Scoring Technical Design Reports (TDRs)

Objective: Describe the design of the ASV autonomy systems, propulsion system, and control systems, as well as strategies for the approach to the tasks. This paper should include the rationale for AUV design choices.

Submission Format: Technical design report

What are teams expected to do?

1. Follow the guidelines provided in the Team Handbook (excerpt below)

2. Tell a story... don't simply give a list of parts

3. Include supporting visuals: graphs, graphics and photos

4. Tell why design choices were made

Submission Requirements

The format of the written paper shall adhere to the following guidelines:

• 6 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

The TDR consists of the following mandatory sections: abstract, technical content, acknowledgements, references, appendix A, and an optional appendix B.

Optional Formatting: Teams may choose to follow the two-column format, editorial style for IEEE Conference Proceedings: www.ieee.org/conferences/publishing/templates.html.

Point Breakdown

To complete the Technical Design Report evaluation, judges use a scoring rubric. The maximum score for the Technical Design Report submission is 200 points.

Reviews can be done anytime convenient for you, as long as your scores are submitted by February 24th at 11:59 PM ET.

Formatting

The format of the written paper shall adhere to the following guidelines:

• 6 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

Point Allocation by Category

Formatting | 5% of score

Strong	Paper follows page limit, and all formatting guidelines are followed. The document is professionally organized. All required sections are included and easy to identify. All grammar, punctuation, and spelling are correct. The style follows that expected of a scientific paper submitted for publication.
Requirements Not Met	Formatting guidelines are not followed and the layout is unorganized.

Abstract | 10% of score

Outstanding	Abstract is engaging, lists the scope of the work, and provides a thorough summary of the paper.
Strong	Abstract provides a strong overview of the scope of work and a detailed summary of the paper.
Average	An adequate explanation of the scope of work is included with a brief summary of the paper.
Below Average	Abstract provides a basic summary of the paper.
Poor	Abstract section is included but does not serve the intent of an abstract. The abstract is treated as an introduction and provides no summary of the paper.
Requirements Not Met	No abstract is included.

Acknowledgements | 5% of score

Strong	Acknowledgements provide a general thank you but do not specify particular contributions.
Average	Acknowledgements provide a general thank you but do not specify particular contributions.
Poor	Acknowledgements provide a general thank you but do not specify particular contributions.
Requirements Not Met	No acknowledgements are included.

References | 5% of score

Strong	Sources include notable technical references including technical papers and articles. Use of the source materials are evident in the TDR. Sources are thoroughly documented. The IEEE citation style is correctly utilized.
Average	Sources are adequate and documented correctly with the IEEE citation style is utilized.
Poor	Limited sources are documented but there is no adherence to the IEEE citation style.
Requirements Not Met	No sources or citations are documented.

Competition Strategy | 25% of score

Outstanding	Detailed description of the team's strategic vision and how the vehicle design compliments their goals. Detailed discussion on trade-off studies between system complexity and reliability during design development process.
Strong	The team's goals are clearly evident but not discussed in detail. Trade-off studies evident but lacking details.
Average	Brief mention of team’s strategic goals and/or trade-off studies.
Below Average	Document hints at a goal for competition and/or trade-off studies.
Poor	Discussion of the team’s vision is incoherent; rationale for competition goals is not discussed.
Requirements Not Met	No mention of competition goals.

Design Strategy | 25% of score

Oustanding	Provides in-depth explanations on design strategy 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.
Strong	Provides explanations on design strategy and identifies creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is justified with calculation steps and visual aids. Content hints at a Systems Engineering approach.
Average	Provides some information on design strategy and creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is supported with a few calculations. Content could be justified as a Systems Engineering approach.
Below Average	Provides little information on design and creative design methodology. Little evidence to support applications of a Systems Engineering approach.
Poor	Provides limited information on the creative aspects of system. Creative design methodology is hypothesized. No evidence to support application of Systems Engineering principles.
Requirements Not Met	Creative aspects of design are not described.

Testing Strategy | 25% of score

Oustanding	Testing approach is presented in great detail, to include test strategy and plans. Component testing, sensor and control systems testing (bench tests and in-water) done in accordance with a test plan.
Strong	Detailed testing approach, test strategy, and plans. Documentation shows good overview of components, sensors and control system testing (bench tests and in-water).
Average	Testing approach is presented with sufficient detail, including mention of test strategy and plans. Documentation shows components, sensors and control system testing.
Below Average	Testing approach is presented with little to no detail. No mention of components or sensors testing.
Poor	Testing is done to a certain degree. No components and sensors are tested independently. There are no test plans.
Requirements Not Met	No mention of testing or connection with the system design.

Judges Comments

JUDGE COMMENTS FOR THE TEAM

One of the main requests we receive from our teams every year is to receive comments and feedback from you, our judges.

You will see this section at the bottom of each scoresheet where you can leave your feedback and comments. These comments will be shared with teams following the competition.

Please see the Judge Comment Guidelines lesson below for tips on writing effective comments for the teams.

JUDGE COMMENTS FOR ROBONATION

The comments you leave here are only visible to the RoboNation team and will not be shared with the teams.

Use this comment section to recommend the team for a special award, emphasize something that really stood out to you, or share any concerns you have.