QUESTION 1

Advice on tackling this question

This question relates to Unit 1 only. Do not use material from other units in the course as this will
not attract marks.

Your answer should take the form of a report of around 1500 words addressing the two parts. You will
need to carry out a number of detailed calculations some of them using maths and analysis packages.
Do not submit the code or calculations, but retain an evidence file, which you should be able to
produce by return if requested by the marker.

Completion of this question will require you to make a number of assumptions which you may make by
searching the literature or by using “common sense”. Any assumptions need to be clearly stated (with
references, if appropriate) and their consequences discussed.

You will be assessed on three criteria: 1. Scope: the extent to which you have demonstrated mastery of
the relevant parts of the “toolkit”, 2. Analysis: the quality of your application of the quantitative and
qualitative analysis techniques (including your discussion), 3. Communication: how well you managed
to get across what you have done.
 QUESTION 1

Background (applies to both parts)

Figure (a) shows a simplified sectional diagram of the field joint for a rocket motor.
The tang and clevis are the profiles of the top and bottom of two of the large-diameter
cylinders which are joined together at the launch site to make the rocket tube. If
propellant leaks from the right-hand side (inside the cylinder) to the left-hand side
(outside the cylinder) during launch, the rocket may explode. The key sealing
elements and their failure modes and statistically independent probabilities are:

the zinc chromate putty which, if poorly applied, can erode under the heat
from the burning propellant, with a probability of PPe
the O-rings, which can fail:
either due to lack of resilience, with a probability of POres
or by erosion due to hot gases once the putty and any upstream O-ring
has eroded, with a probability of POe
or by misalignment during assembly, with a probability of POmis, or with
a probability of POLCmis once leak-checked (only applies to the primary
O-ring)
the (optional) leak-check port, which, if installed, can be inadvertently left
open with a probability of PLC

7
8
6 9
5 1

4
3

1 1

Figure (a): Schematic diagram of rocket motor propellant

containment
Part (a)

(i) Draw fault trees for two versions of the design (one with and one without a
leak check port). Then construct reliability diagrams for the two designs,
inserting the relevant reliabilities (without actual values).

(ii) A recent explosion during launch of an unmanned vehicle has brought into
sharp focus the role of O-ring resilience and alignment of the field joint.
Choose a value of POres that gives an acceptable (in your view) overall system
reliability at a launch temperature of 20°C for the design which uses a leak-
check port. You will not be penalised for your judgement in making the
choice, but you must make your own choice and state this clearly. Discuss
quantitatively the effect of launch temperature on the probability of failure for
the designs with and without the leak-check port. You can make the
conservative assumption that POres increases by a factor of 10 for every 10C°
reduction of the launch temperature down to zero, where the resilience is
known to be unacceptable. Use initial values for the remaining failure
probabilities according to the table below, but you may vary these in your
discussion, if you so wish.

Element PPe POe POmis POLCmis PLC

Failure probability 0.01 0.08 0.015 0.0007 0.008

Part (b)

The methodology for calculating structural reliability from the load strength
interaction:
∞
𝑃𝑆 𝐿 𝑓 𝑆 𝑓 𝐿 𝑑𝐿 𝑑𝑆

can be applied to the resilience of the O-rings, where the “load” is a distribution of
resilience f(e) and the “strength” is a distribution of required resilience p(ereq):
∞
𝑃𝑆 𝐿 ≡𝑃 𝑒 𝑒 𝑝 𝑒 𝑓 𝑒 𝑑𝑒 𝑑𝑒

If the required resilience exceeds the actual resilience of the O-rings, the seal will fail,
so that 𝑃 𝑆 𝐿 𝑃

The distribution of actual resilience will depend on the range of temperatures at which
launch is allowed with the mean shifting downwards as the temperature becomes
lower. The distribution of required resilience will be independent of temperature, but
will depend on the quality of assembly of the field joint.

A study has shown that, under current operating procedures, actual resilience f(e) and
the required resilience p(ereq) can be given by two-parameter Weibull distributions:

3 𝑒
𝑓 𝑒 𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝
11. 3 11.3
and

3 𝑒
𝑝 𝑒 𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝
97.6 97.6

(i) Calculate 𝑃 under the current operating procedures

(ii) Discuss quantitatively the effect of prohibiting launch below a certain
temperature
 QUESTION 2

Advice on tackling this question

This question relates to Units 2 and 3 only. Do not use material from other units in the course as this
will not attract marks.

Aim to complete the assignment by the end of Week 9. Your answer should take the form of two reports
of combined total of around 3000 words addressing the two parts. You may include a technical
appendix, in which you should place evidence of any calculations or other material which supports
your answer. Once complete, file your reports for submission into the portal which will be available
from the end of Week 5, although it will remain open until the end of Week 12. Once your report has
been submitted, it cannot be resubmitted even before the end of Week 12.

You will be assessed on three criteria, which will be applied across both parts of the question: 1.
Technical understanding: the extent to which you have demonstrated that you understand the role of
materials, manufacturing and maintenance on the structural integrity and structural degradation of
metallic aerospace structures, 2. Analysis: the quality of your application of the quantitative and
qualitative analysis techniques (including your discussion), 3. Communication: how well you managed
to get across what you have done.
 QUESTION 2

Background

This question relates to the mid-air failure of a Stage 1 fan disc on United Airlines
Flight 232 which eventually crash-landed at Sioux Gateway Airport, Iowa in 1989.
You will need to skim-read the US NTSB report before attempting this assignment
(http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR90-
06.pdf). In so doing, focus on the shape and loading of the disc and the technical
reasons for the initiation and propagation of the crack(s) which eventually led to
failure of the disc. You will also need to acquaint yourselves with the basic metallurgy
of alloys of titanium and aluminium for aerospace use. For this, you will need to
supplement the information given in the GLW with your own searching of literature.

You will need to estimate the stresses in the disc and you may use (without proof) the
following equations for the radial and hoop stresses in a disc rotating at constant
angular speed, ω:

3 𝜈 𝑟 𝑟 𝑚 𝜔 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
𝜎 𝜌𝜔 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
8 𝑟 2𝜋𝑟 𝑡 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
3 𝜈 𝑟 𝑟 1 3𝜈 𝑚 𝜔 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
𝜎 𝜌𝜔 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟
8 𝑟 3 𝜈 2𝜋𝑟 𝑡 𝑟 𝑟 𝑟

where ρ and ν are the density and Poisson’s ratio of the disc material, t is the disc
thickness, r1 and r2 are the inner and outer radii of the disc, respectively, mB is the
total mass of the blades, and rp is the radial position of the centre of mass of the
blades.
 QUESTION 2

Part 1 – Metal fatigue in aircraft

Carry out a review of aircraft accidents where metal fatigue is the direct cause. As
sources, you should use both accident reports and the engineering literature (journal
articles) and your review should include both aluminium alloys and titanium alloys.
Your review should focus on root causes, such as defects of manufacture,
inappropriate thermomechanical treatment or subsequent exposure. Credit will be
given for showing an understanding of technical issues, so you should not spend time
on accident details, human factors or survivability, nor on sources which are designed
to be accessible to the general public. Write a concise report (1000-1500 words) on
your findings, with proper use of references.

Part 2 – Analysis of UA232 fan disc failure

Using the background material and the results of Part 1, carry out a detailed analysis
of the UA232 fan disc failure. Your analysis must be quantitative and add something
over and above what the report says. You should make estimates of the stresses in the
disc and assess the margin for failure by fracture and yield. Obtain as much input
information from the UA232 report as possible, making clear any simplifications to
the geometry that you have made. Make estimates of any key information that you are
unable to find from the report, either justifying your assumptions or giving references,
as appropriate. Form your own technical conclusions about the material selection,
manufacturing processes and operating inspection regime which might have avoided
the failure.

Important note: DO NOT spend time on detailed stress analysis of the disc, and only
use the equations for the stress distribution given in the background. You will NOT
score marks for any numerical analysis (e.g. FEA) of the disc.