FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MEC 613 - MECHANICS OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS

PRACTICAL & LABWORK REPORT

LABWORK 1
INTRODUCTION TO FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING

PLAGIARISM STATEMENT

I/We certify that this assignment/report is my/our own work, based on my personal study
and/or research and that I/we have acknowledged all material and sources used in its
preparation, whether they be books, articles, reports, lecture notes, and any other kind of
document, electronic or personal communication. I also certify that this assignment/report
has not previously been submitted for assessment in any other unit, except where specific
permission has been granted from all unit coordinators involved, or at any other time in this
unit, and that I/we have not copied in part or whole or otherwise plagiarised the work of
other students and/or persons.

Name Student ID No. Signature

Date start: Date of submission:

Report Reception Lecturer’s signature:

 Date:

MEC 613: MECHANICS OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS

TITLE

ABSTRACT

Objective:

Methodology:

Results and Discussion:

Conclusion:

Example:

This case study aims to determine and compare the maximum

displacement of a cantilevered beam using analytical approach/ theoretical
calculation and finite element simulation. For the analytical approach, the
maximum displacement of a prescribed beam is calculated using common
general equation based on beam theory. For the finite element simulation
using ANSYS v..., two types of element have been employed, which are
the 4-Noded Quadrilateral element (PLANE182) for 2-D model and (20-
noded brick element (Solid186) for 3-D model and analyses. When
compared to analytical results, the errors are found to be 1% and 1% for
the 2D model (PLANE182) 3D model (SOLID182) respectively. The errors
show that the simulated results both model/element/ PLANE182/
SOLID182 are very close to the exact solution. The good results prove that
finite element analysis and simulation could be a useful tool in designing
structures.

(139 words)

INTRODUCTION

Intro

OBJECTIVE:
To …..

1
THEORY
Related equations + Explanation

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Flowchart:

Explanation about:

Tools/ Software: ANSYS/ MATLAB/ Fortran, etc (license, version)

Schematic diagram + Input for Finite Element Simulation –

 Model/ Geometry
 Material Properties
 Meshing
 Boundary condition
 Loading condition

THEORETICAL COMPUTATION

Example:

Manual calculation of the Maximum Deflection and Stress for Beams + explanation.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE/
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING AND SIMULATION

(FE Steps  Pull down or print screen) + brief explanation

RESULTS

(Tables/ Graphs/ Figures of Stress & Displacement contour, etc)

Part A: Validation
Description of FE Analysis (Model/ Geometry, Material Properties, Meshing,
Boundary condition, Loading condition)

2
  Tables of results

Part B: Convergence Analysis

(Vary mesh size: 1x1, 2x2, 4x4, 8x8,16x16 ,32 x 32)

 Description of FE Analysis (Model/ Geometry, Material Properties, Meshing,
Boundary condition, Loading condition)
 Tables of results
 Graphs (Stresses curves (Mesh-size versus global stresses, SX, SY, SXY
(MPa))

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

Findings

 Findings 1
 Findings 2
 Findings 3, etc

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

“Quote” and [Ref.] for each paper.

Example:

“Withstanding stress beyond its capability will cause the plate to undergo structural
failure. These tests, which are destructives in nature, require high cost even in
preparing samples and providing equipment.”
[Soni S.R. A new look at commonly used failure theories in composite laminates. In
Proceedings of the 24th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, 2–4 May 1983, p.
171.]

“Finite element (FE) simulation using commercial software becomes a popular tool
in designing and analysing composite structures, which promotes greener
technology by reducing the destructive tests”
[S. Tolson and T. Zabaras, “Finite element analysis of progressive failure in
laminated composite plates,” Computers and Structures Vol. 38 (1991), p. 361]

Note:
At least 10 papers. More papers more marks; Newer papers more marks. Maximum
of two (2) papers allowed from Dr J’s papers.

3
 MEC 613: LAB/ MINI PROJECT REPORT ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

ASSESSMENT POOR ACCEPTABLE EXCELLENT PROGRA

CRITERIA M
(1) (2 (3) (4 (5) OUTCOM
) ) E

 Unable to
write
abstract  Fairly write
 Capable to write abstract
concisely, abstract i.e. CO3 [PO3]
i. Abstract concisely, informative and
informative not enough
quantitative.
and information
quantitativ
e.
 Unable to  Fairly
describe describe
background background  Capable to describe background
CO1 [PO1]
ii. Introduction and and and objective of each experiment
objective of objective of clearly.
each each
experiment experiment
 Unable to
formulate a  Adequately
complete formulate
theoretical theoretical
and and  Capable to formulate a complete
CO1 [PO1]
iii. Theory experiment experiment theoretical and experimental
al principle al principle.
i.e. just principles
write the with small
final errors.
formula.
 Adequately
produce an
appropriate
 Unable to procedure
produce an to run the
appropriate experiment
iv. Experiment procedure and fair  Capable to produce a detailed
CO2 [PO2]
al to run the record procedure to run the experiment
procedure experiment keeping and good record keeping.
and poor .i.e. missing
record steps in
keeping. procedure
and missing
in data
record
v. Result  Unable to  Adequately  Capable to articulate CO3 [PO2]
present present experimental result using
experiment experiment appropriate tables, charts, graphs
al result al result or other presentation formats.
using using
appropriate appropriate

4
 tables, tables,
charts, charts,
graphs or graphs or
other other
presentatio presentatio
n formats. n formats.
 Unable to  Adequately
relate relate
theoretical theoretical
analysis analysis
 Capable to relate theoretical
with with CO3 [PO3]
vi. Discussion analysis with experimental result
experiment experiment
and their practical implication.
al result al result
and their and their
practical practical
implication. implication.
 Unable to  Conclusion
come out a is not clear,
clear and but yet,  Capable to express a clear and CO3 [PO3]
vii. Conclusion
understand understand concise conclusion.
able able in such
conclusion. manner.
 Quotes
 Unable to included
search and but the
Quotes are number of
 Capable to search and Quotes are
from references CO3 [PO3]
viii. References from minimum ten (10) new
minimum does not
references (last 5 years)
ten (10) exceed 10
new papers or
references not new
references
 Unable to
write a lab
report
 Generally
ix. Overall clearly,  Capable to write a lab report
follows the CO3 [PO7]
impression precisely clearly, precisely and in a well
standard a
of report and in a organized manner
lab report.
well
organized
manner
 At least
discussed
once with
x. Consultatio  Unable to the  Pro-active, discussed regularly
n with portray instructor/ with the instructor/ lecturer and
Lecturer/ pro-active lecturer showed results/ finding
Instructor behaviour before progressively.
submitting
the final
report.