USAFA-TR-2005-4

Compression Buckling of Z-Stiened Aluminum

Panels, with and without Corrosion Grindouts
James M. Greer, Jr., Daniel W. Hill, and Scott A. Fawaz
Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension
U.S. Air Force Academy CO 80840
(719) 333-3618, DSN 333-3618
Ron Logan
Northrop Grumman Corporation Integrated Systems
AGS & BMS, Melbourne FL
(321) 951-6803
Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension
Department of Engineering Mechanics
United States Air Force Academy
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80840
January 2005
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
DEAN OF THE FACULTY
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
COLORADO 80840
USAFA-TR-2005-4
USAFA-TR-2005-4
This article, Compression Buckling of Z-Stiened Aluminum Panels, with and with-
out Corrosion Grindouts, is presented as a competent treatment of the subject, wor-
thy of publication. The United States Air Force Academy vouches for the quality of
the research, without necessarily endorsing the opinions and conclusions of the authors.
Therefore, the views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reect
the ocial policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or
the US Government.
This report has been cleared for open publication and public release by the appropriate
Oce of Information in accordance with AFI 61-202 and USAFA FOI 190-1. This report
may have unlimited distribution.
i
USAFA-TR-2005-4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This eort is funded by the Aging Aircraft Squadron of the Aeronautical Enterprise
Program Oce (ASC/AAA, Col P.J. Clark). The prime contractor for the Air Vehicle
Health Management program, of which this eort is a part, is S&K Technologies, Inc.,
Dayton, OH (Mr. Kevin Boyd).
Twenty-seven Z-stiened panels, intended to simulate upper wing skin panels of the
Boeing 707, were tested to failure in compression to determine buckling strength. Pristine
panels and panels with machined grindouts (with various depths up to 62.6% of the
panel skin thickness) were tested to failure. Nine panels each of three congurations
were fabricated for testing. The results showed a degradation of buckling strength with
grindout depth that could be modeled with a modied Johnson-Euler method and a
modied Gerards method for long and short panels respectively. The panels with the
lower slenderness ratio (short panels) were degraded more by a given grindout depth than
were their more slender counterparts. However, it was found that span-wise grindouts
along the center stienereven deep onesdo not have a severe eect on strength.
Even at over 60% grindout depth, the worst degradation was less than a 12% reduction
in strength.
A small number of panels were tested with deep chord-wise grindouts. These tests
showed that the strength of the panel was dramatically reduced by these grindouts, which
were transverse to the loading direction.
ii
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
List of Symbols vi
1 Introduction 1
2 Background 1
2.1 The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.2 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.3 Previous Experimental Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 Specimen Fabrication and Instrumentation 5
3.1 Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4 Experimental Results 9
4.1 Test Set-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 Test Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.1 Span-Wise Grindouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3.2 Chord-Wise Grindouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4 Errors in Experimental Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5 Modeling Panel Behavior 14
5.1 Long Panels (C1 and C2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2 Short Panels (C3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3 Modeling Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6 Conclusions 18
Acknowledgements 19
Appendix: Sample Calculations A1
A.1 Johnson-Euler Method A1
A.1.1 Damaged Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3
A.2 Method of Gerard A3
A.2.1 Damaged Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A4
iii
USAFA-TR-2005-4
List of Figures
1 Approximate gage locations of Hickman and Dow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Gage locations of Friedman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Gage locations of Butler, et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Cross section of stiened panels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5 Step-tapered grindout geometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6 Typical linear buckling analysis of panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7 Initial and nal strain gage locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8 Typical long panel behavior of a gage pair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9 Set up for panel buckling experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10 Typical damage progression with load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11 Panel strength as a function of grindout depth for 3 congurations with
span-wise grindouts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12 Comparison of C1 panel results with modied Johnson-Euler method. . . 15
13 Comparison of C2 panel results with modied Johnson-Euler method. . . 15
14 Comparison of C3 panel results with modied method of Gerard. Dotted
line indicates Johnson-Euler model for this panel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
iv
USAFA-TR-2005-4
List of Tables
1 Properties of panel materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Panel specications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Buckling test results for three panel congurations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 Buckling test results for chord-wise grindout panels. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.1 Calculation of stiener crippling load using the Johnson-Euler method. . A1
A.2 Calculation of segment section properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2
A.3 Calculation of new segment section properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A3
v
USAFA-TR-2005-4
List of Symbols
A
e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eective skin area
A
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . skin segment cross-sectional area
A
tot
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . section cross-sectional area, A
s
+A
w
A
w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . single stiener cross-sectional area
b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stiener spacing
C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . panel conguration #1
C2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . panel conguration #2
C3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . panel conguration #3
c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . end-xity condition
d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . crosshead displacement
E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Youngs modulus
E
c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Youngs modulus (compressive)
H
w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stiener height
I
ox
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stiener section second area moment about its own centroid
K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . slenderness ratio
L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . original panel length
L

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . equivalent length based on end-xity condition

m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gerard equation parameter
P
cc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stiener crippling load
P
co
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . segment Johnson-Euler allowable load
P
max
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . max recorded load during test
P
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . load at skin buckling
t
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . skin thickness
t
w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stiener thickness

t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . equivalent skin thickness, A

tot
/b
W
e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eective skin width
W
fi
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . inboard ange width
W
fo
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . outboard ange width
Y
c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . section centroid
y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . distance referenced from outboard surface of outboard ange
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gerard equation parameter

g
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . depth of grindout as pct of skin thickness
L/L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . change in length per unit length at P
max
P
max
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . change in max load carrying capability due to damage

i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . axial strain in stiener i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . radius of gyration

cc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . stiener crippling stress

co
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . segment Johnson-Euler allowable stress

cy
s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . compressive yield strength of the skin material

cy
w
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . compressive yield strength of the stiener material

U
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . material tensile ultimate strength

Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . material tensile yield strength
vi
USAFA-TR-2005-4
1 Introduction
The objective of this investigation was to determine the eect of corrosion grindouts on
the compressive strength of B-707 upper wing skin panels. Three representative geome-
tries were considered. One conguration represented the minimum strength wing panel
(40 ksi, Conguration #1, or C1), and one represented the maximum strength wing panel
(64 ksi, Conguration #3, or C3). A third conguration was also tested. These panels,
denoted Conguration #2 (C2), were mistakenly manufactured with thicker stieners,
but were tested nonetheless to provide additional data for this study. Two pristine pan-
els in each conguration were tested, and damage was introduced into each of the other
panels in the form of uniform spanwise grindouts. These grindouts ranged from 35% to
63% of the panel skin thickness, and were meant to simulate severe in-service corrosion
grindouts.
2 Background
2.1 The Problem
Current guidance for corrosion repairs to USAF aircraft includes the requirement to
remove the visible products of corrosion. Removal of these products is often accomplished
by grinding the surface of the material until pristine material is exposed. If the depth of
the grindout exceeds a certain percentage of the thickness of the material, the material
must be replaced. The limits specied in the Technical Orders for a particular aircraft are
based on engineering judgement and analysis. The current eort attempts to quantify,
through experiment, the degradation in buckling strength caused by a uniform grindout.
2.2 Approach
In this study, grindouts of known depth were made along the length of a panel stiener,
and the panel was tested to failure. Panels with no grindouts were are also tested
for reference. The panels were manufactured by Valco Manufacturing, Inc. of Duncan,
Oklahoma. Panels were received with four of ve stieners attached (riveted) to the skin,
with the center stiener drilled, but not attached. These center stieners were attached
after surface grindouts were machined into the specimen. The few panels meant for
baseline testing (pristine panels) were received with all ve stieners attached.
2.3 Previous Experimental Work
Signicant relevant work has been done in the area of buckling of rib-stiened panels as
has some analytical work on corroded plates by Lakhote, Pandey, and Sherbourne [1],
and by Roorda, Srivastava, Maslouhi, and Sherbourne [2]. However, none of this work
has involved the sort of simulated grindout damage applied in the current eort. Still, it
should be mentioned that Lakhote, et al. [1], in their analytical work on at, unstiened
panels with deep, centrally-located square grindouts, found that a correct assessment of
the pre-buckling redistribution of stresses is required to avoid seriously overestimating the
reduction in buckling strength. As will be shown in the current work, even deep grindouts
1
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Figure 1: Approximate gage locations of Hickman and Dow [3], [4] based on text of
references and two gures. (Six-stiener panel shown; fastener pitch/size not to scale.)
caused relatively small reductions in buckling strength, and this stress redistribution in
damaged panels could be an important consideration in any future analytical work.
This section describes previous relevant work with a focus on the instrumentation
and methods used to determine the initial panel buckling load. This skin buckling load
is often much less than the maximum load a stiened panel can ultimately carry.
Hickman and Dow [3], [4] of NACA instrumented their six-stiener panels with ...four
6
1
2
-inch resistance-type wire strain gages mounted on the quarter points along the length
of the second and fth stieners. (They also performed tests on four- and ve-stiener
panels.) These gages, which are not described further in their reports, were used to
detect shortening per unit length of the panels. Although not described in the text,
Figure 3 of Reference [3] and Figure 2 of Reference [4] both appear to show strain gage
instrumentation on the panel skin (see Figure 1). These were likely used for detecting
what the authors call the local buckling load using the strain-reversal method of Hu,
Lundquist, and Batdorf [5]. In this method, local buckling is said to have occurred
when a plot of the strains near the crest of a buckle rst shows a decreasing strain with
increasing load. (How the crest location was predicted or determined is not described.)
These gages (if that is, in fact, what they are) are located on the stiener side of the skin
between stieners and near, but not always at, the mid-length line of the panels.
2
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Figure 2: Gage locations from Figure 2 of Reference [7]. White boxes indicate gages
mounted on outer-most surface of Z-stiener. Black boxes indicate gages mounted on
at side of panel. (2) indicates two gages in this location, one on each side of the skin.
Fastener pitch/size not to scale.
Rothwell [6] measured the test panels for imperfections prior to testing, but collected
no data other than maximum load carried during the displacement-controlled tests.
Friedman, et al. [7] took strain and displacement measurements on their four-stiener,
Z-stiened aluminum panels. Two strain gages were placed opposite each other on each
side of the skin half-way between rivet rows and centered along the length. A strain gage
was also placed on the top (outer-most) surface of each Z-stiener, and these were also
centered along the length (aligned with the skin gages). An additional gage was placed
on the non-stiener side of the skin, centered along the length, and directly underneath
the vertical part of each Z-stiener. Finally, two more gages were placed opposite each
other on each side of the skin half-way between the central row of gages and the panel
end
1
, centered on the width of the panel. Therefore, a total of 16 gages were used to
instrument a four-stiener panel (see Figure 2).
In their book, Singer, Arbocz, and Weller [8] suggest a number of methods to deter-
mine critical (buckling) load in plates under compression, including the aforementioned
1
Actually, these two gages were placed half-way between the central row of gages and the beginning
of the potting for the panel end.
3
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Figure 3: Gage locations from Figures 2 and 3 of Reference [9]. Stiener gages are located
on the vertical ange of the L-stieners. Fastener pitch/size not to scale.
technique of Hu, et al. [5]. They also describe a method of detecting buckling by observing
the inection in the curve of the algebraic compressive strain average,
A
=
1
2
(
1
+
2
),
versus axial load, where
1
and
2
are strains at the same location on opposite sides of
the skin. Again, these strains are taken at a crest of a buckle.
Butler, et al. [9] instrumented their panels at mid-length, with one gage on each sti-
ener and one gage centered on the stiener side of the skin between stieners. Additional
gages were placed to detect skin buckling (see Figure 3). The stieners were L-shaped,
and the stiener gages were placed 10 mm and 3 mm from the edge of the stiener for
the three-stiener and four-stiener panels, respectively. The gages served two purposes:
(1) comparison with the optimization code used in their study and (2) monitoring the on-
set and advance of buckling. They found the strain gage information to be more accurate
than load versus end displacement plots.
Aalberg, et al. [10] did not use strain gages in their tests, but chose instead to monitor
load versus displacement. They also measured out-of-plane displacement continuously
throughout their displacement-controlled tests (displacement was approximately 1 mm
per minute).
After this review of the relevant literature, it was decided to instrument the panels
as described in Section 3.2.
4
USAFA-TR-2005-4
3 Specimen Fabrication and Instrumentation
3.1 Fabrication
Panels were manufactured by Valco Manufacturing, Inc. of Duncan, Oklahoma. Twenty-
seven panels were manufactured in three congurations. All panels consisted of a skin
sheet with ve evenly spaced Z-stieners. Panel congurations are shown in Figure 4.
The skin was of 7075-T6 aluminum sheet material. The stieners were formed
(bent) from 7075-0-BARE coil stock, then solution heat treated and aged per the SAE
AMS2770G specication to the T62 temper before attaching them to the skin. The bend
radii for the stieners was 4.3 mm (0.17 in). The material properties for the aluminum
used to fabricate the panels are listed in Table 1. In addition to certications provided
by the aluminum manufacturers, Valco conducted in-house conductivity and hardness
testing to conrm material properties.
Table 1: Properties of panel materials.
E
U

Y
Component GPa (Msi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi)
Skin (7075-T6) 71.7 (10.4) 582.6583.3 (84.584.6) 515.8517.1 (74.875.0)
Stiener (7075-T62) 71.7 (10.4) 568.8 (82.5) 508.9509.5 (73.873.9)
Aluminum MS20470AD4-5 rivets, 2017 alloy, 1/8 in diameter, were used at 1/2 in
pitch to attach the stieners. The close rivet spacing essentially eliminated inter-rivet
buckling as a concern.
The panels are approximately half-scale versions of the actual aircraft wing skin. They
were scaled down to accommodate the capacity of the load frames used in the testing.
Figure 4: Cross section of stiened panels. Measurements are in Table 2.
5
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Table 2: Panel specications for Figure 4. Dimensions are mm (in).
Cong t
s
t
w
W
fi
W
fo
H
w
b L
1 2.03 (0.080) 1.78 (0.070) 16.3 (0.64) 16.3 (0.64) 37.1 (1.46) 106 (4.19) 531 (20.9)
2 2.03 (0.080) 2.03 (0.080) 16.3 (0.64) 16.3 (0.64) 37.1 (1.46) 106 (4.19) 531 (20.9)
3 2.03 (0.080) 2.03 (0.080) 15.2 (0.60) 15.2 (0.60) 28.2 (1.11) 54.4 (2.14) 279 (11.0)
Panels were received assembled, except for those panels that were to receive grindouts.
For these panels, the manufacturer drilled the skin and stieners with rivet holes, but did
not attach the stieners. The grindouts were accomplished on the non-stiener side in the
form of a channel along the center rivet row. The center stiener was then attached with
the rivets. The grindouts and attachments were made using a at end mill. The target
grindout channel depths were of 30% and 50% skin thickness. The grindout edges were
step-tapered on a slope of 25:1 (per Northrop-Grumman criterion) as shown in Figure 5.
The actual depths of the grindouts are presented with the results in Section 4.
Figure 5: Step-tapered grindout geometry for simulated corrosion grindout. The grindout
runs the entire length of the panel.
3.2 Instrumentation
Instrumentation for initial tests involved 13 strain gages: one on each of the ve stien-
ers, four between stieners, and four located in pairs at predicted skin buckling locations.
After gaining some condence in the loading scheme, the number of gages was reduced
to ve, applied to the panels as shown in Figure 7. For the short panels, skin buck-
ling was more dicult to detect, so one additional pair of skin gages was used. The
micromeasurements CEA-13-250UN-120 gages were used in this eort.
The three stiener gages were used to determine whether the loading on the panel
was being evenly applied. Agreement of strains within 10% was taken as the criterion:
max {|
1

2
|, |
1

3
|, |
2

3
|}
(
1
+
2
+
3
) /3
100 10 (1)
Typically, this check was performed at low load levels (< 25% of the failure load), then
minor adjustments were made to the xed crosshead when necessary. Minor adjustments
were made for almost every panel test.
6
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Figure 6: Typical linear buckling analysis of panel. Panel displacements (greatly exag-
gerated) are indicated by the deformed geometry and the colors.
The pair of gages on opposite sides of the skin was used to detect skin buckling. They
were located through the use of a linear nite element buckling analysis, which indicated
the locations of crests in the deformed geometry during skin buckling. A typical analysis
result is shown in Figure 6.
The onset of skin buckling as measured by these gages was easily noticed in C1 and
C2 (long) panels (see Figure 8 for typical behavior). The skin buckling load was recorded
using the load reversal criterion of Hu, et al. [5]. On the short (C3) panels, the preferred
skin gage location fell into the grindout taper area for some grindout cases. For these
panels, the skin gage on the at side of the panel had to be moved 1/4 in to keep it out
of the grindout. Skin buckling occurred in these panels near the panel failure load, and
was dicult to detect visually. Also, the strain gages used to detect skin buckling would,
in some instances, give ambiguous readings due to the very high strains in the skin at
these high loads.
7
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Figure 7: Initial (a) and nal (b) Strain gage locations for buckling tests. Where two
gage numbers are indicated, one gage is located on each side of the skin. The suxes
B and C on some gages indicate alternate locations tried at various stages of the
program.
Figure 8: Typical long panel (C1 and C2) behavior of a gage pair located on opposite
sides of the skin at the same location. These were used to detect skin buckling. Gages 1
and 2 are located on opposite sides of the skin at the same location.
8
USAFA-TR-2005-4
4 Experimental Results
4.1 Test Set-Up
The buckling tests were performed on a Satec model 120HVL electromechanical test
machine having a capacity of 534 kN (120 kip). The load transducer was calibrated to
ASTM E4-03 [11] prior to the start of testing. Data were recorded by the Satec computer
controlling the machine (load and displacement) and by a LabVIEW
2
system recording
the strain gage output. The LabVIEW system also recorded the load and displacement
by measuring the voltages on two channels from the Satec machine. The test set-up is
shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Set up for panel buckling experiments.
4.2 Test Procedure
Panels were loaded in the stiener direction as shown in Figure 9. The upper (xed)
crosshead had a 7.6 cm by 15.2 cm (3 in by 6 in) hole in it, so a top plate was fabricated
from 12.7 mm- (0.500 in)-thick steel and bolted to the crosshead to cover the hole. The
plate surface was milled at to a tolerance of 0.025 mm (0.001 in). The bottom
(moving) crosshead surface was at and continuous. No potting or other modications
2
LabVIEW is a registered trademark of National Instruments Corporation.
9
USAFA-TR-2005-4
to the panel ends (beyond milling at) were performed. The panel ends rested directly
on the at metal supports (as in References [3] and [4]).
The tests were run under displacement-controlled conditions at a commanded rate
of 3.0 mm/min (0.12 in/min) to 10 kN, then 1.5 mm/min (0.06 in/min) to failure for
C1 and C2 panels. For C3 panels, the loading rates were 1.5 mm/min (0.06 in/min)
and 0.7 mm/min (0.028 in/min), respectively. These strain-rate based rates were chosen
based on guidance in ASTM E989a [12]. Loading of the specimen was occasionally
paused to inspect the specimen under load.
4.3 Test Results
The results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 11. The typical damage progression is shown
in Figure 10. In two tests, the skin buckling strain gages were mislocated on the panel,
so no skin buckling load is available.
Figure 10: Typical damage progression with load: (a) P = 0, (b) P > P
s
, (c) post-test.
Foil in photo (b) is a shim used to equalize load between stieners. These are C1/C2
panels.
For most tests, agreement of results between similar congurations with similar dam-
age was excellent. Of 25 tests, only 2 were rejected because of poor results. Panel 4
was rejected because is was realized after testing that it was mounted improperly in the
test machine (it was not chord-wise at at the beginning of the test). Panel 25 gave
an anomalous result, and subsequent material tests indicated it had inferior material
properties compared to other panels.
The panel shortening was calculated as
L/L|
Pmax
=
d|
P=P
max
d|
P=2.5 kip
L
(2)
By using 11.1 kN (2.5 kip) as the lower displacement bound, the initial settling
response (which varies signicantly from panel to panel) is removed.
10
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Table 3: Buckling test results for three panel congurations. All grindouts are span-wise.
Panel Cong
g
P
s
P
max
L/L|
P
max
Strength Chg
a
No. No. Pct kN (kip) kN (kip) strain Pct
1 1 0% 154 (35) 405.7 (91.21) 7120
2 1 0% 166 (37) 412.5 (92.73) 7700
4
b
1 37.4% 139 (31) 354.9 (79.80) 8273
5 1 34.8% 154 (35) 395.4 (88.90) 6885 3%
7 1 56.1% 118 (27) 376.7 (84.70) 7062 8%
8 1 57.4% 119 (27) 382.4 (85.97) 7316 7%
9 1 34.8% 150
c
(34) 396.6 (89.16) 7234 3%
10 2 Fixture Failure
11 2 0% 184 (41) 445.1 (100.07) 8180
12 2 0% 167 (38) 444.7 (99.97) 8270
13 2 36.1% 144 (32) 420.7 (94.58) 7750 5%
14 2 41.9% 148 (33) 425.2 (95.59) 7870 4%
15 2 36.4% NR
d
437.6 (98.38) 7860 2%
16 2 40.6% 163 (37) 432.7 (97.28) 7710 3%
17 2 52.9% NR 423.4 (95.20) 7820 5%
18 2 Fixture Failure
19 3 0% 388 (87) 422.2 (94.93) 11,030
20 3 0% 409 (92) 425.8 (95.73) 10,430
22 3 41.3% 326 (73) 384.9 (86.53) 10,210 9%
23 3 41.3% 302 (68) 383.8 (86.29) 9640 9%
25
b,e
3 56.1% 245 (55) 358.2 (80.52) 9782 16%
26 3 62.6% 251 (56) 375.7 (84.47) 10,680 11%
27 3 60.0% 234 (53) 370.1 (83.20) 10,227 13%
a
Compared to average of pristine results
b
Result discarded. See text.
c
Approximate
d
Not Recorded (see text)
e
This panel had an unusual surface nish. Hardness testing revealed a lower strength (about 10%) than
other panels.
11
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Figure 11: Panel strength as a function of grindout depth for 3 congurations with
span-wise grindouts.
4.3.1 Span-Wise Grindouts
Pristine C1, C2, and C3 panels were tested to establish baseline strength values. Pan-
els with grindouts of various depths were then tested to determine the degradation in
strength due to these grindouts. It must be remembered that this result assumes these
important conditions: (1) the grindout runs parallel to and directly over the center sti-
ener and is symmetric with respect to the fastener row, (2) the loading is uniaxial and
parallel to the stiener, (3) the stiener is securely reattached to the panel after the
grindout is applied (i.e., no loose rivets), and (4) the stiener is undamaged.
The results indicate a slight degradation in buckling strength due to the grindouts,
with the C3 panels being the most aected.
4.3.2 Chord-Wise Grindouts
A small number of extra panels were available for testing, and these were used to make
an assessment of chord-wise grindouts on panel strength.
The chord-wise grindouts were much more damaging to the panels than were the
span-wise. Three reasons for this are (1) the span-wise grindout aects the integrity of
only one stiener bay, while the chord-wise grindout aects all stiener bays, (2) the
chord-wise grindout admits another failure mode, namely inter-rivet buckling, which can
12
USAFA-TR-2005-4
fail the rivets locally leading to zero eective skin width in that area, and (3) the chord-
wise damage has the eect of creating a hinge that leads to low-load out-of-plane skin
buckling along the grindout, which helps destabilize the stieners.
The results of the tests on panels with chord-wise grindouts are shown in Table 4.
These panels with grindouts exhibited skin buckling at very low loading, so no skin
buckling loads are shown for these panels.
Table 4: Buckling test results for chord-wise grindout panels.
Panel Cong
g
P
s
P
max
L/L|
Pmax
No. No. Pct kN (kip) kN (kip) strain
1 1 0% 154 (35) 405.7 (91.21) 7120
2 1 0% 166 (37) 412.5 (92.73) 7700
3 1 44.7% NR
a
202.5 (44.53) 4813
6 1 48.6% NR 209.8 (47.18) 4139
19 3 0% 388 (87) 422.2 (94.93) 11,030
20 3 0% 409 (92) 425.8 (95.73) 10,430
21 3 70% NR 259.1 (58.26) 8427
24 3 70% NR 241.4 (54.28) 9109
a
Not Recorded (see text)
4.4 Errors in Experimental Values
Sources of error in these experiments include load cell accuracy, strain gage accuracy,
evenness of panel loading, grindout channel accuracy, and panel imperfections (other
than grindouts). In addition, the detection of skin buckling is somewhat inexact. Because
of the data collection rate, the specimen loading rate, the uncertainly in gage location,
and the somewhat arbitrary choice of the instant of buckling (change in sign of strain
slope) the skin buckling load should be considered to be no better than about 5 kN
(1 kip) in accuracy (this represents approximately 1% of the buckling load).
Load cell accuracy aects P
s
and P
max
data values. During calibration, an accuracy
of 0.5% for both accuracy and repeatability was noted. However, this accuracy includes
a coverage factor that provides a condence level of 95%. During the actual calibration
runs, the maximum absolute error seen was 21.547 lb at a load of 84 000 lb, or 0.0026%.
Strain gages of the type used have a typical accuracy of 5%. This would aect
load leveling prior to each test and the measurement of L/L|
Pmax
at the conclusion of
each test. As was mentioned in Section 3.2, strain variation between stieners was used
as a measure of load evenness. This was typically done at or below 100 kip at strains
near 1000 . The strain gage error at these levels, at worst case, would widen the load
leveling range from 10% to 15%. Quantifying the eect of the load unevenness is
problematic, but the very high repeatability in pristine panel results indicates that the
load leveling was successful.
Even with the use of jigs specially made for the purpose, achieving the desired grindout
depth to a close tolerance was dicult. However, based on measurements taken at the
grindout ends, uniformity of the grindout along its length appeared to be good (i.e.,
13
USAFA-TR-2005-4
within typical machine shop tolerance of 0.003 in). Future plans include using an NDI
technique to better assess the uniformity of the grindout along its length.
The panel specications provided to Valco included requirements for sheet atness
( 3/16 in), lateral bow ( 1/16 in), squareness ( 3/32 in), thickness variation
(0.0025 in), width and length (1/16 in), and perpendicularity of stieners to the
sheet surface (1

). Panels were spot checked for compliance with these specications

and were found to be of very high quality and consistency (it was clear that they were
manufactured on computer-controlled equipment). Furthermore, since parallel panel ends
were of paramount importance, the panels were milled (in house) on the ends to ensure
they were parallel prior to testing (0.003 in vs. the 1/16 in specied). Panel imperfections
were, therefore, probably a small contributor to experimental errors.
To summarize, the errors in load measurement were extremely small, and so the
ultimate strength of each panel is very likely within 20 lb of that indicated in the results.
Because these results are reported based on the actual measured grindout depths, the
fact that the originally planned grindout depths of 30% and 50% of the skin thickness
were not achieved introduces no error in the results. Since the evenness of loading (as
determined by strain readings) could be o by as much as 15%, this becomes the most
signicant potential source of error in the results. However, the magnitude of this error
is impossible to quantify without signicant analytical or experimental work, and the
repeatability of the process and the results indicates that this error is likely small as well.
5 Modeling Panel Behavior
The ultimate strength of the pristine (no grindout) panels was calculated using stan-
dard analysis techniques. The Johnson-Euler method was used for C1 and C2 (long)
panels, and the method of Gerard was used for C3 (short) panels. The Johnson-Euler
method requires an end-xity condition to be assumed for the calculation of a slender-
ness ratio. For the panels in this study, an end-xity coecient of 3.75 was used. For
at-ended specimens tested between rigid at anvils, this value has been shown to be
appropriate [13].
5.1 Long Panels (C1 and C2)
The Johnson-Euler method was used for the longer (C1 and C2) panels (for a description
of this method, see, e.g., Ref [14]). This method calculates an allowable column stress,

co
, as a function of the column cross sectional crippling strength,
cc
, as

co
=
cc
_
1

cc
(L

/)
2
4
2
E
_
(3)
For C1 and C2 panels, the J-E strength is calculated to be 406.5 kN (91.4 kip) and
456.8 kN (102.7 kip), respectively. The actual strengths were found to be 409.2 kN
(92.0 kip) and 444.8 kN (100.0 kip) for respective errors of +0.7% and 2.6%.
For panels with grindouts, the analysis was identical, except that the skin thickness
for the entire center section was reduced to the minimum skin thickness in the bottom
of the grind-out. See Appendix 6 for some worked examples.
14
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Comparisons of these analyses to the experimental data are in Figures 12 and 13.
Figure 12: Comparison of C1 panel results with modied Johnson-Euler method.
Figure 13: Comparison of C2 panel results with modied Johnson-Euler method.
15
USAFA-TR-2005-4
5.2 Short Panels (C3)
The method of Gerard was used for the short (C3) panels (for a description of this
method, see, e.g., Ref [15] or Ref [16]). This method calculates the stiener yielding
stress,
cy
, as

cy
=
[
cys
+
cyw
(

t/t
s
1)]

t/t
s
(4)
and the section failure stress as

f
=
cy

_
g t
s
t
w
A
tot

E

cy
_
m
(5)
and therefore the section failure load as
P
f
=
f
A
tot
(6)
For the short panel, this leads to a failure strength of 478.2 kN (107.5 kip). The actual
failure strength of this conguration was 424.0 kN (95.32 kip), so the error in this method
for the pristine panel is +12.8%
3
.
For C3 panels with grindouts, the Gerard method was used again, except (as in the
long panel case) that the skin thickness for the entire center section was reduced to the
minimum skin thickness in the bottom of the grind-out. See Appendix 6 for some worked
examples.
A comparison of this analysis to the experimental data is in Figure 14.
3
The J-E method calculates a pristine strength of 427.9 kN (96.2 kip), an error of +0.9%, but the
J-E method does a very poor job modeling behavior of damaged short panels (see Section 5.3).
16
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Figure 14: Comparison of C3 panel results with modied method of Gerard. Dotted line
indicates Johnson-Euler model for this panel.
5.3 Modeling Summary
The slenderness ratios for panel congurations 1, 2, and 3 are 22, 22, and 17, respec-
tively. The behavior of the damaged longer panels (C1 and C2) is well described by
Johnson-Euler theory, while the method of Gerard does a much better job describing
the shorter panels behavior. Gerards method for stiened panels is a modied version
of his method for predicting the crippling stress of plates and is applicable when the
interfastener buckling and wrinkling stresses are greater than the crippling stress [15, p.
488] (as is the case for all the panel congurations with span-wise grindouts tested in
this study). Gerards method is for panels that buckle in the inelastic range. The C3
panels exhibit considerably more plastic deformation than do either the C1 or C2 panels
(see column 6 in Table 3).
This limited test program did not attempt to nd where the crossover point is, that
is, to nd the slenderness ratio at which one theory describes the behavior better than
the other.
No attempt was made to model the behavior of panels with chord-wise grindouts.
17
USAFA-TR-2005-4
6 Conclusions
The test results indicate that uniform grindouts along the stiener length, provided the
middle stiener (only) is aected, and the fastener is reattached snugly with new rivets,
caused only minor degradation in panel buckling strength. (Assessing degradation to
fatigue properties is the topic of ongoing work, but is not addressed here.) Moreover, by
modifying the analysis methods of Johnson, Euler, and Gerard, curves can be generated
that depict strength degradation as a function of grindout depth for these panels. The
shorter (C3) panels experienced signicantly more plasticity prior to collapse than did
the longer (C1 and C2 panels). It is for this reason that the Gerard method was more
appropriate, and better at modeling, the C3 panels. These curves give the structural
engineer a new tool for assessing the degradation in strength to B-707 upper wing skin
panels due to grindouts.
18
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Lt Col P. J. Clark of ASC/AAA and Mr. Kevin Boyd
of S&K Technologies, Inc. for their sponsorship of this eort. We also thank Mr. Stephan
Verhoeven, Mr. Cornelis Guijt (Engineers), Mr. Chad Moon, and Mr. Jonathan Ingram
(technicians) for their invaluable assistance on this project. Finally, we are indebted
to Mr. John Lobdell and MSgt Michael Nero (Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering) for the generous use of their facilities for these tests.
19
USAFA-TR-2005-4
References
[1] R. Lakhote, M. Pandy, and A. Sherbourne, Buckling Behavior of Corroded Plates,
in Proceedings of the Fourteenth ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, (Austin,
TX), May 2000.
[2] J. Roorda, N. Srivastava, A. Maslouhi, and A. Sherbourne, Residual Strength of
Ship Structures with Corrosion-Induced Damage, Technical Report, Defense Re-
search Establishment Atlantic, Halifax, NS, Mar. 1996.
[3] W. A. Hickman and N. F. Dow, Data on the Compressive Strength of 75S-T6
Aluminum-Alloy Flat Panels with Longitudinal Extruded Z-Section Stieners,
Technical Note 1829, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Langley Air
Force Base, VA, Mar. 1949.
[4] W. A. Hickman and N. F. Dow, Data on the Compressive Strength of 75S-T6
Aluminum-Alloy Flat Panels Having Small, Thin, Widely Spaced, Longitudinal Ex-
truded Z-Section Stieners, Technical Note 1978, National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics, Langley Air Force Base, VA, Nov. 1949.
[5] P. C. Hu, E. E. Lundquist, and S. Batdorf, Eect of Small Deviations from Flatness
on Eective Width and Buckling of Plates in Compression, Technical Note 1124,
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Langley Air Force Base, VA, 1946.
[6] A. Rothwell, An Experimental Investigation of the Post-Buckled Eciency of Z-
Section Stringer-Skin Panels, Aeronautical Journal, pp. 2933, Jan. 1981.
[7] R. Friedman, J. Kennedy, and D. Royster, Analysis and Compression Testing of
2024 and 8009 Aluminum Alloy Zee-Stiened Panels, Transactions of the ASME:
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, vol. 116, pp. 238243, Apr. 1994.
[8] J. Singer, J. Arbocz, and T. Weller, Buckling Experiments: Experimental Methods in
Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures; Basic Concepts, Columns, Beams, and Plates
- Volume I. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
[9] R. Butler, M. Lillico, H. G.W., and N. McDonald, Experiments on Interactive
Buckling in Optimized Stiened Pnels, Struct Multidisc Optim, vol. 23, pp. 4048,
2001.
[10] A. Aalberg, M. Langseth, and P. Larsen, Stiened Aluminum Panels Subjected to
Axial Compression, Thin-Walled Structures, vol. 39, pp. 861885, 2001.
[11] ASTM, Standard Practices for Force Verication of Testing Machines, Standard
E403, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[12] ASTM, Standard Test Methods of Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at
Room Temperature, Standard E989a, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.
20
USAFA-TR-2005-4
[13] R. Papirno, Inelastic Buckling of ASTM Standard E 9 Compression Specimens,
Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, vol. 15, pp. 133135, May 1987.
[14] M. C.-Y. Niu, Airframe Structural Design. Hong Kong: Conmilit Press LTD, 1998.
[15] R. M. Rivello, Theory of Analysis of Flight Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1969.
[16] G. Gerard, Handbook of Structural Stability: Part V - Compressive Strength of
Flat Stiened Panels, Technical Note 3785, National Advisory Committee for Aero-
nautics, Washington, Aug. 1957.
[17] D. J. Peery and J. J. Azar, Aircraft Structures. New York: McGraw-Hill, second ed.,
1982.
21
USAFA-TR-2005-4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
22
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Appendix: Sample Calculations
The following examples indicate how the Johnson-Euler method and the method of
Gerard were used to calculate panel buckling strengths for pristine panels and panels
with span-wise grindouts. English units are used for these examples.
A.1 Johnson-Euler Method
The Johnson-Euler method was employed as follows (this analysis is for a C1 panel).
First, the stiener crippling allowable stress,
cc
, is calculated. The stiener is divided
into 3 segments. Segments 1, 2, and 3 are the inboard (next to the skin), vertical, and
outboard segments of the stiener, respectively.
Table A.1 shows how the crippling load is calculated [17].
Table A.1: Calculation of stiener crippling load using the Johnson-Euler method.
Edge b
i
t
i
b
i
t
i

cc
i
b
i
t
i

cc
i
Seg Cond (in) (in) (b/t)
i
(in)
2
_

cy
s
Ec
_
b
t
_

cc
i
/
cy
s
(psi) (lb)
1 Free 0.604 0.072 8.389 0.043 0.707 0.7491 55,320 2,406
2 Fixed 1.388 0.072 19.278 0.100 1.624 0.9591 70,831 7,079
3 Free 0.604 0.072 8.389 0.043 0.707 0.7491 55,320 2,406
Sum A
w
= 0.187 P
cc
= 11,890
The crippling stress is then

cc
= P
cc
/A
w
= 63, 613 psi (7)
The eective skin area, A
e
, is found by calculating the eective skin width, W
e
, which
is based on the stiener crippling stress, the material modulus, and the skin thickness:
2W
e
= 1.70t
s

E
c

cc
= 1.685 in (8)
and the eective skin area is then
A
e
= 2W
e
t
s
= 0.131 in
2
(9)
The segment section allowables may now be calculated as shown in Table A.2, where
Segment 4 is now the eective skin segment, and Segments 13 are the stiener segments
of Table A.1.
A1
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Table A.2: Calculation of segment section properties.
Width Height A y Ay Ayy I
ox
Seg (in) (in) (in)
2
(in) (in)
3
(in)
4
(in)
4
1 0.640 0.072 0.0461 0.0360 0.0017 0.0001 0.0000
2 0.072 1.316 0.0948 0.7300 0.0692 0.0505 0.0137
3 0.640 0.072 0.0461 1.4240 0.0656 0.0934 0.0000
4 1.685 0.078 0.1306 1.4988 0.1957 0.2933 0.0001
Totals 0.3175 0.3321 0.4373 0.0138
() A Ay Ayy I
ox
The segment section centroid is Y
c
= Ay/A = 1.046 in, and the segment area
moment is I = I
ox
+ Ayy Y
2
c
A = 0.104 in
4
. To complete the segment allowable
stress, we need the slenderness ratio, K, of the segment
K =
L

=
L

c
= 18.89 (10)
where L = 20.9 in, =
_
I/A = 0.571 in, and c, the end xity coecient, is 3.75. The
Johnson-Euler stress,
co
, and strength, P
co
, allowables are then given by
recall
cc
= 63, 613 psi (11)

co
=
cc
_
1

cc
(L

/)
2
4
2
E
c
_
= 60, 095 psi (12)
P
co
=
co
A = 19, 078 lb (13)
This leads to a panel allowable of
(P
co
)
panel
=
co
A
panel
= 90, 526 lb (14)
where A
panel
= (N 1)A + A
w
+ t
s
W
fo
= 1.506 in
2
.
This answer can be iterated upon by using
co
as
cc
in Eq (8), creating a rened W
e
:
2W
e
= 1.70t
s

E
c

co
= 1.733 in (15)
and the new eective skin area is then
A
e
= 2W
e
t
s
= 0.134 in
2
(16)
a 2.9% increase. The new segment section allowables may now be calculated as above
(Table A.3).
A2
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Table A.3: Calculation of new segment section properties.
Width Height A y Ay Ayy I
ox
Seg (in) (in) (in)
2
(in) (in)
3
(in)
4
(in)
4
1 0.640 0.072 0.0461 0.0360 0.0017 0.0001 0.0000
2 0.072 1.316 0.0948 0.7300 0.0692 0.0505 0.0137
3 0.640 0.072 0.0461 1.4240 0.0656 0.0934 0.0000
4 1.733 0.078 0.1343 1.4988 0.2013 0.3017 0.0001
Totals 0.3212 0.3378 0.4457 0.0138
() A Ay Ayy I
ox
The new segment section centroid is Y
c
= Ay/A = 1.051 in, and the new segment
area moment is I = I
ox
+AyyY
2
c
A = 0.104 in
4
. The new slenderness ratio becomes
K =
L

=
L

c
= 18.94 (17)
and the Johnson-Euler stress,
co
, and strength, P
co
, allowables are now given by
recall
cc
= 63, 613 psi (18)

co
=
cc
_
1

cc
(L

/)
2
4
2
E
c
_
= 60, 079 psi (19)
P
co
=
co
A = 19, 300 lb (20)
This leads to a panel allowable of
(P
co
)
panel
=
co
A
panel
= 91, 408 lb (21)
where A
panel
= (N 1)A + A
w
+ t
s
W
fo
= 1.521 in
2
. Because the column allowables
changed only 0.026% in this iteration, we can consider this answer satisfactory.
A.1.1 Damaged Panels
For the damaged panels, the calculation is the same, except that the skin thickness, t
s
is
reduced to that corresponding to the maximum grindout depth, and is assumed to act
over the entire (single) segment. That would need to rst be accounted for in Eq (8)
and carried through all calculations for the damaged segment (only). Other segments
would be calculated as above. For a C1 panel with a 57% grindout, for example, these
calculations would result in a panel allowable of P

co
= 84, 810 lb.
A.2 Method of Gerard
The following calculation is for a C3 (short) panel, which represents the 64 ksi allowable
panel on the B-707.
A3
USAFA-TR-2005-4
Recall that the stiener yielding stress is given by

cy
=
[
cy
s
+
cy
w
(

t/t
s
1)]

t/t
s
(22)
where
cy
s
=
cy
w
= 73.85 ksi and t
s
= 0.0775 in. The area of the skin for one bay
is b t
s
= (2.14)(0.0775) = 0.1659 in
2
. The area of the stringer cross section is t
w
=
0.1975 in
2
, so A
tot
= t
s
+ t
w
= 0.3634 in
2
. The average thickness of the panel,

t, is
given by A
tot
/b = 0.3634/2.14 = 0.1698 in. These values give a stiener yielding stress
of
cy
= 73.850 ksi. (In these panels, the skin and stiener materials have the same
properties, so
cy
=
cy
s
=
cy
w
).
This value allows the calculation of the section failure stress

f
=
cy

_
g t
s
t
w
A
tot

E

cy
_
m
(23)
where = 0.56 (Gerard parameter for formed Z stieners), g = 8 (Gerard parameter for
Z-stiened panel), E = 10.4 Msi, m = 0.85 (Gerard parameter for formed Z-stiener).
These values yield a result of
f
= 63.31 ksi, and a section failure load of
P
f
=
f
A
tot
= 23 ksi (24)
The panel failure load is then calculated as
P
max
= 5P
f
(b W
fi
)t
s

f
= 107.5 kip (25)
where the term (b W
fi
)t
s

f
accounts for the fact that this panel does not consist of 5
complete bays.
A.2.1 Damaged Panels
For the panels with grindouts, the method is the same, with the following modications.
Eq (22) becomes

cy
=
[
cy
s
+
cy
w
(

/t

s
1)]

/t

s
(26)
where the asterisk (*) indicates the impact of changing the skin thickness to t

s
= (1G)t
s
,
where G is the fraction of skin removed at the bottom of the grindout. Similarly, Eq (23)
becomes

f
=

cy

_
_
g t

s
t
w
A

tot

_
E

cy
_
_
m
(27)
and Eqs (24) and (25) become
P

f
=

f
A

tot
(28)
P

max
= 4P
f
(b W
fi
)t
s

f
P

f
(29)
where P

max
is the strength of the damaged section. This strength is used with the
strength of the undamaged sections to calculate the new strength for the entire panel.
A C3 panel with a 50% grindout, for example, would have a strength of
P

max
= 4P
f
(b W
fi
)t
s

f
P

f
= 97.2 kip (30)
where t

s
= (1 0.5)(t
s
), P
f
= 23 kip (as before), and P

f
= 12.8 kip.
A4