Category | Assignment | Subject | Engineering |
---|---|---|---|
University | Wrexham University | Module Title | ENG766 Structural Integrity & Optimisation |
Word Count | 5000 words (+/- 10%) |
---|---|
Assessment Type | Coursework |
Assessment Title | ANSYS Geometry Optimisation |
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 optimisation design should meet the needs of industrial production based on the accumulation of design experiences. Structural optimisation design is founded on mathematical theory, methods, 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 the ANSYS software package. Figure 1 provides a schematic overview of the square bean section with all boundary conditions/constraints. The optimisation requirements are provided in Question B.
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 a triangular mesh to maximise element size. Space Claim allows a maximum of 300 faces for a given model (body); therefore, please ensure you “Check Geometry” to ensure these limits in ANSYS Space Claim.
A. Generate a square beam section using an 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.)
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 the best optimised designs (min 2 designs), with min member shell size = 2 mm, and the maximum volume removed to be 50%.
C. Validate and compare with the original model, presenting total mass, normal stress & total deformation.
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:
E. Discuss, summarise and conclude your findings for optimisation and fatigue analyses for all numerical models.
Your coursework should be in the form of an IEEE conference proceedings. The template for this paper can be found here
This work must not be a catalogue of the individual commands you have used to set up and solve the problem. You should, however, include a general statement of your FEA solution methodology for solving the problem (e.g., choice of grid, grid distribution, background fluid mechanics, description of results, etc.).
Note: University regulations apply regarding late or non-submission of coursework.
All submissions 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.
If you are unclear about any of the elements that make up this assignment or are unsure what you are being asked to do, you should ask your tutor for clarification. 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.
Get the Solution of this Assessment
Order Non-Plagiarised Assignment1st marking will be by Ikeya Uria, internal verification will be by an appropriate member of the academic team.
The external examiner will have an opportunity to sample the work before the academic board.
The Marking Scheme is included at the back of this assignment brief.
On successful completion of this module, a student will have had opportunities to demonstrate achievement of the following Employability Skills;
CORE ATTRIBUTES |
|
Engaged |
ü |
Creative |
ü |
Enterprising |
|
Ethical |
ü |
KEY ATTITUDES |
|
Commitment |
ü |
Curiosity |
ü |
Resilient |
ü |
Confidence |
ü |
Adaptability |
ü |
PRACTICAL SKILLSETS |
|
Digital fluency |
ü |
Organisation |
ü |
Leadership and teamwork |
|
Critical thinking |
ü |
Emotional intelligence |
|
Communication |
ü |
NB All marks are provisional until confirmation by the Awards/Progression Board
Feedback Against Learning Outcomes / Criteria: |
Comments |
Mark |
Abstract (10%) |
|
|
Introduction – literature review and goals for the project (10%) |
|
|
Methodology (20%) |
|
|
Results & Discussion (40%) |
|
|
Conclusion (5%) |
|
|
References (5%) |
|
|
Structure and Layout (10%) |
|
|
Total Mark |
|
|
Comments: |
Percentage of |
Classification |
||||
total marks |
|||||
|
|
|
|
||
assigned to the assignment |
A |
B |
C |
F (Fail) |
|
report |
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract (10%) |
Abstract written in good and flowing English and highlighting the most relevant aspects of the assignment. 7-10% |
Adequately well written abstract, containing some of the relevant aspects of the assignment. 3-6% |
No abstract presented, or abstract of poor quality. 0-2% |
||
Introduction – literature review and goals. (10%) |
Clear goals, and the rationale for these well explained. Relevant literature described and cross-linked to the research motivations. Evidence of a literature search around each of the goals. 7-10% |
Some goals listed, but with largely inadequate explanation. Relevant literature described, but the linkage to the research not necessarily clearly communicated. |
Insufficient content and little or no explanation. No literature review, or inadequate literature review 0-2% |
||
|
|
3-6% |
|
||
Methodology (20%) |
Clear explanation of the numerical activities, and evidence of good numerical setup. 16-20% |
Adequate explanation of the numerical activities, and evidence of good numerical setup. 11-15% |
Adequate or poor explanation of the numerical activities, and some evidence of numerical setup. 5-10% |
Poor explanation of the numerical activities, and no evidence of numerical setup. 0-4% |
|
Results & Discussion (40%) |
Very good and clear explanation of the results/finding’s activities, with clear evidence of extra modelling of topology dependency study, CAD Import and detailed number of parametric studies. |
Good or satisfactory explanation of the results / findings, and evidence of extra modelling such as topology dependency study. |
Adequate or satisfactory explanation of the results / findings, and some evidence of extra modelling such as topology dependency study. |
Poor or some explanation of the research findings & activities, and some or no evidence of simulation results. 0-10% |
|
|
31-40% |
21-30% |
11-20% |
|
|
Conclusion (5%) |
Very good conclusion of the results / findings, and critical analysis of potential impacts given. 3-5% |
Poor, adequate or satisfactory conclusion of the results / findings, and some potential impacts are given. 0-2% |
|||
References (5%) |
A broad spectrum of references given using IEEE referencing. 3-5% |
Insufficient or Some references given, but not in a recognised format. 0-2% |
|||
Structure and Layout (10%) |
Very good and appropriate structure and layout, using CFD Post to generate high quality rendered images, and using excel to Generate all graphs. |
Adequate or satisfactory structure and layout, showing some evidence of CFD Post/Excel. 3-6% |
Poor structure and layout 0-2% |
||
|
7-10% |
|
|
Buy Answer of This Assignment & Raise Your Grades
Buy Today, Contact UsGet expert assignment help for ENG766 Structural Integrity & Optimisation! We specialise in offering high-quality civil engineering assignment help, with an option for students to pay our experts to take on their assignment challenges. Need a reference? We also provide a free list of assignment examples to help you get started. With years of experience, our writers deliver 100% plagiarism-free content and offer unlimited revisions to meet your needs. Trust us to help you excel in your studies!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content