Each team is required to submit a Technical Design Report (TDR) that describes the team’s design principles and competition priorities. The report should address the rationale for which autonomy challenge tasks have been chosen to attempt and how this competition strategy influenced the design decisions for the airframe and subsystems. Teams must follow the TDR instructions provided below. To be eligible for full points, teams must submit their TDR by the deadline found in Section 1.4: Competition Schedule and Timeline.

A strong TDR provides a coherent narrative and addresses the elements of the rubric as much as possible, including citing references used. The competition strategy justifies the choices of autonomy challenge tasks and design decisions that trace back to those task choices. The report also identifies which software tools allow the team to accomplish the tasks chosen.

The technical design report is worth a total of 150 points. The outline of each content section includes a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.

2.2.1 Deliverable Requirements

The content of the written paper shall include the following sections:

• Abstract

• Acknowledgements

• Competition Strategy

• Design Strategy

• Testing Strategy

• References

• Appendix A: Test Plan & Results (Optional)

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

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

Formatting Scoring Metrics (5% of score)

2.2.2 Abstract

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

Abstract Scoring Metrics (10% of score)

2.2.3 Acknowledgments

Participating in the competition, as in all research projects, involves leveraging 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 supported efforts is important.

Acknowledgements Scoring Metrics (5% of score)

2.2.4 Competition Strategy

The paper must include details on the team’s strategy for the competition, including the plans for approaching the tasks and how the vehicle design relates to this approach. The mission consists of multiple tasks with associated points for accomplished behaviors. The more tasks a vehicle is designed and engineered to accomplish, the more complex the overall vehicle system will be.

Discuss the team's strategy on 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. Based on history and the system engineering talents of the team, include a description the team’s strategic vision.

Competition Strategy Scoring Metrics (25% of score)

2.2.5 Design Strategy

Given the strategy for success at the competition and the approach to managing complexity, the paper must include a description of the system design to meet the goals they established for the competition. Justification for design choices should be clear. Discuss how components and subsystems were selected and integrated on the vehicle. For teams that are working with a previously designed vehicle, discuss how the design meets the current competition strategy and any modifications needed at the component, subsystem, and/or integrated system levels. Describe the experience in making both architectural/design decisions and system engineering decisions.

This section should not include detailed component descriptions and/or specifications not of original design.

Design Strategy Scoring Metrics (25% of score)

2.2.6 Testing Strategy

Testing and experimentation is a crucial step to preparing and innovating a system design that strongly correlates with a competitive performance in the arena. The paper must include the approach to a testing strategy, including various test plans, both physically and in simulation.

Discuss considerations of the time needed to thoroughly test to meet the determined goals and the demands of design and engineering with those of testing and experimentation.

Testing Strategy Scoring Metrics (25% of score)

2.2.7 References

As with any technical publication, original ideas and content not generated by the paper’s authors should be properly cited. The references should follow the IEEE Conference Proceedings citation style.

References Scoring Metrics (5% of score)

2.2.8 Test Plan & Results (Optional Appendix)

Based off the testing approach outlined in the paper, this appendix showcases the test plan that was developed and the detailed results that came out of testing. Teams should present their plans for testing, including algorithm testing in a virtual environment, component testing in a laboratory setting, subsystem testing in a relevant environment, and full system testing in a pseudo-competition environment. Test set up should be included and results presented. Any design modifications or changes in competition strategy as a result of testing should be discussed.

While this appendix is not required, excellence seen in this section can be eligible for a special judges’ award.

The appendix may include detailed documentation covering the following areas:

• Scope: Objectives and test cases (this may also specify what was not included in tests)

• Schedule: Start/end dates and deadlines

• Resource and Tools: Resources and tools needed to conduct tests and assess results

• Environment: Description of the test environment, configurations, and availability

• Risk Management: Outline potential risks that could occur throughout testing

• Results: Detailed outcomes of test cases

Prior to the on-site competition, teams are required to develop and submit the following design documents via an online portal. Instructions on how to submit deliverables and deadlines can be found in Section 1.4: Competition Schedule and Timeline. On-site at the competition, teams may be given the optional opportunity to present their design.

1. Proof of Flight Readiness Video

2. Technical Design Report

3. Team Website

Teams must submit a proof of flight video covering their flight readiness prior to the competition. This video will be reviewed to determine whether teams and their aircraft are eligible to fly at competition. If teams are deemed ineligible to fly, their aircraft will not be permitted to fly at competition. Teams who are ineligible to fly are still invited to send representatives to attend the competition. Submissions will be reviewed on a rolling basis during the window defined in Competition Schedule and Timeline, with Flight Order being determined by order of successfully qualified submission.

2.1.1 Deliverable Requirements

The submitted video presentation must meet the following requirements:

• Video must be conducted in English or include subtitles in English.

• Video must be no more than ten (10) minutes in length.

• Video must include school/organization and team name at the beginning.

• Video must include all required content, outlined in the next section.

• Videos must be hosted by team. Teams have the choice of hosting on YouTube, Vimeo, or on their Team Website. The video must follow YouTube Rules & Policies, including appropriate music copyright management.

2.1.2 Introduction

This section must include a visual and verbal identification of the School and Team name. Visuals of the entire development team and competition team must also be shown (no verbal identification of team members is required).

2.1.3 Safety, Risks, and Mitigations

This section should describe the potential safety risks and the steps taken to mitigate them. It should include risks during the development process and during the mission.

2.1.4 Manual Proof of Flight

This section must show manual flight of the UAS with the following characteristics. This section must be repeated for each instance of the aircraft (e.g. primary and backup), and every Safety Pilot that may be used at competition. The video must be formatted as shown and include the following elements:

1. Manual Takeoff to Above 50ft AGL

2. Manual Flight to/from Point > 1000ft from Safety Pilot

3. Manual Landing

2.1.5 Autonomous Proof of Flight

This section must show autonomous flight of the UAS with the following characteristics. This section must be repeated for each instance of the aircraft (e.g. primary and backup), and every Safety Pilot that may be used at competition. The video must be formatted as shown and include the following elements:

1. Manual/Autonomous Takeoff to Above 50ft AGL

2. Transition to Autonomous Mode with Autonomous Flight Showing...

   1. Flight of 3+ Miles at Full Loaded Weight in a Single Flight

   2. Fly Waypoints with a Max Error of 50'

   3. Turn Radius of <= 150' w/ Ability to Meet Maximum Angle of Climb/Descent of 20 Degrees

Teams are required to submit a website in English that documents their team, vehicle design, and competition approach.

2.3.1 Deliverable Requirements

1. Website Content: Layout and detailed contents of the website are left for the teams to develop; however, the team website must include:

   • Current team name and contact information

   • Vehicle photos and/or videos

   • Supporting media, which may include:

     • Instructional/Informative videos

     • Procedures (text, images)

     • Design decision documentation (text, images, videos)

     • Blogs for historical records of build progress

   • List of sponsors with logos

2. Website Quality: Websites are often the first impression of a project. Potential supporters such as supervisors, sponsors, or advisors must find the website visually appealing and easy to navigate. Development of the website should include careful consideration of user experience, including:

   • Written in English, or English translation provided

   • Clear prioritization of key content

   • Site search functionality

   • Basic design elements: contrast, repetition, alignment and grouping to organize/highlight content

   • User accessibility, as defined by the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative: www.w3.org/WAI

   • Cross browser compatibility for modern web browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, MS Edge)

   • A mobile friendly display

2.3.2 Scoring Metrics

The website submission is worth a total of 100 points. The scoring metrics include a scoring weight with guidance for scoring considerations that are provided to the judges during evaluations.

Team Information (20% of score)

Vehicle Design Documentation (40% of score)

Website Quality (40% of score)