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.