3.1 Technical Design Report
The Technical Design Report (TDR) is a required and scored submission for the International SeaPerch Challenge. This concise engineering paper explains how the team applied the engineering design process to develop, test, evaluate, and refine its ROV for the competition mission.
Teams should use technical evidence—including test data, analysis, and documented design decisions—to describe the problem addressed, establish objectives and success criteria, evaluate design alternatives, justify key design choices, and demonstrate mission readiness. Rather than presenting a chronological account of the project, the TDR should focus on the engineering work most significant to the ROV’s development and performance, emphasizing iterative improvement, data-driven decision-making, critical reflection, and clear technical communication.
3.1.1 Overview
The Technical Design Report includes the following required sections:
Abstract
Engineering Problem & Objectives
Methods: Engineering Design & Development
Experimental Results
Discussion, Reflection & Future Research
Acknowledgments
References
Budget
AI Acknowledgment
Technical Writing & Communication and Paper Format are evaluated across the complete submission rather than presented as separate sections of the paper.
Page Format Requirements
The Technical Design Report shall adhere to the following formatting requirements:
5-page maximum for the main body of the paper
Acknowledgments, References, Budget, and AI Acknowledgment are excluded from the 5-page limit
8.5 × 11-inch page size
Margins of at least 0.8 inches
Times New Roman, 12-point font
Single-spaced
Team Name and page number included in the header or footer of every page
Figures and tables appropriately numbered and captioned
Submitted in PDF format
3.1.2 Report Contents
Abstract
A well-written abstract should provide a concise, technically meaningful summary of the team’s engineering work. It should briefly identify the engineering problem or objective, significant or novel design features and engineering approach, testing methods and key results, and the team’s primary conclusions. The abstract should also communicate the significance of the team’s most important engineering decisions, innovations, or findings and how they contributed to the development and mission readiness of the ROV.
The abstract should allow a reader to quickly understand what the team investigated, how they approached the engineering problem, what they found, and why the work is significant.
Maximum Length: ½ page
Engineering Problem and Objectives
Define the engineering problem your team sought to solve, including the key requirements, constraints, and performance considerations that influenced your design. Do not summarize or restate the competition tasks.
Identify specific engineering objectives and measurable or observable success criteria used to guide design decisions and evaluate performance. Include one or more engineering questions, hypotheses, or design questions investigated through research, prototyping, modeling, or testing.
Maximum Length: ½ page
Methods: Engineering Design and Development
Describe how your team designed, developed, and refined the ROV. Explain the iterative engineering design process, including significant design alternatives, tradeoffs, prototypes, testing, and revisions. Show how evidence from testing, observations, calculations, or modeling informed key design decisions.
Describe the final ROV design and provide technical justification for its most significant features. Include relevant technical graphics—such as photographs, drawings, CAD models, or schematics—to support the discussion and demonstrate your team’s engineering understanding.
Focus on why engineering decisions were made, rather than providing a chronological account of what the team did.
Maximum Length: 2 pages
Experimental Results
Present the results of testing, experimentation, and performance evaluation conducted in-water and/or through simulation. Describe how testing was conducted and provide relevant quantitative and/or qualitative evidence used to evaluate your engineering objectives and design decisions.
Use appropriate graphs, tables, photographs, or other figures to clearly communicate results. Analyze important trends, comparisons, or performance outcomes, and explain how the evidence informed specific design decisions, modifications, or iterations.
Maximum Length: 1 page
Discussion, Reflection, and Future Research
Interpret your results and explain what they reveal about the ROV design and engineering objectives. Critically evaluate successful and unsuccessful approaches, unexpected results, and limitations of the design or testing process.
Based on your findings, identify specific future research, experiments, or design investigations that could further improve understanding or performance. Explain how lessons learned from this project could inform future engineering work or ROV development.
Maximum Length: 1 page
Acknowledgements
Identify the individuals, mentors, sponsors, organizations, facilities, and other resources that supported your team’s engineering work. Briefly describe significant external contributions—such as technical assistance, equipment, facilities, labor, or financial support—so reviewers can distinguish the team’s work from assistance provided by others.
Not included in the 5-page limit.
References
Include a minimum of four relevant, appropriate, and credible sources that meaningfully support your team’s engineering research, technical understanding, methods, analysis, or design decisions. Sources should be cited within the paper where appropriate and included in a complete reference list using APA style.
References should support the team’s engineering work rather than simply demonstrate that research was conducted.
Not included in the 5-page limit.
Budget
Provide a clear, itemized budget identifying the major components and materials used in your ROV and their associated costs. The budget should accurately reflect the total materials cost (in U.S. Dollars) of the ROV and provide sufficient detail for reviewers to understand its major components.
Components of itemized budget need to reflect the criteria listed in Section 1.5.3 Budget Guidelines
Budget information may also be used during compliance checks to verify the appropriate competition class.
Not included in the 5-page limit.
AI Acknowledgment
Teams must disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in their research, design, analysis, coding, or preparation of the Technical Design Report. Identify the AI tool(s) used, briefly describe how and where AI contributed, and explain how team members reviewed, modified, tested, or verified AI-assisted outputs.
Teams that did not use generative AI should include a statement indicating that no generative AI tools were used in the research, design, analysis, coding, or preparation of the paper.
The use of AI is not scored positively or negatively. This section evaluates transparency, responsible use, verification, and team ownership.
Not included in the 5-page limit.
3.1.3 Scoring
The Technical Design Report is worth a maximum of 100 points. Teams will be evaluated using the Technical Design Report Scoring Rubric provided in Appendix: Document Library.
Abstract — 8 points max
Engineering Problem & Objectives — 10 points max
Methods: Engineering Design & Development — 24 points max
Results — 18 points max
Discussion, Reflection & Future Research — 14 points max
Acknowledgments — 3 points max
References — 8 points max
Budget — 3 points max
AI Acknowledgment — 4 points max
Technical Writing & Communication — 4 points max
Paper Format — 4 points max
Total: 100 points
Performance Levels
Level
General Description
0 — Not Evident
Required component is missing, unrelated, or does not demonstrate the criterion.
1 — Emerging
Components are present but incomplete, unclear, inaccurate, or minimally supported.
2 — Developing
Demonstrates basic understanding and partially addresses the criterion, but lacks sufficient detail, evidence, analysis, or justification.
3 — Proficient
Clearly and accurately addresses the criterion with appropriate detail, evidence, analysis, and/or justification.
4 — Exemplary
Demonstrates exceptional technical understanding, evidence-based reasoning, analysis, synthesis, and communication appropriate to a high-quality engineering technical paper.
Last updated