marking 2b regarding project 2
DESCRIPTION
Marking 2B regarding project 2TRANSCRIPT
-
Assessment
ComponentFail (0-49) Pass (50-64) Credit (65-74) Distinction (75-84) High Distinction (85-100) Mark for Item
Demand estimation in
Adelaide and
development of yield
criteria
Unreasonable demand
estimation
Reasonable demand
estimates and design
criteria, no justification
Some justification of methods,
reasonable estimates of
demand and yield criteria
Good justification of methods,
assumptions fully described,
reasonable estimates of demand
and yield criteria
Excellent justification of
methods, assumptions fully
described, reasonable estimates
of demand and yield criteria
/10
Environmental waterNo consideration of
environmental demands
Basic environmental
demands considered
Environmental water
requirements articulated, and a
set of quantitative
environmental flow rules
provided
Environmental water
requirements articulated and
well justified, a set of
quantitative environmental flow
rules provided
Excellent justification of
environmental water
requirements with references, a
set of quantitative
environmental flow rules
provided
/10
Reservoir inflows under
historical and future
climate scenarios, and
stochastic generation of
data
No consideration of future
climate
Reasonable reservoir inflows
for all scenarios
Reasonable reservoir inflows
for all scenarios, future climate
projections supported by
appropriate references
Reasonable reservoir inflows for
all scenarios, future climate
projections supported by
appropriate references,
stochastic generation tools used
to enhance the amount of data
available
Reasonable reservoir inflows for
all scenarios, future climate
projections supported by
appropriate references,
stochastic generation tools used
to enhance the amount of data
available, budyko analysis of
climate elasticity
/15
Flood storage capacityIncorrect consideration of
flood storage
Reasonable estimates of the
10% AEP flood and flood
storage design
10% AEP flood correctly
calculated, some consideration
of assumptions when sizing the
flood storage
10% AEP flood correctly
calculated, good consideration of
assumptions when sizing the
flood storage
10% AEP flood correctly
calculated, excellent
consideration of assumptions
when sizing the flood storage
/15
Reservoir dimensions and
operation rules
Incomplete calibration, no
validation with no discussion
Sizing of the reservoir
(including specification of
dead storage, active storage
and flood storage levels, the
outlet configuration and the
spillway level) appropriate
with little justification
Sizing of the reservoir
(including specification of dead
storage, active storage and
flood storage levels, the outlet
configuration and the spillway
level) appropriate and
supported by the analysis
Sizing of the reservoir (including
specification of dead storage,
active storage and flood storage
levels, the outlet configuration
and the spillway level)
appropriate and supported by
the analysis, operation rules
summarised
Sizing of the reservoir (including
specification of dead storage,
active storage and flood storage
levels, the outlet configuration
and the spillway level)
appropriate and supported by the
analysis, operation rules clearly
articulated and justified
/15
Summary of final
reservoir design
performance
Incorrect calculation of
reservoir yield
Reasonable yield from
reservoir design
Discussion of reservoir yield
under both current and future
climate conditions
Good discussion of reservoir
yield under both current and
future climate conditions, yield
articulated in terms of a
percentage of adelaide's overall
water demands currently and in
the future, summary of
necessary desalination
production
Excellent discussion of reservoir
yield under both current and
future climate conditions, yield
articulated in terms of a
percentage of adelaide's overall
water demands currently and in
the future, summary of necessary
desalination production
/10
Comparison with natural
catchment flows
No comparison of natural
flowsLimited comparison of flows
Comparison of flows
downstream of Mt Bold
reservoir, including a number of
flow metrics (10,50,95,99%
quantiles of the daily flow
duration curve, seasonal flow
metrics and annual flow
metrics)
Good comparison of flows
downstream of Mt Bold reservoir
at multiple locations, including a
number of flow metrics
(10,50,95,99% quantiles of the
daily flow duration curve,
seasonal flow metrics and annual
flow metrics)
Comprehensive comparison of
flows downstream of Mt Bold
reservoir at multiple locations,
including a number of flow
metrics (10,50,95,99% quantiles
of the daily flow duration curve,
seasonal flow metrics and annual
flow metrics)
/10
Executive Summary
Poor clarity of expression,
no summary of key points
findings
Satisfactory clarity of
expression, some summary
of key points
Good clarity of expression,
relevant and complete
summary of key points
Good clarity of expression,
relevant and complete summary
of key points, contains
conclusions and
recommendations
Excellent clarity of expression,
relevant and complete summary
of key points, concise, contains
conclusions and
recommendations
/5
Report professionalismReport difficult to follow
with significant errors
Report lacks
professionalism, difficult to
identify sections, incorrect
use of figures
Report well structured,
selection of relevent figures
Report well structured and
professionally written, figures
used throughout the report with
purpose to illustrate the main
concepts and findings
Report well structured and
professionally written, figures
used throughout the report to
illustrate the main concepts and
findings, reads like a real
engineering report
/10
Demand Preparation (35%)
Reservoir Design (50%)
Communication (5%)