(60-70 students peryear). The platform will be integrated with Mathworks software, which will allow ourundergraduate students to learn state-of-the art Model-Based Design (MBD) techniques.1. IntroductionDesign of complex dynamic systems requires the development of mathematical models withvarying complexities, extensive simulation studies for validation of the proposed models,synthesis and analysis of control algorithms, verification of the performance the closed-loopsystems via numerical simulation, and “hardware in the loop” simulations. As a modern industrystandard, Model-Based Design (MBD) techniques allow for relatively inexpensive designiterations by manipulating parameters of the simulation model instead of costly and timeconsuming
laptop.The UAV is comprised of two primary systems: the autopilot and the airframe. Both systemsmust function together as a whole, which makes it very important that the flight control system iscompatible with the autopilot system. The propulsion system is coupled with the airframeassembly to provide not only thrust but also acts as part of the control system. The autopilotsystem is comprised of the aircraft, on-board hardware, communication links, and ground station. Figure 1. Ground Control Station Screenshot of Paparazzi System.Autopilot SystemDue to size, weight and project funding, the autopilot system needed to be lightweight, Page
toolis three-fold, (1) women in engineering study abroad at approximately twice the rate of men4, (2)a desire to support the university’s mission to provide service in remote parts of Africa5, and (3)the opportunity to incorporate into the curriculum a direct connection between engineering andpublic service.Program DevelopmentDevelopment of a quality study abroad program, let alone one in a remote area, requires asubstantial amount of planning and navigation. During the summer of 2010, two civilengineering faculty, one recent alumnus, and one staff member spent five weeks traveling andresearching in communities throughout Zambia, Africa, to investigate program potential. Anassessment of program feasibility was made at three potential sites: the
disassembling or dismantling selected vehicle sub-components (Table 1) wasconducted. The outcomes related to the VEOL workshop focus on comprehending the issuesassociated with disassembly, i.e. reverse assembly (and reassembly), dismantling, reusing,remanufacturing, and recycling. Practical systems, tooling, resource and business issues arediscussed in context of human factors, materials, direct and indirect costs, and so forththroughout the workshop. Page 22.483.3Students were first given a brief introductory presentation to provide back ground information, assummarized in Section 1.2, and instructions about how the work shop would be carried out
in a particular technique ormay develop equipment and software that may support their research, or be stand alone.Examples include design and manufacture of a water tunnel as well as a 3-component platformbalance with associated LabView software. Research topics are typically assigned, but may bestudent initiated if of manageable scope. Projects have been broad in scope, ranging fromtransition control to morphable aircraft geometries. This article describes the approach, itssuccesses as well as pitfalls.1. Introduction Most aerospace focused curricula contain at least one course devoted to experimentalmethods, typically with an aerodynamics focus. Subsequent experimental courses may entailintroduction to instrumentation or structural
Masters of Business Administration and GIS certificate program this summer. He is additionally a member of the Kentucky Academy of Science. Page 22.485.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Development of an Advanced Technological Education Center for Water TreatmentIntroductionIt is often quite difficult for industrialized societies to recall the importance of a clean supply ofwater. However, its impact is unquestionable. In a study conducted by Esrey et al. (1991)1,improvements in local water qualities via sanitation systems reduced such dreaded
Page 22.486.2Responsibility. These outcomes are couched in the following six levels of attainment specifiedwith Bloom’s Taxonomy.4 1. Knowledge - the remembering of previously learned material. 2. Comprehension - the ability to grasp the meaning of material. 3. Application - the ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations. 4. Analysis - the ability to break down material into its component parts so that its organizational structure may be understood. 5. Synthesis - the ability to put together to form a new whole. This may involve the production of a unique communication, a plan of operation (research proposal), or a set of abstract relations (scheme for
harmoniccurrents in the electrical equipment. The standard describes general requirements for testingequipment as well as the limits and the practical implementations of the test. For the purpose ofharmonic current limitation, the standard divides electrical equipment into four classes as shownin Figure 1. Each class has different harmonic current limits. The balanced three-phaseequipment and other electronic apparatus which is excluded one of three classes are included inthe Class A classification. To apply a Class D limit, the following two requirements should besatisfied: Input power should be less than 600 W. Input current waveshape of each half cycle is within the envelope shown in Figure 2 for at least 95% of the duration of each
Development of an Introduction to Infrastructure CourseAbstractAn “Introduction to Infrastructure” course has been developed in the Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering Department at [institution]. The course is intended for sophomore students andserves two main purposes:1. To introduce the students to civil and environmental engineering and the subdisciplines, and2. To begin the development of an awareness of infrastructure and the challenges facing the United States with respect to infrastructure overcapacity and degradation.A particularly noteworthy aspect of the course is that students completed assessments of variousinfrastructure components, inspired by the assessments completed for the “Report Card forAmerica’s Infrastructure” published by the
California Page 22.233.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Assessing Collaborative Undergraduate Student Wikis and SVN with Technology-based Instrumentation: Relating Participation Patterns to Learning 1. Case Study Objective and Collaborative Context Local industry representatives consistently point to the lack of large-project and team- based experience as a weakness in newly hired computer science graduates. To better prepare students for
Engineering at Boise State UniversityI. IntroductionIn recent years, a substantial amount of research has been presented on project-based learning foreducating engineers.[1, 2] It has been observed that this approach fosters a deeper learning andunderstanding of engineering concepts as opposed to the traditional lecture-based coursestructure. In addition, research has documented the prevalence of “Ill-Structured” problems thatengineers face in their professional lives.[3] Posing these types of “problems” in an academicenvironment would better prepare students for higher achievement after graduation, but adoptionis sporadic.A current active research area in engineering education is based on understanding andovercoming the hurdles in transforming from
reflexive analysis. We present here an instrument underdevelopment that has shown preliminary promise as a "quick and dirty" measure of potentialreadiness to collaborate for sustainable design. It is a 17-item instrument. It targets assessmentof specific constructs in the context of collaboration for sustainability based on Fink’s integratedtaxonomy of significant learning. They are: 1) personal agency for sustainability; 2) value ofself-transcendence and 3) awareness of one's limited perspective in situations. The theoreticalgrounding of the constructs derive from Bandura's model of agency, Schwartz's model ofuniversal human values, and Argyris' model of inference, respectively. At the time of thiswriting, the instrument has been completed by
, and how instruction might be used toimprove those areas. Edwards4 and Bissell3 proposed flowcharts for the creation ofmathematical models with the following general cyclical steps: 1. Identify the real-worldproblem, 2. Simplification, 3. Formulate the mathematical problem, 4. Obtain the mathematicalsolution of the model, 5. Interpret solution, 6. Compare with reality, 7. Return to step (1) or Page 22.236.3Present the results. 2Gainsburg1 drew on the ideas of several previous studies and identified six steps for whatmathematical modeling should include: 1. Identify the real-world
the eight-question multiple choice assessment is 3.46 (SD= 1.50 ). Only onestudent in the sample answered all questions correctly. One question, “What is the main point ofthis memo?” had a 91% correct response rate, while the remaining questions fell between 16%and 48% correct response.Item Difficulty and Discrimination IndexItem difficulty (p-value) is determined by calculating the proportion of students that answeredthe item correctly. The p-value ranges between 0 and 1. While lower values indicate high itemdifficulty, a p-value of 1 indicates all students answered the question correctly.The point-biserial correlations on the other hand provide information on how well the itemdiscriminates between high achieving and low achieving students
theirspecific expectations for student mathematical knowledge and skills.After receiving sample problems from five faculty members, the questions were analyzed todevelop a set of learning outcomes that would reflect the knowledge and skills required to solvethe problems. There was significant overlap among the problems, with respect to the knowledgeand skills expected. The resulting set of mathematics topics for which engineering facultymembers expected student mastery are listed in Table 1. Table 1. First-year Mathematics Topics Determined by Engineering Faculty Members Projection Vector Components (2-D) Derivative (using Chain Rule) Second Derivative