BEAMS WITH FLAT STIFFENED WEBS IN

INCOMPLETE DIAGONAL-TENSION
by
Cezar I. Moisiade

An Engineering Project Submitted to the Graduate

Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved:
_________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartford, Connecticut
August, 2009

 Copyright 2009
by
Cezar I. Moisiade
All Rights Reserved

ii

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................vii
LIST OF SYMBOLS......................................................................................................viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT...................................................................................................xi
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xii
1. INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND.........................................................................1
2. METHODOLOGY, ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF BEAMS IN INCOMPLETE
DIAGONAL TENSION...............................................................................................3
2.1

Limitations and Assumptions of IDT Theory.....................................................4

2.2

Recommended Design Limitations.....................................................................4

2.3

Web, Post-Buckling Analysis..............................................................................5

2.3.1

Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss)..................5

2.3.2

Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf)............................................................5

2.3.3

Critical shear stress (Fscr).........................................................................7

2.3.4

Diagonal-tension factor (k).....................................................................8

2.3.5

Angle of diagonal-tension ().................................................................8

2.3.6

Flange flexibility factor (wd)...................................................................9

2.3.7

Angle and stress concentration factors (c1, c2, c3)...................................9

2.3.8

Web peak nominal stress (fs_max)............................................................10

2.3.9

Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all)....................................................10

2.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb)..............................................................10

2.4

2.5

Upright Analysis...............................................................................................11
2.4.1

Upright column buckling......................................................................11

2.4.2

Upright forced crippling.......................................................................13

Analysis of Fasteners........................................................................................14
2.5.1

Web To Flange Fasteners......................................................................14

iii

2.6

2.7

2.5.2

Upright to Flange Fasteners..................................................................14

2.5.3

Upright to Web Fasteners......................................................................15

Flange Analysis.................................................................................................16
2.6.1

Compression Flange..............................................................................16

2.6.2

Tension Flange......................................................................................16

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

3. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF A BEAM IN INCOMPLETE DIAGONAL

TENSION...................................................................................................................18
3.1

Input Data for IDT Analysis of beam III-25-6D [Ref. # 5, pg. 36]...................19

3.2

Limitations IDT Theory, Verification...............................................................20

3.3

Web, Post-Buckling Analysis............................................................................21

3.3.1

Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss)................21

3.3.2

Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf)..........................................................21

3.3.3

Critical shear stress (Fscr).......................................................................23

3.3.4

Diagonal-tension factor (k)...................................................................24

3.3.5

Angle of diagonal-tension ()...............................................................24

3.3.6

Flange flexibility factor (wd).................................................................25

3.3.7

Angle and stress concentration factors (c1, c2, c3).................................25

3.3.8

Web peak nominal stress (fs_max)............................................................26

3.3.9

Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all)....................................................26

3.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb)..............................................................26

3.4

3.5

Upright Analysis...............................................................................................27
3.4.1

Upright column buckling......................................................................27

3.4.2

Upright forced crippling.......................................................................29

Fasteners Analysis.............................................................................................30
3.5.1

Web To Flange Fasteners......................................................................30

3.5.2

Upright to Flange Fasteners..................................................................30

3.5.3

Upright to Web Fasteners......................................................................31

iv

3.6

3.7

Flange Analysis.................................................................................................32
3.6.1

Compression Flange..............................................................................32

3.6.2

Tension Flange......................................................................................32

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

4. RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA..............................................34

4.1

Margins of Safety Summary.............................................................................34

4.2

Analytical vs. Test Results, Comparison..........................................................35

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

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

vi

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

vii

LIST OF SYMBOLS
DT

diagonal-tension

PDT

pure diagonal-tension

IDT

incomplete diagonal-tension

Afc

cress-sectional area of compression cap-flange, in2

Aft

cress-sectional area of tension cap-flange, in2

Au

cress-sectional area of upright, in2

Aue

effective cress-sectional area of upright, in2

bu

width of outstanding leg of upright, in

c1

angle factor.

c2, c3

stress concentration factors.

cc, ct

distance from centroid of cap-flange to extreme fiber of flange, in

CR

upright column buckling reduction factor.

spacing of uprights, in

dc

clear upright spacing, measured as shown in Figure 2

elastic modulus, psi

eu

distance from median plane of the web to centroid of (single) upright, in

ef

distance from median plane of the web to centroid of (single) upright, in

fu

upright stress caused by diagonal-tension, psi

fu_max

maximum upright stress caused by diagonal-tension, psi

fs

shear stress applied to web, psi

fs_max

web peak nominal stress, psi

ffc

stress in compression flange caused by diagonal-tension effect, psi

fft

stress in tension flange caused by diagonal-tension effect, psi

Fs_all

web nominal stress allowable, psi

Fc

upright column buckling allowable, psi

Fcc

upright crippling allowable, psi

Ffc

upright forced-crippling allowable, psi

Fty

yield tension allowable, psi

Ftu

ultimate tension allowable, psi

Fsu

ultimate shear allowable, psi

viii

Fscr_el

elastic critical shear stress, psi

Fscr

critical shear stress corrected for plasticity effects, psi

depth of beam, in

he

effective depth of beam, measured between centroids of flanges, in

hc

clear dept of web, measured as shown in Figure 2, in

hu

upright length, measured between controids of upright-to-flange rivet

patterns, in

Ic

compression cap-flange cross-sectional moment of inertia about neutral

axis, in4

It

tension cap-flange cross-sectional moment of inertia about neutral axis,

in4

Iu

upright cross-sectional moment of inertia about neutral axis, in4

diagonal-tension factor

Kss

theoretical shear buckling coefficient for a simply supported plate

Le

effective upright length, in

Mfc

moment in compression cap flange, not related to DT, in-lb

Mft

moment in tension cap flange, not related to DT, in-lb

Mf_max

maximum flange primary bending moment caused by DT effect, in-lb

matu

flag, defining upright material type

matw

flag, defining web material type

Nu

flag, defining number of uprights

Nuf

upright to flange, number of fasteners (one end only)

Ngusset

numbers of upright fasteners reacting upright load in gusset action.

Ps

load applied to the beam that generates shear q in the web

Pu

load in upright, not related to DT, to upright, lb

Pu_DT

load in upright, caused by DT, lb

Puf_all

upright to flange fasteners, total joint shear allowable, considering gusset

action, lb

Ptens_ult

upright fasteners, required ultimate tension strength, lb

Pfc

load in compression cap flange, not related to DT, lb

Pft

load in tension cap flange, not related to DT, lb

ix

Pwf_shear_ult

web to flange fasteners shear ultimate allowable, lb

Puf_shear_ult

upright to flange fasteners shear ultimate allowable, lb

Puw_shear_ult

upright to web fasteners shear ultimate allowable, lb

Puw_tens_ult

upright to web fasteners tensile ultimate allowable, lb

Puu_shear_ult

upright-to-upright fasteners shear ultimate allowable (for double uprights

only), lb

shear flow in web, lb/in

qf

shear flow reacted by the flange fasteners, lb/in

qu

required upright fasteners shear flow to prevent premature column

buckling (for double fasteners only).

qu_all

upright fasteners single shear allowable (for double fasteners only).

Qu

static moment about neutral axis upright (for double uprights), in3

Rf

web fixity coefficient at the flange

Ru

web fixity coefficient at the uprights

swf

web to flange fasteners spacing, in

suw

upright to web fasteners spacing, in

tf

thickness of flange, in

tu

thickness of upright, in

tw

web thickness, in

wd

flange flexibility factor.

PDT

angle of pure diagonal tension relative to natural axis of the beam, deg.

angle of incomplete diagonal tension relative to natural axis of the beam,

deg.

upright cross-section centroidal radius of gyration about axis parallel to

web, in

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

xi

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

xii

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

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

Figure 1. Beam with Stiffened Webs in IDT, Tested by NACA1.

Reference #1, page 103.

2. METHODOLOGY, ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF BEAMS

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

Double Uprights
dc

dc

eu
bu
tu

Ps

Cap
tf
tw

Web

hc

hu

he

Upright

Flange Cap

Figure 2. Beam with Thin Stiffened Webs in Incomplete Diagonal Tension.

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

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

2.1 Limitations and Assumptions of IDT Theory

The following geometrical limitations shall be considered, due to limitation of test data:
115

hc
tw

1500

0.2

dc
hc

tu

1.0

tw

0.6

Assumptions that were made:

-

Web and uprights are made from the same material.

Open section upright riveted to the web.

2.2 Recommended Design Limitations

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

where:

Klimit 0.78

For fatigue critical webs, it is recommended that,

fs
Fscr

tw
in

0.012

2.3 Web, Post-Buckling Analysis

2.3.1

Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss)2

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

dc

Kss 2.865

hc

2.3.2

dc

0.787

hc

4.807

Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf)3

The coefficients Ru and Rf are coefficients of web edge restraint, taken as R = 1 for
simply supported edges and R = 1.62 for clamped edges. In actual beam webs, the edge
supports are determined by the flanges and the uprights; the panel edges are thus neither
simply supported nor clamped.
The web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for single uprights:
2

tu

Ru1 0.3299

tw

tu

0.9977

tw
tu

tu

0.2904

tw

0.3011 if 0.6

0.0015 if
tu

tw

tu
tw

0.6

1.25

tu
tu
tu
1.7829
4.0405
1.8343 if 1.25

2.5
tw
tw
tw
tw

tu
1.1917 otherwise
tw

0.2667

0.04

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

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

Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for double uprights:

Ru2

tu

tu

tw

if

tw

tu

tu

0.1511

1.0476

tw
tw
tu
0.09
1.3508 otherwise
tw

tu

2.5772

tw

tu

0.6802 if 1

tw

2.5

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

Ru2 if Nu

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

tf

Rf1 0.3299

tw

tf

0.9977

tw
tf

tf

0.2904

tw

0.3011 if 0.6

0.0015 if
tf

tw

tf
tw

0.6

1.25

tf
tf
tf
1.7829
4.0405
1.8343 if 1.25

2.5
tw
tw
tw
tw
tf
1.1917 otherwise
tw

0.2667

0.04

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

Rf2

tf

tf

tw

if

tw

tf

tf

tf
tf
1.0476
2.5772
0.6802 if 1

2.5
tw
tw
tw
tw

tf
1.3508 otherwise
tw

0.1511
0.09

Web fixity coefficient at the cap-flanges, considering single or double flanges is:

2.3.3

Rf Rf1 if Nf

Rf2 if Nf

Critical shear stress (Fscr)

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

tw

3
dc
dc
Ru Rf Ru
if
1

2
hc
hc
3
h c
1
Rf Ru Rf
otherwise

2
dc

Fscr_el Kss Ew

dc

Kss Ew

hc

Critical shear stress corrected for plasticity effects (Fscr)5:

For Clad AL 7075-T6:
Fscr_7075T6

Fscr_el if Fscr_el 5ksi

0.8056 Fscr_el 0.9722ksi if 5ksi Fscr_el 41ksi
0.2211Fscr_el 24.937ksi if Fscr_el 41ksi

For Clad AL 2024-T3:

Fscr_2024T3

Fscr_el if Fscr_el 10ksi

0.0003
2

ksi

Fscr_el

0.0367
ksi

Fscr_el 1.7357 Fscr_el 3.8817ksi if Fscr_el 10ksi

Ref. 1, pg. 42, or pg. 26 formula 32.

Ref. 1, pg. 107, figure 12c. For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A.

Considering materials listed above the critical shear corrected for plasticity effects is:

2.3.4

Fscr Fscr_7075T6 if mat w

7075

Fscr_2024T3 if mat w

2024

Diagonal-tension factor (k)6

A diagonal-tension factor of 1.00 defines a web in pure diagonal tension (no load carried
in shear), and a diagonal tension factor of 0.00 defines a web, carrying load in pure
shear.

fs

k tanh 0.5 log

Fscr

if fs Fscr

0 otherwise

Where fs is the web shear stress:

q
fs
tw

2.3.5

Angle of diagonal-tension ()

The effective cross-sectional area7 of the stringer is:

Au

A ue
1

eu

if Nu

where:

A u if Nu

Ref. 1, pg. 18, formula 27

Ref. 1, pg. 41, section 4.1

Iu
Au

The buckling angle for pure diagonal-tension8 is:

PDT atan

A fc A ft

d tw

h tw

A ue

The buckling angle for incomplete diagonal-tension was calculated by linear

interpolation:

45deg k 45deg PDT

2.3.6

Flange flexibility factor (wd)9

4

wd d sin

2.3.7

1 1 tw
I I 4h
c
e
t

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

Angle factor10:
c1

sin 2

Stress concentration factors11:

c2 0 if wd 1
3

0.0573 wd 0.2074 wd 0.2994 wd 0.15 if 1 wd 3

0.54 wd 1.19 otherwise

Ref. 1, pg. 10, formula 15

Ref. 1, pg. 11, formula 19

10

Rer. 1, pg. 27

11

Ref. 1, pg. 112, figure 18. For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A.

c3 1 if wd 1
3

0.0053 wd 0.0648 wd 0.1204 wd 0.9391 if 1 wd 5

0.58 otherwise

2.3.8

Web peak nominal stress (fs_max)12

fs_max fs

1 k2 c 1 k c
1
2

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

2.3.9

Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all)13

2
1
1
3 Fsu_web
Fs_all 0.9 Fty_web 1
1 ( 1 k)

2 Fty_web

2
Ftu_web 2

Ftu_web

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

2.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb)

Fs_all
MSweb
1
fs_max

12

Ref. 1, pg. 27, formula (33a).

13

Ref: 2, pg. 16

10

2.4 Upright Analysis

2.4.1

Upright column buckling

Upright effective length14:

Le

hu

if d 1.5 h

d
1 k 3 2
hu

h u otherwise

Upright stress due to diagonal-tension15:

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

Upright Euler column buckling stress allowable:

Le

2 u

Fc Eu

Eu

if Nu

(Single uprights)

Le

if Nu

(Double uprights)

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Fc min Fc Fcy_upright

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

2.5 Fcy_upright Qu
b u Le

if Nu

0 otherwise
14

Ref. 1, pg. 46, formula 35

15

Ref. 1, pg. 19, formula 30a

11

Uprights fasteners single shear allowable:

q u_all

Puu_shear_ult
s uw

If fastener shear allowable (qu_all) is less then applied shear, the allowable stress for
column failure must be multiplied by the following reduction factor16:
CR

q u_all

25.609
100

qu

q u_all

73.753 if 0 q u_all q u

qu

50.831

1.00 otherwise

Recalculate upright column buckling stress allowable ( Fc ):

Fc CR Fc

Upright margin of safety for column buckling:

MSu_col_bukling
Pu

Fc

A ue

16

fu

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

12

2.4.2

Upright forced crippling

Upright maximum stress ( fu_max )17:

d
fu_max fu ( 1 k) 0.7729 0.6366
fu
hu

Upright forced crippling stress allowable ( Ffc )18:

3

2 tu
Ffc 32500 k
psi if matu
tw
3

2 tu

26000 k
3

2 tu

26000 k
3

tw

tw

2 tu

21000 k

tw

7075 Nu

2024 Nu

7075 Nu

2024 Nu

psi if matu

psi if matu

psi if matu

17

Ref. 1, pg. 110, figure 15. For the curve-fit of the chart see Appendix A.

18

Ref. 1, pg. 46-47, formulas 36 and 37

13

(Single uprights, 7075-T6)

(Single uprights, 2024-T3)

(Double uprights, 7075-T6)

(Double uprights, 2024-T3)

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Ffc min Ffc Fcy_upright

Upright margin of safety for forced crippling:

Ffc
MSu_forced_crippling
1
fu_max

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

19

Ref. 3, pg. C11.18

14

2.5 Analysis of Fasteners

2.5.1

Web To Flange Fasteners

The fasteners that connect the web to the cap-flange are required to have the capability
to carry the following shear flow20:
q f

q he
hu

( 1 0.414 k)

Web to flange fasteners margin of safety:

MSwf_fasteners

2.5.2

Pwf_shear_ult
s wf q f

Upright to Flange Fasteners

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

Total fastener joint shear allowable considering gusset action:

Puf_all

Nuf Puf_shear_ult Ngusset Nuf Puw_shear_ult if Ngusset Nuf

Nuf Puf_shear_ult otherwise

Upright to flange fasteners margin of safety:

Puf_all
MSuf_fasteners
1
Pu_DT

20

Ref. 1, pg. 34, formula 34.

21

Ref. 1, pg. 48, formula 39.

15

2.5.3

Upright to Web Fasteners

Upright to web fasteners required to have enough tension strength22 to prevent tension
failure caused by the web wrinkles:
Ptens_ult 0.22 tw s uw Ftu_web if Nu

0.15 tw s uw Ftu_web if Nu

Upright to web fasteners margin of safety:

MSuw_tens_fasteners

22

Puw_tens_ult
Ptens_ult

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

16

2.6 Flange Analysis23

2.6.1

Compression Flange

Compressive stress in flange caused by DT:

ffc

k q h e cot
2 A fc

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

q h e d tan
2

Mf_max k c3

12 h

Compression flange margin of safety:

MSc_flange

Fcc_flange

Pfc

Mfc cc

A ffc
fc

2.6.2

Ic

M f_max cc

Ic

Tension Flange

Tension stress in flange caused by DT:

fft

k q h e cot
2 A ft

Tension flange margin of safety:

MSt_flange

Ftu_flange

Pft

A fft
ft

Mft ct

23

It

M f_max ct
It

Ref. 1, pg. 50, sec. 4.16

17

2.7 Web Stress Components24

Tension in direction:
f

2 k fs

sin 2

( 1 k) fs sin 2

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

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

Maximum principal stress direction:

1
2

tan 2

atan

Principal tension (in direction):

f1

k fs

sin 2

fs 1 k

sin 2

Principal compression (in + /2 direction):

f2

k fs

sin 2

fs 1 k
2

sin 2

Principal shear (in + /4 plane):

f3 fs 1 k

sin 2

24

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

18

3. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF A BEAM IN INCOMPLETE

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

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

beam height is 26.1

web is 0.0295, 7075-T6 AL Clad

double uprights: two back-to-back angles (0.625 x 0.625) fabricated for

0.049, 7075-T6 AL Clad

double flange: two back-to-back extruded angles (2.00 x 2.00 x 0.188), 7075T6 AL Extrusion.

Loading of the structure:

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

25

Ref. # 5, pg. 36, Table 1.

26

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

19

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

lb
in
s

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

q

Ps
he

Internal stiffener and flange loads:

Pu 0lb

Pfc 0lb

Mfc 0in lb

Pft 0lb

Mft 0in lb

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

Web Properties:
tw 0.0295in

h e 24.3 in

Fty_web 63000psi
mat w 7075

h c 22.1in

Ftu_web 74000psi

Ew 10500000psi
Fsu_web 44000psi

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

Upright Properties:
d 15.00in

d c 14.375in
2

Au 0.107in

h 26.1in

b u 0.625in

tu 0.049in

eu 0.00in

Qu 0.0038in

h u 23.3in

Iu 0.00857in

(for double uprights only)

Nu 2

(N u=1 for single uprights; Nu=2 for double uprights)

mat u 7075

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

Eu 10500000 psi

Fcy_upright 63000psi

20

Flange Properties:

Flange Data:
2

tf 0.188in

Afc 1.5in
Fcc_flange 70000 psi
Nf 2

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

It 0.348in
ct 0.547in

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

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

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

swf 0.85in

Upright to flange fasteners ultimate joint allowable, and number of fasteners

reacting the upright load in gusset action:
Puf_shear_ult 2466lb
Nuf 1

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

Ngusset 2

Upright to web fasteners ultimate joint allowable and spacing:

Puw_shear_ult 613lb

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

Puw_tens_ult 1440lb

suw 0.85in

For double uprights only, upright-to-upright single shear fastener joint allowable.
Puu_shear_ult 1096lb

(HL18-5 in 0.049 AL Clad 7075-T6, single shear).

3.2 Limitations IDT Theory, Verification

The following geometrical limitations shall be considered, due to limitation of test data:
hc
tw
dc
hc
tu
tw

749

115

0.65

0.2

1.66

tu
tw

hc
tw
dc

1500

1.0

hc

0.6

21

The beam meets all geometrical limitations shown above.

22

3.3 Web, Post-Buckling Analysis

3.3.1

Shear buckling coefficient for simply supported panel (Kss)

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

dc

Kss 2.865

hc

3.3.2

dc

0.787

Kss 6.531

4.807

hc

Web fixity coefficients (Ru & Rf)

The web fixity coefficients are calculated based on the methodology from section 2.3.2.
Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for single uprights:
tu

Ru1 0.3299

tw

tu

0.2904

tw

0.0015 if

tu
tw

0.6

tu

tu
0.3011 if 0.6

1.25
tw
tw

0.9977

tu

0.2667

tu

1.7829

tw
tw
tu
0.04
1.1917 otherwise
tw

tu

4.0405

tw

tu

1.8343 if 1.25

tw

2.5

Ru1 1.18

Web fixity coefficient at the uprights, for double uprights:

Ru2

tu
tw

tu

if

tw

tu

tu

1.0476
2.5772
0.6802 if 1

tw
tw
tw

tu
0.09
1.3508 otherwise
tw
0.1511

tu

Ru2 1.403

23

tu

tw

2.5

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

Ru2 if Nu

Ru 1.403

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

tf

Rf1 0.3299

tw

tf

tw

t
f

0.9977
0.3011 if 0.6

tw

tf

0.2904

tf

0.0015 if
tf

tw

tf
tw

0.6

1.25

tf
tf
1.7829
4.0405
1.8343 if 1.25

2.5
tw
tw
tw
tw

tf
1.1917 otherwise
tw

0.2667

0.04

Rf1 1.447

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

Rf2

tf
tw

tf

if

tw

tf

0.1511

1.0476

tf

tw
tw
tf
0.09
1.3508 otherwise
tw

tf

2.5772

tw

tf

0.6802 if 1

tw

2.5

Rf2 1.924

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

Rf2 if Nf

Rf 1.924

24

3.3.3

Critical shear stress (Fscr)

The following calculations are based on methodology from section 2.3.3.

Elastic critical shear (Fscr_el):
tw

tw

3
dc
dc
Ru Rf Ru
if
1

2
hc
hc
3
h c
1
Rf Ru Rf
otherwise

2
dc

Fscr_el Kss Ew

dc

Kss Ew

hc

Fscr_el 426 psi

Critical shear stress corrected for plasticity effects (Fscr):

For Clad AL 7075-T6:
Fscr_7075T6

Fscr_el if Fscr_el 5ksi

0.8056 Fscr_el 0.9722ksi if 5ksi Fscr_el 41ksi
0.2211Fscr_el 24.937ksi if Fscr_el 41ksi

Fscr_7075T6 426 psi

For Clad AL 2024-T3:

Fscr_2024T3

Fscr_el if Fscr_el 10ksi

0.0003
2

ksi

Fscr_el

0.0367

Fscr_el 1.7357 Fscr_el 3.8817ksi if Fscr_el 10ksi

ksi

Fscr_2024T3 426 psi

Considering materials listed above the critical shear corrected for plasticity effects is:
Fscr Fscr_7075T6 if mat w

7075

Fscr_2024T3 if mat w

2024

Fscr 426 psi

25

3.3.4

Diagonal-tension factor (k)

From section 2.3.4, the applied shear stress is:

q
fs
tw
fs 16320 psi

From section 2.3.4, the diagonal-tension factor is:

fs

Fscr

k tanh 0.5 log

if fs Fscr

0 otherwise
k 0.659

3.3.5

Angle of diagonal-tension ()

The following calculations are based on the methodology from section 2.3.5.
Effective cross-sectional area of the stringer is:
Au

A ue

eu

if Nu

where:

A u if Nu
A ue 0.107 in

u 0.283 in

Buckling angle for pure diagonal-tension is:

PDT atan

h tw
A fc A ft

d tw

A ue

PDT 35.1 deg

26

Iu
Au

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

45deg k 45deg PDT

38.49 deg

3.3.6

Flange flexibility factor (wd)

From section 2.3.6, the flange flexibility factor is:

4

wd d sin

1 1 tw
I I 4h
c
e
t

wd 1.91

3.3.7

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

The following calculations are based on the methodology from section 2.3.7.
Angle factor:
c1

sin 2

c1 0.0264

Stress concentration factors:

c2 0 if wd 1
3

0.0573 wd 0.2074 wd 0.2994 wd 0.15 if 1 wd 3

0.54 wd 1.19 otherwise
c2 0.064

c3 1 if wd 1
3

0.0053 wd 0.0648 wd 0.1204 wd 0.9391 if 1 wd 5

0.58 otherwise
c3 0.97

27

3.3.8

Web peak nominal stress (fs_max)

From section 2.3.8, the web peak nominal stress is:

fs_max fs

1 k2 c 1 k c
1
2

fs_max 17206 psi

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

3.3.9

Web nominal stress allowable (Fs_all)

From section 2.3.9, the web nominal stress allowable is:

Fs_all 0.9 Fty_web 1

2
1
1
3 Fsu_web
1 ( 1 k)

Fty_web
2
Ftu_web 2

Ftu_web

Fs_all 28997 psi

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

3.3.10 Web Margin of Safety (MSweb)

Fs_all
MSweb
1
fs_max
MSweb 0.69

28

3.4 Upright Analysis

3.4.1

Upright column buckling

The following calculations are based on the methodology developed in section 2.4.1.
Upright effective length:
Le

hu

if d 1.5 h

d
1 k 3 2
hu

h u otherwise
Le 17.64 in

Upright stress due to diagonal-tension:

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

Upright Euler column buckling stress allowable:

Le

2 u

Fc Eu

Eu

if Nu

(Single uprights)

Le

if Nu

(Double uprights)

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Fc min Fc Fcy_upright

Fc 26672 psi

29

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

q u

b u Le

if Nu

0 otherwise
q u 54

lb
in

Uprights fasteners single shear allowable:

q u_all

Puu_shear_ult
s uw

q u_all 1289

lb
in

If fastener shear allowable (qu_all) is less than applied shear, the allowable stress for
column failure must be multiplied by the following reduction factor:
CR

q u_all

25.609
100

qu

q u_all

73.753 if 0 q u_all q u

qu

50.831

1.00 otherwise
CR 1.00

Recalculate upright column buckling stress allowable ( Fc ):

Fc CR Fc
Fc 26672 psi

Upright margin of safety for column buckling:

MSu_col_bukling
Pu

Fc

A ue

fu

MSu_col_bukling 0.28

30

3.4.2

Upright forced crippling

The following calculations are based on the methodology developed in section 2.4.2.
Upright maximum compressive stress ( fu_max ):
d
fu_max fu ( 1 k) 0.7729 0.6366
fu
hu

fu_max 23327 psi

Upright forced crippling stress allowable ( Ffc ):

3

2 tu
Ffc 32500 k
psi if matu
tw
3

2 tu

26000 k
3

2 tu

26000 k
3

tw

tw

2 tu

21000 k

tw

7075 Nu

2024 Nu

7075 Nu

2024 Nu

psi if matu

psi if matu

psi if matu

31

(Single uprights, 7075-T6)

(Single uprights, 2024-T3)

(Double uprights, 7075-T6)

(Double uprights, 2024-T3)

Limit the allowable to Fcy:

Ffc min Ffc Fcy_upright

Ffc 23327 psi

Upright margin of safety for forced crippling:

Ffc
MSu_forced_crippling
1
fu_max
MSu_forced_crippling 0.00

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

32

3.5 Fasteners Analysis

3.5.1

Web To Flange Fasteners

As shown in section 2.5.1, web to flange fasteners react the following shear flow:
q f

q he
hu

q f 639

( 1 0.414 k)

lb
in

Web to flange fasteners margin of safety:

MSwf_fasteners

Pwf_shear_ult
s wf q f

MSwf_fasteners 1.13

3.5.2

Upright to Flange Fasteners

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

Total fastener joint shear allowable considering gusset action:

Puf_all

Nuf Puf_shear_ult Ngusset Nuf Puw_shear_ult if Ngusset Nuf

Nuf Puf_shear_ult otherwise

Puf_all 3079 lb

Upright to flange fasteners margin of safety:

Puf_all
MSuf_fasteners
1
Pu_DT

MSuf_fasteners 0.39

33

3.5.3

Upright to Web Fasteners

As shown in section 2.5.3, upright to web fasteners required to have enough tension
strength to prevent tension failure caused by the web wrinkles:
Ptens_ult 0.22 tw s uw Ftu_web if Nu

0.15 tw s uw Ftu_web if Nu

Ptens_ult 278.332 lb

Upright to web fasteners margin of safety:

MSuw_tens_fasteners

Puw_tens_ult
Ptens_ult

MSuw_tens_fasteners 4.17

34

3.6 Flange Analysis

3.6.1

Compression Flange

The following calculations are based on the methodology presented in section 2.6.1.
Compressive stress in flange caused by DT:
ffc

k q h e cot
2 A fc

ffc 3234 psi

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

q h e d tan
2

Mf_max k c3

12 h

Mf_max 4273 in lb

Compression flange margin of safety:

MSc_flange

Fcc_flange

Pfc

Mfc cc

A ffc
fc

Ic

M f_max cc

Ic

MSc_flange 6.04

3.6.2

Tension Flange

The following calculations are based on the methodology presented in section 2.6.2.
Tension stress in flange caused by DT:
fft

k q h e cot
2 A ft

fft 3234 psi

Tension flange margin of safety:

MSt_flange

Ftu_flange

Pft

A fft
ft

Mft ct
It

M f_max ct
It

MSt_flange 6.94

35

3.7 Web Stress Components

The following calculations are based on the methodology presented in section 2.7.
Tension in direction:
f

2 k fs

sin 2

( 1 k) fs sin 2

f 27507 psi

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

f90 5416 psi

Shear in plane:
fs 1253 psi

fs ( 1 k) fs cos 2

Maximum principal stress direction:

1
2

tan 2

atan

40.7 deg

Principal tension (in direction):

f1

k fs

sin 2

fs 1 k

sin 2

f1 27555 psi

Principal compression (in + /2 direction):

f2

k fs

sin 2

fs 1 k
2

sin 2

f2 5463 psi

Principal shear (in + /4 plane):

f3 fs 1 k

sin 2

f3 16509 psi

36

4. RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA

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

Structure

Critical Failure Mode

MS

Web

Sheet Failure due to IDT

0.69

Upright

Column Buckling

0.28

Forced Crippling

0.00

Bearing in Web

1.13

- Upright to Flange

Bearing in Upright

0.39

- Web to Upright

Fastener Tension

4.17

Compression Flange

Natural Crippling

6.04

Tension Flange

Tension Strength

6.94

Fasteners - Web to Flange

Table 1. Margin of Safety Summary

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

37

4.2 Analytical vs. Test Results, Comparison

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

Units

Symbol

Result to Compare

NACA

NACA

Current

Test

Analytical

Methodology

Results

Prediction

Analytical
Prediction

Web Critical Shear Stress

Fscr

Psi

---

410

426

DT Factor

---

---

0.662

0.659

Ult. Column Buckling Load

Fc

lb

---

14,800

14,610

Ult. Forced Crippling Load

Ffc

lb

11,400

12,200

11,699

Ult. Load Web Failure

Fw

lb

---

20,500

19,530

---

F.C.

F.C.

F.C

Failure Mode

--

Table 2. Analytical vs. Test Results, Comparison

Note: F.C. stands for upright forced crippling.

38

A comparison of the current methodology to NACA analytical prediction, based on the

results listed in Table 2, is shown in Table 3.

Result to Compare

Current Methodology vs. NACA

Analytical Prediction

Web Critical Shear Stress

+3.9%

DT Factor

+0.5%

Ult. Column Buckling Load

-1.3%

Ult. Forced Crippling Load

-4.1%

Ult. Load Web Failure

-4.7%

Table 3. Current Methodology vs. NACA Analytical Prediction

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

Result to Compare

Ult. Forced Crippling Load

Current Methodology

NACA Analytical

Analytical Prediction vs.

Prediction vs. NACA

NACA Test Results

Test Results

+2.6%

+7.0%

Table 4. Analytical Predictions vs. Test Results

39

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

40

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

"NACA-TN-2662" A Summary of Diagonal Tension, Part II Experimental

Evidence, NACA, Washington, May 1952.

6) "NACA-TM-490" Structures of Thin Sheet Metal, Their Design and Construction,
NACA, December 1928.

41

APPENDIX A. ATTACHED ELECTRONIC FILES

The electronic files listed below are compressed in file:
Appendix A, MP Beams in IDT, C_Moisiade.zip
File Name
Beams_in_IDT_Cezar_Moisiade_
07-11-2009.xmcd
NACA_Charts_Cezar_Moisiade_0
7-11-2009.xls

File Type

Description
Includes the numerical

MathCad 13

methodology to perform
analysis of beams in IDT.
Includes curve fits for NACA-

Microsoft Excel

TN-2661 charts used in IDT

analysis.

42

APPENDIX B. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY

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

43

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

Figure 3. Finite Element Model and Boundary Conditions.

44

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

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

45

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

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

46

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

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

47

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

!shear force applied (lbs)

!side pressure applied (psi)

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

48