Friday, 31 July 2020

Electrical Machines and Drives

UK assignment helper






P24727- Electrical Machines and Drives
Coursework-Second Attempt
Deadline For Submission: The submission deadline is as published on the Moodle drop
box associated with this submission
Submission Instructions A report containing the information required in the
assignment should be uploaded to Moodle
Instructions for completing the
assessment:
Once completed, the report should be saved as a pdf file and
uploaded to Moodle.
Examiners: Richard Walters and Branislav Vuksanovic
P24727: Electrical Machines and Drives
Lab Assignment
1. Introduction
In this project you are required to analyse and report back on an electrical machine and drive.
2. Requirements- Drives
 The drive system you are to analyse is a three phase H-bridge inverter driving a ‘star’
connected load.
 You should assume that the power supply voltage VS is 50V DC and that the power
devices are FET transistors. The transistors are ‘off’ when 𝑣𝐺𝑆 = 0𝑉 and is ‘on’ when
𝑣𝐺𝑆 > 5𝑉.
 The circuit diagram is shown in figure 1, VQn is the input to transistor Qn. The output
voltages of each phase are VR1, VR2 and VR3, and the currents through each resistor
are IR1, IR2 and IR3.
Figure 1: Three-Phase Inverter Circuit Diagram
 You should analyse two cases of the circuit during one complete cycle (360o). For each
change of input you should determine the values of VR1, VR2 and VR3, and the size
and direction of the currents IR1, IR2 and IR3. You can assume that the transistors
have zero on resistance and zero voltage drop when on. The switching of the transistors
for each case are shown in tables 1 and 2 respectively.
 Having completed the analysis, you should comment of the differences between the two
cases.
Q1
2SK2553S
Q2
2SK2553S
Q3
2SK2553S
Q4
2SK2553S
Q5
2SK2553S
Q6
2SK2553S
V1
50V
R1
10Ω
R2
10Ω
R3
10Ω
VQ1
VQ2
VQ3
VQ4
VQ5
VQ6
IR2
A
IR1
A
IR3
A
VR1
V
VR2
V
VR3
V
 Finally, comment on any particular issues relating to the switching of Q2, Q4 and Q6.
Angle Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
0-120o On On
120-240o On On
240-360o On On
Table 1: Transistor Switching for Case 1
Angle Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
0-60o On On On
60-120o On On On
120-180o On On On
180-240o On On On
240-300o On On On
300-360o On On On
Table 2: Transistor Switching for Case 1
3. Requirements- Machines
 You should produce a short report on the methods of protection of distribution
transformers in transformer substations.
 Your report should include a short introduction to the problem, listing and explaining
the possible types of faults and failures encountered with transformers.
 In the main section of the report you should explain and discuss the methods and
technology used to protect transformers and other equipment in transformer substations
from those failures. You can choose a particular fault type and discuss it in more details
or alternatively, you can briefly describe and list the main failure and fault types and
methods as well as equipment for the protection. You can use schematic or calculations
to illustrate the problems you are discussing.
 Your report should also have a short conclusion section where summary of discussion
and some conclusions about transformer protection methods and equipment will be
made.
 Report should not be longer than 4 pages and should be written in IEEE paper format.
4. Reporting and Assessment
A typed report of the project should be submitted
 The report should be divided into two halves, one for the drives exercise and one for
the machines exercise.
 Each half should contain a short introduction to the exercise- no more than 10 linessetting
out what is expected.
 Each part of the task should then be clearly presented in a separate section.
 A final summary section for each half should be presented where further comments and
analysis should be presented.
Marking
Drives Case 1 10 marks
Drives Case 2 20 marks
Drives Further comments 10 marks
Drives Presentation 10 Marks
Machines - Transformer Protection Report –
Introduction
15 Marks
Machines - Transformer Protection Report -
Protection Methods and Technology
20 Marks
Machines - Transformer Protection Report -
Conclusions
15 marks

Computational Civil Engineering

UK assignment helper





Coursework – Resit Assessment Brief
UBGMW9-15-3 Computational Civil Engineering
Preamble
All assessments on this module are individual work. The work you submit must be your own
work. Submitting work that is copied in part or whole from another student with or without
their permission is an assessment offence.
You must fully attribute/reference all sources of information used during the completion of
your submission, failure to do so constitutes plagiarism, which is an assessment offence.
If you are not familiar with the definitions of plagiarism and collusion, more information can
be found here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/
assessmentoffences.aspx
Please ensure you are familiar with assessment procedures and policies, which can be
found here: http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/students/academicadvice/assessments/
assessmentsguide.aspx
Structure of assessments
This module is assessed by two components, A and B:
• Component A is a one hour written exam and is weighted as 25% of the final mark.
• Component B is a coursework portfolio and is weighted as 75% of the final mark.
The coursework portfolio described here asks you to consider two problems entitled:
1. Structural analysis under variable loads
2. Geotechnical slope stability
The highest mark obtained from your solutions submitted to Problems 1 and 2 will be taken as
your final coursework mark
1
The final report on your coursework portfolio must include code routines developed for both
elements in a text selectable form (no images or screenshots will be accepted).
Online blackboard submission due on 3rd August 2020.
The following two sections describe the problems you are to develop computer programs to
solve. In each section, specific details of the tasks and outputs to feed in to your report are
described. An overall summary of the assessment criteria is provided at the end of this document.
Structural analysis under variable loads
When dealing with variable loads the internal forces or reactions that a structure generates
will vary according to a probability distribution. Then, the design of a structure is based on an
output value of this distribution which has a small probability, on an absolute basis, of being
exceeded. A workflow of this process is shown in Fig. 1.
+
V
+
p  N(p; p)
M V
M
1 - Generate samples for
input variable UDL
2 - Compute output
reactions/internal forces
3 - Plot outputs histograms
and estimate the 5% threshold
output value
-40 -35 -30 -25
V [kN]
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
-500 0 500 1000 1500
M [kNm]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Figure 1: Diagram of computational analysis for a simply supported beam subjected
to a variable uniformly distributed load (UDL).
Consider the isostatic structures shown in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and the output reactions/internal
forces presented in Table 1. You are asked to assess the variability of one these structures’
outputs when subjected to the shown loads. Each of the loads is assumed to follow a normal
distribution, e.g. for a uniform distributed load assume p  N(p; p) with mean p and
standard deviation p.
Using MATLAB or other programming language generate 10 000 data points for each load,
according to its distribution parameters, and compute the corresponding output reactions/
internal forces.
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 2 University of theWest of England
P2
a b
d
c
A
B
C
P1
p
1
2
3 4
5
Figure 2: Structure 1
P2
c
P1
p
P3
b
a a a a
1
2
3 4 5
6
Figure 3: Structure 2
p P
f
a b c d
2
1
4 6 5 7 8
3
e
M
Figure 4: Structure 3
Your report should include
• A description of the equations and histograms for each output reaction/internal force.
• An estimate of the 5% threshold output value, which is defined here as the value which
is exceeded, on an absolute basis, by only 5% of the load combination realizations.
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 3 University of theWest of England
a b
f
e
2
P
p
1
3
4
5
d
c
Figure 5: Structure 4
Structure Outputs
1 Bending moment at section C, bending moment
at section 5 and axial force at section 2
2 Axial force at bar 1-2 and shear force along section
2-3
3 Horizontal reaction at 2 and bending moment
at 7 towards 5
4 Vertical reaction at 1 and bending moment at 4
towards 3
Table 1: Output reactions and internal forces
• A pseudocode or flowchart of the algorithm that underlies your analysis.
The structure and numerical values that each student has to consider are made available
on Blackboard Learning Materials > Coursework > Coursework values html
file, or by following the URL https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/
pid-7216458-dt-content-rid-16362959_2/courses/UBGMW9-15-3_19jan_
1/my_values.html
Furthermore, the results of validation tests against which you can test if your program is functioning
correctly can be found here:
https://blackboard.uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-7318412-dt-content-rid-17299225_
2/courses/UBGMW9-15-3_19jan_1/my_ex1_results%281%29.html
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 4 University of theWest of England
Geotechnical slope stability
An important task in geotechnical engineering is to assess the propensity for a slope to collapse.
It is common to analyse the stability of cohesive soil slopes by considering limiting
plastic equilibrium. To carry out a limiting plastic equilibrium analysis, it is first necessary to
define the failure mechanism, which is specified by the geometry of the failure surface. The
mass of soil bounded by this failure surface is assumed to move over this surface as a free body
in equilibrium. The forces and moments acting to induce failure are then compared with the
resistance to slip that is mobilised along the assumed failure surface.
A variety of different failure surfaces can be considered, but a common choice is a circular segment
in two-dimensions. An important analysis case is that relevant to short-term conditions,
immediately after a cutting is made or an embankment is built. In the short-term, there is insufficient
time for excess pore water pressures to dissipate; such conditions are referred to as
undrained. The shear strength,  , along a failure surface in undrained conditions is constant
and denoted as cu. The difficulty in carrying out a limiting equilibrium analysis is the choice
of failure surface. The key task is therefore to find the critical failure surface, that is the failure
surface along which failure is most likely to occur and, hence, gives the lowest factor of safety.
Figure 6: Example of the slope stability problem
Figure 6 is an example of the class of problem that you are to address. The figure shows a
two-dimensional slope of constant inclination. The soil consists of a cohesive homogeneous
soil of undrained strength, cu, and unit weight, 
. The slope overlies a stiff strata. The ge-
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 5 University of theWest of England
ometry and material parameters shown in Figure 6 are an example for illustration - you have
been assigned an individual problem, with a set of geometric and material properties that are
individual to you and can be downloaded from: Blackboard Learning Materials > Coursework
> Coursework values html file, or by following the URL https://blackboard.
uwe.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-7216458-dt-content-rid-16362959_2/courses/
UBGMW9-15-3_19jan_1/my_values.html.
Your task is to determine the safety factor against collapse for the slope geometry and materials
to which you have been assigned. The material properties (
 and cu) relevant to your
individual problem are given on the diagram together with your slope geometry (which can be
read-off from the scale). You are to consider only rotational failure along circular slip surfaces,
but are to vary the radius and centre coordinates of the failure surface in order to find the minimum
safety factor against collapse. A bounding box, termed the ’search area’, is provided to
limit the bounds on the search of your circle centre coordinates. The approach to minimising
the safety factor by varying the location of the slip circle centre and its radius is your choice,
although recommendations and possibilities are detailed in the supporting materials accompanying
the lectures.
For a particular choice of circular slip surface, the safety factor, SF is calculated as:
SF =
resisting moment
disturbing moment
(0.1)
where the disturbing moment is given as:
disturbing moment = Wd (0.2)
and the resisting moment due to shear along the slip plane is given as:
resisting moment = cuR2 (0.3)
In these equations, W is the weight of the soil bounded within the failure surface (NB: which
is NOT the same as the unit weight, 
), d is the horizontal distance from the slip circle centre
to the centre of gravity of the soil mass bounded within the failure surface, R is the slip-circle
radius and  is the angle subtended by the slip surface (see Figure 7). Note that W and d are
typically found by dividing the soil bounded with the failure surface into slices or rectangular
segments and then taking area-moments about a convenient point. Substitution of Equations
0.2 and 0.3 into Equation 0.1 gives:
SF =
resisting moment
disturbing moment =
cuR2
Wd
(0.4)
To aid the validation of the computer program you will develop, a particular slope geometry
is shown in Figure 8. For the particular circular slip line shown (i.e. the given circle centre
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 6 University of theWest of England
position and radius), and for 
=18.5kN/m3 and cu=40kPa, the safety factor against collapse is
1.44 (correct to 2 decimal places). Demonstrating that your computer program can correctly
calculate this safety factor is a valuable task and one you should document in your report. [You
might find it valuable to note that for this problem: =84.06, R=17.43m and d=6.54m]. Please
note that the solution of 1.44 is for this particular slope and material parameters to serve the
purpose of validating your code - it is NOT the solution to your individual problem.
Note that to consider a variety of different combinations of the circle centre positions and circle
radii in a time-efficient manner, it is necessary to implement a test as to whether a particular
slip circle intersects the inclined or horizontal portions of the slope surface. Supplementary
information is provided in the Appendix to help you to find the intersection points.
Figure 7: Parameters involved in the calculation of the safety factor
Your report should include:
1. A description of the mathematical equations needed to find the safety factor against collapse.
2. The results of a validation case to demonstrate that your code can calculate the safety
factor correctly for a particular choice of circle centre coordinates, slip circle radius and
parameters that specify the geometry and strength of the slope.
3. Justification of your approach to find the critical slip circle radius and centre coordinates.
4. Pseudocode or a flow chart showing your approach to (i) find the safety factor for a given
combination of slip-circle centre coordinates and slip-circle radius, and (ii) optimise the
slip circle centre coordinates and slip-circle radius to find the critical safety factor.
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 7 University of theWest of England
Figure 8: Validation problem geometry
5. A graphical presentation of the dependence of the safety factor on the slip circle centre
coordinates.
6. Your calculation of the critical safety factor (as well as the circle centre coordinates and
slip-circle radius that generated the critical safety factor).
Assessment criteria
Your report should contain the following and you will be assessed according to the criteria
described in Table 2.
• Problem description: A summary of the problem you are attempting to solve, to include
the assumptions needed to obtain a solution and any mathematical elaboration of the
equations that are used within your computer program. (15%)
• Program development: The pseudocode or flowchart used to solve the problem, together
with an explanation and justification for your chosen numerical approach to solve
the problem. Note that you are also required to submit, as part of your report, the code
used to generate your results. (25%)
• Presentation of the results: To include plots showing the outputs from your work and
accompanying text to describe their meaning. This section should include the outcomes
of any validation exercises you undertake to demonstrate the correct functioning of the
programs you develop. (50%)
• Concluding comments: To explain how your computer program could be extended or
generalised for increased functionality. (10%)
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 8 University of theWest of England
% Descriptor Problem
description
(15%)
Program development
(25%)
Presentation
of results
(50%)
Concluding
comments
(10%)
80-100 Outstanding Problem
descriptions
stated with
outstanding
clarity, with
complete
mathematical
treatment
Outstanding
program development,
with complete
and
thorough
justification
for chosen
approach
Outstanding
clarity of
presentation
with fully
annotated
plots, complete
and
fully correct
results
and validation
test
outcomes
Outstanding
clarity of
comments
on the
generalisation
of the
computer
program
70-79 Excellent Problem
descriptions
stated with
excellent
clarity, with
comprehensive
mathematical
treatment
Excellent
program development,
with clear
justification
for chosen
approach
Excellent
clarity of
presentation
with well
annotated
plots, complete
and
fully correct
results
and validation
test
outcomes
Excellent
clarity of
comments
on the
generalisation
of the
computer
program
60-69 Very good: 65-69
Good: 60-64
Problem
descriptions
stated
with clarity,
with mostly
complete
mathematical
treatment
Program development
presented
that addresses
the
main aims
of the task
with clear
justification
Very
good/good
clarity of
presentation
with well
annotated
plots, mostly
complete
and correct
results and
some validation
test
outcomes
Very
good/good
clarity of
comments
on the
generalisation
of the
computer
program
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 9 University of theWest of England
50-59 Competent: 55-59
Adequate: 50-54
Problem
descriptions
stated with
adequate
clarity, with
basic mathematical
treatment
Program development
presented
that addresses
some aspects
of
the task
with partial
justification
Competent/
adequate
clarity of
presentation
with
plots, some
complete
and correct
results and
limited validation
test
outcomes
Competent/
adequate
clarity of
comments
on the
generalisation
of the
computer
program
40-49 Weak Problem
descriptions
lacking clarity,
with
minimal or
only partially
correct
mathematical
treatment
Program development
presented
that addresses
limited aspects
of
the task
with limited
justification
Limited
clarity of
presentation
with
few plots,
incomplete
results and
limited validation
test
outcomes
Limited
clarity of
comments
on the
generalisation
of the
computer
program
30-39 Poor (FAIL) Problem
descriptions
unclear, with
incomplete
or incorrect
mathematical
treatment
Program
development
that
is incomplete
with
very limited
justification
Poor clarity
of presentation
with
very few
plots, incomplete
and incorrect
results
and limited
validation
test outcomes
Poor clarity
of comments
on the
generalisation
of the
computer
program
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 10 University of theWest of England
<30 Very poor (FAIL) Problem
descriptions
very unclear,
with
no mathematical
treatment
Program development
that fails
to address
the brief
and lacks
justification
Very poor
clarity of
presentation
lacking
plots, incomplete
and incorrect
results
and very
limited validation
test
outcomes
Very poor
clarity of
comments
on the
generalisation
of the
computer
program
Table 2: Assessment Criteria
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 11 University of theWest of England
Appendix - A guide to solving the Slope Stability Problem
The slope stability problem can be addressed by developing the following five functions:
slope_safety_factor, calculate_intersection, choose_intersection, calculate_disturbing, calculate_
restoring. This appendix details the content of those five functions to aid your coding
developments. For each of the five functions, the purpose of the function is summarised, and
suggested input and output variables are described, with reference to Table 3. Some comments
are also added on suggested techniques to undertake the task involved in writing each function.
In carrying out your work, it is important to set up a coordinate system (e.g. place the
origin at the toe of the slope) and consistently adhere to that coordinate system.
Variable Symbol unit
safety factor SF -
undrained shear strength cu kPa
bulk unit weight 
 kN/m3
slope width w m
slope height h m
slip circle radius R m
coordinates of the slip circle centre (xc; yc) m
coordinates at the toe of the slope* (xtoe; ytoe) m
coordinates at the crest of the slope* (xcrest; ycrest) m
coordinates of the first intersection point between the slip circle and the
slope profile
(x1, y1) m
coordinates of the second intersection point between the slip circle and
the slope profile
(x2, y2) m
lower x component of the intersection point forming between the slip
circle and the inclined portion of the slope*
xslope;L m
upper x component of the intersection point forming between the slip
circle and the inclined portion of the slope*
xslope;U m
Table 3: Nomenclature used in the Appendix for the slope stability problem
* NB: all coordinates need to be taken relative to a common origin - such as the toe
slope
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 12 University of theWest of England
Figure 9: Slope stability problem nomenclature
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 13 University of theWest of England
1. FUNCTION 1: slope_safety_factor
• Function purpose: This function carries out the overall calculation of the safety factor
(using Equation 0.1) and controls the calls to the other functions. Since Function
1 is the controlling function (i.e. it calls a series of other functions) it is suggested
you start your developments by looking at Function 2.
• Inputs: This function takes as its input:
(a) the strength parameters cu and 

(b) any two parameters needed to specify the slope geometry e.g. w and h
(c) the three parameters needed to specify the geometry of the slip circle, xc, yc, R
• Outputs: This function takes as its output:
(a) the safety factor: SF
• Techniques needed: The main technique needed is the ability to make a calls functions.
The relevant MATLAB syntax that is needed is:
[output_1, output_2] = my_function(input_1, input_2)
where:
my_function
is the name of the function being called and:
output_1, output_2
are the output arguments (those coming back from my_function) and:
input_1, input_2
are the input arguments (those being passed to my_function)
• Other notes: The suggested structure of slope_safety_factor is as follows. A call
should first be made to choose_intersection (which itself will contain calls to calculate_
intersection). Calls should be then to calculate_intersection to obtain the final
intersection points. Then calls should be made to disturbing_moment and restoring_
moment. The final task of slope_safety_factor is to take the ratio of the restoring
and disturbing moment, according to Equation 0.1, to calculate the safety factor.
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 14 University of theWest of England
2. FUNCTION 2: calculate_intersection
• Function purpose: This function returns the point(s) of intersection between a
generic straight line and a circle.
• Inputs: This function takes as its input:
(a) the three parameters needed to specify the geometry of the slip circle, xc, yc, R
(b) the set of parameters needed to define the straight line - if using LINECIRC,
this will be the slope and y-intercept of the straight line (defined in the same
coordinate system as used to define the geometric properties of the slip circle)
• Outputs: This function returns as its inputs:
(a) the x-coordinates of the intercept point or points
(b) the y-coordinates of the intercept point or points
• Techniques needed: The code for LINECIRC, as posted on Blackboard, can be used
for this directly. You need to copy and paste this code into a MATLAB function,
validating that it works correctly by comparing with some hand-calculations. Alternatively,
there is an earlier short video on Blackboard showing you how to develop
this function from first principles.
• Other notes: In general, a line may pass through a circle (generating two intersection
points), OR it may be a tangent to a circle (generating one intersection point)
OR it may not pass through the circle as all (generating no intersection points) - see
Figure 10. In the last case (no intersection points), LINECIRC will return NaN (Not
a Number) values to indicate that there are no intersection points. []Note that, if you
wish to test if a NaN is encountered in Matlab, there is an in-built function, "isnan"
available].
Figure 10: Intersections of a straight line and a circle: LINE 1 has two intersection
points (shown in blue), LINE 2 has one (shown in orange) and LINE 3 has none
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 15 University of theWest of England
3. FUNCTION 3: choose_intersection
• Function purpose: This function will enable you to work out the intersection points
between the slip circle and your slope profile. To do this, choose_intersection will
need to make use of calculate_intersection, so you must have developed Function 2
before progressing to develop this function.
The slope profile can be considered to be made up of three straight lines: two that
are horizontal and one that is inclined. The horizontal line at the top of the slope
will be called the crest line and the horizontal line at the bottom of the slope will be
called the toe line. As shown in Figure 11, there are four possible ways in which the
slip circle can cut the slope:
– Case 1: both intersection points are on the inclined portion of the slope
– Case 2: one intersection point is on the crest line, the other is on the inclined
portion
– Case 3: one intersection point is on the inclined portion, the other is on the toe
line
– Case 4: one intersection point on the crest line, the other is on the toe line.
[Please note that your problems have been constrained so that it is not possible for
both intersection points to be on the crest line or both to be on the toe line.]
To be able to determine the intersection points for a given slip circle and your slope
profile, you need to be able to determine which of the four cases listed above applies
to a particular slope profile and choice of slip circle. Once you know which of the
four cases applies, you can then determine the intersection points straightforwardly
by calling the function calculate_intersection.
• Inputs: This function takes as its inputs:
(a) the three parameters needed to specify the geometry of the slip circle: xc, yc, R
(b) the width, w, the height, h of the slope and the coordinates of the toe of the
slope, xtoe and ytoe, so that the slope and y-intercept of the line defining the
inclined portion of the slope can be readily calculated.
• Outputs: This function returns as its output:
(a) the coordinates of the two points of intersection forming between the slip circle
and the slope profile: (x1; y1), (x2; y2)
• Techniques needed: This function will rely on you making extensive use of
conditional statements. To be able to make a decision as to which of the four cases
applies, you will need to be able to make use of if-elseif-else construct in MATLAB.
When you call calculate_intersection with the parameters specifying the inclined
line of the slope profile, you will be able to distinguish between the four cases shown
in Figure 11. Specifically, one set of suitable tests would be:
– Case 1 if: xslope;L  xcrest AND xslope;U  xtoe
– Case 2 if: xslope;L < xcrest AND xslope;U  xtoe
– Case 3: if: xslope;L  xcrest AND xslope;U > xtoe
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 16 University of theWest of England
– Case 4: if xslope;L < xcrest AND xslope;U > xtoe
where xslope;L is the lower x-component of the intersection point between the slip
circle and the inclined portion of the slope and xslope;U is the upper x-component of
the intersection point between the slip circle and the inclined portion of the slope.
As an example, see Figure 12, which shows the position of the points of intersection
between the sloping portion of the slope profile and the slip circle, with the positions
of xslope;L and xslope;U labelled. This example is for Case 2, and it is readily apparent
from this figure that xslope;L is less than xcrest and xslope;U is less than xtoe - consistent
with the tests stated above.
You need to implement tests such as those listed above as conditional statements to
be able to distinguish between Cases 1-4.
• Other notes: Once you know which of the four cases applies, it is then straightforward
to be able to determine the intersection points themselves. This is done
by calling calculate_intersection with the slip circle geometry and the parameters
specifying the appropriate lines, depending on which of the four cases applies. For
example, if Case 2 applies, to determine the intersection point on the crest line, a
call to calculate_intersection is needed, passing the slip circle parameters and the
parameters specifying the crest line. Of course, this will return, in general, two intersection
points and you will need to use another if-else construct to deduce which
of the two is needed (for this example, it will be the intersection point with the lower
x value). It is a good idea is to plot your slope, the slip circle and the intersection
points to check that what you have done is correct.
Developing this function is, perhaps, the biggest challenge to undertaking the
coursework - think logically and work methodically (it boils down to a sequence
of conditional statement tests).
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 17 University of theWest of England
(a) both intersection points are on the inclined portion of the slope
(b) one intersection point is on the crest line, the other is on the inclined portion
(c) one intersection point is on the inclined portion, the other is on the toe line
(d) one intersection point is on the crest line, the other is on the toe line
Figure 11: Possible cases for the intersection of a circular slip surface with the slope
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 18 University of theWest of England
Figure 12: Figure to show the variables, xslope;L and xslope;H
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 19 University of theWest of England
4. FUNCTION 4: calculate_disturbing
• Function purpose: This function will enable you to calculate the disturbing moment,
once you know the intersection points. You therefore need to have completed
the developments of calculate_intersection and choose_intersection before developing
this function.
• Inputs: This function takes as its inputs:
(a) the bulk unit weight of the soil, 

(b) the coordinates of the two intersection points, (x1, y1) and (x2, y2)
(c) the width, w, the height, h of the slope and the coordinates of the toe of the
slope, xtoe and ytoe, so that the slope and y-intercept of the line defining the
inclined portion of the slope can be readily calculated.
• Outputs: This function returns as its output:
(a) the disturbing moment, MD
• Techniques needed: The most straightforward way to determine the disturbing
moment is to divide the soil bounded between the two intersection points (as determined
using choose_intersection) into a series of small filaments. A loop will then
be needed to step through each filament and to determine its moment contribution.
It is suggested you make use of the for-loop construct in Matlab to carry out this
task.
• Other notes: To determine the mass of each filament, you will need to work out
the area of the filament. The area of the ith element is calculated by multiplying its
width, xi and its height, hi. To calculate the height, hi, you will need to work out
the y-coordinates of the top and bottom of the filament. The y-coordinate at the top
is straightforward (as the slope profile is made of straight lines). You will need to
use conditional statements (if-elseif-else) again to be able to decide which straight
line segment portion applies to each filament. The y-coordinate at the bottom of
the slip circle is determined from the equation defining a circle. Once the area of
the ith filament is known, its mass is obtained by multiplying by the unit weight,

. Once the mass is known, its moment contribution is obtained by multiplying by
the moment arm, xi (horizontal distance from the slip circle centre to the filament
centre). The total disturbing moment is calculated by summing the contributions
from each of the individual filaments. Summarising the above into one equation,
we have:
MD =
XN
1

(hixi)xi
where N is the number of filaments.
[Please note that there are different approaches to carry out the task of calculating the
disturbing moment - for example, you could find the distance to the centre of gravity,
d, analytically from the polygon defining the perimeter of the soil region undergoing
failure. However, the approach above is perhaps the most intuitive and easiest to implement].
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 20 University of theWest of England
Figure 13: Variables used in the calculation of the disturbing moment
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 21 University of theWest of England
5. FUNCTION 5: calculate_restoring
• Function purpose: This function will enable you to calculate the restoring moment,
once you know the intersection points. You therefore need to have completed the
developments of calculate_intersection and choose_intersection before developing
this function.
• Inputs: This function takes as its inputs:
(a) the undrained shear strength of the soil, cu
(b) the coordinates of the two intersection points, (x1, y1) and (x2, y2)
(c) the width, w, the height, h of the slope and the coordinates of the toe of the
slope, xtoe and ytoe, so that the slope and y-intercept of the line defining the
inclined portion of the slope can be readily calculated.
• Outputs: This function returns as its output:
(a) the restoring moment, MR
• Techniques needed: The restoring moment is readily calculated once the length of
the arc enclosing the body of soil undergoing failure is known. This can be calculated
with recourse to geometry. Specifically, with reference to Figures 14 and 15,
the arc length is calculated as:
Larc = R
where:
 = 2 arcsin (
s
2R
)
where:
s =
p
(x1 􀀀 x2)2 + (y1 􀀀 y2)2
The restoring moment, MR, is then calculated by multiplying the arc length by the
undrained shear strength and the slip circle radius:
MR = LarccuR
This function should just be just two or three lines long! Matlab has inbuilt trigonometric
functions - make sure you don’t get degrees and radians mixed up!
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 22 University of theWest of England
Figure 14: Figure showing the parameter, s
Figure 15: Figure showing the parameter, s
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 23 University of theWest of England
6. NEXT STEPS
(a) Validation: The problem brief gives a particular geometry of slope, a particular slip
circle radius and centre coordinates and particular strength parameters - see Figure
8. Using these values, your code developed as a result of completing the aforementioned
function development should return the safety factor value of 1.44. PLEASE
note that this safety factor value is applicable to the validation problem geometry
and strength parameters (i.e. those listed in this pdf) and NOT your individual
problem. You are not given the solution to your individual problem - it is for you to
find the critical safety factor value.
(b) Optimisation: The final step, needed to achieve a high mark, is to optimise to find
the lowest (i.e. the critical) values of the safety factor. This is readily done using
a grid-search approach. You are encouraged to develop a separate function, which
will make use of a series of for-loops to attempt many different values for the possible
centre coordinates of the slip circle in your defined ’search area’. For each (xc; yc)
coordinate pairing that you consider, you will need to consider a range of different
R values, such that you consider the range of slip circles that extends from the circle
that just intersects the slope profile to one that touches the stiff strata. You will then
need to record the value of R that gives the minimum safety factor - this will be
the critical safety factor for the current choice of xc and yc. Finally, you will need to
select the global minimum - the lowest safety factor recorded for all pairings of xc
and yc that you considered. This is a relatively simple development, once you have
the five functions detailed in the appendix working correctly.
(c) Plotting: A contour plot, showing the minimum safety factor obtained for each of
the (xc; yc) values considered in the search area is a valuable way to display the
results. This is readily achieved in Matlab using the command:
contour(x_Values, y_values, SF_results)
where
x_Values, y values
are vectors containing all the pairings of xc; yc and
SF_results
contains the corresponding safety factor results.
Dr Andre Jesus & Dr Richard Sandford 24 University of theWest of England

Thursday, 30 July 2020

Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing

UK assignment helper
                                     



Course Title:

Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
EXAMINATION PAPER: ACADEMIC SESSION 2018/2019
Campus Medway
Faculty Engineering & Science
Level Seven
Exam Session January 2019
COURSE CODE PROD1024
COURSE TITLE Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Examination Type Unseen, closed book
Duration of examination 2 hours
List of appendices
Instructions to Candidates
Students will be required to achieve an overall grade of 50% to achieve a
pass.
Answer Question 1 in Section A and any two questions from Section B.
Marks are as shown
Page 2 of 8
Session: January 2019
Course Title: Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
SECTION A
Q1. (a) Why is Value Stream Mapping considered to be an important tool
in implementing lean manufacturing?
[8 marks]
(b) Refer to the case study data (over) and:
(ii) Draw the current state map for the Value Steam.
[12 marks]
(iii) Outline the eight major questions which should be asked,
and answered, when developing a future state map.
[16 marks]
(iv) Use your answer to Q1.(b)(ii) to develop and draw a Future
State Map, outlining the improvements made by
implementing a lean manufacturing strategy in this
organisation.
[14 marks]
Page 3 of 8
Session: January 2019
Course Title: Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
Case Study Data
Medway Motor Manufacturing Ltd produces automobile
components. One particular line produces assembled
components for petrol engines and diesel engines. The customer
is Colonel Motors Ltd.
Production Processes
 The manufacturing line process involves casting, surface
grinding, assembly, testing and packaging.
 The finished assemblies are staged and shipped to the
customer each day.
 50 stillages of raw material are delivered by the supplier, 2
times each month.
Colonel Motors’ Requirements
 1000 components per day. Of which:
 600 are for petrol engines
 400 are for diesel engines
 Components are to be shipped in trays of 25 components per
tray.
 The customer orders in multiples of trays.
 One daily shipment is sent to the customer by truck.
 Colonel Motors work 3 shifts per day, 20 working days per
month.
Medway Motor Manufacturing Work Time
 20 working days per month
 2 shifts of 8 hours per day, one ½ hour meal break, and two
12.5 minute coffee breaks per shift.
Production Control Department
 MRP system
 Customer emails demand forecast each week for the next 90
days
 Send monthly order for raw materials to supplier by fax
 Customer emails daily firm order
 Issues weekly schedule to casting, surface grinding,
assembly, testing and packaging.
 Issues daily shipping schedule to despatch.
Page 4 of 8
Session: January 2019
Course Title: Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
Process Information
The processes occur in the following sequence and each
workpiece passes through all the processes. Processes are
dedicated to this product family unless stated otherwise.
1. Casting
 Central resource, shared with other product families
 Cycle Time = 10 minutes, producing 30 components per
cycle
 Change Over Time = 25 minutes
 Inventory in front of the process = 15 days of raw material
 Uptime = 90%
 1 Operator
2. Surface Grinding
 Cycle Time = 44 seconds
 Change Over Time = 15 minutes
 Inventory in front of the process = 2400 petrol, 1600 diesel
 Uptime = 85%
 1 Operator
3. Assembly
 Cycle Time = 56 seconds
 Change Over Time = 10 minutes
 Inventory in front of the process = 3000 petrol, 2000 diesel
 Uptime = 100%
 2 Operators
4. Testing
 Cycle Time = 35 seconds
 Changeover Time = 12 minutes
 Inventory in front of process = 900 petrol, 600 diesel
 Uptime = 100%
 1 Operator
Page 5 of 8
Session: January 2019
Course Title: Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
5. Packaging
 Cycle Time = 2 minutes per tray
 Changeover Time = 30 seconds
 Inventory in front of process = 1800 petrol, 1200 diesel
 Uptime = 100%
 1 Operator
6. Shipping
 One shipment per day, typically of 40 trays
 Inventory before shipping = 240 trays of petrol assemblies,
160 trays of diesel assemblies
Page 6 of 8
Session: January 2019
Course Title: Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
SECTION B
Q2. (a) It is frequently said that the Lean Manufacturing philosophy is
underlined by five key principles. Name and briefly describe these
principles.
[7 marks]
(b) (i) Lean philosophy is driven by the identification and
eradication of waste. Identify the “seven deadly wastes”
first described by Taiichi Ohno, and briefly describe each
one
(ii) Several people have added to this original set of wastes.
Discuss some of the “New” wastes, and possible additions
yet to be made to the ever growing list.
[10 marks]
(c) Does Eliyahu Goldratt’s Theory of Constraints (TOC) conflict with
lean, or coincide with it? Outline the 5 stages of the TOC
ongoing improvement cycle, explaining the conflicts or synergies
of TOC and Lean Manufacturing as appropriate.
[8 marks]
Page 7 of 8
Session: January 2019
Course Title: Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
Q3. (a) Several companies struggling with a lean transformation have
found Hoshin, or Policy Deployment to be useful. What is meant by
the term “Policy Deployment”?
[5 marks]
(b) What are the five stages of Policy Deployment?
[5 marks]
(c) Why is “Setting the Direction” important for a company
undergoing a lean transformation?
[5 marks]
(d) What are the six stages in Developing a Strategy for a lean
transformation?
[6 marks]
(e) What is meant by the term “Time Pacing”? What are the main
advantages of Time Pacing in a lean transformation?
[4 marks]
Page 8 of 8
Session: January 2019
Course Title: Advanced Principles in Lean Manufacturing
Course Code: PROD1024
Q4. (a) Kaikaku, or “Kaizen events” are widely used to implement
process improvement in companies moving towards lean
production. Briefly explain how such events work, and what
results a company can expect from them.
[5 marks]
(b) Identify and briefly describe ten of the fourteen management
principles that Jeffrey K. Liker identifies as guiding Toyota on
their journey to becoming a world class manufacturing
organisation.
[20 marks]

Digital Signal Processing

UK assignment helper

 





Faculty of CEM – Coursework Specification 2019/20

 

Module name:

Digital Signal Processing

Module code:

ENGT 5111

Title of the Assignment:

Filter Design and Image Processing

This coursework item is: (delete as appropriate)

Summative

 

This summative coursework will be marked anonymously

Yes x

No

The learning outcomes that are assessed by this coursework are:

1   Demonstrate a critical understanding of current practice in digital signal and image processing, including capturing, restoration, and reconstruction.

2   Demonstrate a proficiency in the design and implementation of signal processing algorithms.

3   Critically evaluate and interpret results generated from simulations following the design and implementation of efficient algorithms for signal processing and analysis.

This coursework is: (delete as appropriate)

Individual

 

If other or a mixed ... explain here:

 

This coursework constitutes 50% to the overall module mark.

Date Set:

04/07/20

Date & Time Due:

04/09/20

Your marked coursework and feedback will be available to you on:

If for any reason this is not forthcoming by the due date your module leader will let you know why and when it can be expected. The Associate Dean (Academic) (zallman@dmu.ac.uk) should be informed of any issues relating to the return of marked coursework and feedback.

25/09/20

When completed you are required to submit your coursework to:

Please upload one electronic copy to Blackboard

Late submission of coursework policy: Late submissions will be processed in accordance with current University regulations which state:

the time period during which a student may submit a piece of work late without authorisation and have the work capped at 50%  if passed is 14 calendar days. Work submitted unauthorised more than 14 calendar days after the original submission date will receive a mark of 0%. Work submitted late without authorisation which constitutes reassessment of a previously failed piece of coursework will always receive a mark of 0%.”

Academic Offences and Bad Academic Practices:

These include plagiarism, cheating, collusion, copying work and reuse of your own work, poor referencing or the passing off of somebody else's ideas as your own. If you are in any doubt about what constitutes an academic offence or bad academic practice you must check with your tutor. Further information and details of how DSU can support you, if needed, is available at:

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/dmu-students/the-student-gateway/academic-support-office/academic-offences.aspx and

http://www.dmu.ac.uk/dmu-students/the-student-gateway/academic-support-office/bad-academic-practice.aspx

 

Tasks to be undertaken: See assignment sheet

 

Deliverables to be submitted for assessment: see assignment sheet

 

How the work will be marked: see assignment sheet

Also note the PG mark descriptors: https://www.dmu.ac.uk/documents/about-dmu-documents/quality-management-and-policy/academic-quality/learning-teaching-assessment/pgt-mark-descriptors.pdf

 

Module leader/tutor name:


Contact details:


 

             


Wednesday, 29 July 2020

Advanced DSP Techniques

UK assignment helper





Academic Year 2019/20
P21417 – Advanced DSP Techniques
Second Attempt Assessment - Coursework
Deadline for Submission:
Instructions:
Complete both tasks.
Type your report (required for Task 2) and neatly write your answers (required for Task 1) then convert both into a PDF file for submission. Make sure your submission is clear and readable. Illegible sections of your paper will be not be marked.
Upload to Moodle together with any accompanying Matlab code. Matlab code should be provided in the executable form (.m file format) ready to be run and tested. You should also supply any additional data if it is used in your work and illustrated in the report.
Zip all your files and upload to Moodle by the given deadline.
Examiners:
Branislav Vuksanovic
2019-20 Page 1 of 2
Task 1. a) Use diagrams and relevant equations to explain and discuss the application of
adaptive filters in system identification configuration.
[10 marks]
b) Starting with the equation for the mean square error
MSE  J  2  2PTW WTRW derive the Wiener-Hopf equation.
[10 marks]
c) A zero-mean stationary white noise x(n) is applied to a filter with a transfer function:
 
  
2
z 0.5 z 3
H z
z
 
 .
Find all filters that can produce the same PSD as the above filter. Are those filters
minimum or maximum phase filters?
[10 marks]
d) Prove that for wide-sense stationary signals:       2 2 2
x x  n  E x n  m n  .
[10 marks]
Task 2.
Your task is to write a short report/paper on the following topic:
Parametric Spectral Estimation Methods
Your paper should provide a brief introduction to this topic, explain the underlying theory and/or
technology, then focus on a particular problem and provide an example (supported with Matlab
code and results). Your report should also have a short summary and conclusion. Report should
be written in IEEE format and limited to max. four pages including all figures, plots and
references.
Marking scheme for the report:
Section Max. Marks
================================================
Introduction 10 marks
Underlying Theory 10 marks
Example/Practical Problem 10 marks
Matlab Code and Results 10 marks
Conclusions 10 marks
Overall Impression 10 marks
(More general Report Marking Criteria are provided on the next page)
2019-20 Page 2 of 2
Report Marking Criteria
80% and above (Distinction)
• an outstanding depth and breadth of research, showing exceptional and thorough knowledge of the
relevant field, background research used to identify gaps in research, case-study included and discussed
• exceptional insight, critical analysis and originality, such as might make the work of comparable quality
with published work in its field
• an excellent and well-defined focus, clear structure and outstanding quality of argument
• clearly presented and well written, with no significant errors of syntax or expression
• referencing and bibliographical conventions accurately followed
70-79% (Distinction)
• an outstanding depth and breadth of research, showing thorough knowledge of the relevant field
• outstanding insight, critical analysis and originality, showing the potential to make a real contribution to
the field of study
• an excellent and well-defined focus, clear structure and very good quality of argument
• clearly presented and well written, with no significant errors of syntax or expression
• referencing and bibliographical conventions accurately followed
60-69% (Merit)
• a good range of research, showing a good level of knowledge of the relevant field but no significant gaps
identified, or no case-study provided to support paper report conclusions and claims
• a good level of insight and critical analysis
• a well-defined focus, clear structure and cogent argument
• clearly presented and comprehensible throughout, with very few significant errors of syntax or expression
• referencing and bibliographical conventions adequately followed
50-59% (Pass)
• a sufficient range of research, showing a competent knowledge of the relevant field
• some evidence of insight and critical analysis but no attempt to identify gaps or the elements that could be
improved upon in current works and technology
• an identifiable focus and structure, with some argument
• presented with sufficient clarity to be comprehensible throughout, some errors of syntax or expression
• material used is referenced and a bibliography supplied, but disciplinary conventions may not be fully
observed
40-49% (Fail)
• evidence of relevant research, but with a limited or flawed knowledge of the relevant field
• little evidence of insight and critical analysis
• lack of clarity of focus and structure, and an inadequate argument
• there may be errors of syntax or expression
• material used is referenced, but disciplinary conventions may not be fully or properly observed
0-39% (Fail)
• insufficient research, and a very limited or flawed knowledge of the relevant field
• insufficient evidence of any insight and critical analysis
• lack of focus, structure, and argument
• the prose may be unclear and difficult to comprehend, and there may be serious and frequent errors of
syntax or expression
• insufficient acknowledgment and referencing of material used

Design Evaluation Methodology

UK assignment helper






Sheffield Hallam University Department of Engineering & Mathematics
55-601016 Design Evaluation Methodology (2019-20)
REFERRAL TASK – No-CAD
This referral task is to be carried out individually and follows the same three stage
development process used in the original coursework assignments namely:
Problem Definition, Concept Development and Detail Design.
Please refer to the original assignments for clarification of these stages if necessary.
The same task is to be carried out in its entirety irrespective of whether the referral is
for failing the original coursework1 or coursework 2 or as no detriment retake.
The reason for this is that the brief for a Coursework 2 only detail design task would
have to include much of the material that would effectively form the answer to a
Coursework 1 only task ie Background, concept development and concept layouts.
The problem you are to work with is given below:
Escape Descender
With increasing numbers of wind turbines being installed, the number of people who
are involved in 'working at height' on such structures has increased significantly.
Although incidents are rare, it is important that installation or maintenance staff have
an independent means of getting to the ground should there be a fire or other
incident requiring evacuation.
You are to design a device for enabling workers to escape from a high structure such
as a wind turbine by controlled descent.
Assuming that the people evacuating the structure have full body harnesses, it is
envisaged that the design will use a rope and some kind of braking mechanism to
allow controlled decent at a safe speed.
The device should NOT require any additional power supply such as mains electricity
or battery.
You are to present your work in a technical report which outlines the overall design
process, including your background research, possible solutions considered, along
with calculations necessary to set dimensions for the most important components in
your final concept.
Please remember that a student version of SolidWorks is available for you to
download and use on your own PC / laptop which can be used to create engineering
drawings. Hand drawing are also perfectly acceptable.
The marking grids given later in this brief indicate the sections expected in your
report along with indicative word/page count. Not all sections will be marked.
However, the other sections should be included for completeness.
Some basic information about rope brakes and centrifugal clutches is provided on the
module BlackBoard site to complement this brief.
2
Report Size and Submission of Work
The expected content and volume and marks splits are listed below. More detail
information is given in the Guideline Assessment Grids presented later.
Weight Assessed ?: Indicative
volume
Intro. Research, Functional Analysis etc. Expected but
not assessed
½ page
Product Design Specification Expected but
not assessed
1 page
Concept Development 15% YES
2 pages
Concept Selection Expected but
not assessed
1 page
Layout Sketches 10% YES
1 page
Detail Design 45% YES
4 pages
Engineering drawings 20% YES
Max 4 xA3 page
in Appendix 1
Design Critique 10% YES
1 page
Individual Reflection (written in first person) Expected but
not assessed
½ page
ca 11 pages
There is a HARD page limit of 14 pages for the report.
TheA3 detail design drawings should be included as Appendix 1 directly after
the main body of the report. Drawings are NOT included in the 14 page limit.
Any additional material that you feel needs to be included in the report for
completeness should be attached as Appendix 2, 3 etc.
These will NOT be read as part of our marking.
Submission is online via BlackBoard. Please submit a SINGLE document with
drawings, spreadsheets etc. embedded in this.
We will NOT collate multiple documents.
Either Word .docx or .pdf are acceptable formats for submission.
From experience a .pdf is preferable as .docx documents can suffer from formatting
issues if opened on a different PC for viewing or printing.
3
Referral Task NO CAD - Guideline Marking Grids
Introduction including Background Research
Typical marks: 1st (100 to 70%) 2.1 (69 to 60%) 2.2 (59 to 50%) 3rd (49 to 40%) Fail (39 to 0%)
H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L
1. Introdcution,
Problem Statement
and Functional
Requirements
ca.1/2 page
Expected but
not assessed
Well written, informative and
complete introduction to the
problem underpinned by
comprehensive research.
Context and background to the
problem clearly presented;
underpinned by factual
research.
Context and background to the
problem are presented but
with limited additional factual
research.
Useful but incomplete
background and context
presented.
Incomplete or incoherent
background and context.
Evidence that competitor
products have been well
researched.
Evidence of some competitor
products being researched.
Some mention of competitor
products but lacking useful
detail.
Minimal reference to
competitor products.
No competitor products
included.
Evidence of exemplary
supporting research
Evidence that key technical
aspects have been well
researched and understood.
Evidence that key technical
aspects of the problem have
been researched
Some relevant background
researched included.
No evidence of any significant
technical research into the
problem.
"Problem Statement" is clear
and realistic.
The "Problem Statement" is a
good attempt at encapsulating
the work to be done.
"Problem Statement" is
understandable but could be
clearer or more concise.
Acceptable "Problem
Statement" but with obvious
scope for improvement.
"Problem Statement" does not
make sense.
Exemplary presentation of all
functional requirements
(function tree), including subfunctions
as appropriate.
A comprehensive list of key
functional requirements, well
presented (function tree) and
with some sub-functions.
Reasonably complete and well
presented (function tree) list
covering all key high level
functional requirements.
Very basic or poorly presented
list of functions, missing some
key functionality.
Incomplete / incoherent or
missing statement of functional
requirements.
Product Design Specification (PDS)
2. Product Design
Specification (PDS)
ca. 500 words
1 page
Expected but
not assessed
Well-structured and concise
summary PDS including target
values.
Well-structured summary PDS
including target values
(max/min, range) with units.
Comprehensive but poorly
structured summary PDS
including target values
(max/min, range).
Poorly structured and
somewhat incomplete
summary PDS with some
target values.
Incomplete PDS which is not
fit for purpose
PDS is clearly 'informed' by
the background research that
has been carried out.
PDS is 'informed' by the
background research but
lacking engineering
underpinning.
PDS includes many points with
no engineering underpinning
or not in the background
research.
PDS reasonably complete, but
containing information not
taken from background
research.
Little or no evidence of a link
between PDS and the
background research.
Comments are used to
highlight important reference
documents used (e.g.
standards).
Comments are used to
highlight important reference
documents used (e.g.
standards).
Some comments and pointers
to reference documents used.
Some comments. No meaningful comments
presented.
4
Concept Development and Selection 15%
Typical marks: 1st (100 to 70%) 2.1 (69 to 60%) 2.2 (59 to 50%) 3rd (49 to 40%) Fail (39 to 0%)
H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L
3. Development of
Possible Solutions
to Key Functions
15%
ca 2 pages
A very good range of (3 or more) creative engineering solutions
addressing key product functions developed and presented.
Few solutions (2) addressing key product functions are
presented.
Single solution presented
Solutions developed explore
different engineering principles
and/or configurations etc.
Some exploration of different
engineering principles and/or
configurations etc.
Limited exploration of different
engineering principles,
configuration / layout etc.
Very limited exploration of
different engineering principles
or configurations.
Little, if any, exploration of
different engineering principles
shown.
All solutions presented are realistic and could
conceivably be part of the final concept taken
through to detail design.
Most solutions presented are realistic and
probably could be part of the final concept.
Few if any of the solutions are
realistic from a practical
engineering perspective.
4. Selection of Final
Concept Design.
ca. 1 page
Expected but
not assessed
Criteria used to choose
between different solutions are
unambiguously defined and
clearly refer to relevant criteria
from the PDS and functional
requirements.
Selection criteria used to
select between different
solutions are reasonably well
defined and refer to criteria
from the PDS and functional
requirements.
Selection criteria used poorly
defined and open to
interpretation or do not fully
reflect the functional
requirements given in the PDS
or refer to criteria not given in
the original PDS.
Selection criteria vague or
limited and very loosely based
of the functional requirements
in the PDS,
Ambiguous selection criteria
with no obvious link between
those used and the PDS /
functional requirements.
Layout Sketches Showing Final Concept 10%
5. Layout Sketches
of Final Concept
10%
ca. 1 page
Comprehensive layout
sketches provide an excellent
framework within which the
detailed design solution can be
developed.
Good layout sketches provide
a clear framework from which
the detailed design solution
can be developed.
Poor or incomplete layout
sketches which providelimited
guidance for the detail design
work.
Layout sketches communicate
a bare minimum of the concept
and components involved.
Layout sketches fail to
communicate the essence of
the concept developed.
Layout sketches include all
key dimensions and
annotation necessary to start
detail design work.
Layout sketches includes most
key dimensions and
annotation needed to start
detail design work.
Layout sketches include some
key dimensions and
annotation but insufficient to
start detail design work.
Layout sketches include few
key dimensions and
annotation and of little help as
far as completing detail design
is concerned
Layout sketches provide little
relevant information needed
for detail design to be done
5
Detail Design 45%
Typical marks: 1st (100 to 70%) 2.1 (69 to 60%) 2.2 (59 to 50%) 3rd (49 to 40%) Fail (39 to 0%)
H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L
6. First principles
detail design.
45%
ca. 1000 words
4 pages
Exemplary presentation of
design calculations necessary
to size/select key structural
and machine elements.
Design calculations necessary
to size/select key structural
and machine elements are
complete, correct and well
communicated.
Calculations necessary to
size/select key structural and
machine elements are
complete but poorly presented.
Correct method used.
Design calculations for
sizing/selecting key structural
and machine elements
incomplete or lacking clarity
but method used correct.
Limited calculations to support
sizing / selecting structural
and/or machine elements or
very poorly communicated or
with significant errors.
Engineering Drawings 20%
7. Engineering
drawings
20%
ca. 4 pages
Exemplary assembly
drawing(s) including,
appropriate key
dimensions, range of
movement, details of
interfaces to other subsystems
etc.
Well-presented assembly
drawing(s) including
relevant dimensions, range
of movement, details of
interfaces to other subsystems
etc.
Assembly drawing(s) lack
important dimensions,
details of interfaces to other
sub-systems, range of
movement, BoM etc.
Assembly drawing(s)have
fundamental omissions but
still of acceptable quality.
Assembly drawing(s)
incomplete or extremely
poorly presented.
Exemplary part drawing(s),
including appropriate
dimensional and geometric
tolerancing, from which the
components could be
manufactured.
Well presented part
drawing(s) including some
dimensional and geometric
tolerancing, from which the
components could be
manufactured.
Detail drawings of parts
have fundamental errors or
omissions and/or missing
key dimensions or
tolerancing, and/or are
poorly presented.
Detail part drawings contain
many omissions or errors
and/or are poorly
presented. It would not be
possible to manufacture the
part(s) from the drawing.
Detail part drawings include
numerous fundamental
errors or omissions and/or
are very poorly presented.
Design Critique 10%
8. Design critique.
10%
Ca. 300 words
1 page
Excellent critique of the
designs from a mechanical
engineering point of view.
Good critique of the
designs from a mechanical
engineering point of view.
Limited critique of the
designs from a mechanical
engineering point of view.
Some discussion of the
design from an engineering
point of view.
Cursory critique of the designs
produced.
Excellent critique of the design
against the original Product
Design Specification.
Good critique of the
design against the original
Product Design Specification.
Limited critique of the
design against the original
Product Design Specification.
Very limited comparison of the
design against the original
Product Design Specification.
6
Individual Reflection
Typical marks: 1st (100 to 70%) 2.1 (69 to 60%) 2.2 (59 to 50%) 3rd (49 to 40%) Fail (39 to 0%)
H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L
9. Individual
Reflection(written in
first person)
ca. 1/2 page
Expected but
not assessed
Detailed, critical reflection
of the assignment including
comments about the task,
what has been learnt and
self-development needs.
Critical reflection of the
assignment and its learning
value, and some
development needs
mentioned.
Superficial but reasonably
critical reflection on the
assignment and learning
achieved.
Brief and uncritical
reflection.
No personal reflection.
Report Structure
and Quality
Not assessed
separately.
Administrative information
complete and well
presented.
Administrative information
complete. Name(s), tutor,
context, date.
Most administrative
information included.
Minimal administrative
information.
No authorship details.
Professional quality report
which is exemplary in its
presentation.
Well written report with few
significant flaws.
Understandable report but
with obvious points for
improvement.
Report has significant flaws
in presentation.
Poor report; reads more as
a collection of working
notes
Exemplary overall structure. Very good overall structure
with informative headings.
Good overall structure with
reasonably informative
headings.
Overall structure and
headings acceptable.
Very poor structure and
uninformative headings.
Exemplary use and
captioning of figures and
tables.
All figures and tables
numbered, captioned and
referred to from the text.
Most figures and tables
numbered, captioned and
generally referred to.
Figures and tables lack
captions but are referred to
from the main text.
Figures and tables not
captioned.
APA citation standard used appropriately and correctly
throughout the report.
APA citation standard used, but location of references in
text could be better.
Few, if any, citations in the
report text.
Bibliographic data complete and follows APA guidelines. Bibliographic data incomplete or otherwise in error. No bibliographic data.