proppastie
Well-Known Member
I do not know of a way to test all of the elements of root piece of a spar with a simple load test because the moment on the top/bottom “cap tubes” is derived from a 22 ft. long semi span wing with approximately 43 uprights and cross-members where as there are only 3 uprights and and 2 cross-members on the stub-spar test piece. I designed the test to stress the uprights and cross-members because these are my original design and not a copy of anything I ever saw..... I used a simple truss program to model the whole spar and picked a weight that would test the axle loads and moments of the uprights and cross-members only....I felt comfortable doing this because the loads that tubes were capable of carrying were easy to look up on charts....(ref. Bruhn 75)
I had calculated that 900 lb at a certain location would do the trick and designed the fixture for that.
The plan did not survive the first test because of my in-experience in aircraft design and stress.
First picture shows the original design setup
Second picture:Looking for 900 lb I saw the flat portions of the upright over the jack flexing and I stopped the test at 450 lb....the ratio of the pressure to lb is 2.25 with the 200 reading being 450 lb....
The flat portions were not modeled in the truss program and the truss program assumed elements connected at the centroid of the elements which was not the case....which is why I knew a physical test was needed.
I turned the fixture over and pulled the bottom tube and the cross-members were buckling at again 200 or 450 lb....this would have been a negative G loading and as the spec for negative Gs is ½ that of the positive G loading I was not as upset as I was with the first test.
Without stopping to re-calculate and very upset I decided to pull the positive load but I could not pull from the calculated location so I decided to just do it and see where it ends up.....Every cross-member was in tension and I figured it was worth a try......when I got to 400 reading or 900 lb I decided to pull until 500 or 1125 lb because the location of the pull was inboard of the calculated location...at approximately 460 or 1035 lb the cross-members failed in tension.
The cross-members are easily replaced.....calculated cross section area of item in tension at the failure point fell right on the numbers as regards Ftu or 59000 lb/sq-in for 2024 t-3....which shows that my truss program was correct at least with that element. I really missed it as regards the size of the attachment surfaces of the cross-members but that is easy to fix. I plan on redesign and replacing the cross-members.
My current calculated loads based on the test shows that my cross-members and uprights will survive a limit positive load.... although the current design cross-members would not survive much more than limit negative load.
I had calculated that 900 lb at a certain location would do the trick and designed the fixture for that.
The plan did not survive the first test because of my in-experience in aircraft design and stress.
First picture shows the original design setup
Second picture:Looking for 900 lb I saw the flat portions of the upright over the jack flexing and I stopped the test at 450 lb....the ratio of the pressure to lb is 2.25 with the 200 reading being 450 lb....
The flat portions were not modeled in the truss program and the truss program assumed elements connected at the centroid of the elements which was not the case....which is why I knew a physical test was needed.
I turned the fixture over and pulled the bottom tube and the cross-members were buckling at again 200 or 450 lb....this would have been a negative G loading and as the spec for negative Gs is ½ that of the positive G loading I was not as upset as I was with the first test.
Without stopping to re-calculate and very upset I decided to pull the positive load but I could not pull from the calculated location so I decided to just do it and see where it ends up.....Every cross-member was in tension and I figured it was worth a try......when I got to 400 reading or 900 lb I decided to pull until 500 or 1125 lb because the location of the pull was inboard of the calculated location...at approximately 460 or 1035 lb the cross-members failed in tension.
The cross-members are easily replaced.....calculated cross section area of item in tension at the failure point fell right on the numbers as regards Ftu or 59000 lb/sq-in for 2024 t-3....which shows that my truss program was correct at least with that element. I really missed it as regards the size of the attachment surfaces of the cross-members but that is easy to fix. I plan on redesign and replacing the cross-members.
My current calculated loads based on the test shows that my cross-members and uprights will survive a limit positive load.... although the current design cross-members would not survive much more than limit negative load.
