values. In addition, discrete compounding or continuous compounding can be used. Finally, the BSM equations or the BS option table can be used. Shown below are solutions for all combinations of the alternatives, except using the BS option table. a) T = 24, discrete compounding, with rf = (1.04)1/12 -1 = 0.003274 and F = sqrt[(0.30)2/12)] = 8.6603%. S = $55.00, X = $58.50, d1 = {ln(55/58.50) + [ln(1.003274) + (0.086603)2/2](24)}/ [0.086603sqrt(24)] = 0.25161, d2 = 0.25161 - 0.086603sqrt(24) = -0.17266, N(d1) = 0.59933, N(d2) = 0.43146, and C = 55(0.59933) - 58.50(0.43146)/(1.04)2 = $9.63 b) T = 24, continuous compounding, with rf = ln(1.04)/12 = 0.0032684 and F = sqrt[(0.30)2/12) = 8.6603%. S = $55.00, X = $58.50, d1 = {ln(55
605 .58 598 .48 Regents English IV Boys 429 .47 430 .43 406 .36 Girls 229 .58 229 .58 224 .42 Total 658 .47 659 .53 630 .43 Rank in H. S. Class* Boys 253 .47 264 .43 226 .34 Girls 157 .60 157 .62 145 .56
(2014)10The longer Park (2016) was published since Park (2013)7, so the shorter book will not beincluded. Other titles in engineering economy have lower market shares than the included books.Note that reference #s are included here, but due to the large number of repetitive labels andreferences, the texts are simply referred to by author and edition.We have chosen to focus on the content of formal examples that are presented as part of eachchapter rather than homework problems for two reasons. First, it is much clearer which approachor approaches are being used. Second, since several texts have total problem sets ranging fromnearly a 1000 to over 1500, using problems as a basis would be overwhelming.In analyzing the examples, the first step was
theindividual students’ roles. CATME is a short, web-based survey that collects and analyzes self-and peer-evaluation feedback. A behaviorally-anchored rating scale is utilized to assesscontributions of each team member in five areas based on the team effectiveness literature (Ohlandet al., (2012)23. The grade for each team-based component is multiplied by the CATME factor foreach student and that is the score entered for the student. As such, if a student does not pull his/herweight, s/he is penalized by the rest of the team and gets a lower grade than the rest of the teammembers. Conversely, if a student goes above and beyond the norm, s/he is recognized by theteammates and gets a higher grade than the original team score.It should be noted that
innovation, suggested to be as in The Functions of the Executive.1 Become acquainted with this human-action based approach promulgated by Holger Thuesen beginning in the 1950’s and subsequently by Paul Torgersen since about 1962. 3) Systems Thinking, suggested to be as in Systems Engineering and Analysis.2,6 Consult this 5th Edition Pearson book and access the no cost supporting materials offered on www.a2i2.com. 4) Finally, note that the general theme and objectives of this paper are being promulgated by the international honor society for systems engineering, showcased on www.omegalpha.org.II. Extending Capital Investment Decision MakingWithout a doubt, capital investment analysis (capital
positively contributeto the education of engineering majors who will be making critical life-cycle decisions forprojects in the near future.Acknowledgment and DisclaimerThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.1504912. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this materialare those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation. We would like to thank the regular instructor and the teaching assistant, Dr. MikeHelwig and Mr. Fikri Kucuksayacigil, respectively, for their cooperation and contributions suchas accommodation, advice, and a decision-tree based guest lecture. We also would like to thankthe Department of Industrial
Annual Conference & Exposition, 2012. 7. Lamancusa, J., Jorgensen, J., Zayas-Castro, J., Ratner, J., “THE LEARNING FACTORY – A new approach to integrating design and manufacturing into engineering curricula,” Proceedings of the 1995 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 1995. 8. Lynch, P.C., Wilck, J.H., Bober, C., Mines, J.L., “A New Look at Involving Undergraduate Students, Real Life Applications, and Active Learning Activities in the Industrial Engineering Undergraduate Course Delivery Process,” Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014. 9. Sawhney, R.S., Maleki, S., Wilck, J.H., Hashemian, P., “Center for Productivity Innovation's Student
: Understanding the Student Learning Experience," Journal of Education for Business, pp. 325-332, 2012.[5] S. J. Burian and P. Romero, "Engineering Study Abroad Program on Sustainable Infrastructure," in American Society for Engineering Education, 2012.[6] V. Maldonado, L. Castillo, G. Carbajal and P. Hajela, "Building international experiences into an engineering curriculum - a design project-based approach," European Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 377-390, 2014.[7] R. F. Vaz, "Designing the Liberally Educated Engineer," Peer Review, 2012.[8] L. H. Mills, D. Deviney and B. Ball, "Short-Term Study Abroad Programs: A Diversity of Options," The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 2010.
)’s Navigation Data Center, which provides cargo data andvessel trip data for the Mississippi River in general as well as for several major river sections.Exhibit 1: Study Region on the Mississippi River[7]Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 display the freight amount by commodity types and the vessel trips bydraft size on the Mississippi River from Minneapolis, Minnesota to the Mouth of the MissouriRiver in 2012[8], which contains the freight data of the study region. A lock is a gate system thatallows barges to move smoothly and safely between different water levels on the inlandwaterway. A dam is a wall-like structure that reserves water for various needs. Together, the lockand dam system is used to control the water levels and provide navigation
see if reducing the number of alternatives affects significantly the results. Further studies are currently being carried out.References1 P. Rosita, Specific Differences and Similarities in the Learning Preferences of Engineering Students, 29thASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pp. 12c1.17-12c1.22, 1999.2 S. Montgomery, Addressing Diverse Learning Styles Through the Use of Multimedia, Frontiers in EducationConference, 1995 Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, pp 3a2.13-3a2.21, 1995.3 R. Mayer and L. Massa, Three Facets of Visual and Verbal Learners: Cognitive Ability, Cognitive Style, andLearning Preference, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95, No. 4, pp. 833-846, 2003.4 C. Baukal & L. Ausburn, Learning
2012 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.[6] John Lamancusa, Jens Jorgensen, Jose Zayas-Castro, Julie Ratner, “THE LEARNING FACTORY – A new approach to integrating design and manufacturing into engineering curricula,” Proceedings of the 1995 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.[7] R.S. Sawhney, S. Maleki, J.H. Wilck, P. Hashemian, "Center for Productivity Innovation's Student Project with Industry Program at the University of Tennessee, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering," INFORMS Transactions on Education, 13(2), 83-92, 2013.[8] Alan Dutson, Robert Todd, Spencer Magleby, Carl