A 1 1 s t r a i n gage r o s e t t e s were mounted a t the'Navall

P o s t g r a d u a t e School and o r i e n t e d w i t h one l e g p e r p e n d i c u l a r
t o t h e C I B , t h e 45 d e g r e e gage p o i n t i n g outboard and a f t ,
and t h e t h i r d l e g p a r a l l e l t o t h e CIB.

2. A l l gages were manufactured by t h e Baldwin-Lima-

Hamilton C o r p o r a t i o n , t a k e n from l o t B-31 and r a t e d a t
120.5 2 0.5 ohms w i t h a gage f a c t o r o f 1.97 f 2 p e r c e n t .

3. The h i g h numbered r o s e t t e l e g i d e n t i f i e s t h e gage

and i s t h e l e g p a r a l l e l t o t h e Load Reference Axis.
 APPENDIX D
STRAIN GAGE INSTRUMENTATION

The method o f t a k i n g s t r a i n r e a d i n g s employed common

hlheatstane Bridge c i r c u i t r y as i s shown i n Figure D l . The
e ~ p e r i m e n t a lt e s t s e t u p used t h e ~ u d d / ~ a t r aD
nigital Strain
Indyicator (Model TC22). The Wheatstone Bridge and a l l
a s s o c i a t e d c i r c u i t s wese- i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h i n t h e i n d i c a t o r .
The i n d i c a t o r i n t e r p r e t e d the' b r i d g e unbalance and gave a
v i s u a l d i s p l a y o f t h e s t r a i n d i r e c t l y i n u n i t s o f micro-
I'

inches p e r inch.
When t h e t e s t runs were made, each o f t h e twegty gages
connected through t h e switching and b a l a n c i n g u n i t w a s
zeroed on t h e d i g i t a l s t r a i n i n d i c a t o r i n t h e conventional
manner p r i o r t o load a p p l i c a t i o n , A t any time d u r i n g t h e

t e s t : r u n t h e c a l i b r a t i o n could b e checked by merely pushing

a but- on t h e counter. This gave a c o n t i n u a l check and
ensured t h e c a l i b r a t i o n o f t h e counter a t a l l times d u r i n g
the running o f t h e t e s t .
 FIG. D l
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM a '

STRAIN GAGE INSTRUMENTATION

B 1

I /

, . !
V input
:\:

4
.' c
D
- 2 0 Channel

I Strain Gage
Switching and
Balance Unit
Budd Co. r

LDigital t a n indicator
Budd Co. Model A-110

R, = R, = 120.5 ohms
Re = R3 = 120.5 ohms
Resistance tolerance : 5 OO/
L i n e a r i t y tolerance : 0 . 5 OO/
 APPENDIX E

EXPERIMENTAL P R I N C I P A L STRESSES AND

AXIS ORIENTATION

The magnitudes o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s e s , maximum s h e a r

s t r e s s e s and o r i e n t a t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each r o s e t t e
on both s i d e s of t h e wing panel. The experimental s t r a i n
gage readings a r e t a b u l a t e d i n Table EI. C a l c u l a t i o n s were
s i m p l i f i e d through t h e use of t h e IBM 360 D i g i t a l Computer
u t i . l i z i n g a FORTEAN I V program named "RECROSE"shown i n
Tables E2 and E3. The RECROSE r e s u l t s a r e l i s t e d i n

The program was designed around t h e standard r e l a t i o n -

s h i p between r e c t a n g u l a r r o s e t t e readings and p r i n c i p a l
s t r e s s e s found i n any s t a n d a r d t e x t (e.g. , Wang i n Refer-
ence 7 ) on t h e s u b j e c t .

Figure E l
Qp i s t h e angle between l e g number one and t h e maximum
normal s t r e s s axis. A p o s i t i v e value i n d i c a t e s - a n angle i n

t h e d i r e c t i o n of EEl,
2. E and & are the s t r a i n
gage readings on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e l e g s shown i n Figure E l ,
me number of t h e r o s e t t e l e g p a r a l l e l t o t h e Load Reference
Axis (CIB) i s t h e i d e n t i f y i n g number f o r the r o s e t t e .
The input t o program Rl3CROSE (Table EI) w a s designed t o
accommodate t h e above notation. Only t h e r o s e t t e i d e n t i f y -
ing number i s l i s t e d . This i s a l s o t h e gage number f o r
which t h e f i r s t colwnn o f s t r a i n s i s l i s t e d . Tbe second
and t h i r d columns a r e then the values of t h e s t r a i n dn the
next two consecutive numbered gages comprising t h e r a s e t t e .
This program was designed f o r 7079-T6 Aluminum with a
Modulus of E l a s t i c i t y of 10.3 x la6 pounds p e r square inch
and a Poisson's r a t i o of 0.32,
The r e s u l t s of RECROSE a r e l i s t e d i n Table E4 and a r e
i d e n t i f i e d by the r o s e t t e numbers which o r i e n t t h e reference
axis for
 TABLE E I

EXPERIMENTAL S T M I N READINGS

( ~ n p u t o RECROSE P r o g r a m )
336,000 in.- lb. load

INSIDE SKIN

Rosette
Number

OUTSIDE S K I N
 TABLE E2

L I S T OF SYMBOLS USED IN

PROGRAM RECROSE

Computer
Coded Name Definition

El
E l , s t r a i n i n identifying leg of r o s e t t e .
E2 2,
s t r a i n i n diagonal Peg of r o s e t t e .

E 3 # strain i n perpendicular l e g of rosette.

cmaxl
maximum principal stress,
S IGMIN CTmin, minimum p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s ,
SIGMA 1 rlIs t r e s s i n identifying l e g of r o s e t t e .

(r3' s t r e s s i n perpendicular l e g of rosette.

/rmaxl maximum shearing s t r e s s .
PHIPRR @ angle from E to Gmax
axis,'

The' number of input r o s e t t e s .

Modulus of E l a s t i c i t y .
, ~ o i s s o n ' sr a t i o .
 TABLE E3
FORTRA* IV F R O G S M
"RECROSE

/ / R E C R O S E JCB
/ / EXEC FCRTCLG
P/FCRT.SYSIk
E
OD .
2002 t P A R C E L L S r M S G L E V E L 0

RECTANGULAR S T R A I N ROSE T E D A T A R E O U C T I C N FCR TI-E C E T E R M I N b T I O h

OF P R I N C I P A L AXES PI I N E I P P L S T R E S S E S v M L I I V U V S H E A R I N G S T R E S S E S I
c
C
ANC S T R E S S E S ALCNG TFE ROSETTE A X E S 1 PND 3.
 TABLE E4

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
#
. "

( O u t p u t of P r o g r a m RECROSE)

I _.

1 ettel
Ros- SIGMA 1
1 SIGMA 3 1 SIGMAX PHIPRR

39.345
39.630
36.536
36.556
42.271
40.059
40.886
41.556
42.881
40.427
43.239
41.806
40.745
41.89.6
42.487
41.461
40.605
38.736
39.973
36.97.0
34.646
38.139
35.976
36.857
41.203
40.093
39.056
41.013
40.825
42.1'04
40.541
39.772
41.079
40. 097
 INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

No. Copies
1. Defense Documentation Center
Cameron S t a t i o n
A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a 22314
2, Library
Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e School
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a 93940
3. P r o f e s s o r C h a r l e s H. Kahr
Department o f Aeronautics
Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e School
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a 93940
4. L i e u t e n a n t P a u l W. P a r c e l l s
1221 Spruance Road
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a 93940
5. Commander, Naval A i r ; Systems Command 1 I
Department o f t h e Navy

6.
Washington, D. C. 20360
Chairman, Department o f Aeronautics
Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e School
1
.
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a 93'940 1

7. P r o f e s s o r A l l e n E. Fuhs 1
Department o f Aeronautics :
Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e School
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a 93940
8. P r o f e s s o r U l r i c h Haupt 1
Department o f Aeronautics
Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e School
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a 93940
9. P r o f e s s o r Robert E. B a l l 1
Department o f Aeronautics
Naval P o s t g r a d u a t e School
Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a 9394Q
10. D r . E. S. Lamar 1
Chief S c i e n t i s t
Naval A i r Systems Command
Department o f Navy
Washington, D. C. 20360
11. L. Desmond
M r , G.
Aerodynamics and S t r u c t u r e s
Technology Administrator
Naval A i r Systems Command
Department o f Navy
Washington, D. C, 20360
 olwrwlflwtim of title, body sf abstract and indexing mnotatian muwt be
@9~1dty entered *bar th.orridl i.port iw c k d f i s d )
1. 04301NATlNG ACTWITY (orpomk .trthor) : ?a. REPORT SECURITY G ~ C A S S ~ F I S A P ' ~
Naval Postgraduate School Unclass i f i e d
Monterey , California 2 h OROUP .
I

3- REPORT TITLE
Theoretical and Empirical. Analyses of Thick Skinned
Swept Wing Panels
4. ~ E S C R W T I V E
NOTES (Typa of irpod and inohreiva dated
Masters Thesis 1967 -1968
5. AUmOR(S)G r t name, first name, initial)

PARCELLS , Paul W. , LT, 'US24

$ REP0 RT DATE 74. TOTAL NO. OF P A O W 7b. NO. OF R L - ~ .

December 1967 71. 12
6. C U U T R A C T OR ORANT NO. Dl. ORSQ4NATOFI"S R E P O a T N U M ~ ~ L R ( S )

11. SUPPL EMIENT A W NOTES

Commander, Naval A i r Systems Command
Department of the Navy
,Washington, D, C. 203.60
I$. ABSTRACT

The v a l i d i t y of conventional s k i n and s t r i n g e r type analyses

i s v e r i f i e d experimeneally for a thick milled skin a i r c r a f t
s t r u c t u r e . The accuracy of solution i s evaluated by comparing the
strain energies i n a mathematical model to t h a t obtained experi-
- mentally from a wing panel of a high performance a i r c r a f t .
Results indicate t h a t the conventional methods of a skin-
stringer/matrix force approach are valid for a t h i c k milled skin
a i r c r a f t s t r u c t u r e of t h i s type provided the panel loading is
n e i t h e r severe nor concentrated, Additdonally t h e g r i d elements
chosen must be small. enough t o preclude any gross averaging
errors.
-
- Security Classification
14.
KEY WORDS
LlNK A
- LlNK B

ROLE
LlNK C

$WEPT WING

> mmssprm
76 *"securityClassificaiion
w
A-31409