• Aucun résultat trouvé

FINAL EXAM – MN44

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "FINAL EXAM – MN44"

Copied!
3
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Final Exam MN44 – P2013 Monday, June 24, 2013

FINAL EXAM – MN44

Exam duration: 2 hours.

Each answer must be both correct and well-presented (clear and concise).

Each party will be written on a different copy.

PART 1 (D. CHAMORET AND S. ROTH)

Documents not allowed

New copy!

A. QUESTIONS

1. What “simulation driven design” could mean for a product design?

2. Finite Element analysis.

a. Why finite element analysis is widely accepted in engineering. List a various applications of finite element analysis in engineering.

b. Explain pre-processing and post-processing in a FEM Code.

c. Explain classical errors inherent in FEM Formulation

3. When differences are observed between an experimental data and a finite element analysis, what could be the cause of discrepancies? What solution can you find to solve this problem?

4. Constitutive laws.

d. Is the Hooke law sufficient, if you want to study the rupture of a material? Explain your answer.

e. Name another well-known constitutive law usually used for steel material.

B. EXERCISE

We study a beam under a constant pressure, as illustrated on the following figure.

The length of the beam is equal to L, discretized into 3 elements linked by nodes 1, 2, 3, 4. The length of each element is l (l = length).

The equilibrium equation of the system and the boundary condi- tions are the following ones:

(2)

UV MN44-EXAM P2013

2

 



 

 

u

L

L u u

dx p A du dx E

d

) (

0 ) 0 (

0 .

.

1. Solve this equation, and give analytical results of the displacement as a function of the posi- tion.

Elementary matrix and equation of an element, for linear approximation is the following equation:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 1 2 . .

1 1

1

. 1 p l

u u l

A E

j i

2. Write this equation for each elements (for each node i and j ) and assembly the final matrix in order to obtain the global equation : K.U=F

3. Use the boundary conditions to solve the global equation, and find ui,i 4. Compare your results with the analytical solution.

PART 2 (N. LEBAAL)

Documents not allowed

New copy!

1) What is the result in case the temperature changes in structure and is not properly consid- ered in design?

2) What are the different physical parameters that can define the thermomechanical reference state for the structure?

3) What can be the result if the member is completely blocked against axial elongation in the following cases?

a) the temperature variation is positive >0 b) the temperature variation is negative 0

(3)

UV MN44-EXAM P2013

3

PART 3 (GE- OLIVIER CHAPUIS)

Documents allowed

New copy!

Target is to model transient behavior of a wall made by two slice of distinct material. On one side, the wall is in contact with a source of constant temperature. On the other side the wall ex- changes energy by convection with a fluid at a constant temperature. Slices are parallel to the heat flow direction. For the project, we focus on thermal physics only.

You are supposed to follow the 11 steps to provide the system of equation representing the thermal behavior of the wall.

Références

Documents relatifs

We analyse a bi-dimensional fluid-structure interaction system composed by a viscous incompressible fluid and a beam located at the boundary of the fluid domain.. Our main result is

Holding meduc and f educ xed, by how much does sibs have to increase to reduce expected years of education by one year?. (A noninteger answer is acceptable

On the other hand, for the case q = 0, the problem on the global existence of smooth solution to (1.1)–(1.4) with large initial data remains unsolved even though the

We prove that arbitrary actions of compact groups on finite dimensional C ∗ -algebras are equivariantly semiprojec- tive, that quasifree actions of compact groups on the Cuntz

Key words: Mulholland inequality, Hilbert-type inequality, weight function, equiv- alent form, the best possible constant factor.. The above inequality includes the best

removeable provided that a certain order Holder continuity holds at the point... Unfortunately we cannot at present

This study shows that when the Green function is detailed for a discretised domain, the numerical di- vergence due to the reflection coefficient can also be seen as a

The goal of this section is to show that, in view of the gap properties obtained in the previous section, the observability inequality is uniform if the boundary measurement