Assessment 3 — Battery Swap Rack Detailed Design Report

1. Overview of Assessment

Assessment 3 is a group report contributing 40% of the course grade.

Continuing the Systems Engineering V Lifecycle process, your team will transform the preferred rack concept from Assessment 2 into a detailed design for the Ho Chi Minh City pilot site in collaboration with Project Saffron stakeholders.

The report must be ready for review, demonstrating compliance with Vietnamese standards and readiness for verification and deployment planning that serves daily private riders through scooter battery swap using operator owned S-Series LFP batteries (3.5 kWh, IP67, ~6 h recharge, durability to 70% after ~2,000 cycles) and sustaining approximately 500 swaps per 24 hours.

2. Assessment Task

Task Overview

1. Review: Review Assessment 2 and the agreed baseline (stakeholders, requirements, preferred concept).
2. Develop the technical dossier: Build the architecture views (physical layout, logical/functional structure, data/information exchanges), subsystem descriptions, performance analysis, and a verification/validation plan.
3. Demonstrate traceability: Map each key requirement, design decision, and assumption carried over from Assessment 2 to the detailed design, performance evidence, and a verification plan (e.g., populate a traceability matrix showing requirement → design element → test/analysis).
4. Consolidate the detailed design: Describe how the subsystems, performance evidence, and verification approach come together to deliver a pilot-ready rack design for Ho Chi Minh City.
5. Reflect as a team: Document how collaboration evolved and how the design is positioned for the next phase.

Keep the report focused on the single pilot rack; mention wider ecosystem impacts only when they influence the detailed design or verification strategy.

Create a professional engineering report (approx. 4,000–4,500 words excluding appendices) containing the elements below.

Appendices can include detailed calculations, interface control documents, risk and MBSE analyses, reference these in the main report so assessors can locate evidence quickly.

3. Timeline

Align group effort with the Week 10–13 learning sequence:

• Week 10 – Reset: review Assessment 2 feedback and the consolidated baseline (stakeholder, requirements, architecture).
• Week 11 – Architect & Verify: build architecture views, draft verification matrix, and capture compliance checkpoints alongside verification and validation lectures.
• Week 12 – Detail & Model: complete subsystem packages, performance models, and integrated design evidence. Hold an internal design review (use the Week 12 tutorial worked example for swap throughput/energy calculations as a reference).
• Week 13 – Finalise: integrate appendices, polish report and references, document team reflection, and submit on time.

4. Submission Instructions and Collaboration Expectations

1. Submit a single PDF report (11 pt font, professional headings, labelled figures) via Canvas by the Week 13 deadline; length 4,000–4,500 words (±10%) excluding cover page, references, appendices.
2. Use Harvard or IEEE referencing. Cite all standards, datasets, and external design references.
3. File naming: GroupID_Assessment3_DetailedDesign.pdf. Optional supporting files (SysML, spreadsheets) may be uploaded if under 50 MB—reference them in the report.
4. Maintain the same team membership as Assessment 2.
5. Keep a record of meetings, task allocations, and decisions, these may be requested for moderation.
6. Feedback will be provided within 10 working days.

5. Assessment Criteria

6. Academic Integrity

All modelling, analysis, and documentation must be original to the group. Cite every external source. Declare any use of digital or AI tools consistent with university policy.