METALWORK
Paper 6040/01
Theory, Drawing and Design
General comments
This year there was a single centre entry. All candidates made a reasonable attempt at both parts of the
question paper. In Section A all questions were attempted. Questions 1 and 2 were the most popular and
Question 3 was the least popular.
Comments on specific questions
Section A
Question 1
This question was the most popular with the majority of candidates attempting it.
(a) Good knowledge of datum surfaces. Many took the measurement and marked two points and then
joined with a rule, rather than using an engineers square and odd leg callipers.
(iii) Good knowledge of dividers.
(b) Candidates all attempted to hold, cut and finish the edges. The best answers followed the
guidance in the question.
Question 2
Several named a non ferrous metal at (a), but some gave a ferrous metal.
(b) Again, the best answers followed the question closely. Candidates need to note the bracketed
marks. Each of the parts (i) (iv) were worth the same number of marks and answers need to
match that, in notes and sketches.
Question 3
This was the least popular question, with insufficient marks for the examiners to comment on.
Question 4
Some good answers here showing knowledge of internal and external threads. It is obvious that candidates
are familiar with hand cutting of threads and are aware of good practice.
(b) Good knowledge was shown of the reason for using lubricant.
Question 5
This was the second least popular question. Those who did attempt this question showed that they were
familiar with the sequence of cutting operations to produce the shape shown. Also, in part (b), some
knowledge of the 3 jaw chuck was shown.
6040 Metalwork November 2007
1
Section B: Drawing and Design
Quite a variation in the standard of drawings in this section. All candidates attempted both Questions 6 and
7.
6 The best answers followed the instructions closely and gave working solutions for a device which
would hold the scriber, with adjustment and locking. Some gave solutions which would be difficult
to adjust and lock.
7 There were a few candidates who demonstrated a good standard of draughtsmanship.
6040 Metalwork November 2007
2
METALWORK
Paper 6040/02
Practical
General comments
Most candidates were able to make all of the parts, although not all had the hole punch assembled
completely. Few hole punches worked as intended mainly because either Part 6 would not pass through the
hole in the base or the arm, Part 5, would not pivot as intended.
Overall dimensions of the different parts were normally fairly accurate. The Examiner allows a tolerance of
+/- mm for maximum marks on dimensions up to 15 mm and +/- 1 mm for maximum marks on dimensions
over 15 mm. No marks are awarded if dimensions are above +/- 1 mm and +/- 2 mm respectively.
Comments on specific parts
Part 1
The base of the hole punch was marked out and worked fairly accurately by most candidates although the
chamfers were rarely to the correct dimensions. This part should have been fairly straightforward as all the
holes were on the centre line.
Part 2
The arm support required a slot to be formed at the top and this was achieved by the majority of candidates
although the dimensions were not always to the drawing. Most candidates drilled and tapped the hole at the
base of the support although few countersunk the underside of the base to receive the head of the M6
joining screw. The curves were formed at the top of the support in most cases.
Part 3
This part was generally drilled accurately although the riveting with the spacer, Part 4, in position, rarely
resulted in both parts lining up. Many candidates did not file the rivets flush on the underside of the base.
Part 5
The arm was generally produced to reasonably accurate dimensions, although it did not always pivot fully in
Part 2. This was generally due to the shouldered end being too long or the slot in Part 2 not being deep
enough. A very small number of candidates, indeed, followed the instruction to shape the handle so that it
was comfortable to hold.
Part 6
The punch pin was usually completed with the small plate, Part 7, silver soldered in position. Only a small
number of candidates shaped Part 7 as instructed and the soldered joint was rarely filed completely flush on
the top surface.
Assembly
As has already been stated, very few candidates completed the parts to the required accuracy for the punch
pin to slide through its hole in the base and this was disappointing. However, there was no requirement for
candidates to produce the hole punch to a particular hand so there were no problems in this respect.
Where candidates had prepared the end of the support, Part 2, accurately and drilled and tapped the
threaded hole to the required depth, then these two pats were normally square and rigid.
6040 Metalwork November 2007
3
