Skip to main content

Every piece of graded work in the course, what it is worth, and when it is due.

Four pieces of graded work, weighted to sum to 100 and due in the order shown below. The bar shows the whole grade at a glance; each stop opens the full brief, spec and marking criteria for that piece.

  1. 20%

    Week 4

    Due 19 March 2027

    Material Characterisation Report

    A short written report characterising one real Chinese food material using the thermal or mechanical models built in Stage 1.

    • Correct use of a governing model from Stage 135%
    • Honest treatment of assumptions and uncertainty25%
    • Clarity — units, variable definitions, labelled figures20%
    • Use of real, cited sources or clearly labelled illustrative values20%
    Read the brief →
  2. 20%

    Week 10

    Due 7 May 2027

    Modelling Problem Sets

    A set of worked problems applying the transport, kinetics and phase- transition models from Stages 2 and 3 to new numbers.

    • Correct application of the relevant model50%
    • Working shown and reasoning explained30%
    • Discussion of sensitivity, limits, or edge cases20%
    Read the brief →
  3. 25%

    Week 11

    Due 14 May 2027

    Laboratory Portfolio

    A portfolio built from both virtual instruments plus two supplied-dataset analyses, demonstrating fitting, interpretation and honest provenance.

    • Virtual Rheometer task — model choice, fit quality, residuals30%
    • Crispness Phase Diagram task — state interpretation, stability margin30%
    • Two supplied-dataset analyses25%
    • Assumptions and data provenance stated throughout15%
    Read the brief →
  4. 35%

    Week 12

    Due 26 May 2027

    Inverse Material Design Project

    The capstone — pose and solve an inverse design problem for a real Chinese food material, using the course's models run backward.

    Judged as a whole against the brief, with particular weight on whether the stated target outcome is genuinely measurable, whether the chosen forward models are appropriate to invert for it, and whether the submission is honest about where its inverted answer is a tested hypothesis rather than a guaranteed specification.

    Read the brief →