Chassis Design | My Assignment Tutor

1In-Course Assessment BriefPostgraduate Programme Academic Year 2016/17 Module:ENG7042 Digital Design and AnalysisAssessment Title:Siemens Green Power Challenge: Chassis DesignAssessment Identifier:CWK 1 (Individual Report 80%) + CWK 2 (Presentation20%)School:School of Advanced Design EngineeringModule Co-ordinator:Man-Fai YauAssessment Detailsand Deadlines:See MoodleBrief AssessmentDetailsChassis DesignAim: Reduce Weight of the Design and Maximise SpaceEfficiency. Engineering component layout and fixing points/joiningsystem Complete 3D CAD model Sub-Assemblies and Engineering Assembly Drawings 2IMPORTANT STATEMENTPlagiarism: 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 beanywhere on a continuum ranging from sloppy paraphrasing to verbatimtranscription without crediting sources.You are advised to refer to the Student Handbook on matters of cheating and plagiarismas they relate to coursework, group assignments, class tests and examinations. Bothcheating and plagiarism are totally unacceptable and the University maintains a strictpolicy against them. It is YOUR responsibility to be aware of this policy and to actaccordingly.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 workwhich is submitted must be your own work. Close similarity between assignments islikely to lead to an investigation for cheating. It is not advisable to show yourcompleted work to your colleagues or to share and exchange disks.You must also ensure that you acknowledge all sources you have used. Work which isdiscovered to be the result of collusion or plagiarism will be dealt with under theUniversity’s Disciplinary Procedures, and the penalty may involve the loss of academiccredits.If you have any doubts about the extent to which you are allowed to collaborate withyour colleagues, or the conventions for acknowledging the source you have used, youshould 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 itis your own by completing the Coursework Submission & Record Form which should beprinted from ECMS My-course on https://mytid.bcu.ac.uk/.It is the STUDENT’S responsibility to accurately complete the form and comply with itsrules and guidance as described in the student handbook for this academic year.3 Siemens Green Power ChallengeChassis DesignAim: Reduce Weight and Maximise Space Efficiency: Produce a Product DesignSpecification, 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. 4Tasks: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 clashanalysis as required.6. Select a critical structural part and run an FE analysis to ensure the design meetsthe required specification. Display clearly where the maximum stress and deflectionis 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 theprinciple dimensions. In addition produce: A sectioned view through the centre lineof 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 tobe clearly labelled with the name of the student and information about the picture anddrawings. Use sections, headings and page numbers in your report. Upload the reportto Moodle as a PDF document. Learning OutcomeLearning and Teaching MethodsOn completion of the module, the student should be able to:1 Review and use analytical techniques andprocesses to identify product needsLectures and tutorials.Independent learning: Identification andinvestigation of relevant topics.Directed and undirected self studyProblem based learningLectures workshops and tutorials,Directed and undirected self-study.2 Identify and use modern design tools todevelop design solutions to specific problems3 Appraise advanced modelling, assembly andanalysis design tools4 Evaluate designs in terms of theirperformance and optimal use of materials Workload:This report is equivalent word count of over 4000 words for guidance for students withsupport summaries.22 hours approx. 51) Do not include the assignment brief and any internet copies of standard parts asthese 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. Theymay be easy to model and draw but they add no value for the student and only actas 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.6Marks will be based on the following: AssessmentCriteria1.Report Structure andData Presentation2.Modelling, Assembly andEngineering Drawings3.Part, Assembly Analysis and FEAmodelWeighting:0.20.40.4GradingCriteria0 – 29%Little or no indicationof being aware of therequirements for alab report.No or little evidence of anyability to produce 3Dmodels. No use ofergonomic dataNo or little analysis/ conclusions andpoor structure to the report30 – 39%Indicates ability towrite a technicalreport but majorshortcomings orincomplete. PoorreferencingPoor evidence of ability toproduce 3D modelsA poor analysis/ conclusion and poorstructure to the report40 – 49%Acceptable reportincludes importantsections but minorshortcomings. Poorreferencing.Limited evidence of abilityto produce 3D modelsA limited analysis/ conclusion50 – 59%Acceptable record.Someincompleteness / fewshortcomings butadequate in mostrespects. Attemptsat referencingA fair ability to produce 3Dmodels with accuracy. Useof ergonomic chart anddesign toolsA fair structural analysis/ conclusion.Sensible load factors60 – 69%Generally good, nosignificantshortcomings. Minorimprovementspossible. Attemptsat referencingA good degree 3Dmodelling ability withaccuracy applyingergonomic charts anddesign toolsA good analysis/ conclusion70+%Substantially inaccordance withrequirements forreport. Little or noshortcomings andindicates additionalrelevant content andsupporting materialsbeyondrequirements. Wellreferenced.A good degree 3Dmodelling ability with ahigh degree of accuracyand attention to detail,sound use of ergonomiccharts and design toolsAn extensive analysis/ conclusion 7Student name:Presentation title:Presentation:The presentation will be assessed on evidence of:Planning design, concepts and evaluation; design and evaluation; analysis of any issuesrelating to the final design.The presentations will assess the ability to argue issues relating to the methodologyadopted and the analysis of the results as well as justification of the conclusions andrecommendations. The presentation will be assessed on the following criteria: Marking criteriaWeightingMarkWeightedmarkLucidity- continuity and natural flow. Team working15%A clear statement of the case study aims and objectives15%Presentation of facts, assertions and arguments40%A summary of the main achievement in relation to thestated deliverables15 %Good use of visual aids15%Total100 % Marking Criteria70 – 100% Shows excellent understanding and technical competence and a high levelof judgment, perception and originality.60 – 69% above average performance in achieving all objectives but lacks theindividual insight required.50 – 59% Average performance. Will have covered all objectives to a satisfactory levelor 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 objectivesto a satisfactory level.‹40% Shows limited understanding and technical competence

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *