V\) 8 7- 11/2 '. 4 /3 '14 '.

,
File D 52.331/4l ·
..,.,
· 'AIR SERVICE INF1QR~~~ N CIRCULAR
(AVIATION)
-
PUBLISHED BY THE CHIEF OF AIR SERVICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Vol. IV February 15, 1923 No. 394

THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD AMONG THE SPARS IN

MULTI-SPAR CONSTRUCTION OF
AIRPLANE WINGS
( AIRPLANE SECTION REPORT)

Prepared by J. S. Newell
Engineering Division, Air Service
McCook Field, Dayton, Ohio
August 16, 1922

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1923
 CERTIFICATE: By direction of the Secretary of War the matter contained herein 18
published as administrative information and is required for the proper traI1&Lction of
the public buain~.
(n)

\
 -·(\
"f)_.,
--
iA L 1v.
-<t-

THE DISTRIBUTION OF LOA~ iNG THE SPARS IN

MULTI SPAR CONSTRUCTION OF AIRPLANE WINGS.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF REPORT. i ~ - -- -~T-AB

_L_E_3._L_o_w_in_cid_·_ence_._ _ _~ - -
With the development of large internally braced air- R&-
plane wings, the simple two-spar type of construction Rear spar deflections in inches. treat.
appears to tie uneconomical as regards material and weight. Factor.
Accordingly three or more spars are sometimes employed, A B C D E F s z
and with the -introduction of this multispar construction
comes the question as to the manner in which the load on 1.5 ....... . .. . .. ... . 0.9 1. 9 3. 0 4.0 4. 9 5. 8 7. 0 -0.4
2. ... ... .. . ... . ... .. 1.3 2.4 4.3 5.7 7. 7 8. 5 10. 1 - .7
the wing is distributed among the spars. The following 2.5 .. .. . . .. .. .... . .. 1.6 3. 3 5. 4 7. 9 10. 0 11. 3 12. 5 -1.0
report covers an investigation of a number of methods of
apportioning the load as applied to a large three-spar
TABLE 4.
metal wing; a study of the results obtained as compared
with tli'e distribution indicated by the sand test of this Center spar deflections in inches.
wing, and the conclusions based upon that study. Factor.
Owing to scarcity of data concerning the distribution G H. I J K L T
of the wing load among three or more spars, it is impoeaible ·
to offer a formula that is entirely satisfactory for use in 1.5 .. .. ... .. 0. 7 1. 4 2.1 3. 1 4.0 5. 1 5. 9
design . since proof of its applicability is lacking. Thia 2 . . . ........ 1.1 2.0 3.3 4.4 5. 7 6.8 8. 1
2.5 ... . .. . . . 1.2 2.3 3.8 5. 8 7.4 8. 8 10. 4
investigation, being limited to one specific case, ha.a been
carried out to eliminate such methods as show themselves
to be inapplicable and to establish a basis for future TABLE 5.
research for the purpose of obtaining a satisfactory method
Front spar deflections in inches.
of apportioning the wing loads among the spars.
The methods considered and the results obtained are Factor.
discuaaed in d etail in the following pages. The data on M N 0 p Q R u
which the investigation depends are given in Tables 1 to
1. 5 . . • . ..... 0. 4 1.0 1.4 2. 3 3.2 3.7 4. G
8, inclusive, which show the distribution of the sand load, 2 . . .... . . . • . .6 1.3 2.0 3.2 4. 3 5. 1 6.1
the moments of inertia of the spars at the different panel 2.5 ...... . .. 1.0 1.6 2.5 3.9 5.6 6. 5 7.9
points, and the deflections of the wing obtaiI!ed during the
sand test. Figure 1 gives the general dimensions of the TABLE 6.-High incidence.
wing, the location of the spars, and the scheme of lettering
the panel points of the trussed spars. Rear spar deflect ions in inches. Retreat
Loop.
TABLE 1.-Moment8 of i~tia. factor. I
A B C D E F s z
Root M N 0 p Q R
3 ... .. ... . . h2 2. 1 3. 7 5. 6 7.2 8. 7 10.2 +1. 6
-- - - --- - - - -- 3.5..... . . . 1.4 2. 7 4. 4 6.5 8.7 10. 5 12.3 +2. 3
Front spar••.. ... .. .... . . 408 255 148 86 42 Zl 13 3.75.: . • . . . I. 6 2. 9 4. 8 7. 2 9.5 11. 4 13.4 + 2. 4

Root G H I J K L TABLE 7.
- - - - -------- Center spar deflections in inches.
Center spar . . ... ... .•.. .. 421 323 200 117 70 49 22
Factor.
G H I J K L T
B C D E F

*
3 ... .•• .. • . .. 1.5 2. 7 4. 4 6.4 8.2 9. 8 11. 5
Rearspar . .... . . .. . . . ... 95 121 72 (1 28 10 3.5 ... . . . ... . 1.6 3. 2 5. 2 7.5 9.8 lL 7 13.6
3. 75 .. . ..... . 1. 8 3. 4 5. 6 8. 2 10.5 12. 6 14. 7

TABLE 2.-Distribution of sand load over a cross section. TABLE 8.

Low incidence- Front spar deflections in inches .
Centerofpressure High incidence-Center of Factor.
at-50.per cent. pressure at 33 per cent.
M N 0 p Q R u
Per cent or chord
fromleadingedge. 0-32 32-M 64--90 0-26. 5 26.5-46. 5 46.·5-91. 5 3 ... ...... . . . 1.4 3. 0 4.8 6. 8 9.0 10. 5 12. 0
Per cent of sand 3. 5.. ...... .. 1.8 3. 5 5. 5 8. 1 10.5 12.6 14. 1
load in section.... 30 30 40 50 25 25 3. 75 ........ . 2.0 3,9 6.1 8.8 11.5 13.4 15. 6

(1)
 2
DISTRIBUTION OF· STRESS DETERMINED FROM
SAND TEST DATA.
Mean o=l/8(0.0+2.7+5.7+3.0)=1.45 in.
In a solid spar of constant cross section the deflection Mean l=l/8(254+585+363+72)=159 in.'
Wa I ,aa=l59Xl.45=231.
T=
CwL3
may be expressed in the general form t:.=EI when C
is a constant dependent upon the distribution of the load
and the method of support. While this formula probably
does not hold exactly for a trussed spar or one of varying
cross section, the error introduced b y considering C to be
a constant for spars of the same type, but different depths,
under similar loading conditions would be small. In the
wing under consideration the lengths of the three spars are,
fur all practical purposes, the same and the modulus of
elasticity is a constant. By rearranging the above for-
E Front spar. . ......... . ............ ... ..... . .. . ... 22. 9
mula we get w=kit:., where k= cv·
The loads causing a given set of deflections may there-
fore be computed. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining
values of k for the spars of a wing such as this, and for the
purpose of simplifying the numerical work, the compu-
tations will be made on the basis of a percentage distribu-
tion of the load among the spars. To establish a satisfac-
tory basis for comparing the results of various formul,e all
computations will be made for distribution of the load at
the third panel point from the root, the distribution ae
calculated from the deflection data being taken as the
standard for comparison.
It is to be noted that the deflection at the third panel
point is a function not only of the loads and moments of
inertia at that panel point but also of those at the panel
points between that and the root. Having the moments
of inertia and deflections for each panel point of each spar
we shall compute the load on each spar that would cause
a cantilever beam having a constant moment of inertia
equal to the mean of the moments of inertia of the panel
points between the root and the third panel point to
deflect a distance equal to the mean deflection of these
same panel points. The deflections and moments of
inertia are aBBUµled to have straight line variations be-
tween panel points.
LOW INCIDENCE.
FRONT SPAR .
REAR SPAR.
Per cent
149
Front spar carries_-··-·-_ . . _- - . . . . . ... . ........ =22. 6
656
276
Center spar carries ... __. . _. . _.. . . .. .. . .... . .. . 656=42. l
231
Rear spar carries .. . _. .. .. .. ........... . ... .. 656=35. 2
The above computations are for the third panel point
under a low incidence load factor of 1.5. Similar computa-
tions were made for load factors of 2 and 2.5, the averages
of the three results being
Per cent.
Center spar ... ..... . .. ... ..... ... ... . . .... . ... . _ 42. 8
Rear spar .. . .. _.. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . 34. 3
Following the same methods the average distribution
of the load at the third panel point for the three factors of
the high incidence load was found to be
Per cent.
Front spar... . .. . .. .. .......... . ...... . .... . ..... 36. 9
Center spilr. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . .. 41. 8
Rear spar... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21. 3
The agreement of the loads carried by each spar under
each load factor with the average values given above for
the three load factors was very close, so the actual values
will not be given here.
Similar computations were made for one panel, and for
two panels eacli based on the deflection data for the three
load factors in low and in high incidence. The following
percentages are in each case averages of the values for the
three load factors, the variation from these averages being
a matter of 1 or 2 per cent for any load factor.
LOW INCIDENCE.
Av age,
Member. 1 panel. 2 panels. 3 panels. fo:n~ :,
panel.
Per cent. Per unt. Per cent, P r cmt.
g::.5f;:r.-.-:::::::::::::::: ~ ::; :: ::
Rear spar.. . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . 32. 7 33. 4 :U. 3 IS. 4

IDGH INCIDENCE.
Mean defiection=l/8(o,+3" 1+So 3 +o1 )=1/8(0.0+ 1.2+3.o+
1.4)=0.7 in.
rr. 1
Mean I=l/8 (I,+3I1+3I2+I3) = 1/8(408+762+442+86) = 6!~f;.Sf;:r. - .-:::: :::: ::::::::
Rear spar . . .. . .... ... . ..... ..
38.2
40.8 41.4 36.91
n.s
37.6
41.3
212.5 in.' 21. 0 ~-9 21.3 21.1
w.. =l,.or=212.5X0.7=148.7
·k
It will be seen from the above that the distribution of
CENTER SPAR . load existing at the third panel point is in cloee agreement
with the average values for the first, second, and third
Mean o=l/8(0.0+2.1+4.2+2.1)=1.05 in. paneh!.
Mean I=l/8(420.5+969+600+117)=263.3 in.' The above values indicate the manner of distribution
among the three spars of the load on the wing as computed
.TWe = Lcoc=263.3Xl.05=276.
from the deflection data obtained during the sand test.
 3
Various other methods for calculating this distribution for of the areas of these spars, and another similar spar of area
use in design will now be investigated and the results equal to that of the center and rear spars acting at their
compared with those given above. center of gravity, computing the load in each of these
imaginary spars and then dividing it between the actual
DISTRIBUTION IN PROPORTION TO MOMENTS
spars, of which the imaginaries are made, in proportion
OF INERTIA.
to their respective areas.
The first method to be considered assumes that the load
carried by each spar is in proportion to the moment of LOW INCIDENCE LOADING.
inertia of the spar. 67
. 25
From Table 1 at the third panel point. I magmary spar 1, 0.4_ X XO = 10 .6 (1 ocat10n
. of C· . G .
0 ·638 ·467 from front spar).
Moment of Load .
.
I magmaryspar 0.516X 25
2'0.4 13.1 (l ocat1on
.
inertia. x _
67 0 516
of C. G.
from center spar).
S
Front spar . . .. ... ............ . ...... . ........ .
par l cames
. 3.lXW
~ - =0.113W
~~~:~~·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::
24.4W
275 Spar 2, _ =0.887W
27 5
0.638
This assumption is obviously of little value since it Front spar =1. xo.113=6.5 per cent.
105
makes no provision for a different distribution under a
high from that under a low incidence loading. By com- Cen t er spar= 0.467X0.113+0.467X0.887
l.l0 5 47 per cent.
0 _983
paring the percentages as given by this method with those
obtained from the deflections, it will be seen that this Rear spar = 0.516 , x0.887=~.5 per cent.
distribution would give unsafe design loads for the front 0 983
and rear. spars, though satisfactorily providing for the
HIGH INCIDENCE LOADING.
center spar in this case.
. . 20.lW
DISTRIBUTION IN PROPORTION TO LOAD ON Imagmary spar 1 cames 2 7.5- =0.731 W
AREA ASSUMED TO BE CARRIED BY EACH
SPAR. .
Imagmary spar 2 carries _ =0.269 W
. 7-.4W
27 5
A second assumption is that each spar carries that por- . 0.638
tion of the load lying between the mid-points of the spans
F ront spar carries l.l0 X0.731=4 2.2 per cent.
5
to either side of the spar. In Figures 2 and 3 the chord is . 0.467 . 0.467X0.269 43.7 per
taken as 100 units in length and the load expressed in Center spar carries l.l05 X0.731+ 0 _983 = cent.
pounds per per cent of chord. The shaded areas indicate . 0.516
the portions carried by the front and rear spars; the clear R ear spar cames 0 _983 xo. 269=14 .l per cent.
area that carried by the center spar. For distribution of
load over the cross-section, see Table 2. The above method of substituting imaginary spa:rs gives
a conservative distribution of stresses for use in design.
LOW INCIDENCE LOADING. In this case, for a three-spar wing, the results would be
Per cent. quite satisfactory for purposes of design, but it is apparent
Front spar, 0.937X27.5 =25. 8 that the computations inherent in the extension of this
Center spar, 0.937X25 =23. 0 scheme to a multi-spar wing would. be somewhat involved.
Rear spar, 0.937Xll.5+L54X26=50. 8
THE BURGESS RATlONAL METHOD.
HIGH INCIDENCE LOADING.
The next solution of the problem to he considered is a
Per cent. rational, theoretical method, the development of which
Front spar, l.885X26.5+L25Xl=51. 3 is due to Mr. C. P . Burgess, of the Bureau of Aeronautics
Center spar, l.25Xl9+0.555X6 =27.1 of the Navy Department, and, wfth one or two minor
Rear spar, 0.555X39 =21. 6 changes in signs and nomenclature, is as follows.
This method is of very little value, as it indicates a, very Figure 6 shows the cross section of an internally braced
light loading on the center spar which, as determined by multi-spar wing having n spars numbered from 1 to n
the deflections, carries about 40 per cent of the load in proceeding from the leading toward the trailing edge.
both low and high incidence. Curve A represents the distribution of the air force
normal to the wing as a compound of the pressures on the
DISTRIBUTION IN PROP-ORTION TO SPAR AREAS
upper and lower surfaces.
BY THE USE OF IMAGINARY SPARS.
Fis the resultant air force per unit length of the wing
A distribution that approximates the conditions en- minus the weight of the wing per unit of length. lt is
countered in a three-spar wing is obtained by substituting assumed that Facts at the center of preBBure on the cross
one imaginary spar of area equal to the combined area of section. The moment of F about the ieading ~dge will
the front and center spars acting at the center of gravity be represented by M.
55313 0-31--2

w;, w;, W3 , • •• Wn are the loads per unit length along
spars 1, 2, .. . n at the section under consideration.
Ii, I 2 , • • • In are the moments of inertia of the respective
spars about their neutral axes, d,, di, .. . ~ being the
distances of the spars from the leading edge.
If the wing root be assumed to be fixed in position the air
load will cause the wing to bend so that any cross section
will rise a vertical distance, v, and rotate through a small
angle, 8, the assumption being made that points in the
cross section which lie on a straight line before, will lie on
a straight line after the load is applied. Figures 7 and 8
are drawn from the deflection data given in the foregoing
tables and indicate that this allBumption is reasonable.
Similar plats have been made for the second panel point
a.nd the tip of the wing with .results that agreed with those
shown in Figures 7 and 8. The discrepancies from a
straight line deflection as shown above are matters of one
or two tenths of an inch, part of which may be accounted
for by the precision of the deflection data. It may there-
fore be said that the assumption that the wing is deflected
and rotated by the air load without appreciable distortion
is correct except, possibly, very near to the wing root.
From the above assumption it may readily be seen that
the vertical movement of any spar due to the rise and rota-
tion of the cross section will equal v+ed; v the vertical
deflection·, being positive when upward, O being consid-
ered positive for counterclockwise rotation about the
leading edge.
The running load on the spar necessary to produce this
deflection equals
w=kl(v+od)
Multiplying equation l by d we get
wd=kld(v+od)
But wd=the moment of the load about the leading edge
and for equilibrium it is necessary that
'Z,w-F=O
and
'Z,wd-M=O
By equations 1 and 3
F/k=vZI+oz(Id)
By equations 2 and 4
M/k=v'Z.(Id)+oz(Id2)
For convenience let
Zl=a
'Z.(Id)=o
Z(Id2)=c
whence
and
F/k=va+eb}
M/lc=vb+oc
Solving these simultaneous equations we get
bF-aM cF-bM bM-cF
/J= k(b 2 -a) and v=k(ac-b 2 ) k(b 2 -acj
Substituting these values in equation 1, gives
I .
w= b•-ac (bM-cF+(bF-aM)d)
4
cross-sectional area being assumed as equally divided
between the existing member Q.nd its ghost. The -computa-
tions are then carried on as in the orilll\ary case. .
The value of k for a cantilever of uniform cross section
under uniform load may be obtained by substituting ~
. . w x' L 3x L'
for (v+ed) m equation 1, where ~= 2Eii2- 3 +
4 ,x
being measured from the free end of the cantilever,
whence
2E
k=x4 £3:i; t• 9
I2-T+4
At the wing tip x=O and k= ~!
At the wing root x=L and k'=cx:
For cases where the spars are not of uniform section, as
in tapered wings, or where the load is not uniform, the
deflection may be found by the graphical method described
on pages 225 to 232 of Fuller and Johnston's Applied Me-
chanics, Volume II, or that in article 173 of the McCook
Field Handbook, Structural Analysis and Design of
Airplanes, or in Information Circular No. 213.
The values of w for the several sections al\Jllg the spar
as given by equation 8 of this report are to be used when
plotting the loading diagrams. The values of k, o or v will,
however, seldom be needed, and it is to be noted that re-
suits obtained from them will be approximate.
The application of this rational formula tothe third panel
1 point of the three-spar wing gives the following results:
LOW INCIDENCE.
2 F=l lb.
M=FXdistance to C. P.=1X50=50 in. lbs.
a='Z.I=86+1I7+72=275 in.•
b=2:(ld)=86Xl5+ 117X 40+ 72X65=10,650 in. s
3 c='Z.(Id2)=86Xl5 2 +ll7X402+72X652 =510,900 in. 6
86 [
4 Wi=l0,650'-275X510,900 10,650X50-510,900Xl+
5 (10,650Xl-275X50)15 J
6 86 [ J 86X24,900
- .27,100,000 21,600+(-3,100)15 =21,100,000 7.9%
117 [ J 117Xl02,400
-27,100,000 21,600+(-3,100)40 = 27,100,000
44.2%
72
.-27,100,000
[ 21 000 J 72Xl80,000
, +(- 3 ,lOO) 65 · = 27,100,000
47 .9%
ffiGH INCIDENCE.
F=l lb.
M=FXdistance to C.P.=1X33=33 in. lbs.
a, b, c, remain as above.
8

Equation 8 gives the running load per unit length on

WF= 27
1~ 000 [10,650X33-510,9oox1+(10,650Xl
the spar at the section under consideration. Once this ' ' -275X33)15]
loading is known, the· shearing forces, bending moments,
and fiber stresses may be calculated by the usual procedur!l
for cantilever beams.
W 86 [
21,100,000 -155,900+(l,480)15
J 86Xl33,700
21,ioo,000 42.4%
When designing a wing such as the Junker having the
spars placed as shown in Figure 9, it will be necessary to w. 117 [ J 117X96,700
27,100,000 -155,900+(1,480)40 = 27,100,000-41.7%
provide "ghost spars," represented by the dotted lines
in the figure. These imaginary members should be placed 72 [ . ] 72x59,700
vertically above or below the actual members, the actual w. 27,100, 000 . -155,900+(1,480)65 -21,100,000-15.9 ~
 5
By comparing the results obtained from this rational G. C. in vertical axis=
formula with those baaed on the sand test data, it will be . WXI 7. m .;..3)8)(40-&.~ + •'ZO;Xl7 ,~+ - ~9)(ff, 3! + . !11)(17, n +. 3t7X.fl .5'
seen that the distribution as given by the formula is con- l•ftl · =32·!

servative for the design loads iri the front and rear spars The moment of inertia of the spars about the C. G.=
while for the center spar the design load agrees very 2: (Ax2 )+2: (Ay 2 ), x and y being the coordinates of the
closely with the actual load. spars.
From a study of these results in relation to those from
the sand test it appears that part of the load is transferred
:i; (A,S)
from the rear to the front-spar in low incidence and from
the front to the rear spar in high incidence. This is Front ... . . .. .. . ... .. .. . ... 0.356X 8. 56 25.7 0. 356X56. 061, 118
logical when it is considered that the front spar, being 0.282Xl4.9b 62.6 0. 282X56. O'= 885
designed for high incidence loading, has a reserve of Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 258X 17. 21= 76. 4 0. 258X 4. 6b 5
strength and stiffness under low incidence, but since the 0.209Xl4.6'= 44.5 0. 209X 4. 61- 5
interspar trussing acts to make the front spar deflect with Rear . .. . . . . .• .• . ... ...... • 0.307X 9. 5'= '0.7 O. 307X 65. 2'= 1, 305
0. 209X 14. 6'= 44. 5 0. 209X 65. 2'= 889
the center and rear spars, additional streBBes are devel-
oped in it, due to forces causing thia extra deflection. 281. 4 4,207
The ea.me effect is noticeable in the case of the rear spar
in high incidence. [0 =4488 in.4
In the development of the rational formula no provision
is made for the fact that, due to the rotation of the wing. Stress due to bending,fb= 1§.oc.
0
sections; the value of F and the position of the center of
preBBure,will vary at different parts of"the wing since the F
Stress due to shear,f.=_,f
angle of attack is changed. It is obviously impossible to
provide for this action by any simple method. The effect The neutral axis lies in a line normal to the resultant
of this rotation of the aerofoil is, in most cases, to move air load" F "
the center of preSBure toward the rear in low and toward where fb=f.
the leading edge in high incidence, so that the distribu- M 0c F
tion given by the rational formula t ends toward the unsafe 4=A
side. This tendency will partially offset the previously
noted conservatism. M0 =Fx0
It is to be remarked, too, that the deflections will not Io
serve as absolute criteria for the distribution of the load c= Axo·
since no account is taken of the effect on the deflections The distance to the neutral axis is therefore
of the tensions or compreBBions developed in the spars by
the drag trUBBing, the direction of the deflection of a 4488
trUBBed cantilever under an axial loading being deter-
c l.
621 X 28 _7 96.4 to the left of the C. G.
mined by the arrangement of the web members. The stress at a point 1 inch from the intersection of -the
The stresses developed in the spars by the drag forces, neutral axis and the line normal to the air force, i. e.,
i. e., the forces parallel to the chord, should be calculated
in the usual manner by finding the neutral plane perpen- from the center of rotation is f = ~l.
dicular to the chord and applying the beam theory. The
drag loads are to be applied to the leading or trailing edge
according as to which will cause the greater stresses in tne
M = F (x0+c) = M0+c= M0+ Fi.;0 =F(x0+ _};J
members of the drag truss.
DISTRIBUTION IN PROPORTION TO DISTANCE
l=I.+Ac2 =10+A 1=1 i+-{;J 0(

FROM CENTER OF ROTATION.

M
J- - -
F:1:o(1+~2)
0
M.
_ ____JI
A second rational method of attack suggests itself when
a section of the wing is considered, as shown in Figure 10. - 1- 10(1+ ~a2) -
Io
We then have a cross section which acts as a unit, sub-
jected to an eccentric load. The spars, braced by the _100 X 28_2_
! - 4488 -0. 640 ·
interspar trussing, develop streSBes to resist this load in a
manner very similar to the action of the rivets in an The intensity of the stress in each spar will be :n.ormal
eccentrically loaded ·structural joint. to a line joining the spar and the center of rotation and will
Figure 10 shows a section of the wing at the third panel vary as the distance from the center of rotation.
point in low incidence under the action of a load, assumed
as· 100 pounds, for simplifying the computations, acting STRESS IN SPARS IN LOW INCIJ)ENCE.
at the center of pressure with an inclination of 5° to the
vertical. Front ... . ... .. 0. 64 X 40 XO. 356= 9. 0
The center of gravity of the area of the spars is obtained 0.64X 46.5X0. 282= 8.3 17.3%
in the usual way. Center ....... 0. 64Xl01 XO. 258=16. 6
. h . ta.I . .467X60.6+.516Xl21.2_ 90.9 0. 64Xl03 XO. 209=13. 6 30. 2 %
·C· G· m onzon aXlB .638 +.467 +.516 -1.621 Rear . ......... 0. 64Xl61 XO. 307 =31. 2
=56.0. 11 0. 64Xl62. 5XO. 209=21. 3 52. 5%
 6
] n hio-h in<'idencc the center of pressure is at 33 per cent the limited number of readings taken befqre failure
of the chord and the angle between the resultant air force occurred in the wing, the results obtained were- not satis-
and a normal to the wing chord is 8°. factory. Those for the low incidence loa(j.ing ar~ gj.v?Ii
in Table 9, as they form a reasonable check on the dlS-
4488 225" tribution computed from the sand test data. The results
c l.621Xl2.3 _ in high incidence-were valueless and are not included.
_lOOX12.3= " 74 TABLE 9.-Distribution- of ~oad at third panel point _by
f- 4488 -~ . various methods expressed in per cent of the load applied
at the center of pressure.
STRESS IN SPARS IN IDGH INCIDENCE.
Front ...... 0. 274XO. 356X282=27. 5 Low incidence. High incidence.
0. 274 XO. 282X279=21. 5 Method.
Center .... 0. 274XO. 258X224=15. 8 Front Cen- Rear Front Cen- Rear
spar. ter. spar. spar. ter. spar.
0. 274XO. 209X219=12. 5 28. 3%
Rear ....... 0. 274XO. 307Xl63=13. 6 1. Sand test data .••.•..•••....• 22.9 42.8 34.3 36.9 41. 8 21.3
0. 274XO. 209Xl59= 9. 1 22. 7% 2. Distribution proportional to
moments of mertia ...•...... 31.3 42.5 26.2 31.3 42.5 26. 2
3. Distribution proportional to
The second rational method is dependent upon the load between mid points of
adjacent.panels .........•... 25: 8 23.4 50.8 51.3 27.1 21.-6
same assumption as the Burgess method , t h at t h e spar 4."Substitutiou of imaginary
deflects and rotates without appreciable distortion, making · spars .. . ............ . ....... . 6. 5 47.0 46.5 42;2 43. 7 14.1
5. Burgess's rational method, .. . 7. 9 44. 2 47.9 42.4 41. 7 15. 9
the intensity of stress in any spar proportional to its dis- 6. Distribution by "distance
from center of rotation
tance from the center of rotation. method ... . .....•....••...•.. 17.3 30. 2 52. 5 49.1 28.3 22.8
A Comparison of the distribution given by this second 7. Extensometer (distribution
method with that back figured from thf) sand test ·data
at wing root) ............ , .. . 25. 7 35. 5 38. 8 ···-·· ···--· . .....
shows that the computed stress in the front spar in low
and the rear spar in high incidence are in accord, while the CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
computed stress in the center spar is low. Although the The available data on stress distribution in multispar
method appears logical the resnltB are not in sufficiently wings are insufficient to permit investigations and satis-
close accord with those determined ·from an actual test to factory comparisons of the results obtained by the various
warrant recommending it. By investigating the results methods of attacking this problem. It is recommended
it seems that the interspar trussing acts to distribute the that care be taken during all tests of multispar wings to
st~esses in a manner different from the computed distribu- obtain data that will be useful in developing a satisfact9ry
tion, in this case the increment being added to the center formuia for the load distribution. Since, -as has been
spar instead of going from the more heavily to the more noted, the deflections can not be taken as absolute criteria
lightly stressed exterior spar. _ of the stresses existing in a trussed spar, when the spar is
It is also interesting to note that the effect of a stiff subjected to tension or compression such as is developed
metallic wing covering would be to increase the distance by the drag trussing of an internally braced wing, it seems
between the center of gravity of the section and its center advisable to use an extensometer and obtain the actua
of rotation. This increase would change the proportional strains at various sections in the spar. The strains being
distribution of the load among the spars by changing the known, it is a simple matter to obtain the actual stresses
relative distances of the spars from the center of rotation. to which the stresses computed by the various formulae
The load acting on a spar as determined by this method can be compared and recommendations made regarding
is really applied normal to the line connecting the spar the method most satisfactory for use in design.
and the center of rotation; For a rigid comparison of the Basing our conclusions on the results of a single test
results obtained by this formula with those from the sand Burgess's rational method appears to give the most satis-
test data the above fact should be taken into account and factory agreement with the load distribution back-figured
the loads as determined for each spar resolved into vertical from the actual deflections. A study of the results
and horizontal-lift and drag- components. For clarity, compiled in Table 9 shows that the load given by this
in Figures 10 and 11 this resolution has been omitted, its method agrees quite closely with that developed in the
effect in this case being very small. It is interesting to center spar, while it also gives conservative design loads
note, however, that in the low incidence condition this for the front and rear spars. This case indicates that the
resolution of the force in the upper chord of the center structure 60 designed would be somewhat heavy due to
spar indicates an anti-drag component in this member. this conservatism-. The method is, however, recom-
This second rational forinula is offered for consideration mended for use in design without any attempts at modi-
in future studies of tems made on multispar wings, since fication until sufficient investigations based on test data
it is a logical method of attacking the load distribution for multispar wings have been made to warrant the altera-
problem. It is not recommended for use in design, tion of the Burgess formulae or the introduction of
however. empirical constants to provide a reduction of the design
RESULTS OF EXTENSOMETER MEASUREMENTS. load.
As a result of this investigation the rational formulae
Extensometer measurements were made near the root developed by Mr. Burgess are therefore recommended
of the wing on the tension tubes of each spar during the when calculating the distribution of the load among the
sand test. Owing to difficulties in setting the gauge and spars of a multispar wing for use in design.
 7

40'-o'

~ ~

} (;)

~ ~
~
•
~
~ ~~
~

~
~

HG-. /

.,.
CHO.eo • 100 V.NI ra
-
..:!>Z - ~z Z6

rf~.3 W = 0.9.37~% -~ t7.3w ..O.fJ.3 77'"' 1d.~Jfl.- /.54 '1~ .: L0,4(7

IYO

IZ..S IZ.6 ie..5 ie..5

/0 e..5 Z..5 .36
~.&,HT CtlVTtr.e ee-4.e

r-16. Z

1_ . Qt(M;.O = 1t2.a. ~d.l.r:~

~ <26 jy,c /.886~4/,,

e6.6

IZ.6
·I· ZtJ

_4 OZ5W-=l.l"57'%I

1e..s '
•I
/Z.6
a

o. e...sW"'
/Z ..S
I
46

()..S.5..S J/6/"fo .
t~
)Lo,q.o

16 Z6 Z6 .36
-

J'IGII, 1, 2, and 3.
 8
CHO.et? =/00 (/IY/7y

/0. 6 C:4.

reOHT
Ce/YTce or P.ec..5.5Gl.ee: 6t>
w

LOW INC!t?ENCc-
TH1.ep P.41Ye-L. POI/YT r.eoM Roor

CHoec;:, =-/00 V/Y/T,.5

-

rr"~t ,,,_,,,-111:?[Y- Cen~er ?nrq~nrqot. ,eeur

.~r
..I
~qr ~Pr .,:J~r ~r

/1).6
-I
~

7.4-il za1
- I
/.5 Z.5 ,?,5
I

cetYree nP-A--· ~ ·-- •.3.3

w
High" INC/Pc-lYCc
TH/C£? ~/'t'c-L PO//YT rEOM Eoor

FI~. ,, 5, and II,

 9

Loi,,,v INC1De-NCC

TH1.eo P.Qh,:t. Fb1nr

,;,::-1'6 7

L040
r»croe
-~o

----==---::-= ----~~
- ~..5"

---~-
H/GN /n'C/Pb'>'Cc-
TH/,eO p,,,Nc-L Po/NT

~ ~ ·-·

P'IGS. 7, 8, and 9 .

..$i .0

60.6

FIG. 10.-Low incidence.

------------------------------ - - - - -- ------ -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- -- ---'--'-··--=

I 10

FIG. 11.-High incidence.

Note:-Spar areas and position of center of gravity are the same as fig, 10.