ENGE2003 Engineering Project Management Coursework 2 (ME, AE, MX) 2026 | De Montfort University

ENGE2003 Coursework 2 (ME, AE, MX)

Lab 3 – Bicycle Crank Design, Simulation and Optimisation

Purpose

To demonstrate engineering judgement in design optimisation through the use of CAD, finite element analysis, and mechanical reasoning. This includes estimating realistic loads, applying appropriate boundary conditions, improving computational efficiency, and communicating the final design using a professional engineering drawing.

Instructions

• Read this lab sheet carefully, including all figures, tables, and marking criteria.
• Using Creo Parametric and ANSYS Mechanical, design, analyse, and optimise a bicycle crank. Finite element analysis must be used to inform design decisions and improve the efficiency of the final solution.
• For this task, you are required to calculate the load applied to the bicycle crank based on the mass of the rider. This load must be justified using basic mechanics and applied consistently in all simulations.
• You must clearly state all assumptions made when determining the applied load.
• Optimisation must be achieved through controlled design or modelling decisions and supported by quantitative simulation evidence. Submit your completed report and associated files via the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) by the published deadline.

Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this laboratory, students will be able to:

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the criteria for workable and good engineering design and the ability to use relevant resources (e.g., CAD, simulation software, analytical tools) to create, evaluate, and optimise a virtual engineering solution. [AHEP4: C2, C3, C4, C6]

Assessment Weighting

• This laboratory contributes 40% of Coursework 2.
• A detailed marking rubric is provided at the end of this lab sheet.

Feedback On This Assessment

• Feedback will be provided against the published marking rubric.
• Feedback will normally be returned within 15 working days of submission.
• Students are encouraged to use this feedback to improve their design, simulation, and engineering judgement in subsequent assessments.

Design Specification

The bicycle crank must be designed to meet the client specification given in Table 1. This specification defines the functional, structural, environmental, and aesthetic requirements for the component and must be considered throughout the design, analysis, and optimisation process.

The final design must comply with the design envelope shown in Fig. 1 and satisfy the safety and performance requirements outlined below.

Table 1:  Bike crank design specification 

Archer’s Design Process

Your report must be structured using Archer’s Design Process, as outlined below.

Stage 1 – Analysis

This stage demonstrates understanding of the design problem, constraints, and loading.

1.1 Design Brief and Client Requirements

Interpretation of the bicycle crank design brief with reference to the client specification in Table 1.

1.2 Design Constraints and Envelope

Identification and explanation of key constraints, including:

• design envelope and fixed interface regions
• mass limit
• safety factor requirement
• intended user group

1.3 Conceptual Design and Decision Making

Before detailed CAD modelling, you must demonstrate conceptual design thinking and justify key design decisions. This section should include:

• One or more initial design concepts, illustrated using sketches, annotated screenshots, or schematic diagrams
• Explanation of how the concepts address the client specification, design envelope, and safety requirements
• Justification of major design decisions, such as:
  o overall form and load path
  o material choice
  o regions where material may be removed or retained
  o balance between stiffness, strength, mass, and aesthetics

Conceptual designs do not need to be dimensioned. Marks are awarded for clarity of reasoning and justification, not artistic quality.

1.4 Load Calculation and Assumptions

Calculation of the applied load based on the client rider mass (70 kg), including:

• stated assumptions
• working and units
• explanation of how the load is applied in the FEA model

For higher marks, consideration of the pedal-induced moment about the crank axis should be demonstrated and justified

Stage 2 – Synthesis

This stage demonstrates development and refinement of a design solution.

2.1 Baseline Design Development

Description of the initial CAD model, demonstrating compliance with the design envelope and suitability for comparison.

2.2 Simulation Setup

Explanation of material selection, boundary conditions, and meshing strategy used for analysis.

2.3 Design Optimisation

Description of the optimisation strategy, including controlled geometry or modelling changes made within the design envelope.

Optimisation must demonstrate improved material efficiency and be supported by quantitative simulation evidence.

Stage 3 – Evaluation

This stage demonstrates critical evaluation of the final design.

3.1 Results and Comparison

Comparison of baseline and optimised designs, including stress results, factor of safety, and mass.

3.2 Validation Against Specification

Evaluation of the final design against the client specification, including mass, safety factor, and envelope compliance.

3.3 Engineering Judgement and Reflection

Justified discussion of design decisions, trade-offs, limitations, and remaining risks in the final design.

Engineering Drawing Requirement

You must submit a fully dimensioned engineering drawing of the final optimised bicycle crank.

• The drawing must comply with BS 8888 conventions
• The drawing must define all key dimensions and interfaces
• The drawing must respect the design envelope and fixed interface regions

Submission Requirements

• Design report (PDF, structured as above)
• Engineering drawing (PDF)

Submission Notes

• Reports should be written in a clear, professional engineering style
• All figures, tables, and calculations must be clearly labelled
• Results must be consistent with the stated loading and assumptions
• Unsupported or generic discussion may limit the maximum mark achievable

ENGE2003 Making Rubric