Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sept 04
CIV307/CIV400Stage 3 and 4 Projects
Dr Geoff Parkin / Dr Paul Sallis
Stage 3 and 4 projects
• Guidance notes are in Undergraduate Handbook, and on the Y: drive “modules on ‘ce-gs02’ “
• Stage 3 and 4 projects are worth 30 credits
• 300 hours of work across terms 1 and 2
• A successful project requires motivation, initiative and self-discipline
• Final year projects are often taken into account internally and externally in assessing the quality of a student’s performance and potential
• Can provide opportunity for making industrial contacts
Choice of topic
• All projects must contain original analysis/thought
• A literature survey in itself is not a sufficient task
• Good projects will demonstrate understanding of the broader topic area, will include critical analysis, and will be accurate and well presented
• To obtain the highest marks, you must agree a topic with your supervisor that is challenging
Coursework assignments
• CW1: Project Inception Report (40%)
• CW2: Full dissertation (additional 60%)
Project Inception Report
• Introduction (Aims, Objectives, Scope of study, Literature Review) (15 - 25% module mark)
• Methodology (strategic plan of the work, details of all tools you will employ) (10 - 20% module mark)
• Quality of presentation (structure, clarity of expression, writing style etc.) (5% module mark)
Inception report mark sheet
Marking ScheduleItem
Suggested Scheme %
ActualScheme
Marks** Allocated
(1st marker)
Quality of the written report (presentation, use of English etc)
5 5
Introduction 15 - 25 *
Methodology 10 - 20 *
Total 40 40
Dissertation
• * Title Page • * Abstract or Executive Summary• * Table of Contents • * List of Tables and Figures • * Acknowledgements • Abbreviations (list of symbols) • Scope of Work• Main Sections of the Report• --------------------------------------------------------------• Introduction (from PIR)• Literature Review, Aims, Objectives• (Addendum to the Introduction)• --------------------------------------------------------------• Methodology (from PIR)• (Addendum to the Methodology)• --------------------------------------------------------------
Dissertation
• --------------------------------------------------------------• Results & Discussion• (or as separate sections)• --------------------------------------------------------------• Conclusions• --------------------------------------------------------------• Recommendations• --------------------------------------------------------------• List of References, Bibliography• --------------------------------------------------------------• Appendices• --------------------------------------------------------------
Dissertation mark sheet
Marking ScheduleItem
Suggested Scheme %
ActualScheme
Marks Allocated(1st marker)
Marks Allocated(2nd marker)
Quality of the written report (presentation, use of English etc)
5 5
Results & Discussion 35 - 45 *
Conclusions & Recommendations 10 - 20 *
CW2 Total 60 60 **
Project Inception Report(mark carried forward from CW1)
40 40
CW1 Total (Project Inception Report)(after moderation by 2nd marker)
40 40 **
TOTAL (CW1 + CW2) 100 100 **
TOTAL (after moderation) 100 100 ***
Writing style
• Objectivity
• Formality
• Clear English
Registering your project title
• Keep title short and precise
• Email title to Stage 3 Tutor: [email protected] or Stage 4 Tutor: [email protected] by end of week 10
•Name Z Smith
•Title Recycling of construction waste.
•Supervisor Dr P Sallis
•Second Marker Dr T Donnelly
Marking criteria
45-49
40-44
Very limited understanding of material. Significant omissions, errors of understanding and factual errors. Generally poorly presented and structured.
Demonstrates minimum acceptable understanding in some though not all areas. Many factual errors and omissions. Generally poorly presented and structured.
26-39
16-25
6-15
0-5
Fail. Some material of relevance, but generally irrelevant approach and failure to understand basic requirements of module/topic. Significant factual errors and omissions. Little or no structure and poorly presented.
Fail. Limited work showing an inability to deal with the requirements of the module/topic. Some factually relevant material.
Fail. Extremely limited work with very little factually relevant material.
Fail. Little or no attempt to complete the work.
Marking criteria
65-69
60-64
Shows thorough understanding of topic. Substantial detail supported by reasoned argument, application and critical analysis, with evidence of further study. Very well presented and structured work.
Work provides substantial information that addresses the aims and objectives of the module/topic. May contain minor errors of understanding. Some evidence of additional study. Very well presented and structured work.
55-59
50-54
Clear understanding of the topic. Material included is relevant and largely factually correct, but lacking in critical analysis and in evidence of further study. May contain errors of understanding or facts in some areas compensated by very good work in other areas. Relies almost entirely on course material. Adequately presented and structured.
Limited understanding of material. Considerable omission of relevant material and/or use of irrelevant material. May contain significant errors of understanding and some errors of fact. Presentation and structure adequate to poor.
Marking criteria
90-100
80-89
70-79
An outstanding piece of work throughout with excellent analysis, synthesis and evaluation of material and concise, logical thought. Where appropriate, work shows originality and critical ability. Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of topic with evidence of substantial additional study and with virtually no errors. Extremely well presented and structured work. Could not be bettered at this Stage in the time available.
Outstanding in most elements but minor deficiencies in some, compensated by excellence in others. Extremely well presented and structured work.
Overall excellent with respect to synthesis, originality, critical ability and logical argument. Thorough understanding of the topic and evidence of significant additional study, although may contain minor errors. Extremely well presented and structured work.
Submission of PIR
• PIR is bound and submitted as a normal coursework submission in the usual way
• One copy of the Project Inception Report, with one Assignment Submission Form and one Project Inception Report Comment and Mark Sheet inserted loosely under the cover, should be submitted on or before the hand-in date.
Submission of Dissertation
• Submit 2 bound copies (soft or hard bound) and one electronic copy of your Dissertation.
• The first copy should have one Assignment Submission Form, and one Dissertation Comment and Mark Sheet inserted loosely under the cover.
• Title of the project should be written both on the front outer cover and on the spine (pro-forma document for spine details available on Y: drive with guidance notes)
• Deposit an electronic copy of your Dissertation on the School’s network server “\\ce-gs07\CENGEO_CourseWork”
Late submissions
• Late submissions will be reduced to 80% of the total mark, unless pre-arranged with supervisor for unavoidable good reason
• Loss of computer data or documents will NOT be accepted as a reason for late submission – keep your files backed up at all times
Checklist
• Week 8 (Induction Week) – Stage tutor meets with students (explains procedures and supplies Project Titles)
• Week 9 and 10 – Students meet individually with staff to select a project
• End of Week 10 – Students must register project details with the Stage Tutor by sending them an email specifying Project Title and the names of Supervisor and second marker.
• Week 20 – Students submit Coursework 1 (Project Inception Report, 40% of Module Marks)
Checklist
• Week 21 – 25 Project Supervisors mark Coursework 1
• Week 26 – Coursework 1 returned to students
• Week 40 – Students submit Coursework 2 (Dissertation, 60% of Module Marks)
• Week 41 – 42 Staff mark Coursework 2 (including second marking of CW1 and CW2 by the second marker)
• Week 43 – 44 Stage tutor moderates Coursework 1 & 2
• Week 46on – Coursework 1 & 2 returned with coursework Box File
Example Stage 3 project
• An assessment of natural fluorescence as a surrogate for standard parameters of pollution in wastewater. (Dr P Sallis)
• The project will characterise a range of wastewater samples from various sources using two approaches. First, standard wet chemical analyses, widely employed by the Environment Agency and water companies in assessing pollutional load (e.g. ammonia, total organic carbon, COD), will be carried out and statistical correlation with data generated by the second method, fluorescence spectrometry, determined. The results will identify whether fluorescence measurements could be used in the future as a surrogate parameter for quantifying the level of organic pollution in wastewaters.
Example Stage 3 project
• Hydraulic properties of soils and glacial drift in Cumbria (Dr G Parkin).
• Groundwater recharge rates, and the corresponding movement of agricultural pollutants such as nitrates leaching from soils, are controlled by the properties of soils and glacial drift deposits. A study is being carried out into the effect of distribution of glacial drift on recharge rates and water quality, in collaboration with the Environment Agency and British Geological Survey. This project will contribute to this study by conducting field and laboratory assessment of physical and hydraulic properties of soils and glacial drift material from borehole cores in the Eden catchment, Cumbria, and interpreting the results in terms of potential for flow pathways for recharge and pollution transport .
Example Stage 3 project
• Comparison of proposed Eurocodes with current British Standards relating to the design of reinforced concrete structures. (Dr D Lilley)
• The project will involve: literature review; design of reinforced concrete beams of various spans, sizes and loadings; cost comparisons; assessment of design times and associated costs.
Example Stage 3 project
• Cementitious grouts for geothermal systems• Supervisor: Professor David Manning• Geothermal energy is exploited through extraction of hot water
from suitable sources, via closed system deep circulation of a fluid that picks up heat, or using ground source heat pumps. In the last two of these, the efficiency of the system depends on the thermal conductivity of the barrier between the circulating fluid and the source of heat (usually a hot rock).
• This project involves a review of materials available to prepare grouts suitable for use in geothermal systems. Such grout needs to have a high thermal conductivity. This can be achieved using (a) special cements and/or (b) specific grout constituents with high thermal conductivity. The outcome of the work will be a report that recommends specific materials for physical testing. The report may include results of thermal modelling work if appropriate.
• The work will be carried out in the context of the Eastgate Geothermal Project, which involves a 1km deep borehole close to the Lafarge cementworks site. The success of this scheme will in part depend on solving the technical problems that are addressed by this project.
Additional Stage 4 project
• Summer flooding in north-east 2004• Supervisor: Chris Kilsby• assessment of impacts of August flooding, including analysis
of rainfall data, collation of data on urban and rural flooding, impacts on waste-water treatment, incidents of sewer overflows and pollution, loss of revenue from tourism, transport disruption etc. Consider context of climate change. (liaison with councils, water and transport utilities).
Action now…
• Find a topic/supervisor and register your title as soon as possible
• Email title to Stage 3 Tutor: [email protected] or Stage 4 Tutor: [email protected]
• Plan your time with an immediate start
• Meet your supervisor regularly!
