university of southern queensland problem solving and analysis - technical portfolio (individual...

University of Southern Queensland

Faculty of Health, Engineering & Sciences

Course Number: ENG2102 Course Name: Engineering Problem Solving & Analysis

Assessment No: 2 Internal

External

This Assessment carries 200 of the 1000 marks total for

this Course.

Examiner: Dr Steven Goh Moderator: Dr Lyn Brodie

Assignment: Individual Technical Portfolio (Individual Assessment)

Date Given:

Date Due:

July 2013

2nd Sept 2013

Penalty for Late Submission:

Loss of all marks for

the assessment (See

note 3. of assessment

information in course

specification).

Assignments are to be submitted electronically, using the link provided on StudyDesk.

Marked assignments will be returned via the StudyDesk grades and feedback system.

Please use *.doc, *.rtf, *.pdf format only to submit your assignment.

Please use the naming convention:

REPORT-Y-TEAM-XX.pdf OR PORTFOLIO-Z-TEAM-XX-LastName.pdf

where:

Y is the Report number; XX is your Team/Workgroup number;

Z is the Portfolio number; and LastName is your last (family) name.

By submitting this assignment, you agree to the following Student Declaration:

I hereby certify that no part of this assignment has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source

except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment. No part of this assignment has been written for me by

any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the Examiner concerned.

Any non USQ copyright material used herein is reproduced under the provision of Section 200(1)(b) of the copyright Amendment Act 1980

Engineering Problem Solving and Analysis - Technical Portfolio (Individual Assessment)

Published by

ENG2102 - Engineering Problem Solving and Analysis

University of Southern Queensland

Toowoomba Queensland 4350

www.usq.edu.au

© University of Southern Queensland 2013

Copyrighted material reproduced herein is used under the provision of the Copyright Act

1968 as amended, or as a result of application to the copyright owner.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in

any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise

without prior permission.

Produced using Microsoft Word


Contents

i Submission Notes - USQ Policy .................................................................... 4

ii Submission Notes - ENG2102 Checklist ........................................................... 5

iii Assessment Overview and Marking Criteria .................................................... 6

iv Individual Technical Portfolio Components ...................................................... 7

Part 1 - To Be Conducted on ALL SITES ................................................................. 7

Part 1A - Statistical Analysis of ALL Sites................................................................. 7

Part 1B – Site Suitability determination using Surveying and GIS techniques .......................... 8

Part 2 - To Be Conducted on 1 INDIVIDUAL SITE ...................................................... 9

Part 2A - Identification of Electrical Engineering Factors for 1 Individual Site .......................... 9

Part 2B - Identification of Civil & Structural Engineering Factors for 1 Individual Site .................. 9

Part 2C - Identification of Mechanical Engineering Factors for 1 Individual Site ...................... 10

v Individual Technical Portfolio Resources ........................................................ 11

vi Reference List ..................................................................................... 12

List of Tables

Table 1: Portfolio Task Marking Criteria ................................................................................................. 6


i Submission Notes - USQ Policy All assignments for this course are to be submitted electronically via StudyDesk:

http://www.usq.edu.au/currentstudents/studydesk

Late assignments are not normally accepted. If you wish to apply for consideration for late submission, it must be done at least one week prior to the due date in writing or via email. Include documentary evidence of illness (a medical certificate) or additional work commitments (a written confirmation of changed work circumstances from your supervisor). For extension applications for other reasons, please contact the examiner at least 2 weeks in advance of the due date.

All submissions must be processed by the turnitin.com plagiarism service and a report submitted with your assessment piece.

Students are reminded of the penalties applying to plagiarism. Copying all or part of an assessment from another student, or from the web, is unacceptable. Plagiarism may result in loss of marks, or other penalties as determined by the Academic Misconduct Policy:

http://policy.usq.edu.au/portal/custom/detail/student-academic-misconduct/Student Academic Misconduct.pdf

Further helpful hints on how to correctly reference (and how to avoid plagiarism) may be found at:

http://www.usq.edu.au/plagiarism/

http://www.usq.edu.au/currentstudents/studydesk

http://policy.usq.edu.au/portal/custom/detail/student-academic-misconduct/Student%20Academic%20Misconduct.pdf

http://policy.usq.edu.au/portal/custom/detail/student-academic-misconduct/Student%20Academic%20Misconduct.pdf

http://www.usq.edu.au/plagiarism/


ii Submission Notes - ENG2102 Checklist When writing your portfolio, you should refer to the Reflective Writing Guide (on StudyDesk), as well as the Assessment Criteria listed for this assignment (on StudyDesk).

There is no specific word limit, however there is a need to be clear and concise (for some tasks, dot points, where appropriate, are sufficient).

There is no specified format for the portfolio submission but you should embed the task headings as provided for your own submission. Also ensure you include a signed Individual Technical Portfolio Coversheet (on StudyDesk), which must be embedded as the first page of your submission and not as a separate attachment.

Where you have utilised a source for information or been asked to research a topic remember that you must use Harvard AGPS Referencing, including in-text citations in the text body and a reference list at the end. Lack of referencing is equivalent to plagiarism, as you are effectively stealing another person's idea(s). Even if you believe that the idea is originally yours, you must check that it has not been previously published.

Submission Checklist

When submitting ensure that:

1. the appropriate cover sheet is the first page of your submission;

2. the instructions provided in the ‘drop-box’ on StudyDesk are strictly followed;

3. only one (1) file for the Individual Technical Portfolio is submitted to the ITP Assignment Dropbox with a password to prevent plagiarism by 2 September 2013;

4. After submitting your ITP in the ‘dropbox’, continue to self-assess your own ITP and then peer-assess your team members’ ITP using the assessment rubric provided within the same dropbox environment on Studydesk; You have until 13 September 2013 to complete this task.

5. the file naming indicates the nature of the file and contains your name as outlined on the front page of this assessment; and

6. the Individual Technical Portfolio file format and extension is - *.doc, *.docx, *.rtf, or *.pdf (no other formats will be accepted), the self/peer assessment is completed in a file format and extension of *.doc, *.docx, *.rtf and the collated results table as a.xls or .xlsx


iii Assessment Overview and Marking Criteria

This is an Individual Assessment that is Self Assessed and Peer Assessed

This assessment is allocated 20% of the total marks for this course. This represents approximately

30-36 hours of individual student effort and the standard of the submission should reflect this.

Tasks should be completed with reference to the Technical Writing Guide and the Assessment

Criteria, both available on StudyDesk.

The Individual Technical Portfolio needs to be uploaded to the StudyDesk prior to the submission

date - 2 September. As this Portfolio will be self assessed by yourself and peer assessed by fellow

team members, each team member will complete a separate peer-assessment for each member

on your team including one for yourself (self-assessment).

The assessment tool in Studydesk will automatically calculate a grade for your ITP. Each team

member of your team will receive a result based on self-assessment and peer-assessment collated

from each of your peers, although their name will be removed to maintain confidentiality. There is

a detailed guide on the marking schema for submission that compliments the advice in this

paragraph on the submission process and a note below the Individual Technical Portfolio

Components.

The purpose of the Individual Technical Portfolio is to ensure that each student has considered

aspects of the course and is able to contribute towards the Team Report in a meaningful way.

Therefore, all aspects of the Portfolio relate to the final completion of the Team Report and the

marking allocation is detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Portfolio Task Marking Criteria and Weightings

Tasks for submission:

(use these headings in your portfolio document)

Suggested Completion Date

Weighting

Part 1A Statistical Analysis of ALL Sites Week 4

15%

(30 marks)

Part 1B Site Suitability determination using Surveying & GIS techniques Week 6

35%

(70 marks)

Part 2A Identification of Electrical Engineering Factors for Individual Site Week 7

15%

(30 marks)

Part 2B Identification of Civil & Structural Engineering Factors for Individual Site Week 7

15%

(30 marks)

Part 2C Identification of Mechanical Engineering Factors for Individual Site Week 7

15%

(30 marks)

Attention to grammar; correct spelling and appropriate referencing; in-text and reference list. Week 8

5%

(10 marks)

Perform Self & Peer Assessment

Week 9 Must be

completed to receive a grade

Portfolio, Self & Peer Assessment submitted to Assessment area of the StudyDesk

2 Sept 2013

13 Sept 2013

100% (200 marks)


iv Individual Technical Portfolio Components

Table 2: Potential sites for 1-m telescope installation

Site Longitude Latitude Altitude

° ' ° ' m

1 Coonabarabran* 149 17 31 16 1067

2 Island Bend* 148 30 36 18 1805

3 Giles** 128 18 25 02 600

4 Mt Kent*** 151 51 27 48 683

5 Alectown* 148 15 32 56 729

6 Alice Springs** 133 53 23 42 545

7 Angepena Homestead* 138 51 30 34 933

8 Mount Grey* 118 05 31 02 529

For the Statistics (1A) and Surveying & GIS (1B) sections of the ITP each team member will need to

analyse ALL sites. For all other sections (i.e. 2A, 2B and 2C) of the ITP each team member will only

need to look at one site each. Some teams will have less than 8 members – if, for example, your

team has 7 members you should select only the first 7 sites listed above and then allocate one of

these 7 sites to each team member for individual analysis in the other technical areas required for

the ITP. Similarly, if your team has 6 members you should consider only the first 6 sites.

Part 1 - To Be Conducted on ALL SITES Part 1A - Statistical Analysis of ALL Sites

In the table below are the 8 potential telescope sites and their rankings for three important

environmental variables: rainfall, light pollution and dust pollution. Rankings have been determined

based on yearly data. A rank of 1 represents the ‘best’ site and an 8 the ‘worst’. Therefore, a rank of

1 indicates that the site has the least rainfall, light pollution or dust pollution and would be the best

option for telescope viewing.

Coonab-

arabran

Island

Bend

Giles Mount

Kent

Alectown Alice

Springs

Angepena

Homestead

Mount

Grey

Rain 7 6 1 8 5 4 3 2

Light 5 3 4 8 7 6 2 1

Dust 5 4 1 2 3 6 8 7


Task 1A(i)

Each student should:

Choose and produce in Excel an appropriate graphical summary of the rankings of all sites

for the variable information provided in the table above. You will need to enter this data into

Excel yourself.

Based on your graphical summary, identify the three best sites and provide written

justification for your choices. As part of your decision making process you should prioritise a

good ranking for rain above the other two variables.

Task 1A(ii)

The data file ‘ENG2102 telescope sites cloud cover.xls’ is available for download from the StudyDesk.

The sheet ‘ITP’ provides the measure of cloud cover for each site for 52 weeks starting March 1st

2012. Cloud cover is measured in oktas on a scale from 0 to 8. A cloud cover of less than 5 oktas is

considered a ‘usable day’ for telescope viewing.

Each student should:

Calculate the number of usable days based on cloud cover for each site. This should not be a

laborious task if you correctly use the function, formula and copy/paste techniques

described in the Introduction to Microsoft Excel notes, the worked examples provided in the

module notes and tutorial exercises and the videos provided.

Use a Chi-square Goodness of Fit test to determine if there are any significant differences

between the observed and expected number of usable days. This analysis should be

correctly presented within a hypothesis testing framework. Written interpretation of your

results should also be provided.

Using a statistically appropriate method, rank the sites for cloud cover based on your

analysis of usable days. A rank of 1 should represent the best site. No sites should share

rankings.

Task 1A(iii)

Include your cloud cover rankings into the graphical summary you produced for rain, light

and dust in Task A.

Does the inclusion of your cloud cover rankings alter your initial interpretation of the data

provided and your choice of the best three sites? As part of your decision making process

you should prioritise a good ranking for cloud cover above the other three variables.

Clearly state and justify your final choice on the 3 best sites for construction of a telescope

based on your statistical analysis of these variables.

Part 1B – Site suitability Analysis using Surveying & GIS Techniques

In part 1B of your ITP, you need to start to identify the factors for ALL sites that are detrimental to

selecting suitable sites for the ground-based optical telescope installation. Justification using

appropriately researched literature (with correct Harvard AGPS style in-text and reference list

citations) is required to show how and why each of the factors identified are influential in the site


selection process. The factors identified in this part should at least address visibility, access to

infrastructure, environmental, geographical, engineering/construction and socio-economic issues.

You are also required to discuss the site suitability analysis procedure (manual or GIS-based) that

you are planning to use to determine suitable sites. Your discussion should be literature-based and it

should provide a clear picture on how you are going to combine all the detrimental factors,

identified above, to identify and rank suitable sites

Part 2 - To Be Conducted on 1 INDIVIDUAL SITE

Part 2A - Identification of Electrical Engineering Factors for 1 Individual

Site

Part 2A of your ITP consists of identifying factors that affect the Electrical Engineering

aspects of your allocated site. These will include, but will not be limited to, such factors as

the viability of an electrical grid connection and also a high speed internet connection (for

unmanned operation of the telescope).

In conjunction with the above factors, it is vital that the Project make use of renewable

energies. Justify with reference to appropriately researched literature (with correct Harvard

AGPS style in-text and reference list citations) the identification of possible renewable energies

that can be utilised at your allocated site.

Part 2B - Identification of Civil & Structural Engineering Factors for 1

Individual Site

Identification of factors associated with Civil and Structural Engineering is looked at in Part

2B of your ITP. In particular, you need to identify the suitability of your allocated site for

different important structures and facilities including (but not limited to), the dome

structure and access roads. The type and shape of dome structure that houses the telescope and

the choice of dome structure should be justified. For road access, aspects needed to be

investigated will be the location and extent of the road to allow access to vehicles for transport

of materials and equipment, emergency vehicle access, and also for maintenance purposes. Even

though the telescopes will be, for all intensive purposes, un-manned, the equipment will still need to

be maintained.

Structural effecting factors that will influence the suitability of your allocated site will be factors that

affect the loadings and actions of the dome structure that houses the telescope. Extreme weather

conditions such as high wind loading and excessive rain risk damaging the dome structure. Thus, you

need to identify the locations and topography of your allocated site to establish the design criteria


for wind loading and actions. The locations and topography of your allocated site will also give rise to

factors that will be involved in determining the type and shape of the dome structure that houses

the telescope. All investigations and identifications must be justified with appropriately researched

literature that has been cited correctly in-text and in the reference list.

Part 2C - Identification of Mechanical Engineering Factors for 1 Individual

Site

Part 2C includes the identification of the engineering principles including relevant influencing

factors, parameters and constraints for the mechanical engineering problems that may be

associated with this Project at your allocated site. These factors will be associated with the various

pumps (and motors) for facilities (water and air conditioning/heating) needed. Other aspects that

will need to be identified are with respect to the telescope itself. These will include the identification

of factors that will influence the choice of the telescope mount design, as well as its mount drives,

and its accessories (e.g. dew remover for the telescope’s mirror and lenses).

All justifications, identifications and investigations should be backed up with highly relevant

literature that has been cited correctly both in-text and in the reference list.

Notes

Five percent (10 marks) is allocated towards grammar, correct spelling and appropriate referencing

(both in-text and a reference list). A failure to self and peer assess on StudyDesk will result in 0 being

awarded for your Individual Technical Portfolio.


v Individual Technical Portfolio Resources

These resources are a guide only and you should search out other resources as required.

The USQ Library Harvard Referencing tutorial on StudyDesk;

The Library resources on referencing:

http://www.usq.edu.au/library/help/referencing

http://www.usq.edu.au/library/help/referencing/harvard

Engineers Australia (2011):

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/

Engineers New Zealand (2011):

http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/

Surveyors Board of Queensland (2011):

http://www.surveyorsboard.com.au/

General Attributes (Cummings 1998; King 2008):

http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1998/cummings.html

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/ACED/Engineers%20for%20th

e%20Future.pdf

http://www.usq.edu.au/library/help/referencing

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/ACED/Engineers%20for%20the%20Future.pdf

http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/ACED/Engineers%20for%20the%20Future.pdf


vi Reference List

Cummings, R 1998, 'How should we assess and report student generic attributes?', in Black, B &

Stanley, N (eds), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times, 85-90. Proceedings of the 7th Annual

Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia, Perth, viewed 21 March 2012,

<http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1998/cummings.html>.

Engineers Australia 2012, Engineers Australia, viewed 21 May 2012,

<http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/>.

Engineers New Zealand 2012, Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand, viewed 21 May 2012,

<http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/>.

King, R 2008, 'Engineers for the Future', Australian Council of Engineering Deans, viewed 23 May

2012,

<http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/shado/ACED/Engineers%20for%20the%2

0Future.pdf>.

Surveyors Board of Queensland 2012: Surveyors Board of Queensland, viewed 21 May 2012,

<http://www.surveyorsboard.com.au/>.

End of Assessment 2

university of southern queensland problem solving and analysis - technical portfolio (individual...

Documents