Conference Session

Nuclear and Radiological Division Technical Session 2

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mark A. Prelas, University of Missouri, Columbia; Matthew L. Watermann, NSEI - University of Missouri; Denis Alexander Wisniewski; Janese Annetta Neher, Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute-University of Missouri Columbia; Charles Lyndell Weaver III, University of Missouri - Columbia

Tagged Divisions

Nuclear and Radiological

with the reactant have beenpublished for lasers and chemical processing, however, in addition to the transport inefficiency,this technique also contaminates any reactant which comes in direct contact with the fuel [5, 6].Surface sources could be used in an energy focus application [8] because the source material canbe coated by a reflecting surface. This point will be discussed in section 2. Volume sources can produce a much a greater energy release because half the chargedparticle energy is not lost in a wall and the volume is not constrained to the charged particlerange. Until 1981, UF6 was the only available volume fission source. UF6 vapor howeverproduces strong quenching of the chemical kinetics of most systems [3-6] and cannot be

Conference Session

Nuclear and Radiological Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Nestor J. Echeverria, U.S. Military Academy; Kenneth Scott Allen P.E., U.S. Military Academy

Tagged Divisions

Nuclear and Radiological

Cross-disciplinary (18) Non-MSE only (6) 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Figure 2: Breakdown of survey respondents’ results to the question, “To what extent did you learn something as a result of this project?” 1=I did not learn anything, 2=I learned very little, 3=I learned somewhat, 4=I learned very much. Page 24.8.7The quality of work from each of the 17 design teams, as reflected in their assigned grades, isgiven in figure 3. Once again, the results show that the quality of work improved as a functionof the percentage of

Conference Session

Nuclear and Radiological Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Masoud Naghedolfeizi, Fort Valley State University; Sanjeev Arora, Fort Valley State University; Nabil A. Yousif, Fort Valley State University

Tagged Divisions

Nuclear and Radiological

student enrollment for the minor programsignificantly increases during the second and third year of the project with aggressiverecruitment and better planning for course scheduling.AcknowledgementThe authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) for funding this project at Fort Valley State University. The comments,opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of NRC.References1 http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/Nuclear-Industry-s-Comprehensive- Approach-Develops2 http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/the-aging-nuclear-workforce3 http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/grants.html4 http

Conference Session

Nuclear and Radiological Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Wade R. Marcum, Oregon State University; Steve Reese, Oregon State University; Robert A. Schickler

Tagged Divisions

Nuclear and Radiological

order to havesatisfied completion of said activity. In reflection, this log book provided additional benefit to thecourse structure by documenting the activities necessary to supplement the reactor operatorlicense application request submitted to the USNRC. Fig. 1: Example page from Activity LogAs the ROT-II course progressed, the OSTR staff made a conscious effort to create a moreautonomous role for each trainee during their control panel activities. The final exam for theROT-II course was intended to follow the structure and content of a USNRC proctored exam as Page 24.387.6closely as possible. Each student was

Conference Session

Nuclear and Radiological Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Samuel A. Heider, U.S. Military Academy; Bryndol A. Sones, U.S. Military Academy; Brian E. Moretti, Department of Physics and Nuclear Engineering

Tagged Divisions

Nuclear and Radiological

communicate effectively’(ABET criterion 3d and 3g).2 However, assessing a student’s ability to work on a team and tocommunicate effectively is often difficult in traditional classroom settings. Collaborative learning, for the purpose of this paper will mirror those of Göl and Nafalskias written in their award winning paper “Collaborative Learning in Engineering Education”;“Collaborative learning is increasingly recognised as giving students an opportunity to engage indiscussion and to exercise a positive influence on the group’s learning outcomes by assumingresponsibility for their own learning. Critical thinking and reflective evaluation are implicit in theapproach.”3 While many tout the advantages of collaborative learning: “Results

Conference Session

Nuclear and Radiological Division Technical Session 1

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Trevor D. McLaughlin, U.S. Military Academy

Tagged Divisions

Nuclear and Radiological

thistask. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed herein are that of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Military Academy or U.S. Army.REFERENCES: ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. 2005. Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, Baltimore,MD: ABET, Inc. Aldridge, M.D., “Professional Practice: A Topic for Engineering Research and Instruction,” Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 83, no. 3, July 1994, pp. 231-236. Borrego, M. and Newswander, L.K., “Characteristics of Successful Cross-Disciplinary Engineering EducationCollaborations,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, no. 2, April 2008, pp 123-134. Raju, P.K., and C.S. Sankar, ”Teaching Real-World Issues Through Case Studies