Category: Civil Engineering

MARKING RUBRICS

Marks

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

SUMMARY

10

Specific and detailed description of the project; All the main objectives, findings and conclusions identified very clearly; All the main applications of the projects geotechnical exploration are presented;

Description of project with some detail; Most of the main objectives, findings, conclusions and applications identified very clearly;

Lacks detail; Some reference to the main objectives, findings and conclusions; Only a few applications of the project are presented;

Description incomplete with little or no detail; Little or no reference to objectives, findings and conclusions; Poor reference to projects application;

ASSUMPTIONS

10

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

All key technical, environmental, and operational assumptions are clearly identified, fully justified, and rigorously explained. Assumptions are realistic, industry-appropriate, and explicitly linked to the engineering methods, data, and project context. The impact of each assumption on results and conclusions is critically evaluated.

Most relevant assumptions are clearly stated and reasonably justified. They are linked to the project context and analysis, though some explanations of their impact or technical basis may lack depth or precision.

Some key assumptions are identified but are partially justified or weakly linked to the engineering analysis. Limited discussion of their impact on results. Several assumptions may be generic or insufficiently technical.

Assumptions are unclear, missing, incorrect, or unjustified. They are not properly related to the project context or analysis, and their influence on results is not explained, leading to unreliable conclusions.

ANALYSIS AND CALCULATIONS

EFFECTIVE STRESS CALCULATION

10

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

Soil profile, groundwater conditions, and unit weights are clearly defined and justified. All total, pore, and effective stresses at layer centres and interfaces are correctly calculated for all stages (before, immediate, long-term) including water table rise and drop, with clear workings and correct interpretation.

Most assumptions and calculations are correct and clearly presented. Minor errors or limited explanation of groundwater effects, but overall effective stress trends are correct.

Basic calculations are attempted, but there are noticeable errors, missing stages, or weak assumptions. Limited understanding of how groundwater and loading affect effective stress.

Soil profile and stresses are incorrect, incomplete, or missing. Little or no understanding of effective stress concepts or groundwater effects.

STRESS ANALYSIS CALCULATION

10

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

Foundation size and applied load are clearly defined and realistic. Vertical stress increases at 2 m, 4 m, and 6 m below both the corner and centre are correctly calculated using an appropriate method, with clear workings and correct interpretation of stress distribution trends.

Most assumptions and stress calculations are correct and clearly presented. Minor errors or limited explanation of stress variation, but overall trends and values are reasonable.

Basic calculations are attempted, but there are noticeable errors, missing depths or locations, or weak assumptions. Understanding of stress distribution is limited.

Foundation assumptions or stress calculations are incorrect, incomplete, or missing. Little or no understanding of stress distribution beneath foundations.

IMMEDIATE SETTLEMENT CALCULATION

10

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

Foundation, soil, groundwater, and Nz profile are clearly defined and appropriate. Settlement at the centre is correctly calculated using both De Beer & Martens and Schmertmann methods, with clear workings, correct use of parameters, and sound engineering interpretation.

Most assumptions and calculations are correct and clearly presented. Minor errors or limited comparison between methods, but overall settlement results are reasonable.

Calculations are attempted but show noticeable errors, missing steps, or weak soil parameter assumptions. Limited understanding of settlement behaviour.

Settlement analysis is incorrect, incomplete, or missing, with little understanding of soil behaviour or method application.

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT

10

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

All soil assumptions (w, G, e) are clearly stated and realistic. Void ratios are correctly calculated, the elog plot is accurate and properly presented, and the primary consolidation settlement is correctly determined for the given stress increase, with clear workings and sound geotechnical interpretation.

Most assumptions, calculations, and the elog plot are correct and clearly shown. Minor errors or limited explanation of parameters, but settlement results are generally reliable.

Void ratios, plots, or settlement calculations are partially correct, with missing steps or weak assumptions. Understanding of consolidation behaviour is basic but incomplete.

Assumptions, void ratio calculations, plot, or settlement analysis are incorrect, unclear, or missing, showing little understanding of consolidation theory.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

10

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

Results from soil investigation, stress, and settlement analyses are clearly presented, accurately interpreted, and critically discussed. Findings are well-supported by literature or similar projects, and conclusions are logical, quantitative, and technically sound.

Most results are clearly presented and correctly interpreted. Some reference to literature or similar projects is included, though discussion may lack depth or critical comparison.

Results are presented but interpretation is limited, with weak links to literature or engineering meaning. Some conclusions may be general or insufficiently supported.

Results are unclear, incomplete, or incorrect, with little or no meaningful discussion or technical justification.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10

10.0 9.0

8.0 6.0

5.0 3.0

2.0 0.0

Conclusions clearly synthesise all key results and are fully supported by calculations and literature. Recommendations are practical, technically sound, and well-justified through comparison with codes, similar projects, or published research.

Conclusions are mostly accurate and supported by results. Recommendations are relevant and reasonable, though justification using literature or standards may be limited.

Conclusions summarise the work but are general or weakly linked to results. Recommendations are basic or partially justified.

Conclusions are unclear, incorrect, or not based on results, and recommendations are missing, impractical, or unsupported.

Structure and Organization

5

5.0 4.0

3.9-3.0

2.9 – 2.0

1.9 – 0

Report is logically organized with clear sections, transitions, and a coherent flow.

Well-organized but may have minor issues with flow or clarity.

Some organizational issues; report may be difficult to follow in places.

Poorly organized; lacks clear structure or logical progression.

Use of Evidence and Examples

5

Strong, relevant examples and evidence are used effectively to support points.

Examples and evidence are generally appropriate but may lack variety or detail.

Limited use of examples or evidence; some may be weak or irrelevant.

Little or no use of relevant evidence or examples.

REFERENCES

5

Report is provided with 10 references in APA format

Report is provided with 8 references in APA format

Report is provided with 8 references in any format

Report is provided with 5 references and below in any format