The Space Congress® Proceedings 1970 (7th) Technology Today and Tomorrow

Apr 1st, 8:00 AM

Design, Fabrication and Test of a Boron Wing Structure

A. August
Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York

A. London
Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York

W. Ludwig
Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings

Scholarly Commons Citation

August, A.; London, A.; and Ludwig, W., "Design, Fabrication and Test of a Boron Wing Structure" (1970).
The Space Congress® Proceedings. 5.
https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1970-7th/session-1/5

This Event is brought to you for free and open access by

the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been
accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress®
Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly
Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
 DESIGN, FABRICATION AND TEST OF A BORON WING STRUCTURE

A. August Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York

A. London Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York
W. Ludwig Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bethpage, New York

ABSTRACT Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Under

the agreement, Grumman designed and fabricated the
A section of aluminum wing structure was redesigned wing box, while the AML supplied 120 pounds of
using "boron-epoxy composite. It represents the boron filament and conducted the static and fatigue
first application of this material to a pressurized tests on the structure. The program consisted of
fuel carrying section of wing. The design trade­ the following phases: configuration study;
offs, material properties, joint test data, materials test; preliminary design; panel and joint
manufacturing and processes and test data developed test; final design; fabrication and component test.
during the program are presented. The results of It was successfully completed in late 1969 with
this effort have provided a broad technology "base the ultimate test to failure of the wing box.
for the application of the material to future
aircraft structures.
2. PROGRAM

1. INTRODUCTION 2.1 CONFIGURATION STUDIES

The boron wing box extension, as noted previously,

The design of lightweight, efficient structures is
represents the first structural application of
one of the fundamental requirements of high
high temperature boron-epoxy to a wing that was
performance military aircraft. This emphasis on
designed to carry fuel under pressure. In addition
low weight structures has provided the incentive
to the new boron technology, the wing box used
to employ the high-strength-high modulus filaments
adhesive bonding as its principal method of attach­
such as "boron in aircraft. Tests of boron-epoxy
ment. While not being new to aircraft structures
composite have demonstrated that it is superior in
in general, its application to this structure
specific strength and modulus to the presently
used aircraft materials such as aluminum and required advancement in bonded joint design,
titanium. Structure weight savings of 25-^-0$ are analysis and manufacturing.
possible and have been achieved on membrane-type
structure such as the F-lll horizontal tail. The metal wing box shown in Figure 2 provides for
Grumman's program was initiated to examine the the attachment of a fixed leading edge, trailing
problems associated with second generation edge and tip structure, and a section of slat and
structure, which include fuel storage, cutouts and flap. The existing box is unpressurized and is
concentrated load introduction. To satisfy these divided into two sections. The inboard section
objectives, the fundamental approach of designing, houses-the fuel pump and fuel switches for the
analyzing, fabricating and testing a representative wing fuel tanks, while the outboard section contains
structural compoment was employed. An extensive a small number of electrical lines that connect
study was made of potential components and the wing with the navigation and formation lights.
box extension of the F-111B/FB-111 aircraft was
chosen (Figure l). Its selection was made for The boron composite wing box, which is approxi­
several reasons: mately lj-0 inches long, incorporates an integral
fuel tank in the outboard section and has been
designed to a pressure of 55 psi ultimate in con­
1. The part was a typical complex aircraft struc­
junction with the appropriate air loads.
ture which included ribs, contoured surfaces,
control surface mountings, access covers and in
During the preliminary design phase of the program,
addition had the capability to demonstrate fuel several concepts were evaluated, resulting in the
pressurization.
all bonded design shown in Figure 3. A typical
section through the pressurized portion of the
2. It was subjected to a variety of loads and had wing box is shown in Figure k. The box was design­
to resist combined bending, shear and torsion over ed using sandwich construction on all four sides
a temperature range of -6T°F to 350°F. with boron-epoxy face sheets used for the covers
and the beams. It is an all-bonded structure, with
3. The box offered the potential of being flight the exception of the fasteners used to resist fuel
tested because of its relatively simple attachment pressure loads along the center spar. The spar
to the inboard wing and its relatively low cost of caps are titanium because its thermal expansion
manufacture .
rate is similar to that of the boron-epoxy
laminate. All of the edge members are designed to
The program was established in early 1967, as a allow the existing leading and trailing edge
joint effort between Grumman and the Advanced structures to be used without modification. A
Composites Division of the Air Force Materials

1-15
 typical section through the unpressurized portion probability of survival with a 95$ confidence
of the wing box is shown in Figure 5. The spars level). The contribution of transverse tensile
and upper cover are continuous and the construction strength to laminate strength was neglected. The
is similar to that used in the outboard bay. The theoretical analyses were verified by tests on
lower cover, in the unpressurized area, is remov­ various multidirectional laminate configurations.
able and was designed as a stiffened panel. It
includes a solid laminate cover reinforced with The laminate selected for the boron-epoxy wing box
honeycomb stiffeners that contain unidirectional is the 0-, 90-, j45-degree laminate with a
boron-epoxy caps. minimum of one layer in each direction and with
equal numbers of +^5-degree and -^5-degree layers.
The ribs, both inboard and outboard, were origin­ This is considered a good laminate for wing cover
ally configured in fiberglass and their primary applications where the applied loading combinations
purpose was to act as pressure bulkheads to seal vary. Since its behavior is primarily filament
the fuel tank. Early analysis indicated low shear controlled it is relatively creep insensitive.
transfer between the ribs and spars. later investi­
gations, however, indicate a shear transfer of The wing box fatigue spectrum includes loads up to
approximately 5000 Ib between the front spar and 83$ of ultimate; therefore, all test specimens
inboard rib, and 3000 Ib between the front spar and were loaded to 75-80$ of ultimate, unloaded, then
the outboard rib. The relatively low bearing and reloaded to failure. Fatigue tests on 0-, 90->
shear properties of the fiberglass, coupled with +^5-degree laminates show no difference between
the increase in load and the access requirements the modulus after .25 x 10° cycles at a maximum
peculiar to the test article, dictated that the stress of from 60-70$ of ultl.ma.te and stress ratio,
ribs be designed in titanium. However, boron- R, of 0.1, and the modulus of static test specimens
epoxy access covers were used as shear webs for the after one preload.
inboard rib.
A summary of the design allowables data used is
Weight studies performed early in the program shown in Table I.
indicated that a 35$ saving could be achieved using
boron, when an unpressurized boron design was The critical unpressurized design condition for
compared with the existing unpressurized metal the wing box occurs during the supersonic
design. However, the boron wing box is pressurized maneuver. This condition has two associated
over 65$ of its length and, therefore, the weights centers of pressure; the forward CP case at the
are not directly comparable. Weight comparisons 26$ chord line, and the aft CP case at 50$ chord
were made on the upper and lower covers, which line. The critical pressurized design condition
indicated that Wf> and 9$ savings, respectively, for the wing box is a rolling pull-out condition
were achieved over the metal design. This data was which combines 60$ of the ultimate static condition
comparable to that for other developmental wings with 55 psi ultimate fuel pressure. These
studies, which indicated that 90$ of the weight conditions result in cover axial loads of 8000
saving is in the covers. pounds per inch and shear loads of 1200 pounds per
inch at the root end.
2.2 DESIGN The boron composite wing box was analyzed using
the finite anisotropic element analysis (FEA)
The design philosophy used in the program is technique (Reference 2). A three-dimensional
defined in Reference 1 and is based on the following idealization was made to determine the internal
requirements: load distribution for the critical static test
loading conditions, including the effects of test
1. The composite material shall have sufficient rig restraint. The three-dimensional analysis
strength to withstand ultimate load (1.5 times results were then utilized in two separate fine-
limit load) without failure. mesh two-dimensional FEA of the wing box covers to
finalize the design of the boron-epoxy skins.
2. There shall be no excessive deformation of the Loads obtained from these analyses were then used
structure at limit load. for detail stress analysis of the various struc­
tural elements in the components. The laminates
3. There shall be no significant degradation or were designed using the design allowables from
static strength reduction of the structure within Table I and the procedures mentioned. In addition,
the life of the aircraft. the following practical considerations were used:
k. The structure shall have sufficient fatigue 1. The laminates were design as symmetrical as
strength to withstand four times the specified possible to reduce warpage.
aircraft life without failure.
2. +ij-5° layers were maintained adjacent to the
Design allowables data for multidirectional titanium spar caps in order to provide good shear
laminates were obtained using theoretical analysis transfer.
methods and the results of statistical analysis of
unidirectional tests where possible. The statis­ 3. Strain compatibility was maintained between
tical analysis was performed in order to obtain the titanium inserts and the boron laminates.
MIL-HDBK-5 "B" basis design allowables data (90$

1-16
IK The number of steps in the laminate were was designed to simulate the loads induced in the
minimized to reduce the potential honeycomb core joint by the fuel pressure. The joint was designed
fitting problem. for an ultimate load of 2^6 Ib in tension applied
at the load points.
The ply orientation and thickness required for the
upper and lower air passage laminates are shown in
Figures 6 and 7« 2 A MANUFACTURING
The manufacturing phase of the program was divided
2.3 MATERIALS into three parts, namely:

Since the boron fiber composite used in this program 1. Process development
was a relatively new development, very little
reliable data were available for the designer. 2. Fabrication of the wing box extension
Therefore, a test program was initiated which
provided the necessary boron-epoxy properties, in 3. Inspection
the environmental conditions that exist for the
wing box. This program was divided into several 2.1j-.l Process Development
parts, namely; resin selection, static and fatigue
unidirectional and multidirectional laminate tests, Processes were developed to laminate, bond, seal
adhesive selection, and static and fatigue adhesive and machine boron composite. The results of these
lap shear tests. Further tests were conducted to studies led to the issuance of a specification
examine the effects of environment, such as salt which detailed the procedures that were used in
spray, ultra-violet light, and water absorption on fabricating the wing box.
boron-epoxy and to evaluate the effects of fuel
sealants, surface treatments, and substructure An autoclave laminating process was developed
bonding pretreatments on the composite. which satisfied the following requirements:

The resin selection was made after evaluating three 1. Maintain boron fiber orientation to +1°
boron-epoxy formulations. Boron filament was sent
to three preimpregnators. Qualification tests, 2. Control location of laminate steps to +1/16 in.
which included longitudinal tension, transverse
tension, interlaminar shear, in-plane shear, and 3. Control the per ply thickness to .00^9-.0055
flexure were conducted at temperatures of -67°F, inch and produce void-free laminates.
room temperature, 260°F, and 350°F. The Narmco
5505 r^sin system was selected from these screening A typical layup is shown in Figure 11. All
tests. ' This material offered the best balance of laminates for the wing box were made from Narmco
properties at that time. 5505, 3-inch wide tape with a resin content of 32$.
Hand layup was used, although an automated tape
Representative results from these tests are shown layup machine is now available at Grumman. See
in Table II. Some of the typical specimen config­ Figure 12.
urations used to obtain these values are shown in
Figure 8. The in-plane shear, flexural, ^5° Bonding studies were performed to evaluate the
tensile and longitudinal tensile specimens are honing/Pasa Jell 107M and Lubeco 300 pretreatment
shown from top to bottom, respectively. processes and both were found satisfactory for
bonding Ti-6 Al-^V titanium alloy to boron
In addition to the coupon data, test specimens composite with Metlbond 329 epoxy adhesive. The
were fabricated to simulate the inboard (root end) honing/Pasa Jell 10TM immersion method was used
cover splice joint and the wing box corner joints. on the wing box. EC-2333 silane primer was used
in conjunction with this pretreatment method.
The cover splice joint shown in Figure 9 was tested
in tension at room temperature and at 260°F in two Laminate coatings and fuel tank sealant were
configurations. The first series of specimens evaluated in a series of environmental tests that
made use of the excess resin in the Narmco 5505 included exposure to JP-if fuel. Desoto 823-011
tape system as the bonding agent between the boron urethane coating and EC -512 3 fillet sealant per­
and titanium doubler. The specimens were fabricated formed satisfactorily under the tests, and were
by laying the boron-epoxy pre-preg on the stepped used.
titanium doublers and curing the assembly in an
autoclave. The second series of specimens were Conventional chip removal techniques with high­
fabricated in the same manner, except, Metlbond 329 speed steel and tungsten carbide tools were found
adhesive was placed between the boron pre-preg and to be ineffective with boron-epoxy composite.
the titanium doubler prior to curing. The results Although abrasive machinery techniques were more
of the tension tests are shown in Table III. The effective, aluminum oxide and silicon carbide tools
wing box used splices that incorporated the Metl­ did not wear well. Diamond- impregnated cutting
bond 329-adhesive. tools, were the most effective and had the longest
tool life of all the cutter types evaluated. These
A typical specimen representing the corner member tools were used in conjunction with water-soluble
of the wing box is shown in Figure 10. The test coolants to fabricate the box details.

1-17
 2.4.2 Fabricat ion o Lay-up inspection - As the boron tape is laid
up on mylar templates, each layer is inspected
The method used to assemble the wing box is shown for fiber spacing and alignment. The stacking
in Figure 13. This procedure involved the following: of successive layers on the mold form is
observed by the inspector to assure proper
1. Bonding the ribs to the center spar to form an orientation of the layers. After bagging and
assembly (See Figure 14).
before curing, a vacuum check is made to
2. Bonding the upper and lower covers to the sub­ assure proper preparation for curing.
structure assembly (See Figure 15). o Process control - A separate panel is cured
3. Bonding the front and rear beam webs in place with each autoclave run and tested for flex­
by means of a doubler diaphragm tool, that applies ural strength and modulus, horizontal shear
heat and pressure to the bond line (See Figure 16). and resin content, to assure proper processing.

4. Attaching the lower cover access panel to form o Laminate inspection - Recordings of the cure
the completed box assembly. temperature and pressure are checked. Ultra­
sonic tests are used to examine the panel for
The detail boron parts were fabricated using hand voids and the panel thickness is measured to
layup, with each ply being laminated on individual determine resin content. X-ray examination
mylar templates. Autoclave molding was used for verifies fiber orientation.
all parts. Close control of the bond lines on o
the sandwich covers was maintained by machining the Dimensional inspection - After machining,
mold forms to match the faying surfaces between the details and assemblies are inspected to
boron face sheets and the honeycomb core. In addi­ determine that the parts satisfy the dimen­
tion, cover bonding fixtures matched the faying sional requirements of the engineering
surfaces between the beam and cover. All tools drawing.
were fabricated using steel with the exception of a
nickel electroform tool that was used to fabricate o Bond Inspection - Recordings of the cure temp­
the lower access panel. erature and pressure are checked. All bonds
are inspected ultrasonically to detect voids
Bond line tolerances were controlled during assembly and substandard bonds. Honeycomb panels are
using the adhesive isolation technique prior to subjected to radiographic examination to
final bonding. With this process the adhesive is detect cell defects.
encased in mylar and placed in the assembly to be The nondestructive test developments have concen­
bonded. The assembly is taken through the cure trated on laminate void detection and bond evalua­
cycle and then removed. The cured adhesive layer tion.
is then removed and measured to determine the bond
line thickness that will result from the process. Methods were developed to detect laminate voids as
If required the adherends are reworked and the step small as 1/32-inch in diameter. Grumman uses a
repeated until a satisfactory fit is achieved. The single transducer through-transmission system for
assembly is then permanently bonded. void detection. The through-transmission method
High quality detail parts and bonded assemblies detects voids by introducing ultrasonic energy
resulted from these processes. into the panel by means of a transducer. A reflec­
tor mounted on the opposite side of the panel
2.4.3 reflects this pulse. Voids block part of the
Inspection ultrasonic energy and reduce the signal that is
reflected. Void size is evaluated by measuring the
The quality control effort in the program was amplitude of the received signal.
divided into two areas: l) inspection and process
control and 2) nondestructive test method develop­ Through-transmission was used to detect voids in
ment. The following items are included under the boron-titanium splices (similar to those shown
inspection and process control area: in Figure 9) because of the system^ ability to
detect small voids. Boron-honeycomb core bonds
o Receiving inspection - Boron preimpregnated and boron-titanium bonds in assemblies that cannot
tape is inspected to Grumman^ acceptance be immersed in water are inspected with resonance
specification GMPS-3004 which includes evalua­ ultrasonics. The Fokker Bond Tester is used for
ting the uncured properties for resin content, this application.
volatiles content, flow and tack. The cured
properties are determined at room temperature
and 375°F for longitudinal and transverse 2.5 COMPONENT TEST
flexural strength and modulus, horizontal
shear strength and tensile strength. In addi­ The test fixture for the wing box was designed to
tion, the tape is checked for reel length, permit the assembly to be bolted to a rigid frame
fiber count and spacing. The tape is also in­ at W-PAFB. A schematic of the assembly is shown
spected at the vendor and fiber defects are in Figure IT. The outboard extension was added in
identified by color coded markers. order to simulate the structure loading outboard of

1-18
the test section. In addition, a series of front The tests proceeded satisfactorily through two
and rear "beam fixtures were added to introduce the aircraft lifetimes, however, they were halted at
slat and flap loads. The cross beams in the area the twenty-first block when a local failure was
of the mid-rib were added to introduce the air loads noticed on the front spar during a planned inspec­
from the fixed leading edge and trailing edge. tion. Further investigation indicated that the
failure had occurred in the bond line between the
The wing box shown in Figure 18, with the inboard boron web and the titanium cap member, inboard of
and outboard test fixtures attached, was delivered the mid-rib. This precipitated other front spar
to W-PAFB in March of 1969. The box was subjected failures which included the titanium splice plate
to both static and fatigue tests according to the at the root connection, boron web fracture at the
following sequence: mid-rib attachment and other delaminations of the
boron web to the honeycomb core inboard of the
Static mid-rib (See Figure 19). In addition, the front
spar failure caused the mid spar to be overloaded
1. Forward center of pressure (C.P.) case - 125$ at the inboard end and a local bond failure was
of limit load. observed at that connection (See Figure 20). The
wing box was repaired by bolting an aluminum plate
2. Forward C.P. case (negative)- 120$ of limit to the titanium caps of the front spar (See
load. Figure 21). The mid spar was repaired by bonding
two aluminum plates to the spar at the inboard end.
3. Aft C.P. case - 100$ of limit load. A comparison of strain gage readings before and
after the repair did'not indicate any significant
(The first three tests refer to the supersonic change to the internal load distribution. The
maneuver loading condition). testing resumed and was completed according to the
test plan.
k. Forward C.P. case - 100$ of limit load with
36.5 psi internal pressure. The ultimate static tests (No. 7 and 8) were
completed successfully and in the final test con­
5. Aft C.P. case - 100$ of limit load with ducted in December 1969, the box failed at 120$ of
36.5 psi internal pressure. design ultimate load. The failure occurred in the
lower access panel, through the attachment holes at
(Test k and 5 refer to the rolling pullout loading the mid-rib as predicted (See Figure 22).
condition).
The adhesive joints overall performed satisfactorily
Fatigue with the exception of the front beam failure
described previously which occurred after prelimin­
6. Spectrum fatigue tests in accordance with ary static tests and fatigue tests equivalent to
MIL-A-8866 (5/60). 8000 flight hours. This joint, however, was
suspect after the inadvertent application of 125$
Static of ultimate torsion to the inboard structure during
the first static loading.
7. Aft C.P. case - 150$ of limit load.
The tests in general raised the level of confidence
8. Forward C.P. case - 150$ of limit load. in using boron composite for primary wing structure.
The composite was used in bonded and bolted joints,
9. Forward C.P. case - to failure. integrally stiffened and honeycomb panels and in
panels with and without holes. In all of these
(Test 7, 8 and 9 refer to the supersonic maneuver applications, the boron composite fully satisfied
loading condition) . both the static and fatigue loading conditions.

The wing box successfully passed the preliminary

static tests (l through 5). The tests were con­ 2.6 CONCLUSION
ducted as planned with the exception of an error in
the loading rig which caused the wing box to be The program has provided a broad technical base
subjected to 125$ of ultimate torsion inboard of in the area of boron composite. It has provided
the mid-rib during the first test. However, the design allowable data, coupon and specimen testing
structure performed satisfactorily. methods, analytical procedures for determining load
distribution within laminates, bonded joint predic­
The fatigue spectrum selected for the wing box tion methods, material processing data, fabrication
followed or exceeded the requirements of MIL-A-8866 techniques, and finally, test data on a full-size
(5/60). It included loads up to 125$ of limit load component. This work has been directly applied to
for the positive case and 120$ of limit load for other development contracts that Grumman has for
the negative case. The test was divided into forty wing design and repair. In addition, it provided
blocks, representing 16000 flight hours or four the technical base necessary to use the material in
lifetimes of service. A sample block is shown in a production application; namely, the F-l^A
Table V. horizontal stabilizer.

1-19
REFERENCES

1. "Design Criteria for Boron-Epoxy Airframe

Structures," Grumman ADN02-01-69-1, dated
January 1969.
2. "Stress Analysis Summary for Boron Composite
FB-111 Wing Box Extension," Grumman Report
FSR-AD2-01-68.7, dated July 1968.

1-20
 Upper

Figure 1. General Dynamics/Grumman

Navy F111B

Figure 3. F111B Boron Composite Wing

Tip Box Beam Assembly

Boron-E poxy
Al HC Core Laminate Beam Webs

Figure 2. Existing F111B Wing Tip Metal

Structure

Boron-Epoxy
Laminate Skins

Figure 4. Typical Section Through the Pressurized

Area of the Wing Box

1-21
 Boron-Epoxy
Laminate Beam Webs

Titanium Beam Caps Boron-Epoxy1 Door

Figure 5. Typical Section Through the

Unpressurized Area of the Wing Box

Fiberglass
Shim
Figure 8. Typical Test Specimens

Figure 6. Upper Air Passage Skin

6 A1-4V Titanium
(Chem -Milled)

/
Boron Laminate

4
*—— (Typ)

N o°

——————— 90o4 sss^W^C 7

0.^020 0°}3S°J5 0 0.050 0. 370 0. 16
Ti
J
1
————————————————————————————

.101
0.036
Fiberglass Shim Metlbond 329 Adhesive
(ta = 0.008)

Figure 9. Inboard Splice Joint

Figure 7. Lower Air Passage Skin

1-22
 Pre-Bonded
Cover

Figure 10. Typical Corner Joint

Pre -Bonded
Cover

Figure 13. Box Beam Assembly Procedure

\ FROM root
KA7T(TOO(.1W Ktff)

Figure 11. Typical Boron Layup

Figure 14. Substructure Assembly

Figure 12. Semi-Automatic Tape Layup

Machine

1-23
 Figure 15. Box Beam Subassembly

Figure 18. Wing Box Assembly

Figure 16. Box Beam Assembly

Outboard SUt
Fixture -M Q.J Ah—

•—

Closure Rib for Figure 19. Front Spar Fatigue Damage

Wing Tip Fixture

Figure 17. Wing Box Test Fixture Assembly

1-24
MtQ

Figure 20. Mid Spar Fatigue Damage

Figure 22. Access Panel Failure

Figure 21. Front Spar Repair

1-25
 Table II. Material Test Program - Static
Unidirectional Specimen Tests

MATERIAL TEST PROGRAM - STATIC UNIDIRECTIONAL SPECIMEN TESTS FOR DESIGN DATA
Average Mechanical Properties of
Composite Boron Laminates
Test Type and Property
Test Ultimate Stress, Modulus Avg,
Temp, ksl
OF Avg Max Min Initial Second
I. LT-(CTPMIOOI) Tensile Strength (Longitudinal) -67 200.4 210.0 191.0 31.0 29.6
Panel No. 1, 6 Piles HT
260 181.9 191.0 174.0 29.9 28.5
350 169.7 184.0 149.5 23.4 21.6
2. TTHCTPM1001) Tensile Strength (Transverse) -67 8.49 8.89 7.82 N.A. N.A.
Panel No. 2, 6 Plies HT 5.64 6.70 4.75 N.A. N.A.
260 5.27 5.72 4.43 N.A. N.A.
Table I. Preliminary Design Properties, 350
a. 4ST-<CTPM1001) Tenail Strength -67 11.16 13.29
Narmco 5505 Panel No. 3, 6 Plies at 45° RT 9.69 11.11
6.40
6.81
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
260 6.55 6.69 6.39 N.A, N.A.
350 4.18 4.36 4.00 N.A. N.A.
Ksl 6 Psl Units (1)
Property 4. SE-(CTPMIOOS) Edge Shear Strength RT 6.27 7.14 4.91 N.A. N.A.
Symbol RT 260°F 350°F Panel No. 4, 10 Plies 260 7.62 8.21 7.14 N.A. N.A.
Longitudinal Tension© Fltu' K8i 198.0 174.0 149.0 5. TC-(CTPMIOOS) Edgewise Compresslve -67 40.10 44.30 32.40 N.A. N.A.
F2tu 6.5 5.9 4.9 Strength (Transverse) Panel No. 5,

a
Transverse Tension 32 Plies RT 32.90 35.00 29.10 N.A. N.A.

ii*,
Longitudinal Compression® Fleu 230.0 176.0 159.0 260 20.60 22.50 18.90 N.A. N.A.
350 15.30 17.30 14.00 N.A. N.A.
Transverse Compression 30.9 19.4 14.5
F 2c« -67
9.0 5.0 3.0 6. LC-(CTPM1Q08) Edgewise Compressive 201.70 288.50 107.20 N.A. N.A.
In- Plane Shear® Fsu Strength (Longitudinal) Panel No. 5,
32 Plies RT 300.40 350.00 264.00 34.20 N.A.
Interlaminar Shear® F lsu 9.0 5.0 3.0
260 127.80 230.00 77.00 N.A. N.A.
E ntf106p.l 30.6 29.0 25.6 350 112.40 150.20 81.70 N.A. N.A.
Longitudinal Tension
Transverse Tension 3.5 2.1 1.0 7. 45C-(CTPM1008) Edgewise Comprestive HT 27.46 28.50 26,00 N.A. N.A.
E 22t Strength (45°) Panel No. 5, 32 Plies 260 16.12 16,40 15.80 N.A. N.A.
Longitudinal Compression^ E llc 34.0 33.0 32.0
350 10.60 11,60 9.80 N.A. N.A.
Transverse Compression E 22c 3.7 2,35 1.5
8. LSI-(CTPMIOOS) Interlaminar Shear -67 3.60 3.86 3.01 N.A. N.A.
c In -Plane Shear® 1.00 0.80 0.22 Strength Panel No. 6, 16 Plies
c RT 4.18 4.48 3.86 N.A. N.A.
0.22 0.16 260 3.34 3,65 2.44 N.A. N.A.
Interlaminar Shear^ G44;G 55 °" 32 350 2.82 3.09 2.54 N.A. N.A.
Major Poisson's Ratio 0.35 0.30
vl2 °' 36 9. 1.SHCTPM1004) Horizontal Shear Strength RT 15.3 15.9 13.9 N.A. N.A.
Minor Poisson's Ratio 0.025 0.017 (Longitudinal) Panel No, 6, 16 Plies 260 10.3 10.4 10.2 N.A. N.A.
,21 ! °-°33
10. LF4-(CTPM1002) Flexural Strength RT 266.2 271.0 261.0 31,2 N.A.
Property Symbol RT 260°F 350°F (Longitudinal) Panel No. 7, 25 Piles 260 232.4 234.0 231.0 30.3 N.A.
density lb/min. W 0. 075 0. 075 0.075
11. T F4 -(CT PM 1003) Flexural Strength RT
[?oeff. of Thermal Expansion. (Transverse) Panel No. 7. 25 Plies 260 12.69 13.08 11.84 N.A. N.A.
10" * in, /in./ °F
Longitudinal «„ 2.5 ' 2.5 2.5
Transverse "22 13.1 17.7 20.2

C (M-f f . of Th e rm . C ond'u c li v ity .

BTU/ [(hr» <fti! K 0 F)'ft] K 0.17 0.20 0.21

NOTES:
(D Based on Av. Layer Thickness: 0. 0051 In.
(D'B* Values: 95% Confidence, 90% Probability of
Survival Basis.
(J) Provisional Design Allowables. (90% Averages).
(D Provisional Design Allowables,

Table III. Inboard Splice Joint Tensile Tests

Bonded Fall Adhesive

Test width, Area <»q Load, Stress,
Spec No. Adhesive Temp, °F In. In, Nom) Ib pal

1 Met! 329 HT 1.003 5.64 8525 1510

•> Met] 329 RT 1.004 5.6-i 9325 1«50
3 Metl 329 260 1.006 5.64 8575 1520
-1 Metl 329 260 1.002 5.64 9300 }65p

7 None RT 1.006 5,6-i 9500 1685

8 None RT 0.998 5,64 HQ® 1675

9 Hone 260 1.001 5.64 ,,,,1650 _ 136©
10 None 260 1.004 S.64 7875 1400

1-26
 Table IV. Wing Box Corner Joint Test Results

Spec. Ultimate
No. Load
(LBS)

Static Tensile
Tests

1 440
2 332
3 324
4 372
5 344

Low Rate Cyclic

Tensile Tests. (1)

6 306
7 318
8 308

Note: (1) Specimens subjected to ten (10) consecutive

tension loading cycles to 165 Ibs. prior to determina­
tion of ultimate load.

Table V. Typical Fatigue Loading Block

Limit Load No. of

Fwd C.P. Occurranees

55 B-l Fwd C.P. 36.7 2600

65 B-l Fwd C.P. ^3-3 1800
75 B-l Fwd C.P. 50.0 1000
85 B-l Fwd C.P. 56.6 600
95 B-l Fwd C.P. 63.3 120
105 B-l Fv/d C.P, 70.0 60
115 B-l Fwd C.P. 76.7 16
125 B-l PVd C.P. 83.3 6*
-75 Neg. -22.9 508
-85 Neg. -26.0 308
-95 Neg. -29.0 105
-105 Neg. -32.1 28
-120 Neg. -36.7 1**
* Every 5th block increase to 8
** Every 5th block increase to 2
*** Bl - Supersonic maneuver condition

1-27