STUDENT NAME: STUDENT NO.:
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND
FACULTY OF HEALTH, ENGINEERING AND SCIENCES
Course No: MEC3203 Course Name: MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY
X
Assessment No: 2 Internal
X
External This assignment carries 30% of the total assessment for this course
Examiner: MAINUL ISLAM Moderator: STEVEN GOH
Due Date: 31 May 2018
Marking Guide
Part A: Failure Analysis - Assessment Criteria [150 marks]
1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge base in the relevant topic;
2. Demonstrate the ability to delineate the problem in the case study;
3. Demonstrate the ability to analyse (and critique) the potential failure modes, and propose the likely cause of failure and a strong justification/argument to back the assertion; 4. Demonstrate the ability to propose rectification or prevention strategies;
5. Demonstrate the ability to professionally present your report (including in-text citation and referencing).
Part B: Materials Selection - Assessment Criteria [150 marks]
1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge base in material selection methodology;
2. Demonstrate the ability to delineate the engineering requirements of the materials;
3. Demonstrate the ability to systematically apply material selection methods;
4. Demonstrate the ability to propose the best material(s), and a strong justification/argument to back the recommendation(s);
5. Demonstrate the ability to professionally present your report (including in-text citation and referencing).
NOTE: It is inadequate to provide an answer like ‘very hard steel’. Be specific in your material selection, and always support it with evidence (such as figures or material selection charts from materials handbook). You can find most of the information resources from the textbook, USQ Library Online or relevant library databases such as ASM Online. Use Harvard referencing style; refer to USQ Library website for details. Limit the number of pages of your report submission to approx 30 pages excluding appendix.
___________________________________________________________________
Part C: Oral Interview – Assessment Criteria [% of the Part A and Part B]
1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge in relevant materials topics and the case study;
2. Explain the approaches and relevant findings in failure analysis and materials selection.
NOTE: Scheduled 15mins “face-to-face” interviews will be scheduled with individual students after submission of report to validate and confirm the learning outcomes. Zoom video-conferencing will be used for external students to facilitate the interview. Failure to participate in the interview could result in 0% being applied.

CASE STUDY – JOINT REACTION
Reporter: Quentin McDermott, Four Corners Broadcast: 16 May 2011
The Articular Surface Replacement hip or ASR created by DePuy and marketed by the Johnson and Johnson company was sold to doctors and patients as a giant step forward in joint replacement. Its creators boasted it would give greater mobility and help patients get back on their feet quicker. Now reporter Quentin McDermott investigates claims that the metals hips are disintegrating and making patients sick.
Australians spend over $7 billion a year on medical devices that are supposed to make their lives better. In most cases they do. Pacemakers, hip and knee replacements can transform a patient's life. But who tests these devices to make sure they are safe? Now some doctors and policy makers say our regulation and testing regime is failing us and they are calling for greater scrutiny being directed to this essential industry.
His name is Ron. He was an active, happy 76-year-old. In 2005 he had a total hip replacement. A short time after the operation the metal hip he received began to malfunction. A large lump, the size a grapefruit, developed on the side of his leg. After consultation with his specialist and being told little could be done, Ron asked for a second opinion. What he found shocked him and his new doctor.
Analysing the fluid drained from the lump on his leg the doctor found pieces of metal that could only have come from the metal prosthesis inside him. Five operations later Ron has no hip at all and can barely walk.
Catherine was forty three when she accepted her doctor's advice and agreed to have an ASR hip replacement. After the operation she began to feel ill. Desperate to find out what was making her feel sick, she asked her doctor to do pathology tests. What she found horrified her. The tests revealed she had -toxic- levels of cobalt in her system. The only possible source of the cobalt was the hip she'd been given.
Further investigation revealed the metal from the hip had damaged surrounding tissue in her upper leg and gave every indication her illness had been caused by massive levels of cobalt.
Ron and Catherine are not the only people to find there are serious problems with the DePuy ASR hip replacements. It's now estimated that the problems associated with this type of hip, which relies on metal to metal technology, could affect hundreds, even thousands of people across Australia.
The question is: how was this metal on metal technology approved? Who did the design and who tested it before it was used in human beings? As one patient with a faulty hip put it:
-...the patients are the guinea pigs yes, and then they use the result when they put them in a patient.-
The Four Corners program -Joint Reaction-, presented by Kerry O'Brien on Monday 16th May at
8.30pm on ABC 1. Extracted from http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/4c-full-program-joint/8961372
The two media reports below present the scenario for the failure of the DePuy orthopaedic hip implant:
Johnson & Johnson 'failed to take action' on defective hip implants
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-26/four-corners-hip-implants/5477332)| ABC NEWS | May 2014
A company's failure to manufacture a medical implant to the correct specifications may have caused the implant to shed harmful metal debris, injuring thousands of patients around the world, many of whom have had to undergo further painful surgery to remove the device.
Johnson & Johnson Recalls Hip Implants
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/business/27hip.html)| The New York Times | August 2010 More than two years after the Food and Drug Administration began receiving complaints about the failure of a hip replacement implant made by the DePuy Orthopaedics unit of Johnson & Johnson, the company said Thursday that it was recalling two kinds of hip implants.
Some further background information to provide context for the problem:
• Some initial background reading on medical-device materials, failure analysis, materials selection, fatigue failures, wear failures: o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_analysis o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_selection o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material) o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wear o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_replacement
o ASM Failure Analysis Center & ASM Handbooks Online (via USQ Library link) http://resguide.usq.edu.au/index.php?type=ebooks&desc=1&route=subject86&ID=16&access=86
• Some initial background reading on DePuy implant failures: o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_DePuy_Hip_Recall
o http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-16/patients-reveal-agony-of-toxic-hipimplants/2694656
o http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-28/tasmanian-leads-hip-classaction/1960270
o http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/artificial-knee-gonewrong/2986700
o http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/hip-replacementdevice-withdrawn/3024148
Part A: FAILURE ANALYSIS
Scenario for the -Failure Analysis- part of this assignment is in the form of a client brief in reviewing failures/literature documented in the past, critiquing investigative work done, and systematically investigating the failure to provide detailed insights into the case of DePuy orthopaedic hip implant failure, include specifically in your report:
1) Outline a brief background on the failure, operations, and its operating environment; 2) Delineate the problem and provide an analysis of the failure modes and potential causes of failure based on an extensive review of literature;
3) Review and critique one of the “failure reports” as prepared by the experts; comment specifically on whether the methodology is suitable and adequate based on your extensive review of literature;
4) Comment on whether additional information or additional investigation is required (eg sample testing or validation required); and
5) Recommend suitable solutions or rectification to the problem (based on certain assumptions).
Part B: MATERIALS SELECTION
Johnson & Johnson, the maker of the DePuy Orthopaedic implants, noting your failure analysis work has decided to engage you to redesign the materials specification for its knee replacement product range. In the light of recent publicised failures of its hip replacement product, the company has engaged your firm to identify an alternate material for its knee implant.
Scenario for the -Materials Selection- part of this assignment is in the form of a client brief:
1) Provide an outline and analysis of the performance requirements;
2) Evaluate and select an appropriate materials selection method;
3) Systematically justify your selection of materials for the equipment;
4) Comment on whether additional information or additional investigation is required; 5) Recommend suitable materials for the “orthopaedic knee implant” (based on certain assumptions).
• This is a major assignment for Materials Technology and is used as a skill application exercise and consolidation of studies done in the course.
• The purpose is for students to consolidate and apply their knowledge gained; and apply critical thinking and have a deeper appreciation of materials in a real world case study.
• This is a major assignment for Materials Technology and is used as a skill application exercise and consolidation of studies done in the course.
• The purpose is for students to consolidate and apply their knowledge gained; and apply critical thinking and have a deeper appreciation of materials in a real world case study.
• This assignment is a very open ended explorative and lateral thinking exercise but MUST exhibit a systematic and engineering approach to failure analysis and materials selection.
• There are no single correct answers or right format for the journal. It is encouraged for students to develop their own methodology based on literature.
• Student can make appropriate assumptions and limitations if needed.
• The report(s) needs to address the criteria adequately to demonstrate their knowledge and thought process. Any proposed failures/materials selection MUST be supported by strong reasoning and justification based on sound evidence; if no evidence is provided, then assumptions/limitations MUST be stated with further work (eg. investigation or testing) proposed.
• A marking rubric is provided should help with marking process.
The aim is to learn consolidate and apply their knowledge gained in a real world case study requiring failure analysis and materials selection, and further complemented by a need to investigate deeper into the relevant sources. The key focus will be strong reasoning and justification supported by sound evidence/assumptions for both failure analysis and material
selection tasks. Use the marking rubric provided .
NOTE: Part B is seeking materials selection for a KNEE REPLACEMENT PROTHESIS.

Assessment criteria sheet for MEC3203 Assignment 2, S1 2018
Criteria Level 1- Level 2- Level 3-
A1. Demonstrate a sound knowledge base in the relevant
topic
A2. Demonstrate the ability to delineate the problem in the
case study
A3. Demonstrate the ability to analyse (and critique) the potential failure modes, and propose the likely cause of failure and a strong justification/argument to back
the assertions
A4. Demonstrate the ability to propose rectification or
prevention strategies
A5. Demonstrate the ability to professionally present your report (including in-text citation and referencing)
0-4 marks No attempt or knowledge
demonstrated were limited
and/or without support.
0-8 marks
No attempt or limited delineation of the case study problem.
0-8 marks
No attempt or the analysis (and critique) was
limited and/or
without support or justification.
0-8 marks
No attempt or proposed
strategies were limited and/or
without support or justification.
0-2 marks No attempt at intext citations and
referencing and/or professional
presentation and language were limited.
4-8 marks Knowledge demonstrated was either
incorrect or
poorly articulated and supported.
8-16 marks Poor delineation of the case study problem.
8-16 marks
The analysis (and critique) was poorly
articulated,
supported and/or justified.
8-16 marks Proposed strategies were poorly
articulated,
supported and/or justified.
3-4 marks
Poor demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or
professional
presentation and language.
8-12 marks Knowledge demonstrated
was somewhat correct and adequately
articulated and supported.
16-24 marks
Delineation was somewhat articulated, and adequately
supported and/or justified.
16-24 marks
The analysis (and critique) was somewhat articulated,
supported and/or justified.
16-24 marks Proposed strategies were somewhat articulated,
supported and/or justified.
4-6 marks Adequate demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or
professional
presentation and language.
Level 4-
12-16 marks Knowledge demonstrated was clear, correct, and well articulated and supported. Limited evidence provided.
24-32 marks Delineation was clear and well articulated,
supported and/or justified.
24-32 marks The analysis (and critique) was clear
and well articulated, supported and/or justified.
24-32 marks Proposed strategies were clear and well articulated,
supported and/or justified.
6-8 marks Good demonstration of in-text citations and referencing
and/or professional presentation and language.
Level 5-
16-20 marks 20
Knowledge demonstrated was clear, correct,
comprehensive and
extremely well articulated and supported; Further evidence included.
32-40 marks 40 Delineation was clear, comprehensive and
extremely well articulated, supported and/or justified.
32-40 marks 40
The analysis (and critique) was clear, comprehensive and extremely well
articulated, supported
and/or justified.
32-40 marks 40
Proposed strategies were clear, comprehensive and extremely well articulated, supported and/or justified.
8-10 marks 10
Excellent demonstration of in-text citations and referencing and/or
professional presentation and language.
150
Criteria Level 1- Level 2- Level 3- Level 4- Level 5-
B1. 0-4 marks 4-8 marks 8-12 marks 12-16 marks 16-20 marks 20
Demonstrate a sound No attempt or Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge demonstrated knowledge base in material knowledge demonstrated demonstrated was demonstrated was was clear, correct, selection methodology demonstrated were was either somewhat correct clear, correct, and comprehensive and
limited and/or incorrect or and adequately well articulated and extremely well articulated without support. poorly articulated articulated and supported. Limited and supported; Further
and supported. supported. evidence provided. evidence included.
B2. 0-8 marks 8-16 marks 16-24 marks 24-32 marks 32-40 marks 40
Demonstrate the ability to No attempt or Poor delineation Delineation was Delineation was Delineation was clear, delineate the engineering limited delineation of the engineering somewhat articulated, clear and well comprehensive and requirements of the of the engineering requirements. and adequately articulated, extremely well articulated, materials requirements. supported and/or supported and/or supported and/or justified. justified. justified.
B3. 0-8 marks 8-16 marks 16-24 marks 24-32 marks 32-40 marks 40
Demonstrate the ability to No attempt or Poor application Adequate application Good application of Excellent application of systematically apply application of of method(s) of method(s) with method(s) with method(s) with support or material selection method(s) was and/or with some support or justification. support or justification. method(s) limited and/or support or justification.
without support or justification. justification.
B4. 0-8 marks 8-16 marks 16-24 marks 24-32 marks 32-40 marks 40
Demonstrate the ability to No attempt or The materials The materials The materials The materials selection propose the best materials selection selection proposal selection proposal was selection proposal proposal was clear, material(s), and a strong proposal was was poorly somewhat articulated, was clear and well comprehensive and justification / argument to limited and/or articulated, supported and/or articulated, extremely well articulated, back the without support or supported and/or justified. supported and/or supported and/or justified. recommendation(s) justification. justified. justified.
B5. 0-2 marks 3-4 marks 4-6 marks 6-8 marks 8-10 marks 10
Demonstrate the ability to No attempt at in- Poor Adequate Good Excellent demonstration of
professionally present your text citations and demonstration of demonstration of in- demonstration of in- in-text citations and report (including in-text referencing and/or in-text citations text citations and text citations and referencing and/or
citation and referencing) professional and referencing referencing and/or referencing and/or professional presentation presentation and and/or professional professional and language.
language were professional presentation and presentation and limited. presentation and language. language.
language.
150