AERO 4300 - Composite Manufacturing and Design Project
Introduction:
The AERO 4300 Design Project is a semester long project, in which you cover the complete composite design process from material selection to final design. The project is assessed in two parts:
· Part A: Project poster (10%)
· Part B: Video presentation (25%)
The project is an individual (not group work) project and based on a “real-world” problem. It is important to note that there is no single correct solution and therefore it is highly unlikely that multiple people arrive at the exact same design. Discussion between students is encouraged - copying is misconduct. The use of AI tools is not permitted, with the exception of tools used for spell checking and grammar.
Please note that this problem is based on a real-world application, but some assumptions and constraints are imaginary.
Problem statement:
The Starship is a ground-breaking new two-stage reusable launch vehicle designed by SpaceX. With a total height of 121m and a mass of 5,000 tons it is the largest and most powerful rocket to ever fly (see Figure 1 and 2). Whilst the Starship consist of two stages, for all aspects other than the introduction of Part A, the focus will be on the second stage (see Figure 3).
The Starship makes very limited use of composite materials. Instead, the design team opted for the now famous stainless-steel design. What many people don’t realise, is that initial design concepts for the Starship envisaged a ‘all-composites’ solution.
In this project you will dive deeper into the use of composites for next-generation launch vehicles such as Starship. In Part A of the project you will develop the background understanding related to the starship and its design. You will explore the drivers for/against the use of composite materials and discuss the rationale behind SpaceX’s decision to opt for a metal design. In Part B, you will develop your own hypothetical concept for a ‘all-composite’ Starship design’. This involves the in-depth material selection, development of a manufacturing concept and preliminary structural design.
Figure 1: Spice and payload comparisoMartinn with other launch platforms
Figure 2: Picture of the 3rd launch of the SpaceX Starship
Figure 3: Evolution of the Starship design over time
Part A: Project Report (10%)
A project poster is submitted via Blackboard, that covers the following aspects:
Introduction/History – 20%
Provide a brief introduction to the Starship and its history. In addition to providing a general introduction to this amazing launch vehicle, provide context relevant to the scope of this project. This includes for instance, a summary of performance figures and trajectory details that are relevant for the later design process or a discussion of the development history.
The decision not to use a ‘all composite’ design – 20%
Summarise the decision making and rationale underlaying the current stainless-steel design. Explore what composite options were considered, why they were dismissed and what design trade-offs were made.
SWOT analysis – 20 %
Present a Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis for a ‘all-composite’ design option compared to the status quo.
Composites used on the Starship – 20%
Despite opting for a steel design, the Starship does make use of composite materials. Provide a summary of the types of composite materials that are used on starship, their locations and functionality.
Presentation – 20%
The work is to be presented in the form. of a poster. Produce a visually appealing poster that relays the information in an easy to read but professional manner.
Submission: Via submission link on blackboard:
· PDF format
· The size of the poster will be A0 format
· Font for the poster should not be smaller than times new roman size 24
· The preferred referencing style. for the poster is ‘ACS’ (American Chemical Society).
Marking criteria: Part A
|
Category |
Missing/Incomplete (0%) |
Poor (25%) |
Satisfactory (50%) |
Good (75%) |
Excellent (100%) |
|
Introduction/History (20%)
|
Missing or largely incomplete. Major errors/flaws in the presented information. Information provided is not sufficient to undertake Part B. |
Incomplete, with major omissions and significant errors. Information provided is not sufficient to undertake Part B.
|
A basic introduction is provided. Missing details and lack of historical context. Information provided is not sufficient to undertake Part B. |
A comprehensive summary is provided and the facts presented are insightful and relevant to the project. A list of key parameters and considerations for Part B is provided.
|
Excellent summary and level of detail. The facts presented show a deep level of research/investigation. A comprehensive list of parameters and design relevant considerations are provided. |
|
The decision not to use a ‘all composite’ design (20%) |
Missing or largely incomplete. Major errors/flaws in the presented information. |
Incomplete, with major omissions and significant errors. |
A basic discussions of the topic. History and decision making is discussed but lacks in detail and insight. |
A comprehensive summary is provided. Rationale and design drivers are elaborated in great detail and the discussion is insightful.
|
Expectational level of detail, comprising difficult to find information and a great deal of analysis and synthesis. Discussion is highly insightful and provides clear direction for Part B. |
|
SWOT analysis (20%)
|
SWOT analysis is missing or incomplete/grossly incorrect |
A SWOT analysis is presented but major points are missing and/or large proportions of the analysis are incorrect.
|
A basic SWOT analysis has been presented. Most of the points are correct. There is a lack of depth and insight |
A sound SWOT analysis has been presented. There are valuable insights. All four aspects are equally well covered. Most points are nuanced and only minor missing details.
|
In-depth SWOT analysis with exceptional attention to details. The analysis is nuanced and draws on in-depth engineering and scientific research. Points analysed are not trivial and go well beyond ‘mainstream knowledge’. |
|
Composites used on the Starship (20%) |
Missing or largely incomplete. Major errors/flaws in the presented information. |
Incomplete, with major omissions and significant errors. Major applications are missing or the materials used and/or functionality is unclear. |
Basic summary of composites used on the Starship is provided. Some materials are missing and/or material selection and purpose is not clear. |
A comprehensive summary is provided. Only minor obsessions with respect to the types of materials used and their applications. |
Exceptional level of detail. Complete list of materials is provided with very high level of detail with respect to materials used and their function. |
|
Presentation (20%) |
Very poor presentation, large number of typos or formatting errors. |
Poor presentation with key features such as tables, figures, captions, etc. missing. Large number of typos. |
Average visual presentation. Contains multiple formatting, typos or language errors. |
Appealing graphical layout. Only minor errors. |
Exceptional visual appearance. No formatting or typographical errors. |
Part B: Video Presentation (25%)
In this part of the assessment you develop your own materials, manufacturing and design concept for the Starship. For the design component of this activity, a separate document will be provided that provides further details on the component/section to be analysed. Your decisions should be guided/build on the work that you have performed in the first part of the project (Part A).
The findings of the design project are presented in a 12min, pre-recorded video presentation. The presentation can utilise any combination of presentation means, including screen capture, videos or PowerPoint slides. A single video file (including audio comment) is uploaded to blackboard in MPEG-4 Part 14 or MP4. The presenter needs to be visible talking (e.g. via webcam) for at least 2min of the video. Text to speech is not allowed. Submission via Balckboard link.
The presentation should cover the following items:
· Introduction of selected solution (10%)
o High level introduction of your concept
o Discussion of key assumptions
o Design calculations required for the detailed design.
· Design (20%)
o Perform. a preliminary design of the component/section provided
o Use of FEA or other design tools discussed in the lecture
o Focus on the composite part of the structure
· Materials selection (20%)
o Discuss material options
o Present your material selection
o Justification of the material selection
· Manufacturing concept (20%)
o Evaluation and discuss different manufacturing options
o Propose manufacturing concept that suits geometry and materials
o Provided a step-by-step description of the manufacturing process
· Structural health management (SHM) concept (20%)
o Discuss options for production NDT that addresses the needs of your concept
o Present options for the implementation of in-service SHM considering the Starship’s mission of interplanetary travel
· Presentation (10%)
o Aim for a clear and professional presentation
o Good use of media and presentation means
Marking criteria Part B
|
Category |
Missing/Incomplete (0%) |
Poor (25%) |
Satisfactory (50%) |
Good (75%) |
Excellent (100%) |
|
Introduction of selected solution (10%) |
Major parts of the problem definition are missing. It is not clear what the solution is or why it has been selected. |
A solution has been prosed, but it is not clear why this solution has been selected or how it actually works. |
A workable solution has been presented. Some assumptions that lead to the solution are not clear or it is not clear what the exact basis for design was/is (calculations). |
A good description of the solution has been presented. It is sufficiently clear what is proposed and how the solution is intended to work. Some minor unclarities exist around assumptions or the basis for design (calculations). |
In-depth introduction of an innovative and well-engineered solution. It is clear how the solution works and what decisions/assumptions were made as the basis for the detailed design. |
|
Design (20%) |
Missing or major parts are incomplete |
An attempt on detailed design has been made but section is incomplete or lacks in detail. Approach/method contains major errors. |
A logic and correct detailed design approach is presented. Some information about the laminate design is presented but contains errors or omissions. Approach is too simplistic. |
A logic and correct detailed design approach is presented. Detailed analysis is performed to determine the laminate design. Design details for key connections/interfaces are provided. Only minor error/omissions. |
A detailed and correct design approach is presented. The laminate configuration is optimised and analysis is preformed for multiple load cases and structural details. |
|
Materials selection (20%) |
Missing or major parts are incomplete |
Only rudimentary material selection is provided. There is lacking justification and/or details.
|
A basic material selection has been presented. The materials selection lacks detail but contains at least a general/high-level discussion/justification.
|
A detailed materials selection is presented. Material options are discussed in detailed and a good justification is presented. Only minor omissions. |
Very detailed material selection. High level of detail. Clear evidence of innovative thought and out-of-the-box thinking. |
|
Manufacturing concept (20%) |
Missing or major parts are incomplete |
A rudimentary manufacturing concept has been developed. There are substantial errors are present or concept is outright not feasible. Does not consider geometry or materials selected.
|
A basic manufacturing concept has been presented. The concept lacks in detail but is technically feasible. Basic considerations with respect to materials and shape of the proposed solution have been made.
|
A detailed manufacturing concept is presented that discusses different options and proposes suitable and efficient manufacturing process. The proposed process takes into account the materials and geometry that have been proposed. Information on tooling concept is included.
|
Very detailed manufacturing concept has been presented. The concept covers all aspects of the manufacturing process, including tooling and consumables. It is clear what why this concept has been selected and what other options were considered. Evidence of ingenuity and/or detailed composite manufacturing knowledge is present.
|
|
Structural health management (10%) |
Missing or major parts are incomplete |
Quality control issues are not addressed and/or suggested NDT techniques are not feasible. |
Basic outline of quality control aspects including suggesting feasible NDT techniques. Only basic coverage of SHM in operation. |
Quality control issues are addressed. The selected characteristics and corresponding NDT measurement techniques are feasible and realistic. Proposed SHM solution are innovative and address the envisaged application of the starship. |
Quality control issues are fully addressed with excellent quantitative details of the suggested NDT techniques. Innovative SHM approaches are provided that consider, and are suitable, for the envisaged application of the starship. |
|
Presentation & Quality (4%) |
Very poor presentation, does not meet minimum requirements. |
Poor presentation with large parts of the video lacking suitable presentation materials or audio comment. |
Overall video is well presented and contains a good mix of presentation media and comments. Minor issues around fluidity of presentation, clarity or quality. |
Professional presentation with a good and logic structure. Good use of different presentation media is made. Only minor errors/improvements with respect to quality or presentation style. |
Flawless and professional presentation. |
版权所有：留学生编程辅导网 2020 All Rights Reserved 联系方式：QQ:821613408 微信：horysk8 电子信箱：[email protected]
免责声明：本站部分内容从网络整理而来，只供参考！如有版权问题可联系本站删除。