<p>I'm a junior at Aerospace Engineering at Illinois and I just don't understand structures. It doesn't help that all the people in our departmentn who teach the structures classes are from Caltech. I barely saw a single beam in my class. The structures class that the Mechanical Engineers and Civil guys take is so much easier. Half our class seemed to be devoted to tensor calculus and proving stuff with indicial notation. I aced Aerodynamics, Dynamics and Flight Mechanics but this stuff is really killing me. Anyone else feeling bogged down by structures?</p>
<p>I'm mechnical and all my aero friends so what you say. Honestly, it sucks pretty hard.</p>
<p>Aerostucture analysis based on continuum theory.</p>
<p>Well, to put it simple, the most structurse used in aero system (rockets airplanes rotorcrafts, airships) are made of light weight materials (like composites (fibrous, or light metal matrix) or aluminum alloy types). What distinguish them from typical mech/civil structures is their characteristics of being extremely flexible under loads. To put it more simpler, the simple linear stress/strain theory, which is based on small deflection theory ( so you can even neglect the deflection in your analysis) will not simply cut it when it comes to analyzing complex aero structures (beams, plates or shell) undergoing large deflections(rotations).</p>
<p>So?.Your Caltech-educated professors are right: They are teaching you the basics of the tensor analysis as a precursor for large deflection continuum based stress/strain analysis. It will appear tough in the beginning, but hang in there since you will appreciate its usefulness, in terms of its simplicity and elegance in deriving equations as you go deeper into the subject area.</p>
<p>As a side note, buy shaum?s book on tensor/matrix analysis and practice a lot!!!</p>
<p>Thanks for the input Rabban. I will look for the shaum's book. Right now, we are using a book called "Linear Elasticity" by Gould. It's strange cuz even my father who is an Aero Eng. Prof thinks that Elasticity should not be taught as a first structures class because it hides the physics behind it. Oh well. I will hang in there and hopefully see the light in Aerospace Structures II which seems more of a practical class. I think the class is pretty much devoted to beam-theory and structural dynamics. I'm supposed to buy a book called "Intro to Aero Structures" by Donaldson. Ever heard of it?</p>
<p>No, I only know of Perry?s aerostucture book. Is that donalson a guy from UMCP?
Yep, your dad?s right the theory of elasticity was generally reserved for the graduate study back in good ole days. But I am not surprised that the subject is being taught in your school considering the high caliber/prestige of UIUC. I am sure the subject is also being taught in other top-notch schools like MIT/Caltech/Berkeley/Michigan</p>
<p>Engineering Giants (BS and PhDs) among Uber-Elites: MIT Berkeley Stanford UIUC GT Caltech Cornell Michigan Purdue?..</p>
<p>PS> I would recommend Fung's book for your further reading</p>
<p>*Schaum's Outline</p>
<p>Yeah, Donaldson is from UMCP, but he's a UIUC alumnus so that's probably why we use that book. My dad has a book on his shelf by C.T. Sun that he likes and appears to be good, though he probably likes it because Sun is from Purdue which is where my dad got his Ph.D.</p>