AMMRC MS 80-6 "AD

OPENING SESSION ADDRESSES

PRESENTED AT 'THE:, ARMY SYMPOSIUM

ON SOLID, MECHANICS, 1980-DESIGNING FOR EXTREMES:

ENVIRONMENT, LOADING, AN~ STRCTURAL. BEHAVIOR- STR UR

September 1980 ," OCT., t3bQ

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

ARMY MATERIALS AND MECHANICS RESEARCH CENTERWatertown, Massachusetts 02172

,n o1 15 O00

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (%hen Dote Fntered)

PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION PABEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2 GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

.k-TITCE-(nd Subtitle) 5 .. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Opening Session Addresses Presented at the Army FINAL P'--T "grm FINAL. REPORT, /Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 198t6 - Designing __for Extremes: Environment, Loading, and 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

Structural Behavior // / " $._7. AUTHOR(a) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(*)

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PfOJECT. TASKAREA 0flOK mNum JRS

Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center AE RiR

Watertown, Massachusetts 02172 /DRXMrr-T . .

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ,1--- !. REe ATE--- -U.S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness I .j.Septembevi,4l980J

Command, Alexandria, Virginia 22333 -II37-.JMBER OFPAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & AODRESS(If dilerent from Controliing Oll t;) 1S. SECIRITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified15a. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRA "NG

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thie Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract entered In Block 20. It different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on rever.e aide it necessary and identify by block numbar)

Corrosion Impact StructuresDynamics Mechanics Weapon systemsEnvironments Shock (mechanics) Life (durability)

20. ABSTRACT (Caailbue a .*vw sid it necesary a Identfltr by block numb.,)

.. ,This document contains copies of the addresses presented during the openingsession of the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1980. This meeting was heldat Bass River (Cape Cod), Massachusetts during September 30-October 2, 1980and was conducted on the theme "Designing for Extremes: Environment, Loading,and Structural Behavior".4-

D) , o 1413 MDfs or INOVSISSSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED tL?&SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE (,"en Dote Entered) .4

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOECMa Dis SalEn )

i=

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLJSIPICATiO0 OF THIS PAGE W4 Does Enter.,)

PREFACE

This is the seventh in our series of biennial symposia held under theaegis of the U. S. Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM)through its Materials Advisory Group (MAG) and more specifically theMechanics of Materials Technical Working Group (TWG).

The Mechanics of Materials TWG is directed by AMMRC and consists of4i members from all of DARCOM's R&D Commands. The Solid Mechanics SymposiumCommittee is comprised of Mechanics of Materials TWG membership, augmentedby representatives of tile U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. AirForce, U.S. Navy, the National Bureau of Standards, and NASA-Lewis ResearchCenter. Such broad participation, which began with the 1974 meeting resultsfrom the fact that solid mechanics is a vital element in development ofadvanced systems.

The Mechanics of Mate-ials TWG was established in 1964, to assist informulating the Army wide program in solid mechanics and in promotingscientific and technical exchange among DoD laboratories. This TWG iscomposed predominately of bench level technical experts in the specificareas of materials and mechanics. Perhaps the most important function ofthe Mechanics of Materials TWG is the exchange of technical information andI[ the sponsorship of these biennial Solid Mechanics Symposia.

This document contains copies of the addresses presented within theopening session at tile Army Symposium oil Solid Mechanics, 1980. This meetingwas conducted on the theme "Designing for Extremes: Environment, Loading,and Structural Behavior" and was held at Bass River (Cape Cod) , Massachusettsduring September 30 - October 2, 1980. Tile proceedings of this conferenceare published in a companion document, AMMRC MS 80-4 dated September 1980.There is also another companion document, AMMRCMS 80-5, dated September 1980,which contains extended abstracts of the presentations made within tile Work-in-Progress Sessions of the symposium. These sessions were comprised of aseries of brief presentations and discussions of current (but not necessarily =11

-I complete) research relating to the theme of the meeting.

We greatfully acknowledge Max Williams, Dean of Engineering, UniversityI of Pittsburgh, who delivered the very interesting and relevant keynote addresson "Coping with Extremes for Structural Performance." Our gratitude also goesto the clerical staff of the Mechanics and Engineering Laboratory and tileTechnical Reports Office of tile Army Materials and Mechanics Research Centerfor their unflagging efforts in the preparation and printing of numeroussymposium materials. I

- -

I

A

PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS IN THIS SYMPOSIA SERIES*

Proceedings of the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1968,AMRC MS 68-09, September 1968, AD 675 463

Proceedings of the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1970 -

Lightweight Structures,AMMRC MS 70-5, December 1970, AD 883 4SSL

Proceedings of the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1972 -

The Role of Mechanics in Design - Ballistic Problems,AMMRC MS 73-2, September 1973, AD 772 827

Proceedings of the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1974:The Role of Mechanics in Design - Structural Joints,

AMMRC MS 74-8, September 1974, AD 786 543

Work-In-Progress Presented at the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1974;The Role of Mechanics in Design - Structural Joints,

AMMRC MS 74-9, September 1974, AD 786 524

Stress Analysis of Structural Joints and Interfaces -

A Selective Annotated BibliographyBy M. M. Murphy and E. M. Lenoe,

AMMRC MS 74-10, September 1974, AD 786 520

Proceedings of the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1976 -

Composite Materials: The Influence of Mechanics of Failure cn Design,AMMRC MS 76-2, September 1976, AD A029 735

Work-In-Progress Presented at the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1976 -

Composite Materials: The Influence of Mechanics of Failure on Design,AMMRC MS 76-3, September 1976, AD A029 736

Proceedings of the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics 1978 -

Case Studies on Structural Integrity and ReliabilityAMMRC MS 78-3, September 1978, AD A059 834/2G1

Ongoing Case Studies Presented at the Army Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1978Case Studies on Structural Integrity and Reliability

ANMRC MS 78-4, September 1978, AD AOS9 605/6G1

* These documents may be ordered from the National Technical Information

Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.

iiX______________,~- - - - -- - - - - ~ ~ .

SYMPOSIUM COMMITTEE

E. M. LENOE, Chairman, AMMRCJ. F. MESCALL, Vice Chairman, AMNRCR. J. MORRISSEY, Coordinator, A*(RC

TECHNICAL PAPERS AND PROGRAM

J. ADACHI, Chairman, AMMRCF. I. BARATTA, A!4IRCL. BERKE, NASALewis Research CenterC. I. CHANG, Naval Research LaboratoryH. D. CURCHACK, Harry Diamond Laboratories

= G. A. DARCY, JR., AM4RCT. S. DESISTO, AMIRCC. M. ELDRIDGE, Army Missile CommandJ. FEROLI, Army Test and Evaiuation CommandG. L. FILBEY, JR., Ballistic Research LaboratoriesR. FOYE, Army Aviation R&D CommandC. E. FREESE, AM 4RCJ. J. GASSNER, JR., AM4RCA. J. GUSTAFSON, Army Aviation R&D CommandG. E. MADDUX, Air Force Flight Dynamics LaboratoryJ. F. MESCALL, AWMRCD. R. MULVILLE, Naval Research LaboratoryR. P. PAPIRNO, AIRCE. W. ROSS, JR., Army Natick R&D CommandE. SAIBEL, Army Research OfficeT. SIMKINS, Army Armament R&D CommandJ. H. SMITH, National Bureau of StandardsD. H. TRACEY, AMMRCG. WILLIAMSON, Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

WORK IN PROGRESS SESSION

G. E. MADDUX, Co-Chairman, Air Force Flight Dynamics LaboratoryR. P. PAPIRNO, Co-Chairman, AI4RC

jJoiii

ARMY SYMPOSIUM ON SOLID MECHANICS, 1980

DESIGNING FOR EXTREMES:

ENVIRONMENT, LOADING, AND STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR

I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

GEORGE W. SIBERTColonel, Infantry

Deputy Director/CommanderArmy Materials and Mechanics Research Center

I. OPENING REMARKS - DESIGNING FOR EXTREMES

EDWARD M. LENOESyinposiem Chairman

Chief, Mechanics of Materials Division

Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center

III. KEYNOTE ADDRESS

COPING WITH EXTREMES FOR STRUCTURAL F£ RFORMANCE

H. WILLIAMSDean of Engineering

University of Pittsburgh

South Yarmouth, Cape Cod, Massachusetts

September 30-October 2, 1980

v

Fj~M PAS -IMW -1A AM

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

GEORGE W. SIBERTColonel, Infantry

Deputy Director/CommanderArmy 'laterials and Mechanics Research Center

Watertown, Massachusetts 02172

It is my pleasure to initiate this year's Army Symposium on SolidMechanics and to welcome you here today. In addition to greeting you, theSymposium Committee has asked that I make a few introductory remarks. Sincesome of you are newcomers to this Symposium series, as am I, it seems appro-priate to describe briefly some of the Army Materials and Mechanics ResearchCenter (AHMRC) activities and capabilities. I will also highlight recentareas of emphasis at the Center. While AMHRC may be new to some of you, itis interesting to reflect that AM-RC is not new to United States defenseactivities. AMIHRC is proud, not only of its present achievements, but alsoof its history, traceable to the era of Andrew Jackson's Presidency. Forover 164 years, AMMRC and its predecessor agencies at the Watertown Arsenalhave made important contributions to the U. S. Army.

AMMRC DESCRIPTION

For many years now, AMHRC has functioned as an independent multi-mission research center of the Army Materiel Development and ReadinessCommand (DARCOM) and served as a focal point for materials research anddevelopment. The Center is chartered by DARCOM to be the Lead Laboratoryfor Materials Technology, Solid Mechanics Technology and Materials TestingTechnology. As a consequence of these responsibilities, AMMRC plans andexecutes studies at the forefront of each of the technologies.(Figures 1-3)

A fundamental requirement to complete our mission successfully is theresident inhouse expertise and facilities. These allow conduct of R&D inmetals, ceramics, polymers and composites. Also needed to meet our objec-tives are intensive activities in the fields of applied mechanics, testing,specifications and standards, materials processing and manufacturing tech-nology.

Our three laboratories are located on a 48 acre site along the CharlesRiver in Watertown, about 6 miles west of Boston. There are ten majorbuildings containing 435,000 square feet. The Center supports approximately690 personnel and about 262 of these are scientists, engineers and technicians.A1MIRC also manages an extensive contract activity, in addition to thein-house studies. (Figures 4-7)

Besides the continuing long term research efforts, AIMRC is responsiveto the day-to-day needs of the entire Army Materiel Development and Readiness

L Command. We refer to this as user assistance where the "user" may be aProgram/Project Manager, one of the R&D Commands or Readiness Commands. Wealso interact with the Army "user", TRADCOC and its schools and centers.

, 1

-4

Thus the range of assistance varies from thorough, in-depth studies, allthe way to immediate assistance. The extent of effort depends upon assistancerequired and includes same-day transfer of technical information, to in-depth,on site evaluation and corrections for systems problems. Through suchactions definition of pacing problem areas and new ideas are developed toprovide insight for future studies at AWIIRC.

SOME GENERAL OBJFCTI'I\S

The primary resource for ANIIRC for attaining its major objectives isits technology base program, consisting of so-called 6.i, 6.2 and 6.3Afunded srojects (basic and applied research and prototype demonstratorstudies . Typically, ;n any given year, we carry on more than 120 WorkUnits and related contractor efforts.

Insight into some of the short term AIlRC objectives for various ArmyMateriel can be gained by referring to the illustrations for Aircraft,Armament, Armor, Hissiles, Ground Vehicles and Hulti-Hlission/Special Re-quirements (Figures 8 through 13). Even a brief consideration of theseshort term objectives leads one to appreciate the utmost necessity of fullunderstanding of the Techniques of Designing for Extremes. Obviously,without such methodology, advanced materials cannot be rationally intro-duced into our arsenal of weapons. For this reason, I am especially happyto welcome you to this Symposium and now look forward to a productivemeeting in these next few days.

M- !IM

zz

2J

i' : 4

----- '1AMMRC 0 TO E E FOCAL POINT FOR MATERIALS[DMoPMEN WITHIN HE ARMY MAIERILa

LEAD LABORATORY FOR DEWLOPMENT AND READINESS COMMAND -

LEA LABORATONY ATFEOORROTOMAEIL-EHOOY0 TO PERFORM MA1ERIALS RESEARCH AND•MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY DOP: .ENT AT THE FOREFRONT OFJEONOLOGY

* SOLID NECHANICS TECHNOLOGY 0 INSURE RESPONSIWESS TO USERI RQUIREMENITS

* MATERIALS TESTING TECHNOLOGY FIG1E 2- AM 'S oN,

FIGURE I - DAKR CHMIERS

*MANUFACIURING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

OCONDUCT DARCOM INDUSTRIAL TRAINING PROGRAM -NSEVAUATE PROPOSALS FOR ARO

OCONDUCT CONFERENCES AND SYMPOSIA p*MANAGE INFORMATION ANALYSIS CENTERS

FIGlJR 3 - 0D( AWKR FUNCTIONS

Tf; -

FIG E 4 - FACILITIES

3

]UI

±- 495 CLASS ACT

53 Ulf 9 AGE GV.DE -

46 Y03. CO-OP A.'%1 OTH

11 MIEiISTED PERSN Q

60 TOTAL STRENGTH

FIURE 5 - A .O'LP08 STATISTICS FY3

R DOaCTS DGEE

45 MASTER'S i(GREE

so SA MI.L0S GRIEE

4 ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE

n- f ECLM ICIAX"S

262 TOTAL TECHNICAL

FIGURE 6 - TECMIWCAL PERSOLNIEL FY30

04 ACRES 0674 TOTAL PERSONNEL

010 MAJOR BUILDINGS 0262 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL

*632.0 TOTAL SQUARE FEET IN USE 065 OTHER DARCOM PERSONNEL SUPPORTED

0389,000 SQUARE FEET LABORATORY SPACE 0$37.037.000 TOTAL FY79 FUNDINGFIGURE 7 - A.IRC STATISTICS

-- 4

AIIC3MT INCME * UCRAS 01M FfnCK VIA HNNERGAS NOR M9ME1M AlTAUMIE 1usmWE ALLOS. comTM. C0505. me

U 319ME O'f BY IT WEP FRACrumEHESSM. STESS 31WII. AM FM1CUE

.uiccKin ONE SS ~ *WML SYTOMAu5SMI CAME

LKE CYalE COSS

&%O~fF SERVICEFEMS

sgM~iucI ~ IDUM KWSOME COMS SISIOTIS

Am wiWARIASim t~ ~E

PODC AMlc PfHo OWIIIBM

FUGM a5- SNi INA OSICtnWS - Anm~ mIMS TIE ANCMI

ANN-ED MARRO W M AIIIIMS FOR WOMM saes.SEALS. 05118AI PASS. UMM WAMI

AIS. -RI CAM TUBESkINCH an Ox I

inBIMS AVIS o MASEDIMA U L

: ' - WDV -obs -ss

*IUI 9~ -CS SHS Mot~ Oar rm mm m ip0EocEn AO[lGinMT SWIJ I

- SflISS IS- ISUIE SNEL EM I

AM. FRACOMS FCR~ ARMTvCADINES. NO AUKS

CREW BftSTIC PmOEatm~ - FUIMIER WIM PA PWGl MRrcw~SFOR MOM VEIRCLES DWUO13 MWI

FOR RUSHIDIT MIUP70CIEWSE3

711t

MISSILE GUIDANCE * DEVELOP HYPERSONIC RADOME MATERIALSI WITH MACH 5+ RAIN EROSION CAPABILITIES

SKINSISTRUCTURES * DEVELOP IMPROVED COMPOSITES

-CONTROL STRESS CORROSION CRACKINGAND FRACTURE

* DEVELOP IMPROVED WELD REPAIRPROCEDURES

FIGURE 11 - SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES - ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR MISSILES

HEAT ENGINES ° INTRODUCE CERAMICS INTO ADIABATICTURBO COMPOUNDED DIESEL - 33%

IMPROVED iN FUEL CONSUMPTION

REDUCED WEIGHT VEHICLES ° PROCESS OPTIMIZATION OF COMPOSITEBODY COMPONENTS

IMPROVED COMPONENTS o HARDEN VEHICLE HULL, TRACK COMPONENTSAND SUSPENSION SYSTEMS AGAINST BLAST

° IMPROVE FATIGUE CAPABILITIES AS WELLAS MULTI HIT RESISTANCE

FIGURE 12 - SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES - ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR GROUND VEHICLES

FIRE RESISTANT MATERIAL * CHARACTERIZE PYROLYSIS AND FLAMMABI-LITY BEHAVIOR, DEVELOP IMPROVED PLAS-TICS

LASER HARDENING • PROVIDE MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES TECH-NOLOGY BASE TO MEET HIGH ENERGY LASERTHREAT

DAMAGE TOLERANTIFAIL SAFE * INCREASE OPERATIONAL LIFE OF WEAPONSYSTEMS SYSTEMS

BRIDGING • EXPLOIT COMPOSITE MATERIALS FOR AD-

VANCED, HIGH PERFORMANCE BRIDGING

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING * DEVELOP NEW AND ADVANCED NDT. MAINTAINTRAINING SCHOOL

FIGURE 13 - SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES - MULTI-MISS:ONISPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

A!6)

OPENING REMARKS - DESIGNING FOR EXTREMESEdward Mark LenoeSymposium Chairman

Army Materials and Mechanics Research CenterWatertown, Massachusetts

Very soon we will be immersed in highly specialized discussions of thetechnical aspects of Designing for Extremes. However, before beginning themeeting, it is appropriate to extend our thanks to all who contributed tothe planning and execution of this enterprise. Therefore, it is with asense of pleasure that I express my gratitude to the Program Committee fortheir achievement in organizing this Solid Mechanics Symposium. Now ratherthan bore you with platitudes concerning the importance and success of thiscontinuing series of Symposia, I choose instead to share with you someideas and recent readings which I found stimulating (I thru 4). No doubt,prior to dealing with narrow specialties, it is also opportune to consider

the broader aspects of our engineering endeavors.

The Tragic Need for Mechanical Technology R&D

During the list decade, in the international arena, the technologicalposition of our nation has eroded substantially and our economy in parti-cular has worsened at an increasing rate for the past few years. Reviewof economic indicators dealing with the manufacture of c umer goods,suggests '!,at long term deterioration has been underway M and that theUnited States suffers a major technological trade deficit estimated to costa minimum of $10 billion/yr. This deficit is anticipated to worsen in thenext 3 years to reach a probable $40 billiGn annual deficit in our trade inmanufactured goods associated with mechanical. technology. Needless to say,such increasing losses, combined with trade less due to importing oil,coffee and other non-manufactured goods, are primary causes for the weaken-ing U.S. dollar. Many aspects of our technology have long been ignored,not only by government agencies, but by industry as well. If our nation isto remain competitive in international markets, mechanical technology canno longer be ignored.

What is the relationship between lack of funding of M in mechanicaltechnology and loss of trade in U.S. Manufactures? Tesar has shownthat the major portions (75%) of U.S. manufactures trade is governed bymechanical technology. There is an increasing perception that energy is asignificant problem for our economy. In this context, it is useful tocontrast energy sufficiency and trade balance for the leading technolo-gically based nations. Figure 1 clearly shows U.S. trade deficits con-trasted to substantial surpluses of the Japanese and German economies.Considering their limited energy resources and trade surpluses, leads oneto conclude that a major U.S. problem is the eIficient conversion of energyand natural resources into consumer goods. Now consider the very basis ofproductivity. E. F. Denison, of Brookings Institute, estimates that 38% ofour productivity increase over the past four decades has been due to tech-nology. Figure 2 documents other contributing factors: capital, labor

7

I

quality, economies of scale and resource allocation. Further, regardingproductivity, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the annual produc-tivity increase of the U.S. Worker in the 13-year period 1960-73 was 3.4%,which is lower than all other major Western trading nations. Figure 3reveals that productivity increases in these nations outstripped ours byanywhere from about 17% in Canada to about 200% in Japan. More recent dataalso show the U.S. as continually lagging. Inadequate capitalization ispart oi the cause of this diminishing productivity. The average investmentper worker decreased from $258 in 1967 to $220 per worker in 1973. In WestGermany, corresponding values were $298 to $693 and in Japan $191 to $324for the same time period. Comparative investments are further shown inFigures 4 and 5.

Regarding trade deficits, Figure 6 identifies the major trade cate-gories for 1978. Notice that the total trade in manufactures is greaterthan non-manufactures. Further, note the breakdown of the manufacturestrade into three categories: mechanical, chemical and electrical. Figure7 shows the categories in mechanical systems, which represented 75% of ourtrade in 1978. Aircraft and spacecraft reflect positive trade balance, butthe Japanese and European consortiums are striving mightily to make inroads in this sector. Also shown in the same graph is the importance ofheavy and light machinery. The U.S. has always prided itself on leadershipin heavy equipment. However, recently we have taken to providing turn-keymanufacturing facilities to military as well as commercial protagonists!While some support exists in materials and manufactures for heavy machinery,Federal support for light machinery is nonexistent. It is worth commentingthat the combined trade loss from cars and trucks and light machinery was$21.5 billion in 1978, which amounted to 75% of our petroleum loss. Therecan be no doubt the federal and industrial support must be increased inmechanical technology related to these fields. Efforts must also be madeLo insure greater support of university research on the engineering andtechnology for design and production of such products. Strong industry/university interaction must be developed. Furthermore, an appropriateclimate for capital investment must be fostered to encourage investments inplants, equipment and tools that exploit new technology.

Perhaps this commentary, put forth by an employee of DOD, advocatinginvestment in commercial matters, strikes one as inappropriate. However,as will be demonstrated shortly, the Federal government plays the leadingrole in sponsoring research, obviously this research should be directedtowards national interests. Furthermore, it is rather easy to prove thatsevere deficiencies in manufacturing technologies do have a profound nega-tive impact on numerous military materiel.

Current R&D Resources for Technology

In 1979, the federal government and industry supported a total R&Dprogram of about $52 billion, with the government supportiag 49.3% of theactivity and industry performing 71%. For that year, the government per-formed 13%, universities 10% and other nonprofit institutes performed about

8

o

5.6% of the R&D program. Figure 8 shows various agency budgets, whileV_ Figure 9 compares differenc engineering research categories. Materials is

clearly the major emphasis of basic engineering research, at 38.8% of thetotal. Out of the total federal budget, basic engineering research is 8.9%of the effort and Mechanical Engineering is only 0.6% of the funds. Basicresearch is dominated by four agencies, with DOD, NSF, DOE and NASA account-ing for 95.5% of the budget. Figure 10 illustrates that DOE and DOD inparticular place a heavier emphasis on mechanical engineering than theother federal agencies. From this discussion, one must conclude that thereis a deficiency in funding related to mechanical technology. While DoDmaintains a far more balanced input into such effort, on the nationallevel, in other Federal agencies, there is a necessity to increase such

funding to protect the economic status of our country. There is no doubtthat general lack of support impedes the technological innovation process,a matter of vital concern not only in consumer prodt.cts, but obviously ofimportance in the development of weapons systems. Ie this area, not onlylack of funds but the educational process itself must bear the burden offault. Industrial employers often complain that recently graduated engi-neers tend to lack the practical knowledge necessary to achieve technicalchange at the production level. Our engineering cirriculum has been criti-cized for emphasizing techniques, rather than creativity and boldness.Thus far the main complaint voiced here has been that of misdirectedappropriations. However, it is useful to consider other aspects of thetechnology of introducing new materials and developing alternate systemsconcepts.

UNATTAINED GOALS AND ESCALATING COSTS

We are all familiar with cost overruns often associated with advancedsystems development. Such problems are typified in the special to BostonGlobe, July 6, 1980, by John Bierman, Headed for the Scrap Heap? Biermanreported that despite the fac* that $3 billion had already been spent ondevelopment of the new U.S. Navy-Marine Corps fighter, the F/A18 Hornet,some officials believe it may have to be scrapped because of performanceproblems and cost overruns. Rep. Bruce Vento (D. Minn.), one of theopponents of the Hornet, alleged that unit costs had soared from an esti-mated $6 million when the project was initiated five years ago to between$26 to $29 million today. Besides costover runs, he cited structuralfaults such as wing flexibility, collapsing landing gear, roll-rateI[ problems, increased aircraft weight and recurrent bulkhead fatigue failure.There are, of course, numerous previous aircraft programs with similar costand performance problems -- the Fill and the giant C5A transport. The C5Atransport, for instance, has a critical wing fatigue life about 1/4th thatof the other vital structural element capabilities. Apparently, in these

days of increasing complexity and ever more demanding requirements,attaining a balanced system, such as exemplified by the legendary one-horseshay, is virtually impossible.

9

Y_

("Have you heard of the one-hoss shayThat was built in such a logical wayIt ran a hundred years to a day? ..........End of the wonderful one-hoss shay. [21Logic is logic. That's all I say")

It is easy to find innumerable examples of cost overruns and unattainedsystems goals, not only in multi-million dollar hardware but in much lowercost items; guided artillery shells escalating an order of magnitude incosts from inception, anti-tank weapons with four-fold cost increments tomention a few.

However, we must be fair to the systems developers, since oftenproject costs are forced to fit within available budgetary constraints.Quite typically a program manager will be forced to proceed with advancedengineering development while simultaneously confronted by increasingtechnical problems and decreasing fiscal resources. These as well asother circumstances tend to create a situation of unrealistic officialcost estimates. Certainly, considering the infancy of many new systemsand the fact that a good portion of associated cost ef-timating is thereforebased on judgements made without prior experience, cost overruns arenot surprising coinsequences.

One is tempted to place much blame on human frailties, s asignorance, incompetence and greed. In this context, Florman , in hisbook attacking the anti-technologists, cites some suggestive data. Forinstance, a survey conducted by the National Science Foundation reported50% o. the scientific and engineering articles studied contained wrong dataor did not have sufficient evidence to support the conclusions reached bythe authors! Furthermore, Florman cites the fact that whereas 1,500,000government employees classify themselves (via job descriptions) as engi-neers, application of conventional standards of enation, training andcapability would reduce this number by one third. No doubt improvementsare desirable in the quality of engineering and in society as well.However, the fact is that development of advanced systems is in its verynature a difficult process, fraught with difficulties, and burdened withmany uncertainties, and requiring application of high level skills andjudgement factors. Further development of such skills, as well asexploration of the limits of knowledge and uncertainties in the process ofdesigning for extremes, are the very reasons for conducting this symposium.So without any further delay, I now introduce our eminent Keynote Speaker,Professor M. L. Williams, Dean of Engineering, University of Pittsburgh.

Re ferences

I. D. Tesar, Mechanical Technology R&D, Part 1: The Tragic Need,February 1980, Mechanical Engineering, pp. 34 - 41, and Part 2:A Proposed National Program, March 1980, Mechanical Engineering,pp. 34 - 41.

10

Nxkl,-iNF

2. From The Deacons Masterpiece, by Oliver Wendall Holmes.

3. Samuel C. Florman, The Existential Pleasures of Engineering, 1976,-St. Martin's Press Inc., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.

4. A Profile of the Enginieering Profession, A Report from 1969 NationalEngineer Regi,-cer, Engineers Joint Council.

-N

NI W0WWW

$63 8 ENERGY SELF -SUFF IC IENCY

EXPECTED 1978 TRADE BALANCECF hiANUF4CTURES

Time M1agazinei"The Innovation kRecession". Oct. 1978

-1 44D

JAA VGRAYUS-95FIUEI-17 XETDTRD AAC N EAEENRG UFIIEC

3, 1APA ~ 'Al. GERMNYv 23 S98 Ix 29

254-

TECHNENERGY SUFFICIESONCY

TECHOLOG 25.~ K ~ CF SCALE

IFIGURE?2 - CONTRIBUTIGN TO PRODUCTIVITY 01929 - 19691

12

0. F. Lane. "Improving LIS. Productivity'. ME. Sept 1978

ta 5%Note. 20 percent of U. S productivity growth isconsumed by pollution and safety regulations

7.5%

7.6. 0% 58%5.3%

40%3.4%

JAPAN - ~ S EET IAYCANADA UINGDO

INETHERLANDS BELGIUM FRANCE SWITZERLAND UNITED

FIGURE 3 -ANNUAL WORKER PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE IN MANUFACTURING

)% G. K Kuper. Director. Productivity Center. Sept 1918

Note: 9 LofU S. investment goes forpollution and safety equipment

J 22%20% 9

15%

I__ GERMANY

FIGURE 4 - PERCENTAGE GF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCTS INVESTED

ANNUALLY IN PLANTS AND EQUIPMENT 11966 - 19151

13

-~~~~ -AA* - -

121

*JAPAN1D

AVERAGEPRODUCTIVITY IAYFACGRCWTH. 6 TL FAC

UNITED

-KINGDOM CANADA

U. S.

15 20 25 3D 35INVESTMENT PERCENT

FIGURES5 - CORRELATION BETWEEN PRODUCTIVITY GRCWVTH ANDINDUSTRIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT 11960 - 19731

$BILLIONS

90

80 EXPGRTS

70 [J

60

50

40

3D

20

NCN MECHANICAL CHEMICALS ELECTRICALMANUFATURES MAJOR CATEGORIES

OF MANUFACTURESFGR6 1978 IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF MAJOR TRADE CATEGORIES

14

--m

$ BILLIONS

30EXPORTS

i I IMPORTS

20

10

5

HEAVY LIGHT AIRCRAFT & CARS & -MACHINES MACHINES SPACECRAFT TRUCKS

FIGURE 7 -197 IMPORTS AND EXPORTS -MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

AGENCY PERCENT $ MILLIONS

13.163DOD V __________5_______r__4.619DOE - I ZI

4.392NASA 42 ri :zNEW (NIH) IL7

NSF Z6667

AGRICULTURE Z2 --

EPA L3 7l

INTERIOR L3 u 0

TRANSPORTATION L I315

COMMERCE LO jNRC 2A

VETERANS Q4 I

OTHER 10

TOTAL 30.956

FIGURE 8 -THE 1919 ESTINATED RID BUDGET ITEMIZED BY AGENCY

is

ENGINEERINGFIELD PERCENT $ THOUSANDS

145.353 r

MATERIALS 38 i45.T58AERONAUTICAL 2(18 1 Z

53.134

ELECTRICAL 14 2 [126.656

MEC4ANICAL 7. I17.192

CHEMICAL 4.6 FCIVIL 3.2 F I

[12. t95OTHER IL.3

TOTAL 374.308

FIGURE 9 - FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOTTED FOR BASIC ENGINEERING TO USDA. DOc.DOD. DOE. NASA and NSF FY 79

AGENCY $ THOUSANDS

DOD 114.234DOD 16, 005

DOE 8.0

NASA 77.806

NSF46

USDA 13.556

TOTALSALL ENGINEERING FIELDS F 365.455MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 2.187

FIGURE 10 -FEDERAL FUNDS FOR BASIC RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING ITEMIZEDBY AGENCY IN THE FY 1979 ESTIMATED BUDGET

]16

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

COPING WITH EXTREMES FOR STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE

-M". L. WILLIAISr Dean of Engineering

University of Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261

SUNLARY

Aside from the important mainstream activities in structural mechanicswhich must never be neglected, extensive attention must be paid to expand-ing the existing perimeters of our field. Research and the applications oftechnology at this "cutting-edge" have been consistently responsible forthe many facets of the technological advantage this country needs on acontinuing basis in order to maintain both commercial and military supremacy.In the present technological and economic climate, the United States hasbeen forced to choose its primary technical targets more selectively whilesimultaneously taking steps to maintain the integrity of our baselineefforts. Two basic elements must be pursued: (1) creative selectivity inchoosing our primary technical areas, and (2) quality performance in thefollow through.

Within the context of this meeting, it is important to recognize thatthe subject of structural mechanics as a major part of the design cycle hasat least two main subsidiary components, namely fundamental studies ofmechanical behavior of solids (usually as candidate components in a design)and the successful performance to specifications of the synthesized assemblyof such components.

For structures, the innovator is usually the designer; in solid mechanicsthe innovator is frequently the materials engineer-scientist. The structuralmechanics analyst supports both aspects with his own innovation - normally

directed toward immaginative ways to treat the phenomena imposed at theextremes of the performance envelope of the design. Parenthetically, themajor contribution of numerical computational methods made possible by thesignificant advances in computer science and engineering must be recognized.

ESimultaneously, however, there is an elementary caution to be observed.The tendency to "over-compute" just because the capability exists mustcontinually be dampened.

Having established the position that there are two major components ofstructural mechanics, consider the maintenance of our minimum baseline

Vtechnical capability, and then a consideration of the impact which various- Iextreme conditions in the loading environment have upon the behavior of the

materials and of the design.

17

In order to maintain a broad baseline technical competence in the faceof increased cost, which thus suggests more focussed thrusts, greater usecan be made of technology transfer. The basic idea is to utilize and adaptthe work of others, in a monitoring mode, to your own ends. The decreasedcost associated with not conducting that work yourself is of course accom-panied by an associated penalty for currency. The advantage is the increasedtime for developing selected target areas. While this idea is not new,perhaps its current tij -liness is. The transfer commonly takes placethrough the technical media and appears to be most effective when conductedupon a person-to-pefson basis. For the United States, the most promisingreturns are probably through increased use of foreign sources, although theabsence of our foreign language facility must be rectified in order toobtain the best result.

When appropriate proL-ction of our baseline technology has beenattained, an increasing emphasis can be devoted to selected areas ofinvestigation, which are charac-eristically found at the boundaries of ourpresent experience.

From the point of view of the mechanics of solids, one of the easiest Iapproaches is to corsider changes which are reflected in the equation ofstate or corstituitive relation of the solid. When Robert Hooke in 1976first expressed his anagram, ceiiinosssttuv, the state variables wereessentially only pressure (stress) and volume (strain). To these we nowcommonly add temperatdre and time. Host of the "cutting edge" researchadvances occur at extremes of these four state variables. Simple examplesinclude high static tectonic pressures, ultra high pressure technology,strain induced anisotropy, two modulus (K-bulk and G-shear) to one modulus(K-bulk) transition with change of temperature, and time (strain rate)effects in explosive forming. More sophisticated examples, frequentlybordering upon materials science, include changes in surface and inter-facial chemistry, metal phase changes, and the strong polxeric time-

temperature sensitivity as the state variables vary over increasingly wideranges.

Instead of concentrating upon the pointwise constitutive relationsgoverning the behavior of a (continuous) solid at a point, the overallstructural design tends to be environmentally sensitive -- in the broadestsense. Here, the influences of extremes upon the structural assemble, oreven the pointwise state variables, occur from imposed conditions such asbody and surface forces causing a phenomenological change in the structuresuch as instability, excessive deformation, or adhesive or cohesive materialseparation. Simple examples inciude Euler-type buckling with or withouttemperature or side pressure, mechanical and chemical corrosion and erosionsuch as occurs in cavitation damage to marine propulsion or gas turbinedeterioration in hostile environments, nose cone erosion, radiation, con-tamination of materials, acoustic fatigue in jet engines. debonding ofcomposite materials, or fracture under kinetic penetration.

ii37

Other requirements also drive design. The importance of weightreduction in aeronautics was recognized very early by the Wright Brothersand vas demonstrated recently by Paul MacCready in the Gossamer designs.Even present automotive design is being drastically overhauled in the drivefor weight reduction due to the close coupling between vehicle weight andfuel consumption. The same minimum weight consideration occurs in militaryoperations, not only for improved fuel economy in tanks and other vehicles,but also in the desire to obtain very light weight and very portablebridging for tactical operations. Here, as in most of the v'eight reductionprograms, the limitation to minimum weight is buckling instability

The question of design with composite materials is a particularlyinteresting one. From the morphological standpoint considering, say, threegeneric materials, i.e. metals, polymers, and cerasics, one may easilygenerate 19 different combinations. Are the various material combinationscontinua or structures? Uhile it obviously deDends upon the relativedimensional scales involved, most of the combinations tend to resist easycharacterization. From a distance, any of them appear to be continua, butupon close inspection, e.g. at fracture origins, each is a structure whoselocalized or pointwise behavior has not been well explained.

In the verba1 presentation, selected illustrations will be presentedto show cases of special interest wherein various extreme conditions affectthe behavior of the component or the assembled design.

!i

!-9k2

e oiI