f

The bending stress beam formula will give erroneous values

if used up to complete failure of the wing section since the
formula is based on linear o-c relation of the wing section

The non-linearity in the wing section stress-strain relation
first comes due to skin buckling and second time comes from
stringer buckling

x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
How do we calculate this ultimate bending resistance of the
beam section?
Use beam equation:
f
The aim here is to bring in modifications such that
the linear theory beam formula can still be used to
predict accurately the stresses in the beam cross
section right up to the failure bending moment

It essentially means to play around with I
x
and Z in
such a way as to make this expression still relevant
to predict failure of the wing section in pure
bending after elasto-plastic buckling deformations

x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
In the above discussion, the stringers (c) were considered to hold
their ultimate buckling load during considerable additional axial
strain

This can be verified experimentally by testing practical columns.

Practical columns are not perfect relative to straightness,
uniformity of materials etc

Fig A19.18 shows the load Vs lateral deflection of the column
midpoint as a column is loaded to failure and fails by elastic
buckling

Fig A19.19 shows similar result when the failure is by inelastic
bending

f
Fig A19.18 shows that when the compression
member finally fails in elastic bending, it normally
continues to carry approximately the maximum
load for a considerable additional deformation

Even in in-elastic buckling it still does not fail but
carries some load for a considerable additional
straining

f
The bending stress beam formula does not
take care of this non-linear o - c response



x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross
section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be
computed fairly accurately by using this formula



1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
t t t t
t t t t
C C C C
C
M da z da z da z da z
da z da z da z da z
dA g dA g dA g dA g
dA g
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o
= + + +
+ + + + +
+ + +
+
f
Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross
section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be
computed fairly accurately by using this formula



1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
t t t t
t t t t
C C C C
C
M da z da z da z da z
da z da z da z da z
dA g dA g dA g dA g
dA g
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o
= + + +
+ + + + +
+ + +
+
x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross
section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be
computed fairly accurately by using this formula



1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
t t t t
t t t t
C C C C
C
M da z da z da z da z
da z da z da z da z
dA g dA g dA g dA g
dA g
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o
= + + +
+ + + + +
+ + +
+
f
Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross
section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be
computed fairly accurately by using this formula



f
Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of the beam cross
section is necessary if the ultimate strength of the wing section is to be
computed fairly accurately by using this formula



1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8
1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4
5 5 5
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
t t t t
t t t t
C C C C
C
M da z da z da z da z
da z da z da z da z
dA g dA g dA g dA g
dA g
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o
= + + +
+ + + + +
+ + +
+
f
Thus some modification of the moment of inertia of
the beam cross section is necessary if the ultimate
strength of the wing section is to be computed
fairly accurately by using this formula

The stress engineer usually addresses this issue
by using a modified cross section, usually referred
to as effective cross section


x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
A19.11 Effective section at failing load

The effectiveness of the skin panels will be considered first

When a compressive load is applied to a sheet stringer
combination, the thin sheet buckles at rather low stress

Upon further loading the compressive stress varies over the
panel width as illustrated in fig A19.20


Skin panel
(buckled)
stringer
Variable stress distribution
on the buckled skin panel
Stress on the skin
over the stringer
o
st
o
c
A19.11 Effective section at failing load

The stress in the sheet at the stringer attachment line is the
same as in the stringer since sheet cannot buckle and takes
the same axial strain of the stringer between the stringers, the
sheet stresses decrease due to buckling as shown in the
figure


f
This variable stress condition is difficult to predict
using the beam formula since it is at the same
distance away the neutral axis


x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
The stress engineer makes a convenient substitution by replacing the
actual sheet with variable stress by a width of sheet carrying a uniform
stress equal to the stringer stress
x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
This effective width = 2W with uniform stress (=
stringer stress) is shown in fig A19.21.

2W is estimated such the total load carried by the
effective width at o
st
stress is the same as the total
load carried by the actual width of the panel
(stringer pitch) with variable stress


f
This effective width is given by

where
K = 1.9, t = skin thickness, o
st
= stringer stress

This effective width 2W of skin is considered now as part of
the stringer area which takes bending load

o
st
can be predicted by the beam formula and we have
maintained the total load carrying ability of the buckled skin
by replacing the skin with actual width by the effective width

1/ 2
2
st
E
W Kt
| |
=
|
o
\ .
f
Therefore, if we know the stress in the
stringer we can find the effective width of the
sheet to go with the stringer to obtain the
effective section to take care of skin buckling

f
Effective Factor for buckled stringers
Consider the beam section in fig A19.17
If we take a stringer (c) of length = rib spacing,
attach a piece of sheet equal to 2W, the effective
width, brace it in a plane parallel to the sheet and
test in compression, the resulting stress Vs
compressive strain curve (c) of fig A19.22 will result



1/ 2
2
st
E
W Kt
| |
=
|
o
\ .
f
The corner members (a) or (b) in fig A19.17 is
stabilized in two directions and will fail by local
crippling. Thus if a piece of corner member (a) of
length equal to rib spacing, with effective width 2W
attached on top and another 2W attached on one
side and braced against column buckling is tested,
curve (A) of fig A19.22 will result


f
Curve (c) shows that the stringer holds approximately its
maximum load for a considerable axial strain range

Curve (A) shows that for the same unit strain corner member
(a) can take considerably higher stress

If we take a unit strain of 0.006, the strain at which the corner
member develops the maximum stress of 47,000 psi, the
stringer stress will be 38,000 psi only


f
Since the distance Z from the N.A to the stringer (c) and the
corner members (a) or (b) is the same, this formula will
compute only one value both for the stringer and the corner
member



b
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
As shown in the experimental curves of fig A19.22,
at a c = 0.006 it cannot be made to predict two
different values (47,000 for corner member and
38,000 for stringer)


b
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
The stress engineer designs the section in such a
way that using the beam formula he predicts the
corner flange failure stress near to 47,000 psi




He also is forced to compute the same 47,000 psi
as the stress developed in the stringer but multiplies
this value with a factor such that the true stress
developed in the stringer is obtained (approximately
38,000 psi)


x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
This factor is referred to as stringer
effectiveness factor given by:






Ultimate strengthof stringer
Stringer effectiveness factor
Ultimate strengthof corner members
| |
=
|
\ .
38000
0.808
47000
| |
= =
|
\ .
f
To summarize the concept of predicting the elasto-plastic ultimate
bending moment carried using linear beam formula:

First the buckling of skin and next the column buckling of stringer
take place well before the wing beam section develops its failing
bending resistance

These two buckling phenomena make the o-c relationship non-
linear

Therefore the beam equation which is based on a linear
relationship between o-c (axial stress and axial strain) in its
original form cannot be used to predict the internal stresses
developed in the skin, stringers and corner members right up to
the failing bending moment M
x

x
b
x
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f

Referring to fig A19.17, the cross section will have
an unique value of I
x
. In addition the distances of the
skin, stringers and corner members from the neutral
axis are the same (one value)

As a consequence, the compressive bending stress
calculated from this beam equation will give a single
value for the skin, the stringers and the corner
members

b
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
At the design bending moment at which the corner
members fail in compressive crippling, the stresses
in the skin, the stringer and the corner members
are different

At the given design B.M these three different
stresses cannot be predicted by the beam formula

In order to be able to use the beam equation to
predict the ultimate bending moment carrying
capacity of the cross section where at the time of
failure the stresses in the skin, in the stringer and in
the corner members are different we have to bring
in the following modifications.
f
One can say that:

1) the corner member is fully effective in resisting
compressive bending stress right up to failure B.M

2) the stringer plus the effective width of skin is less
effective and is unable to go up to the corner member
stress due to column buckling

3) the skin is even less effective due to buckling at very low
load


f

In the tensile stress side of the neutral axis in
figure A19.17 the skin, the stringer and
corner members will have same tensile stress
value at the time of failure as all are fully
effective in taking tensile stress

f
On the other hand, in the compression side of the neutral
axis the effectiveness of skin, stringer and corner members
are different

In the beam equation, this ineffectiveness is accounted for
in the term I. A modified I is computed based on an
effective section area in compression in place of the
geometrical area


b
M
Z
I
| |
o =
|
\ .
f
The actual width of skin between stringer center
lines is replaced by an effective width which is
much less than the actual width. Thus the effective
area under compression is reduced
2 1.9
st
E
W t =
o
f
Even in this approximation care has been taken to see that
the total compressive load carried by the actual width of the
skin is still carried by 2W but with a constant stress = o
st


The areas of the stringers and corner members are
increased by 2W.t (the effective area of the skin)

The ineffectiveness of this new stringer area is accounted
for by multiplying by the effectiveness factor (0.808 in this
case)

Thus the stringer effective area is reduced

Both of these will modify the I of the section
f
A19.12 Example problem:

The wing section in fig A19.23 is subjected to a design
bending moment about X-axis of 5,00,000 in lb, acting in a
direction to put the upper portion in compression

The problem is to determine the margin of safety for this
design bending moment

The material is 2024 aluminum alloy