The Brief
You are to carry out and document a design and development project in accordance with a provided design brief ensuring your work conforms to set regulations and the customer requirements.
You are the Lead engineer at a tier one supplier to the Motorsport industry, your department specialises in bespoke design and vehicle compliance through Aerodynamic optimisation. This being the case, a number of potential vehicle projects are available at any time throughout the year and can be found in the download section of the module. As the lead engineer you have the final say on deciding which project your department picks up and prioritises. Some projects will focus on performance, others on efficiency, safety and compliance but all with the same overall requirement of working to a design brief to bench mark a provided model and then carry out task based methodical design and optimisation by means of validated workflows culminating in a Validated CFD model, final component part files and written technical report highlighting your development journey, discoveries and overall recommendations for the client.
You must only choose one project from the download section to work on within the period of this module.
Assignment Key Factors:
This assignment is presented as one project-based assessment rather than individual tasks. The final submission should follow a specific timeline and clear pathways of initial theories, base simulation, post analysis, development of the CAD designs and interim CFD simulations, culminating in a final CFD simulation and final conclusion detailing the optimised concept. Marks are awarded for showcasing the iterative design process and keeping within the set regulations or stipulations of the chosen brief. Your first design may not be the most favourable but including these steps within the report is essential to showing your ability to critically analyse and develop from your findings.
A narrative on your decision-making and design characteristics is imperative alongside realistic implementation of design. Marks are awarded for a realistic, well informed concept solution. Critical analysis of the results at all stages is essential and should include the justification for your design changes and final concept design. Not all aspects of aerodynamic phenomena will be clear or determined during the initial design process, so all assumptions and empirical knowledge should be included alongside your theoretically accurate decisions (you can gain marks for making appropriate assumptions or using recognised reference sources to support your decisions).
Evidence should be a combination of the written word, mathematical equations and representations of (and actual), CAD/ simulation files. The written word count (3500 words plus simulation files) has a tolerance of +/- 10% so be sure to use this allowance effectively.
Please remember this is a full design process, you will be carrying out CFD simulations and creating CAD files to add to and repeat CFD simulations, documenting your findings throughout to show a methodical timeline has been implemented.
Narratives of using the software to fill word count will be marked down, you only need to mention the working process if there is an exception from the standard practices taught to you within this module for the purpose of further development of your work.
Suggested Layout
- Front Page
- Contents
- Symbols and Abbreviations
- List of Figures and tables (including Page numbers)
- Introduction
- Initial assumptions and considerations
- Base simulation findings relating to customer requirements, rules and/ or regulations
- Component(s) Design including validation and justification of assumptions
- Methodical analysis of conceptual designs through CFD simulations and reports
- High quality renders and technical definition of final design concept
- CFD simulation results and analysis (A good way to cover this is to tabulate all data across standard measurable outcomes and to provide your CFD simulations for your tutor to access during the marking period).
- Final Design critical analysis and comparison to base model
- Conclusion & recommendations for future work (make sure this reiterates the main points, findings and results from the whole project, not just the final data)
- Bibliography & Reference List (it is expected that a minimum of 10 references are located in the text. A minimum of 4 texts or papers (not websites) should be included in the bibliography but can be used numerous times, limiting the amount of websites used).
- (Please feel free to create your own preferred order and use sensible chapter titles)
Formative feedback
Formative feedback is provided by your tutor and is intended to develop your skills and knowledge to support your final assignment. You are encouraged to submit work for formative feedback during your module.
Formative feedback will provide high quality information about your learning performance, including strengths and suggestions of how to further develop aspects of your assignment work. It will also encourage academic dialogue between you and your tutor to support your learning journey and help your tutor to shape teaching opportunities offering an inclusive and personalised learning approach.
To upload your work for feedback on the VLS please log on and select the relevant module. Select My Uploads > Upload Files and fill in the information as prompted. In the ‘Purpose of files’ drop-down option please select ‘For Feedback’.
If you want to make use of the formative feedback opportunity, you need to plan your time accordingly and upload your work to the VLS at an appropriate time to allow your tutor to read and respond to the work.
Please note, the countdown on the VLS relates to your Summative due date (official module submission date).
You can only upload for formative feedback once per module.
You can upload multiple files. Uploading for formative feedback is optional but is strongly advised.
You should submit your assignment using the ‘My Uploads’ section on the VLS. This is found under each module dropdown in the ‘Course Modules’ area on the homepage of your VLS.
How to Submit Your Summative Assignment
For all Simulation, CAD and CFD files please contact your tutor who will arrange another suitable alternative (such as using WeTransfer or Dropbox.)
- Please submit assignments on or before the due date shown on the VLS.
- Please clearly title each piece of work. This should include your student number, student name, module title and assignment (e.g. A, B C or D)
- Please double check that all the assignments for the module are included in your submission.
- Please contact a Tutor at any time – don’t struggle – ever! You can email your tutor on the VLS at any time.
Module Checklist
| 1 | One written document that contains all narrative content for the chosen task brief. | |
| 2 | Base CFD simulation completed and post processed | |
| 3 | Final Aerodynamic CAD IPT files, high quality renders and DWG files | |
| 4 | Final CFD simulation completed and post processed | |
| 5 | A separate folder of Iterative CAD work and CFD simulations |
This checklist is useful for you to cross check you are submitting all the required sections for this module. It highlights the minimum amount of work required for this module. You are encouraged to produce more work to show a complete design and development approach. Do take note of any specific requirements within this module.
| Outcome (#1) | Determine and apply fluid flow theory. (Case study). |
| Grade | |
| Distinction (1st)
70-100% |
Excellent evidence of determination and application of fluid flow theory implemented through critical analysis of CFD simulations and wider research techniques. Clear differentiation between narrative generated and chosen referenced literature and sources of reference by means of wider research. |
| Merit (2:1)
60-69% |
Good standard of determination and application of fluid flow theory implemented through analysis of CFD simulations and research. Clear links to recognised literature and sources with a good independent narrative generated and appropriately referenced. |
| Pass (2:2)
50-59% |
Determination and application of fluid flow theory implemented through analysis of CFD simulations and research. Links to recognised literature and sources with an independent narrative generated and appropriately referenced. |
| Pass (3rd) 40-49% | Fluid flow theory discussed in context of CFD simulations post processing. recognised literature and sources used to create an independent narrative generated and appropriately referenced. |
| Fail
0-39% |
Unsatisfactory or non- submission. Limited evidence of research into subject or application of theories. No use of CFD software. |
| Outcome (#2) | Apply lift, drag and down force definitions and calculations. (Case study). |
| Grade | |
| Distinction (1st)
70-100% |
Full definition and validation of all relevant key aerodynamic phenomena by means of reference sources, CFD post processing, report data and mathematical calculation. |
| Merit (2:1)
60-69% |
Definition and validation of key aerodynamic phenomena by means of reference sources, CFD post processing, report data and mathematical calculation. |
| Pass (2:2)
50-59% |
Definition of key aerodynamic phenomena by means of reference sources CFD post processing, report data and mathematical calculation. |
| Pass (3rd) 40-49% | Discussion of aerodynamic phenomena by means of reference sources, CFD post processing, report data and mathematical calculation. |
| Fail
0-39% |
Unsatisfactory or non- submission. A submission lacking indication of understanding key aerodynamic phenomena and a lack of sufficient argument or supporting sources. |
| Outcome (#3) | Research and apply aerodynamic applications. (Case study). |
| Grade | |
| Distinction (1st)
70-100% |
Fully justified and validated CAD designs created in order to satisfy the design brief requirements. Excellent standard of CFD simulation with best practice and exact continuity across relating simulations and post analysis. |
| Merit (2:1)
60-69% |
Justified CAD designs created in order to satisfy the design brief requirements. Good standard of CFD simulation with best practice and standardisation of techniques across relating simulation and post analysis. |
| Pass (2:2)
50-59% |
CAD designs created in order to satisfy the design brief requirements. appropriate standard of CFD simulation with standardisation of techniques shown across relating simulation and post analysis. |
| Pass (3rd) 40-49% | CAD designs created with intention to satisfy the design brief requirements. adequate standard of CFD simulation consideration of factors relating simulations and post analysis. |
| Fail
0-39% |
Unsatisfactory or non- submission. Insufficient evidence of ability to research and apply Aerodynamics by means of CFD simulation and post analysis. |
| Outcome (#4) | Carry out an aerodynamic design case study interpreting aerodynamic cfd results and report findings. (Case study). |
| Grade | |
| Distinction (1st)
70-100% |
Clear evidence of research and indication of conforming to regulated requirements. Excellent use of CAD software, detailed analysis of specific customer requirements to yield appropriate designs for the brief. Excellent insight into relevant design factors. Fully validated final design based on a wide variety of supporting evidence. Excellent standard of CFD simulation pre-processing, simulation and post processing with specific scenes and reports created for documentation of findings. Excellent standard of final academic report fully capturing the scope of work carried out across the assessment. |
| Merit (2:1)
60-69% |
Good evidence of research and indication of conforming to regulated requirements. Good use of CAD software, evident analysis of specific customer requirements to yield appropriate designs for the brief. Good insight into relevant design factors. Validated final design based on a variety of supporting evidence. Good standard of CFD simulation pre-processing, simulation and post processing with specific scenes and reports created for documentation of findings. Good standard of final academic report capturing the scope of work carried out across the assessment. |
| Pass (2:2)
50-59% |
Evidence of research and indication of conforming to regulated requirements. Appropriate use of CAD software, indication of analysis of specific customer requirements to yield appropriate designs for the brief. evident insight into relevant design factors. Justified final design based on a supporting evidence. appropriate standard of CFD simulation pre-processing, simulation and post processing with scenes and reports created for documentation of findings. Submission of a final academic report capturing the scope of work carried out across the assessment. |
| Pass (3rd) 40-49% | Some evidence of research and indication of conforming to regulated requirements. Adequate use of CAD software, indication of consideration of customer requirements to yield designs for the brief. Some Insight into relevant design factors. Final design based on supporting evidence. adequate standard of CFD simulation pre-processing, simulation and post processing with scenes and reports created for documentation of findings. Submission of a final academic report representing the work carried out across the assessment. |
Continued
| Fail
0-39% |
Unsatisfactory or non- submission. Limited evidence of abilities in CAD design and CFD simulation. Insufficient argument in the final report to justify design path or outcome designs. |
De Montfort University Writing Descriptors
These descriptors are inter-related: with regard to marks of 40 and above there is an assumption that in awarding marks in one band work will have met the requirements of the previous band; with regard to marks of 39 and below there is an assumption that in awarding marks in one band work will NOT have met the requirements of the previous higher band. When marking an individual piece of work there is an expectation that it will clearly demonstrate most of the criteria within each band
| Mark Range | Criteria | Degree Classification Boundary |
| 90-100% | • Responds to all of the assessment criteria for the task.
• Displays exceptional degree of originality. • Exceptional analytical, problem-solving and/or creative skills. • No fault can be found with the work other than very minor errors, for example minor typographical issues. |
First class honours Distinction |
| 80-89% | • Responds to all of the assessment criteria for the task.
• Work of outstanding quality, evidenced by an ability to engage critically and analytically with source material. • Likely to exhibit independent lines of argument. • Highly original and/or creative responses. • Extremely wide range of relevant sources used where appropriate. |
First class honours Distinction |
Continued
| 70-79% | • •
• • • |
Responds to all of the assessment criteria for the task.
An extremely, well developed response showing clear knowledge and the ability to interpret and/or apply that knowledge. An authoritative grasp of the subject, significant originality and insight, Significant evidence of ability to sustain an argument, to think analytically, critically and/or creatively and to synthesise material. Evidence of extensive study, appropriate to task. |
First class honours Distinction |
| 60-69% | • •
• • • |
Responds to most of the assessment criteria for the task.
A detailed response demonstrating a thorough grasp of theory, understanding of concepts, principles, methodology and content. Clear evidence of insight and critical judgement in selecting, ordering and analysing content. Demonstrates ability to synthesise material, to construct responses and demonstrate creative skills which reveal insight and may offer some originality. Draws on an appropriate range of properly referenced sources. |
Upper second class honours (2:1) Merit |
| 50-59% | • •
• • • • |
Responds to most of the assessment criteria for the task.
An effective response demonstrating evidence of a clear grasp of relevant material, principles and key concepts An ability to construct and organise arguments. Some degree of critical analysis, insight and creativity. Demonstrating some conceptual ability, critical analysis and a degree of insight. Accurate, clearly written/presented |
Lower second class honours (2:2) Pass |
| 40-49% | • •
• • • • |
Responds to some of the assessment criteria for the task.
A response demonstrating an understanding of basic points and principles sufficient to show that some of learning outcomes/assessment criteria have been achieved at a basic level. Suitably organised work demonstrating a reasonable level of understanding Covers the basic subject matter and is appropriately presented but is rather too derivative and insufficiently analytical. Demonstrates limited conceptual ability, levels of evaluation and demonstration of creative skills. Demonstrates adherence to the referencing conventions appropriate to the subject and/or task. |
Third class honours Pass |
| 30-39% | • •
• • |
Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.
A weak response, which, while addressing some elements of the task, contains significant gaps and inaccuracies. Indicates an answer that shows only weakly developed elements of understanding and/or other skills appropriate to the task. May contain weaknesses in presentation that constitute a significant obstacle in communicating meaning to the assessor. |
Fail |
| 20-29% | • •
• • |
Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.
A poor response, which falls substantially short of achieving the learning outcomes. Demonstrates little knowledge and/or other skills appropriate to the task. Little evidence of argument and/or coherent use of material. |
Fail |
| 10-19% | • • •
• |
Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.
A very poor response demonstrating few relevant facts. Displays only isolated or no knowledge and/or other skills appropriate to the task. Little adherence to the task. |
Fail |
| 0-9% | • •
• |
Overall insufficient response to the assessment criteria.
Displays virtually no knowledge and/or other skills appropriate to the task. Work is inappropriate to assessment task given. |
Fail |
Are You Looking for Answer of This Assignment or Essay
Pay & Buy Non Plagiarized Assignment
If your Mechanical Engineering Assignment feels overwhelming with CFD simulations, CAD validation, and aerodynamic calculations, you’re not alone. Many DMU Motorsport Engineering students find it tough to meet report and design standards. Our mechanical experts at Student Assignment Help UK can assist you with precise, AI-free, and IEEE-referenced solutions. Get professional Mechanical Engineering Assignment Help UK and ace your aerodynamic project confidently.