COMBO order Programming Shown below are the Isometric drawing and detail design of a rotary vane pump, this CAD Design & Drawing Assignment requires you to produce the following: Using first angle projection, make detailed engineering drawings of all parts, showing all the information required for manufacture. Produce an assembly drawing in the first angle projection, an annotated isometric view and a full parts list (Bill of Materials). Rotary Vane Pump – Vector Isometric.png Rotary Vane Pump – Vector Orthographic.png Note: All drawings should comply with BS-8888. Drawings should be well presented and submitted on a A4 landscape sheet format. Not all dimensions are shown on the specification drawings provided, you must use your engineering experience to speculate/assume any missing dimensions. You have been provided with the following Fits and Material specifications, which should be appropriately represented in your final design and subsequent drawings. Fits: Shaft/Gland – Ø20-H8f8 Gland/Housing – Ø28-H7g6 Shaft/Housing – Ø20-H8f8 Rotor – Ø88f8 Housing bore – Ø96H8 Vane/Rotor/Housing H8f8 Materials: Housing – Stainless Steel (ferritic) Cover- Chromium Copper Seal – Silicon Rubber Gland – Chromium Copper Rotor – Stainless Steel (ferritic) Vane – 2.5mm thick Nylon 101 * This assignment is a digital submission and should be uploaded directly to canvas via the relevant assignments section. Note: SolidWorks Drawings should be provided in PDF format. Please see Mark Scheme below for assessment criteria and weighting A PDF version of this information can also be downloaded here: 400458_&_400470 Assignment – Computer Aided Engineering Drawing & Design.pdfPreview the document Good luck! Rubric CAD Assignment CAD Assignment CriteriaRatingsPts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeDetailed Engineering Drawings of all parts 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding Engineering drawings for all parts including all required orthographic views in first angle projection and isometric views. Ideal layout, scale and very well presented drawings for all parts. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Engineering drawings for all parts with at minimum all orthographic views and in first angle projection. Appropriate layout, scale and well-presented drawings for all parts. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Engineering drawings for most / all parts with all orthographic views and in first angle projection. Room for improvement in regards to layout, scale and presentation. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Engineering drawings for most / all parts but poor layout, scale and / or not first angle. Most but not all required views shown. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Engineering drawings for some parts, not in first angle projection and / or lacking orthographic & isometric views. 0 Pts Fail No evidence of engineering drawings for any parts. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAppropriate use of dimensions 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding All dimensions appropriately applied and ideally positioned with no overlapping. No missed or unnecessary dimensions and proper use of standard and non-standard dimensions. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Most dimensions appropriately applied, generally well positioned with no overlapping. Occasional missed / unnecessary dimension and could benefit from non-standard dimensions. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Good degree of appropriate dimensions, with only some missing / unnecessary dimensions. Room for improvement with layout and positioning of dimensions. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Some evidence of appropriate dimensioning but insufficient / excessive dimensions, poor layout, overlapping dimensions. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Some evidence of appropriate dimensioning, 0 Pts Fail Lack of appropriate dimensioning 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEffective Use of Title Block and annotations (Part Drawings) 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding Outstanding use of Title Block with evidence of customisation beyond the default template. Inclusion of all required information including angle of projection and manufacturing requirements. Effective use of annotations to improve dimensioning and add clarity to drawings. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Excellent use of default Title Block with all required fields populated and good use of annotations to supplement dimensions and manufacturing requirements. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Default Title Block used but with some missing / inappropriate information. Some appropriate annotations evident. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Default Title Block used but with some missing / inappropriate information and no annotations. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Default Title Block inserted but not populated, no annotations used. 0 Pts Fail No Title Block used 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAppropriate use of tolerances and surface finishes 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding Outstanding use of tolerances, including evidence of linear, angular and geometric tolerances. All required fits specified and some evidence of appropriately defined surface finishes. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Excellent use of dimensional specifications, at minimum defined fit specifications with some additional surface finish / geometric tolerances. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Some dimensional tolerances specified, at minimum defined fit specifications indicated. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Some dimensional tolerances specified, incorrect specification and no surface finishes. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Default global tolerances specified in title block only. 0 Pts Fail No tolerances or surface finishes specified. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeDetailed engineering drawing of assembly 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding Outstanding Engineering drawing for assembly including all required orthographic views in first angle projection and isometric view. Optimal layout, scale and very well presented drawings for all required views. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Excellent Engineering drawings for assembly with at minimum all orthographic views and in first angle projection. Appropriate layout, scale and well-presented drawings for all required views. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Good Engineering drawings for assembly with all orthographic views and in first angle projection. Room for improvement in regards to layout, scale and presentation. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Adequate Engineering drawing for assembly but poor layout, scale and / or not first angle. Most but not all required views shown. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Very basic Engineering drawing for assembly, not in first angle projection and / or lacking orthographic & isometric views. 0 Pts Fail No evidence of assembly drawing. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAppropriate exploded / sectioned isometric view of assembly 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding Outstanding attempt at exploded / sectional view. Is isometric and explicitly shows all required parts and effectively highlights all key features, both external and internal. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Excellent attempt at exploded / sectional view. Is isometric and clearly shows all required parts. Some evidence of highlighting key features. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Good attempt at exploded / sectioned view. Is isometric and shows clearly shows most required parts. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Adequate attempt at exploded / sectioned view. May not be isometric or not clearly showing all required parts. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Basic attempt at exploded / sectioned view. Not isometric and / or not showing all required parts. 0 Pts Fail No evidence of exploded or sectioned assembly view. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEffective use of Title block and annotations (Assembly Drawings) 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding Outstanding use of Title Block with evidence of customisation beyond the default template. Inclusion of all required information including angle of projection and manufacturing requirements. Effective use of annotations to improve dimensioning and add clarity to drawings. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Excellent use of default Title Block with all required fields populated and good use of annotations to supplement dimensions and manufacturing requirements. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Default Title Block used but with some missing / inappropriate information. Some appropriate annotations evident. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Default Title Block used but with some missing / inappropriate information and no annotations. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Default Title Block inserted but not populated, no annotations used. 0 Pts Fail No Title Block used 30 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeBill of materials 30 to >24.0 Pts Outstanding Outstanding bill of materials exhibiting significant and appropriate descriptive part information. All parts clearly identified on exploded / sectional view with matching and neatly placed part ID’s. Well placed table, appropriate layout and scale, no overlapping or crowding of drawing. 24 to >18.0 Pts Excellent Excellent bill of materials with at minimum part numbers, description and appropriate and well-presented annotations on exploded / sectioned view. Well placed table, appropriate layout and scale, no overlapping or crowding of drawing. 18 to >12.0 Pts Good Good bill of materials with at minimum part numbers and appropriate annotations on exploded / sectioned view. Some descriptive information in table but room for improvement in regards to layout, scale and position. 12 to >6.0 Pts Adequate Adequate bill of materials with at minimum part numbers and appropriate annotations on exploded / sectioned view. 6 to >0.0 Pts Poor Basic bill of materials, inappropriate / incorrect information in table, poor layout / position of table. 0 Pts Fail No evidence of Bill of Materials. 30 pts Total points: 240