1 In-Course Assessment Brief Postgraduate Programme Academic Year 2016/17 Module: ENG7042 Digital Design and Analysis Assessment Title: Siemens Green Power Challenge: Chassis Design Assessment Identifier: CWK 1 (Individual Report 80%) + CWK 2 (Presentation 20%) School: School of Advanced Design Engineering Module Co-ordinator: Man-Fai Yau Assessment Details and Deadlines: See Moodle Brief Assessment Details Chassis Design Aim: Reduce Weight of the Design and Maximise Space Efficiency.  Engineering component layout and fixing points/joining system  Complete 3D CAD model  Sub-Assemblies and Engineering Assembly Drawings2 IMPORTANT STATEMENT Plagiarism: the presentation of the work of another (from whatever source: book, journal, internet etc) as if it were one's own independent work. This can be anywhere on a continuum ranging from sloppy paraphrasing to verbatim transcription without crediting sources. You are advised to refer to the Student Handbook on matters of cheating and plagiarism as they relate to coursework, group assignments, class tests and examinations. Both cheating and plagiarism are totally unacceptable and the University maintains a strict policy against them. It is YOUR responsibility to be aware of this policy and to act accordingly. The University requires that the following statement is included in all module documents. "You are reminded of the University Disciplinary Procedures which refer to cheating. Except where the assessment of an assignment is group-based, the final piece of work which is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between assignments is likely to lead to an investigation for cheating. It is not advisable to show your completed work to your colleagues or to share and exchange disks. You must also ensure that you acknowledge all sources you have used. Work which is discovered to be the result of collusion or plagiarism will be dealt with under the University's Disciplinary Procedures, and the penalty may involve the loss of academic credits. If you have any doubts about the extent to which you are allowed to collaborate with your colleagues, or the conventions for acknowledging the source you have used, you should first of all consult module documentation and, if still unclear, your module tutor." You will be asked to confirm in writing when handing in any piece of assessed work that it is your own by completing the Coursework Submission & Record Form which should be printed from ECMS My-course on https://mytid.bcu.ac.uk/. It is the STUDENT'S responsibility to accurately complete the form and comply with its rules and guidance as described in the student handbook for this academic year.3 Siemens Green Power Challenge Chassis Design Aim: Reduce Weight and Maximise Space Efficiency: Produce a Product Design Specification, Concept Generation and Selection with CAD Model of the selected design. Design must be in compliance with the rules of the competition. Fig1. Typical competitor for this type of product.4 Tasks: 1. Write a suitable PDS (use the Stuart Pugh Methodology). 2. Develop and chose a suitable concept. 3. Model all the components as separate parts. 4. Identify all the fixing points and joining technology used in your design. 5. Assemble the parts to form a complete CAD assembly of the car. Run clash analysis as required. 6. Select a critical structural part and run an FE analysis to ensure the design meets the required specification. Display clearly where the maximum stress and deflection is generated on the part chosen. 7. Create the necessary engineering drawings. Produce 1st angle orthogonal views: Front view, Side view, Plan and isometric. Orthogonal views are to show the principle dimensions. In addition produce: A sectioned view through the centre line of the chair and an exploded view of the assembly. Include the bill of materials. Each student will produce a report with sections containing the necessary data, engineering drawings, diagrams and screen shots imported into M.S Word. Work is to be clearly labelled with the name of the student and information about the picture and drawings. Use sections, headings and page numbers in your report. Upload the report to Moodle as a PDF document. Learning Outcome Learning and Teaching Methods On completion of the module, the student should be able to: 1 Review and use analytical techniques and processes to identify product needs Lectures and tutorials. Independent learning: Identification and investigation of relevant topics. Directed and undirected self study Problem based learning Lectures workshops and tutorials, Directed and undirected self-study. 2 Identify and use modern design tools to develop design solutions to specific problems 3 Appraise advanced modelling, assembly and analysis design tools 4 Evaluate designs in terms of their performance and optimal use of materials Workload: This report is equivalent word count of over 4000 words for guidance for students with support summaries. 22 hours approx.5 1) Do not include the assignment brief and any internet copies of standard parts as these should be kept to a minimum and placed in an appendix. 2) It is standard practice not to produce detail drawing of the standard parts. They may be easy to model and draw but they add no value for the student and only act as filler material in terms of a report on design. 3) Students should think check their work before submission. 4) Marks are awarded for method as well as the end result.6 Marks will be based on the following: Assessment Criteria  1. Report Structure and Data Presentation 2. Modelling, Assembly and Engineering Drawings 3. Part, Assembly Analysis and FEA model Weighting: 0.2 0.4 0.4 Grading Criteria 0 – 29% Little or no indication of being aware of the requirements for a lab report. No or little evidence of any ability to produce 3D models. No use of ergonomic data No or little analysis/ conclusions and poor structure to the report 30 – 39% Indicates ability to write a technical report but major shortcomings or incomplete. Poor referencing Poor evidence of ability to produce 3D models A poor analysis/ conclusion and poor structure to the report 40 – 49% Acceptable report includes important sections but minor shortcomings. Poor referencing. Limited evidence of ability to produce 3D models A limited analysis/ conclusion 50 – 59% Acceptable record. Some incompleteness / few shortcomings but adequate in most respects. Attempts at referencing A fair ability to produce 3D models with accuracy. Use of ergonomic chart and design tools A fair structural analysis/ conclusion. Sensible load factors 60 – 69% Generally good, no significant shortcomings. Minor improvements possible. Attempts at referencing A good degree 3D modelling ability with accuracy applying ergonomic charts and design tools A good analysis/ conclusion 70+% Substantially in accordance with requirements for report. Little or no shortcomings and indicates additional relevant content and supporting materials beyond requirements. Well referenced. A good degree 3D modelling ability with a high degree of accuracy and attention to detail, sound use of ergonomic charts and design tools An extensive analysis/ conclusion7 Student name: Presentation title: Presentation: The presentation will be assessed on evidence of: Planning design, concepts and evaluation; design and evaluation; analysis of any issues relating to the final design. The presentations will assess the ability to argue issues relating to the methodology adopted and the analysis of the results as well as justification of the conclusions and recommendations. The presentation will be assessed on the following criteria: Marking criteria Weighting Mark Weighted mark Lucidity- continuity and natural flow. Team working 15% A clear statement of the case study aims and objectives 15% Presentation of facts, assertions and arguments 40% A summary of the main achievement in relation to the stated deliverables 15 % Good use of visual aids 15% Total 100 % Marking Criteria 70 – 100% Shows excellent understanding and technical competence and a high level of judgment, perception and originality. 60 – 69% above average performance in achieving all objectives but lacks the individual insight required. 50 – 59% Average performance. Will have covered all objectives to a satisfactory level or have made a variable response, good in some areas but limited in others. 40 – 49% below average performance but has completed the majority of the objectives to a satisfactory level. ‹40% Shows limited understanding and technical competence