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
[email protected].

Faculty of Engineering, Environment and Computing

211MAE Vehicle Systems

Assignment Brief 2020

Module Title /Group: Cohort (Sept/ Module Code

Vehicle Systems 211MAE

Coursework Title (e.g. CWK1) Hand out date:

Engine Analysis 5/10/20
Lecturer Due date and time:
Jeff Peters 4/12/2020
Aula: 17:59:59

Estimated Time (hrs): Coursework type: % of Module Mark/

18hrs Practical and Log Book 30%
Word Limit*: None
Submission arrangement Group Log Book with Peer Assessment Sheet as issued
File types and method of recording:
Mark and Feedback date:
Mark and Feedback method: Written in Log Book and on lab sheets

Module Learning Outcomes Assessed:

1. Develop and apply knowledge and understanding of scientific principles and

methodology necessary to underpin their education in vehicle systems and related
engineering disciplines, to enable appreciation of its scientific and engineering
context and to support their understanding of future developments and technologies
[IMechE_US1].
2. Apply a systems approach to vehicle engineering problems [IMechE_E4].
3. Apply knowledge of characteristics of particular equipment, processes or products
[IMechE_P1] and the use of technical literature and other information sources
[IMechE_P4].
4. Demonstrate engineering workshop and laboratory skills [IMechE_P2]. X

Task and Mark distribution:

Videos and handouts will be given to run alongside each lecture along the engine build process.
A table of valve follower dial gauge readings will be given.
• Using the table of results given measure Inlet and Exhaust Valve Lift Vs Crank Angle, produce a
graph showing results highlighting all salient points such as cam overlap.
• On one graph, show piston movement, cam positions during one full cycle, plot a graph
showing estimated air flow in and out of the combustion chamber
• The data give has a number of features or errors. Label each of these with a number and in the
 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
[email protected].
text of the report explain what you think may have happened and how, if you were to carry out
the experiment, you would remove or minimise these to get a better set of results
• Show on your graph the follower movement and in the text explain how this may be different
from the cam lift

Report 50%
Graphs 30%
Calculations for valve / cam lift 20%

Notes:
1. You are expected to use the Coventry University Harvard Referencing Style. For support and
advice on 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 your Module Leader.
6. *(ML’s delete if not applying to this assessment) Assignments that are more than 10% over the
word limit will result in a deduction of 10% of the mark i.e. a mark of 60% will lead to a reduction
of 6% to 54%. The word limit includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography, reference list
and tables.
7. You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on your
Moodle Web.
8. Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by
other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be
reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to both courseworks and exam answers.
9. A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class
discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in
you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely
your own work.
10. If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original
version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.
11. You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full),
either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is
specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information.
Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must
reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to
be self-plagiarism.
 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
[email protected].

Mark allocation guidelines to students (to be edited by staff per assessment)

0-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ 80+
Work mainly Most elements Most elements Strengths in all Most work All work
incomplete completed; are strong, elements exceeds the substantially
and /or weaknesses minor standard exceeds the
weaknesses in outweigh weaknesses expected standard
most areas strengths expected
 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 [email protected].

Marking Rubric (To be edited by staff per each assessment)

GRADE ANSWER RELEVANCE ARGUMENT & COHERENCE EVIDENCE SUMMARY

First Innovative response, answers the A clear, consistent in-depth critical and Wide range of appropriately supporting An outstanding, well-structured and
question fully, addressing the learning evaluative argument, displaying the ability evidence provided, going beyond the appropriately referenced answer,
≥70 objectives of the assessment task. to develop original ideas from a range of recommended texts. Correctly demonstrating a high degree of
Evidence of critical analysis, synthesis sources. Engagement with theoretical referenced. understanding and critical analytic skills.
and evaluation. and conceptual analysis.

Upper Second A very good attempt to address the A generally clear line of critical and A very good range of relevant sources is The answer demonstrates a very good
objectives of the assessment task with an evaluative argument is presented. used in a largely consistent way as understanding of theories, concepts and
60-69 emphasis on those elements requiring Relationships between statements and supporting evidence. There is use of issues, with evidence of reading beyond
critical review. sections are easy to follow, and there is a some sources beyond recommended the recommended minimum. Well
sound, coherent structure. texts. Correctly referenced in the main. organised and clearly written.

Lower Second Competently addresses objectives, but Some critical discussion, but the argument A range of relevant sources is used, but The answer demonstrates a good
may contain errors or omissions and is not always convincing, and the work is the critical evaluation aspect is not fully understanding of some relevant
50-59 critical discussion of issues may be descriptive in places, with over-reliance on presented. There is limited use of sources theories, concepts and issues, but there
superficial or limited in places. the work of others. beyond the standard recommended are some errors and irrelevant material
materials. Referencing is not always included. The structure lacks clarity.
correctly presented.

Third Addresses most objectives of the The work is descriptive with minimal A limited range of relevant sources used Some understanding is demonstrated but
assessment task, with some notable critical discussion and limited theoretical without appropriate presentation as is incomplete, and there is evidence of
40-49 omissions. The structure is unclear in engagement. supporting or conflicting evidence coupled limited research on the topic. Poor
parts, and there is limited analysis. with very limited critical analysis. structure and presentation, with few
Referencing has some errors. and/or poorly presented references.

Fail Some deviation from the objectives of the Descriptive with no evidence of theoretical Very limited use and application of Whilst some relevant material is present,
assessment task. May not consistently engagement, critical discussion or relevant sources as supporting evidence. the level of understanding is poor with
<40 address the assignment brief. At the theoretical engagement. At the lower end At the lower end demonstrates a lack of limited evidence of wider reading. Poor
lower end fails to answer the question set displays a minimal level of understanding. real understanding. Poor presentation of structure and poor presentation, including
or address the learning outcomes. There references. referencing. At the lower end there is
is minimal evidence of analysis or evidence of a lack of comprehension,
evaluation. resulting in an assignment that is well
below the required standard.

Late submission 0 0 0 0