Design Evaluation Methodology

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.