ABET
Self-Study Report
for the
BACHELOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
PROGRAM
at
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
AUBURN, ALABAMA
July 1, 2010
CONFIDENTIAL
The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET and its authorized agents,
and will not be disclosed without authorization of the institution concerned, except for summary data not
identifiable to a specific institution.
1
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND INFORMATION……………………………………….…..3
CRITERION 1. STUDENTS………………………………………..….………7
CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES..…….…....15
CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES……………………..…………..22
CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT……..…………………29
CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM…………………..…………………………34
CRITERION 6.
FACULTY……………………………..…………………….400
CRITERION 7 FACILITIES…………………………………………………49
CRITERION 8. SUPPORT………………………………...………………….56
CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA ……………..…………….……..62
APPENDIX A – COURSE SYLLABI……………………….……………….63
APPENDIX B – FACULTY RESUMES…………………..………………....88
APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT…………..……………...110
APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY….……….………….......112
2
Self­Study Report Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering
Auburn University
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Contact Information
The primary pre-visit contact person, is
Dr. John E. Cochran, Jr.
Professor and Head
Department of Aerospace Engineering
211 Aerospace Engineering Building
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36849-5338
(334) 844-6815
cochrjo@auburn.edu
However, for many Program details, the Program Evaluator may wish to contact
Dr. Robert S. (“Steve”) Gross
Undergraduate Program Coordinator
Department of Aerospace Engineering
211 Aerospace Engineering Building
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36849-5338
(334) 844-6846
rgross@eng.auburn.edu
B. Program History
The origins of the undergraduate program in aerospace engineering at Auburn University
are found in the courses in aeronautical engineering at the Alabama Polytechnic Institute
in the late 1920’s. Over more than seven decades, the program has evolved to meet the
changing educational requirements of engineers who specialize in “things that fly.” A
paper on the history of aerospace education at Auburn University may be found on our
website, www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/.
The 2009-2010 Auburn University Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletin
www.auburn.edu/student_info/bulletin/engineering.pdf includes the following
descriptive information of the current curriculum:
“Aerospace engineers are concerned with the application of scientific
principles and engineering concepts and practices to design, build, test,
and operate aerospace systems. The curriculum is intended to provide
students with a broad understanding of fundamental scientific and
technological principles, and to develop the ability to use these principles
in developing solutions to engineering problems. … Required courses
cover aeronautical and astronautical subjects. Technical electives allow
concentration in such areas as aerodynamics, astronautics, flight dynamics
and control, propulsion, structures and structural dynamics. The design of
aerospace components and systems is considered to be an integral part of
the education of aerospace engineers. Hence, design is included
throughout the curriculum, beginning with a sophomore course in
aerospace fundamentals and culminating in the senior design course
sequence. Students are required to apply their theoretical knowledge of
aerodynamics, dynamics, structures and propulsion to solve open-ended
problems and to produce portions of preliminary designs.”
A program in Aeronautical Engineering was implemented at Alabama Polytechnic
Institute in 1942 and the Department of Aeronautical Engineering was established in
1945. In 1960, Alabama Polytechnic Institute was renamed Auburn University and the
designation “Aeronautical” in the program and department names was changed to
“Aerospace” to reflect changes in curriculum in response to the start of the “Space Age.”
The Aerospace Engineering Program (“the Program”) has continuously produced
graduates since 1960.
Major Program changes occurred in 2000 when Auburn University changed to the
semester system. The most significant change was the developing new courses in the
semester format from our quarter format courses while keeping the total content the
same. This was rather difficult due to the constraints of 128 total semester hours with 36
of those in “core” curriculum. We restructured our labs and combined some courses. For
example, the two, three-quarter-hour courses, Static Stability and Control and Dynamic
Stability and Control, were combined as Flight Dynamics, a four-semester-hour course.
Since there are fewer courses in the semester system curriculum than the quarter system,
options are more limited and we are still looking for ways to get more variety.
Additional aspects of these changes were discussed during the 2004 ABET visit. Since
2004, a number of changes “fine-tuning” have been made as a part of the ABET
continuous quality improvement process. These are discussed in section 4-B of this SelfStudy.
C. Options
There are no options or tracks in the Program. The Program is more heavily weighted
toward aeronautical engineering with a required course in orbital mechanics, some rocket
4
propulsion in AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion, and electives in orbital mechanics,
rocket propulsion, space propulsion, and other astronautical subjects.
D. Organizational Structure
The Aerospace program is the responsibility of the Aerospace department chair, Dr. John
Cochran, with the assistance of the Aerospace Curriculum Committee, chaired by the
Undergraduate Program Coordinator, Dr. Steve Gross. On academic matters, Dr.
Cochran reports to the Dean of Engineering, Dr. Larry Benefield, via the Associate Dean
for Academics, Dr. Joe Morgan, and the Associate Dean for Assessment, Dr. Nels
Madsen. The Dean of Engineering reports to Provost and Vice-President for Academic
Affairs, Dr. Mary Ellen Mazey. Under the provost is the Associate Provost for
Undergraduate Studies, who chairs the University Curriculum Committee, which reviews
and approves all curriculum changes. The provost reports to the University President, Dr.
Jay Gogue, who in turn reports to the Board of Trustees. Further details on the
Organizational Structure are available in the College Self-Study.
E. Program Delivery Modes
All undergraduate engineering programs are on-campus in nature. Courses include a
variety of experiences including lectures, recitations, and laboratories. Many courses and
instructors make extensive use of the Blackboard Learning System (campus learning
management system). A substantial portion of the classrooms used are technologyenabled. Within the College of Engineering most lecture courses are taught by faculty.
Graduate teaching assistants provide support and often conduct laboratory sessions.
Cooperative education opportunities are available and are exploited by many students,
but do not replace any program requirements. Many extra-curricular professional
activities are explored by students, but again those do not replace any program
requirements.
F. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the
Actions Taken to Address Them
The Final Statement for the Program in the 2004 ABET Report included program
strengths, observations, and concerns, but no weaknesses or deficiencies. Only two
Concerns were mentioned.
The first Concern was that the number of faculty members (ten full-time and one parttime) was not large enough to meet the requirements of the Program and achieve the
goals and objectives of the college in research and graduate education. Although funds
have not been available to add additional faculty members, we have done well in finding
new faculty members to fill positions left vacant by retirements. Dr. Rhonald M. Jenkins
retired in August 2004 and we hired Dr. Brian S. Thurow, an Ohio State graduate, in
December 2005. Dr. Thurow, who specializes in non-obtrusive measurement of fluid
flows, has done exceptionally well in both instruction and research. He achieve tenure
and promotion in 2009. When Dr. John E. Burkhalter retired in December 2004, we
started a search for a faculty member with expertise in the area of dynamics and control.
5
We were fortunate to find and hire Dr. Andrew J. Sinclair, a Texas A&M Ph.D., who has
also done very well, achieving tenure and promotion this year (2010). Another change
occurred in 2005 when Dr. Ron Barrett went back to his alma mater, the University of
Kansas. We conducted another search and found Dr. Gilbert L. Crouse (Ph.D.,
University of Maryland). As explained later in this report, Dr. Crouse was an excellent
replacement for aircraft design. Still another change occurred in 2005. Col. James Voss,
a former astronaut, who was an associate dean in the College of Engineering, but also
taught our Space Mission Design course, left the university to take a position in the
aerospace industry. Finally, another personnel change occurred in 2007 when Dr.
Christopher J. Roy, went to Virginia Tech. We were fortunate to rather quickly find
another CFD expert, Dr. Andrew B. Shelton, who has made the transition for industry to
academia without any problems.
The result of all the foregoing changes is that we have gotten some very good new faculty
members, who will contribute in both instruction and research, but the number full-time
Program faculty members has not increased. Our overall numbers have however
increased because we were provided funds by the College for an additional staff member,
Ms. Lisa Avrit, to serve as a Student Advisor. Ms. Avrit has done an excellent job,
thereby relieving the Program Coordinator, Dr. Gross, of a substantial portion of the load
he had been carrying. We are hopeful that our increased success in obtaining extramural
research and a strong economic recovery will allow us to add some more faculty
members, perhaps on non-tenure track appointments, who will also help with instruction.
We also plan to seek some help from some of our alumni who have retired from NASA
to add some more space related content to our Program.
The second Concern was that the documentation of the assessment process needed to be
improved. We have made a concerted effort to address this Concern and those efforts are
detailed in the body of this Self-Study.
6
CRITERION 1. STUDENTS
A. Student Admissions
All entering students, both freshmen and transfers, apply for admission through the
Admissions Office of Auburn University. Freshmen are required to submit copies of
high school transcripts ACT or SAT records, answers to essay questions, information
provided in the activities and interest from, and an application form with required fees.
Transfer student admission and processes is described below in Section D.
The Office of Admissions is responsible for evaluating all applicants to Auburn
University. That office is authorized to admit students to the pre-engineering program.
Transfer students who are admitted to pre-engineering are reviewed by personnel within
the College of Engineering and may be admitted to the upper division, if qualified.
Admission requirements for freshmen entering the pre-engineering program are based
upon the evaluation of a number of criteria and meeting the needs and capacity
requirements of the university. While no minimum test scores and grade point average
are specified, generally students are expected to present a minimum 3.0 cumulative grade
point average, ACT score of 23 or SAT score of 1090, and successful completion of 4
years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 2 years of science, and 3 years of social studies.
Exceptions to these “general” requirements may be made for applicants that fall within
the range of acceptance based on university policy. Tables 1.1 Tables 1.1a, 1.1b and 1.1c:
Students section provides historical information on admitted students over the past few years.
B. Evaluating Student Performance
Engineering Student Services advises, supports, and monitors the performance of
engineering students. Freshmen admitted to pre engineering are expected to complete the
requirements for admission to the upper division within four academic semesters and
maintain a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.2. Course requirements include
the completion of two semesters of calculus, two semesters of lab science, one class in
computing, one introductory class in engineering problem solving, and an engineering
seminar. In addition, students must complete other freshman level courses in the
university core curriculum and achieve sophomore standing. If a student does not satisfy
the requirements within four semesters, prior to achieving junior status (61 hours), they
are dismissed from the College of Engineering.
Transfers admitted to pre engineering are evaluated by academic advisors within the
College of Engineering to determine eligibility for advancement to the upper division.
When a student has satisfied the pre-engineering requirements, they are advanced to the
upper division and permitted to take course work within their chosen major. In the case of
students who are not prepared to advance to the upper division, they are advised to take
course work that will ensure the completion of all requirements. The time required for a
transfer student to advance to the upper division is predicated on the number of
transferable credit hours.
7
After admission to an engineering program, Engineering Student Services continues to
provide student support and record keeping, however a larger share of the guidance
progress moves to the academic program.
C. Advising Students
Academic advising is paramount for entering freshmen. At Auburn University this begins
with Camp War Eagle. This two-day summer session is attended by nearly all entering
freshman (over 98% in 2009). Students admitted to Pre-Engineering meet with faculty
and staff from the College of Engineering and begin planning their academic career. Fall
schedules are planned and finalized during Camp War Eagle. Academic advisors rely on
high school grades, standardized test scores, math placement exams, and individual
counseling when advising students. Advising policies are guided by the results of an
extended research program conducted for the College of Engineering by two former
Auburn University faculty members and researchers: Drs. Gerald Halpin and Glennelle
Halpin. After Camp War Eagle, Engineering Student Services (ESS) continues to serve
as a primary resource to students. Prior to every semester, every pre-engineering student
works with ESS or specified departmental advisors to develop an approved schedule.
After admission to an engineering program, schedule approval is a joint responsibility of
ESS and the academic program.
Academic advising is an extremely important part of the Aerospace Engineering
program. Pre-aerospace engineering students are advised by personnel in Engineering
Student Services. Once a student is in major (meaning they have completed all of the
pre-aerospace requirements), our Academic Advisor, advises him/her. All official
student records are maintained by Engineering Student Services; however, the Academic
Advisor and Undergraduate Program Coordinator have access to all student records
through BANNER. The Academic Advisor also keeps a folder on each student in the
program and updates the progress of each student at least once per semester.
Prior to the summer of 2009, all advising was done by the Undergraduate Program
Coordinator, Dr. R. Steven Gross. Based on one of the Concerns noted by ABET in the
2004 review, the Dean of the College of Engineering authorized the creation of a fulltime, staff, Academic Advisor position. In June of 2009, the department hired Mrs. Lisa
Avrit into this position as Departmental Academic Advisor. She has a B.S. in Chemical
Engineering and three years of industrial experience.
Currently, the Academic Advisor advises all aerospace engineering students on a one-onone basis. Face-to-face meetings are the primary means of advisement, but
communication via e-mail is also used. All aerospace students are required to meet with
the academic advisor at least once per semester prior to registering for next semester’s
classes. This is accomplished by blocking registration for students until they have met
with the academic advisor. The Undergraduate Program Coordinator and Academic
Advisor encourage and motivate students who appear to be having academic difficulties
to contact them for further help.
8
Based on senior exit interviews and informal discussions with students, the students
appear to be pleased with the advising process. The total enrollment of sophomores,
juniors and seniors in the aerospace engineering program in the fall of 2010 was 117.
D. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses
Transfer students with 30 semester hours or more of credit are required to submit copies
of transcripts from all colleges/universities attended and an application with required
fees. If a transfer applicant presents fewer than 30 semester hours, in addition to the
aforementioned information, high school transcripts and ACT or SAT records must be
provided.
Auburn University requires a 2.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale on all college work attempted by
transfer students applying for enrollment to the university. Students must also be eligible
to re-enter the institution last attended. Transfer applicants who were not eligible for
admission to Auburn when they graduated from high school must present a minimum of
32 semester hours of college credit. At least one course in each of the following areas
must be completed: English (college-level composition or literature), History,
Mathematics (approved core mathematics for articulation and general studies), and
Natural Science with a laboratory. Exceptions to these requirements are cleared through
the Engineering Student Services Office.
All students admitted to the College of Engineering by the Office of Enrollment
Management are accepted to the pre-engineering program. Engineering advisors
determine when a transfer student is eligible to advance into a departmental major based
on the completion of courses required in their respective curricula.
Alabama public institutions have an articulation agreement that outlines equivalent
courses among member schools. The agreement is adhered to in accepting credit from
Alabama institutions. More information on the articulation agreement can be found in
the College Self-Study. Credit for engineering content course work from any program
(within or outside of the state of Alabama) that is not specifically accredited by the EAC,
is granted only after the fact, based upon careful review of the course content, and is
limited to lower-level fundamental engineering science courses such as statics, for
example.
The articulation agreement led to the establishment of an Internet world wide web site
(http://stars.troyst.edu/agsc_stars_home.htm) for the use of prospective transfer students
and others who may have interests in learning more about the system and ascertaining
which courses are likely to be readily transferred to specific Auburn University
engineering programs.
Transfer work from private institutions and out of state institutions is judged on the basis
of catalog descriptions of general courses and a syllabus from specific courses. Core
courses in question are referred to the equivalent department on campus to make a
judgment. Engineering courses that are offered in other state institutions are evaluated
9
and accepted upon approval of the department of the incoming transfer student.
University policy provides that credit for courses taken at another institution may be
awarded, but the earned grade is not transferable and is not calculated in the student’s
Auburn grade point average. Courses in which a student earned a grade of “D’ at another
institution may be accepted for credit, however, the student is expected to present the
required grade point average of 2.5 for admission. Transfer students are treated in the
same manner as native students. If a “D” grade is considered passing for an Auburn
student, the same treatment is provided for the transfer student. The state of Alabama
requires a grade of “C” in English Composition I and II. Therefore, any grade below this
level for a transfer student is not acceptable. Those cases in which an engineering
department specifies that a grade of “C” or better is required for a course that serves as a
prerequisite to the next course in the curriculum, transfer credit below the required “C” is
not acceptable.
Table 1.2 at the end of Criterion 1: Students section provides historical information on
transfer students.
E. Graduation Requirements
Auburn University requires an overall 2.0 cumulative grade point average, and a 2.0
grade point average within the student’s major. Any additional program specific
guidelines or requirements are described in the program self-study. Students preparing to
graduate with an undergraduate engineering degree are required to “clear for graduation”
through an academic advisor in Engineering Student Services. Prior to entering the
scheduled term of graduation, students are required to enroll for UNIV 4AA0, a nongraded course entitled “Undergraduate Graduation”. Enrollment in this course alerts the
Registrar’s Office and the academic advisor to the student’s status.
Academic folders are maintained on each student with current information that indicates
the satisfactory completion of all course requirements. During the student’s meeting with
the advisor to clear for graduation, course completion is reviewed, grade point averages
are calculated, and students are cleared to graduate if all requirements are fulfilled. If the
student fails to meet any course requirements they are advised on the course(s) to take
prior to graduation. In such cases where there is a deficit in the required grade point
average, students are advised on the grades that must be earned for graduation. Sample
student transcripts will be provided to the visiting team. Copies of the student folder and
the corresponding checklist appropriate to the student program will accompany the
transcripts. A written analysis of the student record by the Aerospace Engineering
Academic Advisor will be prepared and included.
For students completing their final semester, at the conclusion of final examinations and
prior to graduation, the academic advisor reviews all information. If a student fails to
meet the graduation requirements, in either the required curriculum or grade point
average, the Registrar’s Office is notified and the student is not permitted to graduate.
10
F. Enrollment and Graduation Trends
The strategic plans of Auburn University and the College of Engineering identify optimal
enrollment levels as roughly 25,000 and 4,000 students respectively. Current enrollments
at both the University and College levels are consistent with the plan, however both the
University and the College would like to increase the percentage of enrolled students
seeking graduate degrees. Auburn University targets a new freshman enrollment of
roughly 4,000 each fall. The University seeks a talented, diverse student body. Table 11a indicates a steady climb in the average ACT and SAT scores of entering freshman.
Entering freshman pre-engineering students are described in table 1-1b and their ACT
and SAT score trends tend to reflect but typically exceed those of the general student
body. The enrollment in the College of Engineering has been increasing, both at the
undergraduate and graduate levels. Graduation numbers have remained relatively stable
reflecting enrollment trends up to 2005. Table 1.3a and 1.3b at the end of the Criterion 1:
Students section provides historical information on enrollment and graduation numbers
for both the College of Engineering and Auburn University as a whole.
11
Table 1-1a. History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past
Five Years
Aerospace Engineering
Academic Year
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
Composite ACT
MIN.
AVG.
17
28
21
28
16
27
16
26
20
27
Composite SAT
MIN.
AVG.
1090
1321
1020
1256
800
1194
1030
1207
1020
1204
Percentile Rank in High
School
MIN.
AVG.
25
82
37
77
33
74
33
76
40
84
Number of New
Students
Enrolled
94
119
89
73
71
Table 1-1b. History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past
Five Years
Auburn University
Academic Year
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
Composite ACT
MIN.
AVG.
15
26.2
16
25.9
16
24.9
14
24.3
14
24.1
Composite SAT
MIN.
AVG.
710
1183
690
1175
570
1138
770
1128
610
1127
Percentile Rank in High
School
MIN.
AVG.
10
78
14
78
3
76
4
75
5
74
Number of New
Students
Enrolled
3,918
3,984
4,191
4,092
4,197
Table 1-1c. History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past
Five Years
Auburn University – Pre-Engineering
Academic Year
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
Composite ACT
MIN.
AVG.
17
27.8
18
26.9
16
26.3
16
25.4
16
25.5
Composite SAT
MIN.
AVG.
940
1266
790
1236
800
1198
790
1199
900
1194
Percentile Rank in High
School
MIN.
AVG.
22
81
20
79
7
79
10
78
12
77
Table 1-2. Transfer Students for Past Five Academic Years
College of Engineering
Number of Transfer Students
Enrolled
214
209
200
181
166
Academic Year
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
12
Number of New
Students
Enrolled
890
841
770
712
692
Table 1-3a. Engineering Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years
(College of Engineering)
Year
2005-06
2,491
Full-time Students
280
Part-time Students
1
2,578
Student FTE
651
Graduates
1
FTE = Full-Time Equivalent
Year
2006-07
2,514
Year
2007-08
2,701
Year
2008-09
2,977
Year
2009-10
3,235
302
2,600
653
312
2,795
671
357
3,086
720
316
3,347
754
Table 1-3b. Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years
(Auburn University)
Year
2005-06
17,778
Full-time Students
1,476
Part-time Students
18,455
Student FTE1
4,079
Graduates
1
FTE = Full-Time Equivalent
Year
2006-07
17,810
Year
2007-08
18,148
Year
2008-09
18,377
Year
2009-10
18,387
1,557
18,493
4,180
1,664
18,901
4,325
1,660
19,134
4,493
1,539
19,099
4,676
Table 1-3c. Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years
(Aerospace Engineering)
Year
2005-06
221
Full-time Students
19
Part-time Students
1
?
Student FTE
48
Graduates
1
FTE = Full-Time Equivalent
Year
2006-07
241
Year
2007-08
237
Year
2008-09
281
Year
2009-10
317
6
?
48
18
?
55
19
?
45
12
?
43
13
Table 1-4. Program Graduates
Prior
Degree(s) if
Master
Student
Certification/Licensure
(If Applicable)
Initial or Current
Employment/Job
Title/Other
Placement
Graduate
Student/Purdue
Numerical
Identifier
Year
Matriculated
Year
Graduated
1
2005
2009
2
2005
2009
3
2005
2009
4
2005
2009
5
2005
2009
6
2003
2009
7
2004
2009
8
2004
2009
9
2005
2009
Decisive Analytics
10
2004
2009
11
2001
2009
Northrup Grumman
Mando/Quality
Engineer
12
2005
2009
13
2004
2009
14
2003
2009
15
2006
2009
16
2005
2009
17
2003
2009
18
2004
2009
19
2005
2009
20
2005
2009
21
2005
2009
22
2003
2009
23
2005
2009
24
2004
2009
25
2006
2009
Graduate
Student/Auburn
Decisive Analytics
Graduate
Student/Florida State
Graduate
Student/Auburn
US Navy
Department of
Defense
Graduate
Student/Auburn
Graduate
Student/Purdue
Graduate
Student/Purdue
Graduate
Student/Auburn
14
CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
A. Mission Statement
The Mission Statement of Auburn University, published on page 5 of the Auburn
University Bulletin, www.auburn.edu/student_info/bulletin/university.pdf is reproduced
here:
“Mission. Auburn University’s mission is defined by its land-grant traditions of
service and access. The university will serve the citizens of the State through its
instructional, research and outreach programs and prepare Alabamians to respond
successfully to the challenges of a global economy. The university will provide
traditional and non-traditional students broad access to the institution’s educational
resources. In the delivery of educational programs on campus and beyond, the
university will draw heavily upon the new instructional and outreach technologies
available in the emerging information age.
As a comprehensive university, Auburn University is committed to offering highquality undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to its students. The
university will give highest priority for resource allocation for the future development
of those areas that represent the traditional strengths, quality, reputation, and
uniqueness of the institution and that continue to effectively respond to the needs of
students and other constituents. Consistent with this commitment, the university will
emphasize a broad and superior undergraduate education that imparts the knowledge,
skills, and values so essential to educated and responsible citizens. At the same time,
the university will provide high-quality graduate and professional programs in areas
of need and importance to the state and beyond. To accomplish these educational
goals, Auburn University will continue to compete nationally to attract a faculty
distinguished by its commitment to teaching and by its achievements in research, both
pure and applied. The university will strive to attract a faculty that will bring
distinction and stature to the undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs
offered by the university. Because research is essential to the mission of a land-grant
university, Auburn University will continue development of its research programs.
The primary focus of this research will be directed to the solution of problems and the
development of knowledge and technology important to the state and nation and to
the quality of life of Alabama citizens.”
B. Program Educational Objectives
The Educational Objectives of the Program are:
1. to provide our new graduates with the necessary analytical and communication
skills either to pursue graduate study or to enter the aerospace workforce directly;
15
2. to provide our alumni with an appreciation of the necessity to adapt, through lifelong learning, to both the constantly changing needs and demands of society and
to their evolving personal career goals.
These objectives are published on our web site
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/programs/aero/programs/accreditation.html .
C. Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the
Institution
A portion of the Mission of Auburn University Mission statement reads, “… The
university will serve the citizens of the State through its instructional, research and
outreach programs and prepare Alabamians to respond successfully to the challenges of a
global economy...” and also provides “…Consistent with this commitment, the university
will emphasize a broad and superior undergraduate education that imparts the
knowledge, skills, and values so essential to educated and responsible citizens.”
(emphasis added) Thus, the mission of Auburn University is consistent with Objective 1.
There is implied consistency with Objective 2 because one of the values of “educated and
responsible citizens” should be an appreciation of life-long learning.
D. Program Constituencies
The Program Constituencies are
1. Students
2. Alumni
3. Aerospace Employers
4. Government Employers
We consider our students, who are later alumni, and (in some cases) citizens of the State
of Alabama, to be our primary constituency. Other “constituencies,” who are more like
third party beneficiaries, are the aerospace industry and government employers of our
graduates. All of these are represented on various committees and boards that provide
advice and feedback to the Department, either directly, or indirectly. In fact, most of the
above identified constituencies are represented by members of our Aerospace
Engineering Advisory Council (AEAC), since it consists primarily of residents of the
State of Alabama, who are, or were, affiliated with industry and/or government
employers of our graduates, and were students in this department.
E. Process for Establishing Program Educational Objectives
Educational Objective 1 is intended to be broad enough to cover all graduates, if they do
as well as we intend. Of course some graduates of our program enter a part of the
workforce that is not categorized as “aerospace.” This is sometimes dictated by the
graduate and sometimes by circumstances beyond their control, such as the economy.
However, our program is intended to provide analytical and communication skills that
will allow them all to enter the aerospace workforce and/or to pursue graduate study in
aerospace engineering, or a closely related field, immediately upon graduation. For those
16
who choose other types of jobs or graduate education, the analytical and communication
skills they acquire will enable them to be initially successful also.
After the initial step of obtaining a job or entering graduate school, Objective 2 comes
into play. Regarding the need for life long learning, faculty members frequently remind
students in classroom lectures that, since aerospace engineering is a changing field,
subsequent to their graduation they must continue to learn in order to remain competitive
as an aerospace engineer.
Before the 2004 visit, our educational objectives were developed and adopted in a
collaborative effort. Faculty members formulated objectives similar to the ones adopted.
Then, the Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council (AEAC) reviewed and discussed the
proposed objectives and recommended changes, which were reviewed by the faculty and
incorporated. We then established a process for periodically evaluating and, if necessary,
modifying these Educational Objectives. The process includes the faculty, students,
alumni, and AEAC members. Annually, the faculty, students, and the AEAC review our
educational objectives, and the assessment results, and recommend actions to be taken.
Our Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council played a major role adopting our
Educational Objectives. In the Spring of 2010, the more active members of the AEAC
were:
• Lawrence Burger '80 (ChE), Director, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense
Command's (SMDC’s) Space and Missile Battle Lab, Huntsville, AL.
• Louis Connor '66, Retired Principal Engineer, Lockheed Martin Space & Missile
Defense Technologies.
• Frederick A. Davis ‘72, Technical Director, Assessment and Demonstrations
Division, Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate, Eglin AFB, FL.
• U. S. Air Force Research Lab, Eglin AFB
• Charles E. "Gene" Fuller ’63, '65*, CEO, REMTECH, Inc., Birmingham, AL
• Ronald Harris '59, Senior Executive, NASA and Boeing (retired)
• Ralph Hoodless '59, Senior Executive, NASA, MSFC (retired)
• Robert M. Jones '66, ’68, Retired, Business Development Manager, Missile
Defense Programs, Northrop-Grumman
• Richard Kretzschmar ’89, Deputy Director, Systems Simulation and Modeling
Development Directorate, AMRDEC, AMCOM, Huntsville, AL.
• Mark Miller, '84, '85, Manager, Missile Systems Department, Dynetics, Inc.,
Huntsville, AL.
• Morris Penny '59, Retired, Senior Engineer Lockheed Martin
• Rex Powell '49, Retired, Director Applied Sensors, Guidance, and
Electronics Directorate, AMRDEC, AMCOM, Huntsville, AL.
• Norman O. Speakman ‘72, ‘74, Principal Research Engineer, Georgia Tech
Research
Institute, Inc, Huntsville, AL.
• James Voss ‘72, Retired NASA Astronaut, Col. (Ret.) U.S. Army, Currently,
Scholar in Residence Aerospace Engineering Sciences and Roubos Chair, University
of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
• Thomas J. Williams ‘87 (ME), Manager, Propulsion Systems Department
17
NASA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL.
• John E. Cochran, Jr. ‘66, ‘67, Professor and Head, Department of Aerospace
Engineering, Auburn University.
All members of the AEAC except Mr. Burger and Mr. Williams are graduates of the
Program. Two members, Mr. Burger and Mr. Williams, accepted membership on the
Council because of the relationships of their positions to aerospace.
Since its formation in the early 1990’s, the AEAC has been actively involved in
providing assistance to the department in achieving its goals and objectives regarding
instruction and research. The AEAC meets twice a year and also at the request of the
department head when circumstances warrant.
In the mid to late 1990’s, AEAC members reviewed the aerospace engineering
curriculum and the new semester curriculum prior to its implementation in 2000. The
chairman and other members, frequently provide advice to the department head on the
state of the aerospace industry and the suitability of the curriculum for preparing
engineering graduates to contribute. Moreover, members serve as advocates to the
university administration in efforts to obtain additional resources and faculty members.
Although it pertains more to outcomes than educational objectives, we note here that
three members of the AEAC, Mr. Morris Penny, Mr. Gene Fuller, and Mr. Louis Connor,
have interviewed graduating seniors on essentially an annual basis since 2002. Initially,
these interviews were face-to-face meetings between a sample of the graduating senior
class and the members of the AEAC team. The current system is an on-line survey that is
completed by all graduating seniors in the Spring semester with the survey results being
directly sent to the AEAC team. The team members analyze the survey results and then
write a summary report for the Department Head, Dr. Cochran. Prior to the students
completing the on-line survey, the AEAC team comes to campus for a discussion with
the students concerning the survey and their experiences with situations concerning
professional ethics.
The results obtained from the AEAC senior surveys are discussed in the section dealing
with Outcomes. The on-line survey questionnaire and AEAC summary reports will be
provided to the Visitor at the time of the visit.
F. Achievement of Program Educational Objectives
Although it is impossible to ensure 100% achievement of our educational objectives
(because they are based on what our graduates achieve after graduation), we do expect
that a large percentage of our graduates will either be employed in the aerospace field or
enter graduate school. We are confident that our graduates who achieve a cumulative
grade point average of 3.0 or better are qualified to pursue post-graduate engineering
education. We are confident that all our graduates are prepared for entry-level positions
in aerospace engineering.
18
In order to assess how well the Department is meeting these two Educational Objectives,
a survey questionnaire was sent to a total of one-hundred and thirteen (113) of our alumni
who graduated within the last five years. Twenty-nine (29) responses were received, for
a response rate of 25.7%. The questions and a breakdown of responses follow. All
questions were not answered by all respondents, nor were explanations and/or
elaborations given in all cases. In some cases, multiple answers were given.
Regarding Objective 1, the responses indicate that:
• 45% entered the aerospace workforce directly;
• 45% either pursued and obtained (38%), or are still working towards (7%) an
advanced degree;
• 10% entered the workforce in a non-aerospace related area (this includes military
service).
These results are consistent with exit interviews of students conducted over the last six
years by the Department Head. Results of those interviews will be provided at the time
of the visit.
Of those graduates who indicated that they entered the aerospace workforce directly,
• 14% obtained a job related to aerodynamics;
• 17% obtained a job related to aerospace structures;
• 3% obtained a job related to aerospace guidance, navigation, stability, and
control;
• 7% obtained a job related to propulsion;
• 34% obtained a job related to aerospace design, modeling, and/or simulation;
• 21% obtained a job in “other” aerospace applications.
We think that this demonstrates that the Aerospace Engineering Department provides a
well-balanced program which allows our graduates to successfully enter the aerospace
workforce in a wide variety of program areas.
Results concerning preparation for employment and/or graduate education are contained
in Table 1:
Table 2-1. Assessment results for Educational Objective 1
Inadequate
Adequate, with
Deficiencies*
Adequate, with no
Deficiencies
Analytical Preparation
4%
50%
46%
Oral Communications
Preparation
7%
29%
64%
Written Communications
Preparation
7%
32%
61%
*Notes: (1) The word deficiencies was used in the questionnaire to indicate that
something that the graduate would have liked to be included in the Program was, in
19
his/her opinion not present to the degree desired. (2) In this section it means that
Percentages have been rounded to nearest percent.
Regarding analytical preparation, one individual (4%) replied that analytical preparation
was inadequate, but provided no additional feedback. The primary curriculum criticisms
noted were: no business related curriculum content; no formal CAD instruction, and a
need for a stronger connection between classroom theory and the “real world.” If we are
to cover adequately the engineering component of our program, then there is currently no
room in our curriculum for business-related content. However, students may now choose
a Business-Engineering-Technology minor (16 hours of business).
Regarding CAD instruction, the constraint of a maximum 128 semester hours limits the
number of hours that can be devoted to CAD, machine shop practices and other
technology-related activities. Courses introducing the students to CAD software
packages such as Solid Edge and AutoCAD are offered by the Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering departments at Auburn. Aerospace students are encouraged by the
Academic Advisor and Program Coordinator to consider taking these courses as part of
their Aero/Astro elective hours. Some students take the available courses. Others learn
on their own when they perceive the need. Still others make drawings by hand, are work
in teams with members who can provide assistance with CAD software.
Regarding oral and written communications skills: 2 individuals (7%) replied that
preparation was inadequate, but provided no additional feedback. A large portion of
those responding cited the need for more oral classroom presentation experiences and
additional technical writing experiences. In AERO 3130: Aerodynamics Laboratory, the
students produce multiple, extensive individual written reports. In the two-semester,
capstone design sequence (AERO 4710 and 4720), the students must submit an
individual written report and make an oral presentation during the Fall semester. In the
Spring semester, each student team completes both a final written report and oral
presentation.
Regarding Objective 2, the responses to the alumni survey indicate that:
• 41% believe that their personal career goals have not changed since graduation
• 59% believe that their career goals have changed “somewhat” or “greatly”
Concerning the importance of life-long learning and intellectual growth, all respondents
(100%) indicated that such activity was very important.
The final survey question encompasses both Objective 1 and Objective 2 and relates to an
overall assessment of our program with regard to its effectiveness:
• 4% said “overall, it could have been better”
• 14% said “mostly adequate, but with some deficiencies”
• 39% said “my preparation was adequate”
• 43% said “my preparation was excellent”
Thus, the survey indicated that 82% of the respondents considered the Program to have
been adequate to excellent.
20
The most common comments about the overall curriculum were (in no particular order):
• Too little relation between textbook equations and “real world” applications
• A lack of “hands on experiences”
Making the connection between classroom theory and the “real world” is something that
we are working on continuously. The ENGR 1100: Engineering Orientation course
exposes the students to “real” engineers and the AIAA Student Chapter host speakers
several times each year. Coursework involving “hands-on” experiences include the
AERO 3130: Aerodynamics Laboratory and the AERO 3610: Aerospace Structures I
courses. Students may also elect to participate on the AIAA, Design, Build and Fly team,
the NASA Reduced Gravity Experiment team and several other College of Engineering
student team projects.
21
Criterion 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES
A. Process for Establishing and Revising Program Outcomes
The entire departmental faculty developed the original set of program outcomes in 2002.
These original (and current) outcomes consist of the ABET program outcomes a-k and an
additional outcome specific to aerospace engineering. The entire faculty meets on a sixyear cycle to consider program outcomes. The last meeting that specifically addressed
the program outcomes was held during the Fall of 2008.
B. Program Outcomes
Our program outcomes are listed below
Table 3-1. Program Outcomes
Outcome
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
Definition
An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering appropriate to
aerospace engineering
An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
An ability to communicate effectively
the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering in a societal
context
a recognition of the need for, and an ability to, engage in life-long learning
a knowledge of contemporary issues
An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice
a basic knowledge of the following aerospace fields: aerodynamics, flight dynamics,
orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials
The program outcomes listed above encompass the ABET Outcomes and satisfy the
Aerospace Program criteria. These program outcomes our documented on the Aerospace
Engineering Department website.
C. Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives
The relationship between the Program Outcomes and Educational Objectives is depicted
in the following table.
22
Table 3-2. Relationship of Educational Objectives to Program Outcomes
Outcomes
Educational Objectives
a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.
b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret data.
c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired goals.
d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams.
e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.
f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
g) an ability to communicate effectively.
h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global context.
li) atirecognition
i
l bofl thedneedi for,
t l andt antability to engage in life-long learning
j) a knowledge of contemporary issues.
k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
necessary for engineering practice.
l) a basic knowledge of the following aerospace fields: aerodynamics,
flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials
1
♠
♠
2
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
♠
D. Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the Program Outcomes
The relationships between the departmental courses and the program outcomes are
depicted in following table.
Table 3-3. Course-Outcome Matrix
Outcome
/Course
2200
3110
3120
3130
3220
3230
3310
3610
4140
4510
4620
4630
4710
4720
4AA0
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b
c
d
X
X
X
X
X
X
e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f
g
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
h
X
X
X
X
X
j
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
k
l
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
23
Since the last ABET review in 2004, the departmental faculty has seen an approximately
50% turnover, due to retirements and departures. Consequently, it became clear that the
“newer” and “older” faculty needed to meet and discuss each course in detail to maintain
continuity in the course material and coverage.
The above table was created by the departmental faculty through a Course Review
process that started in September of 2008 and extended to the end of January 2009.
Small review committees (2-5 faculty members) were created to review each of the
courses listed in the above table. The committee members consisted of faculty that were
either responsible for teaching the particular course or those who taught “follow-on”
courses.
Each committee discussed and agreed upon the course topic coverage, the course
textbook, and the program outcomes that are encompassed by the course material. A
Course Review document was prepared for each course by the program coordinator, Dr.
Steve Gross, for use in the discussion at each committee meeting. Also, a final set of
minutes were produced for each of the Course Review meetings. These documents will
be available for the ABET Visitor to review at the time of his/her visit.
E. Documentation
The documentation of the attempts by the Department to verify that our graduates meet
all of the Program Outcomes is primarily associated with the coursework produced by
our students as they progress toward their undergraduate degree. Samples of student
coursework will be available for review by the ABET Visitor. We have set aside a small
conference room (Davis 207) in which we will provide the information on the conference
table and bookcases using labeled notebooks and files.
Another important method employed to verify the achievement of these Program
Outcomes is the self-assessment completed by our graduating senior students. Two selfassessments are done by the seniors. The first is a one-on-one interview with the
Department Head, Dr. Cochran, during the semester of their graduation (Senior Exit
Interview-SEI). The second self-assessment is on on-line instrument that was created by
one of our AE Advisory Council members, Mr. Morris Penny (Advisory Council
Instrument- ACI). The students fill out the on-line instrument and the results are sent via
email to Mr. Penny. Mr. Penny and two other AE Advisory Council members, Mr. Gene
Fuller and Mr. Louis Connor review the student assessments and then write a report to
Dr. Cochran summarizing their findings. The on-line assessment offers the students an
opportunity to evaluate the achievement of the Program Outcomes in an anonymous
environment. The documentation associated with both of these self-assessments will be
available for review during the ABET visit.
Finally, our graduating seniors complete a series of assessment instruments collectively
called the Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument (CPAI) in the areas of
aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials
24
which are associated with Program Outcome l. The original intent of the CPAI was to try
to measure the basic retained knowledge of the five subject areas associated with
Outcome l. The five component instruments of the CPAI and results will be available for
review during the ABET visit.
F. Achievement of Program Outcomes
It is the goal of the Aerospace Engineering department to make continual improvements
in the undergraduate academic program. If the “product” of our undergraduate program
is to be considered our students, then we can use the Program Outcomes as a set of goals
for our Improvement Process (IP). The basic steps of the ideal IP are listed below
Step #1: Assess the “product” with respect to the Program Outcomes
Step #2: Note any “weaknesses” with the “product”
Step #3: Inform the “controllers” of these “weaknesses”
Step #4: Have the “controllers” make adjustment to the “process” to strengthen the
“weaknesses”
The definitions of the terms used above are
“products” - undergraduate student
“weaknesses” – weak attainment of a Program Outcome
“controllers” - academic faculty
To produce a complete IP, all factors that can affect the “product” have to be under the
control of the “controllers.” In reality, within the Auburn University system, a significant
set of factors, which influence the “product” that are outside the control of the
“controllers.”
First, the size of the undergraduate curriculum is fixed in terms of the allowable credit
hours. University requirements limit the Aerospace Engineering undergraduate program
in such a way that the Department has control over a maximum of 61 semester credit
hours (out of 128 hours). The current curriculum is in a “zero-sum” situation. The
introduction of any “new” course material must entail the removal of an equivalent
amount of “old” material. Second, the undergraduate enrollment in the Aerospace
Engineering program is controlled by the admissions policy of the University and by the
College of Engineering. The undergraduate enrollment in the College of Engineering
was 2578 (FTE) in 2005 and has risen to 3347 (FTE) in 2009 with a goal of 4000 in the
near future. The Aerospace Engineering Department has no control over how many of
these students enter the Aerospace Engineering program. Consequently, the “controllers”
(faculty) must operate an IP that conforms to these outside constraints.
Two factors that are somewhat within the control of the department faculty and which
influence the “product” are course frequency and course instructor assignments. The
Aerospace Engineering department is comprised of ten faculty members. To maintain
viable bachelor, master and doctoral programs with such a small faculty, the required
undergraduate courses are only offered once each academic year (Fall or Spring
25
semester). Along with offering the undergraduate courses on a yearly cycle, most
required undergraduate courses are taught by the same faculty member from year to year.
The faculty feels that this system is beneficial to the IP, since the faculty member has a
“vested” interest in improving the course from year to year. The department is fortunate
to have a faculty composed of individuals that are very interested in devoting the time
and effort to continually improving the undergraduate curriculum. The faculty consider
the IP to be a important task that is an expected activity associated with their professional
duties.
The Aerospace Engineering IP places the faculty as the sole “controller” for the process.
Faculty members assess students through their coursework, discuss student “weaknesses”
through faculty meetings and the Course Review process, obtain industrial-oriented input
from the AE Advisory Council and review the data from the two student self-assessment
instruments. The inputs from these various sources guide the faculty in altering the
course content and curriculum to strengthen the “weaknesses” identified through the
Program Outcomes.
In an attempt to quantify the level of achievement of the Program Outcomes, numerical
scores are collected from three sources: faculty course instructors, the senior interview
with Dr. Cochran (SEI) and the online instrument created by the AE Advisory Council
(ACI). The 2009-2010 scores from this effort are listed in the table below.
Table 3-4. Outcome Achievement Composite Data
(Score out of 10 points)
Outcome
Instructor
SEI
Score
Score
(2010)
(2005,6,8)
a
8
8
b
8
8
c
9
7
d
9
9
e
8
8
f
*
9
g
9
9
h
9
8
i
*
9
j
9
7
k
8
8
*Not assessed by course instructors
ACI
Score
(2010)
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
7
8
6
8
Average
Score
Acceptable
Score
Goal
8
8
8
9
8
8
9
8
8
7
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
The “Instructor Score” listed in the above table are mean values computed from the
scores supplied by the various instructors whose courses had that particular Outcome
“covered” through the course material (Table 3-3). The student course material
associated with the “Instructor Score” will be available for the ABET Visitor to review
on-site. The documentation associated with the “SEI Score” and “ACI Score” will also
be available for the ABET Visitor to review.
26
Both of the self-assessment instruments, SEI and ACI provided the students with the
ability to identify “weaknesses” with the academic program by expressing verbal or
written comments. These identified “weaknesses” are listed and discussed in the
following section of this report.
As mentioned previously, the faculty members responsible for each course review student
performance after completion of the course (Spring or Fall semester) and make
improvements to the course content and instructional process. This faculty-driven
component of the IP is considered part of the faculty member’s professional
responsibility to constantly improve our undergraduate program. Faculty members
discuss these “weaknesses” through formal means such as department faculty meetings
and the Course Review process. Faculty discussion of “weaknesses” also occurs
informally through unscheduled meetings such as lunches and office meetings. With
such a small faculty, information passes very easily and quickly through the department.
Outcome l is assessed through the Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument
(CPAI). The details of the CPAI are
1. A required, zero credit, pass/fail, course entitled AERO 4AA0: Program
Assessment, has been created as a vehicle for administering the CPAI.
2. The AERO 4AA0 course is included in the program curriculum in the
spring semester of the senior year (see Table I-1) and it meets once every
week for a 50 minute period.
3. The CPAI consists of five separate components with one each in
aerodynamics, structures/materials, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and
propulsion.
4. Each component of the CPAI is presented in the form of short-answer
questions. These questions are designed to cover material from the
required courses in each of the five areas mentioned in Outcome l.
5. The faculty did not want the students to prepare (study) in any way for the
CPAI, since the premise of the instrument is that it should be a measure of
retained knowledge. The satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading scheme was
constructed in such a way as to discourage the student from preparing. A
“satisfactory” grade in the course is earned, not by achieving any
particular numerical grade on each component of the CPAI, but by simply
completing each component.
The results of the CPAI are listed in the table below
Table 3-5. CPAI Average Results for Outcome l
Year
Topic
Aerodynamics
Flight Dynamics
Orbital Mechanics
Propulsion
Structures
2005
46
76
62
57
53
(Score out of 100 points)
2006 2007 2008 2009
39
71
63
55
49
35
76
60
58
49
27
33
72
65
56
37
50
69
68
66
50
2010
Acceptable
42
77
65
63
49
40
40
40
40
40
Although the CPAI scores have been acceptable since 2005, there is a feeling among the
faculty that the philosophy behind the CPAI needs to be re-evaluated. Some criticisms of
the CPAI that have been voiced are listed below.
1. The students have no real incentive to devote significant effort on the various
elements of the CPAI given that they receive no academic credit for this effort.
(zero-credit course)
2. Since this is an “exit exam” and the questions are supposed to assess a basic
understanding of the subject areas, it is difficult to use it as a feedback to the
“controller” of the IP system to improve the subject courses.
3. Some of the material covered in the CPAI is from course work that the students
may have taken almost 2 years prior to completing the CPAI. Is the CPAI just
assessing an individual student’s memory capacity? Does a student typically
remember material that he/she enjoyed and forget material that they found
boring?
4. Can Outcome l be more efficiently assessed by using a passing grade in
coursework associated with aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics,
propulsion and structures?
One suggestion that has been made to alter the CPAI involves the construction of a
problem or set of problems that will provide a measure of a student’s critical thinking
skills associated with the areas of aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics,
propulsion and structures. The faculty will be discussing the future of the CPAI after the
upcoming ABET visit.
28
Criterion 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
A. Information Used for Program Improvement
Information used for the Improvement Process (IP) of the Aerospace Engineering
Program is obtained from multiple sources listed in the table below.
Table 4-1. Improvement Process Source Characteristics
Source
Student discussion with Faculty
Senior Exit Interviews with Dr. Cochran (SEI)
AE Advisory Council Senior Interviews (ACI)
CPAI Assessments
Faculty member assessment of student performance in
individual courses
Faculty member involvement in the Course Review Process
Faculty member involvement in Faculty Meetings
Alumni Survey
Procurement
Cycle
Continuous
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Documentation
Available?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3 Year
Continuous
5 Year
Yes
Yes
Yes
The data from the sources listed above will be available for review by the ABET Visitor.
B. Actions to Improve the Program
Information obtained through the IP described in Table 4-1 pointed to several
“weaknesses” with regard to the Program Outcomes. Such “weaknesses” that were noted
by several sources and that were consistently mentioned during the 2005 to 2010 time
period have been addressed by the Department.
Student Identified Weakness #1: Outcome f: An understanding of professional and
ethical responsibilities.
Student comments from the self-assessment instruments SEI and ACI during the 20052006 period indicated that they felt the area of professional engineering ethics was not
adequately covered in any of the Aerospace Engineering course material. The students
did not feel that the required Philosophy 1020: Introduction to Ethics course covered
what they felt constituted “professional ethics.”
In response to this “weakness,” a lecture on Professional Ethics was introduced in Spring
2007 into the AERO 4AA0: Program Assessment course that all graduating seniors must
complete. Dr. Cochran, a licensed attorney, prepares and delivers this lecture.
Comments made as part of the Spring 2007 AEI indicated that the students felt that this
lecture by Dr. Cochran did improve their knowledge and appreciation of professional
engineering ethics.
In a further attempt to strengthen this perceived “weakness”, starting this Spring 2010
semester, an additional lecture was added to the AERO 4AA0 course that was presented
29
by three of our AE Advisory Board members: Mr. Morris Penny, Mr. Gene Fuller and
Mr. Louis Connor. They discussed various professional ethics situations that they have
encountered during their industrial careers. Material related to these two ethics lectures
will be available for review by the ABET Visitor.
Student Identified Weakness #2: Outcome h: the broad education necessary to
understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global context. and Outcome j: a
knowledge of contemporary issues.
Student comments from the self-assessment instruments SEI and ACI during the 20052006 period indicated that the program was “weak” with respect to these outcomes. This
issue was discussed in several faculty meetings and during the 2008 Course Review. The
faculty indicated that they did discuss this topic in their courses, but that they would
increase their emphasis on this topic in the future. The three members of the AE
Advisory Council responsible for the ACI have made some suggestions regarding this
“weakness” during this last assessment cycle which the faculty will consider for this
upcoming academic year.
Student Identified Weakness #3: Senior Capstone Design Course
At the time of the last ABET visit in 2004, the senior students could choose from two,
year-long, senior design course sequences. The first, Aircraft Design, was taught by Dr.
Ron Barrett. Dr. Barrett started with the Department in 1993 and his teaching specialty
was aircraft design. He was a very experienced and excellent design instructor. The
second design sequence, Space Mission Design, was taught by Col. Jim Voss. Col. Voss
retired from the NASA astronaut program in 2003 after flying several Space Shuttle
missions and came to Auburn as a Adjunct Professor. He had extensive experience in
Space Mission definition and design and was an excellent instructor.
Unfortunately, Dr. Barrett left Auburn in the Summer of 2005 and Col. Voss also left
Auburn in the Summer of 2006. The Department lost two very experienced and excellent
design instructors over a one year period. The Department was able to replace Dr.
Barrett by hiring Dr. Gil Crouse, but Col. Voss could not be replaced since he occupied
an Adjunct position. The Department returned to a single year-long (two semester)
design course sequence in Aerospace Design with Dr. Crouse as the instructor. A
significant number of students were very disappointed that the Space Mission Design
course sequence had to be terminated and this is reflected in the comments in the ACI
and SEI.
Dr. Crouse has a significant amount of experience in aircraft design, but prior to his
arrival at Auburn, he had never taught such a course in a university setting. It took a
while for him to fully develop his teaching style and the structure for the Aerospace
Design course. During the 2007 and 2008 academic years, the student comments from
the ACI reflected a “weakness” associated with this design course. Dr. Crouse has
worked very hard to create a strong Aircraft Design course and this has been reflected in
the 2010 ACI comments. As soon as he arrived in Auburn, Dr. Crouse formed a AIAA
30
Design, Build and Fly team for the students and they have sent a team and plane to the
national competition each year since 2006. Prior to Dr. Crouse’s arrival, the Department
had never competed in these competitions.
Dr. Crouse and the Department are dedicated to continually improving this sequence and
the negative comments regarding the capstone design sequence found in the AEI and SEI
have decreased.
Student Identified Weakness #4: Limited computer programming experience
Starting in 2005, the faculty has added more programming assignments to many of the
required courses to strengthen the achievement of Program Outcome k. The curriculum
in place in 2005 and the current curriculum contains only one official programming
course COMP 1200: Introduction to Computing that students must completed during the
Pre-Engineering program. The COMP 1200 course has two versions, a C++ and a
MATLAB variant. The Aerospace students are expected to take the MATLAB version of
this course. Many of the students do take this course during their freshmen year as
shown in the curriculum model.
The first Aerospace courses that require students to develop MATLAB programs are
typically in the Spring of the junior year. These courses are AERO 3220: Aerospace
Systems and AERO 3230: Flight Dynamics. Student feedback to the faculty and in the
SEI during the Spring of 2006 indicated that they felt unprepared to complete the
MATLAB programs due to the fact that either they did not do any extensive
programming in the COMP 1200 course or that it had been “too long” since they had
taken COMP 1200 (freshmen year).
In response to this feedback, the Department created two, one-credit, elective courses
under the heading of AERO 3970: Special Topics. The first AERO 3970 course is
designed for the juniors to take in the Fall semester. This course instructs the students in
developing MATLAB programs to solve problems commonly found in the AERO 3220
and AERO 3230 courses that they will take the following Spring semester. The second
AERO 3970 course is designed for the juniors to take in the Spring semester. This course
instructs students in developing FORTRAN programs to solve problems typically found
in AERO 4510: Aerospace Propulsion and AERO 4620: Aerospace Structures II which
are senior level courses they will be taking the following Fall semester.
Although the faculty would rather that these two courses be required of all students, this
could only be accomplished by reducing the size of some currently required course by
two credits to offset the two credits associated with these elective programming courses.
The faculty does not feel that the programming material present in these two courses is
more valuable for our students, then any of the current material in the curriculum. The
curriculum has six credit hours of Aero/Astro electives which are necessary to satisfy the
University requirement to accommodate six credit hours of optional ROTC instruction.
The two credits awarded for completing both of the AERO 3970 programming courses
31
can be used by the student to partially satisfy the six credit hours of Aero/Astro elective
credit.
On the average, 60% of our students take the optional MATLAB and FORTRAN
courses. Since the introduction of these two elective programming courses, the number
of student complaints regarding their preparedness for completing class assignments
using MATLAB and FORTRAN has dropped significantly.
Faculty Identified Weakness #1: Aerospace Structures Sequence was inefficient
Up until the 2007-2008 academic year, the students were required to take a four course
sequence in Aerospace Structures.
AERO 3610: Aerospace Structures I (2 credit-Laboratory course)
AERO 4620: Aerospace Structures II (3 credit-Lecture course)
AERO 4630: Aerospace Structural Dynamics (3 credit-Lecture course)
AERO 4640: Aerospace Structures III (2 credit- Laboratory course)
The AERO 4640 course was a “laboratory” course where the students were introduced to
state-of-the-art structural analysis software such as NASTRAN and PATRAN. The
laboratory assignments were associated with the theoretical principles introduced in the
AERO 4620 and 4630 courses. However, in practice, this separation of the laboratory
activities in a separate course from the theoretical material proved very cumbersome.
During the 2007-2008 academic year, the Department faculty approved a curriculum
change that brought the laboratory component of AERO 4640 within the AERO 4620 and
4630 courses to create a better learning environment. AERO 4640: Aerospace Structures
III was deleted from the curriculum model and the two freed up credit hours were
reallocated to AERO 4620: Aerospace Structures II and AERO 4630: Aerospace
Structural Dynamics in the form of a one credit computer laboratory. This change would
boost the credit hours of AERO 4620 from three to four credit hours and also boost the
credit hours of AERO 4630 from three to four. The total credit hours in the curriculum
model remained at the same level of 128 hours. This reallocation of credit hours allowed
the students to directly work on computer analysis of structural designs associated with
the lecture topics in a laboratory environment.
Summary of Program Improvement Efforts
The most important component of any academic program improvement process is the
faculty. The Department faculty are constantly assessing their and the students
performance in the required courses. As mentioned earlier, for many of our required
courses, a single faculty member teaches the same course from year to year. This system
allows the faculty member to assess student performance on a year to year basis and
make improvements to the presentation of the course material.
32
The Department faculty members interact with each other on almost a daily basis through
informal means such as lunches and “water cooler” meetings. On a more formal basis,
the faculty members discuss the courses and student performance during faculty meetings
and the Course Review process. All program improvements start and end with the
faculty.
33
CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM
A. Program Curriculum
The Department Alumni Survey results discussed in section 2-F of this report and recent
experiences of our graduates (Table 1-4) are evidence that our program is meeting the
stated Educational Objectives. The undergraduate curriculum provides the necessary
educational background in the major areas of Aerospace Engineering: aerodynamics,
flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials. At least one
semester-long course is required in each of the five major areas of study and a twosemester capstone design course. The breakdown of the courses comprising the
undergraduate curriculum is shown in Table 5-1.
Representative samples of student work such as homework, quizzes, examinations,
laboratory reports, project reports and computer-assisted analyses will be available for
review by the ABET Visitor.
The senior design courses, AERO 4710 and 4720 constitute the senior capstone design
requirement for aerospace engineering majors. The two courses are taught as a year-long
course sequence rather than two one-semester courses. The fall semester focuses on
design-level analysis techniques and the spring semester on design synthesis. During the
fall semester, students review the engineering skills acquired from earlier courses such as
aerodynamics, stability and control, and structural analysis; and learn to apply those
engineering skills in a design environment. The assignments during the fall semester
focus on performing analysis of existing aircraft to determine that they meet particular
requirements. Those requirements include both commercial/performance requirements
(e.g. cruise speed, or range) and regulatory/safety requirements (e.g. dynamic stability,
spar strength). The appropriate FAA regulations including Part 23 for general aviation
aircraft and Part 25 for transport aircraft are reviewed, and methods for demonstrating
compliance are discussed such as those accepted by the FAA in Advisory Circular 2319A.
The spring semester is taught as a directed study course rather than a traditional lecture
with the class broken down into design teams that select a design project for the semester.
Each team is responsible for selecting and writing the requirements for their own design
project. Alternatively, teams can choose to participate in a design competition such as
the AIAA Design/Build/Fly competition or one of the AIAA paper design competitions.
For teams that write their own requirements, their requirements are reviewed at the
beginning of the semester to ensure they are realistic and sufficiently challenging.
During the semester, the entire class meets one day per week for a lecture or to work
examples in class. During the second class period of each week, the design teams meets
individually with the instructor to review the team’s progress and provide feedback on
their work. Teams are required to produce a final design report that documents the work
they did over the semester and “sells” their design. In addition, each team prepares and
presents a final oral presentation of their design.
34
5-B . Prerequisite Flow Chart
35
Table 5-1. Basic-Level Curriculum
(Aerospace Engineering)
Year;
Semester
st
1 Yr Fall
1st Yr Spring
2nd Yr Fall
2nd Yr Spring
Math &
Basic
Sciences
Course
(Department, Number, Title)
MATH 1610 Calculus I
Core History I
CHEM 1030 Chemistry I
ENGL 1100 Written Composition I
COMP 1200 Intro to Computing
ENGR 1100 Engineering Orientation
Category (Credit Hours)
Engineering
Topics
Check if
Contains
General
Significant
Education
Design (9)
Other
4
3
4
3
2
0
MATH 1620 Calculus II
Core History II
PHYS 1600 Engr Physics I
ENGL 1120 Written Composition II
ENGR 1110 Intro to Engineering
4
MATH 2630 Calculus III
PHYS 1610 Engr Physics II
ENGR 2050 Statics
ENGL 2200 World Literature I
PHIL 1020 Intro to Ethics
4
4
MATH 2650 Linear Diff Eqns
ENGR 2070 Mechanics of Materials
ENGR 2010 Thermodynamics
AERO 2200 Aero Fundamentals
Core Social Science I
ENGL 2210 World Literature II
3
3
4
3
2
(9 )
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
36
Table 5-1. Basic-Level Curriculum (continued)
(Aerospace Engineering)
Category (Credit Hours)
Year;
Semester
rd
3 Yr Fall
3rd Yr Spring
4th Yr Fall
4th Yr Spring
Math &
Basic
Science
Course
(Department, Number, Title)
AERO 3110 Aerodynamics I
AERO 3130 Aerodynamics Laboratory
ENGR 2350 Dynamics
MATH 2660 Topics in Linear Algebra
ELEC 3810 Fundamentals of EE
Core Fine Arts
AERO 3120 Aerodynamics II
AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures I
AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems
AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics
AERO 3310 Orbital Mechanics
AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III
AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion
AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II
AERO 4710 Aerospace Design I
Aero/Astro Elective or ROTC
AERO 4630 Aero Struct Dynamics
AERO 4AA0 Program Assessment
AERO 4720 Aerospace Design II
Aero/Astro Elective or ROTC
Core Social Science II
Engineering
Topics
Check if Contains
Significant
Design (9)
3
2
3
General
Education
Other
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
2
4
3
3
4
4
3
(9 )
(9 )
(9 )
3
4
0
3
(9 )
3
3
TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS
OVERALL TOTAL FOR
128
DEGREE
PERCENT OF TOTAL
Totals must Minimum semester credit hours
satisfy one set Minimum percentage
37
32
58
36
2
25%
32 hrs
25%
45%
48 hrs
37.5 %
28%
2%
Table 5-2. Course and Section Size Summary
(Aerospace Engineering)
Responsible
Faculty
Course No.
No. of Sections
offered in Current
Year
Avg. Section
Enrollment
Lecture
Foster
Foster
Foster
1
1
1
4
21
20
100%
100%
100%
Gross
Gross
Sinclair
Thurow
Shelton
Ahmed
Gross
Gross
Shelton
Hartfield
Foster
Crouse
Sinclair
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
35
54
24
45
44
15
3
32
30
29
29
9
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Title
AERO 2200
ENGR 2100
ENGR 2350
Summer 2009
Aerospace Fundamentals
Fundamentals of Mechanics
Dynamics
ENGR 1110
ENGR 2050
ENGR 2350
AERO 2200
AERO 3110
AERO 3130
AERO 3970
AERO 3970
AERO 4140
AERO 4510
AERO 4620
AERO 4710
AERO 5330
Fall 2009
Introduction to Aerospace Eng
Statics
Dynamics
Aerospace Fundamentals
Aerodynamics I
Aerodynamics Lab
MATLAB Applications
UAV Flight Performance
Aerodynamics III
Aerospace Propulsion
Aerospace Structures II
Aerospace Design I
Applied Orbital Mechanics
38
Type of Class1
Laboratory
Recitation
50%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
100%
100%
25%
Other
Table 5-2. Course and Section Size Summary (continued)
(Aerospace Engineering)
Responsible
Faculty
Course No.
ENGR 2050
ENGR 2350
AERO 2200
AERO 3120
AERO 3220
AERO 3230
AERO 3610
AERO 3310
AERO 4620
AERO 4720
AERO 4AA0
AERO 4970
Title
Spring 2010
Statics
Dynamics
Aerospace Fundamentals
Aerodynamics II
Aerospace Systems
Flight Dynamics
Aerospace Structures I
Orbital Mechanics
Aerospace Structural Dynamics
Aerospace Design II
Program Assessment
Starship Propulsion
Gross
Sinclair
Ahmed
Thurow
Sinclair
Cochran
Gross
Cicci
Foster
Crouse
Gross
Jenkins*
No. of Sections
offered in Current
Year
Avg. Section
Enrollment
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
44
57
46
38
33
49
23
29
30
26
6
*retired
39
Lecture
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
50%
100%
100%
100%
Type of Class1
Laboratory
Recitation
Other
25%
50%
100%
100%
CRITERION 6. FACULTY
A. Leadership Responsibilities
The Department Head, Dr. John E. Cochran, Jr. has leadership responsibilities for the
program. He depends heavily on the leadership and administrative assistance of the
Undergraduate Program Coordinator, Dr. Robert S. (“Steve”) Gross regarding the day-today operations of the Program. Dr. Cochran sets the basic policies and makes final
decisions regarding changes in the Program at the department level, ordinarily on the
basis of recommendations from Dr. Gross and/or the departmental Undergraduate
Program Committee. Dr. Cochran is responsible for handling budgetary matters. He also
approves all faculty teaching and graduate teaching assistant assignments
.
B. Authority and Responsibility of Faculty
The Undergraduate Program Committee (currently all the faculty members, or the
“Department Faculty”) is ultimately responsible for the content and quality of the
Program. Regarding creation of courses, there is little flexibility in the current Program
curriculum to put in new courses. However, the procedure for doing so is well
established. The initial part of the creation of a new course is generally done by a single
faculty member, perhaps two. First, course material is developed and the course is taught
as an elective under AERO 3970 Special Topics. Second, after a “trial run” or two, if
there appears to be justification for adding the course, then the matter is presented to the
Undergraduate Program Committee for review. Generally, all the faculty members do
not review the course at this point, but the Undergraduate Program Coordinator and
several other faculty members do. Third, if that committee thinks that the course should
be offered as an elective, or should replace a course or courses in the curriculum, then
that committee will recommend approval by the Department Faculty. Fourth, if the
Department Faculty approves the course, then the Department Head makes the final
decision as to whether to send the course description and justification to the College
Curriculum Committee. If the course information is submitted for approval at the
College level, then we wait for College and University approval.
There are several methods for evaluating courses. First, Program Faculty members
continuously up-date and modify details of “their courses,” that is, the courses they teach
on a regular basis. These modifications are documented in the course syllabi that are
reviewed periodically and evaluated by all or several, of the Undergraduate Program
Committee members as noted below. Second, students evaluate the courses and provide
their input during senior exit interviews. Third, we have instituted a Course Review
Process that occurs every three years in which the faculty member principally responsible
for the class discusses the course objectives and the outcomes it is expected to produce
with the Undergraduate Program Coordinator and several colleagues. All these methods
have been used to improve the content of our courses.
Consistency is considered in the Course Review Process. Generally, with only one
professor teaching a particular course there will be consistency.
40
C. Faculty
The aerospace engineering faculty is dedicated to excellence in undergraduate
instruction. At the present time, ten full-time faculty members are actively involved in
teaching undergraduate courses. This number is, we think, sufficient for the
undergraduate program. However, we would like to add five faculty members to
strengthen our research program and our Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy
programs that are also important parts of this department’s mission and especially the
mission of the college of engineering. All current faculty members are well-qualified.
They all have terminal degrees in aerospace engineering, or closely related engineering
disciplines. In addition to being technically competent, most faculty members have
received teaching awards.
Generally, Program faculty members spend a large portion of their time outside the
classroom interacting with students. All have office hours and, to the extent possible,
“open-door” policies.
Dr. Brian Thurow employs undergraduate students in his Advanced Laser Non-obtrusive
Diagnostics Lab. He is currently the advisor for the AIAA student chapter and has
successfully advised winners in the AIAA southeastern undergraduate paper
competitions. Dr. Anwar Ahmed is faculty advisor of the Auburn Chapter of Sigma
Gamma Tau and has assisted them in projects. Students frequently work with Dr. Ahmed
on special projects involving experimental fluid mechanics. Dr. Steve Gross has created
two Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) courses in which students build flying “radio
controlled” models in the classic manner from balsa wood and other materials.
We have one or two teams of students participating each year in the AIAA Design, Build,
and Fly Competition. In the 2010 competition, our team, The Planesmen, finished 24th
out of 69 teams. However, we finished ahead of the other SEC teams in the competition,
the MIT team and two Georgia Tech teams. We had a teams of students participating in
the NASA University Space Launch Initiative in 2007, 2008 And 2009. Also, some of
our students designed and flew experiments on the NASA Reduced Gravity Aircraft in
2009. Support of these activities has been a combined effort of the college, department,
industry and the government.
D. Faculty Competencies
All faculty members are members of AIAA; many are members of AIAA technical
committees; all serve as reviewers of technical journals. Four of the ten faculty members
have full-time industrial or government experience. Those who do not have such
experience have been employed in industry/government during summers and/or have
been involved in consulting. Six of ten faculty members are Registered Professional
Engineers. Aerodynamics is the principal competency of three faculty members, Drs.
Ahmed, Shelton and Thurow. Propulsion is the, or an, area of specialization of two
faculty members, Drs. Hartfield and Foster. Drs. Gross and Foster have emphasized
41
structures, while Drs. Cicci, Cochran, and Sinclair have specialized in dynamics and
control and orbital mechanics.
Table 6.2 provides faculty information in tabular form. The following is additional
supporting information.
Anwar Ahmed has over twenty-four years of teaching experience at the university level
and is a recognized expert in experimental fluid dynamics, especially flow visualization.
He is the director of our wind and water tunnel facilities (Aerodynamics Lab and Flow
Visualization Lab). He teaches aerodynamics. He also advises the Sigma Gamma Tau
chapter and works with students on planning E-Day each year. Currently, he is an
Associate Fellow of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Technical Committee.
David A. Cicci is an excellent teacher who has a national reputation in astrodynamics,
especially in the sub areas of orbit determination and applications of non-linear filtering
techniques. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in orbital mechanics and
orbit determination as well as dynamics and the fundamentals of engineering mechanics
course. Dr. Cicci is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and the American Astronautical
Society and a past member of the AAS Space Flight Mechanics Committee and the AAS
Board of Directors. For many years, he was faculty adviser of the student AIAA chapter.
He has twenty-three years of teaching experience.
John E. Cochran, Jr.’s primary expertise is in dynamics and control. He has made
research contributions in both atmospheric flight dynamics and astrodynamics and has an
international reputation in spacecraft attitude dynamics and control. He is a Fellow of the
AIAA and formerly an associate editor of the Journal of Guidance, Control and
Dynamics. He is a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society and has served as the
Vice-President for Education and as a director of that organization. He is a member of
the editorial board of Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology. Dr. Cochran has
over forty years of experience in university teaching. He teaches undergraduate and
graduate courses in flight dynamics and aerospace systems and graduate courses in flight
dynamics and astrodynamics. Prior to the university’s conversion to the semester system,
he taught engineering law and ethics. He makes presentations to graduating senior on
professional ethics.
Gilbert L. Crouse is the principal faculty member in the area of aircraft design. He
worked for BBN Technologies received his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland in
1992 and worked for or an aerospace company for eight years. From 2000-2005, he
founded and ran a consulting company and developed software for preliminary airplane
design. Dr. Crouse has been teaching airplane design in the Program since 2005. He also
is the advisor of the AIAA Design, Build, and Fly teams. Dr. Crouse is an Associate
Fellow of the AIAA and a member of the American Helicopter Society. He is currently
serving as an associate editor of the Journal of Aircraft.
Winfred A. “Butch” Foster, Jr. is the university’s expert on NASTRAN and PATRAN.
He teaches structures and structural dynamics courses at both the undergraduate and
42
graduate levels. His research on modeling of soil wheel interaction has received national
recognition. Dr. Foster has also worked for many years in the area of solid rocket
propulsion. He has more than thirty-six years of teaching experience. Dr. Foster is
currently an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Solid Rockets
Technical Committee and chair of its history subcommittee. He is an associate editor of
the Journal of Propulsion and Power.
Robert Steven Gross’ primary area of expertise is composite materials. He is our
Undergraduate Program Coordinator and yet has found time to continue to be an
outstanding instructor. He has received many department, college and university
teaching awards. Dr. Gross teaches the first structures course, the freshman introductory
course, a composite structures course, statics, dynamics, and the fundamentals of
engineering mechanics course for chemical and electrical engineering students. He has
twenty-three years of university teaching experience. Dr. Gross has developed a noncredit “course” AERO 4AA0. (The strange designation XAAX is used for a zero credit
“course” that is really just an administrative vehicle to meet with students on a regular
basis.) This course provides scheduled meetings for assessment activities involving
students. Until this year, Dr. Gross advised all AERO students. Now, Ms. Lisa Avrit is
our Student Advisor and Dr. Gross supervises the process.
Roy J. Hartfield is a physicist (B.S. and M.S., University of Southern Mississippi) and
an aerospace engineer (Ph.D., University of Virginia) with twenty years of teaching
experience. Dr. Hartfield teaches aerodynamics and propulsion courses and also the
dynamics course taken by students in aerospace and civil engineering. His initial
specializations were in non-obtrusive measurements of high-speed flows and propulsion,
but for the last six years he has teamed with Dr. John Burkhalter and Dr. Rhon Jenkins,
Professor Emeritus, to develop high-fidelity models of aerospace vehicles and design
programs based on the models that use genetic algorithms to produce rapidly designs that
are competitive with those produced using classical methods. The tools they have
developed may also be use ot reverse engineer aerospace systems. Dr. Hartfield is an
Associate Member of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Technical Committee. He has a national reputation in the area of design using genetic
algorithms.
Andrew B. Shelton, our most recent addition to the faculty, has degrees in aerospace
engineering and mechanical engineering from Auburn University and a Ph.D. from
Georgia Tech. His area of expertise is computational fluid dynamics. He teaches
aerodynamics and computational aerodynamics courses. Dr. Shelton is in charge of our
lab for Computational Fluid Dynamics and teaches undergraduate and graduate
aerodynamics courses. He has seven (7) years of industrial experience with Lockheed
and Raytheon. He is a member of the AIAA and the AHS.
Andrew J. Sinclair has two degrees in aerospace engineering from the University of
Florida and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from Texas A&M University. Dr. Sinclair
teaches aerospace systems, dynamics, orbital mechanics, and other courses in the general
area of dynamics and control. He has been a U. S. Air Force Summer Faculty Fellow at
43
the Air Force Research Lab, Eglin AFB, and conducts research in the areas of dynamics
and dynamics and control of UAVs. Dr. Sinclair was promoted to associate professor in
the spring of 2010.
Brian S. Thurow’s area of expertise is aerodynamics. He has three degrees in
mechanical engineering from the Ohio State University. Dr. Thurow joined the Program
Faculty in December 2005. Dr. Thurow is well on the way to being an established expert
in the area of non-obtrusive measurement of high-speed flow properties using advanced
high-speed (switching) lasers. He has received two Young Investigator Awards, one
from the Army and one from the Air Force and follow-on funding form both. In addition
to all this, as noted supra, Dr. Thurow is the advisor for the AIAA Student Chapter and
currently is serving as our department’s Graduate Program Officer. The winner of
teaching awards made by faculty and by students, Dr. Thurow teaches most of the
aerodynamics courses and has also taught Aerospace Propulsion.
Table 6-1 provides a faculty subject matter specialization summary. Note that, like the
faculties of many aerospace programs, we are heavily weighted toward specialization in
aerodynamics and structures. However, all the courses in the curriculum are taught by
faculty members with specialization in the pertinent area.
Two emeritus faculty members, Dr. John E. Burkhalter and Dr. Rhonald M. Jenkins,
mentioned above in the Background section have been involved in research since their
respective retirements. Dr. Jenkins has also taught an elective course each spring. After
teaching “Starship Propulsion” (advanced technology and futuristic concepts) this spring
(2010), Dr. Jenkins has indicated that he is retiring completely. We will miss his wit and
enthusiasm. Dr. Burkhalter is still working with Dr. Hartfield on projects involving
design via modeling, simulation, and optimization.
The resumes of Program faculty members are provided in Appendix B.
44
Table 6-1. Faculty Subject Matter Specialization.
Aerodynamics
Ahmed
Cicci
Cochran
Crouse
Foster
Gross
Hartfield
Shelton
Sinclair
Thurow
Astrodynamics
Flight
Dynamics
Propulsion
Structures/
Materials
Design
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E. Faculty Size
As can be seen from the information provided in the previous section, the size of the
current Program Faculty is sufficient for the Program. However, the additional demands
on faculty member time due to the graduate programs (M.A.E., M.S., and Ph.D.) have
limited the extent of faculty and perhaps the quality of the Program. To do what we like
to do in instruction at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and also allow faculty
members enough time to develop and maintain competitive research programs, thirteen to
fifteen full-time faculty members would be ideal. This will continue to a goal.
Student advising and service activities are covered by the material in section 6.D.
Faculty members do not formally advise students, but they do provide considerable
advise to some students who request it.
Dr. Ron Barrett spent a year (2003-2004) on sabbatical leave at 50% pay from the
Department. Dr. David A. Cicci took a sabbatical in 2009-2010. Dr. Cicci’s sabbatical
was also funded by the Department. However, due to Dr. Cicci’s previous service as
Chair of the University Senate, the Department received $16,000 from the Provost to help
cover the cost of teaching the courses that he would have taught. See, also, Subsection 6F
F. Faculty Development
Currently, we have what we think is a “standard plan” for faculty development. Program
faculty members are expected to appreciate the need for life-long learning and to have
individual plans for development. In addition, our current university annual review
process is such that faculty members are evaluated on how well they instruct, conduct
research, obtain extramural support, direct graduate students and write, present, and
publish papers, books and reports. In the review process, areas on which faculty
members should focus for improvement or development are identified. The steps taken
45
toward improved capabilities depend on the particular situation, but are mutually agreed
upon by the faculty member and the department head.
Resources for faculty development include training and development courses provided
each semester by the Auburn University Department of Human Resource Development.
Additionally the Biggio Center for the enhancement of Teaching and Learning and the
Instructional Media Group manage faculty development activities. The University
manages a professional improvement leave that is described more fully in the College
Self-Study.
Regarding faculty development through sabbatical leave, Dr. David A. Cicci took a
sabbatical in 2009-2010. Nine months of Dr. Cicci’s sabbatical was funded by the
Department and due to Dr. Cicci’s previous service as Chair of the University Senate, the
Department received $16,000 from the Provost to help cover the cost of teaching the
courses that he would have taught.
More generally, faculty members participate in national meetings and their travel to such
meetings is usually paid from contracts or grants directly, or from some of the overhead
received in connection with research (Indirect Cost Recovery). Also, we have a gift
account in which donations to this department are deposited. Funds from the gifts account
are frequently used to subsidize faculty members’ travel to meetings and can be used to
pay for specialized short courses under appropriate circumstances.
Each year each faculty member provides a report of his/her activities. A section of that
report is entitled “Service” and includes professional activities such as review of papers
and books, service on technical committees, presentation of short courses, and consulting
activities. Information from these reports will be provided upon request at the time of the
visit.
46
Table 6-2. Faculty Workload Summary
Aerospace Engineering
Faculty Member (name)
Anwar Ahmed
David A. Cicci
John E. Cochran, Jr.
Gilbert L. Crouse
Winfred A. Foster, Jr.
Robert S. Gross
Roy J. Hartfield
FT
or
Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.)
Fall 20091
PT4
FT Aerodynamics Laboratory (AERO 3130/2hrs)
Dynamics of Viscous Fluids II (AERO7130/3hrs)
FT Sabbatical Leave
FT Flight Dynamics (AERO 3230/4 Hrs.)
FT Embedded Software for Aerospace Systems
(AERO 7970/3hrs)
Aircraft Design (AERO 4170/3hrs)
FT Aerospace Computational Structural Analysis:
Static Structures (AERO 7630/7636, 3hrs)
Aerospace Computational Structural Analysis:
Structural Dynamics (AERO 7630/7636/3hrs).
FT Intro to Engineering (ENGR 1110/1hr)
Statics (ENGR 2050/3hrs)
UAV Performance (AERO 3970/1hr).
FT Aerospace Propulsion (AERO 4510/3hrs)
Thrust Generation (AERO 7510/7516/3hrs)
Andrew B. Shelton
FT
Andrew J. Sinclair
FT
Brian S. Thurow
FT
1
2
3
4
Teaching
60%
Total Activity Distribution2
Research/Scholarly
Activity
40%
30%
45%
25%
55%
70%
30%
60%
10%
50%
50%
Aerodynamics I (AERO 3110/3hrs)
Aerodynamics III. (AERO 4140/3hrs)
Aerospace Systems (AERO 3220/3hrs)
Dynamics (ENGR 2350/3hrs)
37%
63%
60%
40%
Aerospace Fundamentals (AERO 2200/2 hrs)
Dynamics (ENGR 2350/3hrs)
35%
50%
Indicate Term and Year for which data apply (the academic year preceding the visit).
Activity distribution should be in percent of effort. Members' activities should total 100%.
Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other."
FT = Full Time Faculty
PT = Part Time Faculty
47
Other3
100%
45% (admin)
30% (admin)
15% (admin)
Table 6-2. Faculty Workload Summary (Continued)
Aerospace Engineering
Faculty Member
(name)
FT
or
PT4
Anwar Ahmed
FT
David A. Cicci
Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.)
Spring 20101
Teaching
Total Activity Distribution2
Research/Scholarly
A i i
60%
FT
Aerospace Fundamentals (AERO 2200/2 hrs)
Transonic Aerodynamics (AERO 7970/7976/3 hrs)
Sabbatical Leave
John E. Cochran, Jr.
FT
Flight Dynamics (AERO 3230/4 hrs)
30%
20%
Gilbert L. Crouse
FT
Aerospace Design II (AERO 4720/3 hrs)
UAV Guidance and Control (AERO 4970/7970/3hrs)
60%
40%
75%
25%
60%
10%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
Winfred A. Foster, Jr.
Robert S. Gross
Roy J. Hartfield
FT
FT
FT
Andrew B. Shelton
FT
Andrew J. Sinclair
FT
Brian S. Thurow
1
2
3
4
FT
Aerospace Structural Dynamics (AERO 4630/4 hrs)
Aerospace Computational Structural Analysis:
Structural Dynamics (AERO 7630/7636/3 hrs)
Aeroelasticity (AERO 7660/3 hrs)
Statics (ENGR 2050/3 hrs)
Aerospace Structures I (AERO 3610/2 hrs)
Program Assessment (AERO 4AA0/0 hrs)
Dynamics (ENGR 2350/3 hrs)
Statistical Analysis in Engineering(AERO 4970/
7970/7976/3 hrs)
Advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (AERO
7140/3 hrs)
Aerospace Systems (AERO 3220/3 hrs)
Orbital Mechanics (AERO 3310/3 hrs)
Aerodynamics II (AERO 3120/3 hrs)
Turbulence (AERO 7970/3 hrs)
40%
100%
Indicate Term and Year for which data apply (the academic year preceding the visit).
Activity distribution should be in percent of effort. Members' activities should total 100%.
Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other."
FT = Full Time Faculty
PT = Part Time Faculty
48
Other3
50% (admin)
30% (admin)
David A. Cicci
John E. Cochran, Jr.
Gilbert L. Crouse
Winfred A. Foster,Jr.
Robert S. Gross
T
T
T
TT
T
T
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
24
T
FT
9
TT
FT
T
FT
T
FT
Consulting
/Summer
Work in
Industry
Research
Professional
Society
AIAA – High
High
low
23
AL, PA
low
high
NSPE, ASPE, ABA med
med
AAS - med
42
AL
d – high
AIAA
MD
AHS-med
high
med
AL, FL
AIAA – high
high
med
20
AIAA
low
high
19
AIAA – high
high
high
high
low
high
none
high
low
12
5
5
1.5
36
36
5
20
19
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
AIAA
7
2
2
Ph.D.
AHS
AIAA – high
Texas A&M, 2004
Brian S. Thurow
23
42
Georgia Tech.,
Andrew J. Sinclair
TX
AIAA, AHS, AAS,
Univ. of Va., 1991
Andrew B. Shelton
12
Level of Activity (high, med, low, none)
in:
AIAA – med
Clemson, 1988
Roy J. Hartfield
This Institution
Institution from
which Highest
Degree Earned &
Year
Wichita State
University
Univ. of Texas at
Austin, 1987
Univ. of Texas at
Austin, 1970
Univ. of Maryland,
1992
Auburn University,
1974
Total Faculty
Govt./Industry
Practice
Type of
Academic FT
Appointment or
TT, T, NTT PT
Highest Degree and
Field
Name
Anwar Ahmed
Rank
Years of Experience
Professional Registration/
Certification
Table 6-3. Analysis
Aerospace Engineering
5
Ph.D.
5
AAS - low
AIAA – high
ASME – med
0.5
5
5
Ohio State, 2006
AIAA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; AAS, American Astronomical Society; AHS, American Helicopter Society;
NSPE, National Society Professional Engineers; ASEE, American Society for Engineering Education; ASME, American Society Mechanical Engineers
49
CRITERION 7. FACILITIES
The facilities directly available to the Program include classrooms, study areas, faculty and
graduate student offices, conference rooms, a computational lab primarily for undergraduates, a
wood working shop and several laboratories.
The Program facilities are located in Charles E. “Buddy” Davis Aerospace Engineering Hall
(“Davis Hall”), the L-Building, and the Shelby Center for Engineering Technology (“Shelby
CET”). Davis Hall is the former Aerospace Engineering Building (AEB) that was completed in
1992. In 2007, the AEB was renamed for Mr. Davis, a 1959 AU graduate in Electrical
Engineering, in recognition of his long and successful career in the aerospace industry and
contributions to the university. Davis Hall consists of two, three-story structures that are
connected by enclosed walkways. The southern part is designed for classrooms. The northern
part of Davis Hall, is also physically connected to Harbert Hall, which houses the Department of
Civil Engineering. All three structures are designated as the Harbert Engineering Center. In
connection with the rededication considerable improvements were made in Davis Hall. These
included a new roof, replacement of the pavers in the patio, and landscaping of the surrounding
grounds.
The L-Building, which is one of the oldest buildings on the Auburn University main campus, is
located within a block of Davis Hall. A portion of the L-Building houses our wind tunnel
facilities.
We also have use of a section of the Shelby CET that consists of four contiguous rooms: a 50
seat auditorium, an office for graduate students, an office for a faculty or staff member, and a
specially air conditioned room that houses a computer cluster for high performance computing,
principally computational fluid dynamics (CDF).
A. Space
1. Offices and Conference Rooms
Faculty offices are on the third floor of the northern portion of Davis Hall. All faculty members
have private offices that are adequate in size and furnishings. Most graduate student offices are
also located on the third floor. Ordinarily, graduate teaching assistants share offices, with no
more than three graduate teaching assistants in one office.
A large conference room on the second floor (Davis 205) is used for faculty meetings and for
small classes that involve student presentations. A smaller conference room (Davis 207) is used
by faculty and for smaller groups and by the Program Coordinator when meeting with
prospective students and their parents. The “outer” room of the Flight Dynamics and Control Lab
(Davis 206A) is equipped for video conferencing and is often used for faculty and student
presentations to small groups.
50
The main office (Davis 211) includes a reception/work area, faculty, staff, and graduate student
mailboxes and an area for the copy machine and some supplies. Offices for the department head,
his/her secretary and other administrative staff are also located on the second floor. Offices for
two staff, the electrical engineer and the model builder/machinist are located on the first floor of
the northern part of Davis Hall.
2. Classrooms and Study Areas
The southern part of Davis Hall is often referred to as the “Shared Classroom Building” (SCB).
As its name indicates, this structure contains twelve classrooms. It also includes a study area and
an air traffic control/flight simulator laboratory used by students in Aviation Management and
Logistics. One classroom (Davis 357) is a video conferencing room that is used by many
departments, but particularly by the School of Nursing. Except for Davis 357, the classrooms in
the SCB are used primarily for engineering lectures by the Departments of Aerospace, Chemical,
Civil, and Mechanical Engineering. However, depending on availability, other university units
may schedule use of classrooms. All classrooms are equipped with desks or tables and chairs,
podiums, chalk boards, overhead projectors, and pull-down screens. Last year (2009), the
university provided funds to purchase and install additional document cameras and projectors in
SCB classrooms. The study area in the SCB (designated Davis 351) is used by students between
classes. Aerospace students have a room (Davis 337) in Davis that is designated for study.
Two classrooms are located in the northern part of Davis. One (Davis 302) is a relatively small
general classroom. The second classroom (Davis 215) is used almost exclusively for design
classes. It adjoins a room in which computers designated for design are located.
Most aerospace engineering classes are taught in the SCB. Sometimes larger classes are
scheduled in Broun Hall auditorium, which is less than a block from Davis Hall. As noted infra,
we would like to plan to teach Structures II in the Shelby CET. That will require some
additional computers for the room.
3. Laboratories
The principal undergraduate instructional laboratories for use by the Program are the Aerospace
Computational Lab (Davis 330), the Aerodynamics Lab (L-Building), the Structures and
Structural Dynamics Lab (Davis 106 & 109) and the Composite and UAV Lab (Davis 222). Part
of the Flight Dynamics and Control Lab (Davis 206B) is used for restricted research, but the
other part (Davis 206A) is room that has multiple uses, including video conferencing.
Aerospace Computational Lab
Please see 7-B.
Aerodynamics Laboratory
As noted above, this lab is located in the L-Building. It includes two subsonic and three
supersonic wind tunnels, as well as a low-speed smoke tunnel for flow visualization A closedcircuit, single-return, low-speed, open-test-section wind tunnel with a 3 ft by 4.25 ft test section
in which the flow speed may be varied from 0 to approximately 140 mph is used for both
51
instruction and research. Different types of mounting hardware and balances are available,
including floor mounted with a six degree-of-freedom balance and angle of attack control and
sting-mounted with a three degree-of-freedom balance. An open-circuit, low-speed wind tunnel
with a 2 ft by 2 ft test section is used primarily for instruction of undergraduate students. In this
tunnel the wind speed may be varied from 0 to approximately 120 mph. It is used in connection
with the aerodynamics laboratory course AERO 3130 and for the static stability lab portion of
AERO 3230.
A 4 in by 4 in “blow-down” supersonic wind tunnel capable of flow for testing at Mach numbers
from 1.5 to 3.5 is used also used primarily for instruction. A Schlieren system is used to detect
shock waves optically. Recently, a new converging section and test section were designed and
fabricated to provide transonic flow in this tunnel.
Inserts can be used to change the geometry of the inlet of the test section of the 7-inch by 7-inch
in-draft supersonic wind tunnel and produce discrete test section Mach numbers between 1.4 and
3.28. This wind tunnel can be used for research projects.
A machinist/model builder, currently, Mr. Weldon, constructs wind tunnel models in the
Machine Tool Laboratory. An example of the type of model is that of C-130 aircraft,
constructed using a plastic kit model as the basis, containing numerous small mounting platforms
supported on load cells for measuring differential drag on perturbances.
Composites and UAV Laboratory
This laboratory in Davis 222 was developed using funds from extramural contracts and grants. It
is used for teaching, but the process is informal. The lab doubles as a Composites Lab, since
adaptive aerostructures are made primarily from composite materials. Davis 222 contains
equipment and work space necessary to manufacture small thermoset composite parts and test
specimens. Students with special projects use the lab and some students work part-time in it.
The lab is used by various student teams that compete in AIAA and NASA design competitions.
Additional space for this lab is provided in Davis 217, which is used for design prototyping and
some testing.
Davis 222 contains equipment and work space necessary to manufacture small thermoset
composite parts and test specimens. A microprocessor-controlled, floor model, Blue-M
convection oven with internal dimensions of 48 in x 48 in x 36 in is employed to cure composite
parts. Cold storage equipment is available for long-term, thermoset prepreg storage. Structural
test data is obtained for the manufactured composite specimens by using the servo-hydraulic
testing machine and the data acquisition equipment in the Structures Laboratory.
52
Structures and Structural Dynamics Laboratories
The Structures Lab is located in Davis 106. It is equipped with a hydraulic loading system for
tensile, compression, and fatigue testing. Facilities are available for strain gage and dynamic
measurements. Students enrolled in AERO 3610 Structures I use this lab. It is also used for
ENGR 1110 Introduction to Engineering lectures and building projects. The Structural
Dynamics Lab is in Davis 109. Currently, some of the space in this lab is occupied by hardwarein-the-loop equipment on loan from the U. S. Army. However, there is still space to us the large
loading frame and conduct tests of small items.
Flight Dynamics Control Laboratory
The Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory, is located in Davis 206, Rooms A & B. It
includes the Center for Advanced Simulation and Technology (CAST) in Davis 206B. The
CAST now contains alumni-gifted software that can be used to analyze ballistic missile defense
systems. This room is ITAR restricted.
As mentioned above, Davis 206A is a multi-media/video-conferencing room that has a seating
capacity of 20. Room control is via an AMX Ascent III control system. Multi-media equipment
includes a NEC GT 2150 LCD projector, a Da-Lite Cosmopolitan 8 ft screen, a Samsung 6000
document camera, a custom lecture, a Dell 8200 PC, a Smart Podium IM 150 flat display, a
Panasonic PSSV1421 SVHS VCR, a Telex FMR wireless lavalier microphone system. Roland
speakers, and a Biamp Advantage 801 audio mixer. The video-conferencing component includes
a Tandberg 6000 Video Conference Codec, an Audio Science PZM microphone, two Sony EVID
cameras, a Panasonic 27” monitor, an Extron RGBHV DA, and a “video brick.”
Video conferencing is used by students as well as faculty members as the circumstances dictate.
For example, students participating in the NASA USLI competition have used the facility to
communicate with NASA MSFC personnel during design reviews.
Laboratories Used Primarily for Research
Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory
The Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory (ALDL) specializes in the development and application
of laser diagnostics for aerodynamic measurements. The laboratory is equipped with advanced
instrumentation such as:
•
•
•
•
MHz rate Nd:YAG pulse burst laser system
Ultra-high speed intensified camera capable of imaging at up to 500,000 fps
Galvanometric scanning mirrors
High QE CCD cameras
Areas of specialization include high-repetition rate flow visualization (100s of thousands of frames
per second) and high-speed three-dimensional imaging. The centerpiece of the laboratory is a
custom-built pulse burst laser system with the ability to produce a burst of high-energy (~10-100 mJ)
laser pulses at repetition rates up to 10 MHz and an ultra high-speed camera capable of imaging at up
53
to 500,000 frames per second. The laser is an Nd:YAG base laser system and has been used in the
past to make high-repetition rate planar flow visualization, particle image velocimetry (PIV) and
planar Doppler velocimetry (PDV) measurements in supersonic flow fields.
Flow Visualization Laboratory
It has been often said that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” The Flow Visualization Lab in
Davis 120 is the realization of this axiom in regard to fluid flow. Air is a “watery fluid” and the
flow of water, which is more easily visualized than the flow of air, may be used to learn a great
deal about the basic mechanisms involved in both media. The principal equipment in this lab is a
45 cm x 45 cm test section water tunnel. The water tunnel has a maximum speed of 1.2 meters
per second and is equipped with the latest instrumentation for visualization and flow
measurements. This includes a planar and stereoscopic particle image velocimeter, hot film
anemometer, high speed imager, pulsed and continuous wavefront lasers for laser induced
fluorescence, and a multiple color dye injection system. Specially designed flow tanks and
channels for the study of vortex dominated flows are also a part of the flow visualization
laboratory. Undergraduates visit this lab for demonstrations of flow phenomena and a few
undergraduate students work in the lab on research projects and experiments for AIAA student
paper competitions.
B. Resources and Support
1. Computing Resources
In addition to the resources described above, we have very good computing resources in the
Aerospace Computational Lab and the Auburn University CFD Laboratory.
The Aerospace Computational Lab (Davis 330) provides sixteen Windows PCs for students to
use while on campus. An extensive set of software that is available on each PC includes:
MATLAB, AutoCAD, SolidEdge, NASTRAN, PATRAN along with the standard MicroSoft
Office software. This lab is open to all aerospace students on a 24/7 basis. Some laboratory
sessions of AERO 3610, 4620 and 4630 are conducted in this lab.
The Auburn University CFD Laboratory is used primarily for research and is located in both
Davis Hall and the Shelby CET. Dr. Shelton is the Director of this lab. The portion in Davis
Hall is used primarily by AE students and faculty, while the portion located in Shelby 1113 is
used by faculty members and students throughout the College of Engineering. The hardware
resources include six high-end desktop workstations by Dell (8 core, 24GB memory) and a
cluster by Penguin Computing (60 core, 60GB memory) in Davis Hall and a cluster by Dell (512
core, 1.5TB memory) in the Shelby 1113. The workstations are used for all phases of the CFD
process, including geometry modeling, mesh generation, flow computation, and flow
visualization. The clusters are dedicated to large-scale, high-throughput, batch-style meshing
and flow computations. Commercial software available in the CFD lab currently includes
STAR-CCM+ from CD-Adapco and Gambit and Fluent from Ansys.
54
2. Shops
The Electronics, Machine and Model and Woodworking Shops are used in support our
laboratories. The Electronics Shop is used by Dr. Lin to repair and reprogram computers that he
can repair or reprogram. As noted elsewhere in the report, the Engineering Network Services
provide a great deal of support for computing equipment and the computational labs. The
Machine and Model Shop contains the usual lathes, drills, etc. and a relatively new Haas CNC
milling machine.
3. Laboratory Equipment Planning, Acquisition, and Maintenance Processes
Faculty or staff members are assigned the responsibility of each of our laboratories and shops.
Table 7-1 shows the responsible person for each laboratory or shop. Dr. Gross has general
oversight of the labs used principally by students in the Program. The principal faculty member
for each lab monitors the condition of the lab and determines the requirements for maintenance
and repair/replacement of existing equipment and for new equipment and, if appropriate, makes
requests to the Department Head regarding maintenance and repair/replacement of equipment
and for new equipment. The Aerodynamics Lab generates some funds from wind tunnel tests,
thus the Director, Dr. Ahmed, may use those funds for equipment purposes.
Table 7-1. Personnel Responsible for Laboratories and Shops
Facility
Aerodynamics Laboratory
Aerospace Computational Laboratory
Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory
Auburn University CFD Laboratory
Composites and UAV Laboratory
Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory
Flow Visualization Laboratory
Structures Laboratory
Structural Dynamics Laboratory
Electronics Shop
Machine and Model Shop
Woodworking Shop
Responsible Person
Anwar Ahmed
R. Steven Gross
Brian S. Thurow
Andrew B. Shelton
Gilbert L. Crouse
John E. Cochran, Jr.
Anwar Ahmed
R. Steven Gross
W. A. Foster, Jr.
Jim Lin
Andrew Weldon
R. Steven Gross
Much of our equipment is purchased using various combinations of funds from contracts and
grants, new faculty startups, IDCR, and gifts. As examples the Turbine Technologies, Inc. gas
turbine demonstrator was purchased in 2004 using gift funds. Because FY 2007 was a very good
year from the standpoint of donations, we also purchased some new equipment using gifts. We
purchased several new computers for the Aerospace Computation Laboratory. The Haas milling
machine was the principal purchase. Although it is not in a lab used by students, the milling
machine is a very important part of the support for such labs.
3. Support Personnel Available to Install, Maintain, and Manage Departmental Hardware,
Software, and Networks.
We get very good support for maintenance and repair of mechanical and electrical equipment
from Mr. Weldon and Dr. Lin, respectively. Also, Engineering Network Services personnel
55
provide support for all our computing equipment, mange the system software on the Engineering
Network, and assist faculty members with computer problems.
4. Support Personnel Available to Install, Maintain, and Manage Laboratory Equipment. Dr. Lin
and Mr. Weldon are the principal staff members available to install, maintain, and manage
laboratory equipment. Actually, the individual faculty members do a lot of the managing task.
C. Major Instructional and Laboratory Equipment
Appendix C contains a list of major instructional and laboratory equipment.
56
CRITERION 8. SUPPORT
A. Program Budget Process
Describe the process used to establish the program budget and provide evidence of continuity of
institutional support for the program.
Budget guidelines are established by the President, Executive Vice-president and
Provost/Academic Vice-president with advice from the University Budget Committee composed
of faculty and staff members. On the basis of the guidelines, the Dean determines an amount for
salary adjustments based on merit for each department. The Dean then requests
recommendations for adjustments of the salaries of individual faculty staff members from the
Department Head. Equity adjustments are based on regional data, time in service, etc. Step
increases are also provided for promotion from assistant to associate and associate to full
professor. This process is used only when funds are available.
For three of the last five years (FY 2005, FY 2006 and FY 2007), funds were available due to
tuition and fee increases and state funding increases. Hence, merit increases and equity
adjustments in salaries were provided. Increases on account of promotion were also provided as
appropriate. Due to the worsening economy, funds were not available for merit and equity
increases for FY 2008 and FY 2009. However, promotion increases were provided.
As noted above, operating funds made available to the college by the central administration are
allocated by the Dean on the basis of the percentage of the total college weighted semester credit
hours (WSCH) generated by each department. To prevent large decreases in departmental
funds from year to year, decreases are limited to 10%. Recently, a metric based on the increase
in research funding and numbers of graduate students has been used to distribute new funds
(increases) received by the college for the summer semester. We currently get enough summer
funds to pay one faculty part-time to teach two courses. However, we expect an increase next
year, if the same method of distribution is used.
As evidence of continuity of institutional support for the Program, it has been supported
financially by the university, alumni and friends since 1945. The building occupied by the
Program was rededicated and named for Mr. Davis in 2007. His planned gift will provide
continuing financial support for the Program. During the last five years, we have been allowed
to fill all three faculty vacancies that occurred and we were provided funds to hire a Student
Advisor. Also, our faculty and staff members received salary increases when faculty and staff in
other departments in the college did. In addition, our students have been provided funds for
student projects and competitions. The enrollment in the Program has been growing and at
approximately 10% of the college enrollment is certainly significant.
B. Sources of Financial Support
57
Funding of the Department has four components: (1) a general fund component that includes
salaries and operating funds, (2) a College of Engineering fee, (3) indirect cost recovery based on
the dollar amount of extramural research conducted by the faculty, and (4) gifts.
1. General Fund Allocations
General fund allocations for other operating expenses and GTAs are provided in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1. Operating and GTA Allocations from the General Fund
Undergraduate
Enrollment*
240 (111)#
Fiscal Year
Operating Funds
GTA Funds
2006
$36,293
$53,606
2007
$37,908
$48,246
247 (123)
2008
$36,273
$50,965
255 (149)
2009
$38,374
$55,687
300 (201)
2010
$3,895**
~$100,000
329 (210)
* Fall Semester
#
Pre-AE in parenthesis
** Reduction due to One-Time Budget Cuts
As noted above, in addition to the indicated other operating funds, a special college fee is
charged for use of equipment. These funds are currently used in connection with new buildings.
2. College of Engineering Fee
Students in the College of Engineering pay a course fee which is used to improve the learning
experience by increasing teaching resources, adding new student services and improving
program options and technology. In 2004 some of the funds represented by theses fees were
provided to the departments. Since then, the funds have been used in to help with the costs of
new buildings.
3. Indirect Cost Recovery
A good portion of the total travel expenditures of the Department are covered by “Indirect Cost
Recovery (IDCR) funds. The Department receives program support funds equal to 32% of the
indirect costs charged to extramural contracts and grants. Currently, the indirect cost rate is 46%
of the direct costs, which are essentially all costs except equipment. The Department’s program
support is distributed at the discretion of the Department Head. Most of the Department’s
program support funds for the last nine years have been divided equally between the Principal
Investigator (PI) and the Department. Generally, the PI shares program support funds with CoPIs on the basis of the salary they are paid from a contract or grant. For FY 2004-FY 2009, the
split has been 50% to the PI and 50% to the Department. However, due the recent budget cuts,
the share to the PI has been suspended until the economic situation improves. Table 8-2
provides the amounts of total program support for each of the last four fiscal years.
Table 8-2. Indirect Cost Recovery and Gifts.
58
Fiscal
Year
Indirect Cost
Recovery
Gifts
2007
$65,425
$81,019
2008
$100,318
$190,988
2009
$63,171
$20,646
2010
$53,430
$36,144
Clearly, FY 2007 was a very good year.
4. Gifts
Although gifts are generally not as predictable as state funding, prior to the capital fund drive
just completed, we usually received sufficient contributions each year to support student projects
and some travel. The Boeing Foundation has provided funds for scholarships and student
projects since 1997. Boeing provided $7,500 in FY 2006 and FY 2007 for scholarships in the
college and $2,500 to this Department for student projects. In FY 2008, Boeing increased their
support to provide $15,000 for three scholarships in this Department, one in the college and
$5,000 for student projects. In FY 2006 we received a large donation that allowed us to do those
things and also purchase a Haas milling machine that Mr. Weldon can use to make small and
large items and parts. As an example, we have received corporate support of at least $3,000 per
year for student design project support. The university capital campaign provided several fairly
large contributions in 2007 that we used to purchase undergraduate laboratory equipment and a
milling machine. Table 8-2 provides information on undesignated gifts to the Department for the
last four years.
C. Adequacy of Budget
Institutional support for the Program has been generally sufficient. This year has been an
exception. In the previous five years, changes in the level of state funds allocated to the
Department that were caused by enrollment fluctuations and variations in state funding
availability have been handled by using gifts and indirect cost recovery funds. This year, state
funds reductions resulted in a one-time reduction total for the 2010 fiscal year of about $99,000.
Fortunately, we received stimulus funds in the amount of about $100,000. This was not the 1 to
1 match it appears to be because the stimulus funds could only be spent on “part-time”
personnel, i.e., graduate students and part-time faculty members, whereas the use of funds
transferred were “unrestricted.” In the spring of 2010, our budget for FY 2011 was set at our
FY 2010 budget permanently reduced by more than $39,000. This reduction was taken from
faculty salaries, increasing our “soft” money component to around 15%.
Allocation of operating funds and funds for Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) is currently
based on the production of weighted semester credit hours and extramural research funding.
These metrics for each department are used to determine the percentage of total available funds
each department receives. Undergraduate credit hours have low weight (2.38) relative to masters
(5.46) and doctoral (17.6) level hours. This results in relatively more state funds going to
59
departments with more Ph.D. students and research, which are already receiving relatively more
indirect cost recovery funds. The purpose of this allocation process is to encourage larger
research programs and graduate enrollments. Although this is a legitimate purpose, the
distribution of general operating funds and graduate teaching funds is an issue that probably
should be re-examined.
D. Support of Faculty Professional Development
Some information has already been provided supra on this subject. Here, we provide additional
information on the financing of faculty professional development.
Faculty development is supported by the university, the college, and the Department.
(a) University travel grants are provided for travel to present technical papers. Also, faculty
members may request a seat on the university plane for one-day trips to Washington, D.C. to
discuss research with government agency representatives. The Provost and Vice President for
Research provide funds for equipment in startup packages for new faculty members.
(b) The college provides travel funds on occasion and the Engineering Experiment Station (EES)
provides startup funds for one summer’s salary for a new faculty member and cost-shares startup
equipment costs.
(c) Departmental funds are used to support startups and a variety of activities that are
continuously related to faculty development.
•
Travel
Faculty members receive travel funds from the department and, on occasion, from the
college, to attend professional meetings.
Faculty members who are members of AIAA technical committees receive travel
support from the Department.
New faculty members receive an allowance for moving expenses, equipment, and
travel, from the department; the first summer’s salary and equipment from the
Engineering Experiment Station, and equipment from the Office of the Vice-president
for Research and the Provost.
•
During FY 2006 –FY 2009, the Department provided over $150,000 for faculty and
student travel.
Publication costs not paid by research contracts or grants.
During FY 2006- FY 2009, the Department provided over $3,000 for faculty
publication costs.
•
Equipment
The Department provided over $80,000 (including startups) to faculty members for
equipment purchases during the period FY 2006-FY 2009.
E. Support of Facilities and Equipment
60
For large projects, such as the work done on Davis Hall in 2006-2007 we depend on the
university’s general maintenance funds. For smaller projects, such as new chairs for faculty, we
can request funds from the university Concessions Board. However, our continuing resources
for supporting equipment are our IDCR funds and gifts. We expect more IDCR funds in FY
2011 than in FY 2010 due to several some new contracts. We also expect to continue to receive
donations from our alumni and friends at the FY 2009 level or greater.
At the time of the last ABET visit, we had just purchased a Turbine Technologies, Inc., turbojet
“MiniLab” to provide hands-on experiences for students in AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion.
Since that time, we have purchased sixteen computers for the Aerospace Computational
Laboratory and other computers for faculty and staff members.
Second on our list of laboratory priorities in 2004 was the Structural Dynamics Lab. We wanted
to set up more vibration experiments. We have put that on hold to some extent because we
currently have equipment for a hardware-in-the-loop simulation system in that lab. There is still
space available for “small” experiments and we would like to develop some vibration
experiments for AERO 4630.
Dr. Gross has developed the electives taught as AERO 3970 in which students construct and
learn to pilot “conventional” UAVs. We want to continue these courses and give students the
opportunity to fly a radio-controlled “classical” UAV. On the high tech side, Dr. Crouse has the
capability in his lab to built small, unique UAVs in addition to the ones built for Design Build
and Fly competitions. Dr. Crouse is developing courses in UAV guidance, navigation and
control. Some of these will be “5000” courses that undergraduate students can take as electives.
These courses, plus some operational UAVs will give our students more experience semiautonomous operation.
In the Flight Dynamics and Control Lab, we have a control moment gyro (CMG) demonstration
setup that Dr. Sinclair purchased with startup funds in 2005. We would like to put the CMG in a
more accessible location and use it in connection with AERO 3220 and graduate courses.
As noted above, the new Richard C. Shelby Center for Engineering Technology (“Shelby CET”)
contains approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of space that our faculty and students can utilize. The
facilities include: (1) a CFD Computation Lab (2) an auditorium and (3) graduate student offices.
We have intended since the beginning of planning for the Shelby CET to use the auditorium to
simulate a NASA type “mission control room.” We may still do that, but a short-term objective
is to equip the auditorium with computers so that we can use it in teaching the NASTRAN
portion of AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II and the CFD portion of AERO 4140
Aerodynamics III.
F. Adequacy of Support Personnel and Institutional Services
We have excellent support personnel. Regarding administrative support, Ms. Ginger Ware and
Ms. Evia Vickerstaff are Office Administrator and Associate Office Administrator, respectively.
Ms. Ware, who has 25 years of experience at Auburn University, assists the Department Head
with all aspects of department finances, with correspondence, policies and procedures, and often
61
doubles as a receptionist. Ms. Vickerstaff, who has 28 years of experience, assists Ms. Ware, the
Program Coordinator and the Graduate Program Officer and often doubles as a receptionist.
A significant improvement in support of the Program was the addition last summer of Ms. Lisa
Avrit as our Student Advisor. Ms. Avrit has an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering,
so she understands many of the trials and tribulations of engineering students better than many
advisors. She has taken a great load off Dr. Gross and has also assisted with the AIAA student
chapter’s activities. Ms. Sara Allen was our part-time bookkeeper for a couple of years. She did
a fine job. Unfortunately, Ms. Allen died quite suddenly last summer and we have not yet found
a suitable replacement.
Regarding technical support, as mentioned above, Mr. Andy Weldon provides support for the
Aerodynamics Lab and other facilities that use mechanical or hydraulic systems and provides the
expertise to produce custom built parts used in research projects. Mr. Weldon is skilled machinist
and model maker with experience teaching in a technical school as well as industrial experience.
He has four years experience with the Department. Dr. Jim Lin, our Electrical Engineer, has a
Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Auburn and ten years experience with the Department. Dr.
Lin maintains all the electrical and computer equipment not maintained by the college or
university. He also does the required annual inventory of equipment each year. His education
and training make him a valuable part of the Department.
62
CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA
Outcome l is the Aerospace Engineering Program Specific Outcome. This Outcome is
considered in Section F of Criterion 3. We think that there is more than sufficient evidence that
our Program provides each of our graduates with working knowledge of aerodynamics,
aerospace materials, structures, propulsion, flight mechanics, and stability and control. For
students interested in astronautical engineering, the Program provides a required course in orbital
mechanics and electives in propulsion. The structures courses the Program includes are focused
more on airplane structures than space structures, but they provide an excellent foundation for
designing and analyzing space structures. In fact, Harris Corporation, a Florida manufacturer of
antennas used in space, has actively recruited and hired some of our graduates to do space
structures work. Moreover, students in our senior design sequence have the opportunity to
engage in astronautical projects. A required course in orbital mechanics and elective in
propulsion provide knowledge of astronautical areas. Moreover, in our senior design sequence,
students have the opportunity to engage in astronautical projects.
63
Appendix A: Course Syllabi
AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals (Required)
Introduction to the fundamental physical concepts required for the successful design of aircraft
and spacecraft.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Ahmed, A., Crouse, G., Thurow, B.
Text(s): Introduction to Flight, Anderson, John, McGraw Hill, 2008.
Prerequisites: ENGR 1110
Course Objective: The objective of this course is to introduce the student to the concepts of aerospace
design, particularly with regard to aircraft performance. We will begin by
introducing some basic concepts in fluid dynamics and thermodynamics, and
continue by applying these concepts to topics in aerodynamics, stability, control and
propulsion.
Week
Topic
1
The 1st Aeronautical engineers, fluid properties
2
Anatomy of an airplane, standard atmosphere
Fluid Motion - Continuity equation, momentum equation, thermodynamics,
energy equation
Review/Exam
Fluid Motion - Speed of sound, wind tunnels, velocity measurements
Fluid Motion - Compressible flows and viscous flows
Review/Exam
Aerodynamics - Airfoils, lift and drag coefficients
Performance - Drag polar, equations of motion, level flight
Performance - Thrust and power requirements
Performance - Climbing and gliding
Performance - Range and Endurance
Review/Exam
Stability and Control
Stability and Control
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Lecture: 1 hour per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 2
Relates to Program Outcomes a and e.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 2 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
64
Reading
(before class)
Ch. 1
2.1
2.1 – 2.6, Ch. 3
4.1-4.8
4.9 – 4.12
4.13 – 4.15
5.1 – 5.4
6.1 – 6.3
6.4 – 6.7
6.8 – 6.12
6.13 – 6.17
7.1-7.3
7.4-7.5
AERO 3110 AERODYNAMICS I (Required)
Properties of fluids, fluid statics, conservation of mass and momentum, atmospheric properties,
two dimensional airfoils, three dimensional wings, drag, and flight performance.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Crouse, G., Shelton, A., Thurow, B.
Text(s): Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Anderson, John, McGraw Hill, 2010.
Prerequisites: MATH 2650
Course Objective: The objective of this course is to establish the fundamental principles and
concepts that govern fluid flow and lead to the production of physical forces,
particularly related to the aerodynamics forces associated with an airfoil or
other objects immersed in the fluid.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Topic
Introduction, Units, Force and Moment Coefficients, Buckingham Pi
Theorem
Buoyancy, Types of Flows, Boundary Layers, Applied Aero
Control Volume, Fluid Element, Continuity Equation
Momentum Equation, Energy Equation
Pathlines, Streaklines, Vorticity, Circulation
Exam
Bernoulli’s Equation, Duct Flows, LaPlace’s Eqn
Sources, Sinks, Doublets, Vortex Flow
Flow Over a Cylinder
Exam
Airfoils, Kutta Condition
Kelvin’s Circulation Theorem, Thin Airfoil Theory
MATLAB Project (optional)
Exam
Wing-Tip Vortices, Prandtl’s Lifting Line Theory
Delta Wings, Swept Wings
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
65
Reading
(before class)
1.1-1.5
1.6-1.14
2.1-2.5
2.6-2.10
2.11-2.17
3.1-3.12
3.13-3.17
4.1-4.5
4.6-4.10
4.10-4.14
5.1-5.3
5.4-5.8
AERO 3120 COMPRESSIBLE AERODYNAMICS (Required)
Principles of compressible flow including flows with area changes, friction, and heat transfer.
Fundamental analysis of aerodynamics and potential flow theory. Correlation of potential flow
theory with experimental data.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Thurow, B.
Text(s): Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Anderson, John, McGraw Hill, 2010.
Prerequisites: AERO 3110, ENGR 2010
Course Objective: The objective of this course is to establish the fundamentals of compressible
flow that allow for flow velocities near to and greater than the speed of sound
and lead to the formation of shock waves and expansions in both internal and
external flows.
Week
Topic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Review of thermodynamics, definition of compressibility
Governing equations, definition of stagnation conditions
Speed of sound, energy equation, normal shocks
normal shocks
Review/Exam
oblique shocks
Shock interactions and reflections, detached shocks
Prandtl-Meyer expansion waves, shock-expansion theory
Review/Exam
Quasi-one-dimensional flow, nozzle flows
Diffusers and supersonic wind tunnels
Review/Exam
Linearized velocity potential equation
Compressibility corrections, critical Mach number
Drag-divergence, area rule, supercritical airfoil
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
66
Reading
(before class)
7.1-7.3
7.4-7.7
8.1-8.6
8.6-8.8
9.1-9.3
9.4-9.5
9.6-9.10
10.1-10.3
10.3-10.6
11.1-11.3
11.4-11.6
11.7-11.9
AERO 3130 AERODYNAMICS LABORATORY (Required)
Application of fundamental aerodynamic principles to subsonic and supersonic wind tunnel
experiments.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Ahmed, A.
Text(s): Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, Rae and Pope, 1984.
Laboratory Manual written by Dr. Ahmed
Prerequisite: AERO 2200
Course Objective: To be able to use laboratory equipment and instrumentation for aerodynamic
testing, understanding of the measurement techniques, planning of wind
tunnel tests, and professional reporting.
LECTURE TOPICS
1. Introduction to experimental aerodynamics, wind tunnels
2. Report Preparation
3. Theory of modeling and scaling
4. Experimental error and uncertainty analysis
5. Pressure measurement
6. Airspeed Measurement/Flow angularity
7. Thermal Anemometry
8. Laser Doppler Velocimetery
9. Particle Image Velocimetry
10. Force/Moment Measurement – Wind Tunnel Balance
11. Flow Visualization
12. Wind tunnel corrections
13. Miscellaneous topics
LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
1. Electrical analogy for streamlines and potential lines
2. Pressure transducer calibration - turbulent jet
3. Hot wire anemometer - turbulent jet
4. Data Acquisition
5. Shadowgraph/Schliren Optical setup
6. Flow visualization (Smoke Tunnel)
7. Flow Visualization (Water Tunnel)
8. Drag of Axi-symmetric bodies – Rough and Smooth Spheres
9. NACA 0012 Airfoil Pressure Distribution - Determination of Lift
10. NACA 0012 Wake Velocity Deficit – Determination of Drag
11. Boundary Layer Study – Laminar, transition, turbulent boundary Layers
Lecture: 1 hour per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 2
Relates to Program Outcomes a, b, e, f, g, and k.
67
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 2 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
68
AERO 3220 AEROSPACE SYSTEMS (Required)
Modeling of system elements, classical feedback control techniques used in the analysis of linear
systems, analysis of systems undergoing various motions connected with flight.
Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Sinclair, A.
Text: Dynamic Modeling and Control of Engineering Systems, 3rd Edition, Kulakowski,
Gardner, and Shearer
Prerequisites: ENGR 2350, MATH 2650
Course Objective: In this class students will learn what a system is, different forms for system
models, and how to simulate a system. Additionally, students will learn how
to analyze the dynamic response and stability of a system. Concepts for
designing controllers will also be introduced.
Week
1-2
3-5
6
7-8
9-10
11
12-13
14
15
Topic
Review of Mechanical Systems
Block Diagrams, Input-Output Models, and State-Space Models
Review of Differential Equations
Numerical Simulation of Systems
Transfer Functions
Bode Diagrams
Root Locus
Stability of Systems
PID Controllers and Lead-Lag Controllers
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, e, g, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Math & Basic Science: 1 credit
Engineering topics, 2 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
69
AERO 3230 FLIGHT DYNAMICS (Required)
Airplane performance and stability and control including analytical prediction of performance
characteristics, experimental determination of static stability parameters, and analytical
prediction of dynamic stability characteristics.
Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Cochran, J
Text: Dynamics of Flight - Stability and Control, Etkin, 3rd Edition, 1996
Prerequisites: AERO 3110, ENGR 2350 and MATH 2650
Course Objective: The instructor’s objective is to provide Aerospace Engineering students in this
class with information and instruction that will allow them to develop an
understanding of the fundamentals of the dynamics and control of flight
vehicles with emphasis on conventional airplane performance and stability,
both static and dynamic.
Week
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
11-12
13-15
Topic
Airplane Performance
a. Point-Mass Equations of Motion
b. Quasi-steady Performance
Static Longitudinal Stability
a. Conventional,
Tail-Aft Mathematical Model
b. Longitudinal Trim
c. Stick-fixed and Stick-free Stability
d.Simple Maneuvering Flight – Stick Force per g
Lateral-directional Flight
a. Conventional, Tail-Aft Mathematical Model
b. Weathercock Stability
c. Lateral-directional Trim – Engine Out
Rigid Body Equations of Motion
a. Translation and Rotation - Kinetics
b. Translation and Rotation - Kinematics
c. Equilibrium
Dynamic Stability Analysis
a. Stability of Nonlinear Systems
b. Linear Equations – Longitudinal
c. Linear Equations - Lateral
Estimation of Stability Derivatives
a. Longitudinal Derivatives
b. Lateral Derivatives
Controls-fixed Dynamic Stability
a. Linear Systems - Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors
b. Longitudinal Example
c. Lateral Example
Lecture: 3 hours per week
70
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 4
Relates to Program Outcomes a, b, e, g, i, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
71
AERO 3310 ORBITAL MECHANICS (Required)
Geometry of the solar system and orbital motion, mathematical integrals of motion, detailed
analysis of two-body dynamics and introduction to artificial satellite orbits; Hohmann transfer
and patched conics for lunar and interplanetary trajectories.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Cicci
Text: Orbital Mechanics Chobotov, 3rd edition, AIAA Education Series, 2002.
Prerequisites: ENGR 2350 and MATH 2650
Course Objective: In this class students will learn about geometry of orbital motion, mathematic
integrals of motion, detailed analysis of two-body dynamics, Hohmann
transfers, and patched conics for lunar and interplanetary trajectories.
Week
1-2
3-5
6-8
9-10
11-13
14-15
Topic
Basic Concepts
Celestial Relationships
Keplerian Orbits
Position and Velocity as a Function of Time
Orbital Maneuvers
Lunar and Interplanetary Trajectories
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
72
AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures Laboratory I (Required)
Fundamental concepts employed in the mechanical testing of engineering materials and
structures. Load, stress and strain measurement techniques are utilized to determine material
properties and structural response.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, S.
Text: Mechanics of Materials, Hibbeler, R., 6th edition, 2005
Prerequisites: ENGR 2070
Course Objectives: The objectives of this course are to: (1) introduce the student to the
experimental and analytical methods employed to determine the mechanical
response of engineering materials and structures to static loading, (2) to
expose the student to the areas of conceptual design, analysis,
manufacturing and structural testing.
Week
Topic
(Lecture)
Lab Topic
(Lab)
1
2
Review of Truss Analysis
Review of Shear and Moment
Diagrams
Review of Shear and Moment
Diagrams
Column Buckling (Long)
Column Buckling (Long)
Column Buckling (Short)
Crippling Failure of Columns
Basic Crystalline Structure
(Strengthening Methods)
Mechanical Testing Methods
(Tension and Compression)
Strain Gages
Stress-Strain Curve Analysis
Mechanical Testing Methods
(Tension and Compression)
Mechanical Testing Methods
(Hardness and Notch-Impact)
Aluminum Alloys
Aluminum Alloys
Aluminum Alloys
Intro for Lab
RISA Software
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Basic Machining
Basic Machining
Lab Project-Design
Lab Project-Design
Lab Project-Design
Lab Project-Build
Lab Project-Build
Lab Project-Build
Lab Project-Build
Lab Project-Test
Aluminum Alloys
Aluminum Alloys
Aluminum Alloys
Lecture: 1 hour per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 2
Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, d, e, and k.
73
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 2 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
74
AERO 4AA0: Program Assessment (Required)
Academic program assessment covering the areas of aerodynamics, aerospace structures, orbital
mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, S.
Text: Not Applicable
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
75
AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III (Required)
Theoretical background essential to a fundamental understanding of laminar and turbulent
boundary layers and their relations to skin friction and heat transfer.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Shelton, A.
Textbook: Viscous Fluid Flow, White, 3rd edition, 2006.
Prerequisites: AERO 3120
Course Objective: The objective of this course is to provide the student an understanding of the effects
of viscosity and thermal conductivity on fluid motion and heat transfer.
Incompressible laminar boundary layers, turbulent boundary layers, and free shear
flows are discussed in detail. An introduction is given to transitional flow,
compressibility effects, and numerical modeling.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Topics
Introduction to viscous flow phenomena
Transport properties and kinematics
Conservation equations, constitutive relations
Boundary conditions, dynamic similarity, vorticity transport
Exact solutions for incompressible, laminar flow
Momentum and energy integral approach
Thin shear layer approximation and similarity solutions
Free shear flows
Laminar instability and transition to turbulence
Reynolds averaging, "apparent" stresses, and the closure problem
Empirical turbulent mean and fluctuating velocity profiles
Integral relations for turbulent boundary layers
Eddy viscosity, mixing length, and other aspects of turbulence modeling
Turbulent free shear flows
Compressibility effects in shear flows
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
76
Reading
1.1-1.2, 6.1
1.3
2.1-2.5, 2.13
1.4, 2.8-2.10
3.1-3.5
4.1, 4.6
4.2-4.3
4.4
5
6.1-6.3
6.4
6.8
6.7
6.9
7
AERO 4510 - Aerospace Propulsion (Required)
Fundamental analysis of airbreathing jet propulsion. Introduction to chemical rocket propulsion.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Thurow, B.
Text: Fundamentals of Jet Propulsion with Applications, Flack, 1st edition, 2005
Prerequisites: AERO 3120
Course Objective: To introduce the student to basic performance characteristics and analysis
techniques for airbreathing jet engines.
Week
Topic
1
2
3
History, Introduction, Types of Engines
Brayton Cycle, Thrust Equation
Ramjets – Ideal and Non-Ideal Cycle Analysis
4
Turbojets – Ideal and Non-Ideal Cycle Analysis
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Matlab Code – Part 1
Exam #1
Turbofans & Turboprops – Ideal Cycle Analysis
Turbofans & Turboprops – Non-Ideal Cycle Analysis
Matlab Code – Part 2
Lab Project #1
Exam #2
Component Analysis - Diffusers
Component Analysis - Nozzles
Component Analysis – TBD
Component Analysis – TBD
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 4
Relates to Program Outcomes a, b, c, h, j, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
77
Reading
(before class)
1.1 – 1.3
1.4 – 1.6
2.1 - 2.3.1, 3.1
- 3.2
2.3.2
3.3-3.5
2.3.3 – 2.3.5
Ch. 3
Ch. 4
Ch. 5
AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II (Required)
Aircraft and space vehicle structures. An introduction to the finite element method and its
application to structural analysis.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Foster, W.
Text: A First Course in the Finite Element Method, Logan, 3rd edition, 2002.
Prerequisites: AERO 3610 and MATH 2660
Course Objective: This course is designed to provide the student with a fundamental background
in the analysis of the structural components commonly found in aircraft and
space vehicles. The course emphasizes the latest numerical methods for
solving structural problems as well as classical analytical techniques. The
laboratory utilizes state of the art software for solving structural problems
using the finite element method and for the pre- and post-processing of finite
element models.
Week
1-2
3-5
6-8
9-11
12-13
14-15
Topic
Introduction to the finite element method
Finite element method applied to linear springs
Finite element method applied to truss analysis
Finite element method applied to beam analysis
Finite element analysis of plane stress and plane strain problems
Finite element analysis of plate bending problems
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 4
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
78
AERO 4630 Aerospace Structural Dynamics (Required)
Free, forced and damped vibration of single and multiple degree-of-freedom systems.
Introduction to flutter theory and aeroelasticity.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Foster, W.
Text: Fundamentals of Vibrations, Meirovitch, 1st edition, 2000.
Prerequisites: AERO 4620
Course Objective: This course is designed to provide the student with a fundamental background
in the analysis of the dynamic behavior of structural components commonly
found in aircraft and space vehicles. The course emphasizes classical
analytical techniques as well as the latest numerical methods for solving
structural dynamic problems. The laboratory utilizes state of the art software
for solving structural dynamic problems related to vibration and dynamic
response in both the frequency domain and the time domain.
Week
1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
12-15
Topic
Review of dynamics
Single Degree of Freedom Systems subjected to initial conditions
Single Degree of Freedom Systems subjected to harmonic excitations
Two Degree of Freedom Systems
Vibrations of continuous systems
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 4
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
79
AERO 4710 AEROSPACE DESIGN I (Requirred)
Introduction to the principles required to design aerospace vehicles.
Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Crouse
Text: Aircraft Design, a Conceptual Approach, 4th Ed., Dan Raymer.
Prerequisites: AERO 3120
Course Objective: This course will allow the students to develop a set of vehicle design
requirements and then design a vehicle that meets the requirements.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6-7
8
9
10
11
12
13-14
15
Topic
Design Process and Initial Sizing
Airfoil and Wing Planform
Detail Sizing and Sizing Constraints
Interior Layout
Design Layout
Propulsion System and Landing Gear
Design Process and Aerodynamics
Performance
Stability and Control
Propulsion
Structures
Cost Analysis and Trade Studies
Unusual Concepts
Lecture: 2 hours per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, e, g, j, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
80
AERO 4720 AERSOAPCE DESIGN II (Required)
This course is a continuation of AERO 4710.
Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Crouse
Text: Aircraft Design, a Conceptual Approach, 4th Ed., Dan Raymer.
Prerequisites: AERO 4710
Course Objective: The students are expected to become proficient in the analysis methods
employed to verify that an aircraft design meets various performance
requirements. These requirements include both commercial/performance
requirements (e.g. cruise speed, or range) and regulatory/safety requirements
(e.g. dynamic stability, spar strength). The appropriate FAA regulations
including Part 23 for general aviation aircraft and Part 25 for transport aircraft
are reviewed, and methods for demonstrating compliance are discussed such
as those accepted by the FAA in Advisory Circular 23-19A.
Week
1-2
3-5
6-8
9-10
11-12
13-14
15
Topic
Initial Weight Sizing
Initial Layout
Initial Analysis
Optimization
Revised Layout
Detailed Analysis
Final Report
Lecture: 2 hours per week
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, d, e, f, g, j, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
81
AERO 5330 Applied Orbital Mechanics (Elective)
Special perturbation techniques: N-body perturbations; general and restricted three-body
problems; preliminary orbit determination; C-W equations, targeting and rendezvous;
constellation design; mission planning.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Cicci, D.
Text: There is no required textbook; however, there are many useful texts you may enjoy
reading:
Battin, An Introduction to the Mathematics and Methods of Astrodynamics
Chobotov, Orbital Mechanics
Vallado, Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications
Sidi, Spacecraft Dynamics & Control
Prerequisites: AERO 3310
Course Objectives: This course will examine perturbations to the two-body problem studied in
AERO 3310. Students will be introduced to a variety of analytical methods
for studying perturbations and numerical methods including modern software
applications.
Week
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-11
12
13-15
Topic
Review of Two-Body Orbital Mechanics
Introduction to Perturbations
Special Perturbation Theory
Numerical Integration of Satellite Equations of Motion
General Perturbation Theory
Planetary Ephemeris Studies
Satellite Tool Kit Applications
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
82
AERO 5520 Rocket Propulsion (Elective)
Analysis of the thermodynamics, gas dynamics and design of liquid and solid propellant rocket
engines.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Hartfield, R.
Text: Rocket Propulsion Elements, Sutton, 7th edition, 2001.
Prerequisites: AERO 4510
Course Objective: To provide the student with a basic understanding of rocket engine
performance and solid rocket propellant design methods.
Week
1
2-3
4-7
8-10
11-13
13-15
Topic
Introduction
Brief Review of Thermodynamic Fundamentals Needed for this
Course
Liquid Propellant Fundamentals
Solid Propellant Burning
Grain Design with Associated Performance
Design of a Solid Rocket Motor Powered Missile
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
83
AERO 5530 Space Propulsion (Elective)
Analysis of space propulsion systems. Dynamics of electromagnetic systems, ion engines,
photon drives, laser propulsion.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Hartfield, R.
Text: Space Propulsion Analysis and Design, Humble, 1995.
Prerequisites: AERO 4510
Course Objective: To provide the student with a basic knowledge of different space propulsion
system elements and performance characteristics
Week
1
2-3
4-7
8-10
11-13
13-14
15
Topic
Rocket Fundamentals (Performance)
Brief Review of Thermodynamic Fundamentals
Liquid Propellant Fundamentals
Solid Propellant Burning
Nuclear Thermal Rocket Propulsion Systems
Electric Propulsion
Introduction to Future systems and Novel Concepts
Lecture: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 3
Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
84
AERO 3970 Engineering Applications of FORTRAN (Elective)
An introduction to computer programming fundamentals, particularly for engineering applications. It
also covers beginner and intermediate syntax for the FORTRAN programming language.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, R.
Text: Lecture notes and programming examples will be provided via the class website:
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/douceea/FORTRAN.html
Prerequisites: none
Course Objective: To provide the student with a basic knowledge of the FORTRAN
programming language.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Topic
Introduction to programming logic and the Fortran language
Introduction to Force 2.0.8 and Fortran code formatting
Application of simple IF statements
IF-ELSE and GOTO structures
Simple DO loops, both styles
Nested DO loops and DO-IF structures
Strategy for writing a simple engineering program from scratch
Basic debugging
Subroutines and functions
Variable types and declarations
Using double precision throughout a program
Array variables
File access and modification
Formatted input/output
Lecture: 1 hour per week
Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading)
Relates to Program Outcomes k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
85
AERO 3970 Engineering Applications of MATLAB (Elective)
This course offers an introduction to the application of the MATLAB programming language to
aerospace engineering problems. Specific topics include but are not limited to MATLAB basics,
matrix and vector manipulation, program flow control, functions, and plotting.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, R.
Text: Lecture notes and programming examples will be provided via handouts. Some suggested
references are:
Etter, D. M. and Kuncicky, D., Introduction to MATLAB 7, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.
Hanselman, D. and Littlefield, B., The Student Edition of MATLAB User’s Guide, Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Kuncicky, D., MATLAB Programming, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
Prerequisites: none
Course Objective: To provide the student with knowledge necessary to utilize MATLAB for the
solution of some common Aerospace engineering tasks.
Introduction to programming logic and MATLAB interface Symbolic variables Mathematical
Operations: algebra, trigonometry, calculus, vectors, and matrices Script files vs. function files
Equation solving Plotting: formatting, subplot, figure editing Flow control: for loops, if statements,
while loops, break Solving differential equations Reading from and writing to files Eigenanalysis
Iteration and tolerance
Week
1-3
4-7
8
9-10
11-12
13
14
15
Topic
Introduction to programming logic and MATLAB interface Symbolic
variables
Mathematical Operations: algebra, trigonometry, calculus, vectors,
and matrices
Script files vs. function files
Plotting: formatting, subplot, figure editing
Flow control: for loops, if statements, while loops, break
Solving differential equations
Reading from and writing to files
Eigenanalysis Iteration and tolerance
Lecture: 1 hour per week
Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading)
Relates to Program Outcomes k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
86
AERO 3970 UAV Construction Methods (Elective)
This course provides the student with an introduction to the construction methods for small UAV’s.
The students work in small teams to construct a traditional remote-control, piston powered, aircraft
by use of a commercial kit.
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, S.
Text: Construction Guide for the particular aircraft kit.
Prerequisites: none
Course Objective: To expose the students to construction materials and methods associated with
small UAV’s.
Week
1
2-11
12-13
14-15
Topic
Introduction to basic RC electronics and piston engine operation
Construction of fuselage, wing and tail components
Covering of aircraft components with Monocote material
Installation of servos, control rods, and propulsion system
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading)
Relates to Program Outcome d.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
87
AERO 3970 UAV Piloting (Elective)
This course provides the student with an introduction to piloting small UAV’s
Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, R.
Text: none
Prerequisites: none
Course Objective: To expose the student to the flight and control characteristics of small
UAV’s.
Week
1
2-6
7-15
Topic
Introduction to basic aircraft flight behavior
Simulator training using RealFlight software
Actual flight instruction at the local flying field.
Laboratory: 3 hours per week
Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading)
Relates to Program Outcome k.
Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits
Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010
88
Appendix B: Faculty Resumes
ANWAR AHMED
Professor
211 Aerospace Engineering Building, Auburn University, AL 36849
Phone: (334) 844-6817, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: aahmed@eng.auburn.edu
EDUCATION
1985 - PhD, Aerospace Engineering, Wichita State University
1981 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Wichita State University
1976 - BS, Mechanical Engineering, Peeshawar University
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 15
2008 – Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1998 - 2008: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1995 - 1998: Associate Director, Aerospace Program, Mechanical Engineering, Southern
University
1987 - 1995: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Texas A&M University
1985 - 1987: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Science Engineering, Tuskegee University
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
1989 - Present: American Physical Society
1985 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2007 - Present: Faculty Advisor - NASA Reduced Gravity Students Flight Program
2007 - Present: Member, Senate Lecture Committee - Auburn University
2007 - Present: Member, Woltosz Graduate Fellowship Committee - Aerospace Engineering
Department,
2006 - Present: Member, Editorial Advisory Board, Journal of Aircr - American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics
2006 - Present: Chair, Students Awards Committee- Aerospace Engineering Department
2005 - Present: Member, Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Technical Com - American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2004 - Present: Director, Flow Visualization Laboratory -Aerospace Engineering Department
2000 - Present: Member, Graduate Admissions Committee - Aerospace Engineering
Department
2000 - Present: Member, Graduate Programs Committee – Aerospace Engineering
Department,
89
1999 - Present: Member, Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee- American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics
1998 - Present: Faculty Advisor - Sigma Gamma Tau, Auburn University
1998 - Present: Director, Wind tunnel Operations – Aerospace Engineering Department
1998 - Present: Faculty Advisor, Sigma Gamma Tau, Auburn University
HONORS AND AWARDS
1998: Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Elected through
nomination
1996: Excellence in Research Award - US Air Force Academy, CO.
1992: Ralph E. Teetor Outstanding Educator Award - Society of Automotive Engineers.
1983: Pi Mu Epsilon, Mathematics Society - Wichita State University, KS.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
2008 - 2008: High Speed Diagnostics, USAF Research Labs Developed seeding systems for PIV in the Tri-Sonic Gas Dynamics tunnel
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Recktenwald, B., and Ahmed A, "Experimental Investigation of a
Circular Planform Joined Wing Concept Aircraft.", _AIAA-2008-0371,
paper presented at the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno,
NV_, Jan. 2008.
Rifki, R., Ahmed, A., and Khan, M. J, "Effect of Aspect Ratio on
Flow Field of Surface-Mounted Obstacles", AIAA Journal, Vol. 45,
No. 4, pp 954-958, Apr. 2007.
Bangash, Z. A*., Sanchez, R. P*., Ahmed, A. and Khan, M. J,
"Aerodynamics of Formation Flight", Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
43, No. 4, pp 907-912, Apr. 2006.
Khan, M. J. and Ahmed, A, "Topological Model of Flow Regimes in
the Plane of Symmetry of a Surface-mounted Obstacle", Physics of
Fluids Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 1-8, Apr. 2005.
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
State of Texas
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 40%
Program = 60%
90
DAVID A. CICCI
Professor
211 Davis Aerospace Engineering Hall
Auburn University, AL 36849-5338
Phone: (334) 844-6820, FAX: (334) 844-6803, Email: dcicci@eng.auburn.edu
EDUCATION
1987
1976
1973
- Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Texas at Austin
- M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University
- B.S., Mechanical Engineering, West Virginia University
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 23
2000-present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University, AL
1993 - 2000: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University,
AL
1987 - 1993: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University, AL
1981 - 1982: Engineering Specialist, Bell Helicopter TEXTRON Corp., Ft. Worth, TX
1977 - 1981: Senior Engineer, Swanson Engineering Associates Corp., McMurray, PA
CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
2004- present: Dynetics, Inc., Huntsville, AL.
2006-2007: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Huntsville, AL,.
2004-2005: Science Applications International Corporation, Huntsville, AL,.
2001: U.S. Army Aviation Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center - Systems
Simulation and Development Directorate, Redstone Arsenal, AL,.
1989: Sverdrup Technology, Inc., Stennis Space Center, MS,.
1984: General Dynamics Corp., Ft. Worth, TX,.
1982-1983: Swanson Engineering Associates Corp., McMurray, PA,.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA); Associate Fellow.
American Astronautical Society (AAS).
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
Registered Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania and Alabama.
HONORS AND AWARDS
Appointed to the IEEE Gyro and Accelerometer Panel, 2006.
Elected to the AAS, Board of Directors, 2005.
AIAA Student Chapter Outstanding Faculty Member of the Year, 1987-88, 1996-97, 2001-02,
2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07.
91
Selected for AIAA National Faculty Advisor Award by the Student Activities Committee,
1992.
Appointed to the AIAA Astrodynamics Technical Committee, 1991, 1995, 1999; Education
Subcommittee, 1992; Membership Subcommittee, 2003.
Appointed to the AIAA Astrodynamics Committee on Standards, 1991.
Air Force Office of Scientific Research Summer Faculty Fellowship, Eglin, AFB, FL, 1989.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
“Preliminary Orbit Determination of a Tethered Satellite Using the f and g Series,” D. A.
Cicci and C. Qualls, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 56, No. 1, January-March
2008.
“Two-Body Missile Separation Dynamics,” D. A. Cicci, C. Qualls, and G. Landingham,
Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 198, pp. 44-58, 2008.
“Ballistic Missile Trajectory Prediction Using a State Transition Matrix,” W. J. Harlin and D.
A. Cicci, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 188, pp. 1832-1847, 2007.
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
University
Auburn University Senate, Chair-Elect, 2006-2007; Chair, 2007-2008, Immediate Past
Chair, 2008-2009.
Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (CIA), 2004-2007.
College
Engineering Faculty Council, 2004-2009.
Department
Graduate Program Officer, 1989-97, 2004-2009.
AIAA Student Chapter Faculty Advisor, 1988-93.
Professional
IEEE Gyro and Accelerometer Panel, 2006-present.
AAS Board of Directors, 2005-present.
AIAA Astrodynamics Technical Committee, 1991-94, 1995-98, 1999-2007; Education
Subcommittee, 1992-94; Membership Subcommittee, 2003-2007.
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
State of Pennsylvania and Alabama
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 40%
Program = 60%
92
JOHN E. COCHRAN, JR.
Professor and Head
211 Aerospace Engineering Building
Phone: (334) 844-6815, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: jcochran@eng.auburn.edu
Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/
EDUCATION
1976 - J.D., Law, Jones Law School
1970 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin
1967 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1966 - BAE, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 42
1993 - Present: Professor and Head, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1992 - 1993: Interim Head and Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1984 - 1992: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1981 - 1984: Associate Director of Athletics and Professor, Athletics and Aerospace
Engineering, Auburn University
1980 - 1981: Alumni Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1978 - 1980: Alumni Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1975 - 1978: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1975 - 1975: Visiting Associate Professor, Engineering Science and Systems, University of
Virginia
1970 - 1975: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1969 - 1970: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1968 - 1969: Research Engineer, Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
University of Texas at Austin
1967 - 1968: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
1993 - Present: American Society for Engineering Education
1984 - Present: American Helicopter Society
1980 - Present: Alabama Society of Professional Engineers
1980 - Present: National Society of Professional Engineers
1977 - Present: Alabama Bar Association
1977 - Present: American Bar Association
1970 - Present: American Astronautical Society
1967 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1967 - Present: Sigma Xi
93
HONORS AND AWARDS
2005: Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
1992: Fellow, American Astronautical Society
1984: Mortar Board Favorite Educator Award - Auburn University.
1980: Young Engineer of the Year - Alabama Society of Professional Engineers.
1978: Alumni Professorship - Auburn University.
1971: Outstanding Faculty Award, College of Engineering – Auburn University.
1968: NSF Fellowship - National Science Foundation. Support of study leading to PhD
1966: National Collegiate Athletic Association Fellowship
1966: Tau Beta Pi Fellowship
1966: Phi Kappa Phi - Auburn University.
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Dai, R. and Cochran, J.E., Jr., “Path Planning and State Estimation for Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles in Hostile Environments,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 33,
No. 2, pp 595-600, March –April, 2010.
Dai, Ran and Cochran, J. E., Jr., “Three-Dimensional Trajectory Optimization in Constrained
Airspace,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 2, March–April 2009, pp. 627-634.
D. Lee, Cochran, J. E., Jr., Jo, J. H., "Solutions to the Variational Equations for Relative
Motion of Satellites", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 30, No. 3, May
2007, pp. 669-678.
CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
1995 - 1997: Patent infringement (missile component) - U. S. Department of Justice
1984 - Present: Numerous engineering analyses - Eaglemark, Inc.
1977 - Present: Accident analysis and reconstruction; products liability
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
State of Alabama
LICENSED ATTORNEY
State of Alabama
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 40%
Program = 60%
94
GILBERT L CROUSE, JR
Associate Professor
333 Aerospace Engineering Building
Phone: (334) 844-6843, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: crousgl@auburn.edu
Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/crousgl/
EDUCATION
1992 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland
1989 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland
1987 - BS, Physics, Wheaton College
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 5
2005 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
2000 - 2005: Founder and President, DaVinci Technologies
1993 - 2000: Division Scientist, BBN Technologies
1990 - 1990: Engineer, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Helicopter Society
American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2003 - 2006: Secretary/Treasurer - IntelliCAD Technology Consortium
2005- present: AIAA: Design, Build and Fly Competition Faculty Advisor
HONORS AND AWARDS
1989: Vertical Flight Foundation Fellowship
1988: US Army Rotorcraft Fellowship
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
“A Segmented Freewing Concept for Gust Alleviation,” J. Welstead and G. L. Crouse, Jr.,
AIAA Journal of Aircraft, In press.
“Experimental Investigation of a Circular-Planform Concept Aircraft,” B. Recktenwald, G.L.
Crouse, Jr., and A. Ahmed, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, In press.
95
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 50%
Program = 50%
96
WINFRED A. FOSTER, JR.
Professor
211 Aerospace Engineering Building
Phone: (334) 844-6841, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: wfoster@eng.auburn.edu
EDUCATION
1974 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1969 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1967 - BAE, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 36
1996 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1983 - 1996: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1979 - 1983: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1978 - 1979: Senior Design Engineer, Government Products Division, Pratt and
Whitney Aircraft Company
1974 - 1978: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Phi Kappa Phi
Sigma Gamma Tau
Sigma Xi
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Solid Rocket Technical Committee - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
HONORS AND AWARDS
1974: IR-100 Award - Industrial Research Magazine. Aerial Row Seeder (Top 100 New
Products in 1974)
PATENTS
Cutchins, Foster,Orlin, Burkhalter and Martin, "Aerial Seeder and
Method", Patent issued, No. 3944137, 1976.
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
97
State of Alabama and Florida
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 30%
Program = 70%
98
ROBERT S. GROSS
Associate Professor
211 AE Building
Phone: (334) 844-6846, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: rgross@eng.auburn.edu
EDUCATION
1988 - Ph.D, Engineering Mechanics, Clemson University
1979 - MS, Engineering Mechanics, Clemson University
1977 - BS, Forestry, Virginia Tech
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 22
1996 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1988 - 1996: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1982 - 1984: Staff Research Engineer, Research Division, Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company
1979 - 1982: Mechanical Engineer, Naval Surface Weapons Center
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
1995 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1997 – Present: Undergraduate Program Coordinator
1997 - 2010: Undergraduate Advisor - Aerospace Engineering Department
1997 - Present: Computer Laboratory Coordinator – Aerospace Engineering Department
1997 - Present: ABET Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering Department
1996 - Present: Department Representative- College of Engineering Curriculum Committee
1993 - Present: Building Facilities Coordinator – Aerospace Engineering Department
1993 - Present: Structural Mechanics Laboratory Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering
Department
1993 - Present: Composite Materials Laboratory Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering
Department
HONORS AND AWARDS
2010: Outstanding Professor Award - AIAA.
2010: Aerospace Engineering Outstanding Faculty Member – AE Students.
1996: Aerospace Engineering Outstanding Faculty Member – AE Students.
1995: Birdsong Superior Teaching Award - College of Engineering.
1994: Fred H. Pumphrey Teaching Award - College of Engineering.
99
1994: Faculty Member of the Year, College of Engineering -Student Government
Association.
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 20%
Program = 80%
100
ROY J. HARTFIELD, JR.
Professor
211 Aerospace Engineering
Phone: (334) 844-6819, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: rjh@eng.auburn.edu
Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/hartfrj/index.html
EDUCATION
1991 - Ph.D., Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia
1989 - MS, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia
1985 - BS, Physics, University of Southern Mississippi
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 19
2007 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1996 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1991 - 1996: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
1989 - Present: American Association of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1989 - Present: American Society of Mechanical Engineers
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2006 - 2006: Technical Chair, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conf. - American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2004 - Present: Member Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee- American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
HONORS AND AWARDS
1996: Summer Faculty Fellowship (1992-93-95-96) - NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
2007 - 2007: Liquid Rocket Propulsion, short course - Presented to analyst at the CIA
in conjunction with Rhonald Jenkins
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
101
Riddle, D., Hartfield, R., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M., “Design of Liquid Rocket
Powered Missile Systems Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,
Vol. 46, No 1, January-February 2009, pp. 151-159.
Bayley, D. J., Hartfield, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M., “Design Optimization of
Space Launch Vehicle Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.
45, No. 4, July-August 2008, pp. 733-740.
Hartfield, Roy J., Jenkins, Rhonald M., Burkhalter, John E., “Ramjet Powered Missile Design
Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Computing And Information Science In Engineering,
Vol. 7, No. 2, June, 2007.
Hartfield, Roy J., Jenkins, Rhonald M., Burkhalter, John E., “Optimizing a Solid Rocket
Motor Boosted Ramjet Powered Missile Using a Genetic Algorithm”, Applied Mathematics
and Computation, Vol. 181, no2, (2006) pp. 1720-1736
Hartfield, R.J., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M., “Scramjet Missile Design Using Genetic
Algorithms”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 174, No2, (2006), pp. 1539-1563.
Hartfield, Roy J. Jr., “Interpretation of Spectroscopic Data From the Iodine Molecule Using a
Genetic Algorithm,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 177, (2006), pp 597-605.
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 50%
Program = 50%
102
ANDREW B SHELTON
Assistant Professor
336 Davis Hall, Aerospace Engineering Building
Phone: (334) 844-6809, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: andrew.shelton@auburn.edu
EDUCATION
2008 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
1997 - MS, Mechanical Engineering, Auburn University
1994 - BS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 2
2008 - Present: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
2007 - 2008: Sr. Principle Engineer, Aerodynamics, Raytheon Missile Systems
2003 - 2007: Graduate Research Assistant, Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute
of Technology
2002 - 2003: Sr. Engineer, Joint Strike Fighter Aerodynamics and CFD, Lockheed
Martin
Aeronautics
2002 - 2001: Lead Engineer, Aerodynamics and CFD, General Electric Power Systems
1997 - 2001: Engineer, Aerodynamics, Raytheon Missile Systems
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
AHS - American Helicopter Society
AIAA - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Shelton, A., Smith M.J., and Zhou, H.M., "Foundations for Adaptive Solution of
Unsteady Compressible Flows via the Discontinuous Galerkin Method with Multi-Resolution
Basis", _in preparation for the AIAA Journal_, Oct. 2008.
Shelton, A., Braman, K., Smith M.J., Menon S., "Improved Hybrid RANS-LES
Turbulence Models for Rotorcraft", _Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Forum of the
American Helicopter Society_, Jun. 2006.
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 50%
Program = 50%
103
ANDREW J. SINCLAIR
Associate Professor
310 Aerospace Engineering Building
Phone: (334) 844-6825, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: sinclair@auburn.edu
Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/sinclaj/
EDUCATION
2005 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University
2001 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida
2000 - BS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 5
2010-Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
2005 - 2010: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
AAS
AIAA
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
J.J. Parish, J.E. Hurtado, and A.J. Sinclair, “Direct Linearization of Continuous and Hybrid
Dynamical Systems,” Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 3, July
2009.
C.J. Roy and A.J. Sinclair, “On the Generation of Exact Solutions for Evaluating Numerical
Schemes and Estimating Discretization Error,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 228,
No. 5, March 2009.
A.J. Sinclair, R.J. Prazenica, and D.E. Jeffcoat, “Optimal and Feedback Path Planning for
Cooperative Attack,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 6,
November-December 2008.
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 40%
Program = 60%
104
BRIAN THUROW
Associate Professor
211 Davis Hall
Phone: (334) 844-6827, Fax: (334) 844-6803
E-mail: thurow@auburn.edu
Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/thurobs/
EDUCATION
2005 - Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
2001 - MS, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
1999 - BS, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
EXPERIENCE
Years of experience at Auburn: 5
2009 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
2005 - 2009: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University
1997 - 1997: Co-op, Combustion Center of Excellence, GE Aircraft Engines
1997 - 1997: Intern, Advanced Technology and Analytics, Square D Company
SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
2008 - Present: American Physical Society
1999 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
HONORS AND AWARDS
2009 Auburn Alumni Engineering Council Research Award for Excellence (2 awards per year
in college of engineering for junior faculty)
2009 William F. Walker Teach Award for Excellence (3 awards per year in college of
engineering)
2009 SGA Outstanding Faculty Member in Department of Aerospace Engineering
2008 SGA Outstanding Faculty Member in Department of Aerospace Engineering
2006 SGA Outstanding Faculty Member in Department of Aerospace Engineering
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
2005 – Present: Faculty Advisor, AIAA Student Chapter
2007- Present: Faculty Chair, Graduate Student Recruitment Committee
2005-Present: Member, AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology Technical Committee
105
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
Thurow, B., and Lynch, K., “Development of a High-Speed Three Dimensional Flow
Visualization Technique,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 2857-2865, 2009.
Thurow, B., Satija, A. and Lynch, K., “3rd generation MHz rate pulse burst laser system,”
Applied Optics, Vol. 48, pp.2086-2093, 2009.
Thurow, B., Jiang, N., Kim, J-H, Lempert, W. and Samimy, M., “Issues with measurements of
the convective velocity of large-scale structures in the compressible shear layer of a free jet,”
Physics of Fluids, Vol. 20, 066101, June 2008.
Hileman, J., Thurow, B., Caraballo, E. and Samimy, M., “Large-scale structure evolution and
sound emission in high-speed jets: real-time visualization with simultaneous acoustic
measurements,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 544, pp. 277-307, December 2005.
Thurow, B., Jiang, N., Lempert, W. and Samimy, M., “MHz Rate Planar Doppler Velocimetry
in Supersonic Jets,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 500-511, March 2005.
WORK ASSIGNMENT
Scholarship and Research = 50%
Program = 50%
106
APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
Adaptive /Material Laboratory:
Name/Description
Computer, IBM ThinkCentre
Computer, two Optiplex GX260 computers
DC power supply, MASTECH HY3050E
Digital oscilloscope, Tektronix TDS210
Oven, Blue M electric
Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory:
Name/Description
Tunnel, 4” x 4” S-S-S wind tunnel
Camera, High speed COOKE Sensica
Amplifier, Laser Laserpath AMP-106-32
System, Image DRS Ultra 68 high speed
Modulator, Brimrose W/Power supply FFA-400-B2-F15-X
Oscilloscope, DPO Tektronix TDS5054B
System, Quantum Power System
System, National Instrument USB-6259 I/O system
System, Lytron Cooling system
Computer, eMachine T6534 Desktop computer
Computer, Dell precision 390 computer
Computer, Dell precision T3400 computer
AE undergraduate/graduate computer laboratory:
Name/Description
Computer, 16 Dell Optiplex 755 computers
Printer, HP LaserJet 4200n printer
Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory:
Name/Description
Computer, Four Dell Precision T7500 computers, 64 Bits Windows 7
Computer, Two Dell Precision 450 computers, 32 Bits Windows XP
Computer, Three Dell Precision 670 computers, 32 Bits Windows XP
Computer, IBM Intellistation Z Pro computer Windows XP
Computer System, 64 nodes computer cluster
Flight Dynamics Laboratory:
Name/Description
System, video conference Tandberg TTC6-06
System, Axcent 3 amx
Projector, video LCD Nec GT2150
Gyroscope, control ECP 750 moment
Monitor, plasma 50” Pioneer PDP-502MX
107
Simulator, Flight SIM
Audio/Video system, LG, Panasonic, Philips DVD player & recorder
Printer, HP color LaserJet CP3505
Computer, Dell Vostro
Computer, Dell Precision 650
Computer, Dell Dimension 5150
Computer, Dell Dimension 4550
Computer, Dell Dimension 8300
Flow Visualization/Vortex dynamics Laboratory:
Name/Description
Tunnel, water flow ELD
Tunnel, 2’ x 2’ sonic wind tunnel
Tunnel, 4’ x 4’’ subsonic(S-S) wind tunnel
Tunnel, Smoke W/Ctls 960A-1
System, Data acquisition and signal processing circuit board
System, controller Dantec
System, PIV Laser System New Wave SOLO III
System, Camera system Prosilica GC640
System, Ion Argon Ref 171
System, Yag Laser New wave MINILASE 111
System, Laser High Speed Oxford HIS 1000
Compressor, Air Ingersoll-Rand SSR-EP150
Anemometer, Tsi IFA300
Inverter, Toshiba H7
Motionscope, PCI 2000S
Computer, Dell PowerEdge 600SC
Computer, Dell Optiplex 320
Computer, Dell dimension XPS T500
Computer, two Dell dimension XPS 8400 computers
Computer, Dell Precision T3400 computer
Computer, IBM Intellistation M Pro computer
Audio/Video system, JVC & Sony player/recorder
Digital multimeter, Agilent Technologies 3440A
Digital oscilloscope, Agilent Technologies DS0306A
Power supply, four Agilent Technologies E3630A DC power supplies
HILS Laboratory:
Name/Description
Simulator, Hardware-In-the-loop simulator system
Propulsion Laboratory:
Name/Description
System, Gas Turbine Minilab Power ML-101
Computer, Dell Inspiron 1150 Laptop
108
Structures Laboratory:
Name/Description
Computer, IBM ThinkPad R40
Computer, Dell Optiplex GX260
Controller, Instron 8500
Machine Shop:
Name/Description
Lathe, Monarch 36” C/C Lathe 1941 Model
Lathe, Weldon machine Co. 24’ C/C lathe
Mills, Bridgeport Vertical Conventional Mill
Mills, HAAS CNC Milling machine Tool Room Mill
Saw, Vertical Band Saw
Saw, Horizontal Hacksaw
Saw, Horizontal Hacksaw
Drill Press, 1-delta, 1-Craftsman, and 1-Hamilton
Welder, Miller Goldstar Welding Machine
Grinder, Clark Pedesim Grinder
Grinder, Valley Pedesim Grinder
Computer, Dell Optiplex 745
Wood Shop:
Name/Description
Saw, Grizzly G1019 14” Band Saw
Saw, Delta 14” Bandsaw
Saw, RYOBI BS903 Bandsaw
Saw, Delta Hand Hold Circular Saw
Saw, Craftsman 10” Hand Hold Circular Saw
Saw, Sear/Craftsman 10’ Belt Drive Table Saw
Grinder, Washington 20’ Disc Grinder
Sander, one-Delta, and two-Delta ShopMaster
Lathe, Sheldon Machine Co. Lathe
109
APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY
Only Program specific tables are provided here. Please see the College of Engineering summary
for more details
Table D-3. Support Expenditures
Fiscal Year
Expenditure Category
Operations (not including staff)4
Travel5
Equipment6
(a) Institutional Funds
(b) Grants and Gifts7
Graduate Teaching Assistants
Part-time Assistance8
(other than teaching)
Faculty Salaries
Aerospace Engineering
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
78,357.79
58,963.59
46,623.68
81,499.59
42,312.98
4,417.41
80,000.00
40,000.00
5,000.00
46,623.68b
131,336.97
29,833.90
4,317.41b
115,263.65
28,241.61
5,000.00
115,000.00
28,000.00
861,76.01a
1,032636.71a
1,000,000.00a
a – Includes $2,506.00, $4,965.06, and $696.81 respectively for part-time instruction.
b – Includes $2,967.42 and $4,317.41, respectively, for fabricated upgrade.
110
Aerospace Engineering
Fall 2009
Headcount
FTE
FT
Administrative
Faculty (Tenure-track)
Other Faculty
Student Teaching Assistants
Student Research Assistants
Technicians/ Specialists
Office/ Clerical Employees
Others
Undergraduate Student Enrollment
Graduate Student Enrollment
Ratio to Faculty
PT
10
4
2
12
13
1
2
10.35
2.70
5.53
1.00 0.08
2.00 0.16
2.00
0.22
0.45
317 12 321.20
21 16 28.90
26.0
2.34
Table D-4. Personnel and Students
Aerospace Engineering
Year1: 2009-2010
HEAD COUNT
FT
PT
Administrative4
Faculty (tenure-track)
Other Faculty (excluding student Assistants)
Student Teaching Assistants
Student Research Assistants
Technicians/Specialists
Office/Clerical Employees
Others5
Undergraduate Student enrollment6
Graduate Student enrollment
10
4
12
13
2
3
317
21
12
16
FTE2
10
0.25
2.70
5.53
RATIO TO
FACULTY3
3.00
0.22
0.45
0.16
0.24
321.20
28.90
26.0
2.34
Report data for the program unit(s) and for each program being evaluated.
1 Data on this table should be for the fall term immediately preceding the visit. Fall 2009-2010 Updated tables for
the fall term when the ABET team is visiting are to be prepared and presented to the team when they arrive.
2 For student teaching assistants, 1 FTE equals 20 hours per week of work (or service). For undergraduate and
graduate students, 1 FTE equals 15 semester credit-hours (or 24 quarter credit-hours) per term of institutional course
work, meaning all courses — science, humanities and social sciences, etc. For faculty members, 1 FTE equals what
your institution defines as a full-time load.
3
Divide FTE in each category by total FTE Faculty. Do not include administrative FTE.
111
4
Persons holding joint administrative/faculty positions or other combined assignments should be allocated to each
category according to the fraction of the appointment assigned to that category.
5
Specify any other category considered appropriate, or leave blank.
6
Specify whether this includes freshman and/or sophomores.
112
Table D-5. Program Enrollment and Degree Data
CURRENT
1
2
3
4
FR
119
1
129
3
104
1
86
0
86
3
SO
88
2
69
7
45
4
57
1
47
5
Enrollment Year
JR
63
5
40
7
36
5
35
3
52
8
SR
47
4
43
2
52
8
62
2
52
8
5th
317
12
281
19
237
18
241
6
221
19
Total
Grad
Academic
Year
FT
2009
PT
FT
2008
PT
FT
2007
PT
FT
2006
PT
FT
2005
PT
Total
Undergrad
Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor
Degrees Conferred
Master
Doctor
Other
37
38
42
47
38
29
15
1
37
14
4
37
11
0
41
7
0
Give official fall term enrollment figures (head count) for the current and preceding five academic years and undergraduate and graduate degrees conferred during each
of those years. The "current" year means the academic year preceding the fall visit. 2009-2010
FT--full time PT--part time
113
Table D-6. Faculty Salary Data
Number
High
Mean
Low
Professor
5
$148,053
$112,195
$91,670
Aerospace Engineering
Academic Year 2009-2010
Associate
Assistant
Professor
Professor
3
2
$87,250
$79,000
$84,083
$77,405
$81,500
$75,810
114
Instructor