(Site investigation report) 2500 ( civil and environmental engineering )

kasssss.docx

Home >Engineering homework help >Civil Engineering homework help >(Site investigation report) 2500 ( civil and environmental engineering )

Engineering Geology Design Project:

The assignment comprises two components:

· Component A 50%: Individual Presentation (15min presentation). Learning outcomes 1-3 (see Section 4 in Module Handbook).

· Component B 50%: Individual Report (2500 words) Learning outcomes 4-5 (See section 4 in Module Handbook)

The topic of the Individual Presentation and Individual Report must be chosen by the student . The topic can be based on any engineering geological subject that the you find interesting. The lecture material in the module is designed to give you an overview of interesting engineering geological systems. The lecturers may be able to help you identify data to analyse.

Your topic could focus on one of the following areas:

· Hydrogeology

· Fracture/fault influences

· Geothermal

· Geohazards – earthquakes, landslides

· Site investigation

· Rock mass rating – tunnels, bridges, etc

Component A 50%: Individual Presentation (15min presentation).

Format: PowerPoint presentation

Submission: Via Blackboard

You will explore the taught theoretical background to the different geological factors that affect design and construction of a chosen infrastructural system, by conducting a literature review of reported case studies, and make an individual presentation of their findings. This component will be marked and you will receive feedback that will aid your Individual Report.

Although the PowerPoint needs to be submitted on Blackboard (see deadline above), you are also required to give your presentation in class on Tuesday 20th April, 2021. The Individual Presentation Marking Criteria is shown below.

Individual Presentation Marking Criteria:

Marking criteria	80-100	70-79	60-69	50-59	40-49	35-39	30-34	15-29	0-14
Effectively and precisely discuss the engineering properties and behaviour of your chosen soil and rock as an engineering material.	Outstanding	Excellent	Very good	Good	Adequate	Poor	Very poor	Extremely poor	Inadequate
Assess geological conditions for engineering purposes and identify geological engineering factors affecting civil and construction engineering.	Outstanding	Excellent	Very good	Good	Adequate	Poor	Very poor	Extremely poor	Inadequate
Identify and report causes of geological failures related to your chosen soil or rock. Define future measures for protection.	Outstanding	Excellent	Very good	Good	Adequate	Poor	Very poor	Extremely poor	Inadequate
Provide clear presentation delivery and well justified answers to questions on the project.	Outstanding	Excellent	Very good	Good	Adequate	Poor	Very poor	Extremely poor	Inadequate

Component B – 50%: Individual Report (2500 words) Deadline:

Format: Word document (or PDF)

Submission: Via Blackboard

Your Individual Report should be produced for professionals and organisations. You will apply your knowledge of the impact of geological factors on engineering design. The report should contain ideas for future protection measures.

To structure the report, we suggest that you follow the Individual Report Marking Criteria (below).

Word count

The word count is 2500, there is no 10% leeway. Abstract, figures, tables and references are not included in the word count. Your report should be in size 11 font, double spaced and margins that are ‘normal’ in word (these are automatically generated at 2.54 cm). There is a Report Template on Blackboard that you can use if you wish.

Plagiarism

Please note that full and accurate referencing will avoid plagiarism. Quotes are permissible as long as they are properly sourced and comprise statements that are totally relevant to the Individual Report topic. Reference list should be in the Harvard format. It is important that you list all your sources of information and diagrams.

Individual Report Marking Criteria:

% MARK	Descriptor	Aims and hypotheses /objectives	Grounding in existing literature	Research methodology – data collection and justification	Analysis and discussion of material analysed/obtained and future protection measures	Conclusions	Organisation, style and presentation
90- 100	PASS Outstanding	Outstandingly conceived, extremely well defined and very demanding aims and objectives or hypotheses.	Outstandingly comprehensive and up-to-date range of relevant literature very carefully examined; used extremely effectively to set context of study.	Outstanding and imaginative, well considered approach, outstanding awareness of methodological issues.	Outstanding standard of critical analysis throughout; extremely thorough understanding of issues; outstanding application of theory.	Outstanding clarity and perception, soundly constructed conclusions, addressing all the objectives; identifies new and original areas of investigation.	Outstanding level of organisation, standard of writing and presentation throughout.
80-89	PASS Exceptional	Exceptionally conceived, extremely well defined and very demanding aims and objectives or hypotheses.	Exceptionally comprehensive and up-to-date range of relevant literature very carefully examined; used extremely effectively to set context of study.	Exceptional and imaginative, well considered approach, outstanding awareness of methodological issues.	Exceptional standard of critical analysis throughout; extremely thorough understanding of issues; outstanding application of theory.	Exceptional clarity and perception, soundly constructed conclusions, addressing all the objectives; identifies new and original areas of investigation.	Exceptional level of organisation, standard of writing and presentation throughout.
70-79	PASS Excellent	Excellently conceived and defined aims and objectives or hypotheses.	Excellent, upto-date range of relevant literature examined; consistently used effectively to set context of study.	Excellent, coherent approach, extremely good awareness of methodological issues.	Excellent, thoughtful analysis and understanding of issues; outstanding application of theory.	Excellent conclusions, based solidly in the analysis provided, addressing all the questions extremely thoroughly.	Excellent organisation, standard of writing and presentation throughout.
60-69	PASS 65-69%: Very good 60-64%: Good	Clear / very clear and coherent statement of appropriate aims and objectives or hypotheses.	Good / very good range of relevant literature considered; used well / very well to set context of study.	Good / very good consideration of methodical approach with good / very good reflection on	Good / very good degree of analysis; clear / very clear understanding of issues; some good / very good application of theory.	Good / very good and well / very well supported conclusions, addressing the main questions	Effectively / very effectively organised; generally well / very well written; good / very

% MARK	Descriptor	Aims and hypotheses /objectives	Grounding in existing literature	Research methodology – data collection and justification	Analysis and discussion of material analysed/obtained and future protection measures	Conclusions	Organisation, style and presentation
				methodological issues.		thoroughly / very thoroughly.	good presentation.
50-59	PASS 55-59% Competent 50-54% Adequate	Adequate / competent statement of appropriate aims and objectives or hypotheses.	Adequate /competent range of relevant literature considered; generally used adequately / competently to set context of study	Adequate / competent considered and methodical approach; adequate / competent reference to methodological issues.	Adequate / competent analysis; adequate / competent degree of understanding of issues.	Adequately / competently formed conclusions, supported by the work done.	Coherent structure; generally adequately / competently expressed; adequate / competent presentation.
40-49	PASS Weak	Aims and objectives or hypotheses are stated but are not very well conceived.	Some relevant literature considered; used to a limited degree to set context of study.	Limited method in approach; limited reference to methodological issues.	Some limited analysis; showing some understanding of issues.	Some conclusions stated; but generally not well supported.	Limited structure; some significant lapses of expression; presentation poor.
35-39	FAIL Poor	Little attempt to specify aims and objectives or hypotheses.	Little reference to literature; used poorly to set context of study..	Little method in the approach; little mention of methodological issues	Superficial analysis; poor understanding of issues.	Little attempt to draw conclusions; generally poorly supported.	Poor structure; often poor standard of expression and poor presentation.
25-34	FAIL Very poor	Aims and objectives or hypotheses very poorly conceived, unfocused. May be regarded as a partial submission.	Very poor range of literature referred to; very poorly considered; not used to set context of study. May be regarded as a partial submission.	Very little method in the approach; no mention of methodological issues. May be regarded as a partial submission.	Very little analysis of material; poor grasp of issues. May be regarded as a partial submission.	Very little attempt to draw conclusions. May be regarded as a partial submission.	Very poor structure; generally poor standard of expression and presentation.
15-24	FAIL Extremely poor	Aims and objectives or hypotheses virtually absent. Clearly a partial submission.	Literature base virtually absent; insufficient content within which to set context of study. Clearly a	Method virtually absent; no mention of methodological issues. Clearly a partial submission.	Almost no sign of analysis or understanding of issues. Clearly a partial submission.	Virtually no attempt to draw conclusions. Clearly a partial submission.	Incoherent structure and expression; extremely poor presentation.
% MARK	Descriptor	Aims and hypotheses /objectives	Grounding in existing literature	Research methodology – data collection and justification	Analysis and discussion of material analysed/obtained and future protection measures	Conclusions	Organisation, style and presentation
			partial submission.
0-14	FAIL Inadequate	Absence of aims and objectives or hypotheses. Clearly a partial submission.	No reference to existing literature. Clearly a partial submission.	No sign of method. Clearly a partial submission.	No sign of analysis or understanding of issues. Clearly a partial submission.	No attempt to draw conclusions. Clearly a partial submission.	Incoherent structure and expression; extremely poor presentation.