Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

Group Report Assessment Details

• Deadline: 13:00 (BST) on Thursday 23 rd April, Week 23

• Submission Point: Blackboard (here)

• Weighting: Group report (described here), 100%

You are required to write a report, as a group, that summarizes the outcomes of the labs 2, 3 and 4 and links this to your MATLAB heat parametric model. This coursework is aimed at helping us assess your ability to develop and understand the behaviour of a technical subsystem and communicate this effectively to a generalist engineer. This generalist engineer, i.e. the target audience, is interested in:

• purpose of the tasks (fan duct, heatsink model, LED driver, LED efficiency),

• where you got your information from (heatsink model parameters, peer feedback etc.),

• the scientific principles behind the parametric heatsink code that you developed,

• what methods you used (experiments and computer modelling),

• limitations of your approach (model development, fan duct design and experimental procedures),

• interpretation of results (validation of simulation outputs, fan duct modifications as a result of observations),

• reflections on the methods, findings and how you would do things differently were you to engage in further optimisation.

The report should be a minimum of 15 pages and no longer than 30 pages, excluding references and appendices (an appendix is not mandatory but may be used for supplementary information such as source code listings). Referencing should follow the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) format,see the academic papers associated with the Heat Sink modelling exercise for examples.  Formal technical language is expected throughout. Diagrams, graphs, and photographs should be of publication quality, see the academic papers for examples.

Assessment Tasks:

Below is a list of must-complete tasks, however, you may wish to undertake additional tasks to support your heat sink modelling, characterisation, and analysis. Task specific marking criteria’s are included from p.4.

T1: Digital Twin of the Experimental Apparatus – Combine the CAD model of the Heat Sink Experiment with your Fan Duct CAD model to create a Digital Twin1 of the Heat Sink Experiment. Present appropriate annotated images of the assembly in your report to aid in explaining how the heat sink experiment is performed. Include a short description of your Fan Duct, how the adjustment mechanism works and comment on improvements made to your design as a result of the formative peer assessment exercise undertaken in week 16.

T2: Parametric Heat Sink Thermal Model – Using the provided academic paper along with the asynchronous theory videos, develop a parametric mathematical model that calculates the thermal resistance of the heatsink using geometric and material properties that you can determine experimentally or find standard values for in appropriate books/sources. Extend your model to incorporate the fan-curve from the axial blower datasheet rather than specifying a free-stream velocity. Document how you have developed your model and ensure that the meaning and impact of any key equations you have used in your model are explained to the reader. Include graphs of Rsink for various cases2 and discuss the factors that impact the value of R sink .

T3: Heat Sink Thermal Equivalent Circuit – Using the academic paper and theory videos, present an equivalent circuit of the heater, heat sink and ambient environment. Explain what each component represents and include relevant equations and quantities. This task may be useful in supporting task T2.

T4: Description of Experimental Procedure – Detail the heatsink characterisation experimental procedure in your report along with an equipment list. Describe what is measured and why. Think about how this information is best communicated – for example, would a bullet list or flow chart be most effective? Task T1 may be useful in supporting this task.

T6: Comparative Analysis of Experiment and Model Results – Compare the experimentally measured values of R sinkwith those predicted by the parametric model, T3. Discuss any differences with reference  to the modelling assumptions made in the academic paper and the experimental procedure. Explain how you might enhance your parametric model to account for any differences. If time allows, you may wish to implement your suggested enhancements and document the improvement achieved.

• Concisely describe the aims and setup details

• Neatly record any experimental procedures, data that relates to useful outcomes (including tables of data, graphs, charts, photos) in such a way that you could give to a student that had missed the lab to help them understand it.

• Answer ALL questions asked in the lab sheet

• Reflect on the purpose and general outcomes of the lab (including whether your data/results were as expected).

A mandatory Peer Assessment form will be made available to each group in Week 22/23. The purpose of the Peer Assessment is to enable groups to discuss and accurately reflect their relative contributions in their marks. The following points explain the expectations of work allocation:

• All group members are expected to contribute to the development of all eight tasks.

• Students are to be jointly responsible for writing up T1 and T8. Group Report Assessment Details

• The write up of the remaining tasks should be distributed evenly between group members and each student must state which tasks they have been responsible for in the peer assessment form.

• The contribution table and statement shown below should also be included on the first page of the report (note the ‘X’s in the table below are for illustrative purposes only and you should populate according to your individual contributions):

Academic integrity

Reference any sources used, including teaching resources. Do not use automated translation tools, rephrasing tools, or writing tools - this constitutes cheating and is dealt with similarly to suspected plagiarism (https://www.bristol.ac.uk/students/support/academic-advice/academic-integrity/). We will assume that youunderstand what plagiarism is, so if you are unsure, read up about it  (www.bristol.ac.uk/library/subjectsupport/referencing/plagiarism). For example, if you use someone else's ideas and structured argumentation or figures, and simply add an [x], this is still plagiarism. You need to be completely transparent about other contributions to your work.

Use of AI: Minimal - You may only use tools such as spelling and grammar checkers in this assignment, and their use should be limited to corrections of your own work rather than substantial re-writes or extended contributions. We will analyse the submissions for automatically generated content and submit assignments with automaticallygenerated content into the academic misconduct process.

Groups must work independently and not share work, discuss their work or any answers with other groups.

Assessment Criteria:

Each of the tasks, T1-T8, will be graded against a criteria (table on page 4) developed based upon the essential skills from the Bristol Skills Framework (BSF) and the University level 4 marking criteria (here). The relevant BSP skills and university assessment criteria elements are stated under the task description. Colour coded statements, associated to these elements, form the entries of the criteria highlighting what differentiates between marks in each of the classification levels. The Lecture in week 19 will explain how this marking criteria has been developed and subsequently how it will be used for marking of your final group reports.

Example classifications based on the quality of demonstration of the engineering skills and communication as presented to a generalist engineer:

50-60%: Full and viable method explained. Appropriate use of figures. Assumptions stated and justified. Calculations are quantitative with appropriate estimated values. Correct application of most of the required keyscientific principles. Pitched at the correct level (non-expert general engineer)

60-70%: Excellent use and implementation of figures with clear annotations, which clarify directly relevant scientific messages. Some assumptions and problem explored in depth. Mastery of several key scientific principles and critical judgement demonstrated.