FEA & DFM review for an aluminium die-cast housing — Leeds

Background

We have a die-cast aluminium housing for an automotive auxiliary pump that failed vibration durability at 62% of the required cycle count. The tool is already cut and a full redesign would cost us the programme timeline.

Problem statement

We need to know why it failed and whether a change achievable within the existing tool can pass durability — or whether a new tool is unavoidable.

Scope of work

• Review the existing design, test report and failure photographs
• Build a validated FEA model and correlate against the observed failure location
• Run vibration fatigue analysis against the required durability spectrum
• Identify the root cause with evidence
• Propose design changes ranked by tooling impact — insert change, local change, new tool
• Assess each proposal by analysis and report the predicted life
• Present findings in a one-hour review with our engineering team

Requirements

• Vibration fatigue analysis experience on cast components
• Ability to correlate FEA against physical test evidence
• Practical knowledge of die-casting tooling constraints
• Available for a review presentation within the project window

Constraints

• Existing tool must be reused if at all technically possible
• Envelope and mounting interface are fixed by the vehicle package
• Material change limited to alloys the current foundry can pour

Input files provided

Deliverables

• Correlated FEA model
• Root cause analysis report
• Vibration fatigue results
• Ranked design change proposals
• Predicted life per proposal
• Review presentation

Acceptance criteria

A milestone is accepted and paid when these are demonstrably met — not when it is merely submitted.

• FEA predicts failure at the observed location and within 25% of the observed cycle count
• Root cause is supported by both analysis and test evidence
• At least one proposal within the existing tool is shown to meet the durability spec, or its impossibility is demonstrated
• Report is clear enough to take to our customer's engineering review

Milestone plan

How proposals will be evaluated

• Relevant completed projects of comparable type and scale
• Technical methodology and how risk is identified and managed
• Standards and jurisdiction experience
• Software capability and deliverable format compatibility
• Price against scope — lowest price is not automatically selected
• Availability and stated capacity over the project window
• Verification level and references

Proposal comparison

Submitted proposals are normalised into the same axes so they can actually be compared. The platform does not choose for the client — it makes the technical comparison transparent.

Field	Aisha MehtaSingapore, Singapore	Mateo KowalskiGothenburg, Sweden	Ananya OkaforMumbai, India
Total price	$4,300	$5,000	$5,600
Timeline	2 months	6 weeks	3 months
Relevant projects	111 comparable	30 comparable	49 comparable
Years experience	25	16	15
Discipline	Manufacturing Engineering	Additive Manufacturing Engineering	Rotating Equipment Engineering
Required licence	Verified	Verified	Not on file
Software	AbaqusCreoANSYS FluentMastercam	SolidWorksHAPAutoCADMastercam	AutoCADHAPSolidWorksMastercam
Standards	ASHRAE 62.1EN 13445ISO 9001	ASHRAE 90.1ISO 2768ISO 13920	ASME Y14.5ASHRAE 90.1ISO 13920
Deliverables	6 of 6 matched	6 of 6 matched	6 of 6 matched
Milestones proposed	3	3	4
Methodology	Design basis first, then model build, then independent check before issue	Staged issue with client review gate at each milestone, no work ahead of approval	Parallel discipline coordination with weekly clash and interface review
Key assumption	Input files are final; a change to the architectural set re-baselines the programme	Client provides reviewer comments within 5 working days of each issue	Site data as supplied is representative; no further investigation assumed
Availability	Open to 1 new project	Open to retainer work	Accepting short tasks only
Team size	Solo	Solo	7 engineers
Site visit	Included	Remote only	Included
Verification	8 of 9 verified	7 of 9 verified	5 of 9 verified
Project fit	74% fit	60% fit	50% fit
Action	View proposal	View proposal	View proposal

Lowest price is not automatically ranked first. Price sits alongside methodology, assumptions, verification and availability, because the cheapest proposal against an incomplete methodology is not the cheapest project.

Matched engineers

Each match shows the evidence behind the score — and states what is missing rather than hiding it behind a rank.

Aisha MehtaManufacturing Engineering · 25 yrs · Singapore, Singapore74%project fit

Discipline: Manufacturing Engineering — matches required disciplineSoftware: Mastercam, HAP — verified in profileStandards: API 610 — documented experienceIndustry: No recorded automotive projectsJurisdiction: Based in Singapore; project is in United KingdomAvailability: Open to 1 new projectLicence: Not required for this project

Mateo KowalskiAdditive Manufacturing Engineering · 16 yrs · Gothenburg, Sweden60%project fit

Discipline: Additive Manufacturing Engineering — not a listed discipline for this projectSoftware: HAP, AutoCAD, Mastercam, Inventor — verified in profileStandards: ASHRAE 90.1, ISO 2768 — documented experienceIndustry: Automotive — 50 completed projectsJurisdiction: Based in Sweden; project is in United KingdomAvailability: Currently limited — Open to retainer workLicence: Not required for this project

Ananya OkaforRotating Equipment Engineering · 15 yrs · Mumbai, India50%project fit

Discipline: Rotating Equipment Engineering — not a listed discipline for this projectSoftware: AutoCAD, HAP, Mastercam — verified in profileStandards: ASME Y14.5, ASHRAE 90.1 — documented experienceIndustry: No recorded automotive projectsJurisdiction: Based in India; project is in United KingdomAvailability: Currently limited — Accepting short tasks onlyLicence: Not required for this project