SHAHRIL RIZAL KASJOO NURJULIANA JUHARI SHAZLINA JOHARI NURUL IZZA MOHD NOR
EMT 445/2
UNDERGRADUATE FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1
(FYP1)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Final Year Project I (FYP1) at School of Microelectronic Engineering, UniMAP is a course that
has been designed to give an exposure to the final year students on how to conduct research project
in the area of microelectronic/electronic/photonics. Students are expected to apply the knowledge that
they have learned in the previous semesters, read related articles from reputable journals and have
interactive discussion with the supervisors. Each student is commonly supervised by one supervisor,
and it is also possible to have one co-supervisor if required.
Before the semester begins, the compilation of FYP titles is uploaded into the student’s portal.
Each student is required to choose only five project titles based on his/her programme. In the first week of the semester (week one), the list of the projects with respective students and supervisors is uploaded
into the portal. The performance and grading of the students for FYP1 are assessed based on the
proposal, progress report and Viva. Details of the assessment mark are shown in Table 1.1.
At the end of FYP1, students should be able to achieve THREE (3) COURSE OUTCOMES (COs) which are mapped to the respective PROGRAMME OUTCOMES (POs) as shown in Table 1.2.
The assessment components as mentioned earlier are used to measure these outcomes for every
student (either attain or not attain).
Table 1.1 : Distribution mark for FYP1
Assessment Supervisor (%) Examiner (%) Total Marks (%)
Proposal 10 - 10
Progress Report 50 20 70
Viva - 20 20
Overall Marks 60 40 100
Table 1.2 : Mapping between Programme Outcome (PO) and Course Outcome (CO) for FYP
Course Outcomes (COs) Programme Outcomes (POs) Possible Assessment CO1: Ability to interpret necessary engineering knowledge of selected final year project topic.
PO1 Apply knowledge of mathematics, natural science, engineering fundamentals and an engineering specialization to the solution of complex engineering problems
Report: Introduction, Literature Review, Summary & Future Work, References
CO2: Ability to propose design of experiment using research-based knowledge to provide solutions of complex problems in final year project.
PO3 Design solutions for complex engineering problems and design systems, components or processes that meet specified needs with appropriate consideration for public health and safety, cultural, societal, and environmental considerations
Proposal Report: Methodology
CO3: Ability to explain the final year project through effective communication and presentation.
PO10 Communicate effectively on complex engineering activities with the engineering community and with society at large, such as being able to comprehend and write effective reports and design documentation, make effective presentations, and give and receive clear instructions.
Rubric Viva (PO10)
CHAPTER 2
PROCESS FLOW OF FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1 (FYP1)
The duration of FYP1 is 14 weeks (one semester). During this period, students are compulsory
to attend the listed seminars as shown in Table 2.1. Students must take note all the important dates set
by the FYP coordinator such as proposal and progress report submission, and viva session. In FYP1,
students should be able to complete the earlier stage of the entire project. This includes the background
study and objectives of the project, literature review, the methodology used in the project, and the
expected finding or preliminary results. Details of the work flow of FYP1 are described in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 : Process flow of FYP1
Week Action Description W0 Students/ Supervisor Students is allowed to choose five (5) FYP title that
published in the portal. The selection of FYP title is based on the programme, RK05, RK86 & RK89.
W1 FYP Coordinator, Students & Supervisors
The FYP title, supervisor and student are published in the portal. Students are encouraged to meet your supervisor.
W3 FYP Coordinator & Students
Seminar 1: FYP Briefing (DK)
W4 FYP Coordinator & Students
Seminar 2: Writing FYP Proposal (DK)
W5 FYP Coordinator & Students
Seminar 3: Introduction to Mendeley (Reference Manager) (DK)
W6 FYP Coordinator & Students
Seminar 4: Plagiarism (DK)
W7 Students & Supervisors
Submission of FYP proposal
W9 FYP Coordinator & Students
Seminar 5: Thesis Writing Style (DK)
W10 FYP Coordinator & Students
Seminar 6: Presentation Skill (DK)
W13 Students & Supervisors
Submission of progress report
W14 Students & Supervisors
Viva/Presentation
CHAPTER 3
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC & REPORT ORGANIZATION
The contribution marks or assessments for FYP1 are come from proposal, progress report and viva.
These assessments are based on rubric, and students are advised to read the assessment rubric. FYP1
proposal is mapped to the PO3 and the assessment rubric for proposal is shown in Table 3.1. The
assessment form for FYP1 proposal can be found in Appendix A.1.
Progress report for FYP1 is mapped to PO1 and PO3. The components of the progress report that are
used to assess PO1 are Introduction, Literature Review, Summary & Future Work, and References. For
PO3, the assessment is based on Methodology. All marks are given by the supervisor and examiner.
The portion marks from supervisor and examiner can be found in Table 1.1. Table 3.2 shows the
assessment rubric for FYP1 progress report. The assessment form for FYP1 progress report is attached
in Appendix A.1.
The last assessment that contributes to the overall FYP1 mark is the Viva session which is mapped to
PO11. The students should be able to present, explain and communicate effectively their FYP1
progress report during the viva session. Table 3.3 shows the assessment rubric for FYP1 viva.
Table 3.1 : The assessment rubric for FYP1 proposal
Table 3.2 : Assessment Rubric for FYP1 Progress Report
Criteria Range Marks
Project Background 30%
The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are exceptionally well stated. 20-30
The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are satisfactory. 10-19
The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are unclear. 0-9
Literature Reviews 30%
The supporting literature is very relevant and is well reviewed 20-30
The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. 10-19
The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is poorly reviewed 0-9
Management 30%
Excellent planning, outstanding time management and contingency planning. 20-30
Adequate planning, proper time management and contingency planning 10-19
Poor planning, poor time management with no contingency planning 0-9
Writing Format 10%
Minor spelling or grammatical errors, professional writing style of research report. 7-10
Some spelling or grammatical errors, average writing style. 4-6
A lot of spelling or grammatical errors, unstructured writing style. 0-3
Total /100
Signature and stamp of supervisor: Date:
ASSESSMENT OF PROGRESS REPORT Score Description
5 (Outstanding)
• The abstract is exceptionally well-written, concise and comprehensive.
• The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and importance are exceptionally well stated.
• The supporting literature is very relevant and is reviewed critically.
• The methods are very appropriate and are described in great detail.
• The results are reported and interpreted very effectively, and the discussions are very insightful.
• The conclusions very clearly identify the key findings and include significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are very reliable and citations are very consistent with the list of references.
4 (Good)
• The abstract is written well, and rather concise and comprehensive.
• The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and importance are clearly stated.
• The supporting literature is relevant and is reviewed well. • The methods are appropriate and are described in detail. • The results are reported and interpreted effectively, and
the discussions are insightful. • The conclusions clearly identify the key findings and
include significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are reliable and citations are consistent with the list of references.
3 (Adequate)
• The abstract is slightly flawed. • The research background, statement of problem, aims,
objectives, scope and importance are satisfactory. • The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is
reviewed inadequately. • The methods are partly acceptable and are described in
general terms. • The results are reported and interpreted rather
ineffectively, and the discussions lack insightfulness. • The conclusions do not clearly identify the key findings
and do not mention the significance and limitations of current work, or recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are questionable and some citations are not consistent with the list of references
2 (Poor)
• The abstract is badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims,
objectives, scope and importance are vaguely stated. • The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is
reviewed badly. • The methods are mostly not acceptable and are
described badly. • The results are reported and interpreted ineffectively,
and there are insignificant or no discussions provided. • The conclusions do not identify the key findings and do
not include the significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are not reliable and most citations are not consistent with the list of references.
1 (Very Poor)
• The abstract is very badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims,
objectives, scope and importance are unsuccessfully stated.
• The supporting literature is completely irrelevant and is reviewed very badly.
• The methods are completely wrong and are described very badly.
• The results are reported and interpreted very ineffectively, and there are no discussions.
• The conclusions are weak and do not include significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are highly unreliable and citations are very inconsistent with the list of references.
Table 3.3 : The assessment rubric for Viva
Criteria 1 Not Acceptable
2 Poor
3 Average
4 Good
5 Outstanding
Score
Delivery
Interrupted, not smooth, not perceptible and unable to answer the questions given.
Quite articulate, marginally smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given
Quite articulate, quite smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given
Articulate, smooth, perceptible and able to answer to answer most of the questions given
Very articulate, very smooth, highly perceptible and able to answer all the questions given
Technical Content
Very poor technical content, with weak hypothesis and reasoning
Poor technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning
Moderate technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning
Good technical content, with fine hypothesis and reasoning
Outstanding technical content, with excellent hypothesis and reasoning.
Organization
Not well organized and not in sequence and slides not running smoothly
Quite well organized and in sequence and slides run fairly smoothly
Well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.
Very well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.
Outstanding organized and in sequence and slides runs very smoothly.
Total MarkS
Signature & Stamp: Date:
3.1 FYP1: PROPOSAL AND PROGRESS REPORT ORGANIZATION
Students are need to follow the guideline set by the FYP coordinator for writing FYP1 proposal
and FYP1 progress report. The organization of the proposal report must have minimum 15 pages and
Appendix A.2 shows the template for the proposal. For the FYP1 progress report, there is no limitation
of page, however students are encouraged to write < 30 pages. Appendix A.2 shows the template for
FYI progress report.
For the format writing, the proposal and progress report should be typed, one and half-spaced,
on one side of the paper and only using Microsoft Word 2000 or latest. However, single-spacing is
recommended for figure/table captions. Students are encouraged to use the font, Times New Roman.
The font size for the general text is 12 points. For the Table and Figure, the word Figure and Table is
numbered in Arabic numeral (i.e Figure 1.0, and Table 1.0) and its caption placed below and above
the figure or table of font 12, single-spacing, respectively. The explanation of figure and table comes
first before attach the figure and table in the report.
The contains of the proposal must have the following items;
1. Introduction (1-2 pages) 2. Literature Review (4-5 pages) 3. Problem Statement (1 page) 4. Objectives and Scopes (1 page) 5. Methodology (1 page) 6. Gantt Chart 7. References (Use IEEE format)
The FYP1 progress report must have the following criteria;
1. Introduction - Aims and motivations (Brief of Introduction) - Problem Statements - Objectives - Scope of Study (Detail about the objectives) - Organization of report (Chapter 1/2/3…)
2. Literature Review - Introduction - Main Body
- Sub-topic 1/2/3… - Conclusion
3. Methodology - Introduction - Main Body
- Sub-topic 1/2/3… - Conclusion
4. Results & Summary 5. References (Use IEEE format)
EMT 445/2
UNDERGRADUATE
FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1
APPENDIX A.1
(Assessment Form)
• Proposal (SV) • Progress Report (SV & Examiner) • Viva (Examiner)
SCHOOL OF MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS (UNIMAP)
FYP I Proposal
Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your supervisor. Supervisor, please write the intended mark and tabulate all marks. Student Name : Matrix No : Project Title :
Criteria Range Marks
Project Background 30%
The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are exceptionally well stated. 20-30
The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are satisfactory. 10-19
The research background, statement of problem, objectives and scope are unclear. 0-9
Literature Reviews 30%
The supporting literature is very relevant and is well reviewed 20-30
The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. 10-19
The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is poorly reviewed 0-9
Management 30%
Excellent planning, outstanding time management and contingency planning. 20-30
Adequate planning, proper time management and contingency planning 10-19
Poor planning, poor time management with no contingency planning 0-9
Writing Format 10%
Minor spelling or grammatical errors, professional writing style of research report. 7-10
Some spelling or grammatical errors, average writing style. 4-6
A lot of spelling or grammatical errors, unstructured writing style. 0-3
Total /100
Signature and stamp of supervisor: Date:
Effective Date: Sem 1 2017/2018 SOME. (FYP1).Proposal.1a
SCHOOL OF MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS (UNIMAP)
FYP Progress Report Form
Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your supervisor. Supervisor, please write and tabulate the intended marks in Section A. Student Name : Matrix No : Project Title : Supervisor :
Comment (should be reflected to the marks given) :
Signature and stamp of supervisor: Date:
Section A: Assessment of Final Report (100 Marks)
Criteria
PO
Weight
Score
Total 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction
PO 1 4
Literature
PO 1 7
Methodology
PO 3 4
Summary & Future Work
PO 1 4
References
PO 1 1
Total
20 /100
Effective Date: Sem 1 2017/2018 SOME.(TL).rev17a – FYP1 Progress Report (Supervisor)Form
ASSESSMENT OF FINAL REPORT Score Description
5 (Outstanding)
• The abstract is exceptionally well-written, concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are exceptionally well stated. • The supporting literature is very relevant and is reviewed critically. • The methods are very appropriate and are described in great detail. • The results are reported and interpreted very effectively, and the discussions
are very insightful. • The conclusions very clearly identify the key findings and include significance
and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are very reliable and citations are very consistent
with the list of references.
4 (Good)
• The abstract is written well, and rather concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are clearly stated. • The supporting literature is relevant and is reviewed well. • The methods are appropriate and are described in detail. • The results are reported and interpreted effectively, and the discussions are
insightful. • The conclusions clearly identify the key findings and include significance and
limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are reliable and citations are consistent with the list
of references.
3 (Adequate)
• The abstract is slightly flawed. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are satisfactory. • The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. • The methods are partly acceptable and are described in general terms. • The results are reported and interpreted rather ineffectively, and the
discussions lack insightfulness. • The conclusions do not clearly identify the key findings and do not mention the
significance and limitations of current work, or recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are questionable and some citations are not consistent with the list of references
2 (Poor)
• The abstract is badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are vaguely stated. • The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is reviewed badly. • The methods are mostly not acceptable and are described badly. • The results are reported and interpreted ineffectively, and there are
insignificant or no discussions provided. • The conclusions do not identify the key findings and do not include the
significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are not reliable and most citations are not consistent with the list of references.
1 (Very Poor)
• The abstract is very badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are unsuccessfully stated. • The supporting literature is completely irrelevant and is reviewed very badly. • The methods are completely wrong and are described very badly. • The results are reported and interpreted very ineffectively, and there are no
discussions. • The conclusions are weak and do not include significance and limitations of
current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are highly unreliable and citations are very
inconsistent with the list of references.
SCHOOL OF MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS (UNIMAP)
FYP Progress Report Form
Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your examiner. Examiner, please write and tabulate the intended marks in Section A. Student Name : Matrix No : Project Title : Supervisor :
Comment (should be reflected to the marks given) :
Signature and stamp of supervisor: Date:
Section A: Assessment of Final Report (100 Marks)
Criteria
PO
Weight
Score
Total 5 4 3 2 1 Introduction
PO 1 4
Literature
PO 1 7
Methodology
PO 3 4
Summary & Future Work
PO 1 4
References
PO 1 1
Total
20 /100
Effective Date: Sem 1 2017/2018 SOME.(TL).rev17a – FYP1 Progress Report Form (Examiner)
ASSESSMENT OF FINAL REPORT Score Description
5 (Outstanding)
• The abstract is exceptionally well-written, concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are exceptionally well stated. • The supporting literature is very relevant and is reviewed critically. • The methods are very appropriate and are described in great detail. • The results are reported and interpreted very effectively, and the discussions
are very insightful. • The conclusions very clearly identify the key findings and include significance
and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are very reliable and citations are very consistent with
the list of references.
4 (Good)
• The abstract is written well, and rather concise and comprehensive. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are clearly stated. • The supporting literature is relevant and is reviewed well. • The methods are appropriate and are described in detail. • The results are reported and interpreted effectively, and the discussions are
insightful. • The conclusions clearly identify the key findings and include significance and
limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are reliable and citations are consistent with the list of
references.
3 (Adequate)
• The abstract is slightly flawed. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are satisfactory. • The supporting literature is only slightly relevant and is reviewed inadequately. • The methods are partly acceptable and are described in general terms. • The results are reported and interpreted rather ineffectively, and the discussions
lack insightfulness. • The conclusions do not clearly identify the key findings and do not mention the
significance and limitations of current work, or recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are questionable and some citations are not
consistent with the list of references
2 (Poor)
• The abstract is badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are vaguely stated. • The supporting literature is mostly irrelevant and is reviewed badly. • The methods are mostly not acceptable and are described badly. • The results are reported and interpreted ineffectively, and there are insignificant
or no discussions provided. • The conclusions do not identify the key findings and do not include the
significance and limitations of current work, and recommendations for future work.
• The sources of reference are not reliable and most citations are not consistent with the list of references.
1 (Very Poor)
• The abstract is very badly written. • The research background, statement of problem, aims, objectives, scope and
importance are unsuccessfully stated. • The supporting literature is completely irrelevant and is reviewed very badly. • The methods are completely wrong and are described very badly. • The results are reported and interpreted very ineffectively, and there are no
discussions. • The conclusions are weak and do not include significance and limitations of
current work, and recommendations for future work. • The sources of reference are highly unreliable and citations are very
inconsistent with the list of references.
SCHOOL OF MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEEERING
EMT445 FYP 1 Viva
Reminder: Students must fill the form before giving it to your examiner. Examiner, please write the intended mark and tabulate all marks. Student Name: Project Title: Matrix No (Program): Supervisor:
Criteria 1 Not Acceptable
2 Poor
3 Average
4 Good
5 Outstanding
Score
Delivery
Interrupted, not smooth, not perceptible and unable to answer the questions given.
Quite articulate, marginally smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given
Quite articulate, quite smooth, moderately perceptible and able to answer some of the questions given
Articulate, smooth, perceptible and able to answer to answer most of the questions given
Very articulate, very smooth, highly perceptible and able to answer all the questions given
Technical Content
Very poor technical content, with weak hypothesis and reasoning
Poor technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning
Moderate technical content, with acceptable hypothesis and reasoning
Good technical content, with fine hypothesis and reasoning
Outstanding technical content, with excellent hypothesis and reasoning.
Organization
Not well organized and not in sequence and slides not running smoothly
Quite well organized and in sequence and slides run fairly smoothly
Well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.
Very well organized and in sequence and slides run smoothly.
Outstanding organized and in sequence and slides runs very smoothly.
Total MarkS
Signature & Stamp: Date:
SOME. (FYP).Viva.rev1c
EMT 445/2
UNDERGRADUATE FINAL YEAR PROJECT 1
APPENDIX A.2 • Proposal Template • Progress Report Template
School of Microelectronic Engineering
EMT445/2 Final Year Project I Proposal
Academic Session XXXXX
Your Project Title
Name:
Matric No.:
Supervisor:
Your proposal must contain the following sections:
1. Introduction (1-2 pages)
2. Literature Review (4-5 pages)
3. Problem Statement (1 page)
4. Objectives and Scopes (1 page)
5. Methodology (1 page)
6. Gantt Chart
7. References (Use IEEE format)
ii
YOUR TITLE IN CAPITAL LETTER, BOLD
by
Your Name
(MATRIX NO)
SCHOOL OF MICROELECTRONIC ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS
MONTHYEAR
iii
Table of Contents Note: To update, right click > Update field > Update entire table
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. iii
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ i
1.1 Aims and motivation ...............................................................................................i
1.2 Overview of ... ........................................................................................................i
1.3 Overview2 of ... ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3.1 Overview of ... ........................................................................................... i 1.3.2 Overview 2 of ... .........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.4 Report structure ......................................................................................................i
Chapter 2 Literature review ....................................................................................... iii
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... iii
2.2 Sub-topics ............................................................................................................ iii 2.2.1 Technique 1:... ........................................................................................ iii 2.2.2 Technique 2:... ........................................................................................ iii
2.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... iii
Chapter 3 Methodology ............................................................................................. iv
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... iv
3.2 Sub-topics ............................................................................................................ iv 3.2.1 Preparation of... ...................................................................................... iv 3.2.2 Development of... .................................................................................... iv
3.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 4 Results & Summary ................................................................................... v
4.1 Summary ...............................................................................................................v
4.2 To probe further .....................................................................................................v
References vi
Chapter 1 Introduction
Note: Copy and paste the title and subtitles to create a new chapter. Subtitles should be
numbered up to 2 decimal places (eg 1.2.1). Any more than that is excessive, restructure
your report if that occurs
1.1 Aims and motivation A reliable and non-destructive purification of cell population is necessary to obtain reproducible data on the cell analysis. In order to establish the state-of-the-art, a review of the cell/particle trapping and sorting techniques has been presented, covering work done by other research groups. Electrical trapping [1-3], microfluidics [4-6], mechanical [7-9] and <-
Note: Reference should be added through EndNote. Select your reference in EndNote
Library, and click insert citations
1.2 Overview of ...
1.2.1 Overview of ...
1.3 Report structure This report is separated into several chapters covering different aspects of the research. An overview of different techniques and procedures currently used ... Note: Copy and paste below for adding more equations. Equation can be written using Microsoft’s built in editor or MathType Sample for writing equation:
( 1.1 )
( 1.2 )
where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature. This is how to quote the equation Error! Reference source not found.Note: Equation can be referenced through Insert>Cross reference> Reference type: ( >Insert reference to: Only label and number> Click on insert as hyperlink>Click Insert Note: Copy and paste below for adding more tables
21 12 2m v kT=
21 12 2m v kT=
ii
Table 1.1 Predicted root-mean-square (RMS) displacement of a range of polystyrene particles in two dimensions after 1 second
Boltzmann constant (JK-1) 1.38x10-23
Temperature (K) 293
Viscosity (Pas) 0.001
Polystyrene particle diameter (µm) RMS displacement (µm) after 1 second
1 1.71 3 0.57 6 0.29 8 0.21
Figure 1.1 A schematic showing a spherical particle near a surface Note: Copy and paste above for adding more figure Note: Figure and Table can be referenced through Insert>Cross reference> Reference type:Figure or Table>Insert reference to: Only label and number> Click on insert as hyperlink>Click Insert Example: Figure 1.1Table 1.1
D
z
z=0
R
dz
iii
Chapter 2 Literature review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Sub-topics There are multiple ways of fabricating... It can be categorised into 5 main techniques... 2.2.1 Technique 1:... The first technique comprises of... 2.2.2 Technique 2:... . . .
2.3 Conclusion
iv
Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Sub-topics In the process of fabricating... there are a few steps need to be taken into account... 3.2.1 Preparation of... The ... is first prepared via... 3.2.2 Development of... . . .
3.3 Conclusion
v
Chapter 4 Results & Summary
4.1 Summary
4.2 To probe further The investigation carried out in this project has laid ..... this work will lead to many exciting avenues of research in the future.
vi
References
[1] C.-F. Chou and F. Zenhausern, "Electrodeless dielectrophoresis for micro total analysis systems," IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, vol. 22, pp. 62-7, 2003.
[2] S. Fiedler, S. G. Shirley, T. Schnelle, and G. Fuhr, "Dielectrophoretic sorting of particles and cells in a microsystem," Analytical Chemistry, vol. 70, pp. 1909-1915, 1998.
[3] P. R. C. Gascoyne and J. V. Vykoukal, "Dielectrophoresis-based sample handling in general-purpose programmable diagnostic instruments," in Proceedings of the
IEEE, 2004, pp. 22-42.
[4] Y. Bo, L. Guo-an, F. Xue, W. Wei, C. Ling-xin, and W. Yi-ming, "A microfluidic device based on gravity and electric force driving for flow cytometry and fluorescence activated cell sorting," Lab on a Chip, vol. 4, pp. 603-7, 2004.
[5] H. Dongeun, G. Wei, Y. Kamotani, J. B. Grotberg, and S. Takayama, "Microfluidics for flow cytometric analysis of cells and particles," Physiological Measurement, vol. 26, pp. 73-98, 2005.
[6] L. Gwo-Bin, I. H. Chen, K. Bin-Jo, H. Guan-Ruey, H. Bao-Herng, and L. Hui-Fang, "Hydrodynamic focusing for a micromachined flow cytometer," Transactions of the
ASME. Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 123, pp. 672-9, 2001.
[7] H. Andersson and A. V. D. Berg, "Microfluidic devices for cellomics: A review," Sensors and Actuators, B: Chemical, vol. 92, pp. 315-325, 2003.
[8] R. Bashir, D. Akin, R. Gomez, H. Li, W. J. Chang, and A. Gupta, "From bioMEMS to bionanotechnology: integrated biochips for the detection of cells and microorganisms," in Biomicroelectromechanical Systems (BioMEMS) Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003, pp. 117-24.
[9] A. Y. Fu, H.-P. Chou, C. Spence, F. H. Arnold, and S. R. Quake, "An integrated microfabricated cell sorter," Analytical Chemistry, vol. 74, pp. 2451-2457, 2002.
Top Related