Beam Theory Explained - How Spars Work

Discussion in 'Aircraft Design / Aerodynamics / New Technology' started by wsimpso1, Dec 29, 2017.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Apr 29, 2019 #101

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    2,786
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    I agree with the 6000 pounds of shear.

    My point is the big load on the bolted joints is not the shear. It is the bending moment at someplace around 350 - 400,000 in-lb. If the two lines of bolts are 6" apart, the linear force on each line is about 59 -67,000 pounds. The shear at 6000 is at right angles to the bending reaction, so they add by sum of squares (sqrt(a^2 + b^2) = c) or still about 59-67,000 pounds...

    Billski
     
    geosnooker2000 likes this.
  2. Apr 30, 2019 #102

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Somerville, TN
    So, here's something to think about. If the inboard end of the spar transitioned to a hollow tube (not pipe {round}, but rectangular tube), and the 8 bolts were moved 90 degrees to bolt the top and bottom flanges in a vertical fashion, would the shear forces be any different? The top joint would be in compression, the bottom joint in tension, but the result would still be two pieces of metal trying to slide past each other putting a shearing force on the bolts.
     
  3. Apr 30, 2019 #103

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    2,786
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    You are playing "what if" on fitting and joint design on a thread about how beams work. This is thread drift.

    If you want to discuss fitting and joint design, please start a thread on the topic and ask there. In the meanwhile, arm yourself with some knowledge - see if you can find a book on Strength of Materials and/or Shigley's book on Mechanical Engineering Design. Libraries can get them on interlibrary loan or you can buy (used) earlier editions pretty inexpensively. With a little study of the chapters on beam theory and joint design, you will be able to propose and answer many "what if" scenarios yourself. Understand that beams and joints and fasteners were figured out long before the Wrights invented airplanes. The possibility of figuring out something new in these topics is remote. You will be well served by being able to figure out beams and joints and fasteners as we understand them.

    Billski
     
  4. Apr 30, 2019 #104

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    geosnooker2000

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2019
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Somerville, TN
    I will shut up. But understand, I have had three semesters of structures in Architecture school, I know how to calculate and size beams, I have done it for 34 years. I have designed steel buildings, wood frame buildings, concrete buildings (including parking garages, footings, bridges, etc.). But this (wing design/spar design) is far more complicated than earthbound buildings of any sort. Because not only does the wing have a vertical load on it, which is the same as any cantilevered beam I've designed in the past, it also has a horizontal load from drag forces on the plane which is not the same as a building. On a building, those forces (such as seismic and wind loads) are always negated by bracing. The only bracing against drag forces is the skin of the wing (and possibly internal "x" braces which are not used in all wings). Is that enough? Is that what is totally relied upon to negate side load on the spar? I don't know. This is what makes me think this is not as simple as a cantilevered balcony with 2 steel beams holding up a floor joist system between them.

    Personally I like conversation. I am self-employed and have very little human contact other than my wife and my clients, so I prefer to converse about things with people whom share my interests (mostly on message boards) instead of study them in books. Not to say that I won't. I just prefer the former.

    If you think discussing the end connections of a beam is a "thread drift" in a thread about BEAMS, then I don't know what to tell you...
     
  5. Apr 30, 2019 #105

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    mcrae0104

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    1,836
    Location:
    BDU, BJC
    Geo, grab a copy of Stress Without Tears. It will pick up where your structural education left off. You are right that wings are not as simple as cantilevered balconies, but the good news is that once you really understand the underlying principles, you are equipped to solve either problem.
     
    geosnooker2000 likes this.
  6. Apr 30, 2019 #106

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,531
    Likes Received:
    2,786
    Location:
    Saline Michigan
    Please pardon my direction to go to the books. We can not hope to teach big chunks of undergraduate semesters on a forum. Topics are just too big to do without text, examples, and then practice.

    I do feel that folks who follow this forum should be able to find the topics of discussion by title. The genesis of this thread was a number of folks talking about beams while it was obvious that they did not understand the pieces of beam interact... I am happy to have another thread talking about how to connect things together, and another on how wings carry loads, but they are different topics. Trying to meld beam design and hardpoint design in one thread, well, it complicates learning for those at the beginning of the process. Let's just do one thing per thread...

    I am starting a thread on wing and spar interrelationships...

    Billski
     
  7. Jun 17, 2019 at 2:48 AM #107

    proppastie

    proppastie

    proppastie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,437
    Likes Received:
    976
    Location:
    NJ
    Well I just did an interesting "thought experiment" ......building up my rear spar the stiffeners need filler to bring them up to the level of the caps......it seems like a lot of wasted metal/weight. So anyway I decided to do a little FEA to see how much stronger the long stiffeners were vs the short stiffeners only on the web of the spar. What an eye-opener....

    With the same load/boundary conditions, the stress on the web with the short stiffeners is 54k psi...way past yield....where the stress on the web with the long stiffeners is 900 psi.
     

    Attached Files:

    poormansairforce likes this.

Share This Page

arrow_white