ENGR11 GOAL: =
Present a complete, detailed, and justified critical-level
(final Go/No-Go) design for a bench-top tank wave-making apparatus.
Defend and/or Explain the design if questioned by the Reviewer(s)
Criteria
Test Data Supporting
the Concept. C&F data
presented where
applicable or available
EXTRA-CREDIT
Engineering Analysis
supporting the concept.
Math or Graphical
Analysis that indicates
functionality
Bill of Materials (BoM)
with Sources of Supply1
±5% Cost Estimate
Completed
0. No measurable
achievement
No Testing Done
No Analysis done
No BoM’s
Constructed
No Cost Analysis
1. Beginning
2. Developing
3. Competent
4. Accomplished
SubScale, Static
Model created
Full Scale Form &
Fit MockUp created
Functioning Model
Created
Functional model
exercised for long
periods to generate
quantitative data
on reliability or
performance
Graphical Analysis
to show Form & Fit
System Weight
Determined.
Power
Requirements
quantified
Force Load
Analysis on critical
mechanical Parts.
Structural, Power,
Fluid Mechanical,
and other
Analyses of design
BoM’s Constructed
for >75% of
Assembly Drawing
BoM’s Constructed
for All Assemblies,
some component
sources of supply
identified
BoM’s Constructed
for All Assemblies,,
sources of supply
determined, and
some catalog
numbers for
components
specified
±5% Determination
of Costs for some
procured materials
and/or components
±5% Determination
of Costs for All
procured materials
and/or components
±5% Determination
of Costs for All
procured materials
and/or
BoM’s Constructed
for All Assemblies,
All Materials and
components
Identified by
Supplier Order
Number. Phone
numbers or eMail
Adr for all suppliers
provided
±5% Determination
of Costs for All
procured materials
and/or
1
Each Team MUST submit as part of the CrDR presentation a FULL SET hardcopy production-documents including: All Required Formal Engineering Drawing,
and associated Bills of Material.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • page 1
components, and
some custom
fabricated parts
Full Scale, Accurate,
Production Quality
Engineering Drawings2
Description of
manufacturing
processes and strategy
Wave Action Quality:
Periodic (not
continuous), Gentle
(NonSplashing)
Control System: Well
matched to PrimeMover, allows Wave
Amplitude & Period
Adjustment
Design Creativity
Design Meets
>90% Engineering
Drawings Done to
Production
Documentation
Standards
ALL processes
described, some
process
specifications
created (e.g.
machining
tolerances
components, all
custom fabricated
parts, and
assembly labor
costs
>97% Engineering
Drawings Done to
Production
Documentation
Standards
ALL processes
described, ALL
process
specifications
created (e.g.
machining
tolerances
SemiContinuous
Action and/or Minor
Slashing
Periodic with NO
Splashing
Periodic & Gentle
with NO Splashing
Acceptably
Matched to Prime
Mover, NO
Adjustment
Acceptably
Matched to Prime
Mover, Adjustment
of ONE ParaMeter
Well-Matched to
Prime Mover,
Adjustment of
BOTH Parameters
Refined Design,
evidence of
significant thought
and use of creative
activities
Sophisticated
Design developed
thru insight or use
of Creative
activities
Design meets 60-
Design meets 75-
No Engineering
Drawings
>25% Engineering
Drawings Done to
Production
Documentation
Standards
>50% Engineering
Drawings Done to
Production
Documentation
Standards
None Described
Some processes
described (e.g.
machining,
welding, molding)
ALL processes
described (e.g.
machining,
welding, molding)
Continuous Action
and/or Significant
Splashing
SemiContinuous
Action with
Significant
Splashing
None Described
Not Well Matched
to Prime Mover,
NO Adjustment
Little Evidence of
Creative Thought
or use of Creative
Activities (e.g. thru
Brain-Storming)
Design meets
Very Basic,
Lowest-commonDenominator Type
Design. Some use
of creative
activities
Design meets 30-
Elegant and
Unexpected
Design developed
thru insight or use
of Creative
activities
Design meets
2
Each Team MUST submit as part of the CrDR presentation a FULL SET hardcopy production-documents including: All Required Formal Engineering Drawing,
and associated Bills of Material.
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • page 2
Performance Criteria
Overall
Presentation
Preparation and
Delivery
Real-Time Defense of
the Design
<30% of
performance
Criteria
Very Little
Evidence of
Preparation.
Halting or Hesitant
Delivery
No convincing
answers for
questions posed
59% of
Performance
Criteria
74% of
Performance
Criteria
89% of
Performance
Criteria
Some Preparation
Evident.
Presentation
delivered with Lowlevel of Confidence
Moderate Level of
Preparation.
Includes Some
Graphics.
Presentation flows
fairly well
High Level of
Preparation.
Extensive use of
Graphics. Mostly
Smooth &
Confident Delivery
Some answers for
routine Questions
Answered all
routine questions,
some answers for
difficult questions
Answered all
routine questions,
answers for most
difficult questions
≥90%
Polished
Presentation.
Complete
information set
including
sophisticated
graphics that
completely “tell to
the story” of the
Design. Confident
and Eloquent
Delivery
Complete and
convincing
answers for almost
all difficult
questions
© Bruce Mayer, PE • Document1 • page 3