Coursework Specification
Module Information
Module Code & Title
KB4041 Materials and Manufacturing
Module Leader
Prof. Ben Bin Xu
Assessment Component Number & Weighting
002 (70% of the module)
Coursework Title
Assessment and Re-development of a Lab Stool
Academic Year and Semester(s)
2025-26 Semester 1
Coursework Submission and Feedback
Release Date of Coursework Specification to Students
W/C 17th November 2025
Mechanism Used for Dissemination & Submission of Coursework Specification to Students
Turnitin digital submission portal in the Assessment and Submission folder on the Blackboard module
Date and Time of Submission of Coursework by Students
23:59 on 22nd January 2026
Marks and feedback will be returned to students within 20 working days of the deadline.
Assessment Details
Module Learning Outcomes (MLOs) Assessed by Coursework
MLO1. Apply knowledge and understanding of scientific principles and methodology related to solving well-defined materials and manufacturing engineering problems.
MLO4. Apply creativity and curiosity to analyse well-defined problems reaching substantiated conclusions relating to materials engineering and manufacturing.
MLO5. Evaluate the environmental and societal impact of materials engineering and manufacturing solutions to well-defined problems.
Coursework Overview
This coursework requires students to be involved with an innovative evaluation of a product that gives them the opportunity to apply their materials expertise in the development of a new or improved product. Working individually, you will learn about materials by acting as a materials engineer and learning different aspects of materials and manufacturing engineering during the process.
Coursework Tasks to be Completed by Students
This is an individual assignment and the following key tasks should be carried out and written in the form of a report:
Lab stool is a common furniture in lab, workshop and classroom. The students are required to pick a type of Lab stool located in Northumbria University’s Ellison Building C/E-block ground floor workshops such as C005 and E003, assess the materials used in different components of the selected stool with a logical explanation of the materials selection behind its product design. Student should think about ways of improving the safety, mechanical strength and other features such as safety, comfort and ergonomics etc. from a materials engineer point of view. The study should comprise of the following tasks and the weightage can be found in the rubric at the end of this brief. It is expected that the student should follow the order of the task in the submitted report. No template will be provided for the technical report. Student should use their own skills to write one. Use ANSYS Granta Edupack software to assist these tasks in a professional manner.
Expected Size of Submission
Less than or equal to 3000 words (a maximum of 10 numbered pages of A4 size sheet including title page, table of contents, abstract, references, list of tables, table, list of figures and figures and anything else). Please write word count at the end of report. The 3000 word limit includes title page and anything else that goes into your report. Appendix is not required, if you are using appendix, please make sure to accommodate them within 10 page limit and will be counted towards your 3000 word limit. Please use standard margins and a font size of 12 as a standard guidance with single line spacing.
University word limit policy will be followed.
Late Submission
University late submission policy will be followed.
Referencing Style
You are to write your coursework using the Cite Them Right version of the Harvard referencing system. An online guide to Cite Them Right is freely available to Northumbria University students at: https://www.citethemrightonline.com/
Referral
The Referral Attempt opportunity will generally take place after the end-of-level Progression and Awards Board (PAB). If you become eligible to complete a Referral Attempt but are subsequently unable to undertake the opportunity when required, you will be permitted to re-sit the module at the next scheduled sitting of the module assessment. This will typically entail the suspension of your progression on your programme of study until such time that you have completed the level and become eligible to proceed.
Assessment Criteria Please refer to marking Rubric at the end of this coursework. This Marking Rubric will be treated as a form of feedback in order to improve your work. Guidance for Students on Policies for Assessment
The University has several policies for assessment. The following information, which is available to you from the link below, provides guidance on these policies, including relevant procedures and forms.
- Assessment Regulations and Policies
- Assessment Feedback
- Anonymous Marking Policy
- Late Submission of Work and Extension Requests
- Personal Extenuating Circumstances
- Technical Extenuating Circumstances
- Student Complaints and Appeals
- Academic Misconduct
- Student Disability and Unforeseen Medical Circumstances
https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-...
Marking Rubric
| 1. Assessment of materials in product with reference to standard (30%): MLO1, MLO4, MLO5 | ||||||||||||||
| Excellent understanding of materials by correctly assessing key parameters (incl. units). Engineering terms and definitions are correctly referenced and applied. The description is fully supported by correct calculations and engineering plots. | Good understanding of materials by assessing key parameters (incl. units). Engineering terms and definitions are correctly referenced and applied. The description is supported by calculations and/or engineering plots. | Satisfactory understanding of materials by assessing key parameters (incl. units). Engineering terms and definitions are referenced and applied. A clear attempt to use calculations is shown. | Complete record of the materials assessment with minor errors. A clear attempt to use engineering terms and definitions is shown. | Incomplete record of materials assessment or the assessment has shown explicit mistakes. Engineering terms and definitions is partially used. This category includes no attendance and/or no submission. | ||||||||||
| High 1st | Mid 1st | Low 1st | High 2:1 | Mid 2:1 | Low 2:1 | High 2:2 | Mid 2:2 | Low 2:2 | High 3d | Mid 3rd | Low 3rd | Close Fail | Fail | Poor Fail |
| 27~30 | 24~26 | 21~23 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 10~11 | 7~9 | 0~6 |
| 2. Assessment of the manufacturing of product with reference to standard (30%): MLO1, MLO4, MLO5 | ||||||||||||||
| Excellent understanding of manufacturing with correctly assessing key parameters (incl. units). Engineering terms and definitions are correctly referenced and applied. The description is fully supported by correct calculations and engineering plots. | Good understanding of manufacturing with assessing key parameters (incl. units). Engineering terms and definitions are correctly referenced and applied. The description is supported by calculations and/or engineering plots. | Satisfactory understanding of manufacturing with assessing key parameters (incl. units). Engineering terms and definitions are referenced and applied. A clear attempt to use calculations is shown. | Complete record of manufacturing assessment with minor errors. A clear attempt to use engineering terms and definitions is shown. | Incomplete record of manufacturing assessment or the assessment has shown explicit mistakes. Engineering terms and definitions is partially used. This category includes no attendance and/or no submission. | ||||||||||
| High 1st | Mid 1st | Low 1st | High 2:1 | Mid 2:1 | Low 2:1 | High 2:2 | Mid 2:2 | Low 2:2 | High 3d | Mid 3rd | Low 3rd | Close Fail | Fail | Poor Fail |
| 27~30 | 24~26 | 21~23 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 10~11 | 7~9 | 0~6 |
| 3. Critical analysis and propose new design of product (material and manufacturing selection,30%): MLO1, MLO4, MLO5 | ||||||||||||||
| A critical and insightful analysis of materials and manufacturing with applying relevant engineering codes. A good knowledge on materials science and engineering is presented. The analysis is quantitative and fully supported by correct calculations and engineering plots. | Good analysis of materials and manufacturing with applying some engineering codes. A good knowledge on materials science and engineering is presented. The analysis is quantitative and supported by calculations and/or engineering plots. | Satisfactory analysis of materials and manufacturing with applying some engineering codes. Knowledge on materials science and engineering is presented. A clear attempt to use calculations is shown in the analysis. | Complete analysis of materials and manufacturing with applying engineering codes. Knowledge on materials science and engineering is presented or partially presented. An analysis is presented. | Incomplete analysis of materials and manufacturing process. Knowledge on materials science and engineering is presented or partially presented. This category includes no attendance and/or no submission. | ||||||||||
| High 1st | Mid 1st | Low 1st | High 2:1 | Mid 2:1 | Low 2:1 | High 2:2 | Mid 2:2 | Low 2:2 | High 3d | Mid 3rd | Low 3rd | Close Fail | Fail | Poor Fail |
| 27~30 | 24~26 | 21~23 | 20 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 10~11 | 7~9 | 0~6 |
| 4. Engineering Report Quality and Layout (10 %): MLO1, MLO4 | ||||||
| An excellent engineering report with clear engineering logic, and good layout, incl. fonts and size. The sections are well placed with minimal typos in context or plots. The report includes sufficient visual elements, i.e. image, graphic, plots, tables, etc. References show good consistency. | A good engineering report with engineering logic, and good layout , incl. fonts and size. The sections are clearly placed with minimal typos in context or plots. The report includes visual elements, i.e. image, graphic, plots, tables, etc. References show good consistency. | A satisfactory report with some engineering logic, and good layout overall. The sections are placed with some typos in context or plots. The report includes visual elements, i.e. image, graphic, plots, tables, etc. References show some level of consistency. | A complete report with some engineering logic, and reasonably good layout. The sections are placed with explicit typos in context or plots. The report includes limited visual elements, i.e. image, graphic, plots, tables, etc. References show limited consistency. | An incomplete report with limited logic, and flawed layout (or partial missing). The sections are placed with lots of typos in context or plots. The visual elements, i.e. image, graphic, plots, tables, etc, is largely missing. References show limited consistency. This category includes no attendance and/or no submission. | ||
| High 1st | Mid 1st | Low 1st | 2:1 | 2:2 | 3rd | Fail |
| 9~10 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 0~3 |