Skip to content
Menu
Shark College
Shark College
ENG766 – Structural Integrity & Optimisation

ENG766 – Structural Integrity & Optimisation

January 4, 2022 by B3ln4iNmum

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
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • FNS50615 Diploma of FINANCIAL PLANNINGFNSASICZ503 Provide
  • Unit Code/s & Name/s CHCLEG001 Work legally and ethicallyCluster
  • [In Process] 73400 – Assessment Tasks and InstructionsStudent
  • Use Carter’s taxonomy for computer crime to classify each of the preceding examples.
  • Which communication method(s) would be most effective for each of the following scenarios?

Recent Comments

  • A WordPress Commenter on Hello world!

Archives

  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021

Categories

  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
©2022 Shark College | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!