Assessment Brief
*This document is for CU Group students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module and should not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. Any infringements of this rule should be reported to registry.cuc@coventry.ac.uk
Module Title: Electric Motors and Control Systems
Module Code: 206ENSC/ 206ENEL
Assessment Type:
Coursework
Assessment Number:
2
Study Mode:
Full-time
Weighting:
50%
Submission Date:
21/06/2019
Submission Time:
18:00
Introduction:
In this assessment, you will be required to carry out two laboratory experiments (20%). Furthermore, you will be required to design, build a PLC program to control an industrial process and write a 1500-word technical report to illustrate this process (80%). This assessment will cover the following areas; motor operation, CAD package, control system and programmable logic controller.
Completion of this assignment will address the following learning outcomes:
3 Identify motor control components and explain their operation.
4 Demonstrate use of an industry standard CAD package to produce an industrial electric motor and control system diagram.
6 Develop a programmable logic controlled based program to a given design specification.
Task:
The Figure below shows a simulation process of an industrial batch mixing system from LogixPro simulations.
Batch Mixing System
From the Simulations Menu at the top of the LogixPro screen, select the Batch Simulator. Familiarise yourself with the components and control devices used in the system, and think about the operation of the system.
The process basically pumps two products into the tank, mixes and heats them. Then the mixture is drained out of the tank. The process is performed according to certain specifications. It takes some input parameters and displays some status indicators as set by the operator.
Using your knowledge of control systems and PLC programming, you are required to design and implement a ladder logic program using LogixPro to meet given specifications and write a report about the system.
System Description
The process has three modes of operations as illustrated below.
The operator may start any mode of operation by momentarily pressing the Start Switch while the Selector switch is in the desired position.
When the mixer or any pump is running, the RUN light should be energised.
When the Stop button is pressed or no device is running, the IDLE light should be energised.
When the tank is full, the FULL light should be energised.
When any of the pilot lights (RUN, IDLE and FULL) are energised, they will either illuminate in a steady state (S) or flash (F) according to the number allocated to you in Table 1.
The process may be stopped and resumed at any time using the Stop and Start switches. The process should restart where it left off if the Start button is pressed following a Stop.
Assume the operator will not switch between modes of operation while a process is running.
The LED display should be cleared whenever the mode of operation is changed.
Modes of System Operation:
Fill Mode of Operation:
The 3-position Selector Switch is in position “A”, the process will fill the tank.
The tank is to be filled with a mixture obtained from two separate fill lines utilising fill pumps P1 and P2, to the point where the Hi-Level sensor goes TRUE.
The operator will be able to set the product ratio by entering the desired first product percentage via the control panel thumbwheel switches. The order is based on the number allocated to you in Table 1. The tank to be filled with the quantity of the product obtained from the first line while the remainder will come from the other line.
The Enter pushbutton is used to confirm the value. The value should then be shown on the Control panel’s LED display along with the first product number (1 or 2) (use the most significant digit to display the product number and the rest for the percentage).
While filling, the LED display should display the product number being filled.
Heat and Mix Mode of Operation:
When the 3-position Selector Switch is in position “B”, the process will mix and heat the mixture.
The heater O:2/04 and the mixer O:2/00 should be started allowing the mixture to begin heating. The thermostat I:1/02 should be employed to control the temperature.
While heating, the LED display should show the time elapsed since heating started.
The heater and mixer should stop when the mixture reaches the desired temperature.
Drain Mode of Operation:
The 3-position Selector Switch is in position “C” the process will drain the tank.
Pump P3 should be used to drain the product from the tank to the point where the Lo-Level sensor trips.
The mixture should be me mixed while draining (The mixer should be working).
While draining, the LED display should display either the percentage of the mixture drained (D) from the tank or Left (L) in the tank based on the number allocated to you in Table 1.
Once the tank is emptied, the control panel’s LED display should show the number of
mixtures performed so far.
Table 1 Student Allocation
Part a – Preliminary Work
1. List the input and output devices of the system with their I/O addresses. Explain their function, principle of operation. This to be included in the report (Part c).
2. Produce a program specification in the form of a flow chart for:
a. Fill Mode of Operation
b. Heat and Mix Mode of Operation
c. Drain Mode of Operation
The program specification flow charts must be seen by your tutor before the demonstration and submission of the report. If your tutor has not seen the specifications, then zero marks will be awarded for the program flow charts.
3. Produce a test procedure for each operation. Detail the expected outcomes.
Part b – Implementation [40 marks]
1. Write the PLC ladder logic program to meet your specifications.
2. Test the program using the emulator.
Student No
RUN Light
IDLE Light
FULL light
First Product (Filling)
LED Display (Draining)
3. Demonstrate all modes working, and explain to your tutor how you have tested the program.
4. Submit the program via Moodle immediately after the demonstration.
Please not that a no show for demonstration or scoring “zero” marks in the demonstration will result in a “zero” mark for the implantation part of the assessment.
You will be assessed on the design, development and operation of the PLC program in terms of the quality and meeting the system specifications as follows:
Demonstration of the system [10 marks].
Fill Mode of Operation [12 marks].
Heat and Mix Mode of Operation [8 marks].
Drain Mix Mode of Operation [10 marks].
Part c – Report [40 marks]
1. Produce a report on the work that you have undertaken.
2. Submit the report via Moodle before the before the specified deadline.
You will be assessed on the quality of the report about the control system you have designed and implemented. A key feature will be how easily it would be for someone else to easily understand, reproduce or modify your recommended control system by following the report. Any assumptions should be clearly specified in the report.
Remember to support your concept/academic argument with references as this allows the reader to appreciate the rigour and your understanding of the task.
Report format:
1. Title page
2. Executive summary [5 marks]
Description of the project.
A summary of what you did.
3. System devices [10 marks]
The list of devices from Part (a-1).
4. Design [10 marks]
Flow charts.
Rationale for the design and components selected.
Any assumptions made and their justifications.
5. Overview of the program [5 marks]
Description of the PLC program.
6. Analysis and Evaluation [5 marks]
Test procedure and results
Deviations from the agreed specification
7. Conclusion [5 marks]
Conclusions (How did it go, what you have learned, …)
Suggestions for further improvements.
Re-submission Task:
You will be required to carry out a control system simulation project on the same process, outlined in the set task, with different specifications and parameters allocated.
Guidance notes and considerations
Late Submission
If you are not able to complete your coursework on time due to extenuating circumstances, the ONLY way to receive an extension (up to 5 working days) or a deferral (anything longer than 5 working days) is to contact a Registry team member located at your specific CU site.
CU Coventry – Registry.cuc@coventry.ac.uk
CU London – Registry.cul@coventry.ac.uk
CU Scarborough – Registry.cus@coventry.ac.uk
* Extenuating circumstances are defined by CU as ‘genuine circumstances beyond your control or ability to foresee, and which seriously impair your assessed work’.
* Please note that you will need to provide third party evidence to support your reasoning for requiring an extension or deferral.
* Your course tutor is NOT able to approve an extension or a deferral, if you have not completed the official forms and had your request approved your work will count as not submitted and receive a zero mark.
Plagiarism and Malpractice
* You are encouraged to check the originality of your work by using the draft Turnitin links on your Moodle Web.
* Collusion between students (where sections of your work are similar to the work submitted by other students in this or previous module cohorts) is taken extremely seriously and will be reported to the academic conduct panel. This applies to all coursework and exam answers.
* A marked difference between your writing style, knowledge and skill level demonstrated in class discussion, any test conditions and that demonstrated in a coursework assignment may result in you having to undertake a Viva Voce in order to prove the coursework assignment is entirely your own work.
* If you make use of the services of a proof reader in your work you must keep your original version and make it available as a demonstration of your written efforts.
* You must not submit work for assessment that you have already submitted (partially or in full), either for your current course or for another qualification of this university, unless this is specifically provided for in your assignment brief or specific course or module information.
Where earlier work by you is citable, ie. it has already been published/submitted, you must reference it clearly. Identical pieces of work submitted concurrently will also be considered to be self-plagiarism.
Submission Guidelines
There should be a title page which clearly identifies the following;
* Student number * Name of the module
* Title of the Assessment * Assessment number
* Word count
The word count identified includes quotations, but excludes the bibliography and unless specifically stated, encompasses a discrepancy of + or – 10%.
Banding Knowledge and Understanding (30%) Analysis, Evaluation and Application of Theory (30%) Quality of Research (20%) Academic Writing (20%) 90-100%
Exceptional knowledge base exploring, analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with extraordinary originality and autonomy.
Demonstrates an exceptional grasp of relevant analytical techniques, and the ability to apply these to new and/or abstract information and situations. Shows a highly developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical and evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where relevant, is highly detailed. Exceptional appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout all assessment outcomes. Approach to assessment task is theoretically informed to an exceptional standard.
Exceptional exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assessment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with flawless synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication.
Exceptional answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied well throughout. No language errors present and referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. With some adjustments, work may be considered for internal publication. 80-89%
Outstanding knowledge base exploring, analysing and evaluating the discipline and its theory with clear originality and autonomy.
Demonstrates an outstanding grasp of relevant analytical and/or evaluative techniques. Shows a developed appreciation of the limits and/or appropriate uses of particular analytical and/or evaluative approaches. Knowledge and understanding of theory, where
Outstanding exploration of wider academic sources with a high degree of independent learning which exceeds the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with a high degree of
Outstanding answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer exhibits a clear argument/line of reasoning with flair and originality. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic style applied throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version
relevant, is detailed and sophisticated. Appreciation of the limits of theory demonstrated throughout the work. Approach to assessment task is clearly and appropriately theoretically informed.
synthesis, leading to innovative and interesting ideas.
of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. 70-79%
Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with considerable originality.
Demonstrates a detailed, accurate, theoretical understanding. Appropriately selected theoretical knowledge is applied to the individual learning outcomes. Makes excellent use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline and applies these effectively. Shows developed ability to appraise alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant.
Excellent exploration of wider academic sources with evidence of independent learning which may exceed the assignment brief. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with an attempt made at synthesis, leading to interesting ideas.
Excellent answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is entirely relevant and focused with a clear argument/line of reasoning throughout. Discipline specific vocabulary used with precision and academic writing style applied throughout. No language errors present. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard has been employed in an accurate manner. 60-69%
Very good knowledge base that supports analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline, with some originality displayed.
Makes very good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation relevant to the discipline. Shows developing ability to compare alternative theories and/or analytic approaches, where relevant.
Very good evidence of wider academic reading and independent learning. Sources have been accurately interpreted and integrated with some evidence of synthesis.
Very good answer with coherent and logical presentation of ideas. The answer is relevant and focused. Discipline specific vocabulary is used and academic writing style applied. Minimal language errors may be present but do not impact on clarity of expression. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is accurate.
50-59%
Good knowledge base that supports some analysis and/or evaluation and problem-solving in theory and/or practice within the discipline.
Makes good use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Sound descriptive knowledge of key theories with some appropriate application.
Good evidence of academic reading, with attempt at moving beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable with evidence of integration.
Good answer with coherent and logical presentation. The answer is largely relevant but lacks focus at points. There is an attempt at using discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style. Some language errors are present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate. 40-49%
Satisfactory knowledge base demonstrating comprehension and formulation of basic knowledge with some omissions at the level of theoretical understanding.
Limited ability to discuss theory and solve problems within the discipline.
Makes satisfactory but limited use of established techniques of analysis and/or evaluation, relevant to the discipline. Selection of theory, if relevant to the assessment outcomes is satisfactory but application and/or understanding is limited.
Satisfactory evidence of academic reading, with minimal attempt to move beyond the recommended texts. Interpretation of sources is acceptable, but there may be some instances of misunderstanding.
Satisfactory answer with some attempt at coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains some irrelevant material and lacks focus at points. There is minimal use of discipline specific vocabulary and academic writing style is inconsistently applied. Some language errors may be present which impacts on clarity at times. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is mostly accurate but with some errors. 35-39% (Marginal Fail)
Outcomes not or only partially met. Restricted knowledge base demonstrated. Limited understanding of discipline. Difficulty with linking theory and problem solving within the discipline.
Attempts at analysis and/or evaluation ineffective and/or uninformed by the discipline. Knowledge of theory inaccurate and/or incomplete. Choice of theory inappropriate. Application and/or understanding very limited.
Limited evidence of reading at an academic level. Sources used may be inappropriate and interpreted poorly. Little evidence of integration.
Answer is attempted but limited. Lack of coherence and logical presentation. The answer contains mainly irrelevant material and lacks focus throughout. Language errors are present and impact on clarity of expression. Academic writing style is not adhered to. Referencing in the CU version of Harvard is inconsistent.
0 – 34%
Little or no evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving within the discipline.
Absence of relevant theoretical content and/or use of theory, where relevant. Lacks any analysis and/or evaluation.
Inadequate or no evidence of reading at an academic level with poor application of sources and ideas. Answer is likely to include inappropriate references which are misunderstood and not integrated. Possibility of plagiarism OR no evidence of academic research. Answer may not be research based.
Answer is inadequate with serious flaws in coherence and presentation. Poorly structured with multiple language errors which impact on clarity. Weak application of CU version of Harvard referencing style.