We write, we don’t plagiarise! Every answer is different no matter how many orders we get for the same assignment. Your answer will be 100% plagiarism-free, custom written, unique and different from every other student.
I agree to receive phone calls from you at night in case of emergency
Please share your assignment brief and supporting material (if any) via email here at: email@example.com after completing this order process.
Important Note: Your order at Assignment Bank is protected by Consumer Law UK; also, we use 3rd party merchant support “PayPal” for all online transactions to provide you with the most protected online buying experience.
0% Plagiarism Guaranteed & Custom Written
Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing
7041MAA Finite Element Analysis
Module Title: Finite Element Analysis
Module Code: 7041MAA
Coursework Title: Design of new bracket
Hand out date: 20/09/2021
Estimated Time (hrs): 60
Coursework type: Report
% of Module Mark: %100
Submission arrangement online via Moodle: Submitted before 18:00
File types and method of recording: PDF file
Mark and Feedback date: Two weeks after submission
Mark and Feedback method: via Aula/moodle ( Turnitin)
Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:
LO 1. Apply fundamental knowledge to investigate new and emerging technologies [IMechE_E1].
LO 2. Extract, analyse and interpret data pertinent to an unfamiliar problem, and affect its solution using computer based engineering tools when appropriate [IMechE_E2].
LO 3. Analyse and appraise the capabilities of computer-based models for solving problems in engineering, and the ability to assess the limitations of particular cases [IMechE_E3].
LO 4. Review and appraise engineering workshop and laboratory skills [IMechE_P2].
Task and Mark distribution:
All work must be carried out on an individual basis and should solely be the work of the individual student. Appropriate referencing must be used throughout the reports.
- Task 1 60%
- Task 2 40%
Mark allocation guidelines refer to Moodle.
Notes: Design of new bracket
Mark allocation guidelines to students
Work mainly incomplete and /or conceptual mistakes
Most elements completed; mistakes in analysis outweigh the correct answers
Most elements are correctly analysed with minor mistakes
Correct analysis in all elements
Most work exceeds the standard expected
All work substantially exceeds the standard expected
The aim of this coursework (CW) is to demonstrate your ability to receive and interpret data to create and evaluate the credibility of an FEA model as well as critically assess the results thereof; including dissemination using technical arguments. In other words, pre-process, solve and post-process the results of FEA. You will also be required to optimise the structure in terms of maintaining or improving structural performance whilst minimising or maximising given attributes.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is an invaluable tool to modern day engineers, enabling the capability to make design decisions based on a components simulated performance under different loading and environmental conditions as well as validation of load case and load path calculations.
You have just landed a job at an exciting new company specialising in design and production. Your new reporting manager, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is very excited about you joining the company as an FE expert. As the only engineer with any background knowledge of structural mechanics and FEA the expectations of you are sky-high!
Although your reporting manager, RM, is very friendly and extremely enthusiastic (s)he has no knowledge of structural mechanics what-so-ever – but RM is convinced that you are an FE guru! The future of the company rests on your shoulders as any significant warranty issues (such as poor structural performance; for example a cracked frame) will severely cripple if not bankrupt the company; you need to tread carefully…
N1 Your company can only afford 1 FE license – they use Altair HyperWorks; consequently no other FE software can be used for the impending tasks, i.e. this CW.
N2 There is only 1 geometry model for all brackets; a HyperMesh (*.hm) model is available on Moodle.
N3 Your company is developing a number of new brackets of various sizes and shapes. In this CW, they do however only want you to work on one version, which is decided by your Student ID (SID). A bracket consists of a frame as illustrated below.
Figure 1 Schematic view of a bracket
The material properties can be found in Table 1.
Table 1 Material properties
Young’s Modulus [GPa]
Volumetric mass density [kg/m3]
Yield Strength [MPa]
As an example, if your SID is 1234567 your bracket will be made from Titanium.
b. The applied perpendicular force (along the Z-axis) on bracket’s base holes (A to F) is defined by the 2nd last digit of your SID using the below key:
0-2: 50 [N]
3-6: 100 [N]
7-9: 150 [N]
c. The applied perpendicular force (along the Z-axis) on bracket’s top holes (H to K) is defined by the 3rd last digit of your SID using the below key:
0-2: 250 [N]
3-6: 300 [N]
7-9: 350 [N]
d. The applied moment (around the Z-axis) on bracket’s top hole G is defined by the 3rd last digit of your SID using the below key:
0-2: 1 [Nm]
3-6: 2 [Nm]
7-9: 3 [Nm]
e. Your value of the bracket thickness is defined by the fourth last digit of your SID using the below key:
0-2: 3 [mm]
3-6: 4 [mm]
7-9: 5 [mm]
N4 Your reporting manager (RM) is very busy – (s)he does not like reading long-winded reports; hence (s)he has created a template for all reporting which you will find in a separate document entitled: “333MAE_1920SEPDEC_CW_report_template.docx”
You must use this document for your CW; no other formats will be accepted. Pay close attention to the instructions in this document. If you do not follow these, you will be deducted marks.
N5 You may assume that all loading is linear static and that all material behaviour is isotropic. N6 You should be as succinct and concise as possible in your responses.
N7 Remember that statements without justifications are not credible.
Task 1 – Pre-processing, solving and post-processing
1.1 Your reporting manager RM is convinced that the best possible way to prevent the bracket from failure is to ensure that it is enough rigid thereby ensuring absolute zero deflection at all points of the bracket. RM wants your view on the real world feasibility of this; please comment and discuss.
1.2 RM wants the bracket to be as light as possible without failing (yielding) during operation based on two worst loading scenarios. RM therefore asks you to perform a structural assessment of the bracket. RM provides you with the following notes and points out that the below descriptions including the global coordinate system defined therein:
RM asks you to:
1.3 Following your structural analysis in 1.2, RM now wants you to determine the lowest natural frequency of the bracket. The Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH) engineers based at the manufacturing plant have asked you to clearly (and uniquely) identify the location of the largest excitation magnitude for the first (lowest) natural frequency. Mysteriously the Isla Sorna plant employees have recently stopped answering their phones so you have no alternative but to make sure your documentation is not open to interpretation.
1.4 A short while after you have sent your report containing the vibration analysis results from 1.3 you receive an email from the NVH engineers. They have determined that the vibration from the bracket is 1% lower than the value you have determined in 1.3. They have therefore decided that there is no need for concern, as there is a 1% margin: surely, results obtained via FEA are correct. RM concurs with the NVH engineers; after all time is of the essence and there are many other issues to resolve. As the structural engineer what is your view?
Task 2 – Optimisation
RM has been very pleased with your work so far. Company has ordered metal sheet with certain thickness for bracket manufacturing.
Innovation is however a core ambition of bracket and RM therefore wants you to “improve” the bracket design in terms of enhancing structural performance whilst minimising mass. You suggest that applying (FE based) optimisation tools will enable you to drastically improve the entire bracket. Following several discussions between yourself and RM you mutually agree on the following targets:
2.1 Based on your discussions with RM you decide to conduct a topology optimisation of the Bracket. Remember to validate your new design before you present it to RM - (s)he will be very critical of your proposal unless the “predicted performance” is backed up (and thoroughly discussed) by appropriate FEA. Design of new bracket
ARGUMENT & COHERENCE
Innovative response, answers the question fully, addressing the learning objectives of the assessment task.
Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
A clear, consistent in-depth critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from a range of sources. Engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis.
Wide range of appropriately supporting evidence provided, going beyond the recommended texts. Correctly referenced.
An outstanding, well-structured and appropriately referenced answer, demonstrating a high degree of understanding and critical analytic skills.
Upper Second 60-69
A very good attempt to address the objectives of the assessment task with an emphasis on those elements requiring critical review.
A generally clear line of critical and evaluative argument is presented. Relationships between statements and sections are easy to follow, and there is a
sound, coherent structure.
A very good range of relevant sources is used in a largely consistent way as supporting evidence. There is use of some sources beyond recommended
texts. Correctly referenced in the main.
The answer demonstrates a very good understanding of theories, concepts and issues, with evidence of reading beyond the recommended minimum. Well
organised and clearly written.
Lower Second 50-59
Competently addresses objectives, but may contain errors or omissions and critical discussion of issues may be superficial or limited in places.
Some critical discussion, but the argument is not always convincing, and the work is descriptive in places, with over-reliance on the work of others.
A range of relevant sources is used, but the critical evaluation aspect is not fully presented. There is limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials. Referencing is not always correctly presented.
The answer demonstrates a good understanding of some relevant
theories, concepts and issues, but there are some errors and irrelevant material included. The structure lacks clarity.
Addresses most objectives of the assessment task, with some notable omissions. The structure is unclear in parts, and there is limited analysis.
The work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited theoretical engagement.
A limited range of relevant sources used without appropriate presentation as supporting or conflicting evidence coupled with very limited critical analysis.
Referencing has some errors.
Some understanding is demonstrated but is incomplete, and there is evidence of limited research on the topic. Poor
structure and presentation, with few and/or poorly presented references.
Some deviation from the objectives of the assessment task. May not consistently address the assignment brief. At the lower end fails to answer the question set or address the learning outcomes. There is minimal evidence of analysis or evaluation.
Descriptive with no evidence of theoretical engagement, critical discussion or theoretical engagement. At the lower end displays a minimal level of understanding.
Very limited use and application of relevant sources as supporting evidence. At the lower end demonstrates a lack of real understanding. Poor presentation of references.
Whilst some relevant material is present, the level of understanding is poor with limited evidence of wider reading. Poor structure and poor presentation, including referencing. At the lower end there is evidence of a lack of comprehension, resulting in an assignment that is well below the required standard.
Design of new bracket
Get all these features for £83.00 FREE
View our samples written by our professional writers to let you comprehend how your work is going to look like. We have categorised this into 3 categories with a few different subject domains