Student Paper Awards Subcommittee

Rob TaylorStructures TC Meeting

9/17/2013

2013 SDM Student Papers Technical Chair

• Jack McNamara– Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering– The Ohio State University– E440 Scott Laboratory, Peter L & C

201 W 19th AveColumbus, OH 43210

– Tel: (614) 292-6778– E-mail: mcnamara.190@osu.edu

• Using same process and criteria as 2013

Student Awards Process for SDM (Long Range Planning Requirements)

• Student papers can be scheduled throughout the entire week of the conference (M - Th).

• First round of the contest will be based on the manuscripts. All the student paper manuscripts will be evaluated using predetermined criteria to be provided by Student Paper Chair to a panel of judges representing all the TCs and co-located conferences.

• This review of the manuscripts will be the responsibility of the panel of judges and will be coordinated by Student Paper Chair.

• Based on the manuscript ratings for all the student manuscripts, the Student Paper Chair will down select the Top 6 manuscripts for the second round of the contest.

• The second round of the contest will consist of judging the actual presentations of the students. The Student Paper Chair will provide the judging criteria.

• The Student Paper Chair will assemble a panel of judges for the Top 6 paper presentations.

• Top 6 student papers will be judged in a special evening (recommended Tuesday, but could be Sunday or Monday, to the discretion of the SDM Organizing Committee) judging session. This session is expected to run for 3.5 – 4 hours.

Student Awards Process for SDM (Long Range Planning Requirements)

• The SDM Student Paper Chair is only responsible for selecting the Jefferson Goblet and the American Society for Composite (ASC) student paper award winners.

• The 6 finalists based on manuscripts will include at least 2 composite material or composite structures related papers.

• The highest ranked paper based on manuscript and presentation will receive the Jefferson Goblet Award.

• The highest ranked composite related paper will receive the ASC student paper award. If the Jefferson Goblet award is given to a composite related paper, the second ranked composite related paper will receive the ASC award.

• The names of the Jefferson Goblet and ASC awardees will be shared with the Structures TC. The Structures TC will be responsible for selecting the Lockheed Martin and Hilton award winners. The winners of the Jefferson Goblet and ASC awards will be excluded from receiving the Structures TC sponsored student paper awards.

Time Line for Student Paper Competition

• Aug – Student Paper Chair Sends draft judging criteria to SDM planning committee• Sep – SDM planning committee finalizes judging criteria• Oct – Chairs provide list of all student papers to SDM Student Paper Chair.• Oct – Send manuscript judging criteria to authors.• Jan – Contact TC reps and conference chairs for list of manuscript reviewers.• Feb – Manuscript reviewer assignments complete.• Mar – Send oral presentation judging criteria to authors.• Mar – Contact TC reps and conference chairs for list of presentation reviewers.• Mar – Notify students that have not submitted manuscript that they have until 2 Apr to

submit manuscript.• Dec 12 – Student manuscript deadline• Apr – Contact delinquent students to inform them that their paper has been withdrawn from

student competition.• Apr – Manuscript reviews complete, TC/conference reps give rankings to student papers chair• Apr – Telecon to downselect 6 finalists• Apr – Student papers chair notifies all students of status• Apr – Student presentation session at SDM Conference

??? ?

Manuscript Judging Criteria

Evaluation Criteria (a) Raw score by evaluator (b)

Weight (c)

Weighted Points (d) = (b)x(c)

1. Originality ______ (Max. 10) 2.5 ________ (Max. 25)2. Technical Content & Quality ______ (Max. 10) 3.5 ________ (Max. 35)3. Relevance of Contribution ______ (Max. 10) 1.5 ________ (Max. 15)4. Organization and Clarity ______ (Max .10) 2.5 ________ (Max. 25)TOTAL Points _____ (Max. 50) -------- ________ (Max 100)

Oral Presentation Judging CriteriaCategory Max PossibleINTRODUCTION The research question/hypothesis was clearly stated The goals and specific objectives were presented The project had sufficient, supporting background

20

METHODS & RESULTS The methods were clearly outlined/explained The presenter acknowledged limitations to the study The results were clearly explained and significant results were highlighted

20

CONCLUSIONS A review/summary of the project was presented The significance of the results was discussed The applicability of the results was discussed

20

PRESENTATION STYLE Presentation aids were clear and readable Presentation was well-structured and logical Presentation fit into the allotted time The student seemed knowledgeable The student exhibited appropriate voice projection, eye contact,

confidence, and reliance on notes The student responded well to questions from the audience

40

Total Score 100

Manuscript Reviews• Last year

– ?? student abstracts– ?? student manuscripts uploaded– 13 Structures manuscripts

• Very tight schedule—1 week to review after submission deadline• Subcommittee organization very helpful in completing process

– Please let me know if you can review

Mary Mahler RoybalAli NajafiMichael WolffStephen ClayMike HyerJohn WangOlesya Zhupanska

Johanne HealdMarc SchultzMichael RossBrett AndersonMoshe DombBrett AndersonAshok Joshi

Pravin AggarwalHarry Hilton Mark SensmeierShyama KumariJohn Joseph Zipay

2013 Reviewers—Thank you!

Finalists• Will we have Tuesday evening judging session?

– 6 students invited to present at Tuesday evening judging session• 6 Finalists Eligible for Jefferson Goblet• Need 2 composites papers in 6 finalists eligible for ASC (Amer. Soc. Comp.)

award• Next 2 Structures manuscripts eligible for Structures TC awards but not

Jefferson Goblet or ASC award– Need 1 Structures reviewer for 6 finalist session

• Structures student papers integrated into Mon & Tues sessions– Finalists from manuscript review process– Need reviewers (3 each) to attend finalists (4) in session– 1 paper scheduled on Thursday—contingency plan if finalist