/##/* ..

,.. , %

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~)z 3, /,2

No. 1094

INVESTIGATION

OF THE BEHAVIOR PANELS

OF THIN-WALLED

WITH CUTOUTS

By A. A. Pcdorozhny Central Aero-Hydrodynamical Institute

Washington September 1946

N A C A LIBRARY
UNGiEY ,,. -. .... ... . KEMOW

AEROW~ J-A-WR4T0RY
.. . . .. ..

..

,,..,, .

.. ,.

.. . ., . . .. . .

..

. ..

. . ----

m@UiiiililIiini____
31176014407833 COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM

HAT IOI?AL ADVISORY TECHNICAL ..

lolt AERONAUT Sro 1094 .

BEHAVIOR OF

ICS

IEVES!!!IGATIOHOY T~ THIIJ-WALLED

PAITELS WITH

CUTOUTSL

By A. A. Podoroshn~

The present piper deals with the computation and methods of stiffened panels with cutouts under bendof reinforcement ing loads such as are applied to the sides of a fuselage. A comparison is made between the comnuted and test results. Results also are presented of tests on panels with cutouts under tanslle andcompressive lGads. 30TATIOH H height of beam (fig.

5)
of waves of buckled beam to sp%rs

6
a ax u~ k L 1 h F Sp

thickness angle

of skin

of inclination stress stress

tanslla

compressive

tietlo of stresses langth spacing spacing of baam

ua/ul

of transverse of longitudinal areas

stiffeners stiffeners

(ribs) (stringess) spars

cross-sectional

of tom and bottom

Report Ho. Institute, Moscow,

45b of 1939.

the Oentral

Aero-Hydrodynamlcal

--

IIACA TM HO. 1094

a
area of stringers of intermediate ribs

~elt
-, r ri r ro
P= T Q

oross-seotional

&r-ota-e:ieotional area crotas-seatiQnal external tangential

foroe

area

of outermost

ribs

stress tangential

in skin stress
in

cr

oritical

skin at loss

of equilibrium

STATl#MENT OF PROBLEM

The preeenoe of outouts in the fuselage brings about a redistribution of the forces in its elements and a lowering in the over-all strength of the structure. A method is required therefore for strengthening the beam in suoh a manner of the outouto may largely be eliminated. that the effect This problem an yet haO been touched upon only slightly in the literature by investigators.
Of Belyakov (referenoe 1) in his paper oonsiders CutoutS ieolated eeotions and determines for these the centers of fatiffneee. As has been shown by experiment (fig. l),the actual centers of stiffness of structures (fuselages) differ oonelderably from thoee computed. Thie is due to the fact that in determining the centers of stiffnese of isolated cross seotions no aocount is taken of (1) the effect of the neighboring olosed seotions on the open once, (2) the effect of the outout framing, and (3) the effect of the Joint between fuselage and wing. work of M. I. 19aiman (referenoe a) In the experimental and of the flanges around the outout In the effeot of cutouts a thin wall after lose of equilibrium is investigated. As 2, the outout flange lowers the stream may be seen from figure The flanging thus substioonoentration by about 16 peroent. tutes to a oertain extent a stiffener frame around the outout.

In the text book of Timoghenko and Lessels (referenoe 3) on applied structural theory, a computation formula is given for determining the maximum normal stresses In a thin-walled bending under a oonoentrated foroe. beam with outouts for This formula shows that even a alotli~e cutout produoes an effeot , the maximum normal stress be$ng increased.

..

HACA

TM NO. 1094

In a paper by M. I. Haiman (referenae 4) an investigation is made sf rectangular beams with cutouts under a bending moIf the beam ment and the following coielutiions are reached: is loaded in bending by a forae at one end and the cutout ie located along the depth of the beam at a distance not lese than 3 to 4 times its diameters, the maximum normal tentalle be of the came magnitude as in and compressive stresses will the case of a beam without outoute. As follows from a test oondueted on thin-walled ~uralumin with various cutouts (figs. 3 and 4), the TlmoshenkoLessele formula co~reaponde to real .condltione. The oonoluaion of Naiman, hawever, Ita valid onl~ for the ease of pure Prom the curves of figure 4, it Is eeen that the bending. presence of outouts located at a distance of four timee Ite dianetere fro= the edge produaed, according to experiment, an Inorease In the maximum normal bending etrese of 30 peroent and according to the !l!imoohenko-Lesselm formula, of 43 percent ae oompared to the maximum normal stress obtained by Iialman The ciroles In figure 3 indifor the beam without autouts. cate the location of the tensiometers while the straight lines through the oirolee Indicate the gage lengthfd of the doformaThe positive numbers on the figure correemond to the tione. normal tensile etreeeee and the negatl;o numbers to the normal compreflaive stretataeta.
beams

00MPU2A!l?IOl!l THIN-WALLED 01 LONGITUDINAL

BEAMS

REINFORCED

BY A SYSTEM

OF

AND TEAI?SVERSE STII?IFAERS

In thie section a ~omputation will be made of thin-walled beams without cutouts loaded by a concentrated foroe at the The ribs are aos~mea to be hinge-~ointed to the spars. end. effect of the etlffneee of the Actually there is a certain Joints (frame rigidity) shown by experiment to be about 4 peroqnt. To determine the teneile and aompresslve ekin after 10SS of equilibrium, the following erence 5) will be used: 1
c7zE l+~eln~a= 2T 2T Tcr

stresees fgrmulag

In the (ref-

Bin 2a

(1)

. ..__ _..._

-.

.._

.-.-

.-

.-.

-. -.

..

2T

a=l+kein2a where
al

-IiLu
sin

au

(2)

tensile

strength

a~

aompree Oive qtress of the stresses ~Z and Ua ie Indleated on

The charaoter figure 5.

The ooefflcient

is determined 1

by the formula

k=27 Tor The tangential etreeses T 1

c% = 27 7~r

(3)

are determined

by the formula (4)

where

Q
Sef 8

shearing effective thickness effective

force Otatioal
of

moment

skin of inertia of the croms seotlon

Ief

mom~nt

By the term effective is Indicated that in computing S f not the entire skin but only a part was taken ?n and lef The cross-eectisnal area ~f such strips in the computation. 30M (5 the region under compression is taken equal to Is the thickness of the skin) and In the region under tension 85 percent of the cross-sectional area of tho skin. oorrespondlng The critical tangential stress ? or the equilibrium breakdown of the skin may be determined the formula to by

-..

.-

..

MACA

TN Ea. 1094
.
t

or

= 34,800 110 + ~

~ \a x
h)

(5)

where

Up t~ the instant when the skin of the beam has lost its equilibrium, the ribs reaeive no load from the tangential otresses; the spars ~nd atringarta are l~aded by the nornal After the loss of equistresses due to the bending moment. librium, however, the ribs are loaded by the skin with oompretasive forces and the @pars and etrlagere are loaded by axial foraee In additicn to the normal etreeeea due to the . These farces, taken up by the ribs, spars, bending moment. and stringers, result fr~m a stress in the skin equal only to the difference between the tensile and aonpressive stresses, that is,

aad = al
where Uld compressive

-cr~=

2(T - Tcr)
(6)

sin am
represents the difference between the tensile stresses al and Oa shown in figure 5. and

If the stiffness of the stringers to bending In the plane of the @kin is small, the etresaee in the skin of the neighboring panela will somewhat equalize. The reoultant stresses in the spare, stringers, and ribs of a multipaneled beam are determined by the formulas:
Stress iq the top spar: M ~apt 0 Yv-~ N

Ief

(7)

ap

Stress

in the bottom

spar:
M

N (8)
E @p

asp-b = - Yn-
lef

-.

.. -

17AOA TM Eo. 1094 Stresses . .-. -, . in the stringers: .x Oet -* Ief The axial foroeta R and
7 lT

.... .,.

Ii, ;- ~st by the formulas (~t) (9)

Bl
a

are determined

-re=

h8 oot a

R,

(T - T==)h8

oot a ribs:

(gl)

The

stress

in the Intermediate (T ari

Tor)uj
tan a F, ribs: (lOa)

The

stress

in the outermost

(lo)
where aroao-eeetional oroaa-eeotional oroea-eectional orooa-eeot~onal bending effeotive and moment moment of inertia of a cross oeotloa area area area area of the epar + 166~
of

stringer

+ 3088 rib +

cf

an Intermediate

308*

of an end rib

+ 168a

arn dlotanae from neutral axle of beam to element under consideration (teneile and oompreeolve sones) axia 6 of beam to stringer under

diatanee from neutral oonsideratlon ordinate shown

in figure

., L?

liAOA 9M Bo. 1094

materials In the ease of a beam conatruoted of various it is neoesoazy in formulas (7), (8), (9), and (10) to take exaniIn tho-rn~-dtili.A numerloal aeoount of the differences ple for suah a beam is given below. 00MPUTATIOI!J OF THIN-WALLED BEAM WITH CUTOUT

In this eeotion thin-walled beams with outouts wall be Computation formulas will be derived with the qld computed. of which It will be poseible to determine the stresses and select stiffener members for framing the contour of the cutout . the ehear oroseThe presenoe of a cutout decreasee F o 6b. (See fig. ~ectional area of the beam by the amount As a result, 6.) the tangential streeses in a section with Use will be made of the notacutout Increase In magnitude. tion
Qt = Tba

(11)

where
T

tangential depth
of

etreso cutout of skin

of

in eection

without

cutout

b 8

thickness

The dimensions eondltionm :

the framing

strip

are

determined

by the

whenoe (12)

..

ITAOA TXMO.

1094

8 T

and and

81 -. Tt

thiekneaseo of initial . respectively , . .. .. . . tangential stresses tion of a cutout apeotively depth of mtout reapeettvely

qkin and

stiffening

stilp,

in initial skin before formaand in stiffening otrip, reof stiffening

of

and

bl

and width

strip,

Formula (12) may be exprefimed In terme etreesee In the following form:

the normal

where ql and a are the respective tensile initial skin and In the etlffenl~g strip.

etresses

in the

The distributed loads acting on the stiffeners bordering the cutouts (fig. 6) are determined by the following formulaa:

qr=(T-Tcr)8=t

(Z

(14)

(15)

t= 81sP

8 slnacoa

~=

(T

-T=r)

(16)

In oomputing the horizontal stiffeners (parallel to the they may be aseumed as beame with clamped ends in stringers), the aase where they are extended to the following ribs. (See fig. 6.) In thim oaee, the normal streusea for the oenter of the cutout span (a/2) of the etiffener frame seetion is deter. mined by the formula Uai = *
y..

.q

etaa

241%

(-cr)tan tan. (17a)

a41~

Similarly, tho strese.eo in the vertical etiffener seqtions the uenter of the outout (b/2) (parallel to the ribs) for are determined

--- .

IJACA TM MO.

1094

In formulas (17) and (18) the values en from the corresponding neutral axes.

and

are tak-

MoreoYer, the Cutout stiffeners are aoted upon by tha tangential 10~au t (formula ), which may be determined by the formulas: ta
Oaa = * * (T-T ~r) 88

(17b) Naef 7. -Tcr b8 JMe f (18b)

2ylef tb a~a = * -=* 2Fa ef

The distributed l~ad qr (fig. 5) will produce a tensile stress on the cutout stiffeners parallel to the stringers, the otreeeee being aomputed by the formula: T -Tcr b8 eot a 2Flef (170)

qrb ai~ = + = aFlef

The tensile stresses In the cutdut.stiffeners the ribs are aomputed by the analogoue formula:

parallel

to

(18G)

Thus the resultant stresses In the cutout stiffeners parallel to the stringers are determined by the formula:
?Cr
&

.T-

Uam 2 [

aai~tana*
121~ parallel

a8

Fief to the ribs

b8 lef

eot a

(17) 1

and for the stiffeners

..

-.

..

I?ACA

TM Hg. 1094
T.

10
a

~%. 2

Ter* b =
[

b8 cota* ~aef

121=

~ Eaef

tan a 1

(18)

In the case where the cutout stiffeners are strlngerta at the same time, an additional computation must be made for the stresses due to the bending moment.

With the obJect of cheoklng the computation formulas by varioua specimpns were conatruated and teeteti. experiment,

A. Construction

of Speeimens

(~ Thin-walJed flat beanam teflted for be~er a foro Q.- Beam No. 1 (fig. 7) had no outoute and concentrated ooneisted of skin, otringers, ribs, and spars. The skin was 1 millimeter thlek and the intermediate ribs (fig. ha) were of duralumin DZ; the stringers were of pressed euperduralumin (fig. llb). The outermaat ribs (fig. 11o) and the spars (fig. lld) were of chromo-molybdenum. The takln wae attached to the spars by means of duralumin angles at both sides. The over-all dimensions of the beam were 1340 by 1810 millineterta; the distance between stringern waa 150 millimeters and between ribs 540 milllmeterm. The spare, Beam Ho. 2 had three window cutouts (fig. 8). The ribs, and etringerm were the same ae for beam No. 1. thickness of the skin strip in the region of the cutouts was One cutout, of rectincreased, however, to 1.5 millimeters. angular shape, was stiffened by a duralumin frame of U-eectlon The oval-ehape cutout w&s stiffened by a frame (fig. he). The tatringers and the ribs served of the same cross eeetlon. shape. ae the frame of the third cutout of rectangular and 9a) had two window outoute and Beam No. 3 (figs.9 differed from beam Mo. 2 in that the area of the orogs section of the frame (fig. llf) around the oval outout was increased of to double that of the oval frame of beam Ho. 2. The joints the curved members of the frame with the straight members were Improved. Moreover, the rectangular cutout of the oenter panel was bordered by stringer meotions, that 1s, the skin wag out out Up to the stringers while at the sides the outout was stiffened by sections of the same type as the stringers. fered Beam Ho. 4 (figs. 10 and 10a) had a door from beam No. 1 in that over the entire cutout oenter and difpanel

. RACA TM Ho. 1094

11

was placed a 3-millimeter akin, to whleh was ri~eted a layer of duralumin .s-@eetpf.. 2=m$ll_l.mg~eE,thickness and W5-mlllimeter height. The contour of the door outout was etiffened by a frame, the crose section of whloh is shown In figure ll,g. 3eam Ho, 6 (fig. 10b) likewlse had a door outout and diffrom beam No. 4 in that the cross-eeotianal area of the Moreover, the about the cutout (fig. llh) was doubled. Joints between the etraight and curved members were strengthby ened and the butt ends of the stringers were strengthened means of gussets attached to the intermediate ribs. fered frame Panel He. 1 had (b) Plane panels tested in compression.and ooneisted of duralumin elemento, that is, skin, The over-all dimensions of the panels and ribs. were the following: length, 620 mlllimetere and width, 580 The distance between the stringers wae 140 milmillimeter. limeterta, between the ribs 660 m~llimeters. ~or the intermediate stringers bulb angle stiffener, type 24=-3 (fig. llb) and far the outerm?gt etringere and ribs tyFe were umed, 24HX-5 (fig. llj) were used. On the side of the emooth skin along the edge~ of the panel ~dditlonal shortened stringers of seati~n 24EIX-5 were attached In order to provide local stiffening of the parts of the panel weakened most by the cutout while In the ease of the panel wlth~ut cutouts they were atof construction, thereby enabling a tached to give uniformity comparison of the test results.
no autoute atringerta,

Panel No. 2 (fig. It had a symmetrically eter.

12) differed from panel Eo. 1 In that placed outout of 460-millimeter diam-

Panel Ho. 3 differed from panel No. 2 in that the contour (fig. of the outout was stiffened by a ring frame of U-section The construction of this type of cmtout approached the 111). cutout of the open pilotts oabln. (c) Plane panels tested In tension.- The center parts of 14), 6, and 6 (fig. panele Nos. 4 (fig. 15) were the same, reepeotlvely, as those of panels Hoe. 1, 2, and 3. Thus, the panele tested In tenelon differed fr~m the panels tested in compression only In the lengthened ends for tae loadlng of uniformly distributed foraes.

Teat Prooedure (a) Each baam was tested under a concentrated load at one Along one side of the apeoimen, guides were mounted that

end.-

s l=

l?ACA TM NO. 1094

12

At the outermost ribs permitted it to move only in its plane. and epare the tens-lometere were .rnfl-unted pairs on each side in in order to exclude the ekiebt of the bending-on the reading of the spesimens were The defleotionc of the tenaiometera. meaeured by instruments plaoed at Intervals of 300 millimeters from each other and conneoted with the spealmen by steel wire. The first reading wag made under a load of 1 ton (fig. 9a). and the following readings were made for each 800 kilograms. were At failure of the beams only the maximum deflections measured.

(b) Testing of the paneln in compression.- The testing the panels in oompreselon was couducted on Amsler machines of 10 and 100 tone, - The ends of the panels were pressed against the planes of the machine. The tenslometers were mounted on the skin, etrlngers, and stiffener frame along the In order to exolude the direction parallel to the stringers. effeot of the bending, during wave formation of the skin, on the readings of the tenaiometer~ the latter were mounted in pairs; that 1s, on the two sldee with a gage length of 10 millimatera. At the outermost stringers and the frame around the cutout the tenslometers were likewise mounted In pairo but with a gage length of 20 millimeter. The readings of the %enqiometerO were made at l-ton load intervals.
of

(G) Testing of the panels In tension.- The specimens were of a lever system. tested in tension by applloatlon The tenalometerO were mounted In the sane manner aa for the compre@qIon tests but all with a gage length of 20 !nIlllmeters. Moreover, additional rovm of tentaiometere were mounted near the ends.

ANALYSIS OF TXST It31SULTS

(a)

Eesults

of Bending

Tests

on the Beams

Table 1 gives the failure loads, the magnitude of the maximum defleotiona, and the wetght oharaoterietias for the beams tested in bending. The strefie distribution in the elements of beam Mo. 1 (without outouta) 1s shown on figure 16. Thetae etreaaee correspond to a load of 5000 kilograms and are given on the f$gure in kllogramta per square oentlmeter, the cirolea and l$nes through them denoting reapeotively the looation and the d$reoti~n of mounting of the tenmiometers.

~igure 17 shows the rat~os of the atremseo In the elements of beam -Ho. a to the otreBses in the aorreoponding . . . on figures 18, 19, and elements of beam Ho. 1. Analogously, 20 are shown the eorreepondlng ratioe of the stresses in the elements of beams lTos. 3, 4, and 5 to the streeees in the The minus Indloates a elements of beam Mo, 1. corresponding ohange in the sign of the etress. As may be seen from figure 16, corresponding to beam IJq l,the maximum stresses measured on the waves of the skin . were obtatned along the diagonal of the beam. Thi~ may be explained by the faot that the spars of the beam were not ab~or comsolutely stiff In bending In the plane of the skin. pleteneee of the piature of the nonuniform behavior of the skin In the beam, the test values of the etreoees in the skin along the depth of the beam wall (fig. ala) and along the seotion perpendicular to the waves (fig. ~lb) are given. rlgure ala gives the etresses in the skin of beam No. 1 (fig. 16, in the skin untaeotion AB) and figure 21b gives the streesee mtiffened by stringers and out into stripe of 50-millimeter AIB may be seen from figures 21a width . (See reference 5.) of the streeses in the skin and 21b, the law of distribution both in the case of stiffening by stringers and in the unstlffened skin in -the same, that is, the maximum tensile atreesOs The stresses correspond to the center eectlons of the ekin. deoreaae toward the tatringere.

BAalazk. For the points where the magnitude of the atreseee deviated from the general law of the etreem distribution, tensiometers were mounted a seoond time but the previous results were essentially confirmed. Theee deviations may be explained by (1) small etralns in certain panels of the qkin; (a) the waves of the skin encountering the stringers and ribs ohange their shape and angle of inollnatlon somewhat (fig. 10a).
It ie seen on figure 17 that the qtreeaee in the Senter Th%e panel of the ekin have as a rule the maximum values. o may be explained by the fact that ths atringere aoting in aompreea~on simultaneously with the skin relieve the skin load to Borne extent near the etrlngers. and lower qpar, as may be seen from The etringere, ribs, (fig. 16] are under oompreoelon; the eigne of the atreasem the upper qpar and the ekin are under teneiom. The etart of equilibrium breakdown of the mk3n wa~ vioually observed at 4 load of 600 kilograms. The Inolinatlon of the waves in the sk~n to the @pars was approximately 38. The failure of the

- .-.-

..-

- .-

.- =-.

.,_

?.UCA TX NO. 1094

14

epeoimen oocurred under a load of 9600 kilograms as a result .of failure .of the r.ivelimat the place of attaahn?ent of two .. sheets of the skin under the strlngera. Beam No. 2 (fig. 8) was initially tested only with two cutouts up to a load of 5 tons and then a third cutout wae The results of the later made and the epeeimen again te~ted. An increase in teats are Indlaated on figure 17 by primes. the load above 5000 kilograms produoed large deformations in The outout stiffeners the the frames around the cutouts. oeotions of whloh are shown in figure 11 buokled out, and at the plaoes where the curved and straight members were ~oined the rivets were sheared and the beam was ruptured at a load It should be remarked that the third cutof 5200 kilograms. out stiffening, whtch coneisted of stringers and ribs, reThe eelved a slight deformation at failure of the beam. effect of the cutouteon the strese distribution may be followed from a comparteon of the stress rattos, Indioated by primes (section AB, fi . 17), with the values of the strees Thie comparison ratios without primes f of the same oeation). of a outout in the firet panel (varishows that the presenee ant of beam teet with three cutouts) gave an Inorease in the streeees In the oenter panel, for example, of about three with oaee of no outout In the firet panel times as compared (variant of beam test with two cutouts). In the second and third panels of the beam, ehown on figure 17, the effect of by the use of a the cutouts wav to a large extent ellminatad mtlffenlng strip of ekln and light frames around the cutout. From the test on beam IJo. 2 it was framee placed around the outout appeared It is therefore neceseary of the beam. oute with stronger stiffener eeetions. No. 2, as may be seen from table 1, wag of beam IJo. 1. found that the light au the weakeet parts to reinforce the outThe etrength of beam 54.2 peroent of that

Beam Ho. Z had two window cutouts elmilar to the outouto of beam No. 2 (figs. 9 and 9a). The strengthening of the cutout stiffeners gave an increaee in the failure load up to 800 to 8000 kilograms, which oonstltutes 83.4 percent of the strength of the beam without cutouts, that is~ increased the The beam failed as a etrength of the beam by 29.2 percent. of-the ekln attaohed to the result of the large deformations stiffener.. strip, the buakllng of the stringer at the boundary between the sheets of skin of different thicknesses and the failure of the rlvete. The frame was therefore no longer Thus an increase In the etlffthe weakest part of the beam. neee of the frame members around the outout, without .

..

XUCA

TM MO. 1094

essentially affecting the otreos distribution In the qkin (figs. 17 and 38), oonsiderahly Increased the strength of . . . . stru-otur-e. At Beam Eo. 4 had a door outout (fl~o. 10 and 10a). load of 4.6 tons the sections of the ~rame around the outout At a load of 6 tone the thickened skin began to buckled. In the panels not having cutouts deep waves were formed warp. At a load of 7900 kilograms the frame strip (fig. 10a). buokled, producing a failure of the rivets which attached it This led to the rupture of the beam. to the ribs. The . strength of beam No. 4 was 132.4 peroent of that of beam Blo. 1. In this ease, as in the case of beam No. a, the frame around the cutout was the weakest part of the qtruoture. In bsam no. 5 the contour of the door outout, similar to the cutout of beam No. 4, vas stiffened by a frame the profile cross section of whtch was doubled, and gussets were mounted At a to stiffen the Joints of the stringers with the ribs. load of 8000 kilograms, that io, greater than the rupturing in the panel with cutout load of beam 190. 4, no deformations were observed vlsuallg. At a load of 8200 kilograms the skin of the first panel near the thickened part (stiffener strip) sharply buckled. A load of 6600 kilograms produoed the same deformatlona as in the skin of the Initial panel. At a load of 8aO0 kll~rams the beam failed as a reeult of the large deformations of the skin Joined to Ite stiffened part and to the failure of the rivets. of a etlffer Thus the substitution frame around the contour of the door cutout raised the overall strength by 10.1 percent, thereby raising the strength to 92.5 percent of that of the beam without cutouts. The following relation In the behavior of the elemente of In the inttial gkin after loss of the beam may be noted here. equilibrium the depth of the wavee increases with Increase In the load, and this may lead to one of two ways of beam failure: 1. The frame around the cutout cannot ensure equilibrium of the region with stiffener strip; so the loss of equilibrium of the latter leads to final failure either of the cutout of failure of beam stiffener members or of their joints (case Mo. 4). 2. The frame assures the etabillty of the region with The initial skin having lost Its stablllty stiffener strip. and encounter~ng res~stance to the spreading of the waves from the Initial ekin to the etlffener breaks dpwn at the place of a drop In the stiffness (caee of failure of beam Ho.

EAOA
6).

TM Ho. 1094

16

The stresses in the parts of the initial sktn attaahed to th.e,o.tiffenor ~trlp in this ease rise, as may be men from the data on flgnres 30 and 19. The ratios of the stresses In beam Eo. 6 to the stresses in beam Ho. 1 at the plaae whore are greatthe initial qkin Zm attaohed to the stiffener strip 20) than the corresponding magnittadea in beam No. 4 er (fig.
(fig. 19).
of the horn what has been said above and a ooncideratlon in the regions of tho cutouts and lawe of otrese distribution the neighboring regionn (fige.19 and 20), the following eonolueione may be drawn:

1. When the frame around the autout IS not euffiaiently the stiffener strip of akin buoklee in approximately the game manner as the initial skin. Such a frame pute the initial akin at the plaoe of Itm attachment to the etlffener strip under more favorable conditions but prematurely brlngo about a failure of the beam as a result of the large deformations of the cutout contour and these deformations bring of the ettffened region. about the 10CS of equilibrium
atlff,

2. A sufficiently stiff frame around the outout prevents the buckling of the stiffener strip but giveo rise to a stress oonoentration In the parts of the nonstiffened skin where It lo attached to the stiffener strip, that is, where the otlffnees of the skin is different. With the obJect of clarifying the effe~t of the stlffnees the Junctions of the outermost ribs with the spars (rig3dity of the frame structure), wa~ conduoted on a frame a temt which was obtained by auttlng out all elements adJolning the spars and the outermost ribs. The deflection of the frame was carried to the came valve at whioh the beam w~thout outouts This defleatlon was obtained at a load of 400 kilofailed. rtgldity of the etrueture thug The effeet of the frame grams. constituted about 4 peroent.
of

(%) ~esults

of Test

on Panela

In Compression

one without Three panels were tested in compression: cutout (fig. la), and out out , a seoond with an ungtiffened the third with a cutout stiffened by a ring-shape frame (fig. 13). In figure ~a the stresses tndloated aorregpond to a load In panel Eo. 1 not having any outout the of.6.000kilograms.

-.

The panel skin lost its equilibrium at a load of 7 tons. failed under a load of 18,900 kilograms as a reeult of the The weakest bending of the stlffenorsin two direotiona. parts of the speoimen were the oeations ad~olnlng the butt ends of the shortened stringers whioh were not etlffened with At these placea the lnlstiffeners at the ends. horizontal The streosea in the skin, reoetved a fracture. tlal stringers considerably lees than in were 22, as may be seen from figqre the etrtngerm.
contour of the cutout unIn panel Ilo. 2 the Unstiffened The @tart of the der a load of 3 tone bent along a wavy line. lose of equilibrium of the skin was observed, however, at a With inoreaoing load the depth of the waves load of 1 ton. of the skin and, tn particular, along the eontpur of the cutout oonatderably tnoreaeed. At a load of 9800 kilograma the The outermost (Inltlal) stiffeners bent somepanel failed. what and at the ends of the shortened stringers received a The effect of the outout on the stress dissharp fracture. tribution in the elemente of panel ITo. 2 is shown in figure 23 by the ratios of the streeaes in the elemente of panel Eo. 2 to the strea~eo in the corresponding elements of panel No. 1.

Panel No. 3, that is, with a cutout stiffened by a ring The frame (fig. 13) failed at a load of 10,100 kilograms. start of the loss of equilibrium in the skin was observed at a load of 2 tons. The weakeet region of the panel wan the seotion at which the shortened stringers ended. The stiffener frame of the outout during failure of the panel showed no deformatlonm observable by the naked eye. On figure 24 are Indioated the ratioe of the etresnea obtained in panel Mo . 3 to the stresses In panel Mo. 1. horn the data on figures 23 and 24 It ie seen that all three middle stringers and The outaaaumed the load. the skin between them very weakly ermost stringers, the ad~aaent parts of the skin, and the The 100al frame of the cutout were strongly overloaded. the stiffeners in the form of shortened otringers strengthened whloh the weakest seotione minimal seotlon of the panels after were found to be those to whioh the shortened stringers did Owing to the mounting of a frame around the cutnot extend. out, the part of the skin which was attaohed to the frame did not lose equilibrium am was the aaee with the panel with unqtiffened autout. The breakdown loade of the panels with the unstiffened and stiffened outouta in peroent of load in the panel without outout were respectively 50.8 and 53.4.

_-

.-

. .

BTACA TM Ho. 1094

18

The preaenoe of a frame inareaeed the over-all etrength of the panel amly by 2.6 peroent; -while the effeot of a Cutout In the given oaoe was almost 50 peraent. 8uch a lowering of the etrength of a panel with outouta may be explained ahiefly by the Insuffloient oroee-aeotional area of the outermost stiffeners. The oroes-eeotlonal area of the panel without autout waa

areas of the shortened etringere are not The croea-eeotional taken Into account, etnoe they constituted only local etiffenere at the eidee of the cutouts. The arose-eeotional area of the panel with stiffener cutout was

Ftot

ret

~ek

2.4 + 1.2 = 3.6 equare. centimeters

of the crons-eeotlonal area .

of

that 1s, constituted the panel without

31.6 peroent cutout.

3rom what ham been eaid, it follows that the elimination of the cutout ie posto any considerable extent of the effect sible only by mounting etronger etiffener eeotionsat the rnideB of the panel. The choice of section ehould be haeed on the consideration that the minimum area of the panel croee seotion ohould be equal approximately to the oroes-sectional area of the panel without cutout.

(c) Results

of the Teste

on the Panele

in Teneion

Three panele were tested in tension: cutout, cutout , Ho. 5 with an unetiffened etiffened cutout.

panel 190. 4 vlthout and 190. 6 with a

At a load of ~6 tone on panel I?o. 4 (fig. 14) eeveral rivete were cheared and the ends of the ehortened etrlngers Thie may be explained etood noticeably away from the skin. by an eccentricity of the point of load application due to the difference in thioknees of the eklp and eteel plates rivAt a load of 28 tone the eted to the ends of the panel. panel buokled elmultaneomsly over the entire orose eeetion. The etreseee in the elements of panel Mo. 4 are shown in figure 26.

.-

.-

lJACA TM MO.

1094

19

In panel Ho. 6 (with unetlffened cutout) the intermediate between them weakly oupported the exstrtnger, and the skin ternal load, as may be seen from the ratios of the stresses In the elements of panel Io. 6 to the stresses in panel No. 4 6 failed with buokllng of the skin near Panel Mo. (fig. 26). the unstiffened contour ofthe cutout at a load of 14.5 ton-.
In panel Ho. 6 the stiffening of the outout prevented warping of the skin and somewhat inereaoed the supporting The failure of the part of the panel. eapaoity of the oenter The effeot of the panel ooeurred at a load of 16.2 tone. stiffened cutout on the redistribution of the stresses Is shown in figure 27. Panels 5 and 6 had 51.7 and 54.3 percent, respectively, As In the aase of the comof the strength of panel Ho. 4, pression teete the deciding factor was not the 100al stiffentringers or frames around the ing in the form of shortened q area of the cutouts but the increase in the cross-sectional outermoet etlffenera sinae these must in the end take up the external load. COIUCLUSIONS (a) Cutout at the Sides
of a

Stringer

Monoooque

fiselage

On the basis of the preoedlng oomputatlons and test reeffeot of autouto sults, It may be remarked that the weakening may to a large extent be nllminated by plaoing around the cutout a skin strip (fig. 6) the thiokness and width of whioh are chosen by formula (12$). Moreover, it is necessary to put around the outout a frame having members possessing suffiolent stiffness to bending in the plane of the skin and normal to it. The loade associated with the frame are determined by formulas (17) and (18). The joints of the frame membero also should be of sufficient strength. The most oholoe of the stiffener elements of the cutout may be ooneidered that for vhioh the outout region is -no longer the weakest part of the side of the fuselage and the in the akin near the stiffener local stress concentration This oondltion may he attained by mountstrip is not large. 10SS of equilibrium of ing a stiff frame oapable of preventing Moreover, the thioknems of of the skin. the stiffened region the stiffener strip should be equal to or somewhat greater than the thlokness of the Initial skin. Hountlng

.-

HACA

TM Ho.

1094

20

a strip the thloknese of which considerably exoeeds the thickneae of the initial ekln Is not recommended, because of the sharp drop in the stlffneas of the beam that may lower its otrength. If the fuselage has longerone extending to the outouts, then In oomputing the longeron~ account should be taken of the loads computed by formulas (7) and (8).

(b) Outouts a Monoooque

in the Sides

of

Iuselage without

Stringers

The cutouts in the sides of a fuselage not having longitudinal etlffenere must be stiffened by attaching around the cutout a skin strip having thickness and width chosen by formula (13) and placing strong stiffeners around the cutout. The horizontal members should extend to the second ribs. HUKERICAL EIXAMPLE OF A BEAM of a Beam COMPUTATION Cutouts

(a) Computation

without

A numerical example of the computation applicable to teeted beam No. 1 of a multlpaneled beam constructed of varioufa materlale 18 given below.

External Height Distance Length

force of beam between of beam

. . . . . .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

5000

kg

H = 1~70 mm h s 150 mm L = 1730 mm 1 = 570 mm s Sp = 10.2 oma

etringers

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . rlhe area . . . . . . of spar . . .

Ditatanoe between Oross-eectlonal

Oroen-eeot%onal area of outermomt ribs . . . . . . . .

~1 = 7.8 cm=

--

lUCA

TM MO. 1094 area ribs area

. . . .

21

Cross-sectional intermediate Croeo-eectional

stringer

of

. . . . . . . of
. . . . . . .

~11 = 1.23 cma r~t = 1.1 ~ma 8=lmm Bet = 2.1 X 106 kg/area
%11 F --=

Thloknees

of skin

. . . . . . . .

Elasticity modulus of spars and endribs . . . . . . . . . Elasticity modulus of walls, Intermediate ribs and stringers

7.2 x

10s

Compute the ordinate of the neutral axis of the effective In the region of the beam unsection of the beam (fig. 28). der tension it will be assumed that 85 percent of the skin takes part and In the region under oompreeslon strips having a width 30 times the thickness adJacent to the stiffeners (reference 6). In order that it may be the oross-sectional areas of coneist of the same material multiply the croes-eectional the ratio of moduli: possible to assume in computing the beam that all its elements - for example, of duralumin areas of the steel elements by

E~t
= dur

2.1 x 106 7.2 x

105
aa-

In this case the ordinate of cording to the scheme of the beam

the center of gravity (fig. 28) will bel

Inlmm

#mm

mm

.,,

mmmmmm

,,

------

..

.. . . . . . . . -

YAOA 10. 1004 ~

aa

Q425150,1 102* +
2.10,2 ##+? +93,5 +78,5 +31,75)&l,l+ 2.1O,2 * s

127+( 1,1 +085 150,1) (108,5+ .

l,l+40,1(0,8515+300,1) 30.0,01)31,7548,5+a5 ( +

+ 18,5) ~ ~~ . =

+7.1,1 +4*0,1 (0,8515+300,1)

+ Ys + Y7+YI)+ =

( (

Ed g! ~

15 ~ Ys= ).

10,2 ;:;$ +0,425.15.0,1 w+ s ) +(1,1+0,85.15.0,1 )(43,5+ 28,5+

(

+ 13,5 +0,5.1,59+(1,1 +30.0,01)(0,5. 16,5+ 15+ +31,5 +46,5)+ 10,2 ~ # +15.0,01 s

---

-.

. .

. -

.-. . - -

..

oamputwt?lo=uimlm~ . . . . . ., .. .
.:=

8tromm

formulm (4):

a,

410kg/cms

m=0s78;a=0 #
s

The tenllilo stress

In

Oomputed

fOrmula (1):

2% t~
al=.
sin 2a

2.410 176 0,97 = 668kg\~

%pt =+*

J4-(-%)Z
= _

H(HL)

ctga=

62-(410-176) 10,32x 01

s 









 

,, ------

.-

---.

..

RAOA fl

HOq 1094

a4

127-.(m7-22) %%1

28=

526 132=

~-,

658kg/fmlg

=38-110=

721sg/c#

SOO0931 ~~ 13,5(410176) 15;: s . l10=lWkg/m~.

The 8tress In an Intemdhte rib:

1,28=

=8,2

x
.s

~~::;~;:

0,78= 234

stressla an out,most rib:

L (Lf).=
&ur

am

=(3%=) (
n

8tglB+~

7#.l(P 173(173-57)-

=(410 176)
(

2.7,=

.0,1 .o,78+y#p

NACA

TM No. 1094 TAELE computed stress (kg/cma)

2

25

um-

ber

Place of Stress Skin, Uz

Experimental strees (kg/em=) 637

Remarks

663

Experimental stress

mean

2 3 4 5 6

Upper %

spar, Sp

372 -658 -72 -102 -234 -450

373 -471 -60.4 -106 -286 -517 Stresses In stringer of various panels Experimental stress mean

Lower spar, Ulsp Stringer, Ust Intermediate rib, arl End rib, Ure

(b) Computation of Stiffeningof a Cutout The stiffening of one cutout in the second panel of besmNo. 3 shown in figure 9 is computed below. The increase in the thickmess of the skin (13) : y=$. 6~32~01 s0,8..
~S cOmpIt@d

by

fOrIIRIb

The contour of the wtndow cutout was stiffened by the angle profiles type 2hHX-3 (fig. llb). The stress in the mmnbers parallel to the stringers is determined by formula (17):

410176 2,
2~~~

4f;;~;l 0,78~

40.0,1 3,74 +

1,28

= + 294 or

69,2 kg/cmz

The moment of inertia 11 is composed of those for the skin and the attached stiffener memstrip section of thickness 6+6? bers around the cutout and nearest to it, so that 11 is computed for an I-shape section:

NACA

T?dNo,

1094
L=++ ,. ,., & (b 2) 2 =

26

1,1.225 01;2173+. 2 = 184c~

The stresses in the stiffener frame members parallel to the ribs are determined by formula (18):

410 176 + 28.4,3-0,1 ~ 12.33,4 1>28 ( 2 \ ==-+254kg/.m20r

17,5kg/cm2

z8.01 ~, 08 + 4!&l

0,78 = )

12 1,=7%3+

is given by cM~ 0]:;640+ ];68-= 33,4

F& (a 2)2 z =

Translation by S. Reiss,
National for Advisory Committee Aeronautics.

,,, ..,.-

-. ,.

- . ... ., ,,

,. ., ..-.

NACA

TM

NO.

1094 REFERENCES

27

1.

parts Beliakov, V. : Stress Analysis of Monocoque Fuselage Weakened by Cut-outs. Technika Vozdushnogo liota No. 10, Oct. 1937.

. .

Investigation of the Behavior of Thin2. Naiman, M. I.: Walled Beams with Round Cut-Outs. CAHI Technical Note No . 115, 1936. 3. Timoshenko, S., and Lessens,. J. M.: A@plied Elasticity Theo.=. with Rounded Opening. CAHI

Stress In Beam 4. Naiman, M. I.: Rep; No. 313, 1937, 5. Strigunov, V. M.: Theoretical tion of Thin-walled Beams.

and Experimental InvestigaCAHI Rep. No. 349, 1938. of Metal Fuselages.

6. Strigunov, V. M.: Stress Analysis CAHI Rep. No. 435, 1939.

., ,,-

TABLE 1

Beam nuxn- Type of beam ber

Failure load (kg)

Percent of weakening by Cutout (reference toP= 9600 kg)

-.

Weight of beam (kg) 45.3

Waight of duralumin q elements of beam (kg) 1008

Maximum deflections for P= 5000 kg ~ (mm). 6.11

t0 UY I@

Without cutouts Three window cutouts Two window cutouts Door cutout stiffenedby a light frazw Door cutout stiffenedby a strong frame

9600

5200

45.8

44.9

10.4

8.72

8000

16.6

45.3

10.8

7.78

7900

17.6

46.3

. 11.8

8.12

8800

8.5

46,6

12.1

7.i8

h)

cc

, ,,,

,.

NACA TM No. 1094

. ?

Figs.

1,2

t ~

i \ g

Referenceline

RExperimentalline of

Figure

l.-

.. . .... - Commutation line of centere Section of a fuselage of ~tiffnees with cut-out.

1

? - _ . - ____

r- - - __

_ _ . __

__

--

--

L-.

--1

(a) Beam with unflanged

- - --

openinge
~
I ~_ __y

(b) Beam with flanged openings Figure 2.- Ratio of stresses obtained in a beam with cutouts to the stresses in a beam without cut-buts.

NACA TM NO. 1094

Figure

3.-

specimen

Sketch of test specimen and value normal stresses in kR/cm~ obtained with cut-out at 0.264 ~.

of ex~erimental for the

800 I
#_

cnF
6770

400 ( >
200 B -~- -- -- b--- --- --+-----

0 Figure the 4.-

Jy

4?

03

~4

&5

total

Dependence of the maximum normal stresses on the depth of the cut-out, expressed as a fraction of depth ~ of the beam shown in figure 3.

NACA

TM No. 1094

Figure

5.-

Stress walled

distributions beam at loss

in the panels of equilibrium.

of

a thin-

77 u 1

r
I I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I I 4*L .- -!--- Q~ I + I - - .. r ! o I f -t Stringers~ -+ I __r ~_____-_ qq -+ . .-- \ _-l___-- 1

r

41____ qr 1+ t --.-

_;______ I

I
1 1
.

11

Figure

6.-

Stiffener

strip

around

cut-out.

MACA

TM

No.

1094

lUga. 7,8

Figure

7.-

View of
fail

beam no. = 9600 kg.

1 after

failure,

Figure 8.- View of beam no. 2, Pfail

= 5200 kg.

NACA

TMNo.

1094

Fig. 9

,-.

Figure 9.- View

of

beam no.

3!

pfail

= 8000 kg.

Figure

9a.- View of beam tensiometers

no. 3 under mounted.

load, with

NACA TM

No.

1094

Fig. 10

Figure guide

View of beam no. 4 after failure and beams, Pfail = 7900 kg.

10.-

Figure

10a. - View of beam no. 4 under load

Viewof beam no. 5 under load, with tensiometers mounted. = 8800 kg. pfail

Figure

10b.-

NACA

TM

No.

1094

Figs.

11,16

(@

Transverse stiffener Stringer section section

kkl-- 457
(f)

Rib section (h) (i)

Spar tube section (j)

(e)

(d

uElI!dk8d 118-A

Section of stiffener Section of stiffener Ring frame Section of outerframe around window frame around door around cut- most stringers in cut-outs panels cut-outs outs of stiffeners in tested beams Figure 11.- Cross sections and panels.
kg
1A o + to2

* 254

465

-,

35a] t 78L?@ P 272 1460 @588 9a6 1200P *I 756 0662 -676 1 1 2~~___:6/6 . _ -53,9 _____&___ -__ + ; ~___-___*______: t-i - -45 14432 -7421 I + # 425 Ef6/7 1000s ~~ ~830 674E+ ~ u69t 01250 108OP + P946

l;fgl $, 0515

9&o # 755

-tom

gf /30 6t;9~ 4968 91230 8t8P 0933 772% ;~ s715 9/020 S6~Z 0485 lJff2 o ____ ; ~ ------.-______-=__L =______;_____-__-4 -!06 f33 -286 I[ $wo Sgoa ?42fl 0747 9983 9700 0502 59/0 r1050 ff60P } * : I 8,46 -f08 -85?5 : i +,_-_-_-__===~-__t__--___ II JE. - + ~ 2= --->: + -667 P608
1+676 0700
#m twfl Id

:__-___-_-~&:_____j L______:#_____~ ~~4~____=_6!l_____~~ 1420 s306 g 609 0790

-q

I
$ 2

9&94 569+ ,1 :__-_-=%--- ___+ I__ -- __, ~__ -&h______-J L _g4;:~=====2%7______$ 9660 # 566 ,+42 0495 502 *746 0845 5gfjs,+l fl~ 9W E637 5560 $ 538 0955 0484 11 76 - f?z ____ + ===== =::?&_.._.= _ ~_-_-_----:;;_-_-_-_-_-_-_j~o:---_-_-_-_:G,--____iL 1, 0340 ~8 515fl #J,i 5!76
46$ ~7?5 S845 625P &

-4
E
-216

-$

458s + 44!5 0475 I I 2~3 II ~_______________ ___ ~ _ :--__=_2-____a k______-g______ti L L13 -W,411 e 3%2 T E 765 E550 01000 3909 ~ 0374 9553 441.W 4730 P 9506 ,,

0705

V535

4x76ti

I +-273

9310 + -365 ~

I *-47? ~

240 + 1910

240 q

l--

>igure

16.-

Stresses ribs of

in kg/cm2 beam 1.

in

skin,

stringers, .

spars

and

NACA TM No. 1094

Figs. 12,13,14,15

. .

Figure 12.no. 2 after = 9800 kg.

View of failure,

panel Pfail

Figure 13.no. 3 after = 10100 kg.

View of failure,

panel Pfail

Figure 14. View of panel no. 4 before failure, Pfail= 28000 kg.

Figure 15.View of panel no. 6 before failure with tensiometers mounted, Pfail = 16200 kg.

.-,,,,

m I I IIMIU nm m-m

Im s

111 Imll--llllmm-llm

Im nmlll nl llmlm -

...

NACA

TM No. 1094

Fig.

17

3?
4

l~ggl
#(m ;====_-_-_:g!-------:

~1 i]

61J5

l#6$Q23

0,43 * fi dlaz

45620 If,W6 ;===== ~*0 )%$62

91,/6 =:g!_-_=:==z: Oo#z

@J480

=----==_g-_-_-__=-_-;
e l,t79

I lo3@l

1,56!+4305 !

f,4fs * bo,85 =====

9(/3

@f18~ = = == :

l%s

.------------&:~-= 92,01

4 L= = ====_.&_-=_-d-_-d E= ====:_-_L=== Uqlw @ 4?7 Ojz? q 587 qa ,$U5 .i L_____ ~f&:------ ---_-z:-wT ______

!+%

:j6,

-Q-

-8;3

cut-out
4,/7
2.02:$27

18$

;;ZZE! -_~E===--__--_-_-_=:-_--+: ?56

;33 o,7Awuk?*7 _j_- -- w

#@33

,..

a24*

- -- ____
Q7

00,222 _--=
--

; L93

- ---__fit--.

__

0/,33
s--:

=a___-____j

Q9*0,73 __: Lw+g----_-_-J f,95~0.667

+ t, 56
v

I /1,77 402P ~ E~ 758 I I 5,1

1,84 9498

+k1942 107fs,# @,822

,1

437 91,33

f@#

1- _47K_-7 ~ (48; (0 /,0

II

~____ 5~_________ ~~485 0,867z q #f,&?

It

01.29

q 14 *1, 50

q63 -1,66

q$50

<

~~~

1st

panel

Znd panel

3rd panel

Figure

Ratios of stresses ribs in beam 2 to ing elements of beam 1. 17.-

in the

skin, stringers, stresses in the

spars and correspond-

NACA

TM No. 1094

Fig. 18

,.,,

+ 2.88

If

+1,08
II

+1.41

4z7;~ X1,25 q, f8 L& ~s138 fl~883 o o IL .--.- =====---= -JL + ------== .-- --k----== -1 - --i k188S sQ7# ?,7f5 -408~0107 ~____====_5$9 _ I 1-====== ---- -===-. +
Ii

#4852 4604~ -1,98

==-----=-=

90A8

O ~ 00,889

u~oi? L)?os ~ @f,f7 0435 =~-__ ------{+____========= - --. q 80 I ,354 -~099 wO.24 q ?,5f3

#1#3 f1925 s %94 0,565 .#q922

o#7s.. 1

@nMO

04927 ~w 9Q 789 0558 % ~t out f;ErII;i&yZ~r 2,7 x_z =__-_-_-_-l~ : ..

!38?
----. @s

::-:-_====

Ii

94 gog
._
-

___

___

,w-__

f Kq

073) flo,5a9 ,!
--3
-_

___

#l, ft 04655 -~083F

00.773 ,

~b,75t
# mO 1!
z==

k -_

:_-

~2z__-j ~4; ==

g/,34 6fl?t s [38

~_ ======

/
i

!,
2,16 ------------ii ::

=_-__s

f 88 ~_--_-_:4F4F.T_

z-~

IL ~====I_%!===zzz=

1.

1,

L +1, 03

+0,489

*&88

I81O

Figure ing

18.-

elements

Ratlos of stresses ribs of beam 3 to of beam 1.

in the

skin, stringers, stresses in the

spars and correspond-

NACA TM No.

1094

Fig. 19

kg , 0 . . -J &__-.__-_-__-#_-_-_=== =
+~a 748
0@35 ~ qws II I I

:----=====-4... f14&5 q333

=.=.+ ~w# I

/ #

~&______g -.-. -
/ ~ ~e158

L--____J --- PQ 772 . (#p

38?______l -.--_-_-_.-_ --______+

-_;/ t ~-_-__=.____f&@_____
II #t? 787 0{ 34

s
cut

II l L____________________________ $
If I JJI,63

I t.=__-_-_-_-_3+~_=--_-_-== II II E4389 Hlva o/wO

LyoO 1!

i IISq 707
-out
I I 01,33

128P

- /,31 II I F-----*=----

4
/

L=_-_----__4_-_-_-_-__{__{ ~
2,7) Ham
_-___-___.. $Q 750

324

lf04

_______ __ 4 0,4f8g

@wkLl&j
}-_____.

#1,10 II ~:--::-=wL._:=_-=:

143,

1;
S0.518 / / @Q342 I

_ EL?,932 H~871 Q323 n P 1,!0

& 0.86

4Q474
1810

Figure ing

19.-

elements

Ratios of stresses ribs of beam 4 to of beam 1.

in the

skin, stringers, stresses in the

spars and correspond-

------

-----

._

-.

._

llACA TM No.

1094

Fig. 20

...

1,13

_____________________ I @m } __-_ 1!
It . -*__-__ __.

Ft,43

#~61

ZOtfl / /

e &
I

#@ 0,728s II j ,t_=AiAi--= + 4487 4 !Isqm

Figure ing

20.- Ratios of stresses ribs of beam 5 to elements of beam 1.

in the

skin, stringers, stresses in the

spars and correspond-

lJACA TM

NO.

1094

(a)
.. ..- q 756 .. .$830 .. -- . ~ 968 - -. Q 1058 - -a - 596 - m S38 - ~ . . -

(b)

a - 41s -& 374 + Stresses in skin stiffened bj stringers,

Stresses in smooth skin cut into strips

Figure

21.-

Stress during

distribution (kg/cm2) loss of equilibrium.

in

the

skin

9fb
/29+
il ~1 ,1 ,1 II
II II II II ;b ,1 II ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1

648 8. ,1
,1

1[.
II
1, /; II
II II II II

II II II 11 II /1
,1 ,1

4197

@31

L
m
q

,1 t; 1, II !1

238d

370

!74 @
9M

$gpA
(kg/cm2) loin skin

Figure

22.-

Stresses of panel

and stringers

NACA

Ficrure

23.- Ratios of stresses in skin and stringers of panel 2 to the stresses in the corresponding elements of panal 1.

+ ( U.d
TM No. 1094
lsz

Figs . 23,24,25

J69

$179 --

t-

ljz II ?,43 $4

1
W5

4-075

157

586

Fimre 24.- Ratios of stresses in skin and stringers of panel 3 to the stresses in the corresponding elements of panel 1. -

11
Czz=z ===== c===== 677 * 600 ==3==

625+ 594

337 +

4;2 475 255*

532 -

II

4788I
_=__$~= 4580 + 477 605~ =3526======

==#&=_-_____==~o,s:

588- 537 . . _& __ _

--.

500+ ==~$ ==

H
,77* 5%!

ZZZZ=.T

~~ e

?98 *

*4W

:?9

+ 387

.--- c-_

~+

* 392

* 331

-450

-:::::0

,,

Figure

25.-

Stresse-s panel 4.

(kg/cm2)

in

skin

and stringers

of

NJiCA TM
4

No.
----

1094
*2.06
la+ @64 :==*===

Figs.
* 2.29 *

26,27,28
o

1,25

+2,30 71,9

.-:--J

c1 c=====: ,,. e 8

%8 < ,_~

. -__=

= ~ =-_-_=-=3 .

Q027 0 E z=____- _-__-+==

z 0 408

Z=*==:

ZZZZZZJ

0 c===--;

0081+ I ~961 4086 r-*= z=: :.c= 1,27+ 24s1

. .==-*=

-- -== :-----1

.
-~17
,&jo *

0 c ___

* l,4s-+3,07

2,87+z,s$m

---- . 10

Figure
el

26. of

ements
~

Ratios of the, stresses in of panel 5 to the stresses panel 49

1.347@3~.924~2. (31Q726 rzz*______ 42170 5&7

the in

skin and stringers the corresponding

2~2>+ -- .-- -- 10

t=======

: 2

~ w

o c======

-__z*I=z &?20+ 0664 ==:<== t,(73+

=::*:=:

-:=:=--l

c======

z z 179 0 * !, 19 -z,37~.ti

:*-_

I ====Z=3

____ 01

* ( 52~,ol

- 10 -

Figure elements

27. of

Ratios of the of panel 6 to panel 4.

stresses in the stresses

the in

skin and stringers the corresponding P ! 1 ~ Q ~

~ .

! 2, %?
y~

+ 1
I

I I I

Y4$,%-.- _______ A _ _ ___ _$. @ g gJ \ l,, Y6 1 I ,;;l:i~

Figure sections

28.-

Scheme of the geometric data for the computation of the effective moment of inertia of the crossand the effective static moment in beam 1.

..
(.

,,.

, ,,

.,

:.,=
.!

qiljiililihg~lli
..

T,.

. ..

1,,

..