Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

NATIONAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, K.R.

NAGAR, KOVILPATTI
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Rubric for Final Year Project Progress evaluation
100% Supervisor’s Evaluation
Student Name :P.K.MUTHU RAM
Reg. No :1410059
Supervisor :K.SUDALAIYANDI,[AP,MECH]
Project Title :THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF IC ENGINES USING TERNARY BLENDS OF
BIODIESEL
Instruction
 Please rate your student according to the marking criteria given below.
 Fill in column “MARKS’ for each criteria with 0/1-2/3-4/5 (marks in decimal point is not
acceptable).
 Assess the progress of each student and submit their individual mark scored out of 100%.
 Please don’t change the given weight age scheme for each criteria during the Supervisor’s
Evaluation for 100% marks.

Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and allocation of marks

Marking Criteria
Criteria Marks
0 1-2 3-4 5
The review of
The review of
Review of literature was The review of
literature was not
literature without sufficiently literature was
structured in a clear
Literature / citation of structured in a clear structured in a clear
order, and most
patent review references or NO order, and some order, and citation
citation of references
review of citation of references of references was
was not done
literature at all was not done done properly
properly.
properly.
Problem was
Problem not clearly
identified and Problem was
identified/inaccurate
Problem, aim addressed in a clearly addressed,
Project and explanation is
and objectives satisfactory manner, aim and objectives
Significance too brief , aim and
were not aim and objectives were clearly stated
(or) Research objectives were
identified and were stated and and strongly
Gap vague and not
presented presented the related to research
addressing research
research gap in a gap
gap
satisfactory manner
Project activities
Project activities Project activities
were clearly
were poorly were identified but
Planning of No project identified and
identified and not some were not
Project schedule arranged
arranged practically arranged practically
Activities provided practically in a
in a project schedule in a project schedule
project schedule
with timeline with timeline
with timeline
Some project
No project
approaches/methods/ Project Project
approaches/
Project parameters were not approaches/methods/ approaches/method
methods/
design Or outlined and/or parameters were s/ parameters were
parameters were
approach without any sufficiently outlined clearly outlined
Provided Poorly
justifications and justified and justified
structured
provided
technical
There was no technical experimental
Lack of technical
Experiments/ technical experimental explanations were
experimental
Technical experimental explanations were presented in a clear
explanations and lots
review explanation presented, but with and logical manner,
of inaccuracies
presented some inaccuracies with no apparent
inaccuracies
Some work was
Most work was The concept of the
adapted from
The work was adapted from work is original/
previous work and/or
Originality of entirely adapted previous works, did novel and/or
demonstrated
results/ work for previous not demonstrate demonstrated
creativity and critical
works creativity and critical creativity and
thinking in a
thinking critical thinking.
satisfactory manner
Some parts of the No apparent
Most parts of the
report were plagiarism, and if
report were
plagiarized, and if applicable,
plagiarized, and if
applicable, preliminary results
applicable,
The work was preliminary results reported reflected
preliminary results
Research directly copied reported reflected ethical
reported did not
ethics from previous satisfactory ethical responsibility (e.g.:
reflect ethical
works. responsibility (e.g.: No forging of
responsibility (e.g.:
no forging of results, results, results
forged results,
results are presented presented in a
results not presented
in a satisfactory professional
clearly)
manner) manner)
Very good slide
The report was show, The report
poorly slide show satisfactory slide was structured in
presentation, Non show, The report an orderly manner,
Formatting There was no
structured report was structured and and the formatting
and structure of slide
formatting (e.g: font, formatted (e.g: font, (e.g: font, spacing,
organization show
spacing, labelling of spacing, labelling of labelling of figures
of slide show presentation/
figures and tables, figures and tables, and tables,
presentation/ report and the
equations numbered equations numbered equations
report formatting
and etc) include very and etc) in a numbered and etc)
substantial and satisfactory manner was done properly
consistent error in accordance to
the FYP guidelines
Most references Some references All references were
No references were not reliable (e.g were not reliable (e.g apparently reliable
References
provided internet content) and internet content) and (e.g journals) and
relevant relevant relevant
The student did not The student The student
The student did understand some understood most understood the
not understand parts of the project parts of the project project well and
Self the project and and did not show and showed some showed self-
Initiatives did not show any self- initiative in self- initiative in initiative in
self-initiative at handling and handling and handling and
all planning of the tasks planning of the tasks planning of the
for the project for the project tasks for the project
The student did The student was not The student was The student was
Commitment
not demonstrate committed and did committed and very committed
towards
any form of not perform most performed the tasks and diligent in
project/ commitment in tasks in the project in the project in a performing the
work the work (e.g (e.g seldom met satisfactory manner tasks in the project
never meet deadline, only 3-5 (e.g usually met (e.g consistently
deadline, less discussion meetings deadline, 6-9 met deadline, more
than 2 discussion with supervisor per discussion meetings than 10 discussion
meetings with semester) with supervisor per meetings with
supervisor per semester) supervisor per
semester, etc) semester)

Table 1: Award of Internal Marks form Review – I

Marks for Awarded


weight
Criteria each criteria marks
age (Q1)
(P1) (P1x Q1)
Literature / patent review 4 1 4
Project Significance (or) Research Gap 3 3 9
Planning of Project Activities 3 3 9
Project design Or approach 4 3 12
Experiments/Technical review 5 3 15
Originality of results/ work 4 3 12
Research ethics 4 1 4
Formatting and organization of slide show
3 0 0
presentation/ report
References 3 1 3
Self Initiatives 2 1 2
Commitment towards project/work 3 1 3
Total 73

Table 2: Award of Internal Marks form Review – II

Marks for Awarded


weight
Criteria each criteria marks
age (Q2)
(P2) (P2 x Q2)
Literature / patent review 4 0 0
Project Significance (or) Research Gap 4 1 4
Planning of Project Activities 5 2 10
Project design Or approach 5 3 15
Experiments/Technical review 5 5 25
Originality of results/ work 5 5 25
Research ethics 4 1 4
Formatting and organization of slide show
3 1 3
presentation/ report
References 3 0 0
Self Initiatives 2 1 2
Commitment towards project/work 3 1 3
TOTAL 91
Table 3: Award of Internal Marks form Review – III

Marks for
each weight Marks
Criteria
criteria age(Q3) (P3xQ3)
(P3)
Literature / patent review 0
Project Significance (or) Research Gap 0
Planning of Project Activities 1
Project design Or approach 4
Experiments/Technical review 4
Originality of results/ work 4
Research ethics 1
Formatting and organization of slide show
3
presentation/ report
References 1
Self Initiatives 1
Commitment towards project/work 1
TOTAL

***