Welded Connection

1 of 7
EGB316 Assessment 2: Welded Connection
Design Audit (40%)
Report Due to TurnItIn Monday 13th June 2022 at 11:59PM
1. Outline
Students are required to carry out a design audit on a weld group of their choosing that is subject to fatigue
loading. The welded joint should be connecting steel or aluminium components (aluminium requires different
SN treatment), and analysis should be possible using the techniques developed in EGB316 classes. Also, you
must be able to measure all weld group and key system dimensions and approximate/calculate/determine the
working loads (application location, direction, magnitude, etc.).
You can choose a welded connection from a machine you are familiar with or some other machine you have
access to. The system CANNOT be akin to any of the systems analysed in the lectures (i.e. not a patient lifter or
like any design workshops etc.). The main requisite is to investigate a real machine and make design decisions
/ engineering judgements regarding properties, forces etc. and determine if the welds are safe. This
designation could be done by leaving weld size or material unknown and evaluating one or other using the
analysis procedure developed in class, or you could measure/determine/estimate/research all necessary
values and establish a factor of safety from the analysis procedure. Either approach will allow you to make
conclusions on the safety of the existing welded arrangement, and the appropriateness of any and all loading
and system assumptions you have made. The analysis must be based on fatigue loading, and the calculations
will be both hand calculations and ANSYS analysis.
Detailed technical drawings of the welded component are also to be produced using Solidworks or equivalent
professional solid modelling package (refer to CRA).
This is a wholly individual task, and all calculations, analysis and writing must be done by yourself alone with
an entirely unique report submitted per person. Comparison to any material found on CHEGG and other
contract cheating sites will also be carried out and result in immediate misconduct action (i.e. do not use
Chegg for anything, even for plagiarism checking as this has resulted in stolen assignments in the past, QUT
has approved software you can use). There are no teams or groups for this task. You can (but don’t have to)
work on the same weld group as up to 4 other people. All work on that system still must then be individual.
For more, please refer to https://www.citewrite.qut.edu.au/.
Examples of welded system you could choose to analyse include, but are certainly not limited to:
– A car towbar (normally a welded SHS type design on either side / tongue etc.).
– Gym weight machines or equipment, either at home or in a commercial gym.
– Machines and equipment in a workshop, mechanics shop, or industrial setting (access through existing
relationships or work).
– Welded tube bicycle.
– Loaded components on an aluminium boat.
– Cleats and members in a civil application with variable loading (like a steel walkway).
– Other welded components on a car or motorbike.
– Systems and components on the QUT Motorsport FSAE car (if having existing membership of, or
relationship with, the team).
2 of 7
2. Report
The report for this assignment must be a concise summary of the design audit carried out. It must contain the
following sections and content:
Introduction Section
This section should include a concise summary of the purpose of the design audit as it pertains to your
machine, details on the system being analysed including broad function and a key photo or two (use correct
figure labelling and put multiple photos side-by-side with labels to save space and enhance impact). Also
include broadly what will be contained in the design audit document (section summary). It is the formal report
equivalent of the “Given” section from lectures/tutorials. Length: 0.5-page 11pt font maximum including
figures.
Functional Analysis Section
This should include a high-quality sketch of your welded system with dimensions of all key components and
the weld group itself and an indication of load directions and magnitudes. This is the point where each
possible critical loading scenario should be discussed, including force magnitudes, and directions, and time
series data (i.e. is it cyclic between F and -F, or F and 0, or constant etc., at what angle is it and does that
change, and what are the loading magnitudes and variations for each critical load case – use diagrams). At this
point, also justify which loading scenario you are to analyze in the rest of the report. This is the formal report
equivalent of the “Schematic” section from lectures/tutorials. Length: 1.5-page 11pt font maximum including
figures.
Design Assumptions and Analysis Scope Section
In this section, you should state all design assumptions and decisions that are being made before the analysis,
as well as the scope of the analysis, materials, weld size, mode and distribution of loadings (following on from
previous section discussion), and any other choices or assumptions that are necessary including relating to
load cycles based on system duty. This is the formal report equivalent of the “Assumptions” section from
lectures/tutorials but requires detailed justification on each point to support why or how that assumption was
made. Length: 1-page 11pt font maximum including figures.
Detailed Welded Joint Analysis Section
In this section, you must concisely summarise the whole design audit calculation. It should include:
– A high quality FBD of the system with all force values determined based on the worst-case loading
scenario chosen.
– A reduction of that system to a single welded joint and the resultant loading at the weld group
centroid.
– Full hand calculation of weld stresses on the bases of worst-case loading scenarios. If the worst case is
not clear, carry out test calculations for multiple cases.
– Weld fatigue failure analysis using AM-Diagram approach.
– Summary of resulting chosen metric (size, material, or FOS) and its comparison to actual.
– ANSYS analysis of the same system including FBD showing boundary condition set-up and type of
model run with full capture of all ANSYS results contours for any and all metrics of interest.
– Comparison of ANSYS and hand calculations.
This is the formal report equivalent of the “Solution or Analysis” section from lectures/tutorials. Length: 15-
pages 11pt font maximum including figures (should only need 10 pages but 15 is allowed for those with
complicated weld groups, or multiple calculations with different materials/assumptions etc.).
3 of 7
Recommendations and Conclusions Section
A section summarising the findings relating to safety of the weld group. Refer to the technical drawings in
Appendix A. Also include any discussion of design choices made and how they affected the results. Discuss
discrepancies and errors between the critical dimensions calculated, and those of the actual weld group being
analysed. IF MAJOR DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND, RE-DO THE ANALYSIS WITH DIFFERENT OR LESS
CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS. CRITERIA FOR REPEATING ANALYSIS: YOUR FOUND WELD SIZE IS ±50% OF
ACTUAL WELD SIZE, MATERIAL IS UN-REALISTIC, OR FOS <1 OR >10 WITHOUT A CLEAR REASON FOR THIS
(note, some welds aren’t engineered and are just over specified). Length: 1-page 11pt font maximum
including figures.
Appendix A: Technical Drawings
Full technical drawing of the existing welded group and main component held by the weld, produced using
Solidworks and including:
Primary Drawing: Assembly of the whole system (orthographic, shaded isometric, all view labels) with full
detailed annotations on weld size (with correct weld designation arrows), notes on welding rod type, and
dimensions on weld positions only. This assembly should have all welded components (i.e. plates / brackets /
members). If one of the welded components is a large steel structure that continues outside of the direct
loading consideration (like for example the chassis of a car that a tow-bar is connected to, or long sections of
RHS that might make up a piece of gym equipment), you can draw an indicative section of that component and
use break lines to indicate its continuation (see example below). The drawing should also have a BOM and title
block with appropriate details.
Figure 1: Example of large system using break lines to indicate continuation of components [Ref: http://fggweb.fgg.uni-lj.si/~/pmoze/esdep/media/wg11/f0110005.jpg].
Secondary Drawings: You must provide at least one fully dimensioned part drawing (orthographic with
dimensions plus isometric and all view labels) for a key component from your weld group. If you have several
simple components, do a part drawing for each of these. These are the parts that are joined by the weld,
before the welding like you would specify to a fabricator or machinist.
All drawings must be produced as a PDF from Solidworks and appended to the PDF of your report (I.E. NOT
CUT AND PASTE INTO WORD, THAT PRODUCES TERRIBLE QUALITY DRAWINGS). A3 drawing size is
appropriate, as when you append 2 different sized PDFs, the sizes are retained.
THE REMAINING PAGES OF THIS DOCUMENT CONTAIN THE SPECIFIC CRA FOR THE ASSESSMENT TASK
4 of 7
A. Writing Skills and effectiveness of the document 10/40%

CRITERIA	STANDARDS
7 (High Distinction)	6 (Distinction)	5 (Credit)	4 (Pass)	3 and below (Fail)
A1. Correct use of sentence structure, grammar and paragraphs (2%)	All sentences are clear and well constructed communicating a single clear idea. All sections contain sentences that are grammatically correct with proper use of commas. Every paragraph has a clear purpose that is relevant to its position in the document. Every paragraph in the document has a topic sentence, 3 to 5 supporting sentences, and a summary sentence. Separation of paragraphs is logical and ensures the coherent flow of the document.	All sentences are clear and well-constructed communicating a single clear idea. Only very minor grammatical errors. Most paragraphs have a clear purpose that is relevant to its position in the document. Most paragraphs in the document have topic sentences, 3 to 5 supporting sentences, and a summary sentence.	Most sentences are clear and well-constructed communicating a single clear idea. Occasional grammatical errors. Some redundant paragraphs but mostly purposeful. Occasional examples of incorrectly structured paragraphs or paragraphs that are too long or short.	Some confused sentences but mostly well-constructed and clear. Frequent grammatical errors. Common examples of paragraphs that are confusing or redundant. Multiple incorrectly structured paragraphs or paragraphs that are too long or short.	Issues with confusing sentences. Clear grammatical errors. Poor paragraph structuring and largely unclear ideas in significant proportions of the document. Paragraphs seem to be devoid of structure.
A2. Strong pictorial communication and use of figures and correct captioning (7%)	High quality figures and images used extensively to replace text or support concise ideas. NO PAGE LINES OR COLOURED BACKGROUND FROM SCANNING VISIBLE (i.e. edit any hand sketches to look professional). ANSYS figures all follow required guidelines. Correct captioning (tables above, figures below, consistent numbering). Every figure serves a purpose and is referred to directly in the text.	High quality figures and images used to replace text in some instances or support concise ideas. NO PAGE LINES OR COLOURED BACKGROUND FROM SCANNING VISIBLE (i.e. edit any hand sketches to look professional). ANSYS figures all follow required guidelines. Correct captioning. Almost all figures serve a purpose and are referred to directly in the text.	Good figures and images used and mostly support ideas. ANSYS figures mostly follow required guidelines. Mostly correct captioning. Almost all figures serve a purpose and are referred to directly in the text.	Passable figures and images used. ANSYS figures only partially meet guidelines. Some incorrect captioning. Some figures serve a purpose where others do not. Some are not referred to directly in the text.	Poor quality or insufficient figures. ANSYS figures poorly created. Wrong or missing captioning. Very little purpose to those that are provided. No text reference to figures.
A3. Report structure follows the headings and content required (1%)	All required headings are incorporated within the report. All content is appropriate, and sections flow coherently from one to the next. All page limits adhered to.	All required headings are incorporated within the report. All content is appropriate and mostly flow well. All page limits adhered to.	All required headings are incorporated within the report. Most of the content is appropriate. Page limits mostly adhered to (±1-page total).	All required headings are incorporated within the report. Some missing or redundant content. Page loosely adhered to (±2-page total).	Missing headings, poorly structured content, or significant deviation from the word limit.

5 of 7
B. Quality of content and analysis carried out 25/40%

CRITERIA	STANDARDS
7 (High Distinction)	6 (Distinction)	5 (Credit)	4 (Pass)	3 and below (Fail)
B1. Introduction Section (1%)	Concise summary of purpose and context, including clear detail on machine and weld group being analysed with high quality figures, as well as outline of the design audit document. Weld group chosen is complex shape (>= 3 segments), and under fatigue loading.	Good summary of purpose and context, including detail on machine and weld group being analysed with some figures, as well as outline of the design audit document. Weld group chosen is complex shape (>= 2 segments), and under fatigue loading.	Good summary of purpose and context, including detail on weld group being analysed with some figures. Weld group chosen is under fatigue.	Some discussion of purpose and/or context, including detail on weld group being analysed. Weld analysis can be carried out, but loading is trivial or static.	Poor section with little purpose or context. Inappropriate weld group selection.
B2. Functional Analysis Section (2%)	High quality schematic with all external loads indicated. All major loading scenarios discussed with calculation/ estimation of actual load values in each case including direction and time history, as well as good quality diagrams to communicate the scenarios. Appropriate choice and justification of load case to analyse.	High quality schematic with all external loads indicated. Most major loading scenarios discussed with calculation/ estimation of actual load values in each case including direction and time history, and some diagrams to communicate the scenarios. Appropriate choice and justification of load case to analyse.	Clear schematic with all external loads indicated. At least two loading scenarios discussed with calculation/ estimation of actual load values in each case including direction and time history. Appropriate choice of load case to analyse with some justification.	Clear schematic with all external loads indicated. One loading scenario discussed with calculation/ estimation of actual load values including direction and time history. Load case appropriate to analyse.	Poor or missing schematic. Major omissions in terms of known load cases, or function of the machine. Inappropriate or non critical load case chosen.
B3. Design Assumptions and Analysis Scope Section (1%)	General assumptions included. Material, weld size and shape all appropriate and determined through inspection and research and verified (references stated and referenced correctly, IEEE) and related to the necessary analytical approaches to be implemented. Any other necessary assumptions included. Section is a detailed discussion of the assumptions and their basis, 1 page in length.	General assumptions included. Material, weld size and shape all appropriate. All determined through either research or approximation (references made). Any other necessary assumptions included. Section is an appropriate discussion of the assumptions and their basis, >0.75 pages in length.	General assumptions included. Material, weld size and shape all reasonable. Values mostly approximated based on good engineering practice (little or no research). Section discusses some basis for the assumptions, >0.5 pages in length.	General assumptions included. Material, weld size and shape passable but some details omitted or overlooked. Values all approximated. Section has minimal discussion < 0.5 pages in length.	Missing general assumptions, or no or poor material/ size/ shape/ conditions specified.

6 of 7

CRITERIA	STANDARDS
7 (High Distinction)	6 (Distinction)	5 (Credit)	4 (Pass)	3 and below (Fail)
B4. Detailed Analysis Section
B4a. System Force Analysis (3%)	A high quality FBD of the system with all force values determined based on the worst-case loading scenario chosen. All load and reaction calculations correct. FBD drawn perfectly (in equilibrium and completely free) with high quality diagrams. Time history of loading clearly described.	 Quality and Correctness of Calculation 	No FBD or completely wrong or significant errors in reaction calculations.
B4b. Weld Group Joint Loading (2%)	A reduction of that system to a single welded joint and the resultant loading at the weld group centroid, where those forces are again calculated perfectly based on the correct centroid position, and a clear understanding of the whole system and modes of loading present.	 Quality and Correctness of Calculation 	Significant errors in the calculation of centroid joint loads, or missing modes of loading.
B4c. Full Hand Calculation for Stress (4%)	Determination of all components of applied stress, von Mises stress, and stress concentration for the weld group and loading scenario, including separate group stress vector analysis proceeding correct superposition. Calculation completely correct, and identification of critical zone done correctly.	 Quality and Correctness of Calculation 	Major errors in stress calculation, missing steps, missing working, or poor understanding of process.
B4d. Full by Hand Fatigue Analysis (3%)	Application of fatigue theory including determination of alternating and mean components of stress, use of AM diagram, and analysis on the basis of both Goodman and Yield lines. Calculation procedure carried out perfectly and calculations completely correct.	 Quality and Correctness of Calculation 	Missing fatigue calculations, or major errors ins process or implementation.
B4e. Summary of Hand Calculation result (1%)	Concise and pictorial summary of result found through hand calculations, and comparison to the actual weld group within the machine or system. Discussion of specific aspects of the hand calculation that may have caused differences presented.	Summary of result found through hand calculations, and comparison to the actual weld group within the machine or system. Discussion of some aspects of the hand calculation that may have caused differences presented.	Summary of result found through hand calculations, and comparison to the actual weld group within the machine or system.	Summary of result found through hand calculations.	No summary or very poorly written summary.

7 of 7

CRITERIA	STANDARDS
7 (High Distinction)	6 (Distinction)	5 (Credit)	4 (Pass)	3 and below (Fail)
B4f. Full ANSYS Fatigue Analysis (6%)	Detailed structural and fatigue analysis carried out on the weld group using ANSYS and following the weld analysis procedure presented in the week 5 lecture and week 7 CLB. Modelling approach carefully and concisely summarised (FBD, contacts, materials, etc.), mesh size appropriate with resolution study presented, detailed contour and value results on stress communicated, detailed contour and value results on fatigue communicated. Discussion of results and choices insightful.	Detailed structural and fatigue analysis carried out on the weld group using ANSYS and following the weld analysis procedure presented in the week 5 lecture and week 7 CLB. Modelling approach summarised (FBD, contacts, materials, etc.), mesh size appropriate with resolution study presented, detailed contour and value results on stress communicated, detailed contour and value results on fatigue communicated. Some discussion of results and choices.	Structural and fatigue analysis carried out on the weld group using ANSYS and following the weld analysis procedure presented in the week 5 lecture and week 7 CLB. Some summary of modelling approach, mesh size shown, contour stress results communicated, contour fatigue results communicated.	Structural analysis carried out on the weld group using ANSYS and mostly following the weld analysis procedure presented in classes. Stress results communicated.	Missing section, or major errors in result or approach or communication of result.
B4g. Comparison between ANSYS, Hand Calc, and Actual (1%)	Concise and pictorial summary of result found through FEA, and comparison to the actual weld group within the machine or system. Discussion of specific aspects of the ANSYS calculation that may have caused differences presented.	Summary of result found through FEA, and comparison to the actual weld group within the machine or system. Discussion of some aspects of the ANSYS calculation that may have caused differences presented.	Summary of result found through FEA, and comparison to the actual weld group within the machine or system.	Summary of result found through FEA.	No summary or very poorly written summary.
B5. Recommendations and Conclusions Section (1%)	Result concisely summarised. Choices clearly and coherently discussed. Difference/ agreement in resulting design metric (size/ material/ FOS) and actual weld group discussed and insightful and correct reasoning for discrepancies identified. Any recalculation done to better represent real scenario.	Result summarised. Choices discussed. Difference/ agreement in resulting design metric (size/ material/ FOS) and actual weld group discussed and reasonable reasoning for discrepancies identified. Any recalculation done to better represent real scenario.	Result summarised. Choices discussed. Difference/ agreement in resulting design metric (size/ material/ FOS) and actual weld group discussed and some reasoning for discrepancies identified.	Result summarised. Choices discussed. Difference/ agreement in resulting design metric (size/ material/ FOS) and actual weld group noted but missing detailed consideration.	No result summary or not discussion of choices, or no analysis of difference between calculation and actual.

8 of 7
C. Technical drawing appendix 5/40%
Note: YOU MUST PRODUCE PDF DRAWING SHEETS DIRECTLY FROM SOLIDWORKS AND APPEND!!! ANY TECHNICAL DRAWING SECTIONS THAT ARE CUT
AND PASTE INTO WORD, RATHER THAN PROPERLY APPENDED HIGH QUALITY DRAWING SHEETS, WILL HAVE THEIR SECTION C MARK MULTIPLIED BY 0.5
(i.e. you will loose half your drawing marks for cut and paste images in word, please do it correctly!).

CRITERIA	STANDARDS
7 (High Distinction)	6 (Distinction)	5 (Credit)	4 (Pass)	3 and below (Fail)
C1. Drawing Layout and Title Block (0.5%)	Title block used correctly with full author and part details. No dimensions or drawing aspects outside of the boarder or overlapping with one another. Perfectly clear drawing in every way.	Title block used correctly with full author and part details. No dimensions or drawing aspects outside of the boarder or overlapping.	Title block used correctly with full author and part details. One or two minor overlaps or areas of confused lines or hard to read parts, but overall clear.	Title block used correctly with full author and part details. Some confusing areas but mostly legible.	No title block, or highly confusing and poorly laid out drawings.
C2. View Selection and Positioning (0.5%)	Sufficient views chosen in each technical drawing, adhering to those required in the outline. Additional section and detail views used professionally and to perfect effect.	Sufficient views chosen in each technical drawing, adhering to those required in the outline. Additional section and detail views used.	Sufficient views chosen in most technical drawings (1 drawing with a problem), adhering to those required in the outline. Either a section view or a detail view used.	Sufficient views chosen in some technical drawings (>1 drawing with a problem), adhering to those required in the outline.	Insufficient views chosen to communicate the weld group and part details.
C3. Primary Drawing (2%)	Excellent quality assembly drawing of whole system, with perfect component and weld detail. All views of a professional engineering quality. Comprehensive dimensions for the weld and weld positions and perfect annotations.	High quality assembly drawing of whole system, with perfect component and weld detail. All views sufficient to communicate design. Detailed dimensions for the weld and weld positions and adequate annotations.	Good quality assembly drawing of whole system, with most component and weld details shown. Most views sufficient to communicate design. Some dimensions and annotations.	Passable assembly drawing of whole system, with only some component or weld details difficult to distinguish. Some redundant or unclear views, but mostly appropriate. Minimal dimensions and annotations.	Major issues with quality, number of parts, views, dimensioning, or no dimensions.
C4. Secondary Drawing (2%)	Part or technical drawing of a professional engineering level, including all required views and dimensions, ready for manufacture.	Part or technical drawing of a high quality, including all required views and dimensions, mostly ready for manufacture, only minor corrections.	Part or technical drawing of a good quality with some key issues or areas needing correction before drawing approval (either multiple small issues like missing dimensions, or one major issue like a missing view).	Part or technical drawing of a passable quality but requiring major revision before approval for manufacture (missing dimensions, missing views, unclear communication).	Poor quality drawings, needing significant work to attain a level appropriate for a professional engineer.