NMM 3515 Advanced Static Analysis
1
THE UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD
School of Computing and Engineering
ASSIGNMENT SPECIFICATION
Module details | |
Module Code | NMM 3515 |
Module Title | Advanced Static Analysis |
Course Title/s | MEng Mechanical Engineering MEng Automotive and Motorsport Engineering MEng in Energy Engineering MSc Mechanical Programmes MSc in Automotive Engineering MSc in Mechanical Engineering MSc in Mechanical Engineering Design |
Assessment weighting, type and contact details | ||
Title | Simulation of a metal forming operation | |
Weighting | 30% | |
Mode of working for assessment task |
Individual Note : if the assessment task is to be completed on an individual basis there should be no collusion or collaboration whilst working on and subsequently submitting this assignment. |
|
Module Leader | S M Barrans | Contact details: [email protected] |
Module Tutor/s |
Submission and feedback details | |
Hand-out date | Week 5 |
How to submit your work. |
Via Brightspace |
Submission date/s and times |
Week 8 |
Expected amount of independent time you should allocate to complete this assessment |
9 hours |
Submission type and format |
1. Audiovisual presentation, 15 minutes duration, created using PowerPoint, Prezi or a similar package. 2. |
Date by which your grade and feedback will be returned |
Week 12 |
2
Additional guidance information | |
Your responsibility |
It is your responsibility to read and understand the University regulations regarding conduct in assessment. Please pay special attention to the assessment regulations (section 4) on Academic Misconduct. In brief: ensure that you; 1. DO NOT use the work of another student – this includes students from previous years and other institutions, as well as current students on the module. 2. DO NOT make your work available or leave insecure, for other students to view or use. 3. Any examples provided by the module tutor should be appropriately referenced, as should examples from external sources. Further guidance can be found in the SCEN Academic Skills Resource and UoH Academic Integrity Resource module in Brightspace. If you experience difficulties with this assessment or with time management, please speak to the module tutor/s, your Personal Academic Tutor, or the School’s Guidance Team. ([email protected]). |
Requesting a Late Submission |
You are reminded to ‘back-up’ your work as late submission requests will not be given for lost work, which includes work lost due to hardware and software failure/s. Late submission requests will only be approved if you can demonstrate genuine, unexpected circumstances along with independent supporting evidence (e.g. medical certificate) that may prevent you submitting an assessment on time. Submit your request for Late Submission via MyHud/MyStudies within 2 working days of the due date. Late submission requests, up to a maximum of 10 working days, but typically 1- 5 working days, will be considered provided that there is appropriate evidence which clearly indicates reasons for the request. You will have 5 working days after submitting a request to provide the evidence. Failure to submit evidence will result in the request being rejected and your work being marked as a late submission (see below). |
3
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines
Order Paper NowAdditional guidance information | |
If you are unable to submit work within the maximum late submission period of 10 days, contact the School’s Guidance Team. ([email protected]), as you may need to submit a claim for Extenuating Circumstances (ECs). |
|
Extenuating Circumstances (ECs) |
An EC claim is appropriate in exceptional circumstances, when an extension is not sufficient due to the nature of the request, or it concerns an examination or In-Class Test (ICT). You can access the EC claim form on the Registry website; where you can also find out more about the process. You will need to submit independent, verifiable evidence for your claim to be considered. Once your EC claim has been reviewed you will get an EC outcome email from Registry. If you are unsure what it means or what you need to do next, please speak to the Student Support Office – Room SJ1/01 An approved EC will extend the submission date to the next assessment period (e.g July resit period). |
Late Submission (No ECs approved) |
Late submission, up to 5 working days, of the assessment submission deadline, will result in your grade being capped to a maximum of a pass mark. Submission after this period, without an approved extension, will result in a 0% grade for this assessment component. |
Tutor Referral available |
YES/NO |
4
Additional guidance information | |
Resources | Please note: you can access free Office365 software and you have 1 Tb of free storage space available on Microsoft’s OneDrive – Guidance on downloading Office 365. |
5
Simulation of a metal forming operation
1. Assignment Aims
The aim of this assignment is to demonstrate that you have generated an accurate but
efficient model of the forming process described below and have a detailed understanding
of the processes involved in solving this highly non-linear problem.
2. Learning Outcomes:
The exercises here will allow you to demonstrate that you have gained sufficient knowledge
and skill to achieve the learning outcomes:
1. Have a systematic understand of the scientific principles of non-linear material
behaviour.
3. Have a comprehensive understand of the mathematical modelling and solution
techniques employed in advanced static analysis.
4. Systematically construct, manage and interpret the results from original models of
structures undergoing complex plastic, large deflection and contact induced
deformation.
3. Assessment Brief
It is important to understand that this should be individual work. The spreadsheet of data in
Brightspace gives each student separate data for the exercise. You should prepare a
recorded PowerPoint presentation with voice over to present your work. This presentation
must last no longer than 15 minutes. Your presentation should be submitted through Turnit-in on Brightspace giving:
A description and justification of the FEA models created and analysis procedure used
along with a summary of the data used for those models. This should be in a form
which would make it easy for another, experienced finite element analyst to continue
working with your models.
An appraisal of the results of the FEA, sufficient to provide confidence that the results
are meaningful.
A discussion of the sources of non-linearity in the model and the steps that have been
taken to make the solution of this non-linear problem as efficient as possible. This
should include an analysis of the Abaqus feedback concerning the number of
iterations required to solve each increment and the sizes of the increments.
You should also submit your FEA models for assessment. If more than one model has
been created, all models should be contained within a single .cae file submitted to the
assignment box on Brightspace. Instructions on how to create multiple models within
a single file are provided on Brightspace. Please use your student number as the file
name (i.e. student_number.cae).
6
4. Marking Scheme
1. Finite element models should give an efficient but valid solution to the problems being analysed.
(20%).
2. Finite element models and runs should be defined and structured in a way that makes it easy for
another expert to use and modify the models. (20%).
3. The report should contain a clear but concise justification of the assumptions made in creating the
finite element models and a critical appraisal of the results obtained from these models. (30%).
4. The report should clearly identify the sources of non-linearity in the model, the impact that these
have had on the solution process and the steps that have been taken to make the non-linear
solution process as efficient as possible. (30%).
7
5. Grading Rubric
Criterion and weighting |
Level descriptor | |||||
% available | 0 – 30 | 31 – 50 | 51 – 60 | 61 – 70 | 71 – 80 | 81 – 100 |
FE models give valid & efficient solution. 20% |
Critical fundamental errors have been made in the construction of the model which prevent it from providing any results. No consideration has been given to minimising the time and storage capacity. |
The model runs and generates results for some stages of assembly and operation but errors are preventing simulation of the full process. There is evidence of some consideration being given to modelling efficiency but this has been largely ineffective. |
The model runs and generates results for all stages of assembly and operation but contains fundamental errors. The model contains some significant inefficiency. |
The model runs and generates results across all stages of assembly and operation but significant changes to the model are required to generate accurate results. An efficient geometric modelling strategy has been used. However, run times could be further reduced. |
The FE model can be made accurate with minor modification. The modelling approach has minimised run time but further consideration could be given to reducing storage capacity requirements. |
The FE model is accurate across all stages of the assembly and operation stages. The modelling approach has minimised run time and storage capacity whilst still capturing all the necessary data. |
FE models simple to follow. 20% |
FE model uses default model tree names only. |
FE model uses mainly default model tree names only. |
A number of parts of the model tree (but not all) use a bespoke naming convention but this is not intuitive/well defined. |
A sensible naming convention has been applied across the majority of the model tree but this could be more intuitive. |
Consideration has been given to using a sensible naming convention in all parts of the model tree but this is unclear in places and/or not well described in the report. |
The naming convention used in the model tree is clear and intuitive with a concise description in the report where necessary. |
FE model justified and appraised 30% |
The report contains mainly irrelevant screen shots of the FE model with little or no structure and no justification of the modelling strategy. |
An incomplete statement of the modelling strategy is given with no justification along with incomplete/irrelevant results. |
Appropriate screen shots of the FE model and results have been selected. However, these are not discussed and only a cursory statement of the modelling strategy is given. |
The FE modelling strategy and appropriate results have been presented but the discussion of these is confused and unconvincing. |
Whilst the FE modelling strategy and appropriate results have been clearly presented, these do not give absolute confidence in the quality of the analysis. |
The FE modelling strategy is clearly and concisely justified and supported by convincing appraisal of the results. |
Non linearity discussed 30% |
The non-linear solution process is not discussed in any meaningful manner. |
The non-linear solution process is discussed but this discussion contains numerous errors and does not demonstrate any insight. |
The discussion of the non linear solution process is broadly accurate but the link between the process and the sources of non-linearity is not clearly described. |
The discussion of the non linear solution process is accurate and the link between the process and the sources of non-linearity is identified. Greater insight could be demonstrated. |
Clear insight of the impact of the sources of non-linearity on the solution process is demonstrated and related back to first principles. The clarity and conciseness of this discussion could be improved. |
Clear insight of the impact of the sources of non-linearity on the solution process is demonstrated and related back to first principles. This is conveyed in a clear, concise and easily understood form. |
8
Assignment task
Forming the section profile for a V-band clamp
Introduction
V-band clamps are widely used in the automotive air handling and process industries to join pairs of
circular flanges together. These flanges may be on pipes or they may be parts of an assembly, such as a
turbocharger, as shown in figure 1. V-band clamps pull the pair of flanges together using a wedging action
as they are tightened, as shown in figure 2.
Figure 2. V-band clamp operating
principle
V-band clamps are generally regarded as having low added value and therefore need to be produced as
cheaply as possible. A long established method of producing larger diameter V-band clamps is to pass them
through a set of 6 pairs of rollers to form the V-band profile from flat strip material with a final set of three
rollers being used to bend this flat band into a circular shape, as shown in figure 3.
Figure 1. Typical V-band clamp and its application in a turbocharger
9
Figure 3. 6 pass V-band clamp rolling press
Engineering task
A significant cost in the production of V-band clamps is manufacture of the rollers used to form the section
profile from the flat strip material. Over time, these rollers wear, resulting in the V-band profile going out
of tolerance. The rollers then have to be replaced, increasing the cost of production. To reduce this cost, it
is proposed to replace the 6-roller machine with a machine using just 2 pairs of rollers to generate the
profile, one being a ‘roughing’ pair and the second being a ‘finishing’ pair. The roller pairs are shown in
figures 4 and 5 with specific dimensions being given on Brightspace.
Figure 4. Roughing roller pair
10
Figure 5. Finishing roller pair
The material used to form the V-band clamps is stainless steel with the properties and dimensions shown
in the table on Brightspace.
In terms of the final product, there are three potential problems with the proposal to move to a two-stage
rolling process:
The stress applied to the material during one or both of the rolling stages may cause it to fail
completely, resulting in cracks in the profile.
The residual stress retained within the profile may facilitate fatigue crack growth when the V-band
clamp is in use.
The ‘spring-back’ after the second rolling stage may be excessive resulting in the profile being out
of tolerance.
The questions to be answered in carrying out this analysis are:
Is the material likely to crack during the rolling operation?
How much residual stress is present in the formed section?
How much ‘spring-back’ occurs after the final rolling operation?
Analysis tips
The rollers are made from a hard steel and are much bulkier and hence stiffer than the strip steel
being rolled. Their deformation during the rolling operation will be minimal.
Because the material being formed is a long strip, axial deformation is prevented. The only
deformation is in the pane of the cross section.
11
The fact that the rollers are rolling does not have a significant effect on the problem. It is the action
of the two opposing profiles of the rollers coming together which is important.
It can be assumed that the closest vertical distance between the rollers (dimension t in figures 4
and 5) is exactly the same as the thickness of the material.