2018 G. B. Gunlogson Student Environmental Design Competition Open Format

Transcription

1 2018 G. B. Gunlogson Student Environmental Design Competition Open Format The purpose of the Open Gunlogson Student Environmental Design Competition is to encourage undergraduate students to participate in the design of a relevant engineering project and to provide an arena of professional competition for environmentally and biologically related design projects. This competition is complementary to the AGCO National Design Competition, which focuses on agricultural and food related projects, while Gunlogson focuses on environmentally and biologically related projects. The competition consists of two parts: (1) Submission of a design report to be judged by an expert panel, and (2) Participation by the three teams earning the highest report scores in a presentation competition at the ASABE Annual International Meeting. Awards will be based on the overall score, which is a composite of project, written, and oral scores. Awards will be presented at the ASABE Annual International Meeting awards program. Cash awards will be presented to the first, second and third place entries. Eligibility 1. Contestants shall be Student Members of ASABE and undergraduates at the time their design projects are conducted. Membership numbers must be provided on the application. o Candidates will be declared ineligible for the competition if more than two semesters have elapsed between the awarding of their undergraduate degree and the submission deadline. For example, students that graduated with B.S. degrees in Spring 2017 are ineligible for the 2018 competition. o Membership in a local Student Branch will not substitute for Student Membership in ASABE. o Projects may be conceived and executed by multiple contestants. All members of the design groups must be eligible as outlined above. o A maximum of 3 teams are allowed from each department. Faculty design advisors are recommended to select the top three teams from their design courses to participate in the Open competition. If more than three entries are submitted from any department, design course advisors and/or department chairs will be consulted to select the accepted entries; if input is not received from advisors or department chairs by 3 days after the submittal deadline, the first three entries received will be accepted. 2. Papers submitted for the K. K. Barnes Student Paper Awards Competition or in the AGCO National Design Competition may not be entered in this Student Design Competition.

2 Competition Entry Requirements All projects must involve the application of engineering design for an environmental or biological application. It is expected that designs will reflect a wide spectrum of approaches ranging from management practice development to equipment design to bioreactor or ecological system design. Regardless of the specific approach, engineering design is the process of devising a machine, component, system, or process to meet a desired need. It involves analysis, synthesis and decision-making processes (often iterative), in which the basic sciences, mathematics and engineering sciences, and technology are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Sociological, economic, safety, aesthetic, legal, ethical, etc. considerations can - and often must - be included as part of the design process. Report Requirements Design projects are to be fully documented in a written report submitted as a single portable document format (pdf) file. The report is limited to 15 pages, excluding appendices; appendices are limited to an additional 5 pages (if absolutely necessary). Any material that exceeds the page limits set will only be reviewed at the judge's discretion. The report must include drawings and/or specifications that describe the design, as well as extensive or substantial test or performance data obtained from (1) a prototype or physical model of the machine or critical component, and/or (2) a computer simulated test of the system or process. Deadlines Entries are to be submitted by May 15 at 11:00 PM EST by to the ASABE Awards Coordinator, Sarah Cook, at cook@asabe.com All students listed on the final report must have paid their dues to ASABE by the report submission date. For each student, whose dues are not up to date, will incur a 1 point penalty. As a warning, this can change placement results. Failure to a recognized member of ASABE BY June 9 will result in team disqualification. Entries should contain: o The pdf file should be no more than 5 megabytes in size. If large graphics have been inserted into the pdf file, you will need to re-convert to a new pdf file to reduce the file size to 5 megabytes. o File should be saved as "University Abbreviation" "One to three word title". For example, "LSU Horse gait" or "UTK Nitrogen removal" o An image file of their school's logo. An documenting receipt of the report will be returned to teams within 1 week of submission. If you do not receive a receipt, contact the ASABE Awards Coordinator.

3 Selection of Winners Phase I: Each written submission will be judged by at least three judges in accordance with the Student Design Competition score sheet. Judges shall then forward scores to the Awards Coordinator for selection of top three teams, based on the scores submitted by the judges. If the number of submissions exceeds that which is reasonable for one person to judge, a tiered approach to selection will be adopted (e.g., submissions will be divided into two groups and top 5 submissions from each group will be judged by a third set of judges). A standard normalization procedure will be used, ensuring no one judge will have an undue and unfair influence on the results. Phase II: The top three teams will be invited to attend the ASABE International Meeting to participate in the oral presentation portion of the competition. Should any of the top three be unable to participate, the next ranking entries shall be invited. Judges will evaluate the oral presentations of participants and the overall impressions and quality of the project as presented. Scores are distributed as shown on attached scoring sheet. Decision of the judges is final. Awards Awards will be presented at the ASABE Annual International Meeting awards program. Awards of $1,250, $1,000, and $750 will be presented to the first, second and third place entries. The method of distributing the prize money to design team members shall be determined by the respective members of each team. All participants of the first, second, and third place entries shall receive certificates of recognition. The meeting registration fee shall be waived by ASABE for up to 4 team members for the 2018 Annual International Meeting. The Academic Department of the first, second and third place entries will receive a wall plaque. The wall plaque will include the names of the design team and their faculty advisor(s). Disposition of Entries ASABE reserves the right to keep one copy of each of the award entry reports and to publish entries in whole or in part in Society publications. ASABE also reserves the right to utilize photographs or videos of the competition and any competitors to promote and publicize the competition.

4 STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION SCORE SHEET A. Need and Benefit to the Environment and/or Society 4 B. Approach and Originality 7 C. Definition of Design Objectives and Criteria 4 D. Extent of Analysis and Synthesis of Alternatives 9 E. Evidence of Sound Evaluation and Adherence to Good Engineering Design, 9 and Safety Consideration F. Adequacy of Drawings and Specifications 4 G. Appropriateness of Tests and/or Performance Data 4 H. Achievement of Objectives 9 TOTAL 50 A. Organization, Clarity, and Ease of Reading 10 B. Effective Use of Graphics, Illustrations, etc. 5 C. Neatness, Accuracy and Style 5 TOTAL 20 A. General Effectiveness and Audience Appeal 4 B. Organization and Information Flow 7 C. Quality and Adequacy of Visuals 4 D. Compliance with 15 Minute Limit 9 E. Impression of Overall Quality of the Project TOTAL 50 GRAND TOTAL 100

5 STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION FORMAT FOR ENTRIES The first three pages are required (These pages are not included in 15 pg limit). Students are highly recommended to use the attached cover sheet for the first two pages. 1. Title Page. The cover page of the entry shall state: the project title, full name(s) of the contestant(s), ASABE student member number(s), address of the corresponding author, name of the department and school, name(s) of the advisor(s) for the project, address of corresponding faculty adviser, expected date(s) of graduation, signatures of contestant(s), advisor(s), and the student branch faculty advisor (department head if no student branch exists), and the date of signing. USE THE PROVIDED OUTLINE AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT 2. Second Page. The second page shall contain: The project title, a word abstract of the project report, and acknowledgements, which must include specific contributions of all other individuals, organizations and/or companies that have made any supportive contributions to the project such as drafting, typing, prototype construction, photo or art work, financial support, etc. 3. Third Page. The third page shall contain the table of contents. Organization & Length. Each report should be organized under appropriate headings. The presentation should follow a logical pattern and conform to good technical writing standards. Strive for brevity and clarity. Report is limited to 15 pages, excluding three required pages (above) and appendices; appendices are to be included only if absolutely necessary and are limited to 5 pages. Any material that exceeds the page limits set will only be reviewed at the judge's discretion. Drawings and/or specifications and test data should be presented as appropriate. Appropriate Format The Competition Coordinator will check each design report as it is received for the appropriate format as specified in FORMAT FOR ENTRIES given above. At the discretion of the Competition Coordinator, entries which do not meet the specified format will be returned to the authors without further judging. Students are highly recommended to use the attached cover sheet for the first two pages.

6 G. B. Gunlogson Student Environmental Design Competition Open Format Project Title: Corresponding Author and Faculty Advisor s: Contestants: Signature Date Signature Date ASABE member # ASABE member # Graduation date Graduation date Signature Date Signature Date ASABE member # ASABE member # Graduation date Graduation date Department: School: Faculty advisor: Student branch advisor/department head: Signature Date Signature Date Signature Date

7 Project Title: Abstract: Acknowledgements:

8 G. B. Gunlogson Student Environmental Design Competition Open Format Written Report Rubric Project Title: School: Advisor: I. Project A. B Detail is listed, but Slightly explains the could develop more need and benefit to the to explain the need environment and/or and benefit to the society environment and/or society Does not explain need and benefit to the environment and/or society Describes in detail the need and benefit to the environment and/or society Point Range: 1-2 Point Range: 3-4 Point Range: 5-6 Point Range: 7 Little to no explanation of approach or originality Approach is clearly stated, however, the explanation of the originality is not present. Approach and originality is shown, but more reasoning as to why the approach was used could be developed. Approach and originality of the project is clearly shown. 1 Point Range: C. Definition of design objectives Desgin objectives and criteria stated, but not and criteria is not clearly shown thoroughly explained. D. E. F. G. H. Definition of design objectives and criteria is clearly stated and explained in full detail Point Range: 1-3 Point Range: 4-5 Point Range: 6-7 Point Range: 8-9 No alternatives are presented Analysis and synthesis of alternatives is not clear Analysis and synthesis of alternatives is explained, but could use more clear detail Analysis and synthesis of alternatives is clearly stated and explained throughout Point Range: 1-3 Point Range: 4-5 Point Range: 6-7 Point Range 8-9 Evidence of sound Some evidence of Some evidence of evaluation and Little to no evidence of sound sound evaluation and sound evaluation and adherance to good evaluation and adherance to adherance to good adherance to good engineering design good engineering design and engineering design OR engineering design and safety safety consideration safety consideration AND safety consideration is shown consideration shown clearly presented 1 Point Range: Drawings and specifications are not presented in the paper. Drawings and specifications are accurate and precise Tests and/or Tests and/or perfomance data is Tests and/or performance data appropriate and Tests and/or performance data performance data could could be presented in clearly presented is not appropriate be centered more a way to show how and displayed to towards the objective the results met the show the relevence objective(s). to the project. Point Range: 1-3 Point Range: 4-5 Point Range: 6-7 Point Range 8-9 Objectives are not met Drawings and specifications are present, but improvements could be made on quality or accuracy. Process went correctly, but objectives were not quite achieved Objectives were met but the results were not clearly summarized to show the objectives were met. Objectives are met and a discussion in the report is present summarizing the ojective results. Total TOTAL

9 II. Written Report A. B. C. Point Range: 1-3 Point Range: 4-6 Point Range: Lacking organization and clarity Information is not appropriately placed to make sense Some sense of organization and clarity Organizated with clarity and easy to read 1 Point Range: 2-3 Point Range: 4 Point Range: 5 No graphics, illustrations, etc Graphics, illustrations, etc shown but only a few are relevant Graphics, illustrations, etc shown but some additional could be used to clarify the report. Effective use of both graphics and illustrations throughout the report Point Range: 1-2 Point Range: 3-4 Point Range: 5-6 Point Range: 7 Good formatting and Accurate but Not accurate/neat report layout but areas formatting and report 5-Accurate, neat, of the report or not layout could be and overall stylish accurate improved. Total TOTAL Written Report Comments (Optional with Judges): WRITTEN GRAND TOTAL

10 G. B. Gunlogson Student Environmental Design Competition Open Format Oral Presentation Rubric Project Title: School: Advisor: III. Oral Presentation A. B. C. D. Point Range: 1-3 Point Range: 4-5 Point Range: 6-7 Point Range 8-9 Does not adequately cover the report criterion, doesn't appeal to audience Topic appealed to the audience, but the presentation only touched on 4 or less of the 8 project criteria. Presentation was effective, but the oral presentation only covered 5-7 of the 8 project criteria. Oral presentstion covered all 8 of the projectcriterion and appealed to the audience 1 Point Range: 2-3 Point Range: 4 Point Range: 5 Presentors and Visual Aid had Visual Aid was Information doesn't flow and no structural Organization is clear organized, but clear form of organization is organization, but the and information presentors did not follow shown. visual aid flows along with Visual Aid. aesthetically could be improved. 1 Point Range: 2-3 Point Range: 4 Point Range: 5 No visuals shown Visuals are sparse with information or does not follow the information flow. Visuals follows the information flow but has too much information for the audience to understand. Good quality with well placed visuals that follows the presentation structure. 1 5 Over 15 minute time limit Does not exceed 15 mins Point Range: 1-3 Point Range: 4-6 Point Range: TOTAL E. Poor overall quality project Topic of the project has merit, but was poorly presented and did not cover the 8 project criteria. Quality of the project was well prepared, but some criteria of the project were not thoroughly explained to the audience.. Exceptional overall quality project with a thorough presentation of all criteria of the project. Total Oral Presentation Comments (Optional with Judges):