Technical Design Report Scoresheet

Judges will review and score a 10 page technical paper that describes the team’s vehicle design, as well as strategies for their approach to the tasks. The TDR should also include rationale for design choices.

Question Title

* What is your first and last name?

Question Title

* What RoboSub team are you judging?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Question Title

* Abstract
(20 points)

Rubric:

The abstract is a short summary of the main points in the paper. The paper should primarily describe the linkage between the overall competition strategy and the system architecture, design and engineering decisions.

Excellent (11-20): Abstract is engaging, lists the scope of the work, and provides a thorough overview of the paper.

Good (6-10): Abstract provides an explanation on the scope of work and provides an adequate overview of the paper.

Fair (1-5): Abstract provides an overview of the paper.

Question Title

* Judge Comments for the Team
Abstract

Question Title

* Competition Strategy
(50 points)

Rubric:

This section should discuss how the team plans on approaching the course and how the vehicle design relates to this approach. The course consists of multiple tasks with associated points for accomplishment. The more tasks a vehicle is designed and engineered to accomplish, the more complex the overall vehicle system will be. The discussion should include the team’s consideration of the trade-offs between system complexity and reliability. For example, teams have a limited number of working hours to prepare for the competition; this time could be spent adding additional capabilities or testing and improving the reliability of an existing capability. As system complexity grows, changes in subsystems can propagate in unmanageable ways when time is limited. Clearly, the goal of a competition is to score more points than the other teams. There are many ways to do this. Studying past competitions may be instructive. Based on history and the system engineering talents of your current team, describe your strategic vision.

Exceptional (41-50): Detailed description of the team's strategic vision and how their vehicle design compliments their competition strategy. Detailed discussion on trade-off studies, between system complexity and reliability, during design development process.

Excellent (31-40): Sufficient details of the team's strategic vision and how their vehicle design compliments their competition strategy. Sufficient discussion on trade-off studies, between system complexity and reliability, during design development process.

Great (21-30): Team's strategic vision is clearly evident but not discussed in detail. Trade-off studies evident but lacking details.

Good (11-20): Brief mention of team’s strategic vision and trade-off studies.

Fair (1-10): Document hints at competition vision and trade-off studies.

Question Title

* Judge Comments for the Team
Competition Strategy

Question Title

* Design Creativity
(40 points)

Rubric:

Given the strategy for winning and the approach to managing complexity, teams should describe the creative aspects of their system. Novelty may occur at component, subsystem, and/or integrated system levels. The experience in making both architectural/design decisions and system engineering decisions should be described. This section should not include detailed component descriptions and/or specifications not of original design. The latter should be described in Appendix A.

Exceptional (31-40): Provides in-depth explanations on design criteria and clearly identifies creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is justified with required calculation steps and visual aids. Content clearly exhibits a Systems Engineering approach was followed.

Excellent (21-30): Provides explanations on design criteria and identifies creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is justified with calculation steps and visual aids. Content hints at a Systems Engineering approach.

Good (11-20): Provides some information on design criteria and creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is supported with a few calculations. Content could be justified as a Systems Engineering approach.

Fair (1-10): Provides some information on the creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is hypothesized. No evidence to support application of Systems Engineering principles.

Question Title

* Judge Comments for the Team
Design Creativity

Question Title

* Experimental Results
(40 points) 

Each team has experienced different ripples of COVID-19.
The intent of this category is to award points for testing efforts planned, but may also include implementation.

Rubric:

This section should describe various tests accomplished to date and planned, both in-water and in simulation, including pre-qualifying runs. There is a strong correlation between in-water testing time and competitive performance in the arena. Given typical student time constraints, balancing creative design and system engineering with testing and experimentation can be a challenge. How did your team estimate the amount of testing required to meet your reliability goals? How did you balance the demands of design and engineering with those of testing and experimentation?

Exceptional (31-40): Testing approach is presented in great detail, to include test plans and results. Component testing, sensor and control systems testing (bench tests and in-water) done in accordance with a test plan. Lessons learned (during full system testing) are well documented to help with future development and testing.

Excellent (21-30): Testing approach is presented with sufficient detail, to include test plans and results. Documentation shows certain components, sensors and control system testing (bench tests and in-water). Testing plans show sub-system testing but not full system test.

Good (11-20): Testing approach is presented but not discussed. No test plans. Only a few components and sensors are bench tested (no in-water tests).

Fair (1-10): Testing is done to a certain degree. No components and sensors are tested independently.

Question Title

* Judge Comments for the Team
Experimental Results

Question Title

* Acknowledgements
(10 points)

Rubric:

Participating in the competition, as in all research projects, involves marshaling resources and support beyond the efforts of individual team members. This support can take many forms, such as technical advice, labor, equipment, facilities, and monetary contributions. Acknowledging those who have underwritten your efforts is important.

Excellent (6-10): Acknowledgements section details supporting personnel and their contributions, as well as resources.

Fair (1-5): Acknowledgements section mentions supporting personnel.

(0): Acknowledgements are not present.

Question Title

* Judge Comments for the Team
Acknowledgements

Question Title

* References
(10 points)

Rubric:

As with any technical publication, original ideas and content not generated by the paper’s authors should be properly cited. While there are many citation styles, the IEEE Conference Proceedings style is suggested, found on the following link: www.ieee.org/conferences/publishing/templates.html.

Excellent (6-10): All sources are thoroughly documented. Appropriate citation style is utilized.

Fair (1-5): Some sources are documented. No consistency in citation style.

(0): Sources are not documented. Citations are not provided.

Question Title

* Judge Comments for the Team
References

Question Title

* Adherence to Formatting Guidelines
(10 points)

Rubric:

•10 page limit (excluding References and Appendices)
•8.5 x 11 in. page size
•Margins ≥ 0.8 in.
•Font: Times New Roman 12pt
•Header on every page including team name and page number
•Submitted in pdf format

Excellent (6-10): Formatting guidelines are followed, and the document is professionally organized.

Fair (1-5): Formatting guidelines are somewhat followed, and document's purpose can be determined.

(0): Formatting guidelines are not followed, and the layout is unorganized.

Question Title

* Judge Comments for the Team
Adherence to Formatting Guidelines

____________________________________________________________________________________

Question Title

* Any additional comments for the team?

These comments will be shared with the RoboSub team you are evaluating.

Question Title

* Any comments for RoboNation?

These comments will only be shared with RoboNation.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your evaluation!

Ready to submit? Click the blue button below.

All evaluations are due on July 25.

T