Tools › Structures › Thin-Walled Structures › Effective Sheet Width


Effective Sheet Width

Width of buckled sheet that keeps acting with a stringer in a compression panel: the sheet buckling stress for the stringer pitch and edge condition, then the effective width at the stringer stress by von Kármán's 1.9 t √(E/σ) rule, Marguerre's cube-root and square-root formulas (NACA TM 833), Koiter's and the Argyris–Dunne large-deflection results as given in Gerard's Handbook of Structural Stability Part IV (NACA TN 3784), Winter's 1947 formula and its AISI form, with an optional plasticity correction by Stowell's factor, the inter-rivet buckling limit of the rivet line (NACA TN 3785, Table 5 fixity coefficients), the effective area added to the stringer, a chart of effective-width ratio against stress ratio and a sketch of the stress across the sheet. Default: 0.040 in 2024-T3 sheet on stringers 4 in apart at a stringer stress of 35 ksi, checked against the closed forms.

  • Sheet buckling stress σcr = k π² E/(12(1 − ν²)) (t/b)² for simply supported (k = 4.0), clamped (6.98) or an entered coefficient

  • Effective width by von Kármán, Marguerre (TM 833), Koiter and Argyris–Dunne (TN 3784), Winter (1947) and the AISI form, side by side

  • Plasticity correction with Stowell's factor from the Ramberg-Osgood moduli; inter-rivet buckling limit of the rivet line (TN 3785)

  • Effective area added to the stringer, chart of be/b against the stress ratio with the design point, sketch of the sheet stress

Effective Width Inputs


Unit System: /

Sheet and Stringer Pitch





Material

Sign in






Stringer Stress




Rivet Line





×

Effective Sheet Width

Effective Sheet Width

What the effective width is

A sheet riveted to stringers and loaded in compression along the stringers buckles between them at a stress far below the strength of the stringers: a 0.040 in aluminium sheet on stringers 4 in apart buckles at about 4 ksi, while the stringers may carry 35 ksi or more. After buckling the sheet does not fail. The bowed middle of each bay sheds load, but the strips along the stringers are held straight by the stringers and keep following the stringer stress. The compressive stress across a bay is therefore highest at the stringers and lowest at mid-bay, and the sheet still carries a load that grows, slowly, with the stringer stress.

Von Kármán, Sechler and Donnell (1932) replaced the real stress distribution by two strips of width w, one on each side of the stringer, carrying the stringer stress uniformly and the same total load as the real sheet. The total width 2w is the effective width be. Its use is simple: the area 2w t is added to the stringer section, and the stringer with its effective sheet is then checked as a column or for crippling at the stringer stress. The effective width is not a property of the sheet alone; it falls as the stringer stress rises, so it has to be evaluated at the stress of the check.

Sheet buckling stress

The bay between stringers is a long plate of width b (the stringer pitch) and thickness t, loaded along the stringers. Its elastic buckling stress is

σcr = k π² E / [12 (1 − ν²)] (t/b)²,

with k = 4.0 when the stringer lines act as simple supports (the usual design assumption for a riveted flange) and k = 6.98 when they clamp the sheet. The tool also accepts an entered coefficient for an elastic restraint between the two. Below σcr the sheet is flat and the whole pitch is effective.

Von Kármán's formula

Von Kármán argued that the two effective strips, taken together as a simply supported plate of width be, are exactly at their own buckling stress when that stress equals the stringer stress σ: setting σcr(be) = σ gives

be = 2w = C t √(E/σ), C = √(k π² / [12 (1 − ν²)]) = 1.901 for k = 4 and ν = 0.3, printed as 1.9.

The constant is often quoted as 1.7 for riveted aluminium panels (Sechler's tests gave somewhat less than the theory) or 1.9 for the theoretical simply supported strips; the tool uses 1.9, the value of Bruhn's and Niu's design formulas, and shows the exact constant for the entered k and ν beside it. At σ = σcr of the bay the formula returns the whole pitch, which is the consistency check of the test script. The formula ignores the stress still carried by the middle of the bay, so it is conservative at moderate stress ratios and close to the large-deflection solutions at high ones.

Marguerre's formulas

Marguerre (1937, translated as NACA TM 833) solved the large-deflection equations of a simply supported plate with an assumed buckle shape and gave the "apparent width" (his term) as two fits to his solution. The first, eq. (7.8) of the memorandum, is

be/b = 0.19 + 0.81 √(σcr/σ),

which Gerard's Handbook of Structural Stability Part IV reproduces as eq. (5) for a square simply supported plate with straight unloaded edges free to move laterally. The second, eq. (7.9), is the cube-root formula

be/b = (σcr/σ)1/3,

which Marguerre recommends for its simplicity and its behaviour at the buckling stress; it runs a little low for σ above about 20 σcr. Both give be = b at σ = σcr. Marguerre's figure 3 compares them with the Lahde–Wagner test points.

Koiter and Argyris–Dunne (Gerard Part IV)

Gerard's Part IV (NACA TN 3784) gives two more results of large-deflection theory. For a long plate with rotationally restrained unloaded edges held straight and free to move laterally (Koiter's analysis), eq. (6):

be/b = 1.2 r2/5 − 0.65 r4/5 + 0.45 r6/5, r = σcr/σ.

For stress ratios up to 3, Argyris and Dunne's near-buckling relation, eq. (10): be/b = r [1 − β + β/r], with β from TN 3784 Table 1; β = 0.500 for a long simply supported plate whose unloaded edges are held straight by stringers of negligible area (Ar/at = 0), rising to 0.746 for very heavy edge members and 0.583 for clamped edges. The tool uses β = 0.500 and shows this relation only inside its range. Gerard also notes that small initial imperfections lower the effective width near the buckling stress (up to about σ/σcr = 2) and that plasticity, by Mayers and Budiansky's analysis of 2024-T3 plates, reduces it further for edge strains up to about three times the critical strain.

Winter's formula and the AISI form

Winter's Cornell tests (1947) on cold-formed steel flanges showed von Kármán's formula to be unconservative for real, imperfect plates, and he added a correction term:

be = 1.9 t √(E/σ) [1 − 0.475 (t/b) √(E/σ)].

The 1968 AISI specification reduced the coefficient to 0.415, and the specification now writes the rule as ρ = (1 − 0.22/λ)/λ for λ > 0.673, with λ = √(σ/σcr) and be = ρ b; for k = 4 and ν = 0.3 this is the 1.9 / 0.418 form, and it takes any buckling coefficient. The form gives be < b already at σ = 0.45 σcr, because it stands for an imperfect plate. The tool prints Winter's 1947 formula with its own constants and the AISI form with the entered k.

Plasticity correction

Aircraft stringers work at stresses near the compressive yield strength of the sheet, where the modulus that governs buckling is no longer E. The tool follows Gerard's handbook: every formula is written with ηE in place of E, η being Stowell's plasticity-reduction factor (NACA Report 898) for a long plate with the chosen edge condition,

η = (Es/E) [1/2 + 1/2 √(1/4 + 3 Et/(4 Es))] (simply supported), η = (Es/E) [0.352 + 0.648 √(1/4 + 3 Et/(4 Es))] (clamped),

with the secant and tangent moduli of the Ramberg-Osgood curve ε = σ/E + 0.002 (σ/Fcy)n evaluated at the stringer stress. The factor enters the von Kármán width as √η; the ratio formulas see it through σcr, which becomes η σcr. The buckling stress of the full bay itself is also reported, solved as σcr = η(σcr) σcr,e; for a thin sheet it buckles elastically and the two agree. With the correction off the formulas are elastic.

Inter-rivet buckling

The sheet between fasteners along the attachment line can buckle as a wide column before the stringer stress is reached, especially with widely spaced or countersunk rivets. Gerard's Part V (NACA TN 3785) gives Howland's form, eq. (10),

σir = c π² η E / [12 (1 − ν²)] (t/p)²,

with the end-fixity coefficient c of Table 5: flathead rivet 4, spot weld 3.5, brazier-head rivet 3, countersunk rivet 1 (also suggested for dimpled joints). The plasticity factor of a plate column is Et/E, so σir cannot rise much above the compressive yield strength whatever the pitch. When σir is below the stringer stress, the skin keeps carrying σir on its width effective at σir but no more (TN 3785 eq. 11); the tool reports that load and the equivalent width at the stringer stress, which is what should be added to the stringer.

Reading the results

The table lists every method's width, its ratio to the pitch and the sheet area it adds. The design value is the von Kármán width, the rule the stiffened-panel methods were calibrated with; the spread of the other values shows the uncertainty of the quantity. The chart plots the effective-width ratio against the stress ratio for all methods with the case marked, and the sketch shows the stress across two bays with the equivalent rectangles. The default case, a 0.040 in 2024-T3 sheet (Ec = 10.7 Msi, Fcy = 39 ksi, nc = 20 from MIL-HDBK-5J Table 3.2.3.0(b)) on stringers 4 in apart at a stringer stress of 35 ksi, buckles at 3.87 ksi and has an elastic von Kármán width of 1.329 in, reduced to 1.206 in by the plasticity factor η = 0.824.

Limits

The formulas are for flat sheet in uniform compression along the stringers with the bay long compared with its width. Curved sheet has a larger effective width that is semi-empirical (TN 3784 Appendix A); shear or combined loading, bending of the stringer with its sheet, the stiffness-type reduced effective width (dσ̄/dσe, TN 3784 eq. 11) and the strength of the stringer itself are outside the tool. Riveted panel tests (Sechler) gave constants somewhat below 1.9; a constant of 1.7 is sometimes used for them.




References

von Kármán, T., Sechler, E. E., and Donnell, L. H. (1932). "The Strength of Thin Plates in Compression." Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 53–57.

Marguerre, K. (1937). The Apparent Width of the Plate in Compression. NACA Technical Memorandum 833, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D.C.

Gerard, G. (1957). Handbook of Structural Stability, Part IV: Failure of Plates and Composite Elements. NACA Technical Note 3784, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D.C.

Gerard, G. (1957). Handbook of Structural Stability, Part V: Compressive Strength of Flat Stiffened Panels. NACA Technical Note 3785, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D.C.

Stowell, E. Z. (1948). A Unified Theory of Plastic Buckling of Columns and Plates. NACA Report 898, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, D.C.

Winter, G. (1947). "Strength of Thin Steel Compression Flanges." Transactions of the ASCE, Vol. 112, pp. 527–554.

American Iron and Steel Institute (2016). North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. AISI S100-16, Washington, D.C.

Sechler, E. E., and Dunn, L. G. (1942). Airplane Structural Analysis and Design. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Bruhn, E. F. (1973). Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures. Jacobs Publishing, Carmel, Indiana.

Niu, M. C. Y. (1997). Airframe Stress Analysis and Sizing. Conmilit Press, Hong Kong.

U.S. Department of Defense (2003). Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures. MIL-HDBK-5J, 31 January 2003.

Worked Examples

Published examples this tool reproduces; each page lists the inputs to enter and the printed answers.

All worked examples


DISCLAIMER: The methods and calculation on aNOWysis.com are provided as means to educate the reader. There is no warranty, expessed or implied, as to the relevance or accuracy of the methods or calculations. All calculations should be checked by a qualified analyst for appropriateness and accuracy. We will not be held liable for any damages, injuries or deaths caused by using methods or calculations from this site.