MAE Design

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their

assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any

website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to

Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing

103MAE Design

Assignment Brief 2019/20

Module Title

Design

Ind

Cohort (Jan/May)

Module Code

103MAE

Coursework Title

CW1, Re-sit

Hand out date:

10th June 2020

Lecturer

NICK GOLSBY

Due date:

3rd August 2020, 18:00pm

Estimated Time (hrs): 10

Word Limit*: 1500

Coursework type:

Report

% of Module Mark

40

Submission arrangement online via CUMoodle:

File types and method of recording: Submit single .pdf file via CUMoodle

Mark and Feedback date: 15 working days

Mark and Feedback method: CUMoodle

Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:

1. Investigate and define a problem and identify constraints including environmental and sustainability limitations, health and safety and risk assessment issues [IMechE_D1];

3. Use creativity to establish innovative solutions [D4] and consider stages of the design process and organise ideas to evaluate outcomes [D6].

5. Apply appropriate codes of practice and industry standards [P6]

Task and Mark distribution:

Complete and submit a single document submission using the provided report template (on Moodle) to meet the requirements of the assignment brief.

The assignment requires students to Individually review and model the design process required for a given product, including:

• Description of required design process

• Problem analysis to derive design constraints and criteria

• Physics modelling of product

• Technical drafting of two parts from a product assembly

Students should complete a review of the design process and modelling required for a ‘Car Jack’. A car jack is an established product which is used to lift and secure a car to allow maintenance to be carried out on the lower portion of the vehicle. A example ‘Car jack’ (figure 1) product assembly is provided to students to serve a basis for their design process review – student can consider the design process required to develop this product and produce 2 technical part drafting’s of individual parts from the assembly of their choice.

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their

assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any

website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to

facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.

Students are provided with a template to structure their work available via Moodle. This is broken down into 4 sections:

Section 1 – Design Process (20% of mark)

Students should describe the required, overall design process required to develop a ‘car-jack’ from initial problem brief to final solution. Direct reference should be made to the assigned product and tools/techniques which could be utilise.

Section 2 – Problem Analysis (20% of mark)

Students should derive a list of design constraints and criteria for the product using a problem analysis tool/technique. Additionally students may wish to indicate relevant standards or legislation to the product.

Section 3 – Physics Modelling (20% of mark)

Students should present evidence of appropriate physics modelling in relation to the product. This may include production of ‘free-body diagram’ and the associate mathematics to support design development.

Section 4 – 2 Technical Part Drafting’s (40% of mark)

Students have been provided with an overall product assembly of a relevant existing product to open in a CAD software. Students must select two parts in the assembly of their choice to produce two A3 technical part drafting’s. The 2 part drafting’s should be included in the single .pdf document submission via Moodle.

Figure 1 – Car-jack Model

Notes:

1. You are expected to use the CUHarvard referencing format. For support and advice on how this students can contact Centre for Academic Writing (CAW).

2. Please notify your registry course support team and module leader for disability support.

3. Any student requiring an extension or deferral should follow the university process as outlined here.

4. The University cannot take responsibility for any coursework lost or corrupted on disks, laptops or personal computer. Students should therefore regularly back-up any work and are advised to save it on the University system.

5. If there are technical or performance issues that prevent students submitting coursework through the online coursework submission system on the day of a coursework deadline, an appropriate extension to the coursework submission deadline will be agreed. This extension will normally be 24 hours or the next working day if the deadline falls on a Friday or over the weekend period. This will be communicated via email and as a CUMoodle announcement.

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third

parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.

Marking Rubric

GRADE

ANSWER RELEVANCE

ARGUMENT & COHERENCE

EVIDENCE

SUMMARY

First

≥70

Innovative response, answers the question fully, addressing the learning objectives of the assessment task. Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

A clear, consistent in-depth critical and evaluative argument, displaying the ability to develop original ideas from a range of sources. Engagement with theoretical and conceptual analysis.

Wide range of appropriately supporting evidence provided, going beyond the recommended texts. Correctly referenced.

An outstanding, well-structured and appropriately referenced answer, demonstrating a high degree of understanding and critical analytic skills.

Upper Second

60-69

A very good attempt to address the objectives of the assessment task with an emphasis on those elements requiring critical review.

A generally clear line of critical and evaluative argument is presented. Relationships between statements and sections are easy to follow, and there is a sound, coherent structure.

A very good range of relevant sources is used in a largely consistent way as supporting evidence. There is use of some sources beyond recommended texts. Correctly referenced in the main.

The answer demonstrates a very good understanding of theories, concepts and issues, with evidence of reading beyond the recommended minimum. Well organised and clearly written.

Lower Second

50-59

Competently addresses objectives, but may contain errors or omissions and critical discussion of issues may be superficial or limited in places.

Some critical discussion, but the argument is not always convincing, and the work is descriptive in places, with over-reliance on the work of others.

A range of relevant sources is used, but the critical evaluation aspect is not fully presented. There is limited use of sources beyond the standard recommended materials. Referencing is not always correctly presented.

The answer demonstrates a good understanding of some relevant theories, concepts and issues, but there are some errors and irrelevant material included. The structure lacks clarity.

Third

40-49

Addresses most objectives of the assessment task, with some notable omissions. The structure is unclear in parts, and there is limited analysis.

The work is descriptive with minimal critical discussion and limited theoretical engagement.

A limited range of relevant sources used without appropriate presentation as supporting or conflicting evidence coupled with very limited critical analysis. Referencing has some errors.

Some understanding is demonstrated but is incomplete, and there is evidence of limited research on the topic. Poor structure and presentation, with few and/or poorly presented references.

Fail

<40

Some deviation from the objectives of the assessment task. May not consistently address the assignment brief. At the lower end fails to answer the question set or address the learning outcomes. There is minimal evidence of analysis or evaluation.

Descriptive with no evidence of theoretical engagement, critical discussion or theoretical engagement. At the lower end displays a minimal level of understanding.

Very limited use and application of relevant sources as supporting evidence. At the lower end demonstrates a lack of real understanding. Poor presentation of references.

Whilst some relevant material is present, the level of understanding is poor with limited evidence of wider reading. Poor structure and poor presentation, including referencing. At the lower end there is evidence of a lack of comprehension, resulting in an assignment that is well below the required standard.

Late submission

0

0

0

0

This document is for Coventry University students for their own use in completing their

assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any

website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to

facultyregistry.eec@coventry.ac.uk.