ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
| Module title | Structural Integrity & Optimisation |
| Module code | ENG766 |
| Module leader | Martyn Jones |
| Assessment title | ANSYS Geometry Optimisation |
| Launch date | 7/05/2021 |
| Submission deadline | 28/05/2021 |
| Expected date for return of marks and feedback |
Feedback can be expected within 3 weeks of the submission date and might be electronically via email or Moodle, written, verbal or a combination of these. |
| Module outcomes assessed |
1. Demonstrate a critical understanding of fatigue failure in structures and how design can be used to reduce the effect of cyclic loading. 2. Discuss how failure due to cyclic loading can be predicted and measured using new and innovative methods 3. Use Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to estimate crack propagation or fatigue life. |
| Assessment weighting | 50% |
| Word count (if relevant) | 2000 words (+/- 10%) |
| Assessment task details – provide a description of the task | |
| Optimisation & Fatigue Analysis of a Square Beam Section Structural optimisation involves multiple engineering disciplines, including computational mechanics, mathematical programming & computer science. The theory is highly comprehensive and practical in methods & technology, consequently it is one of the significant developments of modern design methods. Structural optimisation is used in many fields, including aviation, aerospace, machinery, civil engineering, water conservancy, bridge, automobile, railway transportation, ships, warships, light industry, textile, energy, and military industry, to name just some. Engineering design problems should be solved appropriately, simultaneously pursuing better cost indicator of structure, the improvement of structure performances and enhancement on safety. Nonetheless, structural optimization design should meet the needs of the industrial production based on the accumulation of design experiences. Structural optimization design is founded |
| on mathematical theory, method, and computer programming technology as well as its modelling technique. Therefore, this assignment requires the optimisation and fatigue analysis of a square beam section using ANSYS software package. Figure 1 provides a schematic overview of the square bean section with all boundary conditions/constraints presented in Table 1. The optimisation requirements are provided in Table 2. Figure 1: Schematic representation of square beam section, with FEA boundary conditions. NOTE: Software Restrictions as the FEA modelling will be conducted using the ANSYS student version, there are some limitations. The maximum number of nodes for FEA is 30,000, therefore, please use triangular mesh to maximise element size. Space Claim allows a maximum of 300 faces for a given model (body), therefore, please insure you “Check Geometry” to insure these limits in ANSYS Space Claim. You are required to carry out the following ANSYS optimisation & fatigue analysis using ANSYS: A. Generate square beam section using appropriate CAD tool and import into ANSYS static structural and conduct a FEA analysis (Structural Steel – use ANSYS material properties), comparing theoretical and numerical values (Normal Stress & Deformation). (this will be used as your benchmark model) [20 Marks] |
| B. Using ANSYS Space Claim, you must define your Design Space and reduce material by using the shell fill option. Conduct a geometric comparison study to attain best optimised designs (min 2 designs), with min member shell size = 2 mm, and the maximum volume removed to be 50%. [35 Marks] C. Validate and compare with original model presenting total mass, normal stress & total deformation. [10 Marks] D. Conduct a fatigue analysis (Stress-life) on all respective models, with following conditions and present the fatigue sensitivity minimum and maximum base load variation and Biaxiality Indication results: • Specify a fatigue strength factor (kf) of 0.8 • Select fully reversed loading to create alternating stress cycles • Select a stress-life fatigue analysis • Select Von Mises for stress component • Specify design life of 1e06 cycles for safety factor • Self-select and specify lower and upper variations (%) for fatigue sensitivity • Include Biaxiality indication for comparison [20 Marks] E. Discuss, summarise and conclude your findings for optimisation and fatigue analyses for all numerical models. [15 Marks] |
| Submission instructions – What should be the format of the submission? / Where should it be submitted? |
| Report Specification You are required to submit a report for the assignment. All necessary calculation procedures and diagrams should be listed and plotted. You should present the simulation results with discussion and comments. The report should be about 2000 words in length. It is suggested that your written report should contain the following elements (as an example). • Introduction • Problem description • Calculation of numerical parameters / characteristic stresses • Numerical implementation • Results and discussion • Concluding remarks • References Note: University regulations apply regarding late or non-submission of coursework. This assignment carries 50% of the total module marks. It is highly recommended the use of ‘Excel’ to create all necessary figures to show FEA comparison results. Assignment Specification: Font: 12 pt. Arial or Times New Roman Header: Identify the piece of work in the top right (Not on first Page) Footer: Page number in middle Headings: 14 pt. Bold Subheadings: 12 pt. Bold Captions: 10 pt. Bold Bold: Only to emphasise something important Italics: Only to emphasise something significant Quotations Mark: all quotations with “quotation marks and italics” Note: University regulations apply regarding late or non-submission of coursework. All submission via Moodle Turnitin Only All submitted work is expected to observe academic standards in terms of referencing, academic writing, use of language etc. Failure to adhere to these instructions may result in your work being awarded a lower grade than it would otherwise deserve. |
| Hints and tips |
| General Hints & Tips • If you are unclear about any of the elements that make up this assignment or you are unsure what you are being asked to do, you should ask your tutor for clarification. • The completed proposal should be presented in a peer review style please see example attached. • The main body of the assignment should be written using 12-point font (Arial or Times New Roman) and should be 2000 words in total (+/- 10%). • Any references should be clearly stated and acknowledged, and plagiarism will not be tolerated. • Please refer to the university’s study skills guide on referencing and plagiarism for guidance Specific Hints & Tips • Computational Domain Generation: How was the computational domain generated, provide enough detail for replication. • Work on Mesh Generation: How was the mesh generated and what mesh techniques was used, is the mesh quality appropriate for numerical modelling. • Definition and Setting of Boundary Conditions: What are the boundary conditions, how are they assigned and are they appropriate. • Proper Defining: Model, Solver, Material: How is the physical model setup in ANSYS Fluent, in terms of physics, materials & solver. • Post Processing of Simulation Results: Presentation of results is important, using ANSYS post-processing and generating results in Excell requires additional time and effort. • Structural Behaviour: Try and be concise when discussing structural behaviours, also structure the report very clearly. • Use of Reference: Referencing in IEEE is a requirement, also try find key papers to support your work and findings. Note: It is highly recommended the use of ‘Excel’ to create the figures to show the velocity profiles and local Nusselt numbers. The data output can be obtained from the export in Fluent. |
| Marking and moderation | |
| 1st marking will be by Dr Shafiul Monir, internal verification will be by an appropriate member of the academic team. The external examiner will have an opportunity to sample the work prior to the academic board. The Marking Scheme is included at the back of this assignment brief. |
|
| Employability Skills Applied | |
| On successful completion of this module, a student will have had opportunities to demonstrate achievement of the following Employability Skills; |
|
| CORE ATTRIBUTES | |
| Engaged | ✓ |
| Creative | ✓ |
| Enterprising | |
| Ethical | ✓ |
| KEY ATTITUDES | |
| Commitment | ✓ |
| Curiosity | ✓ |
| Resilient | ✓ |
| Confidence | ✓ |
| Adaptability | ✓ |
| PRACTICAL SKILLSETS | |
| Digital fluency | ✓ |
| Organisation | ✓ |
| Leadership and team working | |
| Critical thinking | ✓ |
| Emotional intelligence | |
| Communication | ✓ |
AssignmentTutorOnline
ASSIGNMENT FEEDBACK
NB All marks are provisional until confirmation by the Awards/Progression Board
| Feedback Against Learning Outcomes / Criteria: |
Comments | Mark |
| Question [A] (20%) |
||
| Question [B] (35%) |
||
| Question [C] (10%) |
||
| Question [D] (20%) |
||
| Question [E] (15%) |
||
| Total Mark | ||
| Areas of good Practice: | ||
| Areas for Improvement: |
ENG766 – Structural Integrity & Optimisation
Note: Total percentage marks are allocated from assigned question, respectively. The
marking scheme described below provides a general overview for numerically based
Coursework/Assignment/Report where appropriate.
90 to 100 [%]: An Exceptional Coursework/Assignment/Report, Excellent in
Every Aspect
A highly appropriate, intellectually written coursework/assignment/report and with
extremely well-defined aims identified with a very well understood conceptual
framework based on an extensive if not exhaustive understanding of the literature. All
numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation and other primary (ANSYS) or secondary sources
(Alternatives, Inventor/Solid Works, Catia V5) are used extensively and extremely
effectively. Numerical approach and post processing are thorough, comprehensive
and innovative. High quality results (ANSYS Post & Excel), insightful interpretations
and detailed discussion exhibit an outstanding ability to analyse, synthesize and
evaluate. Analysis is critical and rigorous leading to important and original conclusions.
Abstract is an excellent summary. Very well organised, sharply focused and stylishly
written. Flawless presentation. Possibly of publishable quality.
80 to 89 [%]: An Outstanding Coursework/Assignment/Report, Excellent in
Almost Every Aspect
A highly appropriate and intellectually written coursework/assignment/report and welldefined aims identified with a well understood conceptual framework based on an
extensive understanding of the literature. All numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation and
other primary (ANSYS) or secondary sources (Alternatives, Inventor/Solid Works,
Catia V5) are used extensively and very effectively. Numerical approach and post
processing are thorough, comprehensive and may be innovative. High quality results
(ANSYS Post & Excel), insightful interpretations and detailed discussion exhibit
excellent higher-level cognitive skills. Analysis is rigorous leading to substantial
conclusions. At least an element of originality is expected. Abstract is an excellent
summary. Very well organised and sharply focused with a high standard of
presentation.
70 to 79 [%]: An Excellent Coursework/Assignment/Report, in Most Respects
An appropriate and intellectually written coursework/assignment/report and welldefined aims is identified with a well understood conceptual framework based on
extensive background reading. All numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation and other primary
(ANSYS) or secondary sources (Alternatives, Inventor/Solid Works, Catia V5) are
used extensively and effectively. Numerical approach and post processing are
thorough. Results are detailed and accurate. Interpretations, analysis and discussion
exhibit very good higher-level cognitive skills. Conclusions are substantial and the
abstract provides a very good summary. Contains insight and originality. Well
organised with a high standard of presentation.
65 to 69 [%]: A Very Good Coursework/Assignment/Report
With clearly stated aims identified with an explicit conceptual framework based on
significant background reading. All numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation or other sources
of information are used extensively, though perhaps not to their full effect. Numerical
approach and post processing are appropriate but possibly with minor numerical flaws.
Data collection at least to recognised minimum levels. Numerical results are detailed
and mostly accurate. Interpretation, analysis and discussion exhibit satisfactory
higher-level cognitive skills. Conclusions are sound and clearly related to the aims.
Strengths in content and organisation are characteristic, rather than insight and
originality. May be let down by a minor error or omission. Well presented.
60 to 64 [%]: A Good Coursework/Assignment/Report
With clearly stated aims identified with an explicit conceptual framework based on
satisfactory level of background reading. All numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation or other
sources of information are used extensively, but not to their full effect. Numerical
approach and post processing may have numerical flaws. Data collection may have
limitations. Results are mostly accurate but may contain occasional errors or
omissions. Interpretation, analysis and discussion may exhibit weaknesses in higherlevel cognitive skills, especially in ability to evaluate and synthesize. Conclusions are
sound and there is at least an attempt to relate them back to the aims. May contain
weaknesses in organisation. Generally, well presented.
55 to 59 [%]: A Competent Coursework/Assignment/Report
With specified aims recognised within a conceptual framework based on sound but
limited background reading All numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation or use of other
sources may be insufficient. Though execution may be adequate, there may be only
basic justification of a flawed numerical approach. If data collection reaches minimum
levels it may be flawed in other ways. Results or analyses may contain errors as well
as omissions. Interpretation and discussion may indicate higher-level cognitive skills
are poorly developed. Tends to be descriptive rather than analytical and may contain
superfluous or irrelevant material. Conclusion and abstract may be sound but
unfocused. Weaknesses may be evident in organisation or presentation (e.g. poor
execution of post processing).
50 to 54 [%]: An Adequate Coursework/Assignment/Report
With poorly specified aims within a recognisable conceptual framework based on
limited background reading. All numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation or use of other data
sources may be insufficient. Though execution may be adequate, numerical approach
may be weak and insufficiently justified. If data collection reaches minimum levels it
may be flawed in other ways. Results and analyses may contain errors as well as
omissions. Interpretation and discussion indicate higher-level cognitive skills are
poorly developed. May not distinguish relevant material from superfluous and
irrelevant. Conclusions and abstract may be repetitive or unfocused. Weaknesses
likely in organisation or presentation.
45 to 49 [%]: A Deficient Coursework/Assignment/Report
With poorly specified aims and/or inadequate conceptual framework based on little
background reading. Poor numerical (CFD/FEA) simulation or poor use of secondary
data, or not enough data collected. Numerical approach may be unexplained. Results
usually contain errors and omissions. Attempted analyses may be inappropriate.
Interpretation and discussion tend to be short with inadequate attention to relevant
material. Conclusions and abstract may be repetitive, unfocussed or incomplete. May
be poorly organised with several flaws in presentation. Strengths tend to be mainly
those of effort and persistence: though the content has some merit, little of the possible
potential has been realised.
40 to 44 [%]: A Weak Coursework/Assignment/Report
With poorly specified aims and/or inadequate conceptual framework based on minimal
background reading. Significant weaknesses are likely in planning and
implementation. Conceptual content may be minimal. Poor numerical (CFD/FEA)
simulation or poor use of secondary data, or not enough data collected. Numerical
approach may be unexplained. Results contain significant errors and omissions.
Analysis may contain serious errors and omissions. Significant deficiencies are
evident in interpretation, discussion, conclusions and/or abstract in terms of more than
one of the following: focus, expression, length, completeness and organisation.
Presentation may be barely acceptable.
30 to 39 [%]: A Poor Coursework/Assignment/Report
A poor coursework/assignment/report which may have been carried out in good faith
but exhibits several of the following serious deficiencies: aims poorly defined or
lacking, little or no conceptual framework, numerical approach inappropriate or
misunderstood, data collection seriously inadequate or non-existent, poor description
of results, analysis contains very serious errors or omissions, wrong interpretations,
limited discussion, superficial conclusion, missing abstract, barely acceptable
presentation.
20 to 29 [%]: A Very Poor Coursework/Assignment/Report
Showing few signs of having been taken seriously. There is an attempt of numerical
work, describe methods, present and discuss results, and conclude.
0 to 19 [%]: An Exceptionally Poor Coursework/Assignment/Report
Showing no signs of having been taken seriously, or limited
0 [%]: Zero is Reserved for Failure to Submit Any Work
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
