Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

ENGINEERING DESIGN &

ANALYSIS 4

Past Exam Questions & Solutions

Jan 09 - Jan15
LEFM

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

1/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Q.2

January 2015 (14-15)

A simple ratchet mechanism for an industrial tool consists of a self springing
lever which only allows rotation of the serrated wheel axis in one direction and
provides a locking operation as shown schematically in Figure Q.2.
a)

Determine the maximum exerted load, and corresponding maximum

nominal bending stress on the lever when the mechanism is being rotated;
[6]

b)

The lever has been found to have incurred some suspected fatigue damage
resulting in a crack-like defect of 0.01mm deep as indicated in section A-A of
Figure Q.2. Ignoring crack tip plasticity effects, Determine:
(i)

whether this crack is growing due to a fatigue mechanism;

(ii)

the critical crack size between 2mm and 3mm deep which would
lead to fracture of the lever;

[5]

[8]
(iii)

the number of additional ratchet operations required for fracture

to occur.
[6]

DATA:

K IC 3 MN / m 3 / 2 K th 0.1 MN / m 3 / 2

E = 3 GN/m2

Deflection of an end loaded cantilever beam,

WL3
3EI

da
2 x10 8.K 3.5 m/cycle
dN
Geometric Crack Geometry Correction Factor F can be
Obtained from DATASHEET Q.2

Paris Law

12mm

Crack

Lever
Lever deflection = 1mm

Crack
Depth
0.01mm

5 mm

View on A-A

A
30 mm

Serrated Wheel

Figure Q.2
Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

2/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DATASHEET Q.2
w
wL2/12

-wL2/12

wL/2

wL/2
W

WL/8

-WL/8

W/2

W/2
W

Wa2b/L2

-Wab2/L2

Wb/(a+b)

Wa/(a+b)

M FAB 12 M FBA

2W

2EI
3
F
M AB Curve
271 2 M AB

L
L

Curve 6
Ligament
breaks Curve 3
2a

2a

2a

Curve
2

Curve 8

2W
Curve 5

Curve 4

Curve 1
2
W

a
W

2a
2
W

2W

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

3/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Q.2

(a)

(b)

January 2014 (13-14)

Distinguish between the engineering terms Stress Concentration Factor
(SCF) and Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) and explain how each is used when
assessing the integrity and failure of components.
[6]
A garden chemical pressure sprayer is moulded from a polymeric material.
Fracture tests on this polymer revealed a Fracture Toughness (KIC) of 1.6
MN/m3/2 and fatigue crack growth tests gave the results shown in table Q.2b)
below. The manufacturing process involved for the garden chemical sprayer
was found to induce total defects of approximately 0.4mm in length from
crack tip to crack tip. The garden chemical sprayer dimensions can be
considered to be very large with respect to the defect length and as such the
Stress Intensity Factor geometric correction function F can be assumed as
unity. Determine:
(i)

the empirical constants C and m in the so-called Paris Law for

predicting crack growth due to fatigue;
[6]

(ii)

the maximum static tensile stress that can be applied to the garden
chemical sprayer whilst providing a factor of safety of 4 against sudden
failure due to brittle fracture;
[6]

(iii)

the number of cycles N to cause fatigue failure given that the garden
chemical sprayer is pressurised ON-OFF to produce a maximum tensile
stress of 2 MN/m2 and given an initial defect as described above.
[7]
Paris Law:
da
(m/cycle)
dN
4x10-7
11x10-7

da
C .(K ) m
dN
K (MN/m3/2)
0.53
0.79

Table Q.2(b)

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

4/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Q.2

(a)

(b)

December 2012 (12-13)

Describe the three main applications of Fracture Mechanics and explain how it
could be used in each case.
[9]
An industrial chain drive mechanism has suffered a fractured tooth as shown in
Figure Q.2(b). The geometry and fractured surface information is as shown. The
tooth experiences a bending moment arising from chain tooth forces and this
induces a nominal bending stress in the crack location of 100MN/m2 for each
revolution of the chain wheel. Neglecting crack tip plasticity corrections,
consider only mode I loading. Use can be made of the DATA provided:

i)

Determine whether the machine was operating to specification at the

time of the fracture.
[6]

ii)

If the source of the cracking is deemed to originate from a 0.3 mm

crack-like surface scratch extending across the full breadth of the tooth
induced at the time of manufacture, determine whether such a defect
would be problematic and estimate the number of cycles to failure.
[10]

DATA:
Fracture Toughness, K IC 60 MN / m 3 / 2
Threshold Stress Intensity Range, K th 3 MN / m3 / 2
Geometric Correction Factor F(a/W), from DATASHEET Q.2(b)
da
0.5 10 11 K 3 m / cycle
Paris Law Equation:
dN

chain drive
tooth profile

Bending Moment

fatigue
surface
20mm

fractured
surface

14mm

10mm

Figure Q.2(b)
Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

5/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DATASHEET Q.2 (b)

Geometric Correction Factor
F(a/W) versus (a/W) for edge crack in Bending

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

6/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Q.2

(a)

(b)

December 2011 (11-12)

Describe briefly, with the aid of sketches, the THREE classical Fracture
Mechanics crack face deformation modes and the problems associated with the
assessment of structural integrity in situations where components are subject to
mixed mode loading.
[8]
The closed thin cylinder shown in Figure Q.2(b) has a diameter of 1.5m and a
wall thickness of 100mm. The working internal pressure is 15MN/m2 and the
cylinder contains a defect of length 2a which may be inclined at an angle
to the longitudinal axis. Assume crack tip plasticity effects can be ignored.
i)

For a defect orientation such that is approximately 45 describe,

without calculation, how this arrangement produces mixed mode
behaviour and suggest the value of which would provide for the
worst case scenario.
[6]

ii)

Determine the critical through thickness total defect length for the worst
case condition described in (b)-i) above.
[5]

iii)

Evaluate the number of ON-OFF pressurisation cycles that the cylinder

can withstand based on the value obtained in (b)-ii) above and assuming
an initial total defect length of 4mm exists in the cylinder.
[6]
da
3 10 12.K 3.8 m / cycle
K Ic 40 MN / m 3 / 2
dN
pD
L
Geometric Correction Factor F = 1.2
4t
for any crack length a

Data: K ( .a.F )

pD
2t

p
2a

Figure Q.2(b)
Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

7/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Q.4

December 2010 (10-11)

The railway geometry indicated in Figure Q.4(a) consists of a continuous rail,
with the cross section and properties as shown in Figure Q.4(b). The rail is supported
between periodic railway sleeper supports. Fatigue crack growth with crack tip fronts
at depths of atop and abottom have the potential to exist within either of two particular
regions A or B as illustrated below.
The rolling axle load is assumed to induce an ON/OFF bending moment of 30kNm.
The material properties data for the continuous rail section are as given below and use
can be made of DATASHEET Q.4.
Consider only Mode I loading and ignore crack tip plasticity effects.

(a)

Explain briefly why these specific crack tip fronts would be expected to occur
in the locations A and B as illustrated.
[6]

(b)

If a crack is found to occur at point B, use engineering judgement to estimate

the critical crack size ac.
[9]

(c)

A microscopic examination of the rail reveals surface damage at B which could

be assumed to be similar to an initial defect of 2 mm. Determine whether this
defect will propagate to the critical level found in (b)-above, and the
corresponding theoretical number of cycles to failure based upon a Fracture
Mechanics approach. Comment on the result.
[10]

DATA:
KIC = 70 MN/m3/2

Kth = 3 MN/m3/2

da
2 10 11 ( K ) 3 m/cycle
dN

rolling axle load

fatigue cracks

continuous rail

atop

crack tip front at A

atop

abottom

140mm
X

ye

X
crack tip front at B

abottom
railway sleeper supports

Figure Q.4(a)
Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

IXX = 10.75x106 mm4

y e =69.4 mm
Figure Q.4(b)
8/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DATASHEET Q.4

K I b .a.F
F

[1 ( ba )]1.5

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

9/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Q.4

January 2010 (09-10)

Explain what is meant by the so-called leak before break philosophy as
referenced within Fracture Mechanics applications, giving examples of its
suitability to pressurised components and when it may be dangerous to rely
upon it. Your solution should include sketches as appropriate.
[8]

(a)

(b)

A schematic drawing of a cutting knife is shown in Figure Q.4(b). The blade is

20mm wide and 2mm thick, and is partitioned into segments by means of a
series of parallel oblique 60 grooves. These grooves are sharp edged and
have depth a measured from one surface into the thickness which allows each
segment to be broken off through a bending action. The applied bending
moment M supplied by the user is to be not larger than 80% of the moment
required to cause initial yielding (MY) for an un-cracked cross section of the
blade. Ignoring crack-tip plasticity effects and making use of DATASHEET
Q.4(b), and the Data provided below, determine:
the minimum depth a of each groove to break a segment in one single
bending action;
[8]

i)

ii)

the number of repeated ON-OFF bending actions if the groove is

0.13mm deep and comment on your result.
[9]
Data:
Yield strength Y = 600 MN/m2
Fracture Toughness KIC = 10MN/m3/2.
da
0.6 10 10 (K ) 4 m / cycle
Paris Law
dN
2mm thick
Groove depth
a

20mm

M
Bending the
Segment along
the groove line
breaks it off

60

Blade segments
Blade extends to
reveal next segment
Figure Q.4(b)
Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

10/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DATASHEET Q.4(b)
Geometric Correction Factor F for Stress Intensity Factor K I a F
B
M

M
W

a

W2015
-16
Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session

11/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

JAN 2009 (08-09)
Q.4

(a)

Computer CD and DVD drives are being continually driven faster with
the demand for increasing data transfer rates. For example a 40X drive
operates at 8000 rev/min, and the latest 52X drives operate at 10,500 rev/min.
Such high speed components could be subject to catastrophic brittle fracture if
cracks are present, particularly in regions of high stress. The relevant properties
of a typical CD/DVD disc are as given below. Determine, using the supplied
Data and the stress distribution results provided graphically in DATASHEET
Q.4:
(i)

(a)

the location and orientation (radial or tangential hoop) of any potentially

critical crack. Your solution should include both an explanation and a
sketch as appropriate;
[4]
(ii)
the critical crack size ac for both the 40X and 52X drives described
above including crack tip plasticity effects;
[8]
(iii)
the number of read/write cycles remaining in a 52X CD/DVD disc
which has been discovered to have an initial crack size of 2mm,
excluding crack tip plasticity effects.
[7]
A CD/DVD disc will simply fail to operate (read/write) when a crack
enters the Index Track which is located at a radius of 20mm.
Explain briefly, based upon the results obtained in (a)-ii) above whether a Fail
safe philosophy (such as the Leak Before Break philosophy used in pressurised
components) might apply to a cracked CD/DVD disc operating at 40X and
52X speeds.
[6]

DATA:
Inside radius, ri = 7.5 mm
KIC = 1 MN/m3/2,

outer radius, ro = 60mm

Y = 60 MN/m2,

thickness, t =1mm

da/dN = 0.5x10-7.K3.5 m/cycle.

K Y . .a

The Geometric Stress Intensity Correction Factor, Y = 1.12 for any small crack
size relative to disc outer radius (a<<ro).

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

12/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DATASHEET Q.4

rr

Typical CD/DVD Geometry

VARIATION IN THE STRESS IN A ROTATING CD/DVD DISC

Ref:

Report for Research Machines, RM plc, Prof. David Nowell, Aug. 2001

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

13/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

JAN 2015

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

14/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

15/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

16/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

JAN 2014

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

17/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

18/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

19/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DEC 2012

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

20/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

21/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

22/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DEC 2011

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

23/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

24/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

25/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

DEC 2010

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

26/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

27/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

28/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

JAN 2010

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

29/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

30/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

31/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

32/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

JAN 2009

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

33/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

34/35

Dr David R Gordon, LEFM, Level 4, 2015/16

Dr David R Gordon, ED&A4 Trimester 1 Session 2015 -16

35/35