About the Competition
Senior Design Guidelines
The objectives of the Senior Design projects are to:
-
Demonstrate the students’ ability to identify, formulate, and solve complex engineering problems by applying principles of engineering, science, and mathematics.
-
Connect curricular knowledge to engineering design principles in order to generate solutions that address needs within the realms of public health, safety, and welfare taking into consideration global, cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors.
-
Engender utilization of a team approach to problem identification and solution generation.
-
Allow students to be more effective in identifying emerging technologies that are having major impact in their field of study.
-
Employ project management tools in the planning, review and implementation of design projects.
-
Demonstrate the ability to communicate their design concepts and solutions, orally, graphically and in writing.
-
Promote cross disciplinary projects and teamwork within the College of Engineering and Computer Science.
Guidelines
- All teams enrolled in a senior design course are invited to participate.
- Poster title and registration are typically due in early March.
- Posters are typically due mid-April.
- The judging portion of the event occurs over a period of approximately 90 minutes where each team is to explain their project to three judges in poster format.
Awards
The highest scoring team from each department will receive departmental awards. The next four highest scoring teams will receive the college-wide awards. The innovation award is sponsored by the Alumni Affiliate Board of Governors and granted to the team with the highest innovation score. However, in the event of a tie, the final selection will be made by a team of alumni affiliates.
During the competition, each senior design poster is to be reviewed by three professional engineers using criteria detailed in the rubric below. Projects receiving the highest cumulative score from each department are the departmental winners. The next highest scoring projects exclusive of the departmental winners are the college-wide winners.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Unacceptable | Marginal | Admirable | Exceptional | |
| Need/Objective of the system, component, or process | The need was not established and/or the design objectives are not well defined | Need not clearly articulated or the design objectives are not clearly connected to the articulated need | Need is clearly articulated with limited rationale. Design objectives clearly outlined. | Clearly articulated need statement, well explained rationale and clearly outlined design objectives |
| Project Planning | No evidence of planning | Little planning or forethought. Project hastily completed for deadline | Basic planning and time management needs necessary for project completion met | Exhibits a professional level of planning and time management |
| Technical requirements, constraints and trade-offs | Technical and non-technical constraints (economic, safety, environmental, etc.) were assumed, but not incorporated in the design. | Identified a few technical constraints and non-technical constraints. | Identified realistic technical constraints with limited attention to non-technical constraints. Trade-offs were considered. | Identified/ realistic technical, economic, safety and environmental constraints and performed trade-off analysis |
| Concept generation and selection | Developed only a single solution | Developed technically feasible alternative solutions, selected a solution using limited criteria. | Developed technically feasible alternative solutions, compared alternative solutions and selected best solution using criteria. | Developed technically feasible alternative solutions, compared the alternative solutions, and recommended one of the solutions based on well defined criteria. |
| Prototyping, Testing and Validation | Team did not build a virtual or a physical prototype | Prototype was built but did not meet the design requirements and constraints or prototype was inadequately validated | Prototype met most of the requirements and constraints and was validated. | An iterative prototype and redesign process was utilized .Final prototype met all of the requirements and constraints. The design was adequately validated. |
| Poster aesthetics and Presentation | Team members were not prepared to present their project Poster is dull with poor appearance |
One team member is dominant; Poster design lacks creativity. Inappropriate use of color and space, font too small, diagrams are not clear. |
Some team members contribute to discussions; Adequate use of color, layout, and space with clear diagrams, layout follows a logical flow |
All team members contributes to speaking. Lessons learned are clearly articulated Overall design is pleasing and harmonious. Creative poster design. |
| Innovation: project idea and approach | Design was not innovative | Utilized existing knowledge and resources to develop a solution based on an existing solution to the problem. | Developed a novel approach of solving to an existing problem that has commercialization potential | Developed a novel solution to a new problem that may be patentable and commercializable |
2019 Senior Design Day Winning Teams
Congratulations to all our senior design competition teams! Thank you to ZF Group, our judges, and donors for making this event possible.
| Team Name | Team Members |
| S-mug | Ali Jawad, Ivan Hernandez, Youssef El Moussawi, Ali Chammout |
| Department | Team Name | Team Members |
| Computer and Information Science | Frequency | Jessica Bacheldor, Ashley Baker, Samanatha O’Brien, Joshua Shewmaker |
| Electrical and Computer Engineering | MDAS.ai Drive-By Wire Using V2X or Enhanced Safety | Athanasios Argyris, Kayleigh James, Sarah Overbeck, Joshua Quejadas |
| Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering | Systems Design for Washtenaw County Racial Equity Office | Amber Bageris, Namariq Al Riyami, Nina McDaniel |
| Mechanical Engineering | Bow & Arrow Holder | Marina Goocher, Nicholas Hitchcock, Victor Lenart, Tim Poore |
| Team Name | Team Members |
| Backyard Ice Resurfacer | Scott Dunford, John Filiatraut, Miranda Mclean, John P Megdan |
| Push Point | Benjamin McAllister, Jaycie Raby, Matthew Kohls, Srinivas Simhan |
| Circulating Tumor Cell Bioreactor | Maya Choukair, Ali Rida, Firas Farran, Ali Abdel-Salam |
| Steampunk Airship | Adriana Haddad, Travis Bates, Jeremy Chao, Christopher Thompson |
| University of Michigan-Dearborn Class Express | Rakshit (Rocky) Bhatt, Heba Abu-kwaik, Akshita Joshi, Karam El-loh |
Past Competitions
Learn about our past competitions and winning teams by visiting the competition archive.