Dr.

Milica Marković Applied Electromagnetics Laboratory page 1

Antenna Projects Grading Rubric

Instructor: Dr. Milica Marković

Office: Riverside Hall 5028
Email: [email protected]
Web:http://gaia.ecs.csus.edu/˜milica

1 Minimum Criteria
If you submit all of these, your minimum grade will be 60%. If one of the items below is missing,
the project will receive the grade of 0.

 I have the title page with my name, class #, project name, date.

 On the title page, I have included the academic honesty sentence:”I certify that this project
report is my own work”, and signed my name.

 I have the following sections: Objectives, Specifications, Design Methodology, Implementation,

Troubleshooting, Test and Evaluations, Results, Conclusion, Lessons Learn, Appendix. See
the instructions on how to write a project report on Lab Syllabus.

 I have included antenna design equations

 I have included impedance matching circuit and a Smith Chart that shows the design

 I have included ADS impedance matching simulations

 I have included antenna simulations with HFSS

 I have included antenna S(1, 1) network analyzer measurements

 I have included measured antenna pattern

 I have attempted to explain all work I have done.

 I have read the project out loud at least once, edited the project and used spellcheck.

California State University Sacramento EEE161 revised: 6. April, 2019

Dr. Milica Marković Applied Electromagnetics Laboratory page 2

2 Rubric
2.1 Criteria for Engineering Critical Thinking CT Rubric
Students will be able to:

2.1.1 CT1
Explanation of issues - Explanation of antenna’s design equations, simulations, and measurements.
66%
Exceeds Criteria: Thorough explanation of all equations, simulations, and measurements show
deep comprehension of the problem.
Meets Criteria: Explanation of all equations, simulations, and measurements is present and
correct, with very few omissions.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Most explanations are present, and some may have reasoning flaws.
Below Criteria: Explanations are not present, or they are presented but it is difficult to under-
stand.

2.1.2 CT2
Evidence - Design can be replicated from the report. The evidence is correctly read and interpreted
from data sheets, simulations circuit diagrams and results, fabrication and measurements. 63%
Exceeds Criteria: Procedures appear to be replicable. Steps are outlined sequentially and are
adequately detailed. Thoughtful comments contribute to comprehension.
Meets Criteria: Procedures appear to be replicable. Steps are outlined and are adequately de-
tailed. Comments are correct, and very few omissions are acceptable.
Meets Minimum Criteria: All steps are outlined, but there is not enough detail to replicate all
procedures. Some comments on evidence are either missing or inconsequential.
Below Criteria: Several steps are not outlined and there is not enough detail to replicate proce-
dures.

2.1.3 CT3
Influence of Context and Assumptions - Simplification of complexity, comparison of design, simulation
and measurements is discussed and differences are explained. 36%
Exceeds Criteria: Experimental/Simulation errors, their possible effects, and ways to reduce errors
are discussed. Assumptions are discussed when relevant.
Meets Criteria: Experimental/Simulation errors and their possible effects are discussed.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Experimental/Simulation errors are mentioned. There is no discussion
of errors even though they are present.
Below Criteria: There is no discussion of errors or the discussion is incoherent or inconsequential.

California State University Sacramento EEE161 revised: 6. April, 2019

Dr. Milica Marković Applied Electromagnetics Laboratory page 3

2.1.4 CT4
Conclusion - Students will be able to evaluate antenna project, place evidence in perspective, reflect
on the design in terms of related outcomes from design: simulations, fabrication, and measurements.
74%
Exceeds Criteria: Conclusions and related outcomes (design, comparison of simulated and mea-
sured results, manufacturing) are logical and reflect students informed evaluation and ability to place
evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order. A thorough explanation of what could have
been done better and how, and what needs further evaluation.
Meets Criteria: All conclusion items are covered with some depth and accuracy. Explanation of
what could have been done better and how is mentioned.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Some conclusion items are covered but lack depth. Future work is
briefly mentioned but it is inadequate or vague.
Below Criteria: Conclusion items are inaccurate, inconsequential or vague.

2.2 Criteria for Engineering Problem Solving PS Rubric

Students will be able to:

2.2.1 PS1
Define Problem - Define reasonable and relevant antenna specifications based on “customer need”.
74%
Exceeds Criteria: Defines all relevant specification such as frequency, size, power transfer, specific
matching circuits, power handling, weather effects, aerodynamic constraints, metal corrosion, sensi-
tivity to manufacturing tolerances, durability, weight, flexibility, and cost) is considered if relevant.
Meets Criteria: Required specifications are defined such as frequency, size, power transfer, power
handling are considered. Antenna Design is stated, and some design issues are identified. Applica-
tions are noted.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Specifications for the frequency of operation is mentioned.
Below Criteria: Specifications are missing or are incorrect.

2.2.2 PS2
Identify Strategies- Identify strategies to design an antenna prototype, for example, materials, circuit
size, impedance matching circuit type, simulations, manufacturing process and measurement are all
accurately selected. 78%
Exceeds Criteria: Discusses and proposes one or more strategies that indicate a deep compre-
hension of the problem, such as selection of substrate, connectors, bandwidth, sidelobes, matching,
measurements. Plan for antenna development considers possible alternative strategies
Meets Criteria: Discusses and proposes one or more strategies such as selection of substrate,
connectors, bandwidth, sidelobes, matching, measurements. Plan for antenna development is correct.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Discusses strategy that indicates comprehension of the problem, but
many strategies are not considered or they may be flawed.

California State University Sacramento EEE161 revised: 6. April, 2019

Dr. Milica Marković Applied Electromagnetics Laboratory page 4

Below Criteria: Student struggles to identify strategies to solve the problem. Some strategies are
considered, but they may be flawed, irrelevant, or inconsequential.

2.2.3 PS3
Propose Solution - Design an antenna prototype using appropriate design strategies, equations and
calculations. 70%
Exceeds Criteria: Proposes one or more solutions of the problem, uses appropriate strategies,
equations and calculations. Strategies, equations and calculations are correct.
Meets Criteria: Specific solution of the problem is selected and proposed, appropriate strategies,
equations, and calculations, very few may be incorrect.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Solution is presented, but equations or calculations may be missing or
incorrect.
Below Criteria: Student struggles to specify solution of the problem.

2.2.4 PS4
Evaluate Solution - Propose and fine-tune equations and calculations through engineering simulation
and other tools. 61%
Exceeds Criteria: Simulations are comprehensive and show the depth of understanding. Circuit
diagrams and plots are included and are labeled. Some diagrams are not referred to in the text one
figure is difficult to read.
Meets Criteria: Simulations are comprehensive. Circuit diagrams and plots are included and are
labeled. Some diagrams are not referred to in the text one figure is difficult to read.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Simulations are present, but may not be comprehensive. Circuit
diagrams are included and but not labeled or some figures are difficult to read.
Below Criteria: Simulations are inconsistent with design equations, many items are missing such
as circuit diagrams or simulation results.

2.2.5 PS5
Implement Solution - Make a layout, manufacture antenna prototype and perform appropriate mea-
surements. 77%
Exceeds Criteria: Implements the layout in a manner that addresses thoroughly and deeply multi-
ple contextual factors of the problem, such as materials/devices available, optimal material/devices,
the optimal frequency of operation, optimal matching circuit, antenna size. Chosen strategy to
implement solution is appropriate and reasonable, knowledge is used correctly
Meets Criteria: Layout is present and some contextual factors of the problem are addressed,
such as materials available, optimal materials, the optimal frequency of operation, optimal matching
circuit, antenna size. Chosen strategy to implement solution is appropriate and reasonable, knowledge
is used correctly, except for few minor flaws.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Layout is submitted but there is no information about material or
layout is shown in ADS but Geber printout is missing, or vice versa. There are many flaws in the
chosen layout, such as missing dimensions, no silkscreen, etc.

California State University Sacramento EEE161 revised: 6. April, 2019

Dr. Milica Marković Applied Electromagnetics Laboratory page 5

Below Criteria: Layout is just submitted with no supporting information.

2.2.6 PS6
Evaluate Outcomes - Students will make, and evaluate appropriate measurements. 54%
Exceeds Criteria: Steps are outlined sequentially and are adequately detailed. Thoughtful com-
ments contribute to comprehension.
Meets Criteria: Steps are outlined and are adequately detailed. Comments are valuable and
contribute to comprehension.
Meets Minimum Criteria: All steps are outlined, but there is not enough information to evaluate
outcomes. Some comments on evidence are either missing or inconsequential.
Below Criteria: Many steps are not outlined, there is no detailed information, the evidence is
missing, or outcomes are not discussed.

2.3 Criteria for Engineering Writing WR Rubric

Students will be able to:

2.3.1 WR1
Context and Purpose of Writing - Write concise and informative technical report for the audience of
peers. 66%
Exceeds Criteria:Antenna Design is clearly stated, sufficiently detailed for a peer audience, and
design issues are identified. The report uses headings to visually organize the material.
Meets Criteria: Antenna Design is stated, and some design issues are identified. The lab report
is written, and formatting visually organizes the material.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Design issues are not mentioned. The report is either too verbose or
missing important pieces. Formatting does not help visually organize the material.
Below Criteria: Antenna Design is considered in a superficial or verbose and irrelevant manner.
Formatting is missing or report looks disorderly.

2.3.2 WR2
Content Development - Develop all parts of the antenna project report: design equations, simulations,
measurements, comparison, conclusion. 76%
Exceeds Criteria: All required elements are present and effectively organized. (Objectives, Intro,
Design, Simulation, Fabrication, Measurements, Comparison, Conclusion). Information in each sec-
tion is organized in a logical manner and the purpose of each section is defined. Precise, technical
vocabulary is used.
Meets Criteria: All required elements are present, with some minor omissions.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Several components are missing, or inaccurate. The report is disorga-
nized, unclear or ineffectively presented.
Below Criteria: Required sections are missing or irrelevant.

California State University Sacramento EEE161 revised: 6. April, 2019

Dr. Milica Marković Applied Electromagnetics Laboratory page 6

2.3.3 WR3
Genre and Disciplinary Conventions - Appropriately display antenna design equations, simulations,
measurements and resulting data in accurate figures, plots, and diagrams. All data is accurately
labeled. 64%
Exceeds Criteria: Data is captured in tables and/or graphs. Axes, graphs, and tables are la-
beled and titled with appropriately sized fonts. The quantitative results are skillfully, but concisely
presented and edited. Measurement setup used in the experiment is clearly and accurately described.
Meets Criteria: Data is captured in tables and/or graphs. Graphs and tables are labeled and
titled. Very few omissions such as axes not labeled. Measurement setup used in the experiment is
described.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Data is included, but some graphs or tables are presented. Some graphs
may be lacking labels. Measurement setup used in the experiment is mentioned but not described.
Below Criteria: Data not shown or inaccurate. Tables contain rows and rows of data that does
not contribute to the understanding of the report. Axes, tables may have fonts that are not visible.
Measurement setup is not mentioned and not described.

2.3.4 WR4
Control of Syntax and mechanics - Use concise technical language and vocabulary to convey meaning.
93%
Exceeds Criteria: Uses technical language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with
clarity and fluency, and is virtually error-free.
Meets Criteria: Uses technical language that communicates meaning to readers, few errors or
typos are present. Few grammatical errors.
Meets Minimum Criteria: Uses language to communicates meaning, but it may have many gram-
matical errors.
Below Criteria: Multiple errors are present or grammatical errors obscure meaning.

California State University Sacramento EEE161 revised: 6. April, 2019