School of Mechanical, Materials and Manufacturing Engineering

EXAMINATION FEEDBACK FORM

Module Code:

MM3POE

Module Title:

Polymer Engineering

Credits:

10

Module Convenor:

Prof A C Long

Comments on individual questions in which students' performance could have been improved
and suggested strategies for improving performance in the future
Q1

Viscoelastic modelling. This question was attempted by nearly all students.

(a) Most were able determine the constants for the Kelvin model, although some
students did not notice that the relaxed compliance could be inferred from the
data.
(b) Most students were able to model stepped loading. For the ramped load case
many students calculated the integral between 0 and 100s the correct limits
were 0 and 60s as there was no change in load after 60s.
(c) Most students were able to identify use of ribbed designs and sandwich panels
as two options, although relatively few attempted to describe these in any
detail.

Q2

Pseudo-elastic design method. Most students attempted this question.

(a) Most students did well here, demonstrating that they understood both the
limiting strain and maximum stress approaches. Small calculation errors were
common, although these resulted in only small deductions in marks. The most
common mistake was to use 0.01 for strain (the stated equation uses % strain,
so a value of 1 was appropriate).
(b) Most students made a reasonable attempt at this, producing a fairly realistic
schematic graph and brief description. Some tended to mix strength with
modulus (they are not at all the same!) and others neglected to discuss the
glass transition temperature.

Q3

Non-Newtonian flow. Most students attempted this question.

(a) Reasonable graphs were presented generally, showing shear stress versus strain
rate and including shear thickening, thinning and Newtonian behaviour.
Students usually pointed out that polymer melts are shear thinning. Descriptions
of the power law equation and limitations were not so good in general most
did NOT highlight the limited range of strain rates over which the model applies.
(b) Again most students performed reasonably on this and obtained accurate values
for C and n.
(c) Those who attempted this part did well with many adopting the technique
suggested in the solutions (taking the ratio of pressure drops for the two
channels). Some chose instead to substitute dummy values for the unknown
constants accurate and well explained solutions of this type also received high
marks.

Q4

Injection moulding. Relatively few students attempted this (descriptive) question.

(a) Some good diagrams here but some chose to draw the entire injection
moulding machine rather than concentrating on the mould as requested.
(b) Most students described the steps during injection moulding very clearly. The
main omissions were on the packing and cooling phases. A few students gave a
general description for a polymer processing operation (often reproducing the
solution from a question in the 2006-07 exam) this was NOT what was
required!
(c) Most students gave a reasonable description of the process here, although many
could not comment clearly on the types of materials used.

Q5

Strength of polymers. A very small number of students attempted this.

(a) Most students could describe the effects of temperature and strain rate. Less
mentioned hydrostatic pressure and few covered (accurately) differences
between amorphous and semi-crystalline polymers.
(b) Most did very well on this question, describing the phenomena clearly.
(c) Relatively few good answers here regarding the derivation, although most were
able to state the law and plot graphs to show how it should be interpreted.
(d) Very few students attempted this part. Those who did generally gave good
answers.

General comments about technique

Good technique by most, although generally students should explain their approach to
calculation questions more clearly: which formulae from the sheet have been selected, what
is assumed at each stage in the calculation etc.
Note: All questions obtained mean marks between 16 and 18 out of 30.

Notes
The Schools policy is that all module convenors should provide a generic examination
feedback report for each module to the relevant group of students using the above template
(or in another format if that is more appropriate). The feedback should:
(a) highlight examination questions on which students' performance could be
improved and suggests strategies for improving performance in the future;
(b) gives general comments about technique.
The information should be provided by the date of the Examiners Meeting that considers the
results at the end of the relevant semester, so that it is available to them when they receive
their marks. The normal mode of delivery will be via the modules WebCT site.