PROGRAM

NATIONAL DIPLOMA
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

SUBJECT

STRENGTH OF MATERIALS 3

CODE

SOM 312

ASSESSMENT

ASSIGNMENT (ELO 9):

(FRACTURE, STRESS CORROSION
CRACKING AND FATIGUE)

DUE DATE

09 May 2016, 15:45 pm

TOTAL MARKS

100

FINAL MARKS

100

ASSESSOR

Mr. M Nkosi

MODERATOR

Dr. L Beneke

INSTRUCTIONS
1. The assignment should be 2500 words (+/- 10%).
2. When submitting for assessment, students should be aware of the universitys
guidance and regulations concerning plagiarism.
3. All submissions should be your own, original work, and where necessary appropriate
citation and referencing shall be done.
4. Font size 12, Times New Roman, 1.5 spacing and Normal Margin (1 all sides),
5. The cover/title page shall indicate program, subject, subject code, assignment title,
surname, initials, student number and date.

-1-

Assignment Brief:
This assignment satisfies Exit Level Outcome 9 (ELO 9 Independent Learning) and
must be passed with a subminimum of 50% in order to be admitted to the
examination. The assignment should follow the format presented below.

Abstract (no more than 250 words)

In the abstract, summarise the main aspects and comment on your analysis. This
section should be written after you write the main body of the essay.

(10 marks)

1. Introduction (approximately 550 words)

In the introduction, outline the major points, including: definitions, symptoms, causes,
effect, and preventive measures.

(20 marks)

2. Literature Review (approximately 1,200 words)

In this section of your essay, briefly outline and critically analyse the main points of
fracture, stress corrosion cracking and fatigue. Briefly outline the definitions,
underlying concepts, symptoms, causes, effects, testing and preventive measures of
fracture, stress corrosion cracking and fatigue. Where possible highlight aspects
where authors differ in opinion.

(50 marks)

3. Conclusion and Recommendation (around 500 words)

State your conclusion on fracture, stress corrosion cracking and fatigue principles and
make recommendations for organisations with equipment suffering from these failure
mechanisms.

(20 marks)

-2Marking Criteria (or Rubric):

Criteria

Score 70-100%

60-69%

50-59%

0-49% FAIL

Communication and
Presentation
(Generic skills)

15 %

Comprehensive and
correctly structured
assessment. Very
fluent and logical
argument.

Well-structured report
with appropriate
format, but needs
some improvement.
Fairly fluent.

Good report but it

has variations and
inadequacies in
quality and format.

Very poor report and

incorrectly structured
and contains major
errors and omissions.

Knowledge and
understanding

20 %

Excellent knowledge
and grasp of theory
and very good
interpretations and
summary of main
concepts.

Very good knowledge

and good
interpretation and
understanding of the
topic.

Good knowledge and

grasp of the topic but
weaknesses in key
concepts.
Satisfactory
interpretation.

Very poor knowledge

and major weaknesses
in interpretation and
understanding of the
topic.

Analysis

25 %

Excellent use of theory

and concepts in
analysis and critical
evaluation. Dissects
the major concepts
used in the argument.

Very good use of

theory and concepts in
analysis and critical
discussion. Good
evidence of dissecting
major concepts.

Use of theory and

concepts limited but
relevant. Lack of
critical analysis and
dissection of major
concepts.

Very poor use of theory

and concepts. Very little
description with not
much evidence of
analysis.

Synthesis/
creativity/
presentation

20 %

Logical presentation of
concepts and excellent
demonstration of
synthesis. Creativity
and clear argument.

Very good
presentation of main
concepts. Good
argument and fairly
good attempt of
synthesis and
creativity.

Good presentation of
main concepts but
limited evidence of
synthesis and
creativity.

Very poor presentation

of main concepts. No
synthesis and there is
lack of creativity.

Defence/Evaluation

20 %

Shows clear evidence

of in-depth critical
evaluation and strong
defence of opinions
and arguments
presented in the
assignment.

Shows evidence of
critical evaluation and
a fair defence of
opinions and
arguments.

Shows some
evidence of critical
evaluation but
defence of opinions
and arguments
needs to be
developed.

Shows little or no
evidence of critical
evaluation and it needs
to be much more
developed. There is no
defence of the opinions
and arguments.