CG02-5 Industrial Data Networks

What am I required to do in this assignment?
Introduction
This is an Individual Report (based on practical work). The prototype network and report Viva Voce will be conducted and evaluated individually.
Assessment 2A – Individual Report (based on practical work) (50%)
An Individual Report based on a produced prototype network in a PLC simulator. Non-submission will automatically result in failure of this
assessment. No late submission will generally be accepted.
Assessment 2B – Viva Voce (20%)
A Viva Voce will follow on 4 January 2021. Only students who have submitted the report are eligible to proceed with the Viva Voce. The Viva
Voce will be individually.
Tasks to be done
Choose one of the below scenarios and produce a prototype using PLC Simulation.
• Scenario 1: Produce a prototype for an industry to control 3 motors sequentially and START each motor one by one.
• Scenario 2: Produce a prototype to control lamp/light of the staircase in a two floor factory, using two switches, one at ground floor
and second at first floor.
Submission Deadline Marks and Feedback
Before 6pm on:
xxxxx
15 working days after deadline (All Levels) Programme)
xxxxx
Module title & code CG02-5 Industrial Data Networks
Assignment number and title 2A and 2B
Assessment type Individual Report (based on practical work) (50%)
Viva Voce (20%)
Weighting of assessment 70% (50 + 20)
Module learning outcomes On completion of this module you should be able to:
1. Appraise the industrial data network protocols and analyse the techniques used in
industrial data network.
2. Combine the industrial data network requirements and create a prototype network.
2
• Scenario 3: Produce a prototype to automatic Control the Lamp in factory storage Facility as if we press the switch all will be ON
together and more energy will be consumed.
• Scenario 4: Produce a prototype to initialize parameter when the industry machine is powered up so the operator does not require
to process all data again in case of power failure.
Actions:
1. Evaluate the given situation.
2. Analyse functional and non-functional requirements.
3. Produce a prototype network in a suitable simulator.
4. Measure the performance of your prototype.
5. Prepare a report with the findings and interpretations.
Deliverables
A report with a minimum of 2500 words covering the following tasks is expected.
The structure of the report should be as follows:
• Problem Description
• Problem Diagram
• Problem Solution
• List of Inputs/Output
• PLC diagram
• Program Description
• Runtime Test Cases
• Conclusion and Recommendation
• References
Key Deliverables and Important Dates:
Last date for submission of draft: (xxxxx). Send the draft by e-mail to your teacher, Ms Zainab
Any draft submission after this date will not be accepted.
Last date for Final Submission: (xxxxx). The final report should be submitted in MOVE on or before (xxxxx, 6:00 PM). Nonsubmission will automatically result in failure of that assessment. No late submission will generally be accepted.
Each student must submit the report individually in the module’s MOVE page. The submission will be followed by a viva-voce.
Is there a size limit?
(2500 words)
What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from Module Descriptor)
Design a prototype network in a suitable simulator and submit a report with appropriate rationale, followed by a viva-voce of
the report and artefact developed.
3
How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade?
Justify your design choice and demonstrate understanding of the design choice for developing certain components of a
wireless networking system for a given scenario.
How does assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions?
During the scheduled sessions an introduction, overview and practical activities will be provided enabling students to appraise
and apply the technologies in simulated, virtual or real environments.
How will my assignment be marked?
Your assignment be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page.
You can use them to evaluate your own work and estimate your grade before you submit.
N
o
Criterion Weighin
g (%)
Sub Standard /
No Attempt
(0 Marks)
Poor
(20 Marks)
Satisfactory
(40 Marks)
Good
(50 Marks)
Very Good
(60 Marks)
Excellent
(70 Marks)
Outstanding
(100 Marks)
Rubrics for Report (50%)
1 Problem
Description
15% No problem
description is
provided.
Fails to identify,
summarize, or
explain the
main problem
or
question.
Represents the
problem
inaccurately or
inappropriately.
Limited/incomplet
e identification of
problems and
summarization or
explanation of the
main problem or
questions.
Identifies
main issues
but does not
summarize or
explain them
clearly or
sufficiently.
Successfully
identifies and
summarizes
the main
issues, but
does not
explain
why/how they
are problems
or create
questions.
Correctly and
completely
identifies and
summarizes
the main
issues, and
correctly
explain why
they are
problems or
create
questions but
does not
identify
clearly how
to address
them.
Clearly
identifies and
summarizes
main issues
and
successfully
explains
why/how
they are
problems or
questions;
and identifies
embedded or
implicit
issues,
addressing
their
relationships
to each
other.
5
3 Problem
Solution
15% No solution
found.
Solution
provided is not
relevant to the
topic.
General solution
was provided. No
evidence of own
ideas given.
Student tried
the solution
on the
points/issues
identified in
problem
description
section.
Limited
Solutions of
own ideas are
proposed.
Student tried
the solution on
the
points/issues
identified in
the problem
description
section and
some relevant
solutions of
own ideas are
proposed.
Ideas
proposed are
mostly
correct and
relevant to
points/issues
identified in
the problem
description
section. Adds
some value
to the body
of
knowledge.
Ideas
proposed are
completely
relevant and
practical to
the
points/issues
identified in
the problem
description
section. Adds
consistent
amount of
value to the
body of
knowledge.
4 List of Inputs/
Output
5% No Inputs/
Output found.
Provided points
are not
relevant. Lacks
Inputs/
Output.
Provided points
are mostly
irrelevant. Lacks
Inputs/
Output.
Inputs/
Output is
provided and
few
points/key
issues are
identified.
Inputs/
Output is
provided.
Explanation is
missing.
Inputs/
Output and
explanation
found are
mostly
relevant.
A critical
Inputs/
Output is
found with
detailed and
relevant
explanation.
5 PLC diagram 25% No PLC diagram
found or design
is generally
inappropriate.
PLC diagram is
mostly
inappropriate
and
disorganized.
Satisfactory detail
provided in the
design. Limited
components were
used. Design is
not logically
organized.
The PLC
diagram is
partially
correct. Some
essential
components
are either
missing or
not logically
linked to the
design.
Design is
somehow
organized.
The PLC
diagram is
mostly correct.
However, there
are few
essential
components
that are either
missing or not
logically linked
to the design.
Design is
organized.
The PLC
diagram is
correct.
The scenario
is very clearly
illustrated in
the design.
Proper use of
components.
Design is very
organized.
An
outstanding
PLC diagram.
The scenario
is very clearly
illustrated in
the design.
Proper use of
components.
Design is very
organized.
Expectations
are exceeded.
6
6 Program
Description
20% No program
description
can be found.
Program
description
presented are
not coherent to
the expected
results of the
scenario.
Limited/incomplet
e program
description are
provided.
Interpretation of
idea is either
missing,
ambiguous, or
incomplete.
Program
description is
partially
complete.
Analysis of
program are
somehow
appropriate.
Program
description is
mostly
complete.
Analysis of
program are
appropriate.
Correct and
complete
program
description
are provided
for the
chosen
scenario.
Analysis of
program are
appropriate
and welljustified.
Outstanding
program
description
are provided
for the
chosen
scenarios.
Analysis of
program are
appropriate
and welljustified.
Expectations
are exceeded.
7 Runtime Test
Cases
10% No runtime test
cases found.
Provided points
are not
relevant. Lacks
runtime test
cases.
Provided points
are mostly
irrelevant. Lacks
runtime test
cases.
Runtime test
cases are
done and few
key points
are identified.
Runtime test
cases are done.
Explanation is
missing.
Runtime test
cases found
are mostly
relevant.
An
outstanding
runtime test
cases are
found with
detailed and
relevant
explanation.
8 Conclusion and
Recommendatio
n
5% No conclusion
and
recommendatio
n found.
Conclusion and
recommendatio
n provided is
not relevant to
the topic.
General or mostly
irrelevant
conclusion and
recommendation
provided.
Few relevant
points are
given that
somehow
reflected the
outcome of
the study. No
suggestions
for further
studies given.
Some relevant
points are
given that
partially
reflected the
outcomes of
the study.
Suggestions for
further studies
given but are
not feasible for
implementatio
n.
Relevant
conclusion
that reflected
the outcomes
of the study
are given.
Some points
were drawn
from the
actual work
done. It
includes
suggestions
for further
studies that
The
conclusion
adequately
reflected the
outcomes of
the study and
is relevant to
the actual
work done. It
includes
suggestions
for further
studies that
are feasible.
7
are somehow
feasible.
9 References 5% No references
found.
References
provided are
not
appropriate.
Mostly
inappropriate
references
provided. Just a
list of sources
found which are
not academically
acceptable (ex.
Wikipedia, Blogs,
etc.)
Reference list
is provided
and the
sources are
somehow
relevant.
No in-text
citations
found.
Reference list is
provided and
the sources are
relevant.
Few in-text
citations are
found.
Academically
accepted
reference list
is provided.
Proper in-text
citations are
found.
A proper
Harvard
referencing
style is
followed and
all the
sources are
academically
accepted.
Rubrics for Viva Voce
N
o
Criterion Weighin
g (%)
Sub Standard /
No Attempt
(0 Marks)
Poor
(20 Marks)
Satisfactory
(40 Marks)
Good
(50 Marks)
Very Good
(60 Marks)
Excellent
(70 Marks)
Outstanding
(100 Marks)
1 Demonstratio
n
50 % Unable to show
proof of
knowledge and
skill in the
artefact
developed
Student shows
limited
knowledge of
the artefact
developed.
Attempt to
showcase
system
functionalities
was
unsuccessful.
Student shows an
acceptable level
of knowledge and
skills in the
artefact
developed. Few
functionalities
were successfully
demonstrated.
Student
shows a good
level of
knowledge
and skills in
the artefact
developed.
Majority of
the
functionalitie
s were
successfully
demonstrate
d.
Student shows
a good level of
knowledge and
skills in the
artefact
developed.
Most of the
functionalities
were
successfully
demonstrated.
Student was
able to
showcase
technical skills.
Student
shows a very
good level of
knowledge
and skills in
the artefact
developed.
All of the
functionalitie
s were
successfully
demonstrate
d. Student
has
showcased
his/her
technical
skills in the
Student
shows high
level of
knowledge
and skills in
the artefact
developed.
All of the
functionalitie
s were
successfully
demonstrate
d. Student
has
showcased
his/her
technical
skills in the
8
subject area
with
confidence.
subject area
with
confidence.
Student’s
performance
during the
demo is
exemplary.
2 Viva 50 % Unable to
answer any
question.
Student lacks
understanding
of the topic.
Student shows
a shallow
understanding
of the topic.
Answers to
questions are
irrelevant.
Student shows a
limited
understanding of
the topic. Few
questions are
answered
correctly without
elaboration.
Student
shows a good
understandin
g of the topic.
Most
questions are
answered
correctly but
with very
limited
elaboration.
Student shows
a very good
understanding
of the topic.
Most questions
are answered
correctly with
proper
elaboration.
Student
shows an indepth
understandin
g of the topic.
All answers to
questions are
correct and
logically
articulated.
Student
shows an indepth
understandin
g of the topic.
All answers to
questions are
correct and
logically
articulated.
Answers
provided are
supported by
examples or
real-world
scenarios.

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"