22-Mec-B9 Advanced Engineering Structures · May 2018
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Paper format. National Exams, May 2018 — 16-Mec-B9 Advanced Engineering Structures. Three hours, open book, any non-communicating calculator permitted. Eight questions are printed, each worth 20 marks, and the rubric states that any five constitute a complete exam paper. All eight are worked here. Marks for the individual parts are those printed inside each problem.
Reference texts. T. H. G. Megson, Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students, 6th ed. (thin-walled open and closed sections, shear flow, shear centre, multi-cell torsion, crack growth and Miner cumulative damage); A. P. Boresi and R. J. Schmidt, Advanced Mechanics of Materials, 6th ed. (yield criteria, unsymmetrical bending, torsion of non-circular sections, shear centre); N. E. Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 4th ed. (Paris law, Coffin–Manson, Palmgren–Miner); R. C. Hibbeler, Mechanics of Materials, 10th ed. (statically indeterminate axial members, thermal stress).
Check: the modulus printed for rod (2) in Question 1. The paper prints E2 = 95,000 GPa. No solid has a Young’s modulus of that order — diamond, the stiffest bulk material known, reaches about 1,200 GPa — so the value as printed is not physically realisable and is almost certainly a units slip for 95,000 MPa = 95 GPa, a figure entirely typical of an aluminium alloy and consistent with the way E1 = 150 GPa is written on the same line. Question 1 is therefore worked at E2 = 95 GPa, and the answers obtained by taking the printed number literally are carried alongside in the results table, because the two readings give opposite answers to part (b). Under the paper’s own instruction 1, a candidate should record this assumption with the answer script.
Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.
Given. A wing skin panel is modelled as a semi-infinite plate carrying an edge crack.
| Quantity | Value |
|---|---|
| Initial edge-crack length a0 | 0.55 mm |
| Constant-amplitude stress range Δσ normal to the crack | 200 N/mm² |
| Fracture toughness KIC | 2700 N/mm3/2 |
| Growth law da/dN | 31 × 10−15(ΔK)4 mm/cycle |
| Edge-crack geometry factor β | 1.12 (assumed) |
Find. The number of service cycles — the maintenance interval — in which the crack grows from 0.55 mm to half the critical length that would cause fast fracture.
Approach. Fix the critical crack length from \(K_{IC}\), halve it to get the inspection length, then integrate the Paris law between the two lengths; with \(m = 4\) the integral is elementary.
The shape of that curve is the whole engineering point. Of the 2332 cycles available before fast fracture, 2304 are spent getting from 0.55 mm to 23.1 mm and only about 28 more are needed to run from 23.1 mm to the critical 46.2 mm. An inspection interval set at the full critical length would therefore be worthless: the "safety margin" would be one per cent of the life. Halving the critical length before setting the interval, as the question requires, is the standard damage-tolerance device for buying back that margin.
| Quantity | Value |
|---|---|
| Initial stress-intensity range ΔK | 294 N/mm3/2 |
| Critical crack length ac | 46.2 mm |
| Crack length to be detected af | 23.1 mm |
| Lumped Paris constant C′ | 7.703 × 10−4 mm−1/cycle |
| Maintenance interval | 2304 cycles |
| Cycles remaining from af to ac | 28 cycles |