E 10 Introduction to Engineering Wind Turbine Project Report Form

Team: Names: Date:

Criteria / Score
Title Page
3: Title is descriptive and specific; lists the entity for which the report was written, i.e., San José State University, Charles W. Davidson College of Engineering, E10 Introduction to Engineering, name of professor, section number, names of the team members, date of submission. No page number on title page.
2: Title is adequate but may be lacking in specificity, missing one of the required elements or mistake in: entity for which presentation is being made, names of team members, date of presentation.
1: Title is adequate, but missing two of the required elements or several of them are not clearly stated.
Summary Section
5: Succinctly and specifically states: what was done, how it was done, and what happened (performance results) & what was learned. Has photograph or clear drawing of the wind turbine and/or performance results.
4: For the most part summarizes what was done, how it was done, and what happened/what was learned, but lacks a little in terms of specificity or quality of the summary.
3: Significantly lacking in description of what was done, how it was done, and what happened/what was learned or missing one of the requested elements of the summary or missing a picture or figure of the wind turbine
2: Missing one of the requested elements of the summary or missing a picture or figure of the wind turbine
1: Missing more than one of the requested elements of the summary and missing a picture or figure of the wind turbine
Table of Contents
2: Includes titles of each section and subsection, and page numbers. Appears after Summary and before Introduction. Nicely formatted. Page 1 of report starts on first page of report.
1: Anyone of the above is incorrect or inadequate.
Introduction Section
5: Fully and clearly describes what the project was all about, first in general (referring to the guideline to describe the general goals and requirements), and then specifically, presenting the specific objectives that the design addresses. Contains clear sketches, drawings, and/or photographs and verbiage that very clearly explains to someone unfamiliar with the project what it is all about.
4: For the most part describes what the project was all about, but lacking a little in clarity or completeness. Contains sketches, drawings, and/or photographs and verbiage that satisfactorily explains to someone unfamiliar with the project what it is all about.
3: Provides some introduction to the project, but may be missing general goals and requirements or specific goals and requirements. Somewhat less than satisfactorily introduces the background and goals of the project. May be missing sketches, drawings, and/or photographs if verbiage compensates.
2: Missing significant description to inform the reader about the background of the project.
1: Unsatisfactory introduction.
Details of Wind Turbine Blade Design, Testing, and Performance
15: Clear and complete documentation of turbine blade design(s); clear and complete summary of test procedure, and performance results. Effectively uses sketches, drawings, and/or photographs to clearly show design and performance details. Another E10 student could replicate design without reference to other information sources.
12: Adequate but not excellent documentation of the turbine blade design(s), test procedure, and performance results. Somewhat effectively uses sketches, drawings, and/or photographs to show design and performance details. Another E10 student might not be able to replicate the design without reference to other information sources.
9: Missing some information to fully document the design, testing, performance results. Another E10 student probably could not replicate w/out reference to other information sources or consultation w/ original designers.
6: Missing significant amounts of information to document the design, testing, and performance results. Another E10 student could not replicate without reference to other information sources or consultation with original designers.
3: Inadequate documentation of the design, testing, and performance results.
Conclusions, and Recommendations for Further Work
5: Clear and complete conclusions and recommendations for further work; demonstrates that some thought was given as to what worked well and/or did not work well. Recommendations are specific and show that some thought was given toward what could be done to improve the design.
4: Clear conclusions, but recommendations for further work lack some specificity and/or substance
3: Conclusions less than clear, recommendations for further work may lack some specificity and/or substance
2: Conclusions or recommendations missing or poorly done.
1: Inadequate or missing conclusions and/or recommendations for further work.
References
5: Properly cited in body of report and reference list, pertinent references. Shows that research was done.
4: References that are pertinent, but may be improperly cited. Shows that some research was done.
3: Few references; may be improperly cited. Some research done, but not extensive
2: Few, non-substantial references. May or may not be properly cited. Little research done.
1: Missing references, or obvious that no research was done.
Appendix (Must include original data sheet)
2: Datasheet, team evaluation, plus other appropriate appendices that contribute toward making an excellently documented report.
1: Appendix datasheet or team evaluation missing, but other appendix material included
Spelling, Grammar, Organization, Neatness
8: Report has no grammar or spelling errors. Well organized with proper page numbering and correct numbering of tables and figures (including locations of captions and table titles).
6: Report has 1 to 5 grammar or spelling errors OR page numbering incorrect OR numbering of tables and figures incorrect.
4: Report has 1 to 5 grammar or spelling errors AND either page numbering incorrect OR numbering of tables and figures incorrect.
2: Report has more than 5 grammar or spelling errors

Total

/ /50

Comments:

Page 1 of 2