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:
s.m.barrans@hud.ac.uk
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. (sce.guidance@hud.ac.uk).
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

Additional guidance information
If you are unable to submit work within the maximum late submission period of
10 days, contact the School’s Guidance Team. (sce.guidance@hud.ac.uk), 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.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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