; Bird B-KER2 Laboratory Jars and Masterflex Tygon lab tubing toconnect both, one student holds the reservoir at a fixed location simulating a water source suchas a natural spring, lake, or river, and another student adjusts the elevation of the tap stand usinga simulated gate valve from the sampling port of the laboratory jar. As the tap stand locationremains lower than the location of the reservoir, students can notice water continuing to flow asthe third student is responsible for turning the tap stand valve on and off. However, as soon asthe location of the tap stand is higher than the location of the reservoir, water flow stops. Thus,students realize that the location of the outflow must be lower than the location of the inflowassuming
covers nominalmoment capacity of flanged sections. In class the instructors primarily teach students about T-beams since this structural member type is prevalent in monolithically poured slab-beamsystems. However, students are expected to be able to draw connections from lecture tohomework/exam problems that include other flanged cross-sections.With the flexural analysis of flanged beams, students often try to memorize the formulas todetermine forces acting on a T-beam for the nominal moment cases shown in Figure 3: a) negative flexure when the compression zone consists solely of a portion of the web, b) positive flexure when the compression zone consists of the flange (or a portion of the flange), and c) positive flexure when the
• Five High-end Computer Workstations • AUTO-CAD (run from OCC license• HP B/W Laserjet Printer server) MICROSTATION• HP Color Printer • HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS• HP Large scale Design Plotter • WaterCAD• 50-inch Plasma with Smart-Board and • MS Office multi-media hook-up. • Wordperfect • Visio • Adobe Acrobat • ArcView GISFigure 1 shows the layout of the work spaces and equipment provided in the Center. (a) Conference Area with Smart-Board (b) General Layout
waters.Ms. Jenna Bruntz,Prof. Rao S. Govindaraju, Purdue University - West Lafayette Rao S. Govindaraju is the Bowen Engineering Head and the Christopher B. and Susan S. Burke Professor in the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue University. He earned his PhD in civil engineering from the University of California, Davis, in 1989. His primary areas of research include surface and subsurface hydrology, contaminant transport, watershed hydrology, and climatic influences. He is interested in de- veloping algorithms for analyzing and learning from hydrologic data. He specializes in problems dealing with uncertainty and spatial variability. His scholarly accomplishments include over a 125 peer-reviewed journal articles, four
test the course concepts and objectives in acomprehensive sense. The course average for the Fall 2015 iteration of the exam was 89.1% andwas 85.8% for the Fall 2016 iteration. The exam covered material from the entire course and thescores were not adjusted, so this becomes an indicator that the students successfully attained theobjectives.The Fall 2016 final examination had a question that directly tested two course objectives. TheVersion A of the exam directly related to the course objective, “Describe how specific buildingsintegrate various building systems together successfully” by asking: Describe how theauditorium in which you now sit integrates various building systems together. Give examples.The Version B of the exam directly related to
. While there were numerous lessonslearned on effective project implementation, overall the project was viewed as a success atintroducing longitudinal design in a structural engineering course sequence.References[1] G. Nowak, B. Shoop, and L. Shay, “Deliberate Longitudinal Curricular Integration: Topical Linkages and Concept Reinforcement,” 112th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, OR. https://peer.asee.org/14924, 2005.[2] Y. Li, “Enhancing Undergraduate Education Through Research-based Learning: A Longitudinal Case Study,” 122nd ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA. https://peer.asee.org/24010. [Accessed November 2018], 2015.[3] Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U
Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).Dr. Yvette Pearson Weatherton, University of Texas, Arlington Dr. Yvette Pearson Weatherton received her Ph.D. in Engineering and Applied Science (Environmental Engineering) from the University of New Orleans in 2000. She is Associate Chair of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas at Arlington, a Program Evaluator for the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET, and a registered Professional Engineer in Louisiana.Dr. Andrew P. Kruzic P.E., University of Texas, ArlingtonDr. Heather L. FrostMr. Ziaur Rahman, The University of Texas at Arlington Ziaur Rahman received his Bachelor of Science (B. Sc.) degree in Civil Engineering from Bangladesh
BOK criteria, the 21st century civil engineer must demonstratethe following:3 1. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. (ABET a) 2. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as analyze and interpret data. (ABET b) 3. An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. (ABET c) 4. An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams. (ABET d) 5. An ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems. (ABET e) Page 11.1104.4 6. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility. (ABET f) 7. An ability to
burner istremendous. The major benefit is a reduction in panic, stress, and work the year of your visitationif your process is well documented and utilized.ASCE Program CriteriaChanges to the Program Criteria had been a topic of discussion for several years at CivilEngineering Division sessions before the new Program Criteria were officially adopted2, 3, 4. Tofacilitate cross referencing, the new (2008-2009) ASCE Program Criteria5 are numbered below: 1. (a) can apply knowledge of mathematics through differential equations, (b) calculus- based physics, (c) chemistry, (d) and at least one additional area of science consistent with the educational objectives 2. can apply knowledge of four technical areas appropriate to civil
. The main topics of the course include stress, strain,deformation, and stress/strain transformation. In the three-semester duration of this study, threefaculty members (Instructors A-C) taught lecture sections and one faculty member (Instructor C)taught laboratory sections (Table 1). Instructor C taught one section of CIVL 304 and twosections of CIVL 307 in fall 2017. The syllabi, textbook, and topics covered were identical forall lecture and laboratory sections. For this study, the summer cohorts and fall cohort are treatedas equivalent. It should be noted that Instructor A is an early-career tenure-track assistantprofessor with less than five years of teaching experience, Instructor B is a full professor withapproximately 15 years of
classroom andinfluencing how information is to be conveyed to students.This paper has shared insights with regard to how technology is shaping and changing thefundamental ways in which students interact and learn. Future research should be guidedto determine next steps as to how the next generation of students can learn effectively,including the usage of interactive classroom applications,11,12 and how professors andinstructors can be certain that their teaching efforts are reaching the audience in themanner that it was intended.Bibliography1 Landis, R. B. Studying Engineering: A Road Map to a Rewarding Career. Discovery Press, Los Angeles,2013.2 Moaveni, S. Engineering Fundamentals: An Introdcution to Engineering. Cengage Learning, Boston,2016.3
change and innovation with in the School that led to improved retention efforts [1].Several new personnel were hired, including several faculty and a retention and engagementexpert, who prioritized improvement of services to promote retention.Retention Efforts within the School of EngineeringSeveral academic and community enrichment services were implemented after 2011. The firstwas Supplemental Instruction (SI), which was designed to give students’ academic support incourses that commonly reported high percentages of low final grades (D or F) and/orwithdrawals [2]. Courses are assigned an SI Leader, which is a student who has previouslypassed the course with a final grade of B or better, to hold twice-per-week support sessions. Inaddition
.” J. Surv. Eng., 130(4), pp. 237–242.11 Estes, A. C., Welch, R. W., and Ressler, S. J. (2006). “Teaching lessons learned: The Assessment ofTeaching.” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 132(1): 2-10.12 Barry, B. E., Fox, D. J., Wendel, R. M. (2015). “A Nod in the Right Direction? Designing a Study toAssess an Instructor's Ability to Interpret Student Comprehension from Nonverbal Communication.” 2015ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, ASEE, Seattle, Washington. June 2015.13 Dick, W. and L. M. Carey, The Systematic Design of Instruction, Addison-Wesley, (1996).14 Apple, D.K., Baehr, M., Batchelor, G., Beyerlein, S., Carroll, S., Demetrio, R., Krumsieg, K., andWignall, E., ed. Foundations of Learning
powerful mobile devices (http://qdexapps.com). A mobile knowledge app hasbeen developed at SFSU using qdex to remotely conduct shake table experiments. This appallows users to send different control commands to the shake table and receive sensormeasurements in real-time through TCP/IP. Screenshots of the typical control interface of theapp for sine wave, sine sweep and earthquake inputs are shown in Figure 4. By pressing thedifferent input signal buttons, corresponding control elements (e.g. sliders and toggles)associated with the input signal chosen will be displayed which allow users to interact with theapp and customize the control signal to be sent. a) Sine Wave Input b) Sine Sweep Input c) Earthquake Input
science, which requires systems thinking. This trans-disciplinary approach,bridging engineering education, sustainability, and neuroscience is meant to open new avenuesof research.References[1] K. M. Hymel, K. A. Small, and K. V. Dender, “Induced demand and rebound effects in road transport,” Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1220–1241, Dec. 2010.[2] D. Lee, L. Klein, and G. Camus, “Induced Traffic and Induced Demand,” Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board, vol. 1659, pp. 68–75, Jan. 1999.[3] R. Cervero, “Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis,” J. Am. Plann. Assoc., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 145–163, Jun. 2003.[4] R. B. Noland, “Relationships between highway capacity and induced vehicle travel
30 Number of Cadets 25 20 15 10 5 0 F D C- C C+ B- B B+ A- A A+ Figure 1 Comparison of Grade Distributions on Mid-Term ExamsA critical question to answer concerning the increase in performance was “did those studentswho used Video AI in their preparation for the exam
infiltration theorySmall-scale Spill/Infiltration Understand and be able to University Park, Pennsylvania apply a simple infiltration algorithm, calculation of fluxes in the unsaturated and saturated soil zonesLand Development (Fig. 3(b)) Understand and be able to Central Pennsylvania calculate watershed runoff using the curve number method, the unit hydrograph and a simple channel/reservoir routing schemeDesign Flood for Control Understand
AC 2011-452: RIGOROUS EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH IN CIVIL ENGI-NEERING:Brock E. Barry, U.S. Military Academy Dr. Barry is an assistant professor and course director in the Department of Civil & Mechanical Engi- neering at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He predominately teaches in the area of engineer- ing mechanics. His current areas of research include professional ethics, economic factors influencing engineering education, identity development, and non-verbal communication. Dr. Barry is a licensed professional engineer with multiple years of consulting experience.Kathryn Purchase, United States Military Academy Major Kathryn Purchase is currently an Instructor in the Department of Civil and Mechanical
Taxonomy, students apply these fundamentals in agroup construction simulation known as the K’NEXercise. Upon completion of theK’NEXercise, and armed with a better understanding of how to utilize project controls tomanage construction, students work in groups to design a base camp in an austere environment.In support of these three sections of the course, CE450 – Construction Management has thefollowing course objectives: a. Develop, refine and manage the triple constraints of a project (Scope, Budget and Schedule) throughout the Project Life Cycle Phases. b. Plan, organize, estimate, schedule and control a construction project (K’NEXercise). c. Design a base camp and its construction.For the K’NEXercise, students in each section are
acceptable graduate-level or upper-level undergraduate courses in a specializedtechnical area and/or professional practice area related to civil engineering.” In response, Policy465 was modified in 2010 to include similar language, calling for: a. a baccalaureate degree in civil engineering b. a master’s degree in engineering, or no less that 30 coordinated graduate or upper level undergraduate technical and/or professional practice credits or the equivalent agency/organization/professional society courses which have been reviewed and approved as providing equal academic quality and rigor with at least 50 percent being engineering in nature c. appropriate experience based upon broad technical and professional practice
limit states *Significance, two tailed: p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001;As part of the survey students were also asked what grade they expected to earn on the exam.Out of a traditional 4.0 scale, the treatment section estimated an average grade of 2.74(approximately a B-) while the control section estimated earning a 3.12 (between a B and B+) onaverage for the midterm. Despite being less confident in their abilities, the control section hadhigher, and ultimately less realistic, grade expectations than the treatment section as both classaverages were on the lower cusp of a B-. For the final exam, the treatment section estimated anaverage grade of 2.24 (Between a C and C+) while the control section estimated earning a 2.67(approximately a B
exchange of drafts for the peer reviews. Nograde was associated with the peer review process.The second year, it was once again required that all reports be peer reviewed before the finalsubmittal to the faculty. However, based on student feedback, the implementation process wasmodified slightly. Students were paired up by the faculty member with randomly selectedindividuals for each lab report. Although the reports were still due in a week after the labexperiment was completed, an intermediate deadline was set for the peer review. In addition,students were required to complete a checklist (Appendix B) when carrying out the peer review.Again no grade was associated with the peer review process.Table 2 summarizes the similarities and differences
B: cell = 68 kPa 30 C: cell = 103 kPaApplied Axial Stress - kPa B 20 A 10 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Axial Strain - % Confining Applied Axial Undrained Shear
ASCE guidelines to be better aligned with the project scope, timeline, andknowledge base of the student authors. The student reviews were conducted entirelyqualitatively. In their reviews, students were expected to: a) briefly summarize the subjectmatter of the manuscript; b) comment on overall writing style and organization of themanuscript; c) identify specific problems with spelling, grammar, and/or sentence structure; d)comment on relevance and thoroughness of literature review provided in the manuscript; e)evaluate the methodology used for numerical content in the manuscript; and f) providerecommendations for improvement to the manuscript. The instructor provided similar feedbackand provided a grade (that was independent of the student
) Page 23.393.7Figure 2 CEE Department Mission, Core Values and Educational ObjectivesTable 1 Summary of Civil Engineering CEE Department Program Outcomes Dept. Program Outcome Description of Dept. Program Outcome with Leadership Linkage 1. Mathematics 2. Science 3. Solid & Fluid Mechanics 4. Experiments 5. Problems Solving a) Techniques b) Tools Design 6. a) Environmental Design systems, components, and processes within realistic 7. b) Structural constraints such as regulatory, economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, constructability, and 8. c) Land Development sustainability. 9. d
soil mechanics problem for particle grain size distributionillustrating integration of graphical and numerical components.problem correct or incorrect based on the submitted answer falling within an error bound set bythe problem’s author. For example, the coefficient of uniformity in Figure 1, part b, the value ofwhich is approximately 7.29, would be graded correct for any entry between 6.93 and 7.65. Thatrange corresponds to an error bound of + 5% chosen for this particular problem.To address the concerns of Pascarella 10 about students attempting trial and error solutions toguess the answers and in keeping with the recommendations of Kortemeyer 12, students areinitially allotted a maximum of five attempts to get the problems correct. Note in
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 Number of doughnuts () Number of doughnuts () a. Group 1 b. Group 2 Figure 3. Prior PMFThe next step in the AL exercise was to formulate a likelihood function. In the case of thedoughnuts the experimental data that can be obtained is not the number of doughnuts itself butthe approximate weight of the box. Therefore, the likelihood function would be ( | ). Each student selected one student
. The first question asked about thedefinition of sustainability as a multiple-choice question. The correct answer for this questionwas choice B, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations.” Figure 1 shows the results from the pre- and post-surveys and it can be seen fromthe figure that 12 students knew the correct answer at the beginning of the semester and by theend of the semester a total of 73 students knew the correct definition. This shows the percentageof students who knew the correct definition of sustainability increased from 16.9% to 96% aftertaking the course. This shows that the lessons have done their part in imparting the concept ofsustainable development. Figure 1: Bar graph showing
principle. To add an element of drama, I will tape the buriedtreasure to the underside of the classroom tables hours before class, so that students are surprisedwhen the treasure map actually leads to us finding something hidden in the classroom. The nextpiece of treasure uncovers a rubber resistance pull-up band, which is used to help studentsvisualize axial forces and the importance of using the internal force in the member whencalculating deflections. Two example problems later and students are leaving the classroomwondering if they actually will ever set foot on dry land again. Figure 1: (a) Eminem outfit, (b) Jello block, and (c) pirate flagTresca v. von MisesDepending on my classroom assignment, I will try to reorient the
engineering, thefollowing five-step methodology was followed: 1. Complete a literature review on innovative topics in liquefaction and sustainability. 2. Develop modules focused on liquefaction and sustainability for secondary school students including hands on activities and real world problems. 3. Apply modules at the Bucknell Engineering Camp (Summer 2011 and 2012): a. Implement modules twice per topic per year. b. Evaluate the achievement of lesson goals and objectives through student evaluations (indirect assessment). 4. Determine lessons learned from module application and evaluation results. 5. Identify further research and opportunities for future application.The following paper describes this