EMD homework solutions#1 Due 2/3 1-13, 2-53, 2-63, 2-69, 6-10, 2-15, 2-18, 2-44 1-13 This

appears to be exactly what some U.S. rms do on a routine basis. However, if

you think it is a solution to the ethical dilemma posed, re-examine Section 5(b) of the NSPE Code (p. 862). It states, Engineers shall not oer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to inuence the award of a contract by public authority, or which .... Clearly, the use of a subcontractor in the proposed manner is indirectly giving the gift. The practice is therefore not ethical.

2-53 Based on the information given, the rating numbers assigned to each of the eight
rating factors might be: Rating Factor 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Accuracy of loads knowledge Accuracy of stress calculation Accuracy of strength knowledge Need to conserve Seriousness of failure consequences Quality of manufacture Operating conditions Quality of inspection/maintenance Selected Rating Number (RN) 0 0 -1 -4 +3 0 0 +1

From (2-85): t = 0+0-1-4+3+0+0+1=-1 and, since t 6, from (2-86), nd = 1 + (10 1)2 = 1.8 100

2-63 The design life for the component is to be 107 cycles. The mean and standard deviation
of the fatigue strength for the component material at 107 cycles of loading are given as S = 68, 000 psi and S = 2, 500 psi. The mean and standard deviation of the operating fatigue stress level are given as = 60, 000 psi and = 5, 000 psi, respectively. Failure is 1

predicted if the stress is greater than the strength. Thus, we want to know the probability P {y = S > 0}. The mean and standard deviation of random variable y is y = S = 68, 000 psi 60, 000 psi = 8, 000 psi y =
2 2 = 5, 590 psi S +

The critical value of y = 0 (the point when the stress equals the strength and the onset of y 0 8000 = 5590 = 1.43 standard deviations away from the mean. failure is predicted) is X = y From Table 2.9, we nd that the reliability is then 92.36%.

2-69
(a) Using Eqn. (2-101), for a system having 3 components in series, each with a reliability of 0.90 Rs = (0.9)3 = 0.729 Thus the system reliability would be 72.9%. (b) Adding a duplicate redundant system, then we use Eqn. (2-104) to obtain the system reliability Rs = 1 (1 0.729)2 = 0.927 Thus, the system reliability would be 92.7% if a redundant system were added. This gives a signicant improvement in reliability (about 20% higher). (c) Adding a third redundant system, following the same procedure as in part (b) we obtain a reliability of 98%, which is a 5% increase from the 2 redundant system case. So we see the improvement in reliability diminishes fast as more redundant subsystems are added. (d) Adding redundant subsystems increases cost, weight, and space.

6-10 Since the sheave must rotate in a stable manner on the shaft at relatively high speeds,
we pick RC5 from Table 6.4, then check Table 6.5, in row 1.97-3.15 in (if approximate 50 mm as 2 inches), for hole: +1.8, +0, for shaft: -2.5, -3.7. So the hole size: 2.0000+0.0018=2.0018 (largest); 2.0000+0=2.0000 (smallest); for shaft size: 2.0000-0.0025=1.9975 (largest); 2.0000-0.0037=1.9963 (smallest).

If take 50mm = 1.9685in, then using row 1.19-1.97 in, for hole: +1.6, 0, for shaft: -2, -3. So the hole size: 1.9685+0.0016=1.9701 (largest); 1.9685+0=1.9685 (smallest); for shaft size: 1.9685-0.002=1.9665 (largest); 1.9685-0.003=1.9655 (smallest).

2-15
(a) In the linear elastic regime, we see that at a load of 16,000 lb, the elongation is 0.02 in)2 in. The cross-sectional area of the bar tested is A = (1.25 = 1.227 in2 and the length is 4 given as 10 inches. Thus, at a stress of = F/A = (16, 000 lb)/(1.227 in2 ) = 13, 038 psi, the bar sustains a strain of = /l = (0.02 in)/(10 in) = 0.002. The elastic modulus of the material can then be estimated to be E = / = 6.52 106 psi. Looking at Table 3.9 (also given on inside cover of the book), we see that the modulus is closest to magnesium, of the materials we have to choose from. Thus, the material is probably magnesium. (b) For a load of 8000 lb on a rod of this material with a diameter of 1.128 in, or crossin)2 sectional area of A = (1.128 = 1.00 in2 , the stress will be = F/A = 8, 000 psi, and the 4 strain will be = /E = 8000/(6.52 106 ) = 0.001227. For a 7-foot (84-inch) length, the elongation will be = l = (0.001227)(84 in) = 0.103 in, which is higher than the allowable limit of 0.040 inch. Thus, the material for this application should not be approved.

2-18 The temperature dierence between members B and E will cause these members to
have dierent lengths with the dierence being: L = LE LB = (20 in) This dierence in lengths will cause the line of sight to be misoriented relative to the desired angle and will result in an error, R, in radar tracking at a distance of 40,000 ft that is related to L as: L R = 15 in 40, 000 f t Thus, R = (40, 000 f t)(20 in) 15 in

where = 50 F here, and the temperature range to be considered is between 150 F and 200 F . Using Table 3.8, we nd: (a) For steel members, st = 6.3 106 / F , thus R = 16.8 f t. (b) For aluminum members, Al = 11.9 106 / F , thus R = 31.7 f t. (c) For magnesium members, M g = 16.0 106 / F , thus R = 42.6 f t.

2-44 (a)
dadh = kW (21 103 )(70 N ) Ls = 9Syp Aa (9)(275 106 N/m2 )(0.025 m)(0.013 m) Ls = 821 m Ls 821 m = = 34.8 min = 0.58 hr t = v (30rev/min)( 0.25m/rev ) Ls = 0.0015m

1 hr is too frequent, not acceptable. (b) Maintenance every 2 (c) Using Table 2.7, ratio of k of excellent lubrication over k of unlubricated is

klub 2 106 107 5 = 2 10 = 4 104 5 103 kunl 5 103 Since service time is proportional to 1/k , this means a time increase by a factor of 2,500 to 50,000, meaning 60 days or more. Much more acceptable. (d) Select a better combination of materials. From Table 2.7, we see that non-metal on metal oers roughly a thousand times increase in wear duration.