abet self-study report bachelor of science
TRANSCRIPT
ABET
Self-Study Report
for the
Bachelor of Science
in
Civil Engineering
at the
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, Colorado
July 1, 2013
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.
ii
Table of Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iv
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ vi
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................. 1 A. Contact Information ............................................................................................................................................ 1 B. Program History.................................................................................................................................................... 1 C. Options ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 D. Organizational Structure ................................................................................................................................... 8 E. Program Delivery Modes ................................................................................................................................... 8 F. Program Locations ............................................................................................................................................... 8 G. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions Taken to Address Them ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 H. Joint Accreditation ............................................................................................................................................... 8
1) CRITERION 1. STUDENTS ............................................................................................. 10 A. Student Admissions ........................................................................................................................................... 10 B. Evaluating Student Performance. ................................................................................................................ 12 C. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses .................................................................................................. 12 D. Advising and Career Guidance ...................................................................................................................... 15 E. Work in Lieu of Courses ................................................................................................................................... 17 F. Graduation Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 17 G. Transcripts of Recent Graduates .................................................................................................................. 19
2) CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES ...................................... 20 A. Mission Statement .............................................................................................................................................. 20 B. Program Educational Objectives .................................................................................................................. 21 C. Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the Institution .... 22 D. Program Constituencies ................................................................................................................................... 23 E. Process for Review of the Program Educational Objectives ............................................................. 25
3) CRITERION 3. STUDENT OUTCOMES........................................................................ 29 A. Student Outcomes .............................................................................................................................................. 29 B. Relationship of Student Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives ...................................... 30
4) CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT ........................................................ 32 A. Student Outcomes .............................................................................................................................................. 33 B. Continuous Improvement ............................................................................................................................... 77 C. Additional Information .................................................................................................................................... 85
5) CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM ....................................................................................... 86 A. Program Curriculum ......................................................................................................................................... 86
i. Description and overview of the program curriculum ......................................................................... 86 ii. Curriculum Alignment with PEOS and SOs: ......................................................................................... 91 iii. Depth of Study in Subject Areas: ............................................................................................................... 94 iv. Major Design Experience: ............................................................................................................................ 95
iii
v. Cooperative Education: ................................................................................................................................. 98 vi. Materials available during the visit: .......................................................................................................... 98
B. Course Syllabi ....................................................................................................................................................... 98
6) CRITERION 6. FACULTY ................................................................................................. 99 A. Faculty Qualifications ....................................................................................................................................... 99 B. Faculty Workload ............................................................................................................................................ 101 C. Faculty Size......................................................................................................................................................... 105 D. Professional Development ........................................................................................................................... 107 E. Authority and Responsibility of Faculty ................................................................................................ 108
7) CRITERION 7. FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 109 A. Offices, Classrooms and Laboratories ..................................................................................................... 109 B. Computing Resources .................................................................................................................................... 125 C. Guidance .............................................................................................................................................................. 127 D. Maintenance and Upgrading of Facilities .............................................................................................. 128 E. Library Services................................................................................................................................................ 128 F. Overall Comments on Facilities ................................................................................................................. 129
8) CRITERION 8. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................... 130 A. Leadership .......................................................................................................................................................... 130 B. Program Budget and Financial Support ................................................................................................. 130 C. Staffing ................................................................................................................................................................. 138 D. Faculty Hiring and Retention ...................................................................................................................... 138 E. Support of Faculty Professional Development .................................................................................... 139
PROGRAM CRITERIA .............................................................................................................. 141
Appendix A - Course Syllabi .................................................................................................. 142
Appendix B - Faculty Vita....................................................................................................... 267
Appendix C - Equipment ....................................................................................................... 345
Appendix D - Institutional Summary ................................................................................ 346
Appendix E - Constituency Meetings ................................................................................ 355
Appendix F - Common and Distributed Core Curriculum ......................................... 380
Signatures Attesting to Compliance ................................................................................. 439
iv
List of Figures
Figure I: Distribution of Curriculum Between Core, Distributed Core, and Programs ............. xii
Figure II: CSM Academic Organization Prior to Fall, 2011 ...................................................... xv
Figure III: (Top) Student Contact Hours by Division in 2010-2011. (Bottom) Graduates by
Division in 2010-2011 ....................................................................................................... xvi
Figure IV: CSM Academic Organization Since Fall, 2011 ...................................................... xvii
Figure B-1: Undergraduate engineering and CSM total enrollments from 1980-2011 ................ 3
Figure B-2: BSE-Environmental majors at census day for fall semesters 1998-2012 ................. 6
Figure B-3: BSE-Environmental graduates, Academic years 1998-1999 to 2011-2012 ............. 6
Figure B-4: Colorado School of Mines Executive Organization ................................................. 9
Figure B-5 Academic Affairs Organization ................................................................................. 9
Figure 2-1: Overview of program assessment and interaction of constituency groups with
review process and continuous improvement ..................................................................... 25 Figure 5-1: Flowchart presenting BSCE curriculum and prerequisite structure (2 pages) ........ 92 Figure 6-1: Numbers and Distribution of Faculty in CEE Department over time. Pre-
reorganization numbers represent faculty numbers in the ESE (Environmental Science and
Engineering) and EGCV (Engineering with Civil Engineering Specialty). ..................... 107
List of Tables
Table I. Student Body and Faculty in 2006 and 2012 ................................................................. ix
Table II: Distributed Science Requirements .............................................................................. xiv
Table 1-1: History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past Five Years ... 11 Table 1-2: Transfer Students for Past Five Academic Years ..................................................... 14 Table 2-1: CEE Industry/Advisory Constituent Committee Spring 2013. ................................. 26 Table 2-2: CEE Undergraduate Constituent Committee Spring 2013 ...................................... 27 Table 2-3: Attendees for May 1, 2013 Meeting of Undergraduate Advisory Committee......... 28 Table 3-1: Profile of Mines Graduate to Criterion 3 Outcomes ................................................. 30 Table 3-2: Relationship of CEE PEOs to Student Outcomes (SOs). ........................................ 30 Table 4-1: List of Indirect Assessment Instruments ................................................................... 33 Table 4-2: Results of employer survey for BSE degree from Spring 2013 ................................ 34 Table 4-3: Graduating Senior Survey Results, BSE-Civil (17 respondents) and BSCE (4
respondents) Spring 2013 Graduates .................................................................................. 36 Table 4-4: SO Coverage Matrix for BSCE ................................................................................. 39 Table 4-5: SO Assessment Matrix for BSCE ............................................................................. 40 Table 4-6: Direct Assessment of Student Outcomes, Listed by SO, with Instructor and Course
Designation§ ....................................................................................................................... 41 Table 4-7: Outcome (a) Assessment Summary .......................................................................... 43 Table 4-8: Outcome (b) Assessment Summary .......................................................................... 46 Table 4-9: Outcome (c) Assessment Summary .......................................................................... 48 Table 4-10: Outcome (d) Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 51 Table 4-11: Outcome (e) Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 53 Table 4-12: Outcome (f) Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 56
v
Table 4-13: Outcome (g) Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 59 Table 4-14: Outcome (h) Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 63 Table 4-15: Outcome (i) Assessment Summary ......................................................................... 66 Table 4-16: Outcome (j) Assessment Summary ......................................................................... 69 Table 4-17: Outcome (k) Assessment Summary ........................................................................ 73 Table 4-18: Summary of Action Items Associated with Continuous Improvement of All
Outcomes ............................................................................................................................ 78 Table 5-1: Curriculum for Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) degree .............. 87 Table 5-2: Degree Requirements for BSCE Degree ................................................................... 94 Table 6-1: Faculty Qualifications, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department ............. 99 Table 6-3: Faculty Workload Summary for CEE Department ................................................. 102 Table 8-1: E&G Budget for Unit Operating Program, College of Engineering and
Computational Sciences ................................................................................................... 132 Table 8-2: E&G Budget for Departments in the College of Engineering and Computational
Sciences ............................................................................................................................ 133 Table 8-3: Technology Fee Funds Awarded (Fall, 2006 Through Spring, 2012) .................... 135 Table 8-4: Technology Fee Funds Awarded (Fall, 2012 Through Fall, 2013) ........................ 135 Table 8-5: Capital Improvements (2006-2013) ........................................................................ 136 Table 8-6: General Curriculum mapping for BSCE relative to ABET program Requirements for
“Environmental and Similarly Named Engineering Programs”. ...................................... 141 Table A-1. List of Included Syllabi ...........................................................................................143
Table B-1. List of Included Faculty Vitae (alphabetical) ..........................................................268
Table D-1. Program Enrollment and Degree Data ....................................................................351
Table D-2. Program Enrollment and Degree Data ....................................................................354
vi
Preface
Institutional Context for the Review of the New
BSCE, BSEE, BSEV, and BSME Programs at the Colorado School of Mines by ABET
Fall 2013
In the fall of 2011, the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) enrolled 3,876 undergraduate and
1,343 graduate students in programs leading to degrees in engineering and the applied
sciences. Among the undergraduates, 3,207 or 83 percent had declared majors in one of
Colorado School of Mines’ nine ABET-accredited engineering programs. In 2010-11,
CSM awarded 585 baccalaureate degrees in ABET-accredited engineering (78 percent of
the 666 total baccalaureate degrees awarded). Studies in engineering, both undergraduate
and graduate, dominate the Colorado School of Mines curriculum, and as such, the
institution is a significant international, national and regional provider of engineering talent
and scholarship.
One year later, in the fall of 2012, Mines enrolled 4,062 undergraduate and 1,343 graduate
students. However, following a significant institutional reorganization, there were now 13
engineering degrees, the nine visited by ABET in 2012 and four new degrees, which were
first “on the books” in Fall 2012 and which are up for accreditation in the 2013-2014 cycle.
More details on this reorganization and our new degrees follow in this institutional context
preface to the Self-Study. We begin first with an overview of the Mission of the institution,
followed by a discussion of Mines’ history and curriculum before discussing the
reorganization that has led to our new degrees.
Mission
The School’s contributions to its many constituencies in industry, government and society-
at-large stem from a Colorado statute1 that identifies Mines as a specialized baccalaureate
and graduate research institution with high admission standards, and with a unique mission
in energy, mineral, and materials science and engineering and associated engineering and
science fields. Mines executes this mission through its dedication to educating students and
professionals in the applied sciences, engineering, and associated fields related to:
the discovery and recovery of the Earth’s resources,
their conversion to materials and energy,
their utilization in advanced processes and products, and
the economic and social systems necessary to ensure their prudent and provident use in
a sustainable global society.
1Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 23-41-105, replicated on p.5 of the Undergraduate Bulletin and p.6 of the
Graduate Bulletin, both provided as part of the ABET Review package.
vii
This interpretation includes Mines’ commitment to serving the nation and the global
community as well as the people of Colorado by promoting stewardship of the Earth upon
which all life and development depend.
Virtually all of the undergraduate programs have obvious ties to those elements of the
mission in Earth, energy, materials, and associated fields, while others have evolved or
developed as more broadly based programs in engineering and science. Necessarily, all
undergraduate programs have been crafted by faculty aligned with the institution’s mission,
and therefore have an overt context of that mission.
Mines’ “dedication to educating students” is fostered through the Profile of the Colorado
School of Mines Graduate, which is a published2 set of institution-wide outcomes
characterizing every baccalaureate student, and states that:
All CSM graduates must have depth in an area of specialization, enhanced by hands-on
experiential learning, and breadth in allied fields. They must have the knowledge and
skills to be able to recognize, define and solve problems by applying sound scientific
and engineering principles. These attributes uniquely distinguish our graduates to better
function in increasingly competitive and diverse technical professional environments.
Graduates must have the skills to communicate information, concepts and ideas
effectively in writing, orally and graphically. They must be skilled in the retrieval,
interpretation and development of technical information by various means, including
the use of computer-aided techniques.
Graduates should have the flexibility to adjust to the ever-changing professional
environment and appreciate diverse approaches to understanding and solving society's
problems. They should have the creativity, resourcefulness, receptivity and breadth of
interests to think critically about a wide range of cross-disciplinary issues. They should
be prepared to assume leadership roles and possess the skills and attitudes which
promote teamwork and cooperation and to continue their own growth through life-long
learning.
Graduates should be capable of working effectively in an international environment,
and be able to succeed in an increasingly interdependent world where borders between
cultures and economies are becoming less distinct. They should appreciate the
traditions and languages of other cultures, and value diversity in their own society.
Graduates should exhibit ethical behavior and integrity. They should also demonstrate
perseverance and have pride in accomplishment. They should assume a responsibility
2Colorado School of Mines Undergraduate Bulletin, Section 1.
viii
to enhance their professions through service and leadership and should be responsible
citizens who serve society, particularly through stewardship of the environment.
Historical Context
The engineering degree programs were most recently reviewed at the Colorado School of
Mines in October 2012. Final outcome on that review is still pending3. It is important to
note that prior to 2012, the 2006 accreditation visit resulted in seven programs (Chemical
Engineering, Engineering, Engineering Physics, Geological Engineering, Metallurgical and
Materials Engineering, Mining Engineering, and Petroleum Engineering) being accredited
to September 30, 2013. Geophysical Engineering was accredited to September 30, 2009;
with a report describing actions taken to correct shortcomings submitted to ABET by July
1, 2008. Geophysical Engineering has resolved all concerns and weaknesses and is
accredited by ABET until September 30, 2013. Chemical and Biochemical Engineering
applied for accreditation during the 2009-10 accreditation cycle. The program was
accredited until September 30, 2013, with accreditation status retroactive from October 1,
2008.
As a way of calibrating the campus at the time of our 2006 review versus the campus as it
existed in October 2012, the following table lists faculty and students in degree programs
for 2006 and 20124,5
.
3 Relative to the Bachelor of Science in Engineering program, the Exit Statement and PAF recommended a
Concern related to Criterion 2, but editors changed this to a weakness in the Draft Statement. Subsequent
actions at Mines and communications during due process have indicated that the shortcoming will have been
removed in the Final Statement. 4 Regarding student numbers listed, Table I counts all students enrolled in degrees associated with a
department. For example, the student count for the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
includes students in the Bachelor of Science in Engineering program in the civil specialty and also students in
the environmental specialty. See Appendix D for a more detailed breakdown of students in the individual
departments in the College of Engineering and Computational Sciences. 5 Note that numbers reported throughout this document may have small self-consistency problems, depending
on when reports were run from Banner, our institutional database (Banner). Some institutional reports are run
on our census days, earlier in a semester, and others are run at the end of a semester or at the end of an
academic year. Such inconsistencies should be of minor impact.
ix
Table I. Student Body and Faculty in 2006 and 2012
*Figures are for the department of Chemical and Biological Engineering.
**Figures are for July 2011-June 2012 and denote all majors in degrees associated with a
department; Faculty Figures refer to FY13 numbers.
iv
Table I. Student Body and Faculty in 2006 and 2012
2006 2012
Degree # of
declared
under-
graduate
majors
B.S.
Degrees
awarded
T/TT
Faculty
Instruc-
tional
Faculty
# of
declared
under-
graduate
majors
B.S.
Degrees
awarded
**
T/TT
Faculty
**
Instruc-
tional
Faculty
**
Applied Mathematics
& Statistics
N/A N/A N/A N/A 88 14 11 8
Chemical
Engineering
362 63 14* 2* 311 54 17 9
Chemical and
Biochemical
Engineering
N/A N/A N/A N/A 255 37 N/A N/A
Chemistry and
Geochemistry
89 7 13 1 116 25 17 3
Civil &
Environmental
Engineering
N/A N/A N/A N/A 414
86 20 5
Economics and
Business 122 26 11 3 26
12 12 3
Engineering 1,081 194 28 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Electrical
Engineering &
Computer Science
N/A N/A N/A N/A 450 83 13 7
Geological
Engineering
85 24 14 2 139 36 17 2
Geophysical
Engineering
74 17 8 0 109 22 11 0
Liberal Arts and
International Studies
N/A N/A 11 6 N/A N/A 14 10
Mathematical and
Computer Science
225 41 15 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mechancial
Engineering
N/A N/A N/A N/A 873 136 14 3
Metallurigical and
Materials
Engineering
146 48 15 2 125 32 18 2
Mining Engineering 98 21 8 0 117 26 5 1
Petroleum
Engineering
333 68 7 2 646 106 10 3
Engineering Physics
265 54 13 7 262 52 18 6
Total 2,880 563 157 38 4,065 721 197 62
*Figures are for the department of Chemical and Biological Engineering.
**Figures are for July 2011-June 2012 and denote all majors in degrees associated with a
department; Faculty Figures refer to FY13 numbers.
x
Undergraduate Degree Programs
A list of the Mines’ baccalaureate engineering programs follows and includes: 1) the year in
which the first degree was awarded (typically under a precursor title) by the Colorado
School of Mines, 2) the current degree designation in ( ), and 3) the date of the original
engineering accreditation [ ].
1881 Mining Engineering (BS) [1936]
1885 Metallurgical and Materials Engineering (BS) [1936]
1922 Geological Engineering (BS) [1936]
1922 Petroleum Engineering (BS) [1936]
1949 Chemical Engineering (BS) [1956]
1950 Geophysical Engineering (BS) [1953]
1965 Engineering Physics (BS) [1977]
1984 Engineering (BS) [1983]
2007 Chemical and Biochemical Engineering (BS) [2010]
Additional baccalaureate programs include:
1963 Chemistry (BS)
1963 Mathematical and Computer Sciences (BS)5
1994 Economics (BS)
2013 Applied Mathematics and Statistics (BS)
2013 Civil Engineering (BS) [visit Fall 2013]
2013 Computer Science (BS)
2013 Electrical Engineering (BS) [visit Fall 2013]
2013 Environmental Engineering (BS) [visit Fall 2013]
2013 Mechanical Engineering (BS) [visit Fall 2013]
Over time, the relative productivity of undergraduate degrees has skewed toward those
programs that students perceive to offer more versatility than alignment with a particular
industry sector, although this trend ebbs and flows with employment demand in those
sectors. For example, of the 666 baccalaureate graduates in 2010-11, 185 were in the
geological, metallurgical and materials, mining, petroleum and geophysical engineering
programs, with the remaining 481 being in the other programs listed above.
This dichotomy between specificity of mission in legacy areas and the flux of a significant
number of undergraduate students to other programs has been an issue at Mines for at least
two decades. This, in part, prompted the institution to undertake a significant academic
reorganization, details of which are provided below following a review of the curriculum.
5 This degree program has been removed from the 2012-2013 bulletin and is no longer offered. New students
enroll in either the Applied Mathematics and Statistics Program or in the Computer Science program.
xi
Curriculum Overview
All programs are designed to fulfill the expectations of the Profile of the Colorado School
of Mines Graduate in accordance with the mission of the School. To enable this, the
curriculum is made up of a Common Core, a Distributed Core, and individualized Program
Curricula for the eighteen undergraduate degree granting programs. In addition, students
may complete a variety of special programs, such as the McBride Honors Program, and
minor programs, such as the Energy Minor.
Planned curricula in engineering span four years or eight semesters of study plus a summer
“field” session. The field session is a full-time activity of between three and six weeks,
respectively carrying academic credit of between three and six semester-hours.
The underlying theme in the design of the Mines’ undergraduate curriculum is to create a
systematized and cross-coupled curriculum that provides both vertical and horizontal
connectivity. Vertical pathways develop knowledge and skills in the technical sciences, in
engineering practices and design, and in the humanities and social sciences. Horizontal
linkages provide the breadth of cumulative knowledge in the basic sciences, engineering
sciences, social sciences and humanities, and engineering practice and design, and they
provide a venue to study the cause-and-effect interplay among engineering systems, natural
systems and human systems.
The figure below shows the superimposition of the curriculum on three vertical stems: the
technical sciences, engineering practices and design, and the humanities and social
sciences. The figure shows the predominance of engineering topics in the junior and senior
years within the scope of the technical sciences and engineering practices and design, and
the predominance of the mathematical and basic sciences in the freshman and sophomore
years and within the technical sciences. Note that the figure merely shows predominance,
where in actuality engineering topics and the mathematical and basic sciences are not solely
confined to the years indicated.
Within this framework, it is customary at Mines to recognize a separation between the Core
Curriculum and a Program Curriculum. This separation is not delineated by a fixed point in
time within the progression of semesters-of-study, but instead is a separation into all
courses and topical areas that are in some way required of all students at the School (the
Core Curriculum), and those courses that are required of students majoring in a particular
program (the Program Curriculum). In general, however, program curricula begin with one
or two courses in the fourth semester.
xii
Figure I: Distribution of Curriculum Between Core, Distributed Core, and Programs
The Core Curriculum is further divided into a Common Core Curriculum and a Distributed
Core Curriculum. The nature of, and the individual components included in these two
subdivisions of the Core Curriculum are defined below.
Common Core Curriculum – Students in all undergraduate degree programs are required to
complete all Common Core Curriculum course requirements. The Mines Common Core
consists of the following courses.
Mathematics and the Basic Sciences, 22.5 to 23.5 semester hours total: 12 semester
hours in Calculus for Scientists and Engineers (MATH111, MATH112, MATH213),
MATH225 Differential Equations (3 semester hours) (2 semester hours in Differential
Equations for Geological Engineering majors); Principles of Chemistry – CHGN121 (4
semester hours); and Calculus-based Physics I – PHGN100 (4.5 semester hours).
Engineering Design, 3 semester hours total non-ABET degree programs, 6 semester
hours total ABET degree programs: EPIC151 Design I, Engineering Practices
Introductory Course Sequence (EPICS) (3 semester hours). In addition all ABET
accredited undergraduate degree programs are required to complete a second semester
of engineering design, EPIC251 (3 semester hours).
xiii
Systems, 3 semester hours total: SYGN200 Human Systems (3 semester hours).
Humanities and the Social Sciences, 7 semester hours total: LAIS100 Nature and
Human Values (4 semester hours), EBGN201 Principles of Economics (3 semester
hours).
Physical Education, 2 semester hours total: Four separate semesters including
PAGN101 and PAGN102 and two 200 level courses (each course 0.5 semester hours).
Freshman Orientation and Success, 0.5 semester hours total in CSM101.
Free electives, minimum 9 hours, are included within each degree granting program.
Distributed Core Curriculum – Students in all degree options must complete various
components of the Distributed Core Curriculum through selection, by the student or by the
program, of courses in various categories. The Distributed Core Curriculum is an
organizational vehicle for sharing and distributing the fundamental engineering sciences
(Distributed Engineering) among appropriate disciplines, for allowing greater flexibility to
degree programs in tailoring science prerequisites (Distributed Science) to suit program
needs, and for allowing students to pursue areas of individual interest in the Humanities and
Social Sciences (Distributed Humanities and Social Sciences).
Components of the Distributed Core Curriculum include the following.
Distributed Humanities and Social Sciences Requirement – All students must complete 9
semester hours (3 courses) from an approved list of Humanities and Social Sciences
courses. At least 3 of the 9 semester hours must be completed in a course at the 400-level.
The Division of Liberal Arts and International Studies maintains and approves the list of
courses that may be used to fulfill this requirement. The approved list is published in the
Undergraduate Bulletin.
Distributed Science Requirement – All students are required to complete a minimum of
three out of five courses (11 to 12.5 semester hours) from a list of Distributed Science
courses. For some majors, the three required courses are prescribed by the major. Others
allow the student to choose. The table below shows the list of courses available to students
as part of the Distributed Science Requirement and the disposition of each course toward
fulfilling degree requirements in each undergraduate, ABET accredited, major
(REQ=required by major; CHOICE=student choice; NA=not allowed toward degree
requirement in major).
xiv
Table II: Distributed Science Requirements
Distributed Science Requirements
BELS101
(4)
SYGN101
(4)
PHGN200
(4.5)
CHGN122
(4)
CSCI101
(3)
Chemical Engineering REQ NA REQ REQ NA
Chemical and Biochemical
Engineering REQ NA REQ REQ NA
Civil Engineering NA REQ REQ REQ NA
Electrical Engineering CHOICE CHOICE REQ CHOICE CHOICE
Engineering - Civil CHOICE CHOICE REQ REQ CHOICE
Engineering - Electrical CHOICE CHOICE REQ CHOICE CHOICE
Engineering -
Environmental CHOICE CHOICE REQ REQ NA
Engineering - Mechanical CHOICE CHOICE REQ REQ CHOICE
Environmental
Engineering NA REQ REQ REQ NA
Geological Engineering NA REQ REQ REQ NA
Geophysical Engineering CHOICE REQ REQ CHOICE NA
Mechanical Engineering CHOICE CHOICE REQ REQ CHOICE
Metallurigical and
Materials Engineering CHOICE CHOICE REQ REQ NA
Mining Engineering NA REQ REQ REQ NA
Petroleum Engineering NA REQ REQ REQ NA
Engineering Physics CHOICE CHOICE REQ REQ NA
Distributed Engineering Requirement – These are additional requirements placed on
students in Engineering undergraduate degree programs. Requirements are applicable to
undergraduate students in engineering disciplines as specified by the major program:
Engineering Design, As defined above in the Common Core Curriculum section, all
ABET accredited undergraduate degree programs are required to complete a second
semester of engineering design, EPIC251 (3 semester hours).
Thermodynamics, Students in majors requiring thermodynamics fulfill this
requirement through the completion of DCGN209, DCGN210 or EGGN371. The
specific course requirement is defined by the major program. Within the 9 ABET
accredited degrees, 8 must complete at least one course in thermodynamics.
Statics, Students in majors requiring engineering statics fulfill this requirement through
the completion of DCGN241. Within the 9 ABET accredited degrees, 5 must complete
the course in statics.
Introduction to Electrical Circuits, Electronics and Power, Students in majors
requiring an introductory electrical circuits class fulfill this requirement through the
completion of DCGN281. Note that the Engineering Physics degree delivers this
material through PHGN215. Of the 9 ABET accredited degrees, 3 must complete a
circuits and electronics course.
xv
Academic Organization and Reorganization Efforts
Prior to Fall, 2011 Academic Affairs was organized via a flat structure with thirteen
separate department heads and division directors reporting directly to the Provost, the chief
academic officer at Mines. This organizational structure is shown schematically in the
figure below.
Figure II: CSM Academic Organization Prior to Fall, 2011
As alluded to above, the academic structure of the institution had not kept pace with
distribution of students interested in each of our degree programs, and has made it difficult
to budget for and realign institutional resources in a way that provides equity in support
across units. As an example, the figure below shows the number of students completing
degree programs in each of our thirteen academic units in the 2010-2011 academic year.
One third of all of the graduates in 2011 graduated from a single academic unit,
Engineering. Graduation totals across campus are a good predictor for advising load, and
the advising load in the Division of Engineering was relatively large. However,
instructional load is more distributed across the campus. The figure on the following page
shows the number of student contact hours delivered by each unit in the 2010-2011
academic year.
Even with the Core Curriculum, which diverts students away from Engineering for a
portion of their academic career, the instructional load across the campus was skewed
heavily toward the Division of Engineering.
With this as a backdrop, the purpose for considering academic reorganization was to: 1)
create organizational units that produce distinction for our degrees, and 2) deploy faculty in
a way that addresses long-standing structural imbalances alluded to above that are present
in the existing Engineering Division due to popularity of the Engineering degree. An
important consideration for the realignment discussion was faculty deployment across
campus. The Division of Engineering was the largest division on campus and tuition
xvi
production based on the existing Engineering degree is critical to the health of the
institution. An explicit boundary condition for realignment discussions was to address the
overly high student to faculty ratio present in the Engineering Division with the stated
intent that Mines staffs all of its degree programs in a manner consistent with programs of
high quality.
Figure III: (Top) Student Contact Hours by Division in 2010-2011. (Bottom)
Graduates by Division in 2010-2011.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
To
tal
Stu
de
nt
Co
nta
ct H
ou
rs
Total Student Contact Hours (2010-2011) Research (700)
Graduate(500-600)
Upper (300-400)
Lower (100-200)
050
100150200250300350400
Nu
mb
er
of
Gra
du
ate
s
Graduates by Academic Unit (2010-2011)
PhD
MS
BS
xvii
Beginning in Spring, 2011, at the direction of the Provost, the leadership and faculty in the
Division of Engineering, Environmental Sciences and Engineering Division, and
Mathematical and Computer Sciences Department began discussing the need for, and
advantages in realigning their administrative structures. With faculty input, the Division
directors and Department Head involved developed an initial reorganizational plan. The
revised organizational structure created four new academic units: a combined Civil
Engineering and Environmental Science and Engineering unit, a combined Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science unit, a Mechanical Engineering unit, and an Applied
Mathematics and Statistics unit. Oversight of these new units was provided by a newly
created Dean of the College of Engineering and Computational Sciences (CECS).
Subsequently, two additional colleges were formed, resulting in the organization chart
shown in the next figure.
Figure IV: CSM Academic Organization Since Fall, 2011
New Degree Programs in CECS
In addition to offering a more balanced management structure, the reorganization afforded
the opportunity to reconsider delivery of engineering education in the fundamental
disciplines of civil, electrical, environmental, and mechanical engineering. As described in
more detail in the body of the self-study, Mines’ existing Bachelor of Science in
Engineering (BSE) with specialty, accredited by ABET as a General Degree, was very
large, with over 1300 majors. There was further a strong desire on the part of our
constituents (employers and students) to have discipline-specific degrees. Thus, after the
reorganization, efforts were launched to stand up the four new degrees to be visited in the
2013-2014 cycle. These degrees were vetted through Mines’ Undergraduate Council and
xviii
fully approved by the Colorado Commission on Higher education and the CSM Board of
Trustees, with initial graduates appearing between December 2012 and August 2013.
Institutional Assessment of Academic Programs
There are many mechanisms that link the campus-level interest in insuring that systemic
and meaningful assessment practices are delivered and utilized at the programmatic level.
These include the following:
The Director of Institutional Assessment. In Spring, 2011 the Colorado School of Mines
hired Ms. Kay Schneider as Director of Institutional Assessment. The Director of
Institutional Assessment is a new position to the Colorado School of Mines charged
with the following activities.
Managing the design, collection, coordination, assembly and analysis of data and
information required for program assessment, Core Curriculum assessment, and
continuous improvement activities for education enhancement at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels.
In consultation with faculty and academic administration, developing, maintaining
and coordinating effective studies, surveys, and evaluations, including academic
program reviews, course evaluations, senior exit interviews, NSSE results and other
data required for accreditation (preferably web based).
Assisting academic administration, department heads/division directors, and faculty
in creating and refining a comprehensive academic assessment plan by developing
and documenting clear student learning and administrative outcomes in all
instructional programs and support areas.
Assisting department heads/division directors, faculty and staff in the development
of overall assessment strategies, development of surveys, rubric development, and
any other assessment needs.
Serving as institutional authority on the current state of assessment on national,
regional and state levels and a liaison and resource on outcomes assessment for all
areas of the university in preparation for regional, ABET, and other accreditations.
Disseminating and communicating assessment results to internal and external
constituencies including the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) as
appropriate.
Developing and promoting strategies to use university assessment results to foster
educational improvement at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
xix
Establishing clear, evidentiary connections between student learning outcomes and
educational effectiveness with the aim of improving both.
Serving as Chair of the University Assessment Committee.
An overview of activities led out of the office of the Director of Institutional
Assessment is available at http://inside.mines.edu/assessment.
University Assessment Committee. Established in 2005, and formally constituted as a
University Committee in 2009, the University Assessment Committee is a formal
Committee appointed by the President that reports to the Provost and is chaired by the
Director of Institutional Assessment. This committee meets regularly during the
academic year and is charged with advising the Provost and Programs on all matters
pertaining to assessment of the educational outcomes of its academic programs. In
fulfilling its role, the University Assessment Committee reviews programmatic
assessment plans provided by the responsible academic unit as required by the Provost,
reviews documentation provided by the unit that indicates how the unit has carried out
its assessment plan, and what changes it has made to its academic programs as a result
and recommends additional actions each academic unit could take to enhance its
assessment efforts.
Documentation of activities undertaken by the Assessment Committee is available on
the institution’s Blackboard website (http://blackboard.mines.edu). Access to this site is
available upon request.
Visiting Committees - A Visiting Committee is an advisory body to the Board of
Trustees. Each Committee is intended to provide the department or division with a
group of informed and interested professionals who can serve as a link to the larger
world. Visiting Committees help the School develop and refine goals, review progress,
assess its contributions in relation to the needs of the community and the Nation, and
consider long-range goals and priorities. Visiting Committees may also provide
consultation to components of the department or division in accordance with individual
expertise, and they may be asked to assist the President and the Provost in the overall
evaluation of the academic unit and its head or director. They may also be of assistance
in identifying sources of financial support or possible candidates for a department head
or division director when a search is in process.
Visiting Committees provide advice to the Trustees, President, Provost, Academic
Affairs senior staff, and the department head or division director; serve to link the
department/division and the School with the professional world; make the work of the
department/division and School more widely known to alumni and those in the private
sector; provide the School with objective advice for both the short and long-term; and
serve as a channel of communication on all of these matters with the Trustees.
xx
Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate promotes cooperation and understanding among the
various constituencies that comprise the School by:
Providing a forum for the Academic Faculty to express its concerns to the
Administration and the Board of Trustees;
Encouraging the involvement of Academic Faculty in the overall operation of the
School; and
Fostering and maintaining a stimulating atmosphere for teaching, scholarship and
service.
The Faculty Senate meets twice a month during the regular academic year (Minutes of
Faculty Senate meetings are publically available at http://inside.mines.edu/Faculty-
Senate-Home). The Senate operates a number of councils and committees that are
directly related to undergraduate academic programs. These include the following.
Academic Standards and Policies Committee. The function of the Academic
Standards and Policies Committee is to consider and make recommendations to the
Faculty Senate on such matters as grading systems and standards, requirements for
graduation (other than specific curricula), academic probation, academic
suspension, admission and readmission standards, review of transfer agreements,
and to work with the Provost and Academic Affairs senior staff on matters related to
academic assessment, and to develop procedures for incorporating policy changes
into the appropriate bulletins, and procedures manuals.
Undergraduate Council. The function of Undergraduate Council is to make
recommendations to the Faculty Senate on matters such as exam scheduling,
grading systems, instructional development and excellence, instructional support,
and other administrative matters, new undergraduate majors, minors and degrees;
modifications in the Core Curriculum and in degree requirements; credit hour
requirements; and other academic matters. Issues dealing with academic standards
shall be referred to the Academic Standards and Faculty Affairs Committee.
Minutes of Undergraduate Council are available on the institution’s Blackboard
website (http://blackboard.mines.edu). Access to this site is available upon request.
Core Curriculum Committee. The Core Curriculum Committee is an ad hoc
committee appointed by, and reporting to the Provost. The Core Curriculum
Committee is chaired by the Director of Institutional Assessment. The charge to the
Core Curriculum Committee is broadly defined as providing institutional
assessment, oversight and recommendations on the Core Curriculum (both Core and
Distributed Core).
xxi
Documentation of activities undertaken by the Core Curriculum Committee is
available on the institution’s Blackboard website (http://blackboard.mines.edu).
Access to this site is available upon request. Additional information regarding this
committee is online at http://inside.mines.edu/Assessment-Core-Curriculum.
Collectively, these committees scrutinize prevailing issues and the effectiveness of
institution-wide and programmatic offerings. They provide the Mines community the
opportunity to assess its academic functions from a wide variety of perspectives and then
propose pathways for moving forward that are balanced, have broad institutional support
and address root issues.
Prepared by Terence Parker
Provost and Executive Vice-President
Spring, 2012
Updated by Kevin L. Moore
Dean, College of Engineering and Computational Sciences
Spring, 2013
1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Contact Information
Program Lead
John McCray, Department Chair
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
College of Engineering & Computational Sciences
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401
Tel. 303-273-3467
Fax. 303-273-3413
Program ABET Coordinator
Terri Hogue, Associate Professor
Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs
Tel: 303-384-2588
Assistant ABET Coordinator
Emily Lesher, Research Associate
College of Engineering and Computational Sciences ABET Coordinator
Kevin L. Moore, Dean
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401
Tel. (303) 273-3898
Fax. (303) 273-3602
B. Program History
Include the year implemented and the date of the last general review. Summarize major
program changes with an emphasis on changes occurring since the last general review.
The Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) degree, managed and delivered by
the Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) department, has not been previously
accredited by ABET. It has only been offered since the Fall semester of 2012 and its first
graduate was awarded a degree in December 2012. We had one additional graduate in May
2
2013 and another is expected to graduate in August 2013. The BSCE degree program grew
out of CSM’s currently accredited Bachelor of Science in Engineering (BSE) degree
program, as described in the remainder of this subsection.
Historical Background: As noted in the institutional context section, accredited engineering
education at Mines has existed in a variety of majors since the 1930’s. The former
Engineering Division (EG), under which BSE was initially offered, developed out of a non-
degree-granting department called Basic Engineering. This department provided instruction
in core engineering courses (Statics, Dynamics, Mechanics of Materials, Electric Circuits,
Fluid Mechanics, and Thermodynamics) for all of the other degree-granting engineering
departments throughout the school. In 1977, the school began offering a Bachelor of
Science degree in the Basic Engineering Department. Shortly after this decision was made,
the first graduates began to flow from this department, which was later renamed the
Engineering Division. Initially, the Engineering Division included faculty with
backgrounds in Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering. It was decided, therefore,
that a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree with specialties in Civil, Electrical and
Mechanical Engineering would be offered, allowing students to focus in those areas of
study. The BSE degree was first accredited in 1983 and has been continually
accredited since then. The last General Review was in the 2012-2013 cycle.
In 1984, one year after the accreditation of the degree, 12 undergraduates walked across the
stage and received the first degrees in “Engineering.” They were joined by 265 other CSM
undergraduates that spring who received their degrees. At the time, the degree was one
year old; student enrollment in the degree program was 207 undergraduates out of a total
enrollment of 2123 undergraduates. By 1990 the Engineering Division had tripled in size
to be 663 undergraduate EG students out of an undergraduate CSM population of 1623
students. In 1994, the graduate degree for the division was established (at the time named
Engineering Systems) and at approximately the same time the Environmental Engineering
specialty was added to the BSE degree; the undergraduate population was 800 EG students
out of 2207 CSM undergraduates and the initial enrollment in the graduate program was 26
students. The undergraduate and graduate degree continued to grow. Figure B-1 shows the
growth of the undergraduate student population within the Engineering Division from
1980-2011 as compared to the campus as a whole, illustrating the continuing popularity of
this degree.
3
Figure B-1: Undergraduate engineering and CSM total enrollments from 1980-2011
During 2011-2012, the Colorado School of Mines enrolled 3,876 undergraduate and 1,343
graduate students in programs leading to degrees in engineering and the applied sciences.
Among the undergraduates, 3,207 or 83 percent had declared majors in one of Colorado
School of Mines’ nine ABET-accredited engineering programs. Of these, 1358 were
enrolled in the BSE degree program (35% of all majors and 42% of all engineering majors
in the nine ABET-accredited engineering programs). In 2010-11, Mines awarded 585
baccalaureate degrees in ABET-accredited engineering programs (87 percent of the 666
total baccalaureate degrees awarded). Of these, 259 were awarded BSE degrees (39% of all
awarded majors and 44% of all awarded engineering degrees in the nine ABET-accredited
engineering programs).
To reinforce a comment made above in the institutional context, studies in engineering,
both undergraduate and graduate, dominate the Colorado School of Mines curriculum, and
as such, the institution is a significant international, national and regional provider of
engineering talent and scholarship. Further, the BSE program at Mines has been a
significant component of this engineering degree productivity, given its large percentage of
the total engineering degree productivity of the institution6.
6 In the Engineering Division Program Assessment Report, 2008-2009 AY, it is noted that the Mines BSE
degree was arguably in a class by itself, as the only ABET-accredited BSE degree (at that time) at an
institution that offered other ABET-accredited engineering programs, but not EE, ME, CE, in a department
that also offers graduate degrees through the PhD. It is additionally significant that in 2011 the BSE degree
represented over 40% of the majors at an institution ranked 26th in the nation for the number of BS graduates
in ABET-accredited engineering degrees, with the highest starting salaries in the US, and rated in the national
press as a “best buy in engineering education.”
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
4400
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
EG UG
CSM UG
4
Recent Changes: Beginning in the fall of 2011 CSM underwent a major organizational
change, motivated by campus-wide growth and the fact that for nearly a decade one third of
all CSM graduates came from a single academic unit, the Division of Engineering,
receiving a single ABET-accredited degree, the BSE. As a result of this change, the College
of Engineering and Computational Sciences (CECS) was formed in August 2011 as the
first-ever College at the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) through the merger of the former
Division of Engineering, the former Division of Environmental Science and Engineering,
and the former Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences. Today CECS
comprises four of the academic units at CSM, with over 2100 students and more than 70
faculty in four departments:
1. Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics
2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
3. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
4. Department of Mechanical Engineering
We reemphasize a comment from the institutional context section above: “It is important to
recognize that, as a result of these initial reorganizational efforts, Mines is in a state of
transition.” As a part of this transition, one of the first post-reorganization activities was to
begin to restructure the degree offerings in the new departments. The following new
undergraduate degree proposals, approved by all required campus committees and councils,
by the Colorado School of Mines Board of Trustees, and by the Colorado Commission on
Higher Education appear in the 2012-2013 Bulletin, along with the existing B.S. in
Engineering degree:
B.S. in Applied Mathematics and Statistics
B.S. in Civil Engineering (BSCE)
B.S. in Environmental Engineering (BSEV)
B.S. in Computer Science (not planning to seek accreditation at this time)
B.S. in Electrical Engineering (BSEE)
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (BSME)
Four of these six new degrees are engineering degrees for which CSM seeks initial
accreditation in the 2013-2014 cycle: BSCE, BSEV, BSEE, and BSME, collectively
referred to as the BSxE degrees. The basis for the decision to realign our degrees was
market-driven and reflects the fact that specialized degrees are clearly preferred by
corporate recruiters and students. One of the hallmarks of Mines is our strong partnership
with the industry partners who recruit our students. This partnership is one of the major
considerations for students who choose Mines. Corporate recruiters have for many years
requested to interview students by engineering specialization (civil, electrical,
environmental, mechanical, computer science, etc.) instead of the general engineering or
mathematical and computer sciences majors. To meet these expectations, the curriculum for
the general degree has evolved over the years to support the respective specialized
disciplines. On occasion, however, our career center has to work against misconceptions
5
held by some recruiters that our students do not have appropriate backgrounds in the
specialized disciplines. The changes to the degrees will clearly erase such misconceptions.
Similarly for students interested in pursuing graduate education, the degree changes will be
better reflect the depth of knowledge they receive at Mines and help them compete for the
best positions at top graduate schools. Related, we also expend considerable energy with
boards of professional licensure to explain our existing degree and how it fits within their
regulations about who can sit for the FE and PE exams. These degree changes will more
closely align the credentials of our graduates with such regulations as well as better meet
the needs of our constituents.
Finally, we note that the existing BSE degree will continue to be supported for and granted
to students who enrolled at Mines prior to Fall Semester 2012, if they wish to choose the
degree. Further, after the transition period is complete we envision the existing Bachelor of
Science in Engineering with specialty degree would be redesigned to a Bachelor of Science
in Engineering without specialty, to ensure a distinction between that degree and the new
BSxE degrees. This redesign will begin in the fall of 2013 and we will be careful to consult
ABET as significant changes take place in the existing BSE.
The remainder of this self-study report focuses on the Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering (BSCE).
The BSCE was derived from the civil engineering specialty within the BSE degree, which
was implemented at the same time as the BSE degree. The BSE-civil engineering specialty
has enjoyed slow but steady growth over much of the past 15 years (see Figure B-2),
although averaging a 2% annual decline over the last 5 years of analyzed data. 264 majors
were enrolled in Fall 2012. The number of BSE-civil specialty graduates has also grown in
the last 15 years (see Figure B-3), and has reached a steady number between 66-68
graduates in the last 4 years of data shown (we expect about 75 graduates for the 2012-13
academic year once the August graduates are counted).
During the re-organization of Fall 2011, the ESE faculty were joined with civil engineering
faculty from Engineering Division to form the department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering (CEE) (reasons for the re-organization were described earlier).
The BSCE degree is nearly identical to the previous BSE-Civil engineering specialty.
Both degrees covered the same four civil-engineering technical areas: structural
engineering, engineering mechanics, geotechnical engineering, and environmental
engineering. The environmental courses in the BSE-civil specialty were taught by ESE
professors prior to the reorganization.
The job market is good for BSE-civil majors: The job market for BSE-Civil specialty
graduates has been good. Placement rate since 2006 has been 84-98% except for one year
in the height of the recession (AY 2009-2010) when the placement rate was 73%. Indeed,
except for the recession years of 2009-2011, the placement rates have been 91 to 98%
6
between 2006 and 2013. This result is not surprising, considering that a 2007 U.S Bureau
of Labor report listed civil engineering as the 3rd fastest growing engineering field, and
stated that there are more engineers practicing civil engineering than any other field of
engineering. In April 2013, 26 BSE-Civil students sat for the FE exam and 25 passed.
Figure B-2: BSE-Civil majors at census day for Fall semesters 1998-2012.
Figure B-3: BSE-Civil graduates, Academic years 1998-1999 through 2011-2012
(August graduates are applied to the previous academic year)
7
C. Options
The BSCE degree currently has four “emphasis areas” as defined by ABET: engineering
mechanics, environmental engineering, geotechnical engineering and structural
engineering.
The engineering mechanics emphasis allows students to build upon the fundamental solid-
mechanics and fluid-mechanics courses in the sophomore and junior years. Elective courses
include topics such as advanced mechanics of materials, engineering vibrations,
nondestructive evaluation, advanced fluid mechanics, soil behavior, advanced soil
mechanics, biomechanics, materials, and many more. Students that pursue this track focus
less on design and more on behavior and analysis. CEE relies on courses taught in ME
department to ensure sufficient breadth in this specialty
Students who pursue an environmental emphasis within the BSCE will be able to work in
the fields of environmental and water-resources engineering. Elective courses enable
students to specialize in areas such as water reclamation, wastewater treatment, urban
hydrology, ground-water remediation, and sustainable engineering design. Employers
include consulting firms, mining and energy companies, government agencies, and non-
profits.
Students who pursue a geotechnical emphasis within the BSCE degree will master the
necessary knowledge and skill sets in pursuing careers in geotechnical and
geoenvironmental engineering. Elective courses enable students to specialize in areas such
as soil mechamics, computational methods in geomechanics and environmental
geotechnics, surface and subsurface excavations, transportation infrastructures,
geotechnical risk and seismic analysis, waste containment and remediation, and geohazard
analysis.
Structural emphasis within the BSCE will allow student to design, construct and maintain
bridges, buildings, sporting arenas and other types of buildings to withstand natural forces
such as gravity, wind, snow, rain, seismic (earthquake), earth pressure, temperature, and
traffic. Structural engineering core subjects include Statics, Strength of Materials, Structural
Analysis, Structural Dynamics, Reinforced concrete, Timber and Masonry, and Structural
Steel Design. Exercising the profession requires at a minimum a Professional Engineer
licensure, while many states, such as California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, and
others, require the more specialized Structural Engineer licensure.
Coverage of breadth in the four areas is outlined as follows:
Engineering Mechanics emphasis: Mechanics of Materials (EGGN 320), Dynamics (EGGN
315), Soil Mechanics with Lab (EGGN 361 & EGGN 363), Computer Aided
Engineering (EGGN 413)
Environmental emphasis: Earth and Env. Systems (SYGN 101), Fundamentals of
Environmental Engineering I or II (ESGN 353 or ESGN 354)
8
Geotechnical emphasis: Soil Mechanics with Lab (EGGN 361 & EGGN 363), and
Foundations (EGGN 464)
Structural emphasis: Structural Theory (EGGN 342), Steel Design or Concrete Design
(EGGN 444 or EGGN 445).
Students also choose three technical elective courses, and four free elective courses that
allow them to focus on one or more of the four technical areas.
D. Organizational Structure
The overall organizational structure of the Colorado School of Mines is illustrated in the
organizational charts at the end of this section.
All academic programs report to the Provost and Executive Vice President, Dr. Terry
Parker, via reporting lines from individual Departments Heads or Division Directors
through the Dean of their college.
With the exception of the general Engineering degree (BSE), all ABET accredited
programs at the Colorado School of Mines are overseen by an individual Department or
Division. The BSE degree is overseen by the College of Engineering and Computational
Sciences.
The BSCE degree program seeking its initial accreditation through this self-study is
overseen by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE), which also
offers a B.S. degree in Environmental Engineering. The CEE Department also offers related
graduate degree programs at both the M.S. and Ph.D. levels.
E. Program Delivery Modes
The BSCE program is delivered through traditional day based lectures/laboratories and one
intensive 3 week/ 3 credit summer laboratory course required of all students (called field
session). All delivery occurs on campus or on CSM-owned property, except for those
students who choose to take a cooperative education course (an elective activity) or courses
that offer short-term field trips as part of their curriculum (typically during a lab period or
weekend day).
F. Program Locations
The BSCE program is offered using facilities on the Mines’ campus under the direction of
Mines’ faculty members.
G. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions
Taken to Address Them
Not applicable. This is the BSCE program’s first accreditation visit.
H. Joint Accreditation
Accreditation is only being sought through the EAC of ABET.
9
Figure B-4: Colorado School of Mines Executive Organization
Figure B-5: Academic Affairs Organization
10
GENERAL CRITERIA
1) CRITERION 1. STUDENTS
A. Student Admissions
Colorado School of Mines (Mines or CSM) admits students who have demonstrated they can
do the required classroom and laboratory work and profit from the School's programs. The
decision to admit a student is based on an assessment of his or her ability to earn a degree at
the Colorado School of Mines. Criteria considered in evaluating prospective students include:
1. Pattern and rigor of course work in high school or college
2. Grades earned in those courses
3. ACT or SAT scores
4. Rank in class
5. Other available test scores
No single criterion for admission is used; however, the most important factor is the academic
record in high school or college.
The minimum admission requirements for all high school graduates who have not attended a
college or university are as follows:
An applicant must be a graduate of an accredited high school
An applicant should rank in the upper third of the graduating class (consideration is
given to applicants below this level on evidence of strong motivation, superior test
scores, and recommendation from principal or counselor)
The following 17 units of secondary school work must be completed in grades 9-12:
Algebra 2
Geometry 1
Advanced Math (including trigonometry) 1
English 4
History or social sciences 3
Academic Elective 2
Laboratory science 3
Foreign language 1
One unit, including laboratory, must be either chemistry or physics. Within the
laboratory science requirement, second and third units may be chemistry, physics,
zoology, botany, geology, biology, etc. with laboratory. Both physics and chemistry
are recommended for two of the three required units. General Science is not
acceptable as a science unit; however it is acceptable as an academic elective unit.
The two additional elective academic units (social studies, mathematics, English,
science or foreign language) are required. These units must be acceptable to the
applicant's high school to meet graduation requirements. For applicants submitting
GED Equivalency Diplomas, these units may be completed by the GED test.
11
Applicants from the United States and Canada are required to submit the scores of
either the ACT or SAT.
More detailed information on Mines admission requirements and procedures may be found in
the Mines Undergraduate Bulletin (http://inside.mines.edu/Bulletins).
As described below, subject to the admissions requirements for transfer students, students
may request transfer admission to undergraduate programs at the Colorado School of Mines.
Typically, such students transfer as late freshman and sophomores, and occasionally as
juniors; particularly in the case that one of our formal articulation agreements has been
followed. To graduate, transfer students must meet the residency and upper division course
requirements described below, with the result that upper division transfers are unusual.
However, when these occur, they are handled on a case-by-case basis by faculty in the
appropriate academic departments.
The minimum admission requirements for all students who have attended another college or
university are as follows:
Transfer students must have completed the same high school course work
requirements as entering freshman. A transcript of the applicant's high school record
is required.
Applicants must also present college transcripts showing an overall 2.75 grade point
average or better. Students presenting a lower GPA will be given careful
consideration and acted on individually.
An applicant who cannot re-enroll at the institution from which he or she wishes to
transfer because of scholastic record or other reason will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
Completed or “in progress” college courses – which meet Mines graduation
requirements; and have received departmental review and approval – are eligible for
transfer credit if the grade earned is “C” or better.
A history of admission standards is provided Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past Five
Years
Academic
Year
Composite
ACT Composite SAT
Percentile Rank in
High School
New Students
Enrolled
MI
N.
AV
G.
MI
N.
AV
G.
MI
N.
AVG.
2008-09 24 28 1100 1253 68 88 872
2009-10 24 28 1100 1257 66 87 880
2010-11 25 29 1110 1271 66 87 875
2011-12 25 29 1120 1293 66 88 879
2012-13 25 29 1120 1301 68 89 949
12
B. Evaluating Student Performance.
The institutional framework for student evaluation rests on standard letter grades and a
grade-point system that computes earned four-point scores into cumulative and major grade-
point averages. Academic probation, suspension and fulfillment of the graduation
requirements are coupled to the grade-point averages, as defined in the Undergraduate
Bulletin. The Academic Standards Committee, which is a Committee of the Faculty Senate,
convenes periodically to consider and make recommendations to the Senate on such matters
as: grading systems and standards, requirements for graduation, academic probation,
academic suspension, admission and readmission standards, and review of transfer
agreements.
The primary tool for tracking student progress is the Mines student web-based Banner degree
audit system. Advisors can easily examine this degree audit to see if the student is on track
in terms of his/her graduation goal and meets pre-requisite course requirements prior to
course enrollment.
Additionally, students must apply for graduation once 90 hours are complete. This allows
the Registrar’s Office to begin closer tracking of each student. Once the application is
received, the Registrar’s Office verifies the online audit and sends e-mail verification to the
student of all courses needed. The analysis includes courses in progress and courses needed
in future terms.
Prerequisite and corequisite requirements are evaluated and approved by the faculty on the
Undergraduate Council. Once approved, the prerequisite is entered into the student
information system (SIS) for enforcement and monitoring. During registration, all
prerequisites and corequisites are enforced by the SIS. If a student has not completed the
appropriate prerequisite, he/she has two options: 1) wait until the pre- or corequisite is
complete, or 2) make a request to the instructional faculty of the course to be allowed into the
course without the pre- or corequisite. The second option requires that the student pick up a
form in the Registration Help Center. The form must be signed by the faculty member and
returned by the student to the Registrar’s Office. The Registrar’s Office then enters an
override into the SIS. This override allows the student to register for the course in the web
registration system.
Reports have been developed to monitor overrides for each term. When course pre- and
corequisites have been overridden for several students, the Registrar’s Office will work with
the department teaching the course to determine if the prerequisite is academically
appropriate and should be equally enforced for all students, or if it should be removed.
C. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses
Public institutions of higher education in Colorado are all engaged in transfer articulation
agreements in accordance with Colorado State Law 23-1-108(7). This is intended to facilitate
transfer within the state and especially between 2-year and 4-year colleges. Since the
Colorado School of Mines is a specialized institution of engineering and science, and since it
has a custom-designed core curriculum that couples and emphasizes various areas in setting
13
strong foundations for an engineering education, our transfer articulation agreements are
more restrictive than those required by Colorado’s other 4-year institutions.
Our approach has been to establish a model agreement with Red Rocks Community College
(RRCC), a neighboring 2-year institution that provides most of our transfer students. Our
procedure in developing this agreement has been to establish close faculty-to-faculty
communications within all disciplines embedded in the core curriculum. Through these
communications, and given a bi-lateral desire for a workable agreement, RRCC has been
able to configure its offerings in accordance with our needs and to work with us in
specialized areas like Design - EPICS. The net effect has been a healthy interaction between
the two schools and “trickle-down” curricular adaptations at RRCC in response to changes at
Mines. The RRCC - Colorado School of Mines transfer articulation agreement has recently
been used as a basis for developing an articulation agreement with Front Range Community
College (FRCC), Community College of Aurora, and with Community College of Denver.
The most recent initiatives have been to build additional agreements with Trinidad State
Junior College, Colorado Mountain College, and Northeastern Junior College. The
completed agreements are available upon request for site review.
Transfer students who apply for admission to the Colorado School of Mines interact with the
School’s Undergraduate Admissions Office to expedite their acceptance and the transfer of
credit. Undergraduate admissions officers review the application package and give primary
consideration to:
Completion of applicable high school course requirements, which are the same as
those for entering freshmen
Achievement of a grade-point average of 2.75 or better in college level courses
The need to validate transfer credit arises in two different sets of circumstances. These relate
to the newly enrolled transfer student, accepted according to the procedures above, and the
continuing student, who takes courses at a different institution and transfers the credits back
to the Colorado School of Mines. While the underlying validations are the same in the sense
of assuring academic equivalences, the procedures encountered by the students are different.
These procedures are described below.
New Transfer Students: The procedure for new transfer students is hosted in the Admissions
Office and begins with an Explanation of Transfer Credit information sheet. This serves as a
guideline to two other transfer credit validation instruments: the Transfer Credit Form and
the Departmental Credit Transfer Evaluation. The former is handled by admissions officers
and deals with straightforward substitutions of courses taken elsewhere into the Mines core
curriculum. In most cases, these transfers are done in accordance with pre-existing transfer
agreements between Mines and feeder colleges, as has been previously described above. The
latter instrument deals with more complicated cases, where a detailed review of coursework
completed elsewhere is undertaken by a Mines academic faculty member in the appropriate
discipline. In these cases, transfer students are required to submit evidence of
accomplishments in the course for which transfer credit is requested, together with course
syllabi, and the faculty member may interview them. Within the BSCE program, such
14
materials are forwarded to the College of Engineering and Computational Sciences
Undergraduate Program Administrator, who seeks appropriate faculty input, after which the
Department Head or Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs of the CEE department will
provide the final approval. When new transfer students enter at the late freshman or
sophomore level, the Admissions Office procedure usually suffices. For later transfers,
typically in the junior year, it becomes essential for transfer courses to be reviewed in the
academic departments and divisions, and this invariably couples to the specialized advising
needs of such students.
Continuing Students Requesting Transfer Credit: Students may request permission to take
courses elsewhere and transfer the credit to their Colorado School of Mines’ transcripts. This
involves a multi-step process beginning with a Prior Approval that is signed by appropriate
academic Department Heads/Division Directors (both in the major program
department/division and the department/division in which the course would be taught at
Mines), and the Registrar acting on behalf of the Provost. The form is reviewed by the
Registrar’s Office on completion of the course and upon presentation of the transcript from
the external institution. Once the Prior Approval form signatures, external transcript, and
required grades are verified, the transfer work is applied to the student’s record in the Student
Information System (Banner) by Registrar’s Office personnel. The onus rests on the
academic Department Heads/Division Directors to assure the appropriate course
equivalences. One variation of the Prior Approval form exists for the Humanities and Social
Sciences requirements. In these cases, there are other signatories pertinent to the request and
the consequent validation of transfer credit. In cases where students request a Post Approval
of transfer credit the form follows the same signatory track and responsibilities as the Prior
Approval. Within the BSCE program, assessment and paperwork for these cases are
coordinated by the College of Engineering and Computational Sciences Undergraduate
Program Administrator, who seeks appropriate faculty input, after which the Department
Head or Vice Chair of undergraduate Affairs of the CEE department will provide the final
approval. Table 1-2 summarizes the number of students transferring into Mines over the past
five years.
Table 1-2: Transfer Students for Past Five Academic Years
Academic
Year
Number of Transfer
Students Enrolled –
Fall (Spring)
2008-09 110 (56)
2009-10 94 (74)
2010-11 82 (75)
2011-12 90 (69)
2012-13 117 (60)
15
D. Advising and Career Guidance
Institutional Advising: All first-year students are advised through the Center for Academic
Services & Advising (CASA). Students receive advisement via an assigned Academic
Advising Coordinator, a full-time, Administrative Faculty staff member. As CASA advisees,
students have a noted “major interest” but have not formally declared. The Coordinators
work with students to:
· Facilitate the transition from high school to college,
· Provide guidance with course selection & registration,
· Assess and monitor academic progress,
· Assist in choosing a formal academic discipline (major),
· Provide referrals to appropriate campus resources.
Students are required to review registration plans and academic progress at least once per
semester. To ensure this practice, CASA advisees may not register for the upcoming
semester without receiving a PIN. Students are encouraged to meet with their Coordinator
throughout the semester, as needed or desired. Coordinators provide holistic advisement and
support. Accordingly, many student advisees utilize the various academic support services
managed through CASA such as Tutoring, Academic Excellence Workshops, and individual
Academic Coaching. Incoming transfer students are advised through the Admissions Office
for their first semester, only. After one semester, transfer students declare a faculty advisor or
transition to CASA for ongoing, lower-division advisement.
All CASA advisees ultimately declare a major. This declaration occurs when (a) the student
has formally decided an academic path and (b) earned enough credits to begin coursework
within that major. For most students, this declaration occurs mid-Sophomore year while
some students declare earlier due to advanced credit. When a student declares, academic
advisement shifts to a faculty member within the department of the declared major. The
faculty advisor will guide the student through the respective discipline, assist with graduation
preparation, and mentor the student with post-graduation plans (professional advancement
and/or graduate school, for example).
Career Center: The Mines Career Center mission assists students in developing, evaluating,
and implementing career, education, and employment decisions and plans. Career
development is integral to the success of Mines graduates and to the mission of Mines. All
Colorado School of Mines graduates are able to acquire the necessary job search and
professional development skills to enable them to successfully take personal responsibility
for the management of their own careers. Services are provided to all students paying the
mandatory Student Services Fee and for all recent graduates up to 24 months after
graduation. Students must adhere to the ethical and professional business and job searching
practices as stated in the Career Center Student Policy, which can be found in its entirety on
the Student's Homepage of DiggerNet. The Career Center provides a comprehensive array of
career services, including:
16
Career Advice and Counseling
Resources to help choose a major
Individual resume and cover letter critiques
Individual job search advice
Practice video-taped interviews
Career Planning Services
CSM101 First-Year Advising and Mentoring Program - focusing on exploring and
connecting with an academic major at Mines
Online resources for exploring careers and employers at http://careers.mines.edu
"Career Digger" online - short bios describe what recent grads are doing on their jobs
"Career Manual" online - resume writing, resume and cover letter examples, and job
search tips
Job Search Workshops - successful company research, interviewing, business
etiquette, networking skills
Salary and overall outcomes information
Company contact information
Graduate school information
Career resource library
Job Resources
Career Day (Fall and Spring)
Online summer, part-time, and full-time entry-level job postings at
http://diggernet.net
Virtual Career Fairs and special recruiting events
On-campus interviewing - industry and government representatives visit the campus
to interview students and explain employment opportunities
General employment board
Resume referrals
Employer searching resource
Cooperative Education Program
CO-OP is available to students who have completed three semesters at CSM (two for
transfer students). It is an academic program which offers 3 semester hours of credit
in the major for engineering work experience, awarded on the basis of a term paper
written following the CO-OP term. The type of credit awarded depends on the
decision of the department, but in most cases is elective credit. CO-OP terms usually
extend from May to December, or from January to August, and usually take a student
off campus full time. Students must apply for CO-OP before beginning the job (a no
credit, no fee class), and must write learning objectives and sign formal contracts with
their company's representative to ensure the educational component of the work
experience.
17
Program Advising and Career Guidance:
Program advising and career guidance for students within the College of Engineering &
Computational Sciences in general and the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering happens on several different levels. The primary source of information for
declared majors is the student’s faculty advisor. Each student is assigned a faculty advisor
upon declaring their major and this person will help them to understand everything from
which elective courses will help fulfill their career goals to which industries may be most
lucrative or whether graduate school might be a good option. Students also have access to the
Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs, the CEE Academic Program Manager, and the CECS
college Undergraduate Program Administrator. This position serves as a liaison between the
student and the college, the college’s departments, and the degree programs in the college.
The Undergraduate Program Administrator disseminates information, assists with advising
and scheduling, and keeps abreast of any college, departmental, or curriculum changes.
E. Work in Lieu of Courses
Other than through Advanced Placement examinations or CSM-authorized cooperative
education experiences the Colorado School of Mines does not credit work or life experience
in lieu of required coursework.
Advanced Placement: Most course work completed under the Advanced Placement Program
in a high school is accepted for college credit provided that the Advanced Placement
Program Test grade is either 5 (highest honors) or 4 (honors). In special cases, advanced
placement may be granted for course work not completed under the College Entrance
Examination Board Program. Students wishing such credit must demonstrate competence by
writing the Advanced Placement Examination in the subject. The above noted required test
results still apply in these cases.
F. Graduation Requirements
To qualify for a Bachelor of Science degree from the Colorado School of Mines, all
candidates must satisfy the following requirements:
A minimum cumulative grade-point average of 2.000 for all academic work
completed in residence
A minimum cumulative grade-point average of 2.000 for courses comprising the
course sequence in the candidate's major
A minimum of 30 hours credit in 300 and 400 series technical courses in residence, at
least 15 of which must be taken in the senior year
A minimum of 19 hours in humanities and social sciences courses
The recommendation of their degree-granting department/division of the faculty
The certification by the Registrar that all required academic work is satisfactorily
completed
The recommendation of the Faculty Senate and the approval of the Board of Trustees
18
The process for certifying candidates have met all degree requirements is outlined below.
1. Application to Graduate: At the end of the junior year/beginning of the senior year the
student completes an application to graduate. The form is available online at the
Registrar’s website and on paper at the Registrar’s Office. The form is also sent in a
reminder e-mail to those students who have completed enough hours to be a senior but
have not yet filled out the application. The student can print this form, fill it out, and
deliver it to the office. The Registrar’s Office also accepts the document scanned and e-
mailed to the Office.
2. Hold Process: If a student has achieved senior status but not completed the application, a
registration hold is placed on a student’s record, disabling the student’s ability to register.
In addition, an e-mail is sent to the student with an electronic application to graduate
attached.
3. Registrar’s Office Processing: Application to graduate materials, forms in the academic
file, and coding in the system are verified for accuracy. The application is entered in the
Banner student record. Courses are applied to program requirements in the computerized
degree audit. The student is contacted if any forms are outstanding. This step is normally
completed within a week from the time the application is turned in to the Registrar’s
Office. The Assistant Registrar accesses the computerized degree audit and verifies all
data are applied correctly in the online degree audit. Final modifications are made, and a
new degree audit is run and printed for the student’s file. Any deficiencies are noted. This
step is normally complete within two weeks from the time the application is turned in to
the Registrar’s office. However, it can take up to four weeks during peak periods such as
the beginning or end of a term, or early registration week. The Assistant Registrar sends
the official graduation audit in the form of an e-mail to the student. This official audit
includes the expected graduation date, major, minors, Area of Special Interest (ASIs),
GPA information (overall and major), current courses in which the student is registered
that are required for graduation, any coursework in which the student is registered that is
not required for graduation, and deficiencies in coursework for the degree that the student
is seeking. This e-mail also includes information about how to use the degree audit.
Should a student want to discuss the audit, the student can make an appointment with the
Assistant Registrar to discuss the audit in detail.
4. Final Semester Processing: During the term of graduation:
A list of potential graduates is pulled from the campus reporting system.
Student files are reviewed and updated by applying any courses completed since the
last degree audit.
An Excel spreadsheet is created listing final registration and any outstanding items
along with possible solutions to outstanding items. Any student needing additional
coursework who is not registered in that coursework by census date are removed from
the graduation list.
The Registrar’s Office sends the Dean of Students a copy of the graduation list for
purposes of notifying students of Graduation Salute (a graduation organization event
described below), setting up seating, walking order, and preparing the speaking list.
19
Students are sent individual e-mails listing final coursework and outstanding items.
Any student with outstanding items is not signed off for graduation checkout until the
outstanding items have been satisfied. Formal degree checkout normally occurs at the
Graduation Salute event.
Each department is sent a list of their students expected to graduate. The departments
must determine by Graduation Salute event if the list is appropriate. Once reviewed,
the Department Head or Division Director approves the list. In the case of the
Bachelor of Science in Engineering program, prior to reorganization the list was sent
to the Engineering Division Director, who would send the appropriate student names
to each specialty lead to check. Upon the specialty leads’ recommendations, the
Division Director would approve the list. Since reorganization, the list is sent to the
Dean of the College of Engineering and Computational Sciences and the College
Undergraduate Program Administrator, who sends the appropriate student names to
each Department Head to check. Upon department heads’ recommendations, the
Dean approves the list.
Graduation Salute is a two-day event where most student service departments are
available in the Student Center ballrooms to speak with students graduating that term.
Each service department must approve graduation. Any student who does not
successfully obtain approval from all service departments cannot graduate.
The day after the completion of Graduation Salute the graduation list is sent to
President of Faculty Senate for review and approval. The President is provided the
deadline date that the list must be forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final
approval.
5. During the week of graduation: The graduation list with Faculty Senate approval is
forwarded to the Board of Trustees for approval.
6. After Graduation (Degree Posting):
Once grades are finalized, each graduate’s file is reviewed to ensure all graduation
requirements have been met. If all requirements are met the degree is formally
awarded.
If all requirements are not met, the student is notified about outstanding issues and
provided a deadline to remediate the outstanding items. If this deadline is not met the
student’s graduation date is moved to the next available date, or the student’s record
is made inactive for graduation purposes.
G. Transcripts of Recent Graduates
Students graduating with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree will have the
following transcript designations:
Program: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
20
2) CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES
A. Mission Statement
Statutory Mission Statement: Throughout its history, the Colorado School of Mines has been
driven by a mission that reflects education and advancement in those fields of engineering
and applied science that have a bearing on the Earth and the stewardship of its resources. As
a public institution within the state of Colorado, its mission is recorded in state statutes. This
was last updated in 1985:
The Colorado School of Mines shall be a specialized baccalaureate and graduate research
institution with high admission standards. The Colorado School of Mines shall have a
unique mission in energy, mineral, and materials science and engineering and associated
engineering and science fields. The school shall be the primary institution of higher
education offering energy, mineral and materials science and mineral engineering degrees
at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. (Colorado Revised Statutes 23-41-105).
Throughout the school's history, the translation of its mission into educational programs has
been influenced by the needs of society. Those needs are now focused more clearly than ever
before. We believe that the world faces a crisis in balancing resource availability with
environmental protection and that Mines and its programs are central to the solution to that
crisis. Therefore the school's mission is elaborated upon as follows:
Colorado School of Mines is dedicated to educating students and professionals in the
applied sciences, engineering, and associated fields related to:
the discovery and recovery of the Earth's resources,
their conversion to materials and energy,
their utilization in advanced processes and products, and
the economic and social systems necessary to ensure their prudent and provident
use in a sustainable global society.
This mission is achieved by the creation, integration, and exchange of knowledge in
engineering, the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, business and their union
to create processes and products to enhance the quality of life of the world's inhabitants.
The Colorado School of Mines is consequently committed to serving the people of Colorado,
the nation, and the global community by promoting stewardship of the Earth upon which all
life and development depend. The Colorado School of Mines Board of Trustees adopted this
elaboration on the School’s statutory mission statement in 2000.
College of Engineering and Computational Sciences Mission Statement:
The College of Engineering and Computational Sciences provides high quality,
innovative educational, research, and outreach programs of distinction, focusing on
engineering design and research challenges related to earth, energy, and the natural and
built environments and known for their impact on improving the lives of people.
21
Programmatic Mission Statement: The Civil and Environmental Engineering department was
officially formed during the re-organization of Fall 2011 and includes both the
Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering Bachelor of Science degrees. After the
merger, multiple meetings and interactions occurred with the faculty to develop a cohesive
departmental vision, including mission and vision statements as well as goals. The most
recent discussion of the department’s vision occurred during the faculty retreat held on May
3rd
, 2013 at Chautauqua Park in Boulder, CO. Although still under review, the faculty are
moving closer to a final consensus, which we plan to have in place by the start of the 2013-
2014 academic year. At the time of this writing, the department has drafted a preliminary
mission and goals for discussion as follows:
Mission Statement:
Produce world leaders through dynamic teaching and research that advances
knowledge and know-how in the natural and built environments and enhances the
global quality of life.
Goals:
Develop and integrate research and curriculum to promote sustainable built and
natural environments.
Lead in cross-disciplinary initiatives that bridge science and engineering and promote
stewardship.
Promote a culture that fosters diversity and inclusion to encourage excellence,
integrity and service.
Increase national and international reputation and stature.
B. Program Educational Objectives
The Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) of the BSCE program follow:
Within three years of attaining the BS degree, graduates will be:
Situated in growing careers or will be successfully pursuing a graduate degree in civil
engineering or a related field.
Advancing in their professional standing, generating new knowledge and/or exercising
leadership in their field.
Contributing to the needs of society through professional practice, research, and/or
service.
PEOs for the CEE department can be found on the department website, linked through the
undergraduate program description http://cee.mines.edu/undergraduateprogram.html
22
C. Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the
Institution
As noted above, the current institutional mission at CSM was approved in 1985 and is part of
the State of Colorado statutes. The CSM Board of Trustees adopted a more detailed
elaboration on the School’s statutory mission statement in 2000 as follows:
“The institutional mission at CSM is dedicated to educating students and professionals in the
applied sciences, engineering, and associated fields related to:
· The discovery and recovery of the Earth's resources,
· Their conversion to materials and energy,
· Their utilization in advanced processes and products, and
· The economic and social systems necessary to ensure their prudent and
provident use in a sustainable global society.
This mission is achieved by the creation, integration, and exchange of knowledge in
engineering, the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, business and their union
to create processes and products to enhance the quality of life of the world's inhabitants. The
Colorado School of Mines is consequently committed to serving the people of Colorado, the
nation, and the global community by promoting stewardship of the Earth upon which all life
and development depend."
The BSCE Program Educational Objectives support the mission of CSM by training highly
qualified graduates who have a broad perspective of the multi-disciplinary nature of Civil
Engineering, and a specific awareness of the role that Civil Engineering plays in addressing
the challenges related to resource management (civil engineers design infrastructure for
resource management, and work on environmental issues associated with resource
management), energy conversion, sustainable construction materials, and environmental
stewardship. Specifically, our first and second PEOs, which require that students are situated
in careers, advancing in their professional standing, generating new knowledge, and
exercising leadership in their field, inherently supports the School’s mission because of the
broad role that Environmental Engineers play in “creation, integration, and exchange of
knowledge in engineering, the natural sciences, the social sciences, the humanities, business,
and their union to create processes and products to enhance the quality of life of the world's
inhabitants” and also “by promoting stewardship of the Earth upon which all life and
development depend”. In addition, our third PEO, which states that our graduates contribute
to the needs of society through professional practice, research, and/or service, is directly
related to the CSM mission of “ promoting stewardship of the Earth upon which all life and
development depend” through “the social sciences, the humanities, business and their union
to create processes and products to enhance the quality of life of the world's inhabitants”
because civil engineering is by definition (and within our curriculum) engineering that
supports our civil society.
23
A more recent activity that demonstrates the growing acceptance and promotion of
environmental engineering by the CSM administration, faculty, alumni, and Board of
Trustees is our official branding of a broader concept of “Earth, Energy, and Environment”.
Modern civil engineers play a strong role in these areas outside of Colorado School of
Mines’ historic mission of energy and mineral extraction. We anticipate that the next
modification of the CSM Strategic Plan (underway starting in 2013) will forge even stronger
connections between civil engineering and the School’s mission.
D. Program Constituencies
From an institution-wide perspective and in keeping with the spirit of its mission, the
Colorado School of Mines and the BSCE program serve a broad range of constituencies,
including the state, national and international communities served by graduates and faculty of
CSM, and represented by our recruiters, our alumni, our program visiting committees, and
our external research sponsors and collaborators. However, from a program perspective, the
primary program constituents of the BSCE program are:
BSCE students
BSCE alumni
Employers of the program’s graduates and graduate schools accepting our graduates
Faculty teaching in the BSCE program
The PEOs meet the needs of these constituents as follows:
Students: Students enter the program for a variety of reasons, with motivations ranging from
“getting a job” to “making a difference.” However, all expect their education to facilitate
their future success in whatever endeavors they undertake. Our PEOs, combined with the
School’s mission, describe our intention to produce students who can attain success
contributing to needs of society as designers and analysts with a particular focus on earth,
energy, materials, and environment and an appreciation of the broader context of
engineering. To the extent it can be argued that such students will be well-equipped to get
jobs (and our placement rates and starting salaries clearly support that argument!) in
important sectors of the workplace, or succeed in graduate school, our PEOs directly meet
the needs of our students.
Alumni: The needs of our alumni change from those of students after they graduate. First, an
alumnae’s potential for success is linked to the reputation and quality of the degree. At
worst, the degree cannot degrade in quality or reputation. At best the degree will have better
quality and reputation. Second, our alumni are also representatives of industry that hire our
recently graduated students, and thus their career success depends on the quality of the
graduating student. While we currently only have two alumni from the BSCE, all graduated
in AY 2012-13 (1 graduated in December 2012 and 1 in May 2013), the former BSE-civil
engineering alumni closely identify with the field of “civil engineering”, and thus we expect
them to identify with the BSCE, and to provide an appropriate proxy for BSCE alumni until
we have graduated many more students, where some have had time to advance to relatively
senior positions in their career.
24
Employers and Graduate Schools: Employers and graduate schools have a vested interest in
the potential for our students to achieve success, especially with respect to their technical
accomplishments. Our PEOs define the characteristics of graduates whose accomplishments
will contribute to the success of their employers or the reputation of the graduate schools
they attend. In many cases, it is our alumni who are making hiring decisions for the
employers in industry. Employers are primarily government (i.e. U.S EPA, USGS, national
laboratories, state agencies, other federal agencies), civil engineering consulting firms,
mining companies, and energy companies. Graduate schools all over the U.S. recruit our
students, although many who choose to go to graduate school attend CSM.
Faculty: The faculty are ultimately responsible for long-term outcomes of the program and
its reputation. The reputations of the faculty depend on reputation of the program, which
depends on the accomplishments of the students. The faculty are also consumers of the
program, recruiting undergraduates for research projects in their laboratories or for graduate
students to continue on at CSM. The PEOs were formed through significant faculty input and
define the accomplishments of their students that they believe to be worthy and present in a
program with which they would be proud to be associated.
The primary constituents and other principal entities associated with the BSCE program and
its assessment and oversight are shown in Figure 2-1. Each of these plays different roles and
has differing interests in the program, as will be described below in the Criterion 4 section.
The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee is responsible for making sure that the curriculum
as a whole is designed to meet and measure the goals stated above. It is composed of faculty
members from each of the two degrees (Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering)
in the CEE Department. The committee is chaired by the Vice Chair for Undergraduate
Affairs, and reports to the Department Head and ultimately to the Dean of the CECS College.
The chair of the curriculum committee ensures that information is flowing along the lines
defined by the chart and is responsible for implementing a continuous improvement process
for the BSCE program.
25
Figure 2-1: Overview of program assessment and interaction of constituency groups
with review process and continuous improvement
E. Process for Review of the Program Educational Objectives
The process for establishing and revising PEOs is part of our overall assessment process,
which is formally reviewed by two committees - the industry/alumni advisory committee and
the undergraduate advisory committee - as well as the department’s faculty. The
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee also receives input from the CEE Undergraduate
Student Advisory Committee. The overall process has several loops or cycles. The
innermost cycle includes the assessment of individual courses and is done semi-annually (i.e.
twice/year or at the end of each semester when the course is offered). The outermost cycle is
the overall program assessment process which incorporates the inner course assessment cycle
as a key element. This cycle is nominally proposed at an annual scale and considers both
PEOs and student outcomes relative to course coverage and PEOs. This annual assessment
will include review of the department’s mission statement and goals as well as the PEOs for
the CEE (including the BSCE) program. We reiterate that these cycles are initial frequencies
and they may change in the future as the programs mature. If changes are deemed necessary,
changes will be developed in concert with our core constituent groups (discussed below),
faculty, employers and alumni.
Industry/Alumni Advisory Committee
The Industry/Alumni advisory committee consists of ten members drawn from regional
industry groups as well as alumni that are also working in regional industry or government
research laboratories (Table 2-1). Because many of our alumni are the most appropriate
people to include on as part of the employee/industrial constituency, it was more effective
and respectful to the alumni to combine them with the employers. The committee includes
26
four environmental engineers, five civil engineers, and one engineer with both civil and
environmental degrees (although, nearly all are involved with hiring of both civil and
environmental engineers). Six of the ten are alumni, nine of the ten members are
professionally registered (PE or PG), and most are leaders in their respective organizations
and have regional or national recognition.
Table 2-1: CEE Industry/Advisory Constituent Committee Spring 2013.
Name Company Position
Tom Anderson e,1
, PE American Capital Energy COO
Wilson Clayton c,e,1
, PhD
PE
TriHydro Tech. Services Mgr
Craig Divine e,1
, PhD PG ARCADIS, US Vice President
Jonathan Godt c, PhD USGS Research Scientist
Kendra Lema c,1
, PE ConocoPhillips Project Development
Team Leader
Yuliana Porras Mendoza
e,1, PE
US Bureau of Reclamation Research Scientist,
Chair Diversity &
Recruitment
Tracy Perry c,1
, PE Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoc. Senior Associate
Tim Richards c, PE Freeport McMoRan Senior Engineer
David Stewart e, PE PhD Stewart Environmental President, CEO
Michael Yost c, PE Olsson Assoc. Vice President
c Civil Engineering,
e Environmental Engineering,
1 CEE Alumnus,
2 CSM (but not CEE) Alumnus
The first Industry/Alumni advisory committee meeting was held at CSM on Wednesday,
April 3rd
and lasted approximately five hours. All current committee members attended, as
well as the Dean (welcome, introductions, brief history of new CSM organization), the
department head (John McCray), the Undergraduate Vice Chair for CEE (Terri Hogue) and
Emily Lesher (Assistant ABET Coordinator). The goal of the meeting was to introduce
members to our new departmental structure and degrees, and also to gain feedback on many
different curricular issues. The meeting was facilitated by the department head and involved
extensive discussion about our new degree curriculum, ABET criteria (including PEOs), as
well as specific curricular and career questions compiled throughout the previous academic
year based on comments of faculty and students. The topics covered both civil and
environmental degree programs. There was extensive discussion on CEE graduates and
contemporary skills needed in the market (AutoCAD, programming, lab skills,
communication, etc.), as well as field session and other course offerings related to industry
needs. In addition, there was interest in the development of formal internship programs and
more explicit and ongoing interactions between the industry/alumni advisory committee and
the CEE department.
The following agenda was developed for the meeting (the presented powerpoint and meeting
notes are included in Appendix E).
Agenda
12-1 pm Lunch
27
12-12:40. Introductions
12:40 -1 Remarks from Kevin Moore, Dean CECS (describe briefly formation and vision
of college)
1:00-1:15 Purpose of Meeting, and how will we use your feedback? (McCray)
1:15- 1:50 Overview of CEE (McCray) and Q & A
1:50 Break
2:00-4:00 Discussion of degrees, including specific provided questions
4:00-4:30 Open discussion and wrap up
The agenda items associated with the 1:00 to 1:50 time frame above included curriculum
associated with the new degrees as well the PEOs. Of course, the meeting was also used to
gather feedback on many other curricular issues that have been brought forth in faculty
meetings and by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (many addressed by the
“provided questions”. With regard to the PEOs, the committee thought them appropriate, but
expressed concern that students would achieve a position of leadership within the first 3
years. One member suggested that we replace this particular statement with verbiage that
requires students to become independent workers within the framework of their company
within 3 years. These comments will be addressed by the Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee and the departmental faculty at regular faculty meetings early in the fall semester.
Undergraduate Advisory Committee
The undergraduate advisory committee consists of nine students drawn from both new
degrees (BSEV and BSCV) as well as students graduating with the existing BSE (see Table
2-2). Students were either juniors or graduating seniors. The group also consists of many of
the department’s affiliated student group’s officers (ASCE, SWE, AWWA, etc.).
Table 2-2: CEE Undergraduate Constituent Committee Spring 2013
Carrie Eberhard Senior Engineering-Civil Specialty
Jacob Machone Senior Engineering-Civil Specialty
Caitlin Kodweis Senior Engineering-Civil Specialty
John Kuyt Senior (Dec 13) Civil Engineering
Ashley Lessig Senior Engineering-Environmental Spec
Arielle Steers Senior Environmental Engineering
Aaron Glauch Senior Environmental Engineering
Alice Arsenault Senior Environmental Engineering
The first undergraduate advisory committee meeting was held on May 1st, 2013 and was
organized by the CEE Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. The goal of the meeting was to
overview current ABET accreditation efforts, get student feedback on the department’s
PEOs, and engage students in a discussion of the general program structure, curriculum and
other CEE departmental services (advising, career fairs, minors, etc.). Six of the nine
members attended the meeting as well as several faculty from the Undergraduate Committee
and the Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs (who facilitated the meeting) (Table 2-3).
28
Table 2-3: Attendees for May 1, 2013 Meeting of Undergraduate Advisory Committee
Carrie Eberhard Senior Engineering-Civil Specialty
Jacob Machone Senior Engineering-Civil Specialty
Caitlin Kodweis Senior Engineering-Civil Specialty
John Kuyt Senior (Dec 13) Civil Engineering
Arielle Steers Senior Environmental Engineering
Alice Arsenault Senior Environmental Engineering
Alexandra
Wayllace
Teaching Professor BSCE
Ray Zhang Professor BSCE
Chris Higgins Assistant Professor BSEV
Junko Munakata
Marr
Associate Professor BSEV
Emily Lesher Research Associate BSEV
Terri Hogue Associate Professor and Vice Chair BSEV
The following agenda was developed for the meeting (the presented powerpoint and
meeting notes are included in Appendix E).
Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Role of UG advisory committee
3. Overview of ABET and accreditation efforts
4. PEO’s - what are they, brief discussion, feedback
5. Curriculum
6. Program Structure
7. Advising at Mines and in CEE
8. Miscellaneous – Internships, CEE Career Fair, Minors at Mines, Career panel seminar
series or course
9. ABET visit in the fall – role of undergrads (campus guides, luncheon on Monday)
10. Open Discussion
11. Wrap-up and next steps
The meeting was very interactive and consisted of extensive discussion and dialogue during
the one hour period. The students had constructive feedback on the PEOs. The committee
was generally satisfied with the first and last PEO, but indicated that the second PEO -
Graduates will be advancing in their professional standing, generating new knowledge and/or
exercising leadership in their field - might be a bit ambitious for a three-year post-studies
engineer. The students also provided suggestions on curricula, including several references to
the need for more industry-related skills, including 3-D AutoCAD. We also had the student
committee members undertake a reverse mapping exercise, placing student outcomes into
course boxes where they thought they had gained that outcome experience. The exercise
matched up well with the course student outcome matrix (Criteria 4) in the department and
generated extensive discussion on courses and related outcomes relative to each degree
program (BSEV and BSCE).
29
3) CRITERION 3. STUDENT OUTCOMES
A. Student Outcomes
Program-Specific Student Outcomes: The Student Outcomes (SOs) of the BSCE program are
ABET Student Outcomes (a)-(k), specifically,
(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 needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health
and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary 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, economic, environmental, and societal context
(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability 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.
Student outcomes are posted on the CEE undergraduate Program web page:
http://cee.mines.edu/undergraduateprogram.html
Institutional-Level Outcomes – Profile of the Mines Graduate: The Profile of the Mines
Graduate defines broad, overarching outcomes the Colorado School of Mines expects of all
of its graduates. The Profile, which is published in the Undergraduate Bulletin
(http://inside.mines.edu/Bulletins), states that:
All Mines graduates must have depth in an area of specialization, enhanced by hands-
on experiential learning, and breadth in allied fields. They must have the knowledge
and skills to be able to recognize, define and solve problems by applying sound
scientific and engineering principles. These attributes uniquely distinguish our
graduates to better function in increasingly competitive and diverse technical
professional environments.
Graduates must have the skills to communicate information, concepts and ideas
effectively in writing, orally and graphically. They must be skilled in the retrieval,
interpretation and development of technical information by various means, including
the use of computer-aided techniques.
Graduates should have the flexibility to adjust to the ever-changing professional
environment and appreciate diverse approaches to understanding and solving society's
problems. They should have the creativity, resourcefulness, receptivity and breadth
of interests to think critically about a wide range of cross-disciplinary issues. They
should be prepared to assume leadership roles and possess the skills and attitudes
30
which promote teamwork and cooperation and to continue their own growth through
life-long learning.
Graduates should be capable of working effectively in an international environment,
and be able to succeed in an increasingly interdependent world where borders
between cultures and economies are becoming less distinct. They should appreciate
the traditions and languages of other cultures, and value diversity in their own
society.
Graduates should exhibit ethical behavior and integrity. They should also demonstrate
perseverance and have pride in accomplishment. They should assume a responsibility
to enhance their professions through service and leadership and should be responsible
citizens who serve society, particularly through stewardship of the environment.
The Profile of the Mines Graduate may be mapped directly onto Criterion 3 Student
Outcomes (a)-(k) as given in Table 3-1, thus ensuring that graduates who meet program-
specific SOs also meet the institutional-level SOs.
Table 3-1: Profile of Mines Graduate to Criterion 3 Outcomes
Criterion 3 (a) through (k) Outcomes
a b c d e f g h i j k Depth and breadth required to define
and solve problems X X X X X
Skills to communicate, retrieve,
interpret and develop information X X
Flexibility to adjust, be team leaders
and life-long learners X X X X X X
Ability to work effectively in a global
economy. X X
Ethical and responsible citizens,
professionals and leaders X
B. Relationship of Student Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives
The PEOs of the program as described in Criterion 2 are enabled by attainment of the
program’s Student Outcomes (a)-(k) as shown in the mapping given in Table 3.2.
Table 3-2: Relationship of CEE PEOs to Student Outcomes (SOs).
(a) through (k) Outcomes
PEOs a b c d e f g h i j k
Graduates will be situated in
growing careers or will be
successfully pursuing a graduate
degree in civil or environmental
X X X X X
31
engineering or a related field
Graduates will be advancing in
their professional standing,
generating new knowledge and/or
exercising leadership in their
field.
X X X X X
Graduates will be contributing to
the needs of society through
professional practice, research,
and/or service.
X X X X
32
4) CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
We begin this section of the self-study by reviewing the overall assessment process for the
BSCE program, first presented in Criterion 2. The overall assessment (Figure 2-1) has
multiple cycles and steps; the internal processes are listed here:
The assessment process for our new department and degrees began by drafting the
mission statement of CEE and developing program educational objectives (PEOs) for
the BSCE program. The mission statement and PEOs have been developed in concert
with our core constituents. The four identified constituencies are students, faculty,
employers and alumni. Each group consists of Civil and Environmental engineers
and they provide feedback on both the BSEV and BSCE degree programs.
This occurs through meetings with core constituents on (at least) an annual basis. For
example, the first meeting with the industrial employer/alumni constituency group
was on April 3 2013, and there will be another one in the fall. We also held the first
undergraduate advisory committee meeting on May 1st, 2013.
The Program Curriculum was designed to support the outcomes, which support the
PEOs and meet the ABET criteria, and give graduates depth and breadth in their
selected discipline. The curriculum plan specifies the required courses for the BSCE.
It was designed with faculty input and in continually scrutinized.
Course objectives are determined by faculty members to support the overall
curriculum in terms of content and discipline-specific instructional outcomes, and to
contribute to the development of engineering skills covered by the ABET student
outcomes.
Student outcomes (SOs) are tied with course objectives. Course coordinators (faculty
responsible for each course) define objectives and map them to student outcomes for
each individual course. Student outcomes are mapped to the PEOs (Table 3-2) to
ensure that the overall BSCE curriculum covers the desired objectives.
Next, metrics and processes are devised for measuring student outcomes in each
course. Course instructors collect and analyze quantitative assessment data relating to
the specific outcomes that are assessed within that course. Based on review and
evaluation of the assessment data by the Vice Chair and Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee, modifications to the courses are recommended, designed and
implemented.
Outcome assessments occur on an annual basis or whenever the course is taught.
Based on the assessment data, modifications to the courses are designed and
implemented. This will be discussed in more depth in Section B (Continuous
Improvement).
All data feeds into the overall program assessment. We also receive direct input from
the constituency groups regarding strengths and weaknesses of the program, what
could be improved, what is worthwhile, and where there might be holes from
perspective of the employer, student, and faculty member.
All assessment activities are overseen by the chair of the curriculum committee, the Vice
Chair for Undergraduate Affairs; that person is currently Associate Professor Terri Hogue.
The Vice Chair also ensures that information is flowing along the lines defined by the chart
33
and is responsible for implementing a continuous improvement process for the BSCE
program.
Because this is a new degree, the cyclic nature of assessment is only in the initial stages of
producing data and feedback from which decisions and improvements can be made. As such,
we will be continually looking to improve not only our offerings but also our assessment
process. At present, we are conducting all assessment cycles on an annual basis. As our
degree matures, the frequency of outcome assessments, program assessment, and/or
constituency meetings may decrease.
Recall that the curriculum has three parts: the common core, the distributed core, and
program-related courses. Common and distributed core courses map to student outcomes (a)-
(k) and are assessed in common at the campus-level as part of the overall continuous
improvement process for the common and distributed core. However, we are not using these
assessments in assessing student outcomes (a)-(k) for the BSCE program. Further, we note
that because CSM’s nine accredited engineering degree programs were reviewed in Fall
2012, and most student outcome assessments are done biannually, there is not significant
new data about assessment of the common and distributed core relative to student outcomes.
A. Student Outcomes
The BSCE program conducts direct and indirect assessment of its outcomes. First, we discuss
our indirect assessment measures.
Indirect Assessment
There are three indirect assessment instruments (surveys) that currently are and historically
have been used for assessment in the historic BSE program. These are shown in the table
below, which also indicates the frequency and the most recent date data was collected.
Boldface type indicates the surveys used for SO assessment.
Table 4-1: List of Indirect Assessment Instruments
Instrument Frequency Note Date of Most Recent
Sample
Graduating Senior
Survey (CECS)
Every semester College-wide
instrument used in
our SO assessment
Spring 2013
Graduating Senior Survey
(Institutional, beginning in
2012)
Every Semester Institutional
instrument not
currently used in our
SO assessment
Spring 2013
Employer Survey (CECS) Every 2 years No longer conducted
by CECS
Fall 2009
Employer Survey
(Career Center)
Every Semester Institutional
instrument used in
our SO assessment
Spring 2013
Alumni Survey (CECS) Every 2 years No longer conducted
by CECS
Fall 2011
34
Alumni Survey
(Institutional, beginning in
2012)
Annually (grads 5 years
out)
Institutional
instrument not
currently used in our
SO assessment
Fall 2012
For post-graduate assessment of SOs we use only employer survey and graduating senior
survey data, as surveys of alumni arguably do not represent an accurate assessment of the
level of attainment of SOs at the time of graduation. Indeed, in the recent past, alumni
surveys were primarily used for assessment of PEOs, which is no longer explicitly required
by ABET, though these surveys did include questions about ABET SOs (a)-(k).
We also note that historically in assessment of SOs we did not distinguish between the
specialties (although we did collect data that would have allowed this). Because the new
BSCE degree has only a few graduates, we do not have statistically-relevant data related to
the graduates of the individual BSCE degrees.
However, for the Graduating Senior Surveys conducted in Spring 2013, we have broken the
data out by specialty in the BSE. Given that the degree and course structure of the BSE-Civil
is very similar to the BSCE, we believe survey results relative to BSE-Civil students are a
good indicator of results we would expect from BSCE students as we begin to evaluate
students.
In the future, surveys of Graduating Seniors and Employer Surveys will be conducted
relative to the discipline-specific BSCE programs.
2013 Employer Survey
Surveys of employers that recruit at CSM are carried out by the career center. As part of
these surveys, employers were asked how well BSE students had attained ABET (a)-(k)
outcomes as compared with graduates from other schools.
The results for the Spring 2013 Employer Survey are shown below (from those respondents
who indicated they had an opportunity to observe). The results indicate that employers
consider CSM students to be able to perform at or above students from other engineering
programs relative to attainment of SOs. The complete survey will be available during the
visit.
Table 4-2: Results of employer survey for BSE degree from Spring 2013
Compared to graduates at the same level of experience from other engineering
programs, the CSM BSE graduates that you have observed are well prepared
relative to their:
Answer Options Not well-
prepared
Well-
prepared
Very
well-
prepared
(a) ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science, and engineering
(105 responses)
1.0% 25.7% 73.3%
35
(b) ability to design and conduct
experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret data (89 responses)
0%
31.5%
68.5%
(c) ability to design a system, component,
or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic,
environmental, social, political, ethical,
health and safety, manufacturability, and
sustainability (92 responses)
4.3%
32.6%
63.0%
(d) ability to function on multidisciplinary
teams (102 responses)
0%
45.1%
54.9%
(e) ability to identify, formulate, and solve
engineering problems (99 responses) 2.0% 33.3% 64.6%
(f) understanding of professional and
ethical responsibility (101 responses)
2.0%
44.6%
53.5%
(g) ability to communicate effectively
(110 responses)
7.3%
45.5%
47.3%
(h) broad education necessary to
understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global, economic,
environmental, and societal context
(93 responses)
6.5%
39.8%
53.8%
(i) recognition of the need for, and an
ability to engage in life-long learning (90
responses)
1.0% 39.8% 59.2%
(j) knowledge of contemporary issues (89
responses)
6.7%
46.1%
47.2%
(k) ability to use the techniques, skills, and
modern engineering tools necessary for
engineering practice (98 responses)
4.1%
31.6%
64.3%
2013 Graduating Senior Survey
Graduating seniors from the Spring 2013 class were asked to rate their confidence in
attainment of SOs (a)-(k).
36
Results for BSCE and BSE-Civil students are shown in the table below. These results
indicated that students graduating from the program have a high level of confidence across
all student outcomes.
Table 4-3: Graduating Senior Survey Results, BSE-Civil (17 respondents) and BSCE (4
respondents) Spring 2013 Graduates
Please indicate your confidence in your:
Answer Options Not
Confident
Somewhat
Confident
Confident
(a) ability to apply knowledge of
mathematics, science, and engineering 0% 5.6% 94.4%
(b) ability to design and conduct
experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret data
0%
33.3%
66.7%
(c) ability to design a system,
component, or process to meet desired
needs within realistic constraints such
as economic, environmental, social,
political, ethical, health and safety,
manufacturability, and sustainability
0%
33.3%
66.7%
(d) ability to function on
multidisciplinary teams
0%
5.6%
94.4%
(e) ability to identify, formulate, and
solve engineering problems
0% 5.6% 94.4%
(f) understanding of professional and
ethical responsibility
0%
5.6%
94.4%
(g) ability to communicate effectively
0%
5.6%
94.4%
(h) broad education necessary to
understand the impact of
engineering solutions in a global,
economic, environmental, and
societal context
0%
22.2%
77.8%
(i) recognition of the need for, and an
ability to engage in life-long learning
0%
0%
100%
(j) knowledge of contemporary issues
0%
44.4%
55.6%
37
(k) ability to use the techniques, skills,
and modern engineering tools necessary
for engineering practice.
0% 5.6% 94.4%
Most of the outcomes have extremely high (>90% “Confident”) confidence ratings including
a, d, e, g, i, and k. The outcome with the greatest percentage of respondents indicating only
“Somewhat confident” as opposed to “Confident” was outcome j, “knowledge of
contemporary issues.” Indeed, this outcome, along with outcome h, has the most sporadic
coverage among the BSCE courses (see coverage matrix and discussion thereof below, Table
4-4). It may be worth noting that this outcome received the weakest confidence ratings in
each of the four CECS areas among 2013 graduates: Environmental, Electrical, Mechanical,
and Civil, so is not attributable solely to the BSCE curriculum. Current students have
significant access to the internet and social media, and are probably well aware of the breadth
of contemporary issues. We will investigate including this skill in additional courses in the
BSCE curriculum, so that the breadth of contemporary issues is better addressed.
Outcomes b and c came in with the second lowest ratings; both had 33.3% ascribing only
“somewhat confident.” While we think 66.7% confidence is an excellent starting point, it
may serve to review both the experimental design and engineering design components of the
curriculum. We note however, that these two outcomes are among the highest level skills a
Bachelors level engineer takes from their undergraduate experience, and many will solidify
these skills in industry or graduate school.
We also recognize CEE faculty and student comments that the current senior design program
(run by the CECS college) may not have enough projects related to civil engineering. CEE
faculty discussed this at the May 2013 retreat, and a special task-force committee will
evaluate in Fall 2013 if we can make improvements within the current framework of a
college-led senior design sequence.
Direct Assessment
In this section we focus our efforts on our assessment of student outcomes in program
specific courses. The common core and distributed core courses have a history of assessment
associated with the BSE degree and were included in the recent 2012 ABET assessment of
that program. As mentioned in the beginning of this section, because this assessment data
and discussion is voluminous, was recently accredited, does not have new information since
2012, and is not unique to the BSCE, we have placed it in Appendix F so that the reader may
focus on what is unique to the BSCE.
Our approach to direct assessment of SOs for the BSCE is to spread assessment
responsibilities among many faculty members and courses, to allow each CEE faculty
member to focus on assessing just one, two, or occasionally three SOs in her or his class, and
to have the bulk of the assessment occur in upper level courses. Required and selective
elective courses (i.e., students must choose one from a list of 2 or 3) were assigned for
assessment to ensure complete coverage of a-k in the curriculum and adequate student
exposure to the SOs. The basic framework for the process is shown in a “Coverage Matrix”
(Table 4-4, below), which summarizes information from each course’s ABET syllabus that
38
designates various SOs for that course (“p” for primary and “s” for secondary).In addition to
the courses taught through CEE that are specific to the BSCE, we employed assessments
from Senior Design (EGGN 491/492) and Multidisciplinary Engineering Lab (MEL) II
(EGGN 350). Although these classes are common to multiple degrees, Sr. Design is the
capstone experience for the degree, and MEL II is an important upper level laboratory
course.
From the Coverage Matrix (Table 4-4), we then selected which CEE courses for direct
assessment of outcomes. The result of this process is the Assessment Matrix, Table 4-5,
below. Table 4-6 lists the same information, plus course designation, by outcome and is
included to facilitate navigation of the SO assessments.
In the near-term, courses will assess SOs annually. Courses that are taught every semester
will therefore assess every other delivery, and courses that are only taught once per year will
assess every delivery. As this is the first assessment for the BSCE, the procedures for
collecting, documenting, and maintaining assessment data are somewhat fluid. In short, in
Fall of 2012, faculty members were notified of which SOs they would be assessing during
their Fall and Spring course deliveries. They were given a blank form containing fields for
the assessment measure, assessment method, performance criteria, results, etc. This
document was designed to mirror the fields in TRACDAT, licensed software that we will
eventually use to record, store, and analyze assessment data. While this year’s assessment
data was not entered into TRACDAT, our hope is that by introducing faculty to assessing
SOs in this manner this year, in the future they will be comfortable directly entering their
assessments into the TRACDAT system.
We now present the results of the direct assessments of the student outcomes. What follows
are tables grouped by outcome, and containing the results of course-based direct assessment
(Tables 4-7 to 4-17). Following each table is a discussion of the results. The following
information is included in the set of 11 tables (one for each of the SOs): Assessment
Method/Measure, Performance Criteria, and Results. When an assessment did not meet the
performance criteria, typically a short discussion or action item (provided by the faculty
member) is included in the Results column, and further discussed in the ensuing text. The
action items and process for enacting them will be summarized in Section B., Continuous
Improvement.
39
Table 4-4: SO Coverage Matrix for BSCE
Course # Course Title Instructor/Instructor in
charge a b c d e f g h i j k
EGGN 350 Multidisciplinary Engineering Laboratory (MEL)
II Ventzi Karaivanov p p p p p p p
EGGN
491/2 Senior Design Cameron Turner p p p p p p p
EGGN 234 Civil Field Session Candy Sulzbach p s s p p s s s p
EGGN 320 Mechanics of Materials Lauren Cooper p s p s p p
EGGN 342 Structural Theory Joe Crocker s s p
EGGN 361 Soil Mechanics Alexandra Wayllace p s p s
EGGN 363 Soil Mechanics Lab Alexandra Wayllace p s
EGGN 431 Soil Dynamics Judith Wang p p p p s s s s p
EGGN 433 Surveying II Candace Sulzbach p s s p p s s s s p
EGGN 441 Advanced Structural Analysis Panagiotis Kiousis p s s
EGGN 444 Design of Steel Structures Joseph Crocker p p p p s p
EGGN 445 Design of Reinforced Concrete Candace Sulzbach p p p p s s p
EGGN 447 Timber/Masonry Design Joseph Crocker p p p p p s p
EGGN 460 Numerical Methods for Engineers D.V. Griffiths p s p s s
EGGN 464 Foundations Marte Gutierrez s p s s s s
EGGN 478 Engineering Vibration Ruichong Zhang p s s s
EGGN 494 Seismic Design Joseph Crocker p p p p s s s s P
ESGN 353 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering I Josh Sharp p s p s
ESGN 354 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering II John Spear p s/p p p s p s p p
EGGN 490 Sustainable Engineering Design Junko Munakata-Marr p p p p p s p p
40
Table 4-5: SO Assessment Matrix for BSCE
Course Title Instructor/Instructor in
charge a b c d e f g h i j k
EGGN 350 Multidisciplinary Engineering Laboratory (MEL) II Ventzi Karaivanov x x x x
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design Cameron Turner x x x x x x x
EGGN 342 Structural Theory Joe Crocker x
EGGN 361 Soil Mechanics
Judith Wang/Alexandra
Wayllace x x
EGGN 363 Soil Mechanics Lab Alexandra Wayllace x
EGGN 433 Surveying II Candace Sulzbach x x
EGGN 444 Design of Steel Structures Joe Crocker x x x
EGGN 445 Design of Reinforced Concrete Candace Sulzbach x x
EGGN 447 Timber/Masonry Design Joe Crocker x
EGGN 464 Foundations Marte Gutierrez x x
EGGN 494 Seismic Design Joe Crocker x
ESGN 353 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering I Josh Sharp x x
ESGN 354 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering II John Spear x x
EGGN 490 Sustainable Engineering Design Junko Munakata-Marr x x
41
Table 4-6: Direct Assessment of Student Outcomes, Listed by SO, with Instructor and
Course Designation§
(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering;
EGGN 444 Design of Steel Structures Crocker SE
EGGN 445 Design of Reinforced Concrete Sulzbach SE
ESGN 353 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering I Sharp SE
(b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret
data;
EGGN 350 MEL II College R
EGGN 363 Soil Mechanics Lab Wayllace R
(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and
safety, manufacturability, and sustainability;
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design College R
EGGN 447 Timber/Masonry Design Crocker E
EGGN 464 Foundations Gutierrez R
EGGN 494 Seismic Design Crocker E
(d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams;
EGGN 350 MEL II College R
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design College R
(e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems;
EGGN 342 Structural Theory Crocker R
EGGN 433 Surveying II Sulzbach E
ESGN 354 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering II Spear SE
(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility;
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design College R
EGGN 444 Design of Steel Structures Crocker SE
(g) an ability to communicate effectively;
EGGN 350 MEL II College R
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design College R
(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in
a global and societal context;
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design College R
ESGN 464 Foundations Gutierrez R
ESGN 353 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering I Sharp SE
EGGN 490 Sustainable Engineering Design Munakata-Marr E
(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning;
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design College R
EGGN 361 Soil Mechanics Wang/Wayllace R
(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues;
EGGN 491/2 Senior Design College R
EGGN 361 Soil Mechanics Wang/Wayllace R
EGGN 433 Surveying II Sulzbach E
EGGN 490 Sustainable Engineering Design Munakata-Marr E
(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for
42
engineering practice.
EGGN 350 MEL II College R
EGGN 444 Design of Steel Structures Crocker SE
EGGN 445 Design of Reinforced Concrete Sulzbach SE
ESGN 354 Fundamentals of Environmental Engineering II Spear SE § R refers to a required course, SE refers to a selected elective, E refers to an elective
43
Table 4-7: Outcome (a) Assessment Summary
Outcome (a) course coverage and assessment summary - an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
Courses with (a) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 320, EGGN 361, EGGN 431, EGGN 433, EGGN 441, EGGN 444,
EGGN 445, EGGN 447, EGGN 460, EGGN 478, EGGN 494, ESGN 353, ESGN 354
Courses with (a) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 342, EGGN 464
Detailed assessment: EGGN 444, EGGN 445, ESGN 353
Course Assessment measure Performance
criteria
Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 444
Homework Assignment 4, design of tension
members. Entire assignment. The students are
required to design a member based on a given set
of criteria established by the code to support an
imposed load condition.
80% of
students will
score above
80%
Yes: In Fall 2012, 23 of 24, 95.8% of students
scored above 80%. In Spring 2013, 32 of 39,
82.1% of students scored above 80%
EGGN 444
Homework Assignment 9, beam column analysis
and design. Entire assignment. The students are
required to design a member based on a given set
of criteria established by the code to support an
imposed load condition.
80% of
students will
score above
80%
Mixed: In Fall 2012, 20 of 24, 83.3% of the
students scored above 80%. In Spring 2013, 24
of 39, 61.5% of the students scored above 80%.
FOLLOW UP: Monitor performance next
semester, since Fall met criteria.
EGGN 445
Homework assn. #11, Problem 10.3 and Special
Problem #1. This problem entailed calculations of
reinforced concrete strain variation.
80% of
students
perform at a
level of 3 or
above on a
scale of 0-4
on both
questions
Yes: Problem 10.3: 97% of the students
achieved a 3 or above on this question (1 person
didn’t do it and was not counted)
Special Design Problem #1: 86% of the
students achieved a 3 or above on this question
(2 people did not do it and were not counted)
EGGN 445
Final Exam, Problem 1. (Note: those with a
90.0% at the end of the semester were exempt
from the final exam, so 21 of 39 students took the
exam). This problem entailed calculations of
support spacing reinforced concrete shear design.
75% of
students
perform at a
level of 2.5
or above on a
Yes: 76% of students who took the exam
achieved a 2.5 or above
44
scale of 0-4
(standards a
lower on this
assessment
measure
because all
of the A
students have
been
removed
from those
students
assessed).
ESGN 353 Quiz B.2: students are expected to apply their
knowledge of mass balance and chemical kinetics
into an engineering application related to
contaminant degradation. They apply this to a
reactor scenario in steady state (a); batch (b); and
to understand % removal as it relates to 1st order
kinetics
The class
average
should be
greater than
8 out of 10.
Yes: Average grade on the quiz (out of 10) was
9±1. Students did very well on this question and
generally are very strong in applying
mathematics toward engineering applications.
ESGN 353 Midterm B: Q#3: Students are expected to
calculate the theoretical concentration of a
chemical reagent (calcium carbonate) to determine
if a precipitate will form when blending two water
supplies. The problem requires a strong grasp of
aqueous chemistry and math in an application
relevant to pipe fouling (scaling) in environmental
engineering
The class
average
should be
greater than
28 out of 35
(80%).
Yes: The average score (out of 35) was 29±6.
The students were able to successfully apply a
simple knowledge of chemical equilibrium to
see its value and applicability in environmental
engineering.
ESGN 353 Quiz C.1: students were expected to (a) know the
reason for adding a chemical reagent (FeCl3)
during water treatment (b) calculate the amount of
FeCl3 addition needed to clarify the water and its
implications for sludge production and disposal
The class
average
should be
greater than
8 out of 10.
Yes: Students generally did well on this
question scoring 8±2 (out of 10). While most
found the conversions needed for sludge
formation accessible, a surprising number of the
students did not fully grasp why iron was added
45
and (c) an alternative to this chemical addition
using an analogous process. This quiz question
helped to remind them to think about the larger
context of why and not just how we are approach
problems in Environmental Engineering.
during water treatment
Outcome (a) Discussion: Student outcome a is listed as a primary outcome in a majority of CEE courses, and indirect assessments
via the Employer and Graduating Senior surveys indicated this area as a strength. Our direct assessment in two courses that are
selected electives (i.e. students must take one or the other), EGGN 444 or EGGN 445 also indicate that students in general are very
strong at applying math, science, and engineering. Lastly, the assessment in ESGN 353 (which is also a selected elective; students
select between ESGN 353 and 354 for their environmental background) indicated a strong performance in an area that may be
somewhat new to BSCE students. Our assessment for outcome (a) is highlighted only for SE courses; however, we believe that
graduates are assured of having attained outcome (a) because the assessment criterion is applied uniformly in the evaluated
courses. That is, for outcome (a), 80% of the students in each of the three classes were required to have rating of 75% or better on
the assessment instrument as applied to each individual class. Only one assessment, the final exam problem for EGGN 445, had
slightly lower criteria, where 75% of the students had to perform at 2.5/40 (~63%))
46
Table 4-8: Outcome (b) Assessment Summary
Outcome (b) course coverage and assessment summary - an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and
interpret data
Courses with (b) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 363, EGGN 431
Courses with (b) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 433, EGGN 478
Detailed assessment:, EGGN 363, MEL II
Course Assessment measure Performance
criteria
Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 363
Lab reports 1 through 11, each lab report is graded out of
100 points, lab reports are worth 60% of the final grade. In
labs 1 - 11 students follow ASTM standards to obtain
experimentally soil properties such as grain size
distribution, Atterberg limits, compaction, hydraulic
conductivity, consolidation, and shear strength. A few
examples: In lab 6 students design and construct a
retaining wall made out of Kraft paper and poster board. In
lab 8 students are given a tank that simulates a random soil
profile and design their own experiment to find hydraulic
conductivity for soils using 1D and 2D approaches.
80% of
students obtain
at least 80% in
lab reports
Yes: In spring 2013, 90% of students
obtained at least 80% average in their
lab reports
EGGN 363
Final exam questions 8 through 11 (Describing the
procedure, equations used, reporting obtained data and
results, discussion and conclusions). Questions 8 - 11 were
worth 80 points of the final exam. The final exam was 20%
of the final grade. In the final exam students are asked to
measure either the hydraulic conductivity or the shear
strength of a soil, report data, analyze it, and derive
conclusions from it.
80% of
students obtain
at least 64/80
points for
questions 8 –
11 on final
exam.
Yes: 100 % of students obtained at
least 64 points for questions 8 - 11 in
the final exam. 80% of students
obtained at least 67 points for
questions 8 - 11 in the final exam
EGGN 350,
MEL II
Technical part (1-5) of midterm exam report which
includes the following graded components and what is
expected of the students:
At least 80%
of the students
perform at
Yes: 97% of the students performed at
Competent level (80-100%)
47
10 points: Introduction
(5) Description of the experiment, (5) Background
information
20 points: Materials, Equipment and Procedure
(5) Description of materials,(3) Equipment list,(5) Wiring
Diagram,(7) Procedure for conducting the experiment and
collecting data
25 points: Results and Discussion
(5) Sample Calculations,(15) Graphs, figures, and tables,
(5) Data analysis and discussion
5 points: Error Analysis
(2) Sources of error identified,(2) Sample Calculations,(1)
Discussion/ Ways to eliminate
10 points: Conclusion
(4) Discussion of physical significance of results. What
insights were obtained?, (4) Recommendations (What
would you improve?),(2) Comments
Competent
Level (80-
100%). A
sample
consisting of
50% of
students
enrolled in the
course were
assessed.
Outcome (b) Discussion: EGGN 363 (Soil Mechanics) represents the only required discipline specific laboratory course BSCE student
take. Results from this assessment indicate that students are strong in terms of the variety of laboratory skills tested in Soil Mechanics
lab and MEL II: conducting experiments, and analyzing and interpreting the resultant data, designing experiments, and presenting
their analysis and interpretation in a formal manner.
48
Table 4-9: Outcome (c) Assessment Summary
Outcome (c) course coverage and assessment summary - an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and
sustainability
Courses with (c) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 431, EGGN 444, EGGN 445, EGGN 447, EGGN 464, EGGN 494, ESGN 354
Courses with (c) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 320, EGGN 342, EGGN 433, EGGN 460, ESGN 354
Detailed assessment: EGGN 447, EGGN 464, EGGN 494, Sr. Design
Course Assessment measure Performance criteria Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 447 Homework Assignment 8, design of horizontal
diaphragms. The students are required to design a
structural system component based on a given set
of criteria established by the code to support an
imposed load condition.
80% of students will
score above 80%
Yes: 26 of 29, 89.7% of students scored
above 80%
EGGN 447 Homework Assignment 7, design of a timber
column. The students are required to design a
structural system component based on a given set
of criteria established by the code to support an
imposed load condition.
80% of students will
score above 80%
Yes: 25 of 29, 86.2% of students scored
above 80%.
EGGN 464 Assignment #6, which requires the students to
check the adequacy of the design of an anchored
sheet pile wall given the soil profile. It is worth 10
points. This requires students be able to assess
the adequacy of the design of an anchored
retaining wall, which is one of the most common
types of foundations. Design of this type of
foundation requires knowledge of earth pressures
85% of the students
performed at a level of
8.5 or above on a scale
of 0-10 for
Assignment #6. This
indicates that students
fully understand the
design principles
Yes: 85% or better of the students
earned scores above the prescribed
levels for the three assignments, which
satisfies the performance criterion.
49
and how to calculate them, and to design a sheet
pile that is able to resist the earth pressures by
providing the right depth of embedment and steel
pile section modulus.
involved.
EGGN 464 Assignment #7 requires the students to check the
adequacy of the bearing capacity of a shallow
foundation (i.e., a square footing) given the soil
properties. It is worth 10 points. This requires
students to be able to assess the bearing capacity
of shallow foundations, which will determine
foundation dimensions given the load, using
bearing capacity theories.
85% of the students
performed at a level of
8.5 or above on a scale
of 0-10 for
Assignment #7. This
indicates that students
fully understand the
design principles
involved.
Yes: 85% or better of the students
earned scores above the prescribed
levels for the three assignments, which
satisfies the performance criterion.
EGGN 464 Assignment #8 requires the students to calculate
the settlement of a shallow foundation (i.e., a
square footing) given the soil properties. This
assignment is worth 20 points. This requires
students to design shallow foundations so that they
will not settle more than specified amounts. This
requires understanding of soil consolidation
theories.
85% of the students
performed at a level of
15 or above on a scale
of 0-20 for
Assignment #8. This
indicates that students
fully understand the
design principles
involved.
Yes: 85% or better of the students
earned scores above the prescribed
levels for the three assignments, which
satisfies the performance criterion.
EGGN 494
Homework Assignment 5, using ELF method to
determine member loading for design. The
exercise requires student to read and interpret code
requirements and apply them to a structural system
design load determination.
80% of students will
score above 80%
No: 6 of 16, 37.5%, scored above 80%.
FOLLOW UP: Devote more time in
curriculum to the application of the
ELF method.
EGGN 494 Homework Assignment 6, ELF and MRS analysis 80% of students will Yes: 14 of 16, 87.5%, of students
50
to determine building forces for design. The
exercise requires student to read and interpret code
requirements and apply them to a structural system
design load determination.
score above 80%
scored above 80%
Sr. Design,
EGGN
491/492
Final Design Reports (EGGN492), graded using
the FDR Rubric, which evaluates design
requirements and specifications, design
methodology for concept selection, project
specific engineering techniques, engineering
analysis, schedule, WBS, and budget.
At least 80% of the
students perform at, or
above, a Competent
Level (80-100%)
Yes: When the revised program began
operation 68% of students
demonstrated a competent level of
performance or better and 11%
performed at an unsatisfactory level. In
our most recent semester, 91% of
students performed at or above a
competent level while no students
demonstrated an unsatisfactory level of
performance. Much of this
improvement is due to the maturation
of the course, the rubrics, supporting
materials and development of the
Faculty Advisor pool of mentors.
Outcome (c) Discussion: There is significant design work across the BSCE curriculum in required and elective courses, as well as in
the capstone Sr. Design experience where groups work on a specific project with advice from industry partners and faculty from
multiple disciplines. This assessment illustrates that BSCE students do well on shorter homework assignments as well as larger scale,
interdisciplinary projects such as Sr. Design. In EGGN 494, the Homework 5 assignment resulted in performance criterion not being
met, however in the following homework, students fared much better using the same ELF method, indicating that they are competent
by the end of the course, but perhaps, as the instructor suggests, more time should be spent earlier in the course curriculum on this
skill.
51
Table 4-10: Outcome (d) Assessment Summary
Outcome (d) course coverage and assessment summary - an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
Courses with (d) as a primary
outcome
ESGN 490, MEL II, Sr. Design
Courses with (d) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 490
Detailed assessment: MEL II, Sr. Design
Course Assessment measure Performance
criteria
Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 350,
MEL II
Ratings of each student from the
student’s groupmates’ peer
evaluations of the student. Each
student was rated in the following
categories: Contributing to the
Team's Work, Interacting with
Teammates, Keeping the Team on
Track, Expecting Quality, and
Having Related Knowledge,
Skills, and Abilities.
At least 80% of
the students
perform at
Competent Level
(80-100%)
Yes: 98% of the students performed at Competent level (80-
100%)
EGGN 350,
MEL II
Instructor evaluation of each
student’s skills in this category.
The instructors observe the
students throughout the semester
and assign a grade.
At least 80% of
the students
perform at
Competent Level
(80-100%)
Yes: Based on Instructor evaluations, 90% of the students
performed at Competent level.
Sr. Design,
EGGN
491/492
Periodic CATME Peer Evaluation
System Evaluations
(www.catme.org)
At least 80% of
the students
evaluate the
performance of
their team of
peers at a 4 or a
Yes: Since 2009, 429 senior design teams have been formed,
with 87% of those teams being composed of students from 2
or more disciplines. This number is consistent with the
percentage of multidisciplinary teams since the Fall of 2010
who are evaluated with CATME. The CATME Team
Evaluations ask students to evaluate their team performance
52
5 (which we
equate to
performance at
or above, a
Competent Level). Peer
Evaluation
scores for at least
80% of students
for the semester
are at or above
the CATME
value of 0.9,
which equates to
performance at
or above, a
Competent Level of 80%.
in five categories (Contributes to Team Work, Interacts
within Team, Keeps Team on Track, Expects Quality from
the Team, Has Knowledge, Skills and Abilities).
Cumulatively, teams assess their capabilities in these five
categories between 88% and 92% with a 90% average
evaluation of the team performance. Peer Evaluations for the
same period (not including self-evaluations) show that 91%
of the students were evaluated at or above the target level of
0.9 for the semester.
Outcome (d) Discussion: Historically, anecdotally, and as evidenced by this data, CSM students excel on team projects and embrace
the idea of working together. While there are group projects in many CEE, it is in Sr. Design and MEL II where BSCE students (or
BSE-Civil historically) collaborate with students in Mechanical, Electrical, Environmental Engineering, etc. The direct assessments in
these two courses as well as the indirect assessments indicate that the CSM engineer is very capable and team-oriented. In MEL II,
however, instructor evaluations of team collaboration tended to be somewhat lower than peer evaluations (90% versus 98%
competency). This shows that perhaps student standards are lower for how one contributes to a team, or perhaps students do not want
to give a colleague a low grade.
53
Table 4-11: Outcome (e) Assessment Summary
Outcome (e) course coverage and assessment summary - an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
Courses with (e) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 320, EGGN 342, EGGN 431, EGGN 433, EGGN 444, EGGN 445,
EGGN 447, EGGN 460, EGGN 494, ESGN 354, MEL II
Courses with (e) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 441, EGGN 464, EGGN 478, ESGN 353
Detailed assessment: EGGN 342, EGGN 433, ESGN 354
Course Assessment measure Performance
criteria
Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 342
HW Assignment 1, load paths, member
loads, determinate vs. indeterminate
structures. Entire assignment. This exercise
requires students to develop a process to
determine structure type and relevant design
criteria.
80% of students
will score above
80% on the
assignment.
Yes: 46 of 49 students, 93.9%, scored above 80%
EGGN 342
Homework Assignment 7, analysis using
conjugate beam method. Entire
assignment. Exercise requires students to
develop a process to determine structure
type and relevant design criteria.
80% of students
will score above
80% on the
assignment.
Yes: 40 of 49, 81.6%, scored above 80%
EGGN 433
Project #3: The project involves taking data
gathered in the field and using AutoCAD to
draw a plan/profile of each crew’s road (a
crew is 3 students). Once the road has been
drawn, students calculate the earthwork
volumes of cut and fill, as well as net, and
calculate the associated project construction
cost. Then, the students use AutoCAD to
shift their vertical curves and optimize the
earthwork, thereby reducing the cost of
construction.
70% of students
perform at a
level of 3 or
above on a scale
of 0-4 on the
project.
Yes: 71% of the students performed at an average 3
or above on this project
EGGN 433 Final exam: Questions 1, 4 and 6 will be 70% of students Yes:
54
assessed. Question 1 is worth 20 pts,
Question 4 is worth 30 pts and Question 6 is
worth 30 pts.
All questions on the final ask students to
solve surveying problems. As an example,
question 4 gives a hypothetical subdivision
with surveying station data, and one part
asks for calculation of length of sewer line
needed.
13 of 31 students in class took the final
because the best 2 out of 3 exams is used for
students’ exam average in this class, so they
may opt out of the final exam.
perform at a
level 3 or above
on a scale of 0-
4 on all 3
questions
Question 1: 77% of the students achieved a 3 or
above
Question 4: 77% of the students achieved a 3 or
above
Question 6: 100 % of the students achieved a 3 or
above
ESGN 354 Test #2, Question #9 will be assessed. It is
worth 15 points out of 100 on the test. The
question asks students to determine the
height of a packed tower needed to reduce
the concentration of H2S in air from 0.100
kg/m3 to 0.005 kg/m
3 given the a number of
input parameters. This question assess
ABET Outcome e because students are
supposed to be able to problem solve
engineering problems.
At least 75% of
the students
should score 12
or more points
(out of 15) on
this question.
Yes: 68% of the students got a perfect score of 15;
11% received 12 – 14 points; and 21% received 10
points or less.
From the points given to the test answers provided, I
would say that 79% of the class is able to problem
solve engineering questions well and 21% needs
improvement.
ESGN 354 Homework #2, Problem #9-30 from Davis
and Cornwell, 5th
Edition. The problem is
worth 20 points on this homework. The
problem asks students to determine
particulate emission rates of a power plant
given a downwind particulate concentration
and certain conditions.
At least 90% of
the students
should score 15
or more points
(out of 20) on
this question.
Yes: 75% of the students got a perfect score of 20;
25% received 15 – 19 points; and 0% received 15
points or less.
From the points given to the test answers provided, I
would say that 90% of the class is able to problem
solve engineering questions well and 10% needs
improvement.
55
ESGN 354 Test #3, Question #9 will be assessed. It is
worth 20 points out of 100 on the test. The
questions asked students to calculate the
operating costs in $/ton of a waste transfer
station in an amortization scenario.
At least 75% of
the students
should score 15
or more points
(out of 20) on
this question.
Yes: 52% of the students got a perfect score of 20;
41% received 15 – 19 points; and 7% received 10
points or less.
From the points given to the test answers provided, I
would say that 93% of the class is able to problem
solve engineering questions well and 7% needs
improvement.
Outcome (e) Discussion: All course-based assessments of outcome e exceeded the set performance criteria. While this is certainly a
positive result, we note that the assessment measures selected focused more on solving (EGGN 433 and ESGN 354 assessments) and
formulating (EGGN 342) engineering problems and less on identifying them. We note that in general identifying and formulating in
an independent manner are considered higher level skills than solving a prescribed problem.
56
Table 4-12: Outcome (f) Assessment Summary
Outcome (f) course coverage and assessment summary - an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
Courses with (f) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 444, EGGN 445, EGGN 447, EGGN 494, ESGN 354, Sr. Design
Courses with (f) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 320, EGGN 433, EGGN 490
Detailed assessment: EGGN 444, Sr. Design
Course Assessment measure Performance criteria Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 444 Homework Assignment 3. Last question…
Understanding of the role and responsibilities of the
professional engineer. This question directly
addresses the students’ understanding of
professional responsibility at the beginning of the
class.
80% of students will
score above 80%
Yes: 37 of 39 students scored above
80% on this question.
EGGN 444 Final exam, questions 17 and 18, which measure
the students’ understanding of the responsibility of
the professional engineer in society at the end of
the class. Note: some students did not get far
enough in the exam to complete last few questions.
80% of students will
score above 80%
(Combined score on
the last two test
questions.)
Yes: 31 of 37, 84% of the students
completing the exam scored above 80%
on the combined two questions.
Sr. Design,
EGGN 491
/2
Ethics Quiz via Blackboard. The quiz was
voluntary and 174 students of the 252 students in
the course elected to take the quiz.
As a baseline metric, in a preassessment survey
only 45% of the incoming students could name that
protection of the health, safety and welfare of the
public (in some fashion) is the first fundamental
canon of engineering. That the average test score is
75% a semester and a half later is somewhat of an
At least 80% of the
students perform at,
or above, a
Competent Level
No: Clearly, that only 69% of the class
took the quiz is a significant problem
that demonstrates a substantial number
of students do not see value in the
material. Furthermore, the average score
of 75% does not meet the desired
performance level. In fact, only 22% of
those assessed, reached that level of
competence.
57
accomplishment. FOLLOW UP: Suggested action items
include: Review the program with the
senior design leadership group, a
representative of the state board and the
course coordinator. We will need to
modify the nature of the Ethics
component in the course to emphasize
the importance of the material, and
consequently increase the significance
in the course grade. Consider a deeper
integration of ethics throughout the
curriculum. An answer form a student in
the preassessment survey is telling: “I
learned that first semester freshman
year. It was never brought up again.”
Outcome (f) Discussion: For outcome f, we directly asked students in EGGN 444 about the professional responsibility of an engineer
in a homework at the beginning of the course, and on the final exam. In both cases, the performance criterion was surpassed. The
percentage of students displaying competency was lower on the final exam, but this can be attributed to two things: 1) the final exam
was “closed book” while homework are not, and 2) some students did not get to these questions on the final because they were the last
questions and a few students ran out of time.
Senior Design takes a deeper look at outcome of via a voluntary quiz that asked 20 more complex questions such as:
If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger property, they shall notify their employers or clients.
(True/False)
An engineer’s first and foremost responsibility is to:
a) their client.
b) their employer.
c) their customer.
d) the public welfare.
Answer the following questions based on the Incident at Morales case study which was assigned and discussed in class…
Dominique asks whether it is ethical to hire an engineer who has recently worked for a competitor, and Chuck replies that
while employed as a contractor at Chemitoil, Fred was not required to sign a non- disclosure agreement. Does Fred have any
58
obligations of confidentiality to Chemitoil even if he has not signed a non-disclosure agreement? (Multiple choice a – d,
correct selections was Yes, because he is ethically required to maintain confidentiality as an engineer)
Only 69% of students took the quiz, suggesting a lack of interest and general disregard for the role of ethics in engineering. The low
scores further imply that ethics is not held in high enough regard. While the solid performance in the EGGN 444 assessments show
that students have a baseline of competence, an explicit effort should be made to teach students the importance of ethics and
professional responsibility and develop their understanding to the more profound levels necessary to operate in modern society.
59
Table 4-13: Outcome (g) Assessment Summary
Outcome (g) course coverage and assessment summary - an ability to communicate effectively
Courses with (g) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 320, EGGN 447, MEL II, Sr. Design
Courses with (g) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 361, EGGN 363, EGGN 431, EGGN 433, EGGN 460, EGGN 494,
ESGN 354, EGGN 490.
Detailed assessment: MEL II, Sr. Design
Course Assessment measure Performance
criteria
Result/Criteria met?
ESGN 350,
MEL II
Composition part of midterm exam report which
includes the following graded components and what
is expected of the students:
10 points: Writing Mechanics
(2) Correct word usage. (2) Grammar (syntax). (4)
Spelling.
(2) Punctuation.
5 points: Writing Organization
(2) Appropriate page layout. (2) Numbered sections.
(1) Correct reference format.
5 points: Writing Style
(1) Clear.
(1) Correct audience.
(1) Specific descriptions. (2) Use of references.
10 points: Writing Format
(4) Graphs, tables, equations, and figures correctly
labeled and formatted. (4) Correct number of
significant figures used.
(2) Units defined.
At least
80% of the
students
perform at
Competent
Level. A
sample
consisting
of 50% of
students
enrolled in
the course
was
assessed.
Yes: 87% of the students performed at
Competent level (80-100%)
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Written communication via team prepared
communications including letters, memos and
reports. Assessed assignments include 3 Letters of
Intent Assignments, 4 Memorandums, and 2 Project
At least
80% of the
students
perform at,
Yes: across all of these assignments, the
performance criteria are met. The Letter of
Intent Assignments are submitted in EGGN491.
Over the seven semesters for which data is
60
Design Reports.
or above, a
Competent
Level (80-
100%).
available, covering 1127 students, 88% of
students demonstrated a Competent Level of
performance. In the most recent semester,
Spring 2013, 90% of the students (enrollment =
83) demonstrated a Competent Level of
Performance. Three of the Memoranda
assignments are submitted in EGGN491 (2
Reverse Engineering Memos and the Project
Bid) and the fourth is the Design Analysis and
Verification Memo in EGGN492. Since Fall
2009, covering 1128 students, 95% of students
demonstrated Competent performance. Spring
2013 students exhibited the same level of
success. Two Project Design Reports are also
submitted, a Conceptual Design Report at the
end of EGGN491, and a Final Design Report at
the end of EGGN492. Since Fall 2009, 92% of
the 1128 students evaluated have demonstrated
a Competent Level of Performance. 94% of
students demonstrated this level in the most
recent semester.
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Individual written communication skills: status e-
memos, prepared by each student throughout
EGGN491 and EGGN492 are used to assess each
student’s individual skills. Typically, students
prepare 8-9 e-memos during the class, resulting in
reports approximately every 3-4 weeks.
At least
80% of the
students
perform at,
or above, a
Competent
Level (80-
100%).
No (but very, very close): Since the assignment
began in the Fall of 2010, 1756 students
(students are counted in both EGGN491 and
EGGN492) have been assessed. 82% of those
students demonstrate a Competent Level of
performance, with an improvement of 3%
between EGGN491 and EGGN492. In the most
recent semester, Spring 2013, 83% of students
from all disciplines achieved competency.
However, BSE-Civ and BSCE students are a
few points lower than the average. Only 78%
61
in 491 and 79% in 492 achieved competency in
Spring 2013. This trend has been relatively
steady with 79% of Civils achieving
competency over the last 6 semesters. The
instructors note: The Civil Engineering scores
nearly achieve our target. We do see
improvement overall from one semester to the
next (6% between 491 and 492 [looking at the
data over 6 semesters]). In the most recent
semester one additional student achieving a
competent level would have been sufficient to
achieve our target for the Spring 2013
semester. Two students overall are the
difference in the cumulative score reaching our
target threshold.
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Students make five different oral presentations (2 in
EGGN491 and 3 in EGGN 492) during senior
design. These presentations include an Elevator
Pitch presentation (short, limited slides), three
design reviews (formal structured presentations with
Q&A ranging from 25 -50 minutes), and a three
hour Trade Fair presentation (ad hoc, convention
style of variable length).
At least
80% of the
students
perform at,
or above, a
Competent
Level (80-
100%).
No. In Spring 2013, 71% of students were
competent in the Elevator Pitch, 74% were
competent in Design Reviews, and only 51%
were competent in their verbal ad hoc
presentation at the Trade Fair. The numbers are
somewhat divergent from the 7 semester’s
worth of data which have competency
percentages of 82%, 71%, and 75% for the
three types of presentations.
FOLLOW UP:
Review the program and assessments
with the senior design leadership group
Develop and integrate communications
training modules for the design teams
Explore resources on campus that may
assist the teams in developing their
communications skills.
62
Outcome (g) Discussion: The opinions of graduating seniors and their employers diverge when it comes to considering the graduate’s
ability to communicate effectively (outcome g). While 94.4% of 2013 BSE-Civil and BSCE graduate feel “confident” in their
communication abilities, this outcome received the weakest rating of all the outcomes from employers7, with only 47.3% deemed
“very well prepared” and 7.3% identified as “not well prepared”. Our assessments in MEL II and Senior Design show that students
are strong in written communication, but weaker in oral communication. The assessment of individual written assignments suggest
that BSCE/BSE-Civ students lag behind their peers from other disciplines, and are not quite meeting performance criteria. Regarding
oral presentation skills, the Senior Design lead instructor notes “One potential problem is that very little of the existing [Senior
Design] curriculum is focused on the development of verbal presentation skills and the emphasis placed on that performance varies
considerably between Faculty Advisers. Many of these skills are supposed to be developed earlier in the curriculum, so perhaps
further development is necessary throughout the degree program.” Given the relatively low ratings by employers in this area, this is
something to consider, for both oral and written communication.
7 However this sample was of 2013 BSE graduates in all specialties
63
Table 4-14: Outcome (h) Assessment Summary
Outcome (h) course coverage and assessment summary - the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global and societal context
Courses with (h) as a primary
outcome
ESGN 353, ESGN 354, EGGN 490, Sr. Design
Courses with (h) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 431, EGGN 445, EGGN 464, EGGN 494
Detailed assessment: EGGN 464, ESGN 353, EGGN 490, Sr. Design
Course Assessment measure Performance
criteria
Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 464 EGGN 464 Question 1a of 1e of the Final Exam with a combined
worth of 5%. In these two questions, students were
asked why engineering judgment is important to
balance between conflicting requirements including
potential social and global impacts of engineering
projects. Students were also asked to list questions they
might ask when designing an engineering project to
limit the project’s social and global impacts.
70% of the
students
perform obtain
at least a 4%
score of the
5% allotted for
these two
questions.
No: Less than 60% of the students met the
criteria. In the next offering of this
course, there is a need to expand the
lecture on engineering design, and the
global and social impacts of projects.
Example case histories should be given to
show specific cases on how projects have
led to social and global consequences that
are either unexpected or due to
negligence.
ESGN 353 Quiz C.1: students were expected to (a) know the
reason for adding FeCl3 during water treatment (b)
calculate the amount of FeCl3 addition needed to
clarify the water and its implications for sludge
production and disposal and (c) an alternative to this
chemical addition using an analogous process. This
quiz question helped to remind them to think about the
larger context of why and not just how we are approach
problems in Environmental Engineering.
The average
score should be
8 out of 10 or
greater.
Yes: Students generally did well on this
question scoring 8±2 (out of 10). While
most found the conversions needed for
sludge formation accessible, a surprising
number of the students did not fully grasp
why iron was added during water
treatment
ESGN 353 Exam I: Q#1 Fall 2012 (1hr exam): Students were The class Yes: Students generally did well on this
64
expected to apply their knowledge of toxicology and
engineering principles to understand how regulations
relating to air quality can mandate contaminant
emissions. They were expected to integrate knowledge
of acceptable risk by calculating a contaminant dose
associated with exposure and the compound specific
potency associated with release.
average should
be 16 out of 20
(80%) or
greater.
question, scoring 19±2 out of 20 points.
Errors when present were generally
encompassed in adjustment factors (most
often time of exposure as a fraction of
lifetime). Students generally understood
how concentration and risk can influence
environmental release and policy.
EGGN 490 Homework 5: Students were asked to write an essay on
the social justice impacts of hydraulic fracturing.
at least 80% of
students will
score 8/10 or
higher
(proficient)
Yes: student scores ranged from 8.5 to 10,
with an average of 9.1 and standard
deviation of 0.5
EGGN 490 Homework 6: Students were asked to reflect (in an
essay) on the differences between Environmental Life
Cycle Analysis (E-LCA) and the Social Life Cycle
Analysis (S-LCA) in their implementation to quantify
the impacts of hydrofracking.
at least 80% of
students will
score 8/10 or
higher
(proficient)
Yes: student scores ranged from 8.5 to 10,
with an average of 9.0 and standard
deviation of 0.5
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Broader Impacts Essay in EGGN492 (individual
assignment). This assignment encourages “big picture”
thinking about the work of an engineer. Such thinking
is inherent in life-long learning, whereby an engineer
needs to continually learn about the profession, their
technical skill set and the way the world is changing.
By reflecting back upon their work and their education
to date, we are encouraging students to see their
education as beginning, rather than ending.
At least 80%
of the students
perform at, or
above, a
Competent
Level (80-
100%).
No: Over the last five semesters of
assessment, 79% of students (in all
majors) have demonstrated a Competent
Level of performance. During that period,
we have seen our competency rate climb
from 64% to 78% in the Spring of 2013.
Overall, we have seen continuous
improvements in the quality of the essays
(from an average of 83% five semesters
ago to 87% last Spring). Civil majors
demonstrated 77% competency over 5
semesters, with 79% competency in
65
Spring ’13, so they are close to the 80%
benchmark but not quite there.
Outcome (h) Discussion: Our direct assessment of outcome h yields divergent data. In ESGN 353 and EGGN 490, the criteria were
met but it should be noted that these classes are not taken exclusively by BSCE students (in fact, they are taken by a majority
Environmental students). ESGN 353 is a required course for BSEV students and a selected elective for BSCE. EGGN 490 is an
elective for both the BSEV and BSCE. The assessments show attainment, which is a good starting point. But it is concerning that in
our assessments that are specific to the BSCE (in EGGN 464, a required class) and in Senior Design (where the paper was an
individual assignment and thus the data was able to be broken down by discipline), students did not meet the performance criteria. In
general, the coverage of outcome h is relatively light in the BSCE curriculum.
66
Table 4-15: Outcome (i) Assessment Summary
Outcome (i) course coverage and assessment summary - a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
Courses with (i) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 361, MEL II, Sr. Design
Courses with (i) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 431, EGGN 433, EGGN 444, EGGN 445, EGGN 447, EGGN 494,
ESGN 354
Detailed assessment: EGGN 361, Sr. Design
Course Assessment measure Performance criteria Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 361
Homework 3, Question 1 is assessed; it is worth
30 points in a homework worth 100 points.
Students were asked to read and summarize a
journal paper provided to them; the paper was
titled "Residual strengths of clays and
correlations using Atterberg limits." and was
published in 2003. The paper described new
methods to correlate index properties to strength
of soils as well as cautions against the use of
some previous empirical relations. By reading
this paper students become aware that new
knowledge may reveal weakness of previous
knowledge, and they are able to understand new
published information on their own.
80% of the students
perform at a level of
80% (24/30) or above.
Yes: 90% of the students obtained at
least 24 points in a scale of 0-30.
EGGN 361
Homework 4, Question 1 is assessed, it was
worth 30 points. Students were asked to read
and summarize a journal paper provided to them;
the paper was titled "Dynamic Compaction of
Collapsible Soils Based on U.S. Case Histories."
and was published in 2010. The paper describes
and analyzes 15 case histories and draws
conclusions on the method. This paper points
80% of the students
perform at a level of
80% (24/30) or above.
Yes: 81% of students obtained at least
24 points in the scale of 0-30.
67
out the importance of obtaining and generating
knew knowledge continuously and the students
are able to see how we can use previous
information (case histories) to derive new
conclusions.
EGGN 361
Question 3 in homework 9, worth 2.5 points out
of 10. Homework 9 dealt with studying a paper
titled "Reliability of settlement prediction - Case
History" which described different settlement
analysis on a particular site. In question 3 the
students had to do their own analysis and
compare it to the results obtained using different
methods developed in different years. This
assignment provided the opportunity once again
for the students to be critical about their work
and to be able to obtain and use information on
their own.
80% of the students
perform at a level of
80% (2/2.5) or above.
No: 26% of students performed at level
80% or better.
Students struggled looking at a
complicated problem and choosing
relevant data for their assignment.
Follow up will include providing them
with simpler examples earlier in the
semester so they can work through an
increasing complicated problem.
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Broader Impacts Essay in EGGN492 (individual
assignment). This assignment encourages “big picture” thinking
about the work of an engineer. Such thinking is
inherent in life-long learning, whereby an engineer
needs to continually learn about the profession, their
technical skill set and the way the world is changing.
By reflecting back upon their work and their
education to date, we are encouraging students to see
their education as beginning, rather than ending.
At least 80% of the
students perform at, or
above, a Competent
Level (80-100%).
No: Over the last five semesters of
assessment, 79% of students (in all
majors) have demonstrated a Competent
Level of performance. During that
period, we have seen our competency
rate climb from 64% to 78% in the
Spring of 2013. Overall, we have seen
continuous improvements in the quality
of the essays (from an average of 83%
five semesters ago to 87% last Spring).
Civil majors demonstrated 77%
competency over 5 semesters, with 79%
68
competency in Spring ’13, so they are
close to the 80% benchmark but not
quite there.
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Conceptual Design Report (CDR) in EGGN 491
(team assignment). The Conceptual Design
Report (CDR) asks students to explain the
design problem at hand and place it into a
context within the marketplace. The ability to
assess and contextualize problems and
technologies is inherent in life-long learning for
engineers.
At least 80% of the
students perform at, or
above, a Competent
Level (80-100%).
Debatable: For the period assessed since
Fall 2009, 90% of students have
demonstrated competency in this
assignment. However, in Spring 2013,
competency rate was only 51%. Our
review of the assessment data suggests
that the most significant difference is
significantly lower composition
assessments than in any previous
semester. It follows that if the students
in the most recent semester are less
effective communicators in a written
medium, that their ability to demonstrate
their competency will be adversely
affected.
Outcome (i) Discussion: In the required EGGN 361 class, the instructor assigned a series of homework where students had to read peer referenced papers and relate the ideas in these papers to their own work and class discussions. The instructor also made a point of querying the
students on case studies where new ideas improved upon old ones and stressed the importance of lifelong learning in the pursuit of these new
ideas. In the assignments on these papers, students generally did well, with the exception of HW 9. HW 9 took the idea to a higher level in having
the students apply ideas from the paper to their own data, which was challenging. The instructor makes good suggestions for improving their work
in this area.
In Senior Design, instructors assessed a Broader Impacts Essay as well as a portion of the Conceptual Design Report. Students hovered around the
performance criteria in both. As discussed under outcome h, students wrote about the Broader Impacts of their technologies and engineering,
which is something they will need to continually educate themselves in as they progress in their careers. Civils lagged slightly behind their
counterparts in other disciplines (Environmental and Electrical; they were on par with Mechanical) on this assignment. On the CDR, the
instructors feel the greatest difficulty in this assignment was not the thinking behind contextualization of technology but the ability of the students
to put down their thoughts in writing. This is an outcome where we expect to see improvement, but despite the performance criteria not being met
in 3 of 5 assessments, we feel we are on track to meeting them with the implementation of the suggested small changes.
69
Table 4-16: Outcome (j) Assessment Summary
Outcome (j) course coverage and assessment summary - a knowledge of contemporary issues
Courses with (j) as a primary
outcome
ESGN 354, EGGN 490, Sr. Design
Courses with (j) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 361, EGGN 431, EGGN 433, EGGN 494
Detailed assessment:, EGGN 361, EGGN 433, EGGN 490, Sr. Design
Course Assessment measure Performance
criteria
Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 361
HW 1: Question 1 is assessed; it is worth 25 points. Students
were asked to research, read, and summarize an article on
swelling soils in Colorado. Through this exercise students
become aware of a very common geotechnical problem that
currently occurs in Colorado, as well as what has been done
so far to solve it.
80% of the students
perform at a level
of 80% (20/25) or
above.
Yes: 80.6% of the students
obtained at least 20 points in a
scale of 0-25. One of the
students did not turn in the
homework.
EGGN 361
HW 9: Question 1 is assessed; it is worth 2.5 points in a
homework worth 10 points. Homework 9 dealt with
studying a paper titled "Reliability of settlement prediction -
Case History" which described different settlement analysis
on a particular site. In question 1 the students had to read
and summarize the main findings of the paper. Through this
exercise students are aware of current studies in the
geotechnical field.
80% of the students
perform at a level
of 80% (2/2.5) or
above.
No: 42% of the students
performed at a level of 80% or
above. This was a complicated
case history. Follow up will
include dividing the problem in
parts and spending extra time in
class to answer doubts.
EGGN 361
Homework 10, Question 1 is assessed. Question 1 is worth
100 points (100% of the homework). Homework 10 was to
research, read, and summarize a case history documented
and published in a scientific professional journal in the last 3
years. The case history had to be about a shear strength
failure. In addition, students had to point out the reason of
the failure and what could have been done to prevent it.
Through this assignment students stay aware of current
problems and solutions related to shear strength of soils.
80% of the students
perform at a level
of 80% (80/100) or
above.
Yes: 90% of students performed
at a level of 80% or above
70
EGGN 433 Project #3: Road construction cost based on student’s design 70% of students
perform at a level
of 3 or above on a
scale of 0-4.
No: 55% of the students
achieved a 3 or above; many
students reported construction
costs to the nearest penny and
were penalized 1/10 pts for this
error. Also, many students
didn’t understand that extra
“cut” material is hauled away
from the site and if extra “fill”
material is needed, it must be
purchased and hauled into the
site. FOLLOW UP: Spend
more lecture time discussing the
differences between cut and fill
material, as well as the function
of equipment such as scrapers,
graders, compaction equipment,
etc., before students work on
their cost estimates.
EGGN 433 Final exam. Question #9 will be assessed and it is worth 15
pts. This question requires students to calculate earthwork
volumes (i.e. cut, fill and net in cy), then answer the question
“Is this a good design? Explain.”)
70% of students
perform at a level
of 3 or above on a
scale of 0-4.
Yes: 85% of students performed
at a level of 3 or above on this
question.
EGGN 490 HW 1: entire assignment, essay response to the question “Do
you agree that “freedom in a common brings ruin to all”?
The tragedy of the commons is an important current issue.
at least 80% of
students will score
8/10 or higher
(proficient)
Yes: student scores ranged from
0 to 10, with an average of 8.3
and standard deviation of 2.6;
one student received a zero on
the assignment, while the scores
of the other 12 students ranged
71
from 8.0 to 10.
EGGN 490 HW 2: entire assignment, essay response to the reading
“Cradle to Cradle Remaking the Way we Make Things”
specifically the question, “What do the authors say is the
issue with ‘eco-efficiency’ and how it works? Why is ‘doing
more with less’ not enough? Why isn’t it enough to reduce,
reuse, recycle, and regulate?” This question is key in
considering the contemporary issue of waste and cradle to
grave accounting.
at least 80% of
students will score
8/10 or higher
(proficient)
Yes: student scores ranged from
8.5 to 10, with an average of 9.1
and standard deviation of 0.5
EGGN 490 HW 3: entire assignment, essay response to the reading
“Cradle to Cradle Remaking the Way we Make Things”.
The question given was: The authors create and list steps that
will lead to eco- effectiveness, relying on ideas such as
respect, ecological intelligence, even creativity and fun.
Explain their solutions for the problems we have created; do
they make sense as outlined?
at least 80% of
students will score
8/10 or higher
(proficient)
Yes: student scores ranged from
7.5 to 10, with an average of 8.9
and standard deviation of 0.7;
one student received a score of
7.5, while the scores of the
other 12 students ranged from
8.0 to 10.
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Design Analysis and Verification (DAV) Memo from
EGGN492. The Design Analysis and Verification Memo is
intended to determine if the design team has applied
sufficient rigor and has created a plan by which to confirm
that their design will meet the project design specifications
and requirements. This brings to the fore contemporary
issues of analytical capabilities, verification requirements,
and decision making processes.
At least 80% of the
students perform at,
or above, a
Competent Level
(80-100%).
Yes: Since Spring 2010, 93% of
students have demonstrated
Competency in this assignment
(88% in Spring 2013).
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Final Design Report (FDR) from EGGN492. The Final
Design Report is the culmination of the project. Students are
engaged in completing projects that are often at the forefront
of the contemporary issues of the clients. Relevant
components include budgeting and considerations of
contemporary issues such as sustainability, code, and safety.
At least 80% of the
students perform at,
or above, a
Competent Level
(80-100%).
Yes: 87% of students
demonstrate Competency in this
assignment (90% in Spring
2013).
72
EGGN
491/492, Sr.
Design
Invention Disclosure Assignment from EGGN492. The
Invention Disclosure Assignment is a relatively new
assignment in the program. It is intended to force the
students to evaluate the intellectual property potential in their
project, an increasingly contemporary concern of many
clients. Overall, these three assignments demonstrate that
lifelong learning practices are being utilized by the design
teams and individual students.
At least 80% of the
students perform at,
or above, a
Competent Level
(80-100%).
Yes: Cumulatively, 88% of
students have demonstrated
Competency in this assignment
(88% in the Spring of 2013).
Outcome (j) Discussion: Along with communication, employers identified this outcome as the weakest among the CSM 2013 BSE
grads and the Graduating Seniors also felt less confident in this arena compared to some of the other outcomes. The employer results
should be taken with a grain of salt considering that they were not specific to the BSE-Civil/BSCE students. Our course-based
assessment yields very positive results with 9 of 11 assessments surpassing performance criteria. However, the coverage matrix
(Table 4-4) does show relatively light coverage of this outcome, with most P’s and S’s found in elective courses. EGGN 361 is a
required course, and students are exposed to contemporary issues, however they are rather narrow in scope as all are quite specific to
the field of soil mechanics. Students (and employers) may feel that students are not knowledgeable about enough important
contemporary issues given the breadth this term could encompass.
73
Table 4-17: Outcome (k) Assessment Summary
Outcome (k) course coverage and assessment summary - an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools
necessary for engineering practice.
Courses with (k) as a primary
outcome
EGGN 234, EGGN 320, EGGN 431, EGGN 433, EGGN 444, EGGN 445, EGGN 447,
EGGN 494, ESGN 354, MEL II
Courses with (k) as a secondary
outcome
EGGN 441, EGGN 460, EGGN 464, ESGN 353, EGGN 490
Detailed assessment: EGGN 444, EGGN 445, ESGN 354, MEL II
Course Assessment measure Performance criteria Result/Criteria met?
EGGN 444
Homework Assignment 1, load paths, load
cases, code interpretation. The students are
required to assess the required member
properties based on a given set of criteria
established by the code to support an imposed
load condition.
80% of students will
score 80%
Mixed. Fall: 20 of 24, 83.3%, scored above
80%
Spring: 20 of 39, 51.2%, scored above 80%.
Monitor performance next semester.
EGGN 444
Homework Assignment 8, beam design. The
students are required to assess the required
member properties based on a given set of
criteria established by the code to support an
imposed load condition.
80% of students will
score above 80%
No. Fall: 19 of 24, 79.1%, scored above
80%. Implemented a follow up action:
Devote more time to beam design in course
curriculum
Spring: 15 of 39, 38.5%, scored above 80%.
Follow up action: Continue to increase
amount of time devoted to beam design
fundamentals. Performance Spring semester
was significantly below the 79.1% that
scored above 80% last semester. Will
continue to monitor. The change in the
instruction did not improve student
performance.
74
EGGN 445 Homework Assn. #11, Special Design Problem
#1. Students used analytical methods to design
spacing between reinforcement bars in
concrete.
80% of students
perform at a level of
3 or above on a scale
of 0-4
Yes: Special Design Problem #1: 80% of the
students achieved at or above on this
question (2 people did not do it and were not
counted)
EGGN 445 Final Exam, problem #4. Students used
analytical methods to design spacing between
reinforcement bars in concrete
75% of students
perform at a level of
2.5 or above on a
scale of 0-4
(standards a lower
on this assessment
measure because all
of the A students
have been removed
from those students
assessed).
Yes: 80% of the students taking the exam,
and of those who worked this problem (1 did
not) performed at a level of 2.5 or above
ESGN 354 Test #3, Question #10 will be assessed. It is
worth 20 points out of 100 on the test. The
question asks students to calculate the potential
energy and electrical capacity of the generating
plant at the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead
Reservoir on the Colorado River.
This question assess ABET Outcome k
because students are supposed to be able to use
techniques, skills and modern engineering
tools necessary for engineering practice. The
particular skill in this question is—knowledge
of potential energy and ability to calculate
capacity.
At least 75% of the
students should
score 15 or more
points (out of 20) on
this question.
Yes: 35% of the students got a perfect score
of 20; 48% received 15 – 19 points; and 17%
received 14 points or less.
From the points given to the test answers
provided, I would say that 83% of the class is
able to problem solve engineering questions
well and 17% needs improvement.
75
ESGN 354 Homework #2, Problem 9-33 from Davis and
Cornwell (5th
Edition) is evaluated. It is worth
10 points out of 100 on the homework. The
question asks: Anna Lytical purchased a
mobile home last year. The air in the mobile
home contains 0.28 ppm formaldehyde; the
ventilation rate is 0.56 ach. The threshold odor
level is 0.05 ppm. If the mobile home has a
volume of 148 m3 and the outdoor air
concentration is 0.0 ppm, estimate the ach
required to achieve the threshold level.
This question assess ABET Outcome k
because students are supposed to be able to use
techniques, skills and modern engineering
tools necessary for engineering practice. The
particular skill in this question is—calculations
involving potential energy.
At least 75% of the
students should
score 7 or more
points (out of 10) on
this question.
Yes: 90% of the students got a perfect score
of 10; 10% received 7 – 9 points.
From the points given to the test answers
provided, I would say that 100% of the class
is able to problem solve engineering
questions well.
ESGN 354 Homework #5, Problem 12-31 will be
assessed. It is worth 10 points out of 100 on
the homework. The question asks if a given
hazardous waste incineration unit (given the
feed stock composition and flow rate, stack gas
flow rate, and operating temperature) is in
compliance with air standards. The particular
skill in this question is—ability to determine
the efficiency of a process and whether or not
it is compliant.
At least 75% of the
students should
score 7 or more
points (out of 10) on
this question.
Yes: 90% of the students got a perfect score
of 10; 10% received 7 – 9 points.
From the points given to the test answers
provided, I would say that 100% of the class
is able to problem solve engineering
questions well.
ESGN 350,
MEL II
All lab report grades based evaluation of
Technical Content and Composition skills.
At least 80% of the
students perform at
Yes: 99% of the students performed at
Competent level (80-100%).
76
Some of the goals of MEL II include that
students should be able to program computer
aided data acquisition systems, understand the
components of fluid handling systems, use
fluid flow and stress-strain measurement
instruments to design and
conduct experiments, and gather data with
virtual instrumentation… all modern
engineering tools.
Competent Level
(80-100%).
Outcome (k) Discussion: Using engineering tools, skills, and techniques is a historical strength of CSM. MEL II was a valuable
assessment for this outcome; MEL II students learn how to use basic electronic and mechanical systems giving a broad foundation
across engineering disciplines. Many of the required and elective civil classes add significant skills and techniques to the BSCE
graduate’s toolbox as evidenced by the high degree of coverage. EGGN 444 did have mixed results in assessing students’ skills in
designing beams and assessing loads; however we think overall students are very well prepared in this regard.
77
B. Continuous Improvement
As with Criterion 4, Section A, discussion of the Continuous Improvement of Common
Core and Distributed Core classes and student achievement in those classes has been
placed in Appendix F to allow for emphasis on BSCE-specific information, data, and
action items and because there is no new information since the BSE accreditation visit in
2012.
Our process for utilization of assessment data to make meaningful improvements to
achievement of student outcomes is:
1. The Vice Chair for undergraduate affairs, in consultation with faculty, assigns
SOs to assess in fall and spring term classes based on the SO coverage matrix.
2. Faculty determine which assignments/exams/reports/etc. they will use in the
assessment process
3. Assessments are collected at the conclusion of fall and spring semester, organized
and reviewed by the vice chair of the undergraduate committee.
a. The vice chair consults with faculty where necessary to help them improve
their assessments and create meaningful action items when performance is
not exceeding criteria.
4. With the next delivery of the course, faculty implement action items identified in
their assessments.
5. Faculty members report on the success of the implemented change after delivery
of the course.
Because 2012-2013 was the first year in which the BSCE was offered, and the first year
in which assessment data was collected in this manner, we have not yet completed the
first full cycle of assessment outlined by steps 1-5 above. We have completed steps 1
through 3 of the cycle outlined above. However, some classes that are taught each
semester and were assessed in the fall of 2012 may have informally implemented
suggested modifications in the Spring of 2013. These will come to light when the next
assessment cycle begins in Fall 2013 because it is likely that most faculty will be
teaching the same courses and will be undertaking assessment of the same outcomes in
the Fall of 2013 as they did in the Fall of 2012.
In Table 4-18 we present each assessment where the performance criterion was not met,
organized by course, and the action items promulgated by the responsible party. The
results of these action items will be available when the course is next offered.
78
Table 4-18: Summary of Action Items Associated with Continuous Improvement of All Outcomes
Course (SO) that was not attained and
assessment measure (in brief see,
tables 4-7 through 4-17 for more
detail)
Student performance in
comparison to Performance
Criteria (PC);
Brief discussion of problems
encountered (see tables 4-7
through 4-17 for more
detail)
Proposed action item(s) and
responsible party (RP)
EGGN
444
(k.) Homework Assignment 1, load
paths, load cases, code
interpretation. The students are
required to assess the required
member properties based on a
given set of criteria established by
the code to support an imposed
load condition.
Performance criteria (PC) is
80% of students will score
80% or better.
Fall 2012: 20 of 24, 83.3%,
scored above 80%. Spring
2013: 20 of 39, 51.2%, scored
above 80%.
Mixed results don’t compel
major changes, but continue to
monitor performance and collect
data next semester.
o RP: Joe Crocker
(k.) Homework Assignment 8,
beam design. The students are
required to assess the required
member properties based on a
given set of criteria established by
the code to support an imposed
load condition.
Fall: 19 of 24, 79.1%, scored
above 80%. (PC at 80%). An
action item was implemented
for the Spring 2013 delivery
of the course, however in the
Spring: 15 of 39, 38.5%,
scored above 80%. The
change in the instruction did
not improve student
performance.
Continue to increase amount of
time devoted to beam design,
focus on fundamentals.
Continue to monitor and collect
data.
o RP: Joe Crocker
EGGN
464
(h.) Question 1a of 1e of the Final
Exam with a combined worth of
5%. In these two questions,
students were asked about
engineering judgment and impact
considerations during design.
Less than 60% of the students
obtained at least a 4% score of
the 5% allotted for these two
questions (PC: 70% would
score 4% out of 5%)
In the next offering of this
course, there is a need to expand
the lecture on engineering
design, and the global and social
impacts of projects.
Example case histories should be
79
given to show specific cases on
how projects have led to social
and global consequences that are
either unexpected or due to
negligence.
o RP: 464 Instructor and
M. Gutierrez
EGGN
433
(j.) Project 3: Road construction
cost based on student’s design.
Costs and keeping to a budget are
issues important to any modern
engineering project.
55% of the students achieved
a 3 or above out of 4 (PC:
70% would score 3 of 4 or
better)
Follow up: Spend more lecture
time discussing the differences
between cut and fill material, as
well as the function of
equipment such as scrapers,
graders, compaction equipment,
etc., before students work on
their cost estimates.
o RP: Candace Sulzbach
EGGN
494
(c.) Homework Assignment 5,
using ELF method to determine
member loading for design. The
exercise requires student to read
and interpret code requirements
and apply them to a structural
system design load determination.
6 of 16, 37.5%, scored above
80% (PC 80% of students will
score above 80%).
Devote more time in curriculum
to the application of the ELF
method
o RP: Joe Crocker
EGGN
361
(i) Question 3 in HW 9, worth 2.5
points out of 10. Students used a
peer-reviewed paper detailing
analytical techniques and did their
own analyses to compare the
techniques.
26% of students performed at
level 80% or better (PC 2 out
of 2.5, 80%). Students
struggled looking at a
complicated problem and
choosing relevant data for
their assignment.
Follow up will include providing
them with simpler examples
earlier in the semester so they
can work through an increasing
complicated problem.
o RP: Alexandra Wayllace
80
(j.) HW 9: Question 1 is assessed.
Students read a peer-reviewed
paper detailing analytical
techniques. In question 1 the
students had to summarize the main
findings of the paper.
42% of the students
performed at a level of 80% or
above (PC 80%). This was a
complicated case history.
Follow up will include dividing
the problem in parts and
spending extra time in class to
answer doubts.
o RP: Alexandra Wayllace
Sr.
Design,
EGGN
491/2
(f.) Voluntary ethics quiz
Only 69% of the class took
the quiz; only 22% achieved
competent (PC 80%
competent). The average
score was 75%. Each of these
measures is problematic: a
substantial number of students
do not see value in the
material, many do not display
competence.
Suggested action items include:
Review the program with the
senior design leadership group, a
representative of the state board
and the course coordinator. We
will need to modify the nature of
the Ethics component in the
course to emphasize the
importance of the material, and
consequently increase the
significance in the course grade.
Consider a deeper integration of
ethics throughout the curriculum.
An answer form a student in the
preassessment survey is telling:
“I learned that first semester
freshman year. It was never
brought up again.”
o RP: Cameron Turner
(g.) Individual written
communication skills: status e-
memos, prepared by each student
throughout EGGN491 and
EGGN492 are used to assess each
student’s individual skills.
In Spring 2013, and over the
last six semesters, 79% of
BSCE and BSE-Civ students
were competent (PC 80%
competent). However, the
number is just a few students
away from the 80% threshold.
Although the Senior Design
instructors do not suggest action
items because the average among
students of all disciplines is
greater than 80%, we feel that
Civil Engineers should be
achieving at this threshold and
propose that as a department,
81
Sr.
Design,
EGGN
491/2
Sr.
Design,
EGGN
491/2
both oral and written
communications should be more
stressed throughout the BSCE
curriculum. This was also a
comment made by some
members of our industrial/alumni
constituent committee.
o RP: Terri Hogue (CEE
vice chair for
undergraduate affairs)
(g.) Five oral presentations: an
Elevator Pitch presentation (short,
limited slides), three design
reviews (formal structured
presentations with Q&A ranging
from 25 -50 minutes), and a three
hour Trade Fair presentation (ad
hoc, convention style of variable
length).
In Spring 2013, 71% of
students were competent in
the Elevator Pitch, 74% were
competent in Design Reviews,
and only 51% were competent
in their verbal ad hoc
presentation at the Trade Fair
(PC 80% competent).
Review the program and
assessments with the senior
design leadership group
Develop and integrate
communications training
modules for the design teams
Explore resources on campus
that may assist the teams in
developing their communications
skills.
o RP: Cameron Turner
Increase the instruction and
number of opportunities for oral
communications throughout the
BSCE curriculum.
o RP: Terri Hogue
(h.) Broader Impacts Essay
Assignment (individual) in
EGGN492. This essay asks the
student to probe the broad
contextual issues affect or apply to
their Sr. Design project.
Civil majors demonstrated
77% competency over 5
semesters, with 79%
competency in Spring ’13 (PC
80%).
As with the first outcome g
assessment, the Senior Design
instructors do not suggest action
items because the average among
students of all disciplines is
greater than 80%. Again, we
82
feel BSCE students should be
attaining this outcome as well as
their peers, and we plan to
examine curriculum to see where
this outcome can be more
stressed.
o RP: Terri Hogue (CEE
vice chair for
undergraduate affairs)
(i.) Broader Impacts Essay
Assignment (individual) in
EGGN492. This essay encourages
“big picture” thinking about the
work of an engineer, a life-long
learning skill.
Civil majors demonstrated
77% competency over 5
semesters, with 79%
competency in Spring ’13 (PC
80%).
Due to positive results in other
outcome I assessments, and the
upward trend of the data on this
assessment, we feel an action
item is not necessary.
(i) - Conceptual Design Report
(CDR) in EGGN 491 (team
assignment). The Conceptual
Design Report (CDR) asks students
to explain the design problem at
hand and place it into a context
within the marketplace
In Spring 2013, competency
rate was only 51%. (PC 80%).
However, since 2009, 90% of
students demonstrate
competency.
Continue to monitor and assess
performance in both
assignments. For the Broader
Impacts Essay, the trend is
positive and we expect that we
will achieve our targets. For the
CDR report, the data from the
last semester is troubling, but the
overall performance has been
positive. It remains to be
determined whether this is an
outlier or a new trend. Should a
trend emerge, the Course
Coordinator will review the
assignment and instructional
methods with the aim of
reversing the trend. In the
meantime, the students from that
83
most recent semester will
receive additional mentoring and
development in composition
skills in EGGN492.
o RP: Senior design
course coordinator.
84
The preceding table indicates a few areas where improvement should be made. Most of
the instances where performance criteria were not met can be improved with
modifications to course delivery, however for outcomes f, g, h, changes at the program
level may be considered.
For outcome f, the Senior Design assessment, which was the most comprehensive,
showed a significant lack of interest and knowledge in ethics and professional
responsibility. The CEE undergraduate committee will discuss this topic in Fall 2013
semester. Additionally, the Senior Design instructional team has promulgated their own
recommendations for what Senior Design will do to address the poor performance on the
Ethics Quiz. Senior Design has been continuously improved since the inception of the
current form of the capstone experience in 2010. An increased emphasis on ethics will be
the next significant change. While ethics and professional development should certainly
be emphasized throughout the curriculum, working with a client on a long-term project
provides some of the best opportunities for truly internalizing the topic.
Senior Design also brought to light weaker performances in regards to outcome g, an
ability to communicate effectively. Among the Civil Engineering majors, both written
and oral communications were not at the performance criteria. In contrast to outcome f,
this outcome is best developed when students have multiple opportunities across their
college careers to practice speaking on technical topics. In contrast to the other degree
offered by CEE, the BSEV, there are few courses that require an oral presentation as part
of the course requirements. Although Senior Design may opt to include more
communication modules in the future, the lead instructor noted:
Very little of the existing [Senior Design] curriculum is focused on the
development of verbal presentation skills and the emphasis placed on that
performance varies considerably between Faculty Advisers. Many of these skills
are supposed to be developed earlier in the curriculum, so perhaps further
development is necessary throughout the degree program.
We do think that more opportunities to communicate, especially orally, would be of
benefit to the BSCE graduate and will work as a department to provide these
opportunities. Members of our industrial/alumni constituent committee also stressed that
oral and especially written communications are a general weakness among engineering
graduates (not just at Mines).
Outcome h (the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global and societal context) would benefit from additional evaluation by
department leadership. As with outcome g, the Civil Engineers fared slightly lower than
average in Senior Design, but perhaps more concerning is the limited coverage of this
outcome among courses, and the poor performance on the assessment in EGGN 464.
An additional cosmetic but significant change to the CEE program is a renumbering of all
undergraduate and graduate courses, as well as a change in designation (to CEEN from
ESGN and EGGN) which will be formally implemented in the Academic Year 2013-14
85
Undergraduate Bulletin. Prior to the reorganization, many courses – civil, environmental,
mechanical, etc. – were offered through the engineering division. With the creation of
the new discipline-based degrees and departmental management of the disciplines, a
renumbering was implemented to enable students to more easily locate relevant courses
for electives, and also to group courses within technical areas. The presentation of the
curriculum and associated flow charts are easier to understand.
C. Additional Information
Actions Affecting All Programs: Materials related to institutional actions to improve
undergraduate education can be found at the following locations.
Undergraduate Council: http://blackboard.mines.edu (access available upon request),
contains curricular proposals, rationale for these proposals and minutes of Council
discussion and action on each proposal.
Faculty Senate: http://inside.mines.edu/Faculty-Senate-Home, contains curricular
proposals, rationale for these proposals and minutes of Senate discussion and action
on each proposal.
Director of Institutional Assessment and the University Assessment Committee:
http://inside.mines.edu/assessment and http://blackboard.mines.edu (access available
upon request), contains documentation of institutional assessment efforts related to
student learning outcomes led by the Director and the University Assessment
Committee.
Core Curriculum Committee: http://blackboard.mines.edu (access available upon
request) and http://inside.mines.edu/Assessment-Core-Curriculum contain
documentation of institutional efforts related to assessing the Common and
Distributed Core curricula. See also the new Core Assessment website:
http://mines.edu/Core_index
Actions Affecting Common and Distributed Core Courses: A significant institutional
effort takes place for assessing and continuously improving required math, science, and
engineering education at the lower-level. Although we are not using any of this
information in our BSEE program-specific continuous improvement process, the
assessment and improvement of common and distributed core courses plays an important
role in assuring the overall quality of the BSEE program and in ensuring that BSEE
students have attained Student Outcomes (a)-(k). Information about common and
distributed core assessment is included in Appendix F.
Program Specific Assessment Materials: All of the course data and assessment materials
referred to in this section are available in course binders that include examples of student
work. The binders will be centrally located in one room. The room location will be
provided on the first day of the visit.
86
5) CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM
A. Program Curriculum
i. Description and overview of the program curriculum
Table 5-1 details the curriculum for the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE)
degree program. The table shows the recommended schedule of classes by year and term,
along with the maximum section sizes for each course the last two terms they were taught.
The Colorado School of Mines operates on a semester system. Credit hour designations in
these tables refer to semester credit hours.
87
Table 5-1: Curriculum for Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) degree
Course
(Department, Number, Title)
List all courses in the program by term starting with first term of first year and
ending with the last term of the final year.
Indicate
Whether
Course is
Required,
Elective or a
Selected
Elective by
an R, an E or
an SE.1
Subject Area (Credit Hours)
Last Two
Terms the
Course was
Offered:
Year and,
Semester, or
Quarter
Maximum
Section
Enrollment
for the Last Two
Terms the
Course was
Offered2
Math &
Basic
Sciences
Engineeri
ng Topics
Check if
Contains
Significa
nt Design
(√)
General
Education Other
Freshman Year (First Term)
Student Life, CSM101, First-Year Advising and Mentoring
Program
R 0.5 F12, Sp13 26, 10
Chemistry, CHGN121, Principles of Chemistry I R 4 F12, Sp13 Lec 266, 94
Lab 25, 12
SYGN101 Earth and Env. Systems R 4 F12, Sp13 143, 68
Liberal Arts & International Studies, LAIS100, Nature and Human
Values
R 4 F12, Sp13 22, 22
Applied Mathematics and Statistics, MATH111, Calculus for
Scientists and Engineers I
R 4 F12, Sp13 45, 38
Student Life, PAGN101, Physical Education 1 R 0.5 F11, F12 35, 39
Freshman Year (Second Term)
EPICS, EPIC151, Design EPICS I R 3 √ F12, Sp13 26, 27
Applied Mathematics and Statistics, MATH112, Calculus for
Scientists and Engineers II
R 4 F12, Sp 13 45, 43
Student Life, PAGN102, Physical Education II R 0.5 Sp11, Sp12 36, 36
Physics, PHGN100, Mechanics R 4.5 F12, Sp13 144, 151
Chemistry, CHGN122, Principles of Chemistry II R 4 F12, Sp13 Lec 151, 242
88
Lab 23, 24
Sophomore Year (First Term)
Economics and Business, EBGN201, Principles of Economics R 3 F12, Sp13 299, 160
Student Life, PAGN2xx, Distributed Physical Education
Requirement
R 0.5 F12, Sp13 42, 46
Physics, PHGN200, Introduction to Electromagnetism and Optics R 4.5 F12, Sp13 Lec 166, 152
Applied Mathematics and Statistics, MATH213, Calculus for
Scientists and Engineers III
R 4 F12, Sp13 112, 112
Mining Engineering, DCGN241, Statics R 3 F12, Sp13 67, 64
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, CSCI260, CSCI261,
or EGGN205, Programming Concepts
SE 2/3 F12, Sp13
Sophomore Year (Second Term)
Student Life, PAGN2xx, Distributed Physical Education
Requirement
R 0.5
Liberal Arts and International Studies, SYGN200, Human Systems R 3 F12, Sp13 76, 80
College of Engineering & Computational Sciences, EGGN250,
MEL I
R 1.5√ F12, Sp13 24, 24
Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, EGGN281,
Introduction to Electrical Circuits
R 3 F12, Sp13 60, 49
Mechanical Engineering, EGGN351, Fluid Mechanics R 3 F12, Sp13 84, 106
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN320, Mechanics of
Materials
R 3 F12, Sp13 57, 84
EPICS, EPIC251/2XX, Design EPICS II SE 3√ F12, Sp13 24, 27
Sophomore Year (Summer Term)
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN234, Civil Field
Session
R 3 Su12, Su13 69, 58
Junior Year (First Term)
Liberal Arts & International Studies/ Economics & Business,
LAIS/EBGN2xx-4xx, Distributed Humanities Requirement
SE 3
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN363, Soil Mechanics
Laboratory
R 1 F12, Sp13 15, 15
89
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN361, Soil Mechanics R 3 F12. Sp13 75, 32
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN342, Structural Theory R 3 F12, Sp13 49, 25
Applied Mathematics and Statistics, MATH225, Differential
Equations
R 3 F12, Sp13 123, 125
Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, EGGN413,
Computer Aided Engineering
R 3 F12, Sp13 36, 48
Junior Year (Second Semester)
Civil & Environmental Engineering, 3xx/4xx/5xx, Civil Elective SE 3
Varied, 1xx-5xx, Free Elective E 3
Chemical and Biological Engineering, DCGN210, Introduction to
Engineering Thermodynamics
R 3 F12, Sp13 100, 47
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN464, Foundations R 3 F12, Sp13 34, 46
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN444/5, Steel/Concrete
Design
SE 3√ F12
Sp13
24, 39
40, 38
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN 353/4, Env. Sci & Eng SE 3 F12
Sp13
46, 35
19, 30
Senior Year (First Semester)
Civil & Environmental Engineering, 3xx/4xx/5xx, Civil Elective SE 3
Liberal Arts & International Studies/ Economics & Business,
LAIS/EBGN2xx-4xx, Distributed Humanities Requirement
SE 3
College of Engineering & Computational Sciences, EGGN350,
MEL II
R 1.5√ F12, Sp13 24, 25
Applied Math & Statistics, MATH323, Probability & Statistics I R 3 F12, Sp13 45, 41
Civil & Environmental Engineering, EGGN315, Dynamics R 3 F12 61, 66
College of Engineering & Computational Sciences, EGGN491,
Senior Design I
R 3√ F12, Sp13 254, 83
Senior Year (Second Semester)
Civil & Environmental Engineering, 3xx/4xx/5xx, Civil Elective SE 3
Liberal Arts & International Studies/ Economics & Business,
LAIS/EBGN2xx-4xx, Distributed Humanities Requirement
SE 3
Varied, 1xx-5xx, Free Elective E 3
Varied, 1xx-5xx, Free Elective E 3
90
Varied, 1xx-5xx, Free Elective E 3 F12, Sp13 56, 252
College of Engineering & Computational Sciences, EGGN492,
Senior Design II
R 3√ F12, Sp13 55, 252
TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS 44/45 58 34 OVERALL TOTAL CREDIT HOURS FOR COMPLETION OF THE
PROGRAM 138.5
PERCENT OF TOTAL 32% 42% 25%
Total must satisfy either credit hours or percentage Minimum
Semester
Credit Hours 32 Hours
48
Hours
Total must satisfy either credit hours or percentage Minimum
Percentage 25% 37.5 %
1. Required courses are required of all students in the program, elective courses (often referred to as open or free electives) are optional
for students, and selected elective courses are those for which students must take one or more courses from a specified group.
91
ii. Curriculum Alignment with PEOS and SOs:
Curriculum alignment with program educational outcomes (PEOs) and student outcomes
(SOs) is achieved in a hierarchical fashion. Student outcomes (SOs) support our PEOs as
illustrated above in Table 3-2. Similarly, courses within the BSCE program support one or
more SOs. Specific mapping of SOs was shown and described for the BSCE in Tables 4-4
and 4-5 (Criterion 4). Detailed narrative of how the common and distributed core course
support SOs is presented in Appendix F.
Figure 5-1 (two pages) presents a flowchart showing the prerequisite structure of the
program’s required courses. The second page shows the electives for each specialty.
92
Figure 5-1: Flowchart presenting BSCE curriculum and prerequisite structure (2 pages)
93
94
iii. Depth of Study in Subject Areas:
During the first two years at CSM students complete a set of core courses that include
mathematics, basic sciences, and engineering sciences. Course work in mathematics is an
essential part of the curriculum that gives engineering students essential tools for modeling,
analyzing, and predicting physical phenomena. The basic sciences are represented by
physics and chemistry, which provide an appropriate foundation in the physical sciences.
Engineering sciences build upon the basic sciences and are focused on applications. The first
two years also includes Engineering design course work within the Engineering Practice
Introductory Course Sequence (EPICS I and II). This experience teaches design
methodology and stresses the creative and synthesis aspects of the engineering profession.
Finally, the first two years includes systems-oriented courses with humanities and social
sciences content; these courses explore the linkages within the environment, human society,
and engineered devices.
In the final two years, students in the BSCE program complete an advanced core that
includes electric circuits, engineering mechanics (solids and fluids), advanced mathematics,
thermodynamics, engineering design, and additional studies in liberal arts and international
topics.
Finally, free electives (9 credits), at the student's discretion, can be used to either satisfy a
student's personal interest in a topic or they can be used as coursework as part of an "area of
special interest" of at least 12 semester hours or a minor of at least 18 semester hours in
another department or division.
The Civil Engineering program introduces students to the fundamentals of civil engineering
with coverage of four emphasis area, including engineering mechanics, environmental
engineering, geotechnical engineering, and structural engineering. Civil engineers graduating
with BSCE are users of very latest concepts in computer-aided design, construction, project
scheduling, and cost control. Civil engineering is about community service, sustainable
development and environment, and improvement. It involves the conception, planning,
analysis, design and construction of facilities essential to modern life, ranging from tunnels
to offshore structures to space satellites. Civil engineers are problem solvers, and the
curriculum provides background in finding solutions to pollution, traffic congestion, drinking
water, energy needs, urban redevelopment, and community planning. The Civil Engineering
degree builds on a foundation of multidisciplinary engineering core courses to prepare
students for leadership roles in industry and academia.
The requirements in terms of hours and depth of study for each subject area (Math & Basic
Sciences, Engineering Topics, and General Education) taken by students in the BSCE
program is summarized as follows:
Table 5-2: Degree Requirements for BSCE Degree
Math&Science Engineering Gen Ed Other Total
Civil Engineering 44-45 58 34 2.5 138.5
95
iv. Major Design Experience:
In the BSCE engineering analysis and design is emphasized with interdisciplinary application
to industrial problems, structures and processes throughout the curriculum. This is achieved
through the vertical stream of “practice and design” experience: EPICS I and II in the
freshman and sophomore years, Field session in the summer of the sophomore or junior year,
and Capstone Design in the senior year, Further, our unique Multidisciplinary Engineering
Laboratory sequence promotes life-long learning skills and open-ended problem solving
using state-of-the-art instrumentation in a sequence of laboratories spanning the sophomore
through senior years. In the remainder of this section we describe each of these experiences
in more detail.
EPICS: Engineering Practices Introductory Course Sequence: EPICS is a two-course
sequence that serves the role of “introduction to the engineering design process” (EPICS I)
and “introduction to resource assessment in design” (EPICS II). Design EPICS I (EPIC151)
and Design EPICS II (EPIC251 or EPIC 252) are each one-semester, three credit design
courses.
Design EPICS I introduces a design process which includes open-ended problem solving and
teamwork, integrated with the use of CAD software as a tool to solve engineering problems.
The course emphasizes written communication and encourages the importance of effective
oral presentation. This course is required for all students at CSM.
Design EPICS II builds on the design process, continuing with open-ended problem solving,
teamwork and communications, with the use of specific commercial software tools to solve
engineering problems. This course emphasizes the importance of oral presentation skills
while continuing to encourage the improvement of written communication skills established
in EPICS I. This course is required for all students in ABET-accredited engineering degree
programs at CSM.
The centerpiece of both courses is an open-ended design problem that students must solve as
part of a team effort. Design EPICS I is focused on conceptual design, while Design EPICS
II is focused on resource assessment for a more advanced design. Both courses emphasize
the practice of fundamental engineering skills needed in the modern engineering workplace.
Multidisciplinary Engineering Laboratories: The “MEL Labs” are a sequence of three classes
offered at CSM. The BSCE students are required to complete MEL I (EGGN 250) and MEL
II (EGGN 350).
The overall MEL Objectives are to enhance thinking maturity, improve student retention of
laboratory/experimental skills, motivate students to learn by simulating industrial practice,
have students actively learn the skills of efficient and accurate experimenters, encourage
students to make connections between material from several courses, and build life-long
learning skills, Experience a variety of learning styles, enhance communications skills, build
subject matter competency in fundamental engineering science topics like electrical circuits,
96
fluid mechanics, stress analysis, dynamics, controls and thermodynamics, and enhance group
and teamwork skills.
The classes cover the following topics:
MEL I – Electrical, instrumentation and data acquisition concepts
In MEL I students integrate and apply the fundamentals of engineering science from several
courses. Activities include: using experimental hardware and instrumentation, wiring circuits
and setting up experimental hardware, learning to condition simple transducer signals and
measure data automatically. They also learn to analyze and present data, gather relevant
information from product data sheets, recognize sources of and quantify experimental error,
graph data and use it to support conclusions in reports, and work effectively in teams.
MEL II – Fluids and strength of materials concepts
In MEL II students conduct experiments in fluids and strength of materials. All experiments
use systems and when a particular component is learned, it is learned in an applications
context. Exercises have open-ended elements and student teams are encouraged to learn on
their own and develop their own procedures to bridge the gap between experimental
resources and expected results. Activities in MEL II including using manufacturer
specification sheets, catalogs and Web sites, discovering relationships by observing how
systems react to varying inputs, evaluating competitive devices, developing models to predict
performance and compare predictions to measurements, diagnosing unpredicted outcomes,
practicing communications skills with required reports, results forms, laboratory notebooks,
team collaboration, and interviewing experts (the lab instructors).
Field Session: Field session is a unique program at CSM that endeavors to expose students to
the practice and technology associated with their chosen disciplinary focus. Its name harks
back to the early days of the institution, when geology and mining engineering students
would go into the “field” to identify and collect different types of rocks and minerals and
evaluate economic resources (indeed, geology and mining engineering students still do this
during their field session). In the BSCE program, all students must complete a 3-week, 40
hours/week experience in the summer of their sophomore or junior year (EGGN 234).
BSCE students are introduced to the theory and practice of modern surveying.
Lectures and hands-on field work teaches horizontal, vertical, and angular
measurements and computations using traditional and modern equipment.
Subdivision of land and applications to civil engineering practice, GPS and
astronomic observations. Students are also introduced and develop industry standard
computer aided design skills necessary (e.g. AutoCAD) for the layout and design of
construction sites and roadways with sensitivities toward grading, drainage,
earthwork, and environmental impacts. The civil engineering field session has long
been taught as part of the BSE degree, and will continue to be part of the BSCE
curriculum.
97
Capstone Senior Design: All students at CSM who major in an ABET-accredited degree
complete a capstone senior design project. The CSM BSCE degree’s capstone design course
is a creative multidisciplinary design experience emerging from combined efforts in civil,
electrical, mechanical, and environmental specialties in engineering including our new
degrees in Environmental Engineering (BSEV) and Civil Engineering (BSCE). All BSCE
students must complete a capstone design course which is focused on an in-depth multi-
disciplinary engineering project generated by customer demand, and which typically includes
some form of experiential verification to ensure a realistic design experience.
Within the engineering community it is widely believed that many of the challenges which
are facing practicing engineers, now and in the 21st century, can best be met by exploiting
multidisciplinary approaches. This Program in Senior Capstone Engineering Design has been
established to demonstrate the value and ingenuity which can be derived from cooperative
design efforts among traditional engineering disciplines.
The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) defines engineering
design as follows: "Engineering design is the process of devising a system, component or
process to meet desired needs. It is a decision-making process (often iterative), in which the
basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources
optimally to meet a stated objective. Among fundamental elements of the design process are
the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and
evaluation."
The BSCE’s capstone course has been designed to comply with the ABET guidelines that
require the engineering design component of a curriculum to include many of the following
features:
Development of student creativity
Use of open-ended problems
Development and use of design methodology
Formulation of design problem statements and specifications
Consideration of alternative solutions
Feasibility considerations
Detailed system descriptions
Use of standards
Further, projects attempt to include a variety of realistic constraints, such as economic
factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics, social impact, etc.
The BSCE program’s Senior Design Program is organized into two parts. In EGGN 491
students learn design concepts through reverse engineering activities before forming teams.
Multi-disciplinary teams then perform conceptual and preliminary design on client-sponsored
projects, concluding the first semester with designs and proposals to construct, test, and
evaluate a product or system. The major deliverable for this semester is a design report or
proposal that includes a complete design description with construction and test plan;
including estimated costs (budget), assembly and component drawings where appropriate,
98
engineering calculations to demonstrate that a factor of safety has been employed, a schedule
and indication of the division of labor among the project team members. The construction
and test phases continue in the EGGN 492 course during the following semester, with the
major deliverable being a final design, working prototype when appropriate, and presentation
at the senior design trade fair.
v. Cooperative Education:
Students who so-desire can receive credit for a cooperative education experience. Co-op is a
supervised, full-time engineering-related employment for a continuous six-month period in
which specific educational objectives are achieved. Students must meet with the Engineering
program Faculty Co-op Advisor (currently the Dean, but being transitioned to the department
heads of the new departments) prior to enrolling to clarify the educational objectives for their
individual Co-op program. Cooperative Education credits may be used as free elective credit
hours or as a specialty elective if, in the judgment of the Co-op Advisor, the documented
work experience entailed high-quality application of engineering principles and practice.
vi. Materials available during the visit:
For each required or selected elective course in the BSE program, the course textbook and a
course binder will be available for review by the Program Evaluator during the visit. These
binders contain the ABET syllabus, the more detailed course syllabus, summary of course
assessment activities and results, individual course assessments from the last several
semesters the course has been taught, and samples of student work (good, average, and poor)
for each assignment.
B. Course Syllabi
Course syllabi are included in Appendix A.
99
6) CRITERION 6. FACULTY
A. Faculty Qualifications
Table 6-1 details the credentials, rank, type of appointment, experience, and activity level of the faculty supporting the BSCE
degree program. Of course, faculty from other units such as Applied Math and Statistics, Physics, Chemistry, EPICS, etc. also
support the degree through basic math and science offerings. Likewise, faculty from other departments in the College of
Computational Science and Engineering teach required courses in the BSCE program.
Table 6-1: Faculty Qualifications, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
Faculty Name Highest Degree Earned- Field
and Year
Ran
k 1
Type
of
Aca
dem
ic
Appoin
tmen
t2
T, T
T, T
P
FT
or
PT
3
Years of
Experience
Pro
fess
ional
Reg
istr
atio
n/
Cer
tifi
cati
on
Level of Activity4
H, M, or L
Govt.
/Ind. P
ract
ice
Tea
chin
g
This
Inst
ituti
on
Pro
fess
ional
Org
aniz
atio
ns
Pro
fess
ional
Dev
elopm
ent
Consu
ltin
g/s
um
mer
work
in i
ndust
ry
Cath, Tzahi PhD Civil & Env Eng 2003 ASC T FT 11 11 7 M M H
Cohen, Ron PhD Env Science 1979 ASC T FT 8 34 27 L M H
Cooper, Lauren* MS Civil Eng AST TP FT5 3 4 3 M M L
Crocker, Joseph PhD Civil Eng 2001 P TP FT 22 13 9 PE, SE L H L
Drewes, Jorg PhD Env Eng 1997 P T FT 20 21 12 H M M
Figueroa, Linda PhD Civil Eng 1989 ASC T FT 5 22 22 PE M M H
Griffiths, D.V. PhD Civil Eng 1980 P T FT 2 34 19 PE H M M
Gutierrez, Marte PhD Civil Eng 1989 P T FT 15 17 5 H M M
Higgins, Chris PhD Civil & Env Eng 2007 ASC TT FT 3 5 4.5 L M L
Hogue, Terri PhD Hydrology & Water Res
2003
ASC T FT 17 12 1 H M M
Illangasekare, Tissa PhD Civil Eng 1978 P T FT 2 35 15 PE H M L
100
Kiousis, Panos PhD Civil Eng 1985 ASC T FT 8 13 13 PE
(Greece)
M M H
Lu, Ning PhD Civil Eng 1991 P T FT 13 16 16 H M M
McCray, John PhD Hydrology & Water Res
1998
P T FT 8 16 14 EIT, PG M M M
Munakata-Marr, Junko PhD Civil & Env Eng 1996 ASC T FT 1 17 17 M M L
Mooney, Michael PhD Civil Eng 1996 P T FT 1 16 9 PE M M M
Reynolds, Susan M.S. Civil Eng., 2004 ASC TP FT 11 6 1 PE, RA M M H
Sharp, Josh PhD Civil & Env Eng 2006 AST TT FT 2 4.5 4.5 L M L
Smits, Kate PhD Env Sci & Eng 2010 AST TT FT 8 4.5 1.5 PE L H L
Siegrist, Bob PhD Civil & Env Eng 1986 P T .5 10 21 19 PE L M L
Spear, John PhD Env Sci & Eng 1999 ASC T FT 12 23 8 M M L
Sulzbach, Candace BS Civil Eng 1981 P TP FT 2 30 30 PE H H M
Wang, Judith PhD Civil Eng 2007 AST TT FT 0 8 6 EIT L M L
Wayllace, Alexandra PhD Civil Eng 2008 ASC TP FT 0 5 5 EIT L M L
Zhang, Raichong PhD Mechanical Eng 1995 ASC T FT 2 21 16 PE L M M
Paddy Ryan PhD Zoology, 1978 A A PT 32 22 11 M M H
Sidney Innerebner PhD Environmental Science &
Engineering, 2001
A A PT 21 20 5 PE M M H
Paul Queneau PhD Metallurgical Engineering
1967
A A PT 46 24 24 PE H M H
Daniel Teitelbaum MD, 1964 A A PT 46 46 29 MD M M H 1. Code: P = Professor ASC = Associate Professor AST = Assistant Professor I = Instructor A = Adjunct O = Other
2. Code: T = Tenured TT = Tenure Track TP = Teaching Professor
3. Code: FT = Full-time PT = Part-time Appointment at the institution.
4. The level of activity (high, medium or low) should reflect an average over the year prior to the visit plus the two previous years.
* Lauren Cooper is FT as of Jan. 1 2013, prior to that she was 0.67 FTE.
101
B. Faculty Workload
There are three categories of instructional staff at CSM:
1. Tenure/Tenure-Track (T/TT): These are full-time employees of the institution who have
duties in teaching, research, and service.
2. Teaching Professors (TP): Formerly called instructors, lecturers, and senior lecturers,
CSM now defines this category with the titles Teaching Assistant Professor, Teaching
Associate Professor, and Teaching Professor, respectively. Teaching faculty are full-time
employees of the institution who have duties in teaching and service. Responsibilities
and privileges of TPs are outlined in the faculty handbook. While the contract for
Teaching Professors is year-to-year, most have been at CSM for many years and are
typically our best instructors (you don’t send away people who are good)!
3. Adjunct Instructors (A): Adjuncts teach one or two classes per term on a contract basis.
While some adjuncts may teach only once or twice, many adjuncts have a longer-term
relationship with CSM and may also teach for a number of different programs. In general
most adjuncts are practitioners who have a particular expertise in the class they are
teaching.
Workload expectations and policies for T/TT and TP are described below. Adjunct
instructors have no formal workload policy.
The full-time teaching load for all professors at CSM (TP and T/TT) is 8 courses per
academic year. However, course loads are rarely this high because CSM and CEE also
expects significant scholarship/research and/or service. This varies between TPs and T/TT
professors as described below.
Teaching Professors: The nominal workload for teaching faculty across all departments is six
classes per year, which implies a 0.75 FTE effort for teaching, and 0.25 effort for other
activities (typically service). Thus, the nominal load for a TP is 6 courses per academic
year. However, this load may be reduced when faculty members are engaged in significant
pedagogical innovation-oriented activities. It is the expectation at CSM that Teaching
Professors are intellectual and example leaders in pedagogy and good teaching.
Usually, 0.25 FTE of other activities include service such as serving on CEE and CSM
faculty committees (especially related to curriculum or pedagogy, but also search committees
and various other committees), student advising, and curriculum development. In some
cases, a certain fraction of FTE for a TP may be dedicated to research, although this is rare.
Tenure/Tenure Track Professors: The typical expectation for a T/TT professor is 40%
teaching, 40% research, and 20% service. Thus, the typical teaching load for a T/TT
professor is ~ 3 courses per year. However, workload expectations vary depending on
tenure status and several additional factors as prescribed within specific departments.
102
In CEE, the faculty workload is governed by a formal workload policy (available upon
request). A brief summary is provided here. Faculty in CEE are expected to teach, conduct
research, and participate in departmental, university, and external service. As stated above
the nominal distribution is 40%-40%-20%. Thus, the nominal teaching load for T/TT faculty
is 3 courses per academic year (based on a 3-year rolling average). Courses taught in the
summer may also count toward this teaching workload if the faculty member is not
financially compensated, and the course is approved by the appropriate departmental
curriculum committee. Faculty that are less productive in research based on metrics stated in
the workload policy (based on research expenditures and/or thesis-based graduate students
advised on a 3-year rolling average) may teach 4 courses per AY, or in rare cases 5 courses
per AY. It is possible for faculty with high research loads to buy-out of one course. Upon
approval of the faculty, the department head may also offer a one-course per AY reduction
for exceptional service or administrative duties (i.e., as is done with the Vice Chair for
Undergraduate Affairs). The Department Head or Dean may authorize course-load reduction
for medical reasons. Table 6-3 summarizes the distribution of faculty in the various ranks as
well as the relative workload of faculty supporting the BSCE program.
Table 6-2: Faculty Workload Summary for CEE Department
Faculty
Member
(name)
PT or
FT1
Classes Taught
(Course No.
/Credit Hrs.)
Term and Year2
Program Activity Distribution3 % of
Time
Devoted
to the
Program5
Teaching
Research
or
Scholarship
Service
Other4
Cath, Tzahi FT ESGN/EGGN 453 –
3cr Fa 2012
ESGN/EGGN 454 –
3cr Sp 2013
25% 55% 20% ERC Thrust
Leader 100%
Cohen, Ron FT ESGN 440 – 3cr Fa
2012
ESGN 520 – 3cr Fa
2012
ESGN 459– 3cr Sp
2013
ESGN 556 – 3cr Sp
2013
50% 30% 20% 100%
Cooper,
Lauren
FT EGGN 320 – 3cr Fa
2012 (2 sections)
EGGN 491 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 492 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 320 – 3cr Sp
2013 (2 sections)
75% 0% 25% 100%
Crocker,
Joseph
FT EGGN 342 – 3cr Fa
2012 75% 0% 25% 100%
103
EGGN 444 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 494 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 444 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 445 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 447/547 –
3cr Sp 2013
Drewes, Jorg FT ESGN 506 – 3cr Fa
2012 13% 40% 47% ERC
Director 100%
Figueroa,
Linda
FT 40% 40% 20% Sabbatical
AY 12-13 100%
Griffiths, D.V. FT EGGN 464 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 548 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 542 – 3cr Sp
2013
40% 40% 20% 100%
Gutierrez,
Marte
FT EGGN 504 -1cr Fa
2012
EGGN 534 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 464 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 504 – 1cr Sp
2013
25% 50% 25% Endowed
Chair 100%
Higgins, Chris FT ESGN 500 – 3cr Fa
2012
ESGN 355 – 3cr Sp
2013
ESGN 555 – 3cr Sp
2013
40% 40% 20% 100%
Illangasekare,
Tissa
FT ESGN 622 – 3cr Fa
2012 13% 50% 37% Acting DH
Fall 13 100%
Kiousis, Panos FT EGGN 556 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 558 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 441/541 –
3cr Sp 2013
EGGN 557 – 3cr Sp
2013
50% 30% 20% 100%
Lu, Ning FT EGGN 536 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 533 – 3cr Sp
2013
40% 40% 20% 100%
Marr, Junko FT EGGN 490 – 3cr Fa
2012 25% 40% 35% ERC
Education 100%
104
EGGN/EGGN 353 –
3cr Sp 2013
Leader
Mooney,
Michael
FT EGGN 498/598 –
3cr Fa 2012
EGGN 498/598 –
3cr Sp 2013
25% 40% 35% UCT Ctr
Director 100%
Sharp, Josh FT ESGN/EGGN 353 –
3cr Fa 2012
ESGN 596 – 3cr Sp
2013
40% 40% 20% 100%
Smits, Kate FT ESGN 503 – 3cr Fa
2012
ESGN 457/575 –
3cr Sp 2013
25% 55% 20% Pre- 3rd
year
P&T
Review
100%
Siegrist,
Robert
PT ESGN 460 – 3cr Sp
2013 20% 20% 10% Transitional
Retire 50%
Spear, John FT ESGN 586 – 3cr Fa
2012
ESGN/EGGN 354 –
3cr Sp 2013
40% 40% 20% 100%
Sulzbach,
Candace
FT EGGN 433 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 445 – 3cr Fa
2012
EPICS 267 – 2cr Sp
2013
EGGN 320 – 3cr Sp
2013 (2 sections)
EGGN 320R – 0cr
Sp 2013
75% 0% 25% 100%
Wang, Judith FT EGGN 361 – 3cr Fa
2012
EGGN 431/531 –
3cr Sp 2013
25% 60% 15% Course
relief for
P&T push
100%
Wayllace,
Alexandra
FT EGGN 363 – 1cr Fa
2012 (4 sections)
EGGN 361 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 363 – 1 cr Sp
2013 (3 sections)
50% 40% 10% 100%
Zhang,
Raichong
FT EGGN 315 – 3cr Fa
2012 (2 sections)
EGGN 342 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 546 – 3cr Sp
2013
50% 40% 10% 100%
McCray, John FT EGGN 491 – 3cr Sp
2013 25% 25% 50% 0.5 Acad
0.5 Dep Hd
Sabbatical
Fall 13
100%
105
Hogue, Terri FT ESGN 527 – 3cr –
Sp 2013 25% 40% 35% Vice Chair
Undergrad 100%
Reynolds,
Susan
FT EGGN 320 – 3cr
Fall 2012 (2
sections)
EGGN 491 – 3cr
Fall 2012
EGGN 320 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 492 – 3cr Sp
2013
EGGN 498/598 –
3cr Sp 2013
75% 0% 25% 100%
Paddy Ryan PT ESGN 401 – 3cr
Fall 2012 13% 0% 0% 13%
Sidney
Innerebner
PT ESGN 463/563 –
3cr Sp 2013 13% 0% 0% 13%
Paul Queneau PT ESGN 462/562 –
3cr Fa 2012 13% 0% 0% 13%
Daniel
Teitelbaum
PT ESGN 545 – 3cr Sp
2013 13% 0% 0% 13%
1. FT = Full Time Faculty or PT = Part Time Faculty, at the institution
2. For the academic year for which the self-study is being prepared.
3. Program activity distribution should be in percent of effort in the program and should total 100%.
4. Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other."
5. Out of the total time employed at the institution.
C. Faculty Size
Figure 6-1 shows the numbers and distribution of faculty associated with the CEE
department program since the last ABET visit. Pre-reorganization numbers represent faculty
numbers in the ESE (Environmental Science and Engineering) and EGCV (Engineering with
Civil Engineering Specialty), while “CEE” represents the combined number of faculty after
the reorganization. In general, the number of Tenure/Tenure-Track (T/TT) faculty was
relatively stable in ESE and increased slightly in EGCV prior to the reorganization. There
was also one hire in the Teaching Professor (TP) line in 2008. After the reorganization,
faculty hires have increased in both the T/TT and TP areas. There were two recent hires in
T/TT positions as well as two additional hires as TPs. The growth in CEE faculty is
attributed to several factors: (a) to improve the faculty: student ratio to be more similar to
our peer departments; (b) growth in the environmental engineering undergraduate and
graduate enrollment (recall Figures B-2 and B-3), and (c) projected growth in the civil
engineering graduate program.
Currently, the faculty size is appropriate for delivering the curriculum and maintaining a 3-
course-per AY workload for T/TT faculty. We do expect additional T/TT faculty growth,
106
particularly in civil engineering, for several reasons. Most importantly, the student faculty
ratio is still high compared to our peers. Adding additional faculty (TP or T/TT would
improve the quality of instruction, student advising, and also enable us to offer more major
electives. Particularly for the BSCE degree, we wish to increase the number electives in two
of the four technical areas (structural engineering, and engineering mechanics).
The service load for faculty is also currently high, with time exceeding the nominal 20% for
most faculty. Thus, adding more faculty would reduce service time for all faculty and
provide for more effective departmental administration.
We plan to hire a TP to enable CEE to take over the delivery of Statics, and we would like to
add an additional TP in the environmental area to ensure continuity of the BSEV field
session, to improve the senior design experience for BSEV students, and to enable delivery
of additional environmental electives.
CEE policy is that all faculty participate in undergraduate student advising. Advising
includes curriculum choices and career counseling. Historically, not all professors were
closely involved with student advising (although 80% were). With this new policy and an
increase in faculty, we anticipate continual improvement in student advising.
All faculty are also actively engaged as technical consultants in senior design. Many faculty
serve as student club advisors and also volunteer as CSM 101 advisors. Faculty can regularly
be found at awards ceremonies and other special events involving our students. Further, the
students get jobs with an extremely high placement rate and high salaries and employers keep
coming back to recruit. Many job opportunities occur via industry contact with faculty, who
forward the opportunities to our students.
Finally, we also note that the CEE faculty members are very active in both university service
activities as well as professional society participation and leadership. Overall, the faculty size
has been adequate to successfully deliver the BSEV program, though the planned addition of
more positions will be a great help in maintaining the workload balance, improve student
advising, allow increased offering of technical electives, and enable teaching relief for
important curriculum development (i.e., developing new courses, modernizing existing
courses), and provide security and resiliency in required course offerings for sabbaticals and
in case of unexpected faculty loss.
107
Figure 6-1: Numbers and Distribution of Faculty in CEE Department over time. Pre-
reorganization numbers represent faculty numbers in the ESE (Environmental Science
and Engineering) and EGCV (Engineering with Civil Engineering Specialty).
D. Professional Development
At CSM “Professional Development” is interpreted broadly to include scholarship, research,
proposal efforts, as well as attendance and participation in local, national, and international
conferences, seminars, and workshops, and participation in professional societies. It is
noteworthy that external funding in the division has increased even given the demands of
student growth. Travel for these efforts is usually funded through sponsored research,
indirect cost return, or start-up funds. Notably, the Provost’s office recently committed to
provide regular travel support for teaching faculty.
In addition to research-related professional activities, faculty have numerous opportunities
for other types of professional development. The dominant institutional contribution to the
professional development of faculty resides in the new faculty start-up process. A New
Faculty Orientation Program is held each fall to provide familiarization on campus amenities
and educational and professional expectations. To assist new faculty in rising to these
expectations, and as negotiated during the hiring process, the School makes a financial start-
up commitment to new hires for the purchase of equipment, payment of summer salary,
travel, and support of graduate students. The details of each package vary by discipline,
needs and the specific development plan of the individual. Both T/TT and TPs receive start-
up funding, though the latter usually get much smaller amounts. Start-up commitments to
distinguished faculty hired into endowed positions are funded through restricted endowment
108
earnings. TPs in CEE are guaranteed funds to travel to at least one workshop or conference
per year. T/TT faculty at CSM receive considerable indirect cost return on grants
(uncommon at most universities) that can be used for professional development opportunities
of the faculty members’ choice. For faculty that are not heavily involved in research (and
thus may not have indirect cost return funds), it is common for departments to pay to send a
faculty member to teacher training workshops. This is also true for T/TT professors,
especially when the annual evaluation and student evaluations indicate a need for
improvement.
Finally, continuing T/TT faculty are eligible for one- or two-semester periods of sabbatical
leave once every seven years, subject to the Board of Trustees’ approval of the professional
development plan embedded in the sabbatical request.
E. Authority and Responsibility of Faculty
The curriculum is the responsibility of the faculty. But, the Department Heads are the chief
academic officers of their units, as the Dean is of the College of Engineering and
Computational Sciences and the Provost is of the overall institution. As such, there is a
hierarchical system that defines the process of curriculum development. As noted in Criterion
2, 3, and 4, there is a process for the development and implementation of the BSCE program
and its evaluation, assessment and continuing improvement, including definition of its
program educational objectives and student outcomes. CEE faculty have a central role in this
process with responsibility for the course-level assessment of each class in the program and
for definition of the detailed requirements of each specific specialty program. Procedurally,
changes to the BSCE program are developed as follows:
1. CEE faculty suggest changes through their course assessment process, although
improvements may also be suggested independent of the formal assessment process.
2. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee members take these suggestions under
discussion and make a recommendation to CEE faculty.
3. During discussions, the Department Head and Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs
will typically play a significant part in guiding the discussion to ensure uniformity
and consistency with department, college, and university mission.
4. A final discussion and vote will take place with all CEE faculty
5. Upon approval by the CEE faculty, recommended changes are sent to the CSM
Undergraduate Council for final approval and discussion.
6. Following Undergraduate Council approval changes will be reported to the Faculty
Senate as the Undergraduate Council is a sub-committee of the Faculty Senate.
7. Finally, Faculty Senate-approved changes are submitted to the Provost, who has
ultimate authority to approve or disapprove changes to ensure uniformity and
consistency with university mission.
109
7) CRITERION 7. FACILITIES
A. Offices, Classrooms and Laboratories
In 1976, a $4.4 million gift from the Brown Foundation funded the construction of
Brown Hall to house Mines’ newly established engineering program. The building
name honors the legacy of George R. Brown, a prominent Houston entrepreneur who
led the construction company Brown & Root Inc. to become one of the largest in the
world. Brown Hall houses faculty offices, classrooms, and laboratories. However, the
growth in the program since 1976 led to a space crunch in recent years. Fortunately,
using a bond that is being paid through student fees, a recent addition and renovation
was made to Brown Hall to accommodate Mines’ new College of Engineering and
Computational Sciences (CECS) with state-of-the-art educational infrastructure. The
project started in February, 2010 and we were able to begin classes in the new
addition in the Fall 2011 semester. The project entailed new LEED-certified
construction of 78,200 square feet and a renovated area of 22,130 square feet (about
1/3 of the existing Brown Hall). The project resulted in a new auditorium, three
classrooms, six seminar rooms, 12 laboratories, seven graduate office complexes, 28
faculty offices, dedicated senior design space, 10 study rooms, a machine shop, a
prototyping shop, and a video conferencing room.
As a result of the Brown renovation and addition, the CECS programs provide
students with high quality infrastructure in terms of offices, classrooms, and
laboratories, as well as computer facilities and modern engineering tools. The Brown
Building today houses the CECS offices and the departmental offices of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science and Mechanical Engineering, as well as a number
of faculty (and labs) from Civil and Environmental Engineering. In addition, the
BSCE and BSEV degree programs are supported by approximately one-half of
Coolbaugh Hall, which houses faculty, laboratories, and classroom space.
Offices: Faculty who support the CEE degree programs (BSEV and BSCE) have
offices in two buildings: Coolbaugh Hall and Brown Hall (which houses the
administrative offices of CECS). All regular faculty (i.e., Tenure/Tenure-Track and
Teaching Professors) have their own office with a window. Adjunct instructors
typically share an office and have access to shared space in which they can hold
office hours. All teaching and administrative staff have access to photocopying, large-
volume color and black-and-white printing, mailroom, coffee room, and normal
office supplies. All regular faculty and administrative staff also have computing
equipment in their offices.
Classrooms: Above we described the new classrooms available due to the Brown
renovation and addition project. These are in addition to some existing classroom
space in Brown Hall. In general classroom use at CSM is coordinated centrally, from
the registrar’s office. However, in specific buildings, such as Brown Hall, such
classrooms are assigned to give preference to departments resident in the building.
The addition of extra space in Brown Hall, as well as the soon-to-be-online Marquez
110
Hall have made it such that classroom space for lectures and labs is adequate to
support all the course offering at the institution, including those for the BSCE, BSEE,
BSEV, and ME degree programs. Note that many, if not most, classrooms at CSM,
including those in Brown Hall, use a CSM-standard podium system that allows the
use of in-class networked computers as well as VideoCAMs, personal laptops, and
multimedia devices, any of which can be projected in the classroom. In computer
classrooms (two major computer classrooms in Brown Hall) the podium computers
have software that mirrors the systems installed on the classroom computers.
Laboratories: Students in the CEE degree programs use both computing and
hardware-related laboratories in their classes. We summarize the computing-related
laboratories below in Section 7B. Here we discuss hardware-related laboratories.
These include dedicated facilities that support certain individual courses that are
discipline-specific as well as facilities that support key courses taken by all students
as described above in the Criterion 5 section, specifically, EPICS, MEL, Field
Session, and Capstone Senior Design. Before describing each of these, we note that
many of our laboratory facilities related to new CEE degree programs were initially
developed as a part of the BSE program between 1995 and 2006 (the time of our last
ABET visit) through a combination of equipment grants. In that time period the
former Engineering Division obtained $428,049 from the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Education and $370,000 from an internal CSM
grants program funded by student fees called Tech Fee. Since 2006, additional lab
development has been funded primarily though the CSM Foundation (philanthropy)
and Tech Fees ($1,118,809 to support the BSxE programs between Fall 2006 and
Spring 2012, for both hardware and computers, about 15% of the CSM total). Since
the reorganization, the CEE Department has received $93,876 to upgrade and support
its labs from Tech Fee funds. Overall the institutional support for the hardware and
computing laboratories has been very good and we have been able to provide suitable
laboratory experiences for our students. The equipment in these labs is detailed
below, along with a description of labs and resources related to EPICS, MEL, Field
Session, and Senior Design, including the Machine Shop and Prototyping facilities
sometimes used by BSCE students.
EPICS: The EPICS program occupies its own building, the so-called Engineering
Annex. Facilities to support EPICS are primarily classroom and collaboration spaces.
There is no specialized equipment required by the EPICS program.
FIELD SESSION: Facilities to support field session in the BSCE program include
the electrical labs described below (BSEE), the environmental lab, normal computer
classrooms and a building and pavilion located at the survey field near the CSM-
owned Mines Park apartment complex.
MEL LABS: The MEL labs are housed in two rooms in the CTLM building: CTLM
123 and CTLM 125. Here we detail the resources that support the MEL lab.
111
The CTLM125 Electronics Lab is utilized in the instruction of the MEL 1 course.
Spare units of the lab test equipment are in inventory for immediate replacement of
failed units. There are 15 lab benches in CTLM125 (see Figure 7-1). Each lab bench
has one each of the following equipment:
Figure 7-1: A typical CTLM 125 bench.
Dell Optiplex 960 Workstation computer with widescreen
monitor, mouse, and keyboard. All classroom computers,
hardware and installed software are maintained by CSM’s CCIT
department.
Equipment Installed Aug 2011
Last calibration verification N/A:
Replacement schedule N/A
Metex M-3800 Digital Multimeter 3½ digit handheld:
Purchased and installed in 1999, these handheld DMMs have
proven to be sturdy, cost effective and adequate for the teaching
experiment performed in this lab. The ranges on these meters are
checked every spring and fall semester with a Fluke 515A
Portable Calibrator. Units found to be out of specification are
replaced with new units. This is now a discontinued model and
new installations will be done with a similar, but more current
model.
Equipment Installed Aug 1999
Last calibration verification Mar 2012
112
Replacement schedule @ First Fail
Tektronix TDS 210 Digital Real Time Oscilloscope: Purchased
and installed in 2001, these highly reliable oscilloscopes are self-
calibrated once every spring and fall semester. Waveforms and
scale accuracy are checked with a Philips PM5134 Function
Generator. Though adequate for the current course, these units
lack digital storage and USB-I/O capabilities. These units should
be replaced with the next change or modification to the curriculum.
Equipment Installed Aug 2001
Last calibration verification Mar 2012
Replacement schedule Soon
Global Specialties 200KHz Function Generator 2001A.
Purchased and installed in 2003, these function generators are
durable, low cost units with a slightly better than average failure
rate. The waveforms are checked every spring and fall semester
with their associated, freshly calibrated, bench oscilloscopes. We
have extra replacement units to use while failed units are being
repaired and calibrated.
Equipment Installed Aug 2003
Last calibration verification Mar 2012
Replacement schedule Fall 2013
BK Precision Triple Output Analog Power Supply1651A.
Purchased and installed in 2003. These triple output DC power
supplies are sturdy and dependable; even so, they are equipped
with analog output displays which have fallen out of favor with
students and faculty alike. The outputs are checked every spring
and fall semesters with a Keithley 179A True RMS Multimeter.
These units should be scheduled for replacement by the Fall 2013
semester.
Equipment Installed Aug 2003
Last calibration verification Mar 2012
Replacement schedule Fall 2013
The CTLM123 Lab is utilized in the instruction of the MEL2 and MEL3 courses.
Spare units of the lab test equipment are in inventory for immediate replacement
of failed units. There are 13 lab benches in CTLM123 (see Figure 7-2). Each lab
bench has one each of the following equipment:
113
Figure 7-2: A typical CTLM 123 bench.
Dell Optiplex 755 Workstation computer. With widescreen
monitor, mouse, and keyboard. All classroom computers,
hardware and installed software are maintained by CSM’s CCIT
department.
Equipment Installed Aug 2011
Last calibration verification N/A:
Replacement schedule N/A
Metex M-3800 Digital Multimeter 3½ digit handheld:
Purchased in 1999 and installed in this lab in 2004, these
handheld DMMs have proven to be sturdy, cost effective and
adequate for the teaching experiment performed in this lab. The
ranges on these meters are checked every spring and fall semester
with a Fluke 515A Portable Calibrator. Units found to be out of
specification are replaced with new units. This is now a
discontinued model and new installations will be done with a
similar, but more current model.
Equipment Installed Aug 1999
Last calibration verification Mar 2012
Replacement schedule @ First Fai
Philips 60MHz Single Time Base Oscilloscope
PM3050: Purchased in 1989 and installed in in this lab
2009, these oscilloscopes are sturdy and reliable. Their
calibration specifications are checked once every spring
and fall semester. DC input bias is checked with a Fluke
515A Calibrator and the waveforms and scale accuracy
114
are checked with a Philips PM5134 Function Generator. Though still proving
adequate for the current course work, these units are obsolete and lack modern
oscilloscope capabilities. These units should be replaced at the next available
opportunity.
Equipment Installed Sep 1989
Last calibration verification Mar 2012
Replacement schedule Now Due
BK Precision Triple Output Digital Display Power
Supply 1652. Purchased and installed in 2012. These
triple output DC power supplies are sturdy and
dependable; even so, they are equipped with analog output
displays which have fallen out of favor with students and
faculty alike. The outputs are checked every spring and
fall semesters with a Keithley 179A True RMS
Multimeter. These units should be scheduled for
replacement by the Fall 2023 semester.
Equipment Installed Mar 2012
Last Calibration verification Mar 2012
Replacement schedule Spring 2022
Wind Tunnel Used specifically in MEL2 coursework, this
professional unit is used to measure lift and drag on a sample
air foil at various fan speeds. The unit’s sensors and controller
are sent to the factory for recalibration when output displays
deviant characteristics from regimented outputs.
Equipment Installed Aug 1999
Last Sensor Calibration Jan 2012
Replacement Schedule None
Wind Tunnel (Fabricated) Used specifically in MEL2
coursework, this fabricated unit is used to measure air
velocity and pressures over an area cross section. The unit’s
data obtained from the pitot tube and the hot-wire
anemometer instruments are compared to each other in
measuring air velocity which is integrated over a cross
section of the flow duct to obtain the airflow rate. Failed
sensor units are replaced in-house as needed.
Equipment Installed Aug 1999
Last Calibration N/A
Replacement Schedule None
115
Pump & Pipe Module (Fabricated) Used specifically in
MEL2 coursework, This fabricated unit is used to measure
the pump curve of a centrifugal pump with several flow
obstacles in the flow path and the comparative pump
efficiencies. A paddle wheel flow meter is calibrated by
students as part of the coursework. General maintenance,
sensor replacements, water treatment and draining is
performed in-house.
Equipment Installed Aug 2011
Last Sensor Calibration N/A
Replacement Schedule None
Compression / Tension Force Testers (Fabricated)
Used specifically in MEL2 coursework. These fabricated
rigs use a load cell to measure pressure and tension. An
electric motor drives tension up to 500 lbs. The units have
gripping jaws to handle variety of materials. As part of the
coursework, students calibrate the load cell to measure
stress and calibrate the linear potentiometer for strain.
Parts replacement is done in-house.
Equipment Installed Aug 2011
Last Calibration N/A
Replacement Schedule None
Refrigeration Units (Fabricated) Used in MEL3
coursework. Students use these fabricated rigs to calculate
the refrigerant’s enthalpy values at critical points in the
refrigeration system, and to calculate performance and
efficiency factors for the refrigeration system. The main
components of the refrigerator (compressor, condenser,
expansion valve, and evaporator) are maintained in-house.
Refrigerant service is provided by CSM’s Plant Facilities.
Equipment Installed Aug 1999
Last Calibration N/A
Replacement Schedule None
Bicycle mounted GPS and Data Logger System (Fabricated)
Used in MEL3 coursework. Students measure stresses in structural
116
members of the bikes and collect data to determine the shock and
stress to the frame, acceleration and global position of the bike.
The bicycles are serviced in-house. The GPS are replaced with
new units when failure occurs. Students calibrate GPS units, the
distance computer, and the accelerometers as part of the
coursework.
Equipment Installed Aug 2008
Last Calibration N/A
Replacement Schedule None
Inline Air Heater (Fabricated) Used in MEL3
coursework. Students use Inline air Heater to design and
tune a controller that will allow the inline air heater to be
controlled in both manual and automatic mode. All the
components of this module are maintained in-house. No
calibration is required.
Equipment Installed Aug 2010
Last Calibration N/A
Replacement Schedule None
CAPSTONE SENIOR DESIGN LAB SPACE: With the completion of the
Brown Hall addition, capstone senior design for the BSE program now enjoys its
own space, in BB W155-160. W160 is designated as a “dirty” laboratory and is
reserved for the messier senior design projects. There are 14 lab benches in W155
and 5 lab benches in W160. Each lab bench has an associated locker for secure
equipment storage. Additionally, 8 closets are available for secure storage of
materials outside of the laboratories. Compressed air, vacuum, power (110V,
208V and 480V) is available for projects, along with an overhead crane and
dedicated conference room. A storage room for senior design materials is also
included in the complex. Six of the benches in W155 have associated computers,
as described below.
117
Figure 7-3: Typical Senior Design bench and storage cabinet.
Dell OptiPlex 980 with IntelI CoreI i7 CPU
860 @ 2.80GHz Processors and 4022 MB
of RAM. Additional computers will be
installed in the summer of 2012. All
classroom computers, hardware and
installed software are maintained by CSM’s
CCIT department.
Equipment Installed March
2012
Calibration
verification
N/A:
Replacement
Schedule
N/A
COLLEGE MACHINE SHOP: The W130 Machine Shop is designed to support
our Capstone Senior Design students and Research Graduate students providing
for them the ability to fabricate parts for projects and experiments in a controlled
and safe environment. Students are not permitted to be in the Machine Shop
unless a second person is also present. Eye protection must be worn when in the
Machine Shop. The machinery may not be operated unless a supervisor or trained
Machine Shop Assistant is present. Students are allowed to operate the machinery
only after they have passed a safety review on the equipment they wish to use.
Student’s safety reviews are kept on file by the Machine Shop Supervisor.
Any qualified student who wishes to use the Machine Shop must first schedule a
machine appointment with the Shop Supervisor. There are times during the
semesters when many projects become due and machine usage is at a maximum.
Secondly the students must provide the Shop Supervisor a qualified drawing of
their parts that can be digitally verified to protect the machinery and avoid the
wasting of stock materials.
118
Figure 7-4: Machine shop.
The Machine Shop houses many different pieces of fabrication equipment,
including mills, lathes, saws, welders, and small power and hand tools. Most
of the machinery in the shop is maintained in-house, the machine shop
coordinator (a full-time employee devoted to this function. The College’s
state-of-the-art welding booth features a light filtering curtain and an air
filtration system. Two welders are available for different welding processes; a
Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG) welder and a Metal Inert Gas (MIG) welder.
Students receive an instruction to welding safety and an overview of welding;
which includes a demonstration and a practice session. The practice then
leads to the fabrication of their projects. Various power hand tools and other
hand tools are available for students’ use. Drawer storage cabinets, wall
cabinets and work benches are used to for storage, organization and controlled
access to tools. Students are asked to sign in; safety is addressed at that time.
A safety review is given to all students. Those students not familiar with the
equipment receive further safety, and demonstration of equipment usage.
Usage of the equipment averages about 30% for the semester and 60-70% at
peak times. Figures 7-5 and 7-6 present a montage of the key equipment in the
shop.
119
Figure 7-5: Machine shop equipment.
120
Figure 7-6: Machine shop equipment (cont.)
121
Figure 7-7: Prototyping lab.
PROTOTYPING LAB
Adjacent to the machine shop, the College of Engineering and Computational
Sciences has assembled specialized equipment for prototyping (see Figure 7-7).
The W120 Prototyping Lab is utilized by students to design, model, and develop
parts for fabrication in various projects and courses. The Prototyping Lab
currently has three design units installed. These units are maintained, in
accordance with the factory supplied documents, and operated by one student who
is employed by the college to interface between the equipment and the students
with design projects. Any malfunctions that require repairs will be contracted
through the equipment’s manufacturer. The machines are relatively new and a
determination as to their dependability, durability, and scheduled replacement has
not been determined.
Epilog Legend 36EXT Laser Engraver/Cutter:
Purchased and installed in August 2011, This unit, in
addition to project work, is used to produce
specimens for tensile strength testing in the MEL2
coursework.
Laser Engraved
Sign
Laser Cut
Acrylic
Specimens cut for
tensile strength testing
122
T-Tech Quick Circuit HF Purchased and installed in 2004, The Quick
Circuit mill provides students everything they need to produce circuit board
prototypes within hours for their work in circuit design courses and robotics.
uPrint SE 3D Printer: Purchased and installed in
2010. The 3D printer allows students in CAD/CAE
courses to print accurate, functional concept models,
rapid prototypes and product mockups in
thermoplastic.
Copper board mounted
Circuit
engraved Finished board
with mountings
3D Printed Wrench
3D Printed Gripper
Parts
Gripper parts
assembled
123
CIVIL ENGINEERING SOILS LAB
The Soils Lab is a required class for BSCE as well as BSE Civil Engineering
Specialty students and a popular elective for Geology students. The laboratory is
also used by some senior design projects. Course objectives are to experimentally
determine soil properties (soil classification, fluid flow through saturated media,
consolidation, shear strength); understand the fundamentals of each soil property,
factors affecting them, typical values for different soil type, and application in
engineering practice; understand proper conduct of experiments including
quantifying error, assessment of repeatability, factors influencing the results; and
effectively communicate all information obtained.
In 2008 - 2009 CSM re-designed and built a new Soils Laboratory. The current
laboratory has 6 stations fully equipped for all tests covered in class, including
state-of-the-art equipment for consolidation, triaxial and direct shear tests.
Typically there are 15 students per section, 4 sections per semester. Students work
in teams of 3 or 4, each team has access to their own equipment for all tests.
Consolidation test
equipment
Triaxial test apparatus
Direct shear test rig
124
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LAB
Integrated Environmental Teaching Laboratory (IETL) supports four undergraduate
environmental engineering courses on a regular basis as well as numerous other
undergraduate and graduate courses. For example, IETL primarily houses the new
environmental engineering core lab, ESGN 355, as well as the Environmental Field
Session (EGGN 335). The lab provides hands-on experience with conventional and
emerging technologies of water and wastewater treatment. IETL consists of two main
teaching facilities:
1. Coolbaugh Hall 166/168 provides teaching space and access to bench- and
pilot-scale unit operations, including activated sludge, CSTR
denitrification bioreactor, groundwater remediation set-up with an online
hydrocarbon analyzer, bench- and lab-scale membrane filtration, and
sedimentation columns.
2. Water Treatment Pilot Plant at the City of Golden’s Water Treatment
Plant. This is a partnership with the City of Golden Public Works and
includes a SCADA-controlled conventional
coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation/ multi-media filtration/disinfection
process that simulates existing full-scale water treatment as well as an
advanced SCADA-controlled pilot-scale ultrafiltration system.
3. The inaugural offering of ESGN 355, Environmental Engineering
Laboratory, was offered in the Spring of 2013. The primary facility was
the IETL. However, because this is a new course with diverse needs,
delivery required a variety of teaching facilities. For example, many of
the laboratory activities for ESGN 355 that relied heavily on chemical
analysis were conducted in Coolbaugh Hall 324, a fume-hood equipped
teaching laboratory operated by the Department of Chemistry and
Geochemistry. Laboratory exercises that relied on microbiological and/or
genetic evaluation of samples were conducted in Coolbaugh Hall 166 (the
IETL), as were laboratory experiments related to water resources
measurements.
125
B. Computing Resources
Resources Available to All Programs (CSM-wide): Academic Computing &
Networking (AC&N), Information Services (IS), and Telecommunications were
merged into a single organization called Computing, Communications, and
Information Technologies (CCIT) in 2007. CCIT consists of four units: Computing
& Networking Infrastructure (CNI), Client & Web Services (CWS), High
Performance & Research Computing (HPC), and Enterprise Systems (ES). Each area
has a Director who reports to the CIO. CNI is responsible for server management,
system administration, operations, facilities, telecommunications, and campus and
residential networking management and support. CWS provides desktop and end user
customer support, computer lab builds and management, classroom technology and
A/V support, and Helpdesk services as well as web support, administration, and
services. HPC manages, operates, and supports the centralized high performance
computer systems (17 to 23 teraflop system named “Ra”, and a 10 to 12 teraflop
development / “condo” model environment called “Mio”) used in research and
educational programs and assists campus researchers as appropriate. Finally, the ES
area manages and supports numerous enterprise-wide services and systems such as
email, learning management, registration, finance, human resources, purchasing,
access management, reporting, and many others.
There are approximately 1,200 computer systems available across the campus in open
and teaching labs for students to use. Most teaching labs are available as open labs
outside of classroom times. Approximately 320 of these systems are in public areas of
the campus that are not primarily allocated for use to a specific academic unit or
program. These systems are concentrated in the Center for Teaching and Learning
Media (CTLM) and the Library with others scattered across campus in study rooms,
the Student Center, and the Writing Center in Stratton Hall. During the academic
year, CCIT’s primary locations are open 7am to midnight Monday through Thursday,
7am to 6pm on Friday, 9am to 5:30pm on Saturday, and 9am to midnight on Sunday.
Additional hours are added prior to final exam weeks. Holiday and summer hours
vary according to need.
126
Servers of various types are mostly centrally managed by CCIT staff and provide the
infrastructure that supports computer labs, shared storage, computational platforms,
and a variety of services and applications such as websites, learning management,
email, license administration, and others. Students are issued credentials that allow
them to access the campus network and Internet and to activate accounts on a
Windows domain, Linux server, the campus portal, the Learning Management
System (Blackboard), and other available services.
All public and department Windows computer labs (with the exception of Petroleum
Engineering) are centrally managed by CCIT staff and have been consolidated into a
central Windows domain known as ADIT to provide a more robust and flexible
environment for students and faculty in labs and classrooms, as well as from their
personally owned computers. Most applications are deployed to all labs (such as
Microsoft Office, Mathematica, and ArcGIS) and others are deployed to selected labs
based on course needs and licensing restrictions. License management for most
restricted software is centralized so it can be used in any campus lab as needed or
scheduled. Base-build and location-dependent applications are listed at
http://ccit.mines.edu/CCIT-Special-Applications. Login profiles are set up as
“roaming profiles”, so students and faculty have the same desktop environment no
matter what lab computer or instructor station they may be using. Storage is
centralized so students can access their files from any lab or from their personally
owned computers. Almost all students own at least one computer and most come with
multiple devices that can access the wired campus housing network or the campus
wireless network. Some applications are licensed so they can be installed and run by
students and faculty on their personally-owned computers. These include Symantec
Antivirus, Mathematica, Mathcad, LabView Training, some ESRI software, Autocad,
SolidWorks, and some Microsoft products under the MSDNAA program. Purpose,
availability, license scope, and the terms and conditions for each license are available
through the web page found at http://ccit.mines.edu/Software-Title. Up-to-date
campus-based labs, together with extremely high rates of student-owned computers
and communication devices, software application availability, and growing cloud-
based resources have proven adequate to support the needs of students and academic
programs.
The campus network core has been designed to be fully redundant with core routers
located in different buildings and redundant access paths to most locations. Ten
gigabit links connect each building to the core and up to 1 gigabit service is provided
to each wall-plate in every building. Connection to the Internet, Internet 2, and NLR
is provided through a dedicated 10 gigabit fiber connection, installed in cooperation
with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), between the Mines’
campus and the Front Range Gigapop (FRGP) located on the Auraria campus in
downtown Denver. A Metropolitan Optical Ethernet circuit is also leased from
CenturyLink to provide backup services in the event of a primary link failure.
All student housing units have at least one wired network port available for each
resident as well as ports available in public and shared spaces. Wireless access is
127
available throughout campus buildings, student housing, and most outside areas near
buildings. Wireless use continues to grow significantly with most recent statistics
showing a 30% increase from Spring semester 2011 to Fall 2011 semester, with
current averages of 2,200 to 2,500 simultaneous connections to the wireless network
during daytime hours. Students who live off campus can acquire high-speed cable,
DSL, or wireless Internet access from Comcast, CenturyLink, and several other
providers that serve the area. Off-campus residents and those needing to access
restricted services (such as licensed library databases, software downloads, and
shared file access) can do so through the Mines Virtual Private Network (VPN),
which is available to all registered students, faculty, and staff.
Programmatic Resources (CECS-wide): Beyond the resources described in the
laboratories in Part A, students in all the BSCE programs are supported by three
computer laboratories. Two of these are 36 seat teaching classrooms, with podiums
and projection equipment, intended for instruction whereby the teacher can
demonstrate software usage using the same equipment as the students. These two
rooms, BB 316A&B are scheduled by the registrar but with priority given to classes
in the BSxE programs. There is an additional 34-seat open computer lab in BBW270
that is also configured as a teaching classroom, but which is currently used in an
open-lab capacity. This room is restricted to be used only by students in the College
of Engineering and Computational Sciences. In all three Brown Hall computer rooms,
the same software image is burned on the machines and includes all the software used
in the various engineering classes, such as AutoCAD, Fluent, MathCAD, MatLab,
LabVIEW, Pspice, Matlab, Mathematica, SolidWorks, and others. All labs are open
Sunday Noon-11PM, M-T 8AM-11PM, W-F 8AM-10PM, and S Noon-10PM.
Students may use BB316A&B as open lab whenever there is no class (class times are
posted on the doors.).
Overall, CSM has been generous in the support of the computing needs of the campus
as a whole and of the BSCE program, with regular replacement and repair via the
Tech Fee program. Indeed, all Brown Hall computers in BB316A&B and BBW270
were brand new in 2011. These facilities adequately support the scholarly and
professional activities of the students and faculty in the program.
C. Guidance
In courses that use software, students are shown by the instructor (or teaching
assistant if there is a recitation) how to access and use the software. In laboratory
courses safety and proper equipment usage is integrated into the overall course
syllabus as appropriate.
For the shop and prototyping lab, as noted above students are not permitted to be in
the Machine Shop unless a second person is also present. The machinery may not
be operated unless a supervisor or trained Machine Shop Assistant is present.
Students are allowed to operate the machinery only after they have passed a safety
128
review on the equipment they wish to use. Student’s safety reviews are kept on file
by the Machine Shop Supervisor. Further, everyone using the machine shop is asked
to sign in and time out for each visit and mark whether a safety check has been
completed. In the shop safety rules are posted and expected to be followed. Eye
protection must be worn when in the Machine Shop.
D. Maintenance and Upgrading of Facilities
Maintenance and upgrading of facilities is funded by the above-mentioned Tech Fee
program and foundation gifts. In addition to these, during the budget cycle it is
possible to request funds for capital improvement, which can sometimes be used for
infrastructure improvements to support lab enhancements. Completion of the Brown
Hall addition and the additional classrooms that have resulted from the completion of
Marquez Hall in August 2012 have done much to relief CECS space pressures.
Beyond major facilities improvement, the maintenance, repair, and replacement of
existing equipment used in laboratories and shops is carried managed through
instructor observation and the maintained calibration and replacement schedule for
each lab indicated above in Section A.
E. Library Services
The Arthur Lakes Library is housed in a 77,000 square foot building located centrally
on the Mines campus. This specialized technical library supports the education and
research needs of the Mines community, and serves as a regional center for
information in engineering and the applied sciences. In addition to book and journal
collections, the Library maintains special collections in science and technology, is a
selective U.S. government publications depository and a partial Colorado State
publications depository.
The Library’s collections are a combination of print and electronic formats. Print
books comprise the majority of the collection, while most of our technical reference
works and indexes are electronic. We currently hold more journals in electronic
format than in print. Access to e-resources for the Mines community is available both
on and off campus. The growth of our e-resources and the balance we maintain
between print and electronic formats result in greater access to information. However,
long-term access to electronic resources is still in question because of subscription
costs and content licensing practices.
Subject collections are categorized at the study level8 or higher (up to research level)
for Mines undergraduate programs with the exception of biological engineering. The
Library expects to complete installation of Primo, its new search interface, in 2011 to
improve discovery of our resources. The Library participates in resource-sharing
programs with other libraries regionally and nationwide to expand access to
8: A collection which supports undergraduate or graduate course work or sustained independent study
– adequate to maintain knowledge of a subject for limited or generalized purposes.
129
information. User-initiated interlibrary loan services improve convenience and
response time in many cases.
The 2012-2013 library staff consists of 10 FTE library faculty 9 FTE paraprofessional
staff and 8 FTE student assistants. Current staff levels should be increased to manage
the technological infrastructure of information access, provide instruction, and
develop services for a changing Mines community. Since 2006 the Library building
has undergone remodeling and re-purposing to address space deficiencies. Some print
materials have been discarded for lack of storage. The present building severely
constrains library staff responses to changing university needs. The building cannot
support current demands for student use space, instruction, technology and growth of
print collections.
The Arthur Lakes Library’s 2010-2011 annual report and planning documents are
available for site review.
F. Overall Comments on Facilities
Determining safety in facilities and laboratories is the responsibility of all CSM
employees. Instructors and teaching assistants are the first line of defense in noticing
things that need fixed or are otherwise unsafe. They also have the primary
responsibility to ensure students have adequate training before using labs and other
facilities. The School operates an Environmental Health and Safety unit to instill
institutional safety practices in laboratories and to deal with hazardous materials and
waste products. All hazardous wastes from the laboratories are handled according to
code through our Environmental Health and Safety unit.
130
8) CRITERION 8. INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
A. Leadership
Responsibility for the BSCE program resides with the Department Head of the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, who delegates operational
decisions to the Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs. Because of the close ties of all
the BSxE programs with the legacy BSE program, including the common approach
used in senior design and the use of the MEL labs in the curriculum, the Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department Head and Vice Chair for Undergraduate
Affairs work closely with the other BSxE department heads and curriculum leaders,
and with the Dean of the College of Engineering and Computational Sciences, who
has decision-making authority for the BSE, to ensure the effective execution of the
BSCE. The Civil and Environmental Engineering Department maintains an
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to implement strategic decisions and continual
improvement based on the assessment process. This committee, led by the Vice
Chair, provides program oversight and facilitates assessment. We believe the
leadership structure we have effectively and efficiently serves the BSCE program.
B. Program Budget and Financial Support
Budget Overview and Process: Revenue at the institution is diversified with tuition,
state, auxiliary and restricted funds contributing to campus functions. Restricted funds
include revenue from research (federal, state, local, and private) as well as private
giving (scholarships, endowed chairs, etc.) Mines' open communication concerning
the state of our budget is maintained through an open-website. The Board of Trustees’
approved budget is available for each fiscal year.
When submitting budget requests, campus constituents are required to demonstrate
how the requests correlate with the institution’s strategic goals (i.e. funding for a new
initiative) or demonstrate a critical need. In other words, all new funding requests are
reviewed for consistency with the Strategic Plan. A university-wide Budget
Committee is responsible for gathering and analyzing appropriate data regarding the
School’s budget, preparing the School’s annual budget, revising it as necessary, and
advising the administration on budgetary matters and long-range fiscal planning. The
committee is chaired by the Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration.
The appointed membership of the Budget Committee consists of two academic
department heads, three full-time academic faculty members, and one full-time
administrative faculty member. One of the academic faculty members must be a
Faculty Senator and serves as a representative of the Faculty Senate. Additionally, the
Provost, the Vice President for Student Life and Dean of Students, the Vice President
for Research and Technology Transfer, and the Senior Vice President for Strategic
Enterprises, serve as voting, ex officio committee members. The Executive Director
of the Mines Foundation and the three Deans serve as non-voting, ex officio
committee members.
131
Financial management by Mines follows strict adherence to Mines fiscal policies.
Financial status reports are part of each Board of Trustees meeting agenda, ensuring
consistency with our mission and institutional priorities. The Board includes a
Finance and Audit Committee that provides detailed review and oversight of the
institution’s financial position. Five-year financial projections are provided to the
committee on an annual basis to analyze the long-term impact of financial decisions
and ensure future funding for the core mission and strategic goals.
Total operating budget for the Colorado School of Mines in in FY13 is $234.63M. Of
this, $146.9M is within the current unrestricted general fund is used, in part, to
support the academic operations of the institution. In addition, restricted gifts cover
philanthropic and investment returns that may also be used to supplement support
provided by the general unrestricted fund.
Academic departments and divisions are supported financially through annual
disbursements from the unrestricted general fund that are initially apportioned to
Academic Affairs, and by various instructional and support accounts held by the
CSM Foundation. Research contracts are, as with most research active universities,
embedded within academic departments. Funds from these contracts are restricted
and used to support expenditures that are of direct relevance to the research effort
such as graduate student support, equipment, travel, and faculty salary as appropriate.
Although the majority of funds (about 49%) in the general unrestricted budget go to
Academic Affairs, other disbursements are made to Financial Aid, Research, Student
Life, Finance and Administration, and Institutional Support.
At the present time, the disbursements from the general unrestricted fund are
configured against a stable set of base budget line items that propagate from year-to-
year, with incremental adjustments that arise from annual increases in the general
unrestricted fund revenues and from managed fluctuations in the base amounts. A
university Campus Budget Committee convenes to provide transparency in the budget
process for the overall campus and this body provides input on the development of
the budget over the course of the year up until its submittal to the President. Within
Academic Affairs, leadership in each College is asked to develop incremental budget
requests and forward them to the Provost. In the College of Engineering and
Computational Sciences budget requests are developed iteratively and collaboratively
through discussion between the Dean and the CECS department heads. Budget
requests are weighed by the Provost with a subset of the requests recommended for
approval by the committee. Typically after the budget is approved, the Academic
Department heads will convene to further discuss budget decisions and recalibrate the
decisions if necessary.
The allocations from the general unrestricted budget to Academic Affairs cover
compensation for all non-endowed academic faculty and those administrative faculty
falling within the purview of Academic Affairs, plus classified staff and student help
within academic units, academic adjuncts, and operating and capital expenditures for
132
overall academic support. Subsequent distributions to individual academic units for
faculty, operating, capital, adjunct, student help and classified staff expenses are then
appropriated by the Provost based on unit requests submitted during the annual
budget cycle. In addition, academic units may receive sponsored research awards,
restricted funds from the CSM Foundation along with other gifts and grants, and
revenue generated by auxiliaries. The Department Heads and Division Directors
manage the totality of these funding streams in accordance with contracts and
restrictions where appropriate, and in accordance with expenditures that align with
the staffing, support and programmatic goals of their units.
Table 8-1 shows the history of support for the units in CECS this program from the
institution’s E&G budget for the past five years. Note that the strong increase in
budget between FY13 and FY14 reflects the results of a considerable commitment at
Mines to properly staff the units in CECS with suitable numbers of faculty
Table 8-1: E&G Budget for Unit Operating Program, College of Engineering
and Computational Sciences
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Operations $411,665 $287,377 $325,863 $424,874 $402,709
Faculty1 $7,380,060 $7,699,884 $7,837,331 $8,135,549 $9,965,991
Adjunct Faculty $1,248,647 $1,176,285 $1,321,546 $1,242,541 1,354,045
Graduate
Teaching
Assistants
$736,566 $823,832 $899,905 $1,037,311 $1,359,942
Student Hourly
Support $105,276 $221,641 $122,388 $112,237 $115,500
Administrative
Support $469,071 $486,006 $575,696 $558,843 $998,558
Foundation
Support of
Teaching2
$250,494 $133,081 $32,422 $29,008 $260,024
Foundation
Support of
Operations2
$309,354 $266,727 $225,670 $193,266 $228,025
Total $10,911,133 $11,094,833 $11,340,822 $11,733,629 $14,684,794 1Budget supporting tenure and tenure track faculty, and instructional faculty
2Foundation support shown as actual expenditures. Teaching Support includes Foundation
support for faculty (TTT and Instructional) and teaching assistants. 4Prior to FY2011-12, budgets shown include those of the Division of Engineering and the
Departments of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, and Environmental Science and
Engineering. In FY2011-12 these units were combined in the College of Engineering and
Computational Sciences.
Table 8-2 shows the individual budgets for each unit in the College of Engineering
and Computational Sciences for FY13. Because this is the first year the college has
operated though a full budget cycle, there is still some tuning of the relative budgets
between units and trending to show how budgets have grown to support specific
programs is not possible.
133
Table 8-2: E&G Budget for Departments in the College of Engineering and
Computational Sciences
Organization Description Type Budget
EPICS Adjunct Faculty 418,946
Administrative Support 68,437
Faculty 335,912
Graduate Teaching Assistants 96,000
Operations 55,000
Student Hourly Support 7,210
981,505
College of Engr & Comp Sci - Admin Adjunct Faculty 300,427
Administrative Support 677,501
Faculty 120,174
Graduate Teaching Assistants 179,660
Operations 65,046
Student Hourly Support 10,490
1,353,298
Applied Mathematics and Statistics Adjunct Faculty 293,732
Administrative Support 69,916
Faculty 2,079,751
Graduate Teaching Assistants 224,000
Operations 60,000
Student Hourly Support 33,645
2,761,044
Civil and Environmental Engineering Adjunct Faculty 140,234
Administrative Support 64,122
Faculty 2,976,119
Graduate Teaching Assistants 284,282
Operations 74,408
Student Hourly Support 15,380
3,554,545
Electrical Eng and Computer Science Adjunct Faculty 157,250
Administrative Support 59,291
Faculty 2,468,707
Graduate Teaching Assistants 256,000
Operations 70,000
Student Hourly Support 33,645
3,044,893
Mechanical Engineering Adjunct Faculty 43,456
Administrative Support 59,291
Faculty 1,985,328
Graduate Teaching Assistants 320,000
Operations 78,255
Student Hourly Support 15,130
2,501,460
134
Institutional Teaching support: Each academic unit receives a budget allocation to
support graduate teaching assistants, funds for direct student labor support, and funds
for work-study support of students. Funding for graduate students is delineated in
Table 8-1 above with the allocation level reviewed annually by the Graduate Dean.
Note that over the six-year period since Mines’ comprehensive accreditation visits
between 2006 and 2013, the graduate teaching assistant budget for the institution has
grown by 84%.
Continuous improvement of the faculty is encouraged at the institutional level by two
efforts: institutionally mandated student assessment of teaching for all courses
delivered at CSM and by providing a resource to faculty with the Center for
Engineering Education. Student evaluation of teaching is a required activity and is
used in every faculty member’s performance evaluation; note that this evaluation
form was changed in Fall 2006 on the basis of a recommendation from a committee
of the faculty senate.
The goal of the Center of Engineering Education is to provide teaching support to all
faculty members at CSM by conducting world-class education research and to
transfer research results into best practices in our classrooms, thereby continually
improving learning and teaching at CSM. Specific services available to faculty
include classroom observations by trained observers; mini-grants for pedagogy,
curriculum and assessment development; workshops for new faculty; a course entitled
“Fundamentals of College Teaching”; and help acquiring extramural funding of
education research.
In addition to the resources listed above, significant infrastructure support is provided
by: 1) a system based on a “technological” fee that is assessed to all students each
semester, and 2) capital projects that are used to make sure that our overall
infrastructure (both quality and quantity) are sufficient to meet the demands of all the
programs at CSM. The technology fee was implemented in Fall 1996 and is used to
provide both program specific and institution wide infrastructure with a focus on
computing and laboratory investments. This fee is currently $60 per semester for a
full time student and, with institutional matching, provides a significant amount of
funding for use each semester (for the spring of 2012, $753,814 was awarded).
Funding is provided in response to proposal requests, with each academic program
eligible to compete for funding.
Table 8-3 and Table 8-4, below, show the total technology fee amount awarded to
each program or area from Fall 2006 through Spring 2013, with Table 8-3 showing
the strong support received by the former Engineering Division prior to
reorganization and Table 8-4 showing the support to the new CECS departments
since they were formed. Technology fee funds are used to purchase computer
equipment and other technology resources that can be directly used by students in
their educational programs. Technology fees have funded resources such as central
and department computer lab equipment, microscopes, drilling simulators, application
software, data acquisition equipment, high performance computing nodes, servers,
135
wireless network expansion, classroom A/V, tablet pilot projects, 3D and large format
printers, components to build robots, laptops for checkout, bioreactor control units,
spectroscopy instrumentation, and other types of laboratory equipment and resources.
Technology fees cannot be used to hire staff (except occasionally for student help) or
administrative computing systems. The technology fee process is managed through a
committee consisting of 3 undergraduate students, 2 graduate students, 4 faculty
members, one department head, and the campus CIO. Detailed information about
technology fee guidelines and processes is available at http://techfee.mines.edu.
Table 8-3: Technology Fee Funds Awarded (Fall, 2006 Through Spring, 2012)
Technology Fee Funds Awarded (Fall 2006 through Spring 2012 )
Department/Organization
Total Award
Volume
# Proposals
Supported
Biological Engineering and Life Sciences 280,101 10
CCIT/IT Infrastructure 2,423,307 59
Chemical and Biological Engineering 575,666 18
Chemistry 541,846 11
Economics and Business 50,688 13
Engineering 996,899 41
Environmental Science and Engineering 121,910 6
EPICS 51,236 6
Geology and Geological Engineering 458,358 33
Geophysics 152,365 7
Liberal Arts and International Studies 76,126 7
Library 39,893 4
Mathematical and Computer Sciences 299,980 10
Metallurgical and Materials Engineering 127,249 11
Mining Engineering 110,452 11
Other 157,502 21
Petroleum Engineering 202,069 11
Physics 623,663 38
Student Organizations 63,728 18
Total Awards 7,353,038 335
Table 8-4: Technology Fee Funds Awarded (Fall, 2012 Through Fall, 2013)
Technology Fee Funds Awarded (Fall 2012 through Fall 2013)
Department /Organization
Total Award
Volume
#
Proposals
Supported
Applied Mathematics and Statistics (AMS) 6,814 1
CCIT/IT Infrastructure 517,387 17
Chemical and Biological Engineering (CBE0 402,275 11
Chemistry (CH) 89,760 1
136
Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) 93,876 2
Economics and Business (EB) 41,957 3
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) 153,762 11
EPICS (EP) 0 0
Geology and Geological Engineering (GE) 102,689 8
Geophysics (GP) 0 0
Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS) 23,839 6
Library (LB) 35,693 2
Mechanical Engineering (ME) 99,916 7
Metallurgical and Materials Engineering (MME) 16,606 6
Mining Engineering (MN) 91,300 3
other 21,127 3
Petroleum Engineering (PE) 41,703 1
Physics (PH) 217,188 11
Student organizations 10,361 3
Total Awards 1,966,253 96
Since reorganization, the budget for the BSCE program is associated with the budget
of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. The required course
offering are well-understood and, based on this, in April, Department Heads prepare
budgets requesting teaching assistant, adjunct, grader, and operating expense budgets
as well as new faculty lines. These budget requests are consolidated, reviewed, and
possibly revised by the Dean, who then forwards the request to the Provost.
Sometime mid-summer the Provost returns a budget to the Dean who in turn returns a
budget to each department. Some budget also remains with the dean, as the Senior
Design and MEL labs remain under College-wide management.
Beyond budgetary support at the department and college level, we note that Mines
has engaged in significant infrastructure expansion and improvement in the past
decade. These efforts directly affect the BSCE program in CECS, though the addition
of classroom, laboratory, and other space as well as adding to the overall atmosphere
and campus culture in a positive way. Table 8-5 details the various campus capital
improvement projects since 2006.
Table 8-5: Capital Improvements (2006-2013)
Project Cost Description Benefits to Academic
Programs Fuel Cell Center $516,500 New laboratory facilities for
Colorado Fuel Cell Center New dedicated research
laboratories Ball Field Lighting $609,000 NCAA-compliant lighting for
Baseball field Allows scheduling of
night games to minimize
sports/class conflicts Old Brown Hall
Renovations $300,000 Upgrade technology, laboratory
equipment, and laboratory
configuration
New teaching labs for
Civil Engineering
137
CDOT Fiber Optics
Line $1,000,000 New higher capacity fiber optic
service for campus Improved internet
bandwidth Green Center
Improvements $3,397,375 New classrooms, labs and
elevator configuration ADA access and new
classrooms and labs Athletic Fields $945,102 Replace sod field with synthetic
turf to bring field to NCAA
standards
Support student
athletics, enhanced
student recruiting Marquez Hall $37,000,000 New 87,400 square foot
academic building with
classrooms, labs and offices
New academic teaching
facility
Berthoud Hall
Classroom Improvement $800,000 Conversion of former museum
space into two classrooms New classroom facilities
Athletic Fields at Creek
Side Improvements $3,500,000 New soccer pitch, football
practice field and NCAA
compliant track
Support student
athletics, enhanced
student recruiting GRL Build Out $2,955,509 8,000 square feet of new
research facilities on 3rd
floor of
GRL
New chemistry and
biology research
laboratories New Residence Hall
(Maple Hall) $27,478,877 New 305 bed residence hall Facilities allowing all
freshman to be housed
on campus Student Health and
Wellness Center $3,400,000 New 10,171 square foot student
health and dental clinic New health and dental
facilities to promote
student wellness Fire Safety
Improvements –
Alderson Hall
$1,015,433 Improve life-saving
features including fire alarm,
sprinkler and flammable gas
handling improvements
Improved safety in
teaching environment
Brown Hall Addition $33,109,138 New 78,200 square foot
addition and renovation of
22,130 square feet in existing
Brown Hall
New academic teaching
facility
High-Performance
Computing Facility $3,000,000 New high-performance
computing facility Increased computational
capacity for research
and teaching Wind Tunnel Weather
Simulator $402,495 Weather simulator capability
for research Improved research
infrastructure Maple Street Plaza $833,00 New pedestrian plaza Reduced student/auto
conflict, safer campus
environment Food Service
Improvements $400,000 Renovations to campus
cafeteria and dining facilities Improved on-campus
dining options Alderson Roof
Improvements $425,294 Replace roof on Alderson Hall Reduced water damage
to classrooms and labs Weaver Tower
Renovations $10,699,933 Renovation of 220 bed facility Improved residence hall
facilities Aspen Hall $875,000 Renovation of Greek House
into Freshman Housing Improved residence hall
facilities Coolbaugh Roof
Replacement $442,182 Replace Roof Reduced water damage
to classrooms and labs Replace Steam Boiler $800,000 Replace failed boiler servicing
campus Improved campus
infrastructure Hill Hall Processing
Lab/ Clean Room
$910,000 Add Clean Room and Relocate
Processing Lab in Hill Hall Improved research
infrastructure
138
Expansion Replace Failed
Corroded Piping $952,956 Replace piping throughout
campus Improved campus
infrastructure Campus Primary
Electrical Repairs $1,062,600 Replace main electric feeder
lines and vaults Improved campus
infrastructure
C. Staffing
Staff supporting the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering includes:
Two College-wide technicians (one for the machine shop and one for computing-
related hardware and lab support)
One College-wide Undergraduate Program Coordinate who supports the BSCE
programs full-time to provide student services
One Administrative Assistant (A. Knighton) at 1.0 FTE
One Administrative Assistant (R. Aungst) at 0.25 FTE (shared)
One Program Manager (T. VanHaverbeke)
One Research Associate (K. Lowe) at 0.5 FTE
Not listed above is the staffing for the EPICS program, which includes a Director and
Program Assistant. The departmental office also uses a variety of student help via the
work-study program. We also use faculty for some part-time administrative roles.
Currently, this includes the Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs, who receives a
teaching relief of one course per year for her duties.
Training of staff for most departmental duties is primarily accomplished through an
apprentice-and-mentorship style system within the university. For example, A.
Knighton was previously an administrative assistant in the Chemistry department who
had been trained by a Program Assistant. She received a promotion to become the
CEE administrative assistant, and training is continued in CEE by our program
assistant (T. VanHaverbeke) who has more than 25 years of experience at CSM. The
department head and college administrative staff also provide training for
departmental staff for specific issues. Workshops and training sessions (generally
lasting 1-4 hours) for staff that are delivered by Academic Affairs, Fiscal Services
and Human Resources are common (2 to 6 per month).
D. Faculty Hiring and Retention
The process for hiring mirrors that for budget requests described above. Normally
requests are made based on needs in course delivery balanced by other mission-driven
needs, such as research focus in critical areas. The Provost must balance the needs
across all programs at the institution as part of the annual budget process. Once a
position has been approved for a given program there is a Faculty Handbook-dictated
process for constituting a search committee, recruiting, interviewing, and hiring.
139
When a new faculty member has been hired, there are number of things that are done
to retain them. First, faculty attend a new-faculty orientation program where they are
introduced to the vagaries of the institution. Second, all new faculty must prepare a
professional development plan in cooperation with their department head (DH) during
their first year. Third, each year the DH writes an annual evaluation of the faculty
member based on a Faculty Data Report prepared by the faculty member. This annual
evaluation is discussed in person with the DH. Often this is a time when development
steps are suggested, such as attending teacher training or suggestions about
networking, etc. Fourth, in the third year a preliminary promotion and tenure (P&T)
review is help. At this time the faculty member prepares a mock P&T packet and this
is reviewed by the departmental P&T committee. This process produces three levels
of feedback (department P&T committee, DH, and Provost).
CEE provides teaching relief (one course per academic year) to all tenure-track
faculty until they have successfully completed a preliminary tenure review (which
occurs in the 6th
semester), and will also provide teaching relief for a “final push” to
promotion and/or tenure if needed.
Two recent faculty-retention steps have been taken to add to the items above. First,
beginning in 2011, the institution began to take a more national-level perspective in
approaching salary increases, seeking to bring overall salaries to be closer to the
averages of our peers as determined by the Oklahoma State University salary survey
date. Associated with this step, a concerted effort was made to tie salary to
performance as measured in the annual evaluation. Second, in the College of
Engineering and Computational Sciences, we have adopted a new mentoring system
that assigned several senior faculty to new faculty. The role of the senior faculty is to
meet annually with the new faculty member in a review process as well as to engage
in coffee-shop conversations regularly, attend their classes, and generally do things to
help them succeed, rather than judge. We believe these steps will lead to a great
environment that people want to be a part of.
E. Support of Faculty Professional Development
As noted above in Criterion 6, Section D, at CSM “Professional Development” is
interpreted broadly to include scholarship, research, proposal efforts, as well as
attendance and participation in local, national, and international conferences,
seminars, and workshops, and participation in professional societies. In addition to
research-related professional activities, faculty have numerous opportunities for other
types of professional development. The dominant institutional contribution to the
professional development of faculty resides in the new faculty start-up process and
the sabbatical process. Continuing faculty are eligible for one- or two-semester
periods of sabbatical leave once every seven years (one year at ½ pay or one semester
at full pay). T/TT faculty also receive a considerable amount of indirect cost return
on research grants, most of which is used for professional development opportunities
140
of their choice. For all faculty, regardless of their research productivity, it is common
for the department to pay to send a faculty member to teacher training workshops,
especially at such times when the annual evaluation and student evaluations indicate a
need to improvement and that the Provost’s office recently committed to provide
regular travel support for teaching faculty.
In general, faculty members in CEE have not expressed displeasure at a lack of
opportunities for professional development, and many such activities occur (based on
number of department-head travel authorizations for such activities).
Funding and planning for the expenses related to faculty development and sabbaticals
is handled at the Provost’s level, though as we develop more formal processes
associated with our new organizational structure, this planning will move into the
Dean’s office.
141
PROGRAM CRITERIA
In addition to our specific PEO and SO mapping, we overview our curriculum
requirements relative to the general ABET degree program criteria.
Table 8-6: General Curriculum mapping for BSCE relative to ABET program
Requirements for “Environmental and Similarly Named Engineering
Programs”.
Stated ABET Requirement How our Curriculum Meets Requirement
Mathematics through Diff Eq Calc 1, 2, 3, and Diff Eq
Probability and Statistics Prob/Stats
Calculus base physics Physics 1 and 2
Chemistry Chem 1 and Chem 2
One additional area of basic science
consistent with program objectives
Earth Science: SYGN 101 Earth Environ Sys.
Apply knowledge of 4 technical areas
appropriate to Civil Engineering:
1. Environmental Engineering
2. Geotechnical Engineering
3. Engineering Mechanics
4. Structural Engineering
1.Earth and Env Systems (SYGN 101), Fundamentals
of Environmental Engineering I or II
2. Soil Mechanics with Lab, & Foundations
3. Mechanics of Materials, Dynamics, Soil Mechanics
with Lab, Computer Aided Eng.
4. Structural Theory, Steel Design or Concrete Design,
Students also choose three technical elective
courses, and four free elective courses that allow
them to focus on one or more of the four technical
areas.
Conducting civil engineering experiments
and analyze and interpret the resulting
data
Soil Mechanics Lab1, MEL I and II, Field Session,
Senior Design
Design a system, component, or process
in more than one civil engineering context
EPICs 2, Field Session, Senior Design, Concrete or Steel
Design
Explain basic concepts of management,
business, public policy, and leadership
Principles of Economics, Senior Design, 2 LAIS/EBGN
Electives
Explain the importance of
professional licensure
Steel Design or Concrete Design, Senior Design
142
Appendix A - Course Syllabi
143
Table A-1: List of Included Syllabi
Required Civil Engineering Courses
EGGN 234 Civil Field Session CEE Required
EGGN 320 Mechanics of Materials CEE Required
EGGN 342 Structural Theory CEE Required
EGGN 361 Soil Mechanics CEE Required
EGGN 363 Soil Mechanics Laboratory CEE Required
EGGN 464 Foundations CEE Required
Selected Electives - BSCE students must take one of EGGN 444 or 445 and one of ESGN 353
or 354. These courses also count as List A Electives
EGGN 444 Design of Steel Structures CEE SE
EGGN 445 Design Reinforced Concrete CEE SE
ESGN 353 Fund. Of Env. Eng. I CEE SE
ESGN 354 Fund. Of Env. Eng. II CEE SE
List A Electives - BSCE students must take 3 electives. Students must take at least two electives
from List A
EGGN 307 Intro. Feedback Control EECS Elective
EGGN 431 Soil Dynamics CEE Elective
EGGN 433 Surveying II CEE Elective
EGGN 441 Advanced Structural Analysis CEE Elective
EGGN 442 Finite Element Methods for Engineers CEE Elective
EGGN 447 Timber and Masonry Design CEE Elective
EGGN 460 Numerical Methods for Engineers CEE Elective
EGGN 473 Fluid Mechanics II ME Elective
EGGN 478 Engineering Vibration CEE Elective
ESGN 453 Wastewater Engr. CEE Elective
ESGN 454 Water Supply Engr. CEE Elective
ESGN 457 Site Remediation Engr. CEE Elective
MNGN 321 Intro Rock Mechanics CEE Elective
List B Electives
EGGN 490 Sustainable Eng Design CEE Elective
EGGN 498 Structural Preservation of Existing and Historic
Buildings CEE Elective
GEGN 466/467 Groundwater Engineering GE Elective
GEGN 468 Engineering Geology and Geotechnics GE Elective
GEGN 473 Geological Engineering Site Investigation GE Elective
MNGN 404 Tunneling Mining Elective
MNGN 406 Design and Support of Underground
Excavations Mining Elective
144
Common and Distributed Core Courses
CHGN 121 Princ. Of Chem. I CHEM Required
CHGN 122 Princ. Of Chem. II CHEM Required
CSCI 101 Intro to Comp. Sci. EECS SE
CSCI 260 Fortran Programming EECS SE
CSCI 261 Programming Concepts EECS SE
CSM 101 First Year Advising Student Life Required
DCGN 209 Intro. To Chem. Thermo CHEM SE
DCGN 210 Intro to Engr. Thermo CHEM SE
DCGN 241 Statics Mining Required
EBGN 201 Prin. Of Economics Economics &
Business Required
EGGN 205 Programming EECS SE
EGGN 250 MEL I CECS Required
EGGN 281 Intro. To Elec Circuits EECS Required
EGGN 315 Dynamics ME Required
EGGN 320 Mech of Materials CEE Required
EGGN 350 MEL II CECS Required
EGGN 351 Fluid Mechanics I ME Required
EGGN 371 Thermo I ME SE
EGGN 413 Computer Aided Design ME Required
EGGN 491 Senior Design I CECS Required
EGGN 492 Senior Design II CECS Required
EPIC 151 Design EPICS I EPICS Required
EPIC 251 Design EPICS II EPICS Required
LAIS 100 Nature & Hum Values LAIS Required
LAIS 300/400 Elective Level LAIS Required
MATH 111 Calc for Sci & Engr I AMS Required
MATH 112 Calc for Sci & Engr II AMS Required
MACS/ MATH
213 Calc for Sci & Engr III AMS Required
MATH 225 Differential Equations AMS Required
MATH 323 Prob & Statistics AMS Required
PAGN 101 Physical Education I Phys Ed &
Athletics Required
PAGN 102 Physical Education II Phys Ed &
Athletics Required
145
PAGN 200 Phys Ed Electives Phys Ed &
Athletics SE
PHGN 100 Mechanics Physics Required
PHGN 200 Intro to Electromagnet Physics Required
SYGN 101 Earth & Env Systems LAIS SE
SYGN 200 Human Systems LAIS Required
146
EGGN234 – Field Session (Civil Specialty)
Course Description: The theory and practice of modern surveying. Lectures and hands-
on field work teaches horizontal, vertical, and angular measurements and computations
using traditional and modern equipment. Subdivision of land and applications to civil
engineering practice, GPS and astronomic observations. Prerequisite: EPIC251. Three
weeks (6 day weeks) in summer field session; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Candace S. Sulzbach
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Surveying Field Manual – by Gabriel M. Neunzert, with assistance from Karl R. Nelson
and Candace S. Sulzbach
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Crew Field Book
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S P P S S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: Engineering topics
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Use of Engineer’s Scale
2. Accuracy of Measurements and significant figures
3. Distance Measurement Theory
4. Distance measurement by Pacing
5. Elevation measurement Theory
6. Use of hand level and Engineer’s level
7. Direction by Bearing and Azimuth
8. Angle Measurement Theory
9. Use of a Total Station to measure distances, elevations and angles
10. Traverse types
11. Determination of total station offset error
12. Adjustment of a traverse by Compass Rule
13. Spherical Trigonometry and Calculation of Terrestrial Distances
14. Use of GPS
15. Topography
16. Division of the US Public Land system
147
17. Section Corner location
18. Use of AutoCAD/Civil 3D
148
EGGN320 – Mechanics of Materials
Course Description: Fundamentals of stresses and strains, material properties. Axial,
torsion, bending, transverse and combined loadings. Stress at a point; stress
transformations and Mohr’s circle for stress. Beams and beam deflections, thin-walled
pressure vessels, columns and buckling, fatigue principles, impact loading. Prerequisite:
DCGN241 or MNGN317. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Candace S. Sulzbach
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Mechanics of Materials, R.C. Hibbeler, 8th
ed.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Mastering Engineering on-line homework system (Pearson Education)
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
The objective of this course is for students to gain a working knowledge and
understanding of the fundamentals of mechanics of materials, and to apply this
knowledge to the design or analysis of simple elastic mechanical members or structures
of an engineering nature. Students learn to analyze axial and torsional members, as well
as beams, and to determine the stresses, strains and deformations in these members.
They also learn how to design members having these 3 types of loads applied, how to
find maximum stresses at a point in a loaded structure using Mohr’s Circle, and how to
analyze members subjected to a combination of loads (i.e. axial, torsional, bending).
Additionally, students learn column analysis, use of stress concentration factors and how
to solve statically indeterminate members.
A secondary objective is to develop good work habits and communication skills
consistent with the engineering profession.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P S P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1. Equilibrium of a deformable body
2. Average normal stress and introduction to stress elements
3. Axial loading and stresses on an inclined plane
4. Average shear stress and allowable stress
5. Design of simple connections
6. Deformations and strain
7. Mechanical and Material properties/stress-strain diagrams
8. Ductile and Brittle materials/Hooke’s law and Poisson’s ratio
9. Axial deformations
10. Statically indeterminate axial members
11. Torsional loading (stress and deformation)
149
12. Torsional loading – stresses on an inclined plane
13. Statically indeterminate torsional members
14. Shear and bending moment diagrams – use of equations
15. Shear and bending moment diagrams – graphical method
16. Bending deformations and flexural stress
17. Shear stress in beams
18. Thin-walled pressure vessels
19. Combined loading – axial, torsional and bending
20. Mohr’s Circle for stress
21. Beam Design
22. Beam deflections by method of integration and method of superposition
23. Statically indeterminate beams by method of integration and method of
superposition
24. Column Buckling
25. Stress concentrations – axial and bending loads
150
EGGN 342 – Structural Theory
Course Description: EGGN 342. (I, II) Analysis of determinate and indeterminate
structures for both forces and deflections. Influence lines, work and energy methods,
moment distribution, matrix operations, computer methods. Prerequisite: EGGN320. 3
hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Joe Crocker
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Structural Analysis, 8th
ed., by R.C. Hibbeler
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Students will be able to apply knowledge of fundamental of structural behavior to
develop models for determinant and indeterminate structures subjected to concentrated
and distributed static loads.
Students will be able to select and apply appropriate analysis methods to determine
internal forces and develop axial, shear, and bending moment diagrams for structural
members.
Students will be able to analyze basic structures using force and displacement methods.
Students will be able to utilize matrix methods to complete the analysis of simple
structures.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Determine if structure is determinate or indeterminate.
2. Solve for forces in trusses.
3. Solve for forces in cables and arches.
4. Draw influence lines for statically determinate members.
5. Calculate forces on structural members using approximate methods.
6. Calculate beam deflections.
7. Calculate forces in structures using Conjugate-Beam method.
8. Calculate deflections and forces in structural members using virtual work.
9. Calculate design strength for beam-columns.
10. Use the flexibility method to solve for forces in indeterminate structures.
11. Calculate member forces using the Slope-Deflection method.
12. Solve for member forces using Moment Distribution method.
151
13. Use the stiffness method to analyze trusses and beams.
152
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: EGGN 361A - Soil Mechanics
2. Credits and contact hours: 3 credits, 3 hours per week
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Alexandra Wayllace
4. Required text: "Fundamentals Geotechnical Engineering", by Braja M. DAS,
Fourth Edition, 2013
a. Other supplemental materials: none
5. Specific course information
a. Description: An introductory course covering the engineering
properties of soil, soil phase relationships and classification. Principle of
effective stress. Seepage through soils and flow nets. Soil compressibility,
consolidation and settlement prediction. Shear strength of soils.
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: Prerequisite: EGGN320
c. Course designation: Required
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Instructional Outcomes:
Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the unique role that soils play in infrastructure
2. Classify soil deposits and understand soil origins
3. Demonstrate an understanding of fundamental soil properties and be able to quantify
soil's composition by weight-volume
4. Perform typical earthwork calculations related to compaction of a soil
5. Understand the concept of hydraulic head
6. Quantify one-dimensional flow calculations using Darcy's law
7. Quantify two-dimensional seepage using flownets
8. Understand the concepts of total and effective stresses, and be able to quantify them
under different scenarios
9. Understand the mechanisms of one-dimensional consolidation and quantify the
corresponding settlement.
10. Use introductory shear strength theory including basic experimental procedures
11. Be familiar with subsurface exploration procedures
12. Have a basic knowledge of geotechnical contemporary issues
13. Recognize the need for life long learning and be able to do so.
b. ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
153
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
1 Introduction to Soil Mechanics
2 Formation of soils
3 Phase relationships
4 Soil Classification
5 Soil compaction
6 Hydraulic conductivity
7 Seepage
8 Flow in unsaturated soils
9 Stresses in a soil mass
10 Consolidation
11 Shear strength
12 Subsurface exploration
154
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: EGGN 363 Soil Mechanics Laboratory
2. Credits and contact hours: 1 credit hour, 3 hours per week
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Alexandra Wayllace
4. Required text: “Soil Properties Testing, Measurement, and Evaluation”, Cheng
Liu and Jack B. Evett, Prentice Hall, 6th
edition, 2008.
a. Other supplemental materials: Material provided by the instructor on blackboard
5. Specific course information
a. Description: Intro duction to laboratory testing methods in soil mechanics.
Classification, permeability, compressibility, shear strength
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: EGGN-361 (co-requisite)
c. Course designation: Required
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Instructional Outcomes:
Upon successful completion of this course, students should be able to:
Demonstrate how to experimentally determine the various soil properties
introduced in this course.
Describe the fundamentals of each soil property, the factors that affect each soil
property, typical values of each property for different soil types, and the application of
each soil property in engineering practice.
Demonstrate an understanding of proper conduct of experiments that includes
quantifying error, assessment of repeatability, reporting data to appropriate levels of
accuracy, and understanding what factors influence results.
Effectively communicate experimental methods and conduct of experiments,
relevant data collected, analysis and interpretation of data and error, and significance and
application of soil properties.
b. ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
a. Measurement of soil density in the field
b. Measurement of moisture content
c. Soil classification (particle size analysis and Atterberg limits)
d. Measurement of specific gravity
e. Soil compaction
155
f. Measurement of hydraulic conductivity with fluid flow in 1 and 2
dimensions
g. Consolidation of soils
h. Shear strength of soils (triaxial and direct shear tests)
156
EGGN 464 FOUNDATIONS
Course Description: Techniques of subsoil investigation, types of foundations and
foundation problems, selection of basis for design of foundation types. Open-ended
problem solving and decision making. 3 credit hours, 3 hours lecture. Prerequisites:
EGGN 361.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Marte Gutierrez
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Coduto, D.P. (1994). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices, Prentice Hall, New
Jersey
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Class notes and other reading materials to be distributed in class and posted on the
Blackboard course web page at: http://blackboard.mines.edu/
Specific Course Goals:
In this course, students are expected to learn how to analyze and design earth retaining
structures, shallow foundations and basic pile foundations given soil profiles and soil
parameters.
Instructional Outcomes:
On completion of this course, students should be able to:
1) Discuss the engineering design process and the role of engineering judgment in
Geotechnical Engineering.
2) Explain the Effective Stress Principle.
3) Calculate in situ stresses in soils given the soil profile.
4) Draw Mohr’s circle given the soil’s state of stress, and perform stress
transformation calculation.
5) Perform calculations to determine the shear strength of soils and failure in soils.
6) Be familiar with excavation support systems.
7) Recognize earth pressures at rest, and active and passive earth pressures.
8) Discuss the importance of geotechnical case histories and the importance of proper
communication.
9) Calculate lateral earth pressures using Rankine earth pressure theory, Coulomb
earth pressure theory, design charts and equivalent fluid pressures.
10) Calculate earth pressures due to surface loads.
11) Analyze and design gravity walls.
12) Analyze and design anchored bulkheads.
13) Be familiar with foundation systems.
14) Calculate soils bearing capacity using bearing capacity theories and account for
effects of footing shape, and inclined and eccentric loads.
15) Analyze and design shallow foundations.
16) Estimate foundation immediate and consolidation settlements.
17) Analyze and design piled foundations.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
S P S S S S
157
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1 Course organization; Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering
2 Effective stress principle; In situ stresses in soils
3 Mohr’s circle; Shear strength of soils
4 Excavation support systems; Case history
5 Earth pressures at rest; Active and passive earth pressures
6 Rankine earth pressure theory
7 Coulomb earth pressure theory
8 Earth pressures for design; equivalent fluid pressures
9 Earth pressures due to surface loads
10 Analysis and design of gravity walls
11 Analysis and design of anchored bulkheads
12 Midterm Exam
13 Shallow vs. deep foundations; Types of shallow foundations
14 Bearing capacity theories
15 Effects of footing shape, and inclined and eccentric loads
16 Analysis and design of shallow foundations
17 Tolerance of structures for settlement; Immediate settlements of shallow
foundations
18 Consolidation of clays
19 Stresses due to surface loads
20 Consolidation settlement
21 Analysis and design of piled foundations
158
EGGN 444 – Design of Steel Structures
Course Description: EGGN 444. Design of Steel Structures (I,II) To learn application
and use the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Steel Construction Manual.
Course develops an understanding of the underlying theory for the design specifications.
Students learn basic steel structural member design principles to select the shape and size
of a structural member. The design and analysis of tension members, compression
members, flexural members, and members under combined loading is included, in
addition to basic bolted and welded connection design. Prerequisite: EGGN 342. 3 hrs
lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required (either EGGN 444 or EGGN 445 must be taken)
Instructor or Coordinator: Joe Crocker
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
AISC Steel Construction Manual, 14th
Edition, American Institute of
Steel Construction, 2011
Structural Steel Design, 5th
Edition, by J. McCormac, 2011
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Students will be able to apply knowledge of the fundamental behavior of structural steel
to calculate the capacity of structural steel members subjected to axial and transverse
loads, and simple bolted and welded connections.
Students will be able to read and interpret applicable building code requirements, apply
them, and establish design parameters for structural steel beams, columns, beam-
columns, and welded and bolted connections.
Students will be able to recognize the role and responsibilities of the Professional
Engineer.
Students will be able to review the composition, thermal and work history, and conditions
of use of a steel sample and predict the basic engineering properties of steel.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P P P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Determine properties of steel based on composition and history.
2. Apply load and resistance factor design method to steel members.
3. Read and apply code provisions to design situations
4. Determine applicable limit states for loaded members.
5. Calculate required strengths for steel members based on code requirements.
6. Calculate design strength for tension members.
7. Calculate design strength for compression members.
8. Calculate design strength for beams.
159
9. Calculate design strength for beam-columns.
10. Calculate the design strength for simple bolted connections.
11. Calculate the design strength for simple welded connections.
12. Select members of appropriate size, strength, and detail by comparing required
strength to design strength.
13. Recognize the role and responsibility of a Professional Engineer.
14. Recognize the role serviceability plays in design and make calculations to
predict performance.
160
EGGN 445 – Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures
Course Description: EGGN 445. Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (I,II) This
course provides an introduction to the materials and principles involved in the design of
reinforced concrete. It will allow students to develop an understanding of the
fundamental behavior of reinforced concrete under compressive, tensile, bending, and
shear loadings, and gain a working knowledge of strength design theory and its
application to the design of reinforced concrete beams, columns, slabs, and footings.
Prerequisite: EGGN 342. 3 hours lecture: 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required (either EGGN 445 or EGGN 444 must be taken)
Instructor or Coordinator: Joe Crocker
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Design of Reinforced Concrete, 8th
ed., by Jack McCormac and Russell Brown, 2009
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Students will be able to apply knowledge of the fundamental behavior of
reinforced concrete to calculate the capacity of reinforced concrete members subjected to
axial and transverse loads.
Students will be able to read and interpret applicable building code requirements,
apply them, and establish design parameters for reinforced concrete beams, columns, and
footings.
Students will be able to recognize the role and responsibilities of the Professional
Engineer.
Students will be able to recognize the impact of concrete mix design on concrete’s
engineering design parameters.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P P P S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Determine properties of concrete based on mix design.
2. Apply load and resistance factor design method to concrete members.
3. Read and apply code provisions to design situations.
4. Determine applicable limit states for loaded members.
5. Calculate required strengths for reinforced concrete members based on code
requirements.
6. Calculate design strength for beams and one-way slabs.
7. Calculate design strength for columns subjected to axial load.
161
8. Calculate design strength for short columns subjected to axial load and
moment.
9. Calculate design strength for wall footings.
10. Calculate the design strength for spread footings.
11. Calculate the development length for reinforcing steel.
12. Design members of appropriate size, strength, and detail by comparing required
strength to design strength.
13. Recognize the role serviceability plays in design and make calculations to
predict performance.
14. Recognize the role and responsibility of a Professional Engineer.
162
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: EGGN/ESGN 353 – Fund. Of Environmental Eng. I
2. Credits and contact hours: 3 credit hours, 3 hours lecture per week
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Jonathan Sharp and Junko Munakata-Marr
Required text: Masters, G.M. and W. Ela. 2008. Introduction to Environmental
Engineering and Science. 3rd
Edition. Prentice Hall Publishing Company
Other supplemental materials: none
4. Specific course information
Description: Topics covered include: history of water related environmental law
and regulation, major sources and concerns of water pollution, water quality parameters
and their measurement, material and energy balances, water chemistry concepts,
microbial concepts, aquatic toxicology and risk assessment.
Prerequisites or co-requisites: CHGN122, PHGN100 and MATH213, or consent
of instructor.
Course designation: Required in Env. Engineering Degree; Selected Elective for
Civil Degree program
5. Specific goals for the course
Instructional Outcomes:
Exposure to fundamentals of Environmental Science & Engineering as applied to
water resource management systems in the U.S.
Understanding of fundamental issues relating to environmental regulation and
toxicology, risk assessment, water quality parameters, major sources and concerns of
water pollution and their measurement.
Application of material balance and environmental chemistry to the discipline and
water/wastewater treatment and practice.
Familiarity with approaches toward water resource management through surface
and groundwater hydrology, water supply and treatment, and wastewater treatment and
disposal/reuse.
Integration of theory with practice through tours of local water and wastewater
treatment facilities.
ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
6. Brief list of topics to be covered
Environmental regulations
Risk assessment
163
Toxicology
Hydrology
Material balance in environmental systems
Environmental chemical equilibrium
Environmental chemical kinetics
Reactor models
Water quality
Carbonate chemistry
Alkalinity & hardness
Biological oxygen demand
Aeration and phase partitioning
Drinking water treatment
Wastewater treatment
164
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: ESGN / EGGN 354; Fundamentals of Environmental
Science and Engineering II
2. Credits and contact hours: 3 Credits; 3 hours of Lecture per week for 15 weeks
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: John R. Spear, Associate Professor, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines
a. Required text: Introduction to Environmental Engineering; Mackenzie Davis and
David Cornwell; 5th
Edition; 2012.
b. Other supplemental materials:
i. A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr
ii. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.
4. Specific course information
a. Description:
Topics covered include history of water related environmental law and regulation, major
sources and concerns of water pollution, water quality parameters and their measurement,
material and energy balances, water chemistry concepts, microbial concepts, aquatic
toxicology and risk assessment. Prerequisite: CHGN122, PHGN100 and MATH213, or
consent of instructor. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: Calculus I and II
c. Course designation: Required Course for the Major, selected elective for BSCE
5. Specific goals for the course
Instructional Outcomes:
This course will be an introduction to the natural and anthropogenic characteristics and
processes of the environment. We will focus more on the technical aspects of these, but
we will also discuss the political, social, economic and ethical implications of things that
we are considering. We will be particularly considering things that pertain to life—in all
of its forms. I have a few primary goals I would like you to learn:
—An awareness of what Environmental Engineering is.
—An awareness of the importance of water.
—An awareness of environmental issues, not just the engineering of them.
—An awareness of your own body, and all things biotic.
ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S/P P P S P S P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
6. Brief list of topics to be covered:
Topics that we will be covering include Ecology, Environmental Law, Biodiversity,
Bioremediation, Microbiology, Meteorology, Air Pollution, Water Pollution (Fresh and
Marine), Solid Waste Disposal, Global Warming and Hazardous Waste Technology /
165
Regulation. Exposure to the basic concepts and terminology of these subjects should
serve those entering the engineering discipline with an acceptable understanding of the
“environment.”
166
EGGN307 – Introduction to Feedback Control Systems
Course Description: System modeling through an energy flow approach is presented,
with examples from linear electrical, mechanical, fluid and/or thermal systems. Analysis
of sys- tem response in both the time domain and frequency domain is discussed in detail.
Feedback control design techniques, including PID, are analyzed using both analytical
and com- putational methods. Prerequisites: (DCGN381 or PHGN215) and MATH225. 3
hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Tyrone Vincent
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Gene F. Franklin, J. David Powell, Abbas Emami-Naeini, Feedback Control of Dynamic
Systems, 6th Edition. ISBN 013601969-2
Other Required Supplemental Information:
none
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Develop mathematical models for linear dynamic systems (mechanical and electrical)
Use time domain and frequency domain tools to analyze and predict the behavior of
linear systems.
Use time domain and frequency domain techniques to design feedback compensators to
achieve a specified performance criterion.
Use Matlab for system analysis and design.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered: a) Introduction to Dynamic Systems & Control
b) Systems Analysis & Complex Variables, Introduction and Overview of Laplace
Transforms
c) Solving Linear Differential Equations
d) Transfer Functions
e) Modeling of Dynamic Systems, Linear Networks
f) Electrical and Mechanical Systems
g) DC Motors
h) Hydraulic/Fluid/Thermal Systems
i) Time-Domain Analysis of Dynamic Systems: System Time Constant, Damping
Ratio, Natural Frequency, Maximum Overshoot, Settling Time, High Order Systems
j) Block Diagrams
k) Proportional/Derivative Control
l) Frequency Response and Bode Plots
167
m) Stability of Dynamic Systems: Routh-Hurwitz Criterion
n) Root Locus
o) Stability of Feedback Systems: Nyquist Stability Criterion
p) Steady State Error, System Type, Integral Control
q) Relationship between open loop and closed loop frequency response
r) Lead compensator design
168
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: EGGN 431: Soil Dynamics
2. Credits and contact hours: 3 credits, 3 contact hours
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Judith Wang
4. Required text: None
a. Other supplemental materials: Powerpoint slides of the instructor’s lectures as
handed out in class.
5. Specific course information
a. Description: Soil Dynamics combines engineering vibrations with soil mechanics,
analysis, and design. Students will learn to apply basic principles of dynamics towards
the analysis and design of civil infrastructure systems when specific issues as raised by
the inclusion of soil materials must be considered.
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: EGGN320, EGGN361, and MATH225
c. Course designation: Elective or Selected Elective
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Instructional Outcomes:
(1) Mathematically represent a material’s elastic, inertial, and dissipative properties
in the equation of motion for a SDOF model.
1. In the representation of the dissipative properties: implement the Kelvin-Voigt
(KV) and linear hysteretic (LH) models and recognize their limitations.
2. In the representation of the dissipative properties: recognize how these are
experimentally measured for soil materials.
(2) Solve the equation of motion for the free vibration of a SDOF oscillator using
analytical linear, ordinary differential techniques.
(3) Differentiate between free vibration and forced vibration and understand when the
application of a forcing function requires dynamic analysis as opposed to static analysis.
(4) Solve the equation of motion for the total (free+forced) vibration of a SDOF
oscillator using:
1. Analytical linear, ordinary differential techniques to determine the
total vibration;
2. Dirac delta/impulse load representation to determine the forced
vibration superposed with the free vibration to obtain the total vibration; and
3. Frequency domain analysis and synthesis to determine the forced
vibration superposed with the free vibration to obtain the total vibration.
(5) Extend Obj. (1) – (4) towards generalized SDOF models for continuous systems.
(6) Mathematically represent the component materials’ elastic, inertial, and
dissipative properties of MDOF system.
1. In the representation of the dissipative properties, utilize the Rayleigh damping
model, the linear hysteretic model, modal damping, and weighted modal damping.
2. In the representation of the dissipative properties, recognize the limitations of
169
each of the aforementioned modeling schemes.
(7) Solve for the total (free+forced) vibration response of a MDOF system using
modal time history analysis, weighted modal time history analysis, and frequency domain
analysis and synthesis.
(8) Qualitatively describe concepts from introductory seismology using appropriate
geophysical terminology.
(9) Identify and computationally quantify the characteristics of shear waves and
primary compression waves in continuous and layered media using both the 1-D bar
analogy and the full 3-dimensional elastic representation.
(10) Model the strain-dependent dynamic stiffness and intrinsic damping properties of
soils via an iterative, equivalent linear procedure.
(11) Perform 1-D ground amplification analyses in the frequency domain.
(12) Be able to describe the process of liquefaction in soils and determine, using the
simplified procedure for liquefaction initiation, whether or not a soil deposit will liquefy
under a given seismic loading.
(13) Perform elementary seismic resistant analysis and design of soil-structure
systems, retaining walls, and slopes, utilizing pseudostatic assumptions when appropriate.
(14) Gain experience in researching, documenting, and disseminating current research
needs and advances in Soil Dynamics.
b. ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P P S S S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
7. Brief list of topics to be covered: Dynamic analysis and modeling techniques for
Single Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) and Multi Degree-of-Freedom (MDOF) models of
engineering systems and dynamic analysis and modeling techniques in geotechnical
engineering applications, including introductory seismology, wave propagation, soil-
structure interaction, liquefaction, and pseudostatic design of geostructures.
170
EGGN433 – Surveying II
Course Description: Engineering projects with local control using levels, theodolites
and total stations, including surveying applications of civil engineering work in the
"field". Also includes engineering astronomy and computer generated designs; basic
road design including centerline staking, horizontal and vertical curves, slope staking and
earthwork volume calculations. Use of AutoCAD CIVIL 3D for final plan/profile and
earthwork involved for the road project data collected in the field. Conceptual and
mathematical knowledge of applying GPS data to engineering projects. Some discussion
of the principles and equations of projections (Mercator, Lambert, UTM, State Plane,
etc.) and their relationship to the databases of coordinates based on (North American
Datum) NAD ’27, NAD ’83 and (High Accuracy Reference Network) HARN.
Prerequisite: EGGN234. 2 hours lecture, 3 hours lab; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Candace S. Sulzbach
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Surveying Field Manual – by Gabriel M. Neunzert, with assistance from Karl R. Nelson
and Candace S. Sulzbach
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Crew Field Book
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S P P S S S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1. Engineering Astronomy – pertaining to the sun’s location
2. Horizontal Control Networks – Triangulation and Trilateration
3. Quadrilateral Field Work – triangulation
4. Methods of calculating Quadrilateral Field Work to determine coordinates of
points in the field
5. Use of a total station
6. Road Design including Horizontal curves and Vertical curves (and field work
pertaining to both) – included measuring distances and elevations along a road corridor
and staking a horizontal curve that the students calculate
7. Use of Excel to write a program that will calculate Vertical Curve elevations
8. Slope staking a road
9. Earthwork volume calculations (Method of Average End Areas)
10. State Plane coordinates with Differential GPS
11. Conversion of State Plane coordinates to calculate the bearing of a line in the field
12. Plan Reading
13. Use of AutoCAD/Civil 3D to draw a plan/profile of road laid out in the field
14. Discussion of various Coordinate systems and their differences
171
EGGN 441 – Advanced Structural Analysis
Course Description: Introduction to advanced structural analysis concepts.
Nonprismatic structures. Arches, Suspension and cable-stayed bridges. Structural
optimization. Computer Methods. Structures with nonlinear materials. Internal force
redistribution for statically indeterminate structures. Graduate credit requires additional
homework and projects. Prerequisite: EGGN342. 3 hour lectures; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Panos D. Kiousis
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Structural Analysis by R. C. Hibbeler
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Instructor printed notes on Basic Analysis Methods, on Matrix Methods, on Nonlinear
Material Response, on Cables and Suspended Bridges, and on Approximate Solution
Methods for Statically Indeterminate Structures.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
An important issue that the students learn in this class is how to select the characteristics
of a structure to solve. They learn how to optimize the behavior of a structure by
strategically placing internal pins, by adjusting relative stiffnesses, and by using the
nonlinear material response. They also learn how to solve complicated indeterminate
structures, including cabled structures, and structures of large indeterminacy. Ultimately,
the students learn to address structural analysis, while keeping the design goals at mind.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1. Review of basic structural analysis principles.
2. Optimization of multi-span beams by strategically placing internal pins.
3. Analysis of statically indeterminate structures as influenced by relative internal
stiffness distributions.
4. Analysis of statically indeterminate structures with nonlinear moment-curvature
relations.
5. Cabled Structures.
6. Approximate solutions to statically indeterminate structures.
7. Matrix analysis of continuous beams.
172
EGGN442 – Finite Element Methods for Engineers
Course Description:
This course combines finite element theory with practical programming experience using
programs described in a textbook co-authored by the instructor Programming the finite
element method, by I.M. Smith and D.V. Griffiths, John Wiley and Sons, 4th
ed., 2008 in
which the multi-disciplinary nature of the finite element method as a numerical technique
for solving differential equations is emphasized. Topics covered include simple
structural elements, beams on elastic foundations, solid elasticity, steady state and
transient analyses. Students get a copy of all source code.
Prerequisite: EGGN320.
3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: D.V. Griffiths
Textbook and/or other required materials:
Required Text:
Programming the finite element method, by I.M. Smith and D.V. Griffiths, John
Wiley and Sons, 4th ed., 2008
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Software to be downloaded from the web
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course, students learn (i) theory behind the finite element method as a general tool
for solving partial differential equations (ii) implementation of the method in computer
programs, and (iii) application of the method to solve engineering problems across a
range of applications. Students will solve homework assignments by hand and validate
them using programs provided for download from the web.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h I j k
P S P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification:
This course contributes 3 credit hours to Math & Basic Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Finite element methods relating to the following problems in engineering analysis
1. Galerkin weighted residual method
2. Types of elements in 1-, 2- and 3-D
3. Shape functions
4. Programming aspects. Assembly, storage equation solution
5. Structural problems—beams, rods and beams on elastic foundations
173
6. Continuum elastic analysis
7. Steady state analysis, Laplace’s equation—seepage, heat flow.
8. Transient analysis—consolidation, heat dissipation.
174
EGGN 447 – Timber and Masonry Design
Course Description: EGGN 447. Timber and Masonry Design The course develops the
theory and design methods required for the use of timber and masonry as structural
materials. The design of walls, beams, columns, beam-columns, shear walls, and
structural systems are covered for each material. Gravity, wind, snow, and seismic loads
are calculated and utilized for design. Prerequisite: EGGN 342. 3 hours lecture: 3
semester hours. Spring semester, odd years.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Joe Crocker
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Design of Wood Structures – ASD/LRFD, 6th
Edition, by Breyer, Fridley, Coben, and
Pollock. 2005
American Wood Council National Design Specification NDS 2005, American Forest &
Paper Association. 2005
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Students will be able to apply knowledge of the fundamental behavior of timber
to calculate the capacity of structural members subjected to axial and transverse loads.
Students will be able to apply knowledge of the fundamental behavior of
reinforced masonry to calculate the capacity of structural members subjected to axial and
transverse loads.
Students will be able to recognize the role and responsibilities of the Professional
Engineer.
Students will be able to read and interpret the applicable building code provisions
and calculate design dead, live, seismic, wind, and snow loads.
Students will be able to recognize different structural systems and select
appropriate analysis methods to determine internal forces in the structure.
Students will be able to develop a building design based upon a given project
scope and present it to their peers for review.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P P P P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Determine properties of timber and masonry units using code design documents.
2. Apply load and resistance factor design method to reinforced masonry
members.
3. Apply allowable strength design method to timber members.
4. Read and apply code provisions to design situations.
5. Determine applicable limit states for loaded members.
6. Calculate required strengths for structural members based on applicable code
requirements.
175
7. Determine the magnitude and application of live loads, dead loads, wind loads,
seismic loads, and snow loads to structures.
8. Calculate design strength for timber or reinforced masonry beams.
9. Calculate design strength for timber or reinforced masonry columns subjected
to axial load.
10. Calculate design strength for timber or reinforced masonry columns subjected
to axial load and moment.
11. Calculate reinforcement and detail requirements for reinforced masonry
members.
12. Calculate the design strength of timber or masonry shear walls.
13. Calculate the design strength of timber diaphragms.
14. Calculate the development length for reinforcing steel.
15. Design timber or reinforced masonry members of appropriate size, strength,
and detail by comparing required strength to design strength.
16. Recognize different structural systems and make appropriate analysis decisions
to calculate internal member forces.
17. Recognize the role serviceability plays in design and make calculations to
predict performance.
18. Recognize the role and responsibility of a Professional Engineer.
176
EGGN 460 Numerical Methods for Engineers
Course Description:
Introduction to the use of numerical methods in the solution of problems encountered in
engineering analysis and design, e.g. linear simultaneous equations (e.g. analysis of
elastic materials, steady heat flow); roots of nonlinear equations (e.g. vibration problems,
open channel flow); eigenvalue problems (e.g. natural frequencies, buckling and elastic
stability); curve fitting and differentiation (e.g. interpretation of experimental data,
estimation of gradients); integration (e.g. summation of pressure distributions, finite
element properties, local averaging ); ordinary differential equations (e.g. forced
vibrations, beam bending) All course participants will receive source code consisting of a
suite of numerical methods programs.
Prerequisite: CSCI260 or 261, MATH225, EGGN320.
3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: D.V. Griffiths
Textbook and/or other required materials:
Required Text:
“Numerical Methods for Engineers”, 2nd
ed., D.V. Griffiths and I.M. Smith,
CRC/Chapman & Hall (2006)
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Software to be downloaded from the web
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course, students learn to download numerical methods software and a Fortran
compiler from the www. The programs are then used to solve engineering problems
across a range of applications as indicated in the syllabus. Students will learn to edit
programs, create data files, run programs, get results and validate them by hand.
Student a-k ABET Outcomes for EGGN 460
a b c d e f G h i j k
P S P S S
P – Primary S – Secondary
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Numerical methods relating to the following problems in engineering analysis
1. linear simultaneous equations
2. nonlinear equations
3. eigenvalue problems
4. integration
5. ODEs
6. curve fitting
177
EGGN 473 – Fluid Mechanics II
Course Description: Review of elementary fluid mechanics and engineering, two-
dimensional external flows, boundary layers, flow separation; compressible flow,
isentropic flow, normal and oblique shock waves, Prandtl-Meyer expansion fans, Fanno
and Rayleigh flow; Introduction to flow instabilities (e.g., Kelvin-Helmholtz instability,
Raleigh-Benard convection). Prerequisite: EGGN 351 or consent of instructor. Three
lecture hours; three semester hours.
Course Designation: List-A Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Associate Professor Neal P. Sullivan, instructor and
coordinator.
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Fluid Mechanics, Seventh Edition, Frank M. White, McGraw Hill
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Apply differential conservation-of-mass and linear-momentum equations and
material derivatives to the solution of flow problems.
Understand development and analysis of boundary layers.
Comprehend analysis of compressible and supersonic flows, including analysis of
shock waves.
Understand theory of turbomachinery and its application to the design of wind
turbines.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes three credit hours to Engineering
Topics.
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Differential analysis of fluid flow utilizing continuity and Navier-Stokes
equations.
Boundary-layer theory
Compressible flow
Shock waves
Turbomachinery
178
EGGN478 – Engineering Vibration
Course Description: This is the first course in vibration engineering. Topics covered in
this course include free and forced vibration of single, two and multiple degree of
freedom systems, linear and nonlinear vibrations, determination of natural frequencies
and mode shapes, vibration isolation, vibration absorption, and vibration measurement
and control procedures.
Course Designation: Required
Coordinator: R. Zhang
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
“Engineering Vibration” by D. J. Inman, 3rd
Edition, Prentice Hall.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
After completing this course, students will be able to analytically and numerically:
Analyze the free response of damped and un-damped single degree of
freedom system.
Analyze the forced response of damped and un-damped single degree of
freedom systems.
Analyze the response of single degree of freedom systems under general
excitation conditions.
Analyze the vibration response of two and multiple degree of freedom
systems.
Determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes of two degrees of freedom
systems.
Apply techniques for control of vibration.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e F g h i j k
P S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Harmonic Motion
Viscous Damping
Modeling and Energy Methods
Stiffness and Measurement
Design and Stability
Numerical Simulation of the Time Response
Coulomb Friction and the Pendulum
Harmonic Excitation
Base Excitation
Rotating Unbalance
Measurement Devices
179
Impulse Response Function
Response to An Arbitrary Input
Response to An Arbitrary Periodic Input
Shock Spectrum
2DOF
Eigenvalues and Natural Frequencies
Modal Analysis
Systems with Viscous Damping
Modal Analysis of the Forced Response
Lagrange’s Equations
Vibration Isolation
Vibration Absorbers
Damping in Vibration Absorption
180
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: ESGN/EGGN 453, Wastewater Engineering
2. Credits and contact hours: 3
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Tzahi Y. Cath, PhD
4. Required text: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, Metcalf and Eddy,
Inc., 4th edition, McGraw Hill, 2003.
a. Other supplemental materials: Handouts
5. Specific course information
a. Description: Theory and design of conventional wastewater treatment unit
processes for reclamation of domestic wastewater. Fundamental phenomena involved in
wastewater treatment processes (theory) and the engineering approaches used in
designing such processes (design). This course focuses on the physical, chemical, and
biological processes applied to liquid wastes of municipal origin. Treatment objectives
are discussed as the driving force for wastewater treatment.
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: EGGN/ESGN353, or consent of instructor
c. Course designation: Elective
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Instructional Outcomes:
Students will be able to identify suitable processes for wastewater treatment
through the application of fundamental mathematics, science, and engineering
Students will be able to apply appropriate tools to design environmental
engineering systems used for wastewater treatment
Students will be able to work on practical engineering design projects as part of a
design group and foster effective group dynamics and communication
b. ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
a. Introduction: review of regulations and wastewater characteristics
b. Design objectives; flow and mass loading rates; review reactor mass balance, flow
c. Preliminary treatment: screening, grit removal
d. Preliminary treatment: flow equalization
e. Primary treatment: primary sedimentation (theory & design)
f. Secondary treatment: biological treatment (theory) - microbiology review, aerobic
suspended and attached growth processes, biological nutrient removal
g. Flex time (reviews, midterms, field trips)
181
h. Secondary treatment: activated sludge for removal of organics (design)
i. Activated sludge design (cont.)
j. Secondary treatment: secondary clarification (design)
k. Disinfection (theory)
l. Disinfection (design)
m. Flex time (reviews, midterms, field trips)
n. Aeration (theory & design)
o. Mixing (theory)
182
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: ESGN/EGGN 454, Water Supply Engineering
2. Credits and contact hours: 3
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Tzahi Y. Cath, PhD
4. Required text: MWH, Water Treatment Principles and Design, Second edition,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2005
a. Other supplemental materials: Handouts
5. Specific course information
a. Description: Water supply availability and quality. Theory and design of
conventional potable water treatment unit processes. Design of distribution systems. Also
includes regulatory analysis under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: EGGN/ESGN353, or consent of instructor
c. Course designation: Elective
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Instructional Outcomes:
Students will be able to identify suitable processes for drinking water treatment
through the application of fundamental mathematics, science, and engineering
Students will be able to apply appropriate tools to design environmental
engineering systems used for drinking water treatment
Students will be able to work on practical engineering design projects as part of a
design group and foster effective group dynamics and communication
b. ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
a. Drinking water regulations and standards
b. Chemical kinetics overview
c. Introduction and overview of water treatment processes
d. Feasibility studies, bench-scale studies, and pilot-scale studies
e. Projecting water demands, treatment alternatives, and process selection
f. Design considerations for raw water intake structures (including screening)
g. Theory of coagulation and flocculation
h. Design of rapid mixers for coagulation
i. Overview of flocculation
j. Methods for jar testing
183
k. Design of hydraulic flocculators and mechanical flocculators
l. Sedimentation and design of inlet diffuser walls, plate settlers, and tube settlers
m. Overview of granular media filtration, design of granular media filters
n. Declining rate filtration and constant rate filtration
o. Disinfection
p. Instrumentation and control (I&C) systems
q. Water distribution: Pumps, pipes and storage
r. Methods for corrosion control / water stability
s. Selecting treatment plant site and preliminary plant design
t. Hydraulic profiles
184
ABET Syllabus
ESGN/EGGN 457: SITE REMEDIATION ENGINEERING
Course Description: This course describes the engineering principles and practices
associated with the characterization and remediation of contaminated sites. Methods for
site characterization and risk assessment will be highlighted with emphasis on remedial
action screening processes, technology principles, and conceptual design. Common
isolation and containment and in situ and ex situ treatment technology will be covered.
Computerized decision-support tools will be used and case studies will be presented.
Prerequisites: ESGN354 or consent of the instructor. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Dr. Kathleen M. Smits
Textbook and/or other requirement materials: Required Text: Remediation Hydraulics. 2008. CRC Press. Fred C. Payne, Joseph A.
Quinnan, and Scott T. Potter.
Other Required Supplemental Information: None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes: This course focuses on the application of scientific and
engineering principles and practices to the remediation of hazardous waste sites and
contaminated land in the U.S. In the first part of the course, students learn about the
characteristics of contaminated sites, approaches to assessing sites and determining the
extent of cleanup required and optional methods for remediation and risk reduction. In
the latter part of the course, several conventional and emerging remediation technologies
will be discussed in some detail to illustrate process principles and design features of
field applications. Approximately 3 to 4 guest lecture presentations of technologies and
case histories will provide further insight into the topics discussed. This course is
multidisciplinary in nature and will draw upon principles learned in Mathematics,
Chemistry, Biology, and Engineering – skills that are fundamental to the environmental
engineer.
a. Appreciate the scope and magnitude of environmental problems.
b. Appreciate the role of engineers as stewards in protecting the environment.
c. Understand the fundamental principles of hazardous waste management, the
regulatory process and site characterization.
d. Understand the fundamentals of ground water hydrogeology and contaminant
transport in the subsurface environment.
e. Understand the fundamental biological, chemical, and physical processes used in
remediation system design and operations.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S P S S S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1. Environmental law
185
2. Engineering ethics
3. Fluids and surfaces (review)
4. Porous media (review)
5. Groundwater flow (review)
6. Process fundamentals (review)
7. Contaminant transport
8. Risk assessment
9. Site and subsurface characterization
10. Well design
11. NAPL contaminant transport
12. Evaluation and selection of remedial action
13. Injection based reactive zone design
14. Soil vapor extraction
15. Chemical oxidation
16. Thermal remediation
17. Bioremediation
18. Phytoremediation
19. Long term monitoring
186
MNGN321- Introduction to Rock Mechanics
Course Description: Physical properties of rock. Fundamentals of rock substance and
rock mass response to applied loads. Principles of elastic stress analysis and stress-strain
relationships. Elementary principles of theoretical and applied design of underground
openings and open pit slopes. Emphasis on practical applied aspects of support.
Course Designation: Elective, list A
Instructor: Ugur Ozbay
Textbooks and/or other requirement materials:
Required text
Sets of course and laboratory notes are available to the students on BlackBoard. These
notes are sufficient for following the lectures, preparing homework assignments,
laboratory reports, and preparing for tests. For further details, students are referred to
rock mechanics textbooks Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining by B. H. G. Brady
and E. T. Brown and Rock Slope Engineering by D. C. Wyllie and C. W. Mah, 4th
Edition.
Other required supplemental information
Students attend and actively participate in ten laboratory sessions on rock testing, in situ
data collection, and numerical modeling.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course, students develop i) a good understanding of the rock mechanics principles,
ii) ability to evaluate and communicate the findings from homework exercises, laboratory
experiments, and design examples, iii) skills to apply learned material to excavations
design in rock masses. Accomplishment of the course objectives is assessed through
three exams, ten homework assignments, and ten laboratory reports.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f G h i j k
P S S P P S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Topics covered:
Lecture classes
187
1. Stress at a point
2. Stress transformation and principal stresses
3. Mohr's stress circle
4. Strain transformation and principal strains
5. Strain rosettes and Mohr's strain circle
6. Stress - strain relationships
7. Special cases of stress-strain relationships
8. Mechanical properties of rocks
9. Intact rock failure criteria
10. Rock mass structure
11. Data collection and interpretation for rock mass quantification
12. Rock mass classification systems (RMR)
13. Rock mass classification systems (Q)
14. Shear strength of discontinuities
15. Pre-mining state of stress
16. Stress around simple geometry structures
17. Rock mass strength and stability analysis of simple geometry structures
18. Introduction to slope stability
19. Design of slopes
20. Support of underground excavations-Basic concepts
21. Support of underground excavations-Fundamentals
22. Support of underground excavations-Applications
23. Determination of pillar loads and pillar strength
24. Design of mine pillars
Laboratory classes
1. Introduction to the rock mechanics laboratories, equipment safety, and laboratory
rules while in the laboratories
2. Specimen preparation
3. Ultrasonic velocity test
4. Schmidt hammer test
5. Brazilian tensile strength test
6. Point load test
7. Uniaxial compression test with elastic modulus and Poison’s ratio
8. Triaxial compression test
9. Direct shear strength test
10. Core logging
11. Insitu data collection using scanline technique
12. Use of stereonets for rock discontinuity analysis
13. Stresses around excavations using Finite Element numerical models
14. Slope stability analysis using Method of Slices based computer models.
188
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: EGGN490 Sustainable Engineering Design
2. Credits and contact hours: 3 credits
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Junko Munakata Marr
4. Required text: Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering, T.E. Graedel and
B.R. Allenby, 2010
a. Other supplemental materials: Cradle to Cradle, Remaking the Way We Make
Things, W. McDonough and M. Braungart, 2002
5. Specific course information
a. Description: This course is a comprehensive introduction into concept of
sustainability and sustainable development from an engineering point of view. It involves
the integration of engineering and statistical analysis through a Life Cycle Assessment
tool, allowing a quantitative, broad-based consideration any process or product design
and their respective impacts on environment, human health and the resource base. The
requirements for considering social implications are also discussed. Prerequisites: Senior
or graduate standing, or consent of instructor. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: none
c. Course designation: elective
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Instructional Outcomes:
Demonstrate sufficient familiarity with the terminology associated with
sustainability and sustainable engineering to write effectively about the topic,
Compare and contrast traditional engineering design and analysis approaches with
those associated with sustainable design, in particular those that go beyond the triple-
bottom-line approach to include considerations of social justice and socio-technical
integration,
Apply a working knowledge of SimaPro, a commercially available LCA tool, and
Work in teams to effectively write a project report and give a presentation that
describes the connection between the concepts of sustainable engineering and their work,
the approach they took and their conclusions and recommendations for future work.
b. ABET Outcomes:
a b c d e f g h i j k
S S S P P S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
Humanity and Technology
Tragedy of the Commons
What is Sustainability?
189
Metabolic Analysis
Ecological Footprint
Cradle to Cradle
Technology and Risk
Social Dimensions
SimaPro
Case Study: Social Dimensions
Sustainable Engineering
Life Cycle Assessment
DfES: Customer Products
DfES: Buildings and Infrastructure
Material Flow Analysis
Writing a Project Report
Building Science and System Design
Energy and Industrial Ecology
Water and Industrial Ecology
Systems Thinking for Sustainable Water Management
Case Study: Biofuels
Case Study: Transportation, logistics and supply chains
Integrating Developed and Developing World Knowledge into Global
Discussions and Strategies for Sustainability. 1. Science and Technology
Integrating Developed and Developing World Knowledge into Global
Discussions and Strategies for Sustainability. 2. Economics and Governance
Looking to the Future
190
ABET Syllabus
1. Course number and name: EGGN 498 / 598 Structural Preservation of Existing
and Historic Buildings
2. Credits and contact hours: 3 credits; 3 contact hours
3. Instructor or coordinator’s name: Susan M. Reynolds
4. Required text: Structural Analysis of Historic Buildings, J. Stanley Rabun, 2000
a. Other supplemental materials:
a. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings (www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide)
b. Principles for the Analysis, Conservation, and Structural Restoration of
architectural Heritage and Recommendations for the Analysis, Conservation, and
Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, International Scientific Committee on
the Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage (ISCARSAH),
International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
c. Selected historic structural engineering texts, such as The Civil Engineer’s
Pocket-Book, by Trautwine, published 1872 and The Architect’s and Builder’s Pocket-
Book, by Kidder, published in 1895.
5. Specific course information
a. Description: The emphasis of this course is an examination of structural
engineering analysis and retrofitting techniques for existing and historic buildings. It
includes a generalization of structural engineering history with an emphasis on 18th
, 19th
,
and 20th
century American construction, specifically including load-bearing stone and
brick masonry, timber construction, cast iron, early steel, and early reinforced concrete.
Sustainable concepts of energy analysis, renewable / recyclable materials, and structural
longevity are emphasized. Students will learn to assess the condition of an existing
building, utilizing visual and tactile observations, research of archaic structural
engineering manuals, material samples, non-destructive tests, and critical selection of
appropriate analytical methods. Students will acquire and exercise the specialized
vocabulary of historic preservation, learn to consider authenticity and reversibility in their
structural design process, and apply preservation theory to complex real-world problems.
b. Prerequisites or co-requisites: EGGN 342
c. Course designation: Elective
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Instructional Outcomes:
Examine the historic development of fundamental structural construction
elements and structural theory
Further investigate and catalog structural systems in 18th, 19th, and 20th century
American construction, enabling the student to hypothesize likely structural systems
given a building’s date of construction
191
Analyze historic structures using references from the original period of
construction, such as the Kidder-Parker handbooks and International Correspondence
Schools publications, as directed in the Rabun text
Review developing engineering materials such as terra construction, clay
masonry, cementitious masonry, timber construction, ferric construction, and early
reinforced concrete construction
Select appropriate contemporary structural analyses for application to historic
structures
Consider sustainable retrofit principles, such as using local, recycled, or
repurposed materials; minimizing the input of energy holistically required for all building
systems, especially including thermal efficiency of the thermal envelope, which is
frequently a structural material in archaic systems
Perform a visual survey and structural condition assessment of an existing
building, identify the structural system and materials, assess structural condition and
deficiencies
Discuss common deterioration mechanisms for structural materials and systems;
suggest repair methods to arrest or slow the deterioration and extend the lifespan of the
structure
Propose appropriate structural interventions based in life safety, engineering
principles, material conservation, and preservation principles, such as authenticity and
reversibility
Improve proficiency in critical thinking skills, technical writing skills, and graphic
communication skills
b. ABET Outcomes: None established; the course is being piloted Spring 2013.
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
a. Course introduction and overview of structural engineering / construction history
in the U.S.
b. Historic columns and load-bearing walls (wood, masonry, ferrous materials,
concrete)
c. Historic beams, girders, arches, and other spanning members (wood, masonry,
ferrous materials, concrete)
d. Historic floor structures (wood, masonry, concrete)
e. Historic lateral-load resisting systems (wood, masonry, ferrous materials,
concrete)
f. Historic foundation systems (wood, masonry, ferrous materials, concrete)
g. Course conclusion: industry standards, code requirements, and licensure
standards.
192
GEGN 466 Groundwater Engineering
Course Description: This purpose of this course is to introduce students to topics in
hydrogeology to include theory of groundwater occurrence and flow, the relation of
groundwater to surface water, potential distribution and flow, theory of aquifer tests,
water chemistry, water quality, and contaminant transport. Laboratory sessions on water
budgets, water chemistry, properties of porous media, solutions to hydraulic flow
problems, analytical and digital models, and hydrogeologic interpretation will also be
covered. The course is intended for students interested in careers in hydrogeology or in
other areas of environmental science and engineering. This course is multidisciplinary in
nature and will draw upon principles learned in Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, and
Engineering – skills that are fundamental to the geological, environmental engineer and
hydrologist.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor: Dr. Kamini Singha
Textbooks and/or other requirement materials:
Required text
Applied Hydrogeology, 4th
edition, 2001, Prentice Hall, C.W.
Fetter
Specific Course Goals and Outcomes:
a. Appreciate the scope and magnitude of groundwater occurrence and flow.
b. Appreciate the role of engineers as stewards in protecting the environment.
c. Understand the fundamentals of ground water hydrogeology and contaminant
transport in the subsurface environment.
d. Understand the relationship of groundwater to surface water.
e. Understand the fundamental biological, chemical, and physical processes used in
remediation system design and operations.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a B c d e f g h i j k
P P S P S S S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Topics covered:
Classroom
1. Water budget
2. Porosity, capillarity, head
3. Darcy’s law
4. Heterogeneity
5. Storage
193
6. Flow equations
7. Flow nets
8. Flow visualization
9. Well hydraulics
a. Predict head
b. Transmissivity, storage
c. Leaky aquifers, unconfined, confined aquifers
d. Superposition
e. Slug testing
10. Water chemistry fundamentals
11. Contaminant transport
12. Groundwater management
13. Groundwater modeling
194
GEGN 467 Groundwater Engineering
Course Description: This purpose of this course is to introduce students to topics in
hydrogeology to include theory of groundwater occurrence and flow, the relation of
groundwater to surface water, potential distribution and flow, theory of aquifer tests,
water chemistry, water quality, and contaminant transport. Laboratory sessions on water
budgets, water chemistry, properties of porous media, solutions to hydraulic flow
problems, analytical and digital models, and hydrogeologic interpretation will also be
covered. The course is intended for students interested in careers in hydrogeology or in
other areas of environmental science and engineering. This course is multidisciplinary in
nature and will draw upon principles learned in Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, and
Engineering – skills that are fundamental to the geological, environmental engineer and
hydrologist.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor: Dr. Kamini Singha
Textbooks and/or other requirement materials:
Required text
Applied Hydrogeology, 4th
edition, 2001, Prentice Hall, C.W.
Fetter
Hydrogeology Laboratory Manual, K. Lee, C.W. Fetter, J.E.
McCray
Specific Course Goals and Outcomes:
a. Appreciate the scope and magnitude of groundwater occurrence and flow.
b. Appreciate the role of engineers as stewards in protecting the environment.
c. Understand the fundamentals of ground water hydrogeology and contaminant
transport in the subsurface environment.
d. Understand the relationship of groundwater to surface water.
e. Understand the fundamental biological, chemical, and physical processes used in
remediation system design and operations.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S P S S S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Topics covered:
Classroom
1. Water budget
2. Porosity, capillarity, head
3. Darcy’s law
4. Heterogeneity
5. Storage
6. Flow equations
7. Flow nets
195
8. Flow visualization
9. Well hydraulics
a. Predict head
b. Transmissivity, storage
c. Leaky aquifers, unconfined, confined aquifers
d. Superposition
e. Slug testing
10. Water chemistry fundamentals
11. Contaminant transport
12. Groundwater management
13. Groundwater modeling
Laboratory
1. Water budget
2. Porosity, density and capillarity
3. Darcy’s law, hydraulic conductivity
4. Flow nets
5. Ideal aquifer test
6. Non-ideal aquifer test
7. Mini-pump test
8. Water chemistry
9. Contaminant plume test
10. Groundwater modeling
196
GEGN 468- Engineering Geology and Geotechnics
Course Description: Application of geology to site characterization, analysis, and
design for civil construction, mining, and environmental projects such as dams,
waterways, tunnels, highways, bridges, buildings, mine facilities, and land-based waste
disposal facilities. The course includes design projects that include field, laboratory, and
computer work. The purpose of this course is to introduce the student to the application
of geologic principles in the engineering design process. The emphasis of the course is
site characterization and geological engineering analysis and design methods. The roles
of data collection and assessment, the process of synthesis, the iterative nature of the
design process, and communication of the results of technical studies to users are
emphasized in the lectures, projects, and field trips. The modifications imposed by
economic, legal, and environmental realities are incorporated throughout. Lectures will
emphasize the applications of soil and rock engineering principles and engineering
geologic techniques to solving engineering and environmental problems. Field trips and
laboratory projects will provide examples and practice in engineering geologic site
characterization and design for mitigation of geologic conditions.
Course Designation: Elective
Instructor: Dr. Jerry Higgins
Textbooks and/or other requirement materials:
Required text
“Geological Engineering” by de Vallejo and Ferrer, 2011. Sets of course notes are
provided to the students. These notes are sufficient for following the lectures, preparing
homework assignments, laboratory reports, and preparing for tests. Several readings
from the literature will be assigned during the semester.
Other required supplemental information
During the laboratory sessions students will be assigned two to three projects that require
engineering geologic mapping, construction of geologic and geotechnical models,
engineering analysis of those models, and design recommendations. A final technical
report is required for each project.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Goals: In this course, students a) develop an understanding of the principles of engineering
geology/geotechnics, b) practice communication the findings from homework exercises,
class examples, and design projects, c) construct geologic and geotechnical models based
on surface mapping and subsurface information, and d) conduct two to three projects that
require data collection, analysis using state-of-practice methods, and selection of design
recommendations. Accomplishment of the course objectives is assessed through three
exams, homework assignments, and project reports.
197
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
Table 1. Map of GE program outcomes for GEGN 468 to ABET a-k.
ABET Geological Engineering Program Outcomes covered in GEGN 468 include: 1(3),
1(4), 1(5), 1(6)
Topics covered:
Lecture classes
Introduction
Materials
Geological Hazards/Investigations
Environmental Geotechnics
Laboratory classes
Field trip. Engineering geology of the Golden area. Evaluation of effects of geologic
history on topography, engineering materials and processes. Geological hazards covered
include: expansive soils/bedrock, heaving bedrock, debris flows, landslides, rock fall,
mine subsidence and differential settlement, and flooding. City of Golden geologic
ordinances and recommended mitigation schemes are discussed.
Field trip. Heaving bedrock in western suburbs of Denver area. View damaged
structures, geology of the cause, and appropriate mitigation techniques (covered by slide
show f11 semester due to weather).
Project 1. Engineering geologic investigation (Preparation of maps and baseline engineering
geologic report)
Project 2. Rock slope stability evaluation and design recommendations (field investigation
and scanline survey, stability analysis, mitigation recommendations)
Guest Speaker. Kim de Rubertis, a CSM graduate with over 40 years of experience in
geological engineering took two lectures and one lab to cover several design case
histories. The exercises required students to review data and make recommendations at
various stages of the case histories. Mr. de Rubertis completes each lesson by showing
what was actually done. Mr. de Rubertis has participated in the class for 26 years.
198
GEGN 473 – Geological Engineering Site Investigation
Course Description: Methods of field investigation, testing, and monitoring for
geotechnical and hazardous waste sites, including: drilling and sampling methods, sample
logging, field testing methods, instrumentation, trench logging, foundation inspection,
engineering stratigraphic column and engineering soils map construction. Projects
include technical writing for investigations (reports, memos, proposals, workplans). Class
culminates in practice conducting simulated investigations (using a computer simulator).
Course Designation: Required for Environmental, Engineering Geology and
Geotechnics, and Ground-Water Engineering Concentration within the BS Geological
Engineering Program
Instructor: Paul Santi
Textbooks and/or other requirement materials:
Required text
Course notes available in department office
Other required supplemental information
Access to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/ for additional technical
materials
Specific Course Goals:
This course is expected to provide background and educational experiences that will
prepare students to evaluate geological and engineering conditions of land based on field
mapping and subsurface data. Includes discussion of various methods of site mapping
and investigation, drilling methods, sampling methods, field testing, and instrumentation.
Includes practice applying geological concepts to extrapolate limited data into three
dimensional site models. Covers investigation goals and tools for various types of
geotechnical and geological scenarios. The goal of this course is to provide experience
by exposing students to a wide variety of data types, and to provide judgment by allowing
them to practice using data to solve real world type problems.
Instructional Outcomes: In this course, students develop i) the ability to log rock core, rock cuttings, soil samples,
and test pits and trenches using the methodology they will use in industry, ii) confidence
selecting drilling and sampling methods for different types of investigations and in varied
geologic settings, iii) the ability to select appropriate geophysical, field, and
instrumentation methods for different a wide range of investigation goals and settings, iv)
the ability to prepare reports for different investigation types. Accomplishment of the
course objectives is assessed through 10 laboratory assignments, three field based
projects with written reports, two exams, and five homework assignments.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
Program Outcomes Course ABET Outcomes
199
GEGN
205
A B C D E F G H I J K
Student outcome 1B X X X X X X
Student outcome 1C X X X X X X X
Student outcome 1D
Student outcome 2B X X X
Student outcome 2C X X X X X X X X X
Student outcome 2D X X
Student outcome 2E X X X
Student outcome 2F X X X X X X X X X X
Student outcome 2G X X X X X X X X X X
Student outcome 2H X X X X X X X X X X
Student outcome 2I X X X X X X X X X X X
Student outcome 3A X X X X X
Student outcome 3B X X
Student outcome 4A X X X X X
Student outcome 4B X X X X
Student outcome 4C X X X X X
Student outcome 4D X
Student outcome 5A X X
Student outcome 5B X X
Student outcome 5C X
Topics covered:
Lecture Sample descriptions; Drilling methods; Sampling methods; Stratigraphic column
preparation and field note taking; Unified Soil Classification System; Technical writing,
proposal writing, dealing with technical references; Trenching; Rock and soil strength
and foundations; Geophysical methods and their use in engineering; Field testing
methods; Hazard and engineering soils mapping techniques; Investigation types;
Instrumentation; Ground-water sampling; Emerging technologies in site investigation
Laboratory Exercises 1. Core descriptions
2. Cuttings descriptions
3. Editing boring logs
4. Soil boring logging
5. Hydrostratigraphic interpretation and investigation
6. Simulated investigation #1
7. Simulated investigation #2
8. Simulated investigation #3
9. Dam earthquake landslide investigation
10. Drilling demo (field lab)
Projects 1. Engineering stratigraphic column and technical memo preparation
2. Trench log and proposal preparation and judging
3. Engineering geologic mapping and workplan preparation
200
ABET Syllabus
1. MNGN404 Tunneling
2. 3.0 credit hrs, 3.0 contact hrs
3. Christian Frenzel & Ray Henn
4. Course notes (powerpoint slides)
5. Specific course information
a. Modern tunneling techniques. Emphasis on evaluation of ground conditions,
estimation of support requirements, methods of tunnel driving and boring, design systems
and equipment, and safety
b. none
c. elective
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Understanding the range of options for tunneling methods, ability to assess and
select specific methods, and an understanding of issues that need to be addressed during
work preparation.
b. Not known
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
Hard Rock TBM
Softground TBM
Pipe jacking/Microtunneling
Drill & Blast
NATM
Roadheader
Ground improvement (freezing, grouting)
Tunneling logistics
Site layout & launching
Slurry circuit & separation plant
Soil Conditioning
Face Stability
Backfilling
Ground settlement & monitoring
201
ABET Syllabus
1. MNGN406 Design & Support of Underground Excavations
2. 3.0 credit hrs, 3.0 contact hrs
3. Christian Frenzel
4. Course notes (powerpoint slides), several journal articles
5. Specific course information
a. Design of underground excavations and support. Analysis of stress and rock mass
deformations around excavations using analytical and numerical methods. Collections,
preparation, and evaluation of in situ and laboratory data for excavation design. Use of
rock mass rating systems for site characterization and excavation design. Study of
support types and selection of support for underground excavations. Use of numerical
models for design of shafts, tunnels and large chambers.
b. Instructor’s consent
c. Elective
6. Specific goals for the course
a. Develop an understanding for the interaction between ground support and lining,
apply different design methods to specific problems, create awareness for application
ranges and limitations of different design methods.
b. Not known
7. Brief list of topics to be covered
Primary stresses
Empirical Rock Support
Analytical solutions
Ground reaction curves, plastic zone, ground support requirements
Shotcrete liners
Cast-in-place liners
Segmental lining
Face stability in soft rock
Soft ground support pressure
Ground deformations
Shaft design
202
CHGN121 – Principles of Chemistry I
Course Description: Study of matter and energy based on atomic structure, correlation
of properties of elements with position in the periodic chart, chemical bonding, geometry
of molecules, phase changes, stoichiometry, solution chemistry, gas laws and
thermochemistry. 3 hours lecture, 3 hours lab; 4 semester hours. Approved for Colorado
Guaranteed General Education transfer Equivalency for GC-SC1.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Dr. Robert Racicot
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
General Chemistry Atoms First The Foundation Science – McMurray and Fay Pearson
Custom Publishing
2011-2012 Department of Chemistry and Geochemistry Colorado School of Mines –
CHGN 121 and 122 Laboratory manual – Hayden McNeil Publishers
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes: The non-content goals of the course are to improve the
student's mental models of molecular interactions and to improve the student's ability to
apply chemical knowledge. These goals are achieved by tying the macroscopic
descriptions and equations studied to the microscopic action of atoms and molecules.
Students are pushed to develop mental models to explain phenomena at the atomic level.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes four credits of basic sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Matter
2. Measurements
3. Atomic structure
4. Nuclear stability
5. Periodicity
6. Electronic structure of the atom
7. Ionic bonds
8. Main group chemistry
9. Covalent bonds
10. Molecular structure
11. Mass relationships
12. Reactions in aqueous solutions
13. Thermochemistry
203
CHGN122 – Principles of Chemistry II
Course Description: Continuation and application of principles introduced in CHGN
121. Topics covered include gases, liquids, solids, solutions, chemical kinetics and
thermodynamics, chemical equilibrium, aqueous equilibria with emphasis on acid-base
chemistry, and electrochemistry. 3 hours lecture, 3 hours lab; 4 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required for most undergraduate majors
Instructor or Coordinator: Dr. Robert Racicot and Dr. Mark Seger
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
General Chemistry: Atoms First; The Foundation Science – McMurray and Fay Pearson
Custom Publishing
2011-2012 Department of Chemistry and Geochemistry Colorado School of Mines –
CHGN 121 and 122 Laboratory manual – Hayden McNeil Publishers
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes: The non-content goals of the course are to improve the
student's mental models of molecular interactions and to improve the student's ability to
apply chemical knowledge. These goals are achieved by tying the macroscopic
descriptions and equations studied to the microscopic action of atoms and molecules.
Students are pushed to develop mental models to explain phenomena at the atomic level.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes four credits of basic sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Gases
2. Liquids, Solids and Phase Changes
3. Solutions and Their Properties
4. Chemical Kinetics
5. Chemical Equilibrium
6. Aqueous Equilibria
7. Aqueous Acid-Base Chemistry
8. Thermodynamics
9. Electrochemistry
204
CSCI101 – Introduction to Computer Science
Course Description: An introductory course to the building blocks of Computer Science.
Topics include conventional computer hardware, data representation, the role of
operating systems and networks in modern computing, algorithm design, large databases,
SQL, and security. A popular procedural programming language will be learned by
students and programming assignments will explore ideas in algorithm run times,
computer simulation, computational techniques in optimization problems, client-server
communications, encryption, and database queries. Prerequisites: none. 3 hours lecture, 3
credit hours.
Course Designation: Selected Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Keith Hellman
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text: J. Glenn Brookshear, David T. Smith and Dennis Brylow, Computer Science -- An
Overview, Pearson-Addison-Wesley, 11ed, ISBN-13: 978-0-13-256903-3
Other Required Supplemental Information: Selected readings and research from the Internet and course developed materials.
Selected readings and research from Blown To Bits, H. Lewis, K. Ledeen, H. Abelson
(http://www.bitsbook.com).
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes: In this course, students learn how to write a basic, respectable, computer program in a
high-level language (Python); be exposed to the basic principles and practices of systems
design and analysis; learn the basic interfaces, encoding, and computational limits of
conventional computers; and learn how to document and implement problem solving
algorithms.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P P S P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to General
Education (Distributed Science Core).
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Basic data structures (Sets, Lists, Trees)
State diagrams
Dependency graphs
File systems
Operating Systems
Networks
Algorithms
205
Data representation and storage
Computer architecture and machine instructions
Databases
Simulation
Python basics
206
CSCI260 – Fortran Programming
Course Description: This is an introductory course in scientific programming using the
FORTRAN 95 / 2003 programming language. The course is designed for students that
have not had any exposure to computer programming. This course has two major
objectives:
Introduce students to the basic features of the FORTRAN 95/2003 language.
Expand students’ abilities to solve scientific and engineering problems by computer.
Further, students will gain experience in working within a command line operating
system environment.
Prerequisites: none. 2 hours lecture, 2 credit hours.
Course Designation: Selected Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Larry Johnson
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text: FORTRAN 95/2003 for Scientists and Engineers, Third Edition, Stephen J. Chapman,
WCB-McGraw-Hill, 2008, ISBN-13 9780073191577.
Other Required Supplemental Information: N/A
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes: In this course, students learn how to write a basic, computer programs in a high-level
language FORTRAN 95; be exposed to the basic principles and practices of systems
design and analysis; learn the basic interfaces, encoding, and computational limits of
conventional computers; and learn how to document and implement problem solving
algorithms.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P P S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 2 credit hours to General
Education (Distributed Science Core).
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Declaring Variables and Mathematic Operations
Program Design and Branching Structures (IF THEN SELECT CASE)
Loops (Counting DO Loops, While Loops, Basic Loop Structure) and Character
Manipulation
Format of output/input , File I/O read/write
One Dimensional Arrays
Intro to Procedures, Subroutines and Functions
Additional Features of Arrays Two Dimensional Arrays
207
CSCI261 – Programming Concepts
Course Description: Programming Concepts is an introductory course to programming.
It educates the student about computer programming in a contemporary language such as
C++ or Java, using software engineering techniques. The class covers engineering
problem solving, program design, documentation, debugging practices and simulation.
The class teaches fundamental language skills (input/output, control, repetition,
functions, files, classes and abstract data types, arrays, pointers and object-oriented
programming) in a language-agnostic, conceptual manner. Lastly, the class emphasizes
the use of programs as applied to problems in science and engineering. Prerequisites:
none. 2 hours lecture, 1 hour lab, 3 credit hours.
Course Designation: Selected Elective, Computer Science Core Requirement
Instructor or Coordinator: Yong Joseph Bakos
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text: Etter, D. Engineering Problem Solving with C++, 3
rd ed. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ. ISBN-13: 978-0132492652
Other Required Supplemental Information: Selected online readings from course-developed materials.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes: In this course, students learn how to write programs in C++ and apply such knowledge to
a variety of fields in engineering; learn the fundamental concepts present in all
postmodern programming languages; learn the importance of statistical simulation and
computational complexity; learn the fundamental syntax of C++; learn the basic
principles and practices of program design and analysis; and learn how to document and
implement problem solving algorithms.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P S P S P S S S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to General
Education (Distributed Science Core) or the Computer Science Core.
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Primitive datatypes
Flow control
Abstraction
Function design, definition and use
File-oriented input and output
Graphics programming with OpenFrameworks SDK
208
Algorithms
Data representation and storage, memory
Event-handling
Object-oriented programming
Class design and object use
C++ syntax
IDE (toolkit) use
Data structures
C++ standard library features
Documentation reading and comprehension
Simulation
Programming as a tool in modern engineering and social contexts
209
CSM101—First-Year Advising and Mentoring Program
Course Description: CSM101. First-Year Advising and Mentoring program is a “college
transition” course, taught in small groups. Emphasis is placed on fostering connectedness
to CSM, developing an appreciation of the value of a Mines education, and learning the
techniques and University resources that will allow freshmen to develop to their fullest
potential at Mines. Overall course objectives: Become an integrated member of the
Mines community; explore, select and connect with an academic major; and develop as a
person and as a student. Prerequisites: none. Nine (9) meetings during the semester; 0.5
semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Colin Terry, Coordinator
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text: None
Other Required Supplemental Information: Student Handbook “Brunton,”
Undergraduate Bulletin, Students are required to access all course materials in
Blackboard
Specific Course Goals: This course is designed to help CSM freshmen successfully
transition from high school to college in general, and to CSM in particular.
Instructional Outcomes:
CSM101 has six (6) specific learning objectives. Students will:
1. Feel further connected to the campus community of students, faculty, staff and
administrators.
2. Be able to articulate an awareness of campus resources and policies, including
academic administrative, and student services.
3. Gain a personal understanding of personal learning styles, learning skills and
strengths necessary for integration into the academic and social culture at Mines.
4. Demonstrate an active engagement in the campus community via social,
academic and personal involvement.
5. Formulate and revise academic and career goals; be able to articulate steps
required to achieve these goals.
6. Be able to identify and communicate personal values and standards related to
wellness, healthy choices and community.
This course is designed to be active and interactive, with assignments that are created to
help students acquire sets of skills that are necessary for developing a sense of identity at
Mines and for successful careers in engineering, science and economics.
The course is taught by one (1) instructor/mentor and two (2) student peer mentors. An
academic faculty member is assigned to each class through Academic Affairs to serve as
the first-year academic advisor. Academic faculty may opt to instruct the course and
serve as the academic advisor. Non-academic faculty may teach the course only.
Assessment strategies and facilitator observations are matched to each of the six learning
objectives:
210
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: General Education
Brief List of Topics Covered: Provide listing of topic areas covered
1. Assign goal paper for student reflection of goals for attending Mines,
2. Attend Celebration of Mines (explore and join student organizations or groups),
3. Career Day Program Guide for event information, and attend Career Day
(explore large Career Fair and organizations that recruit at Mines),
4. Discover campus resources: Tutoring program, Minority Engineering Program,
Counseling Center, Accounts Receivable, Study Abroad Program, Computer Labs,
Academic Excellence Workshops, Student Activities, Financial Aid, Registrar’s office,
Career Center, Student Health Center, Cahier’s Office, and Library,
5. Discuss Student Honor Code,
6. Learn the history of Mines: The founding of the Colorado School of Mines,
Mines Logo, Guggenheim Hall, the “M” on Mount Zion, Engineering Hall, Stratton Hall,
Golden, Colorado, Geology Museum, and Dinosaur Ridge and Red Rocks Park,
7. Acquire the Career Manual prepared by the Career Center, to learn about career
exploration, job searching and the career planning process related to acquiring
internships, full-time employment or graduate school admissions upon graduation,
8. Assigned reading on goal setting: Stephen Long, “Level Six Performance,” Ch.
8,
9. Identify specific action plans to actualize goals, and discuss 1:1 with instructor,
10. Take personality type indicator instrument and explore personality preferences,
11. Learn how difference personality preferences approach a project or challenge,
12. Learn about the basic academic programs,
13. Discuss the importance of GPA, time management and acquiring solid study
skills,
14. Learn the process of pre-registration for classes, using Trailhead,
15. Discuss implications of poor academic performance and course sequences, and
16. Additional topics of student choice: study abroad program, resume writing, and
graduate school.
211
DCGN209 – Introduction To Chemical Thermodynamics
Course Description: Introduction to the fundamental principles of classical
thermodynamics, with particular emphasis on chemical and phase equilibria.
Volumetemperature-pressure relationships for solids, liquids, and gases; ideal and non-
ideal gases. Introduction to kinetic molecular theory of ideal gases and the Maxwell-
Boltzmann distributions. Work, heat, and application of the First Law to closed systems,
including chemical reactions. Entropy and the Second and Third Laws; Gibbs Free
Energy. Chemical equilibrium and the equilibrium constant; introduction to activities &
fugacities. One- and two-component phase diagrams; Gibbs Phase Rule. Prerequisites:
CHGN121, CHGN124, MATH111, MATH112, PHGN100. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester
hours. Students with credit in DCGN210 may not also receive credit in DCGN209.
Course Designation: DCGN209 is a “Distributed Engineering Requirement” for the following options:
Chemistry
Geological Engineering
Metallurgical & Materials Engineering
Petroleum Engineering
Instructors: Drs. Mark Seger and Craig Simmons
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics & Kinetics, 2nd
Edition,
by Thomas Engel & Philip Reid; Prentice-Hall
Other Required Supplemental Information: None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course, students apply the basic principles of mathematics and physics to
elementary thermodynamic processes, and to the properties of matter. As a result,
students gain a quantitative appreciation for heat, work and the energy changes of
important processes, including chemical and phase equilibria.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Math & Basic
Sciences/Engineering
Brief List of Topics Covered: Provide listing of topic areas covered
1. Forms of matter: solids, liquids and gases
2. Volume-Temperature-Pressure relationships:
212
3. Energy: heat, work, internal energy and enthalpy
4. Heat capacities
5. Thermodynamic cycles and other elementary engineering applications.
6. Reversible and spontaneous processes
7. Entropy and Gibbs Free Energy
8. Chemical equilibrium
9. Phase equilibrium
10. Graphical representation of equilibrium – phase diagrams
213
DCGN210 – Introduction to Engineering Themodynamics Course Description: Introduction to the fundamental principles of classical engineering
thermodynamics. Application of mass and energy balances to closed and open systems
undergoing transient processes. Entropy generation and the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics
for closed and open systems. Introduction to phase equilibria and chemical reaction
equilibrium. Ideal solution behavior. Prerequisities: CHGN121, CHGN124, MATH111,
MATH112, PHGN100. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours. Student with credit in
DCGN209 may not also receive credit in DCGN210.
Course Designation: Required.
Coordinator: Charles R. Vestal
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Introduction to Engineering Thermodynamics - DCGN 210
Charles Vestal and Matthew Liberatore
McGraw-Hill CREATE Book based on Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 7th
Edition, Yunus A. Çengel and Michael A. Boles, ©2011
ISBN-10: 1121162738
or
Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 7th
Edition
Yunus A. Çengel and Michael A. Boles
McGraw Hill, New York, NY © 2010
ISBN 978-0-07-352932-5
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Upon successful completion of DCGN 210, the student should be able to do the
following:
Compute the thermodynamic properties of pure fluids from tables
Manipulate equations of state to find pressure, temperature and volume
Sketch simple phase diagrams and label phase boundaries
Solve First Law of Thermodynamics problems for open and closed
systems in steady- and unsteady-state processes
Solve Second Law of Thermodynamics problems for open and closed
systems in steady- and unsteady-state processes
Solve combined First Law and Second Law problems to access process
feasibility, second law efficiency or lost work
Calculate thermal properties such as the heat of reaction using heats of
formation, phase change data and heat capacity data
Apply Gibbs Free Energy analysis to chemical reactions
Demonstrate a comprehension of the vocabulary used in engineering
thermodynamics
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S S S
214
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification:
This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering Topics.
Brief List of Topics Covered: DCGN 210 is designed to introduce an engineering approach to classical
thermodynamics (macroscopic approach). Emphasis in the course will be split between
introduction of new topics and application of these topics to solve simplified engineering
systems. Topics include:
Thermodynamic definitions and nomenclature
Fluid properties – phase diagrams, equations of state, steam tables and
pure fluid properties
Mass balances
First Law of Thermodynamics (aka, the Energy Balance)
Second Law of Thermodynamics (aka, the Entropy Balance)
Chemical reaction thermodynamics
215
DCGN241- Statics
Course Description: Forces, moments, couples, equilibrium, centroids and second
moments of areas, volumes and masses, hydrostatics, friction, virtual work. Applications
of vector algebra to structures. Prerequisite: PHGN100 and credit or concurrent
enrollment in MATH112. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Statics (DCGN241) - Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Dr. Manohar Arora: BB 214, (303) 273-3403,
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Engineering Mechanics for Engineers, Statics, Twelfth Edition, By R.C.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
A web-based homework management system as a method to improve test scores, FE
topic performance and long -term retention of concepts in Statics is used. The online
homework management system employs randomized approach to problem solution, and
thus eliminating cheating by the students and improving their understanding of the
underlying concepts. Manual grading of homework is replaced by online grade book.
This improves efficiency, accuracy and cuts cost.
Homework are assigned and submitted online on each day of the class day. Students are
given daily in class quizzes with clickers to test their fundamental concepts learned
during lectures. Written examinations are given four time during the semester.
CSM Blackboard is used to publish class notes and supplementary material, class
example problems, homework solution, exam and quiz solution, engineering examples
and announcements
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
The course prepares CSM students for advanced courses in various engineering
curriculums. Students learned Free Body Diagrams (FBD) to formulate and solve
structural systems like truss bridges, frames, machines, cable supported bridges and water
retaining structures.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1. Vector Operations
2. Cartesian Vectors (2D and 3D)
3. Dot Product
4. Particle Equilibrium 2D
216
5. Particle Equilibrium 3D
6. Moment of a Force-2D
7. Cross Product & Moment of a Force-3D
8. Moment @ Axis
9. Moment of a Couple
10. Equivalent Systems
11. Centroid of areas - Integration
12. Centroid of Composite Areas & Lines
13. Distributed Loading
14. 2D Rigid Body Supports & FBD
15. FBD & Rigid Body Equilibrium-2D
16. 3D Rigid Body Supports & FBD
17. Rigid Body Equilibrium -3D
18. Trusses - Method of Joints
19. Trusses - Method of Sections
20. Frames
21. Machines
22. Internal Forces in Members
23. Shear & Bending Moment Diagrams - Beams
24. Cables- Discrete & Uniformly Distributed Loads
25. Friction - Blocks, Wedges & Belts
26. Fluid Pressure
27. Moment of Inertia for an Area by Integration
28. Parallel Axis Theorem - Composite Areas
29. Moment of Inertia for an area-Rotated Axis & Mohr's Circle
217
EBGN201 – Principles of Economics (I, II, S)
Course Description: Introduction to microeconomics and macroeconomics. This course focuses on applying the economic way of thinking and basic tools of economic analysis. Economic effects of public policies. Analysis of markets for goods, services and resources. Tools of cost-benefit analysis. Measures of overall economic activity. Determinants of economic growth. Monetary and fiscal policy. Prerequisites: None. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Scott Houser
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Principles of Economics, R. Glenn Hubbard and Anthony Patrick O’Brien, 2nd
edition,
Pearson, 2010
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Access to MyEconLab (Peason Publishing)
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Use economic models to analyze markets for goods, services and resources.
Apply tools of cost-benefit analysis to decisions.
Analyze government policy with respect to efficiency criteria and equity
considerations.
Understand the role of economic institutions in a market economy.
Explain and evaluate measures of the macroeconomic activity.
List the determinants of economic growth and explain international difference in
economic well-being.
Analyze the effects of fiscal and monetary policy on overall levels of
employment, output and prices.
Analyze current economic and policy issues using the tools of economics.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
S S P P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours in General
Education
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1) Introduction -- what is economics?
2) Making economic decisions
3) Cost-benefit analysis
4) Markets -- the basics of supply and demand
5) Gains from trade and economic efficiency
6) Government interventions and market responses
7) Market failures: externalities and public goods
8) Strategy and price discrimination
218
9) Measuring the macroeconomy – output, inflation, unemployment and balance of
payments
10) Determinants of economic growth
11) Business cycles
12) Fiscal policy
13) Monetary policy
14) Open economy macroeconomics
15) Income distribution and poverty
219
EGGN205 – Programming Concepts and Engineering Analysis
Course Description: This course provides an introduction to techniques of scientific
computation that are utilized for engineering analysis, with the software package
MATLAB as the primary computational platform. The course focuses on methods
data analysis and programming, along with numerical solutions to algebraic and
differential equations. Engineering applications are used as examples throughout the
course. Prerequisite: MATH112 or MATH113 or MATH122 or consent of instructor.
3 hours lecture, 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Selected Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Tyrone Vincent
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
E. B. Magrabm S. Azarm, B. Balachandran, J. H. Duncan, K. E. Herold, G. C.
Walsh, An Engineer’s Guide to Matlab, 3rd
Ed, Person, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
2011.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
none
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
1. Students will be able to write programs in MATLAB to load, display and
manipulate data
2. Students will be able to obtain numerical solutions to system of algebraic or
differential equations.
3. Students will be able to fit functions to data.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k 1 2 3 4 5
S S P P S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics.
Brief List of Topics Covered: Provide listing of topic areas covered
Introduction to Engineering Computation (1 week)
Introduction to Engineering Mathematics (3 weeks)
Functions, Taylor series and curvature
Systems of equations, vectors and matrices. Matrix inverse, determinant
and trace. Example engineering applications
Data Input and Output (1 week)
Programming Concepts (3 weeks)
Program control flow, relational and logic operators, if, for, while and
switch constructs.
Functions and sub-functions. Anonymous and recursive functions.
Curve Fitting (1 week)
Numerical Solutions to Differential Equations (2 weeks)
Euler’s method and ode 45.
220
Initial and boundary value problems.
Engineering examples.
Data Structures (1 week)
Linked lists, sorting, and searching
2 and 3 dimensional Graphics (1 week)
File and Process Management (1 week)
Binary and formatted I/O functions.
Graphical User Interfaces (1 week)
221
EGGN 250 – Multidisciplinary Engineering Laboratory (MEL) I
Course Description: Laboratory experiments integrating instrumentation, circuits and
power with computer data acquisitions and sensors. Sensor data is used to transition
between science and engineering science. Engineering Science issues like stress, strains,
thermal conductivity, pressure and flow are investigated using fundamentals of
equilibrium, continuity, and conservation. Prerequisite: DCGN381 or concurrent
enrollment. 4.5 hours lab; 1.5 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Jeff Schowalter
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
MELI Laboratory Experiments, 2004, King, Parker, and Grover, Available on
Blackboard.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Textbooks for pre- and co-requisite course
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, students would be able to:
1. Enhance student thinking maturity
2. Model and predict experimental results
3. Motivate students by simulating industrial practice
4. Learn skills of efficient and accurate experimentation
5. Make connections between several courses
6. Build lifelong learning skills.
7. Use a variety of learning styles
8. Build subject matter competency
9. Enhance teamwork skills
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P P P P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: Engineering Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered: Provide listing of topic areas covered
1. Proto-board, Thermistors, Voltage Divider
2. Force, Strain, Bridge
3. Vibration
4. Pressure Transducer
5. Accelerometers, Harmonic Oscillator
6. Linear position and Rotary Position
7. Time Domain R-C Circuit Response
8. Oscilloscope, Filters and Amplifiers
9. Electromagnetic Force Transducer
222
EGGN281 – Introduction to Electrical Circuits
Course Description: This course provides an engineering science analysis of electrical
circuits. DC and single-phase AC networks are presented. Transient analysis of RC, RL,
and RLC circuits is studied as is the analysis of circuits in sinusoidal steady-state using
phasor concepts. The following topics are included: DC and single-phase AC circuit
analysis, current and charge relationships. Ohm’s Law, resistors, inductors, capacitors,
equivalent resistance and impedance, Kirchhoff’s Laws, Thévenin and Norton equivalent
circuits, superposition and source transformation, power and energy, maximum power
transfer, first order transient response, algebra of complex numbers, phasor
representation, time domain and frequency domain concepts, and ideal transformers.
Prerequisites: PHGN 200 (Physics II), 3 Hours Lecture, 3 Semester Hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Ravel F. Ammerman
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Electric Circuits, by James W. Nilsson and Susan A. Riedel, Ninth Edition,
Pearson/Prentice-Hall, © 2011 (ISBN-13: 978-0-13-611499-4).
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Students will demonstrate proficiency in dc and ac analysis of RLC circuits. This
involves solving problems by applying Kirchhoff’s and Ohm’s laws. The specific circuit
analysis techniques of voltage and current division, node-voltage, mesh-current,
superposition, and Thevenin’s theorem will be emphasized. Mastering the frequency
domain concepts of phasors and impedance will be required to analyze ac circuits.
Students will demonstrate an understanding of operational amplifiers (ideal and
non-ideal). Emphasis will be placed on an understanding of the basic structure of these
devices, circuit modeling, and their operation in circuits.
Students will demonstrate proficiency in the transient analysis of RC, RL, and
RLC circuits.
Students will demonstrate an understanding of basic power concepts in ac and dc
circuits. Maximum power transfer, ideal transformers, and electrical safety will be
emphasized.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics.
Brief List of Topics Covered:
223
14. Introduction, fundamental electrical quantities, and circuit variables
15. Circuit elements (Independent voltage sources, Independent current sources,
Resistors, Dependent sources)
16. Circuit Laws (Kirchhoff’s Laws and Ohm’s Law)
17. Simple Resistive Circuits (Series and Parallel resistors)
18. Voltage and Current Division
19. Delta-Wye (Pi-Tee) Equivalent Circuits
20. Techniques of Circuit Analysis (Node and Mesh method, Thévenin and Norton
equivalents, Source transforms, and Superposition)
21. The Operational Amplifier (Ideal model and Non-ideal model)
22. Energy Storage Elements (Inductance, Capacitance, and Mutual Inductance)
23. Response of First-Order RL and RC Circuits (Source-Free RL and RC circuits,
General Solution for Step and Natural Responses, Sequential switching, and Unbounded
Responses)
24. Natural and Step Responses of RLC Circuits (Overdamped, Underdamped, and
Critically-Damped Solutions)
25. Parallel RLC Circuits
26. Series RLC Circuits
27. Sinusoidal Steady-State Analysis (Sinusoidal forcing function, Representation
in the complex plane, Phasor concept, Impedance concept)
28. Ideal Transformer
29. Electrical Safety and Residential wiring
224
EGGN315 – Dynamics
Course Description: The course is directed to learning the concepts of particle and rigid
body dynamics and their application in engineering analysis. The course covers particle
kinematics, 2D and 3D motion in Cartesian coordinates, normal-tangential coordinates,
polar and cylindrical coordinates, relative motions, rotating reference frames, rigid body
kinematics, rigid body kinetics, work and energy, linear impulse-momentum, angular
impulse-momentum, introduction to vibration theory. Three 50 minute classes per week
for a semester of 16 weeks duration, three (3) credit hours. Prerequisites: DCGN241
(Statics), and MATH225 (Differential Equations).
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Dr. Anthony Petrella
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Hibbeler, RC, “Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics”, 12th Edition, Pearson, 2010
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Supplemental web based tool - MasteringEngineering.com, available through the
textbook publisher, where students access additional learning tools and complete
homework.
Specific Course Goals
Instructional Outcomes:
1. The ability to apply particle kinematics for analyzing 2D motion in rectilinear and
curvilinear Newtonian frames
2. The ability to solve problems involving relative velocities and relative
accelerations in fixed and rotating reference frames
3. The ability to apply the principle of work and energy, conservation of energy, and
the principle of impulse-momentum in describing particle motion
4. Ability to apply the above dynamics principles to rigid bodies to solve 2D
problems in rigid body kinematics and kinetics
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary prog criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered:
particle kinematics
2D and 3D motion in Cartesian coordinates
normal-tangential coordinates
polar and cylindrical coordinates
relative motions
rotating reference frames
rigid body kinematics
rigid body kinetics
work and energy
linear impulse-momentum
225
angular impulse-momentum
introduction to vibration theory
226
EGGN320 – Mechanics of Materials
Course Description: Fundamentals of stresses and strains, material properties. Axial,
torsion, bending, transverse and combined loadings. Stress at a point; stress
transformations and Mohr’s circle for stress. Beams and beam deflections, thin-walled
pressure vessels, columns and buckling, fatigue principles, impact loading. Prerequisite:
DCGN241 or MNGN317. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Candace S. Sulzbach
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Mechanics of Materials, R.C. Hibbeler, 8th
ed.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Mastering Engineering on-line homework system (Pearson Education)
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
The objective of this course is for students to gain a working knowledge and
understanding of the fundamentals of mechanics of materials, and to apply this
knowledge to the design or analysis of simple elastic mechanical members or structures
of an engineering nature. Students learn to analyze axial and torsional members, as well
as beams, and to determine the stresses, strains and deformations in these members.
They also learn how to design members having these 3 types of loads applied, how to
find maximum stresses at a point in a loaded structure using Mohr’s Circle, and how to
analyze members subjected to a combination of loads (i.e. axial, torsional, bending).
Additionally, students learn column analysis, use of stress concentration factors and how
to solve statically indeterminate members.
A secondary objective is to develop good work habits and communication skills
consistent with the engineering profession.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P S P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes x credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered: 26. Equilibrium of a deformable body
27. Average normal stress and introduction to stress elements
28. Axial loading and stresses on an inclined plane
29. Average shear stress and allowable stress
30. Design of simple connections
31. Deformations and strain
32. Mechanical and Material properties/stress-strain diagrams
33. Ductile and Brittle materials/Hooke’s law and Poisson’s ratio
34. Axial deformations
35. Statically indeterminate axial members
36. Torsional loading (stress and deformation)
227
37. Torsional loading – stresses on an inclined plane
38. Statically indeterminate torsional members
39. Shear and bending moment diagrams – use of equations
40. Shear and bending moment diagrams – graphical method
41. Bending deformations and flexural stress
42. Shear stress in beams
43. Thin-walled pressure vessels
44. Combined loading – axial, torsional and bending
45. Mohr’s Circle for stress
46. Beam Design
47. Beam deflections by method of integration and method of superposition
48. Statically indeterminate beams by method of integration and method of
superposition
49. Column Buckling
50. Stress concentrations – axial and bending loads
228
EGGN 350 – Multidisciplinary Engineering Laboratory (MEL) II
Course Description: Laboratory experiments integrating electrical circuits, fluid
mechanics, stress analysis, and other engineering fundamentals using computer data
acquisition and transducers. Fluid mechanics issues like compressible and incompressible
fluid flow (mass and volumetric), pressure losses, pump characteristics, pipe networks,
turbulent and laminar flow, cavitation, drag, and others are covered. Experimental stress
analysis issues like compression and tensile testing, strain gage installation, Young’s
Modulus, stress vs. strain diagrams, and others are covered. Experimental stress analysis
and fluid mechanics are integrated in experiments which merge fluid power of the testing
machine with applied stress and displacement of material specimen. Prerequisite:
EGGN250. Prerequisite or concurrent enrollment.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Ventzi Karaivanov
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
MELII Experiments. Available on Blackboard.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
MEL I Manual, and textbooks for pre- and co-requisite courses
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Upon completion of the course, students would be able to:
10. Program computer data acquisition systems
11. Understand and use fluid flow and stress-strain measurement systems
12. Analyze experimental measurement accuracy
13. Understand the components of fluid handling systems
14. Understand the mechanical properties of common materials
15. Find new information and use it effectively
16. Communicate experimental results effectively
17. Work effectively within a multidisciplinary team
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P P P S P P P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours Engineering Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered: Provide listing of topic areas covered
10. Component based, real-time data acquisition using LabVIEW
11. Transducer calibration, interface electronics and scaling of units
12. Error analysis
13. Effective data display
14. Use and calibration of a manometer
15. Properties of transducers used with compressible fluid flow
16. Properties of transducers used with incompressible fluid flow
17. Practical consequences of Bernoulli’s law
18. Mass flow versus volume flow
229
19. Properties of airfoils
20. Stress-strain relationships for wood, plastics and metals
21. Strain measurement technology
22. Principle strain axis determination
230
Department, Course Number and Title:
Engineering Division, EGGN 351, Fluid Mechanics I
Designation:
Required for all Engineering undergraduates.
Catalog Description:
Fluid Mechanics I is an introductory course in fluid flow systems. Fluid statics, steady-
state fluid flow, dimensional analysis, and the development of skills to analyze steady-
state flow through pipe systems and open channels are the primary objectives of this
course. The topics of the course include properties of liquids, manometers, Bernoulli's
equation, integral and differential form of the conservation of mass and momentum
equations, dimensional analysis, lift and drag force on immerged bodies, laminar and
turbulent flow in pipes, pumps, and turbines.
Prerequisites:
DCGN241 – Statics OR MNGN317 – Dynamics for Mining Engineers
Textbook and/or other required material:
Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, by B. R. Munson, D. F. Young, and T. H. Okiishi, 5th
Edition, Wiley, 2006
Course Outcomes:
a) Examine the fundamental differences between the reactions of solids and fluids to
external forces.
b) Establish the concept of shear stress in a fluid, and the effect of fluid viscosity on
fluid motion.
c) Establish a fundamental understanding of the variation of pressure with elevation, and
how this variation can produce forces and moments on submerged objects (fluid statics).
d) Develop control-volume analyses for applying the laws of continuum mechanics to
fluid systems, including conservation of mass, the linear momentum relation (Newton’s
Second Law), and conservation of energy.
e) Develop differential analyses for applying the laws of continuum mechanics to fluid
systems, including the continuity equation and the Navier-Stokes equations.
f) Develop an understanding of the concept of head loss in internal-flow problems.
g) Establish non-dimensional groupings of fluid properties, and apply them in the design
of experiments that scale between models and prototypes (dimensional analysis).
h) Examine how lift and drag are generated on bodies submerged in a moving fluid.
i) Develop an understanding of open-channel flow as found in rivers and fluid conduits
j) Develop an understanding of the operation and selection of turbomachinery to meet
the requirements of different fluid systems.
Topics Covered a) Properties of fluids; the relationships between viscosity and fluid shear stress
b) Hydrostatics, manometers, and forces on submerged surfaces
c) Control-volume analyses of fluids in motion
d) Differential analyses of fluids in motion
e) Dimensional analysis, the Buckingham-PI theorem, and scaling from models to
prototypes
f) Internal flow, pressure drop, the Moody Diagram, and minor losses in piping systems
g) External flow, boundary layers, lift and drag over airfoils
h) Turbomachinery, pump sizing
231
Class/Laboratory Schedule:
Three 50-minute classes per week for a semester of 16 weeks in duration
Contribution of Course to Meeting Professional Component:
This course contributes to ABET Criterion 4. Professional Component, Item (b): one and
one-half years of engineering topics, consisting of engineering sciences and engineering
design appropriate to the student's field of study, by providing students with instruction in
the fundamental engineering science related to the analysis (85%) and design (15%) of
fluid systems.
Relationship of Course to Program Outcomes: EG1a: Broad fundamentals include: a) the differences between solids and fluids, b)
concept of fluid shear stress; c) generation of hydrostatic forces; d) dimensional analysis
for design of models and prototypes; e) lift and drag on submerged objects; f) open-
channel flows.
EG1b: Design includes: a) hydrostatic forces; b) control-volume analysis; c) generation
of head loss in piping systems; d) dimensional analysis and scaling; e) development of lift
and drag in external flow; f) analysis of open-channel flows; g) Turbomachinery
operation and specification; h) team building.
EG1c: Teamwork includes: team building as part of the computer projects
EG2a: Sustainability is addressed through understanding of systems related to a)
hydrostatic forces; b) control-volume analyses; c) internal flow; d) open-channel flows;
e) turbomachinery; and f) team building
EG3a: Global and societal impact is captured in a) understanding of hydrostatic forces
and the engineering systems that address these forces; b) control-volume analyses; c)
internal flow and plumbing / piping systems design; d) design of scale models and
experimentation; e) generation of lift and drag, and the relation to multiple industries; f)
open-channel flow analysis and channel design; g) turbomachinery selection; and h) team
building.
EG3b: Professional and ethical responsibilities are highlighted through a) head-loss
determination and plumbing design, including the selection of turbomachinery; b) open-
channel flow analysis.
EG4a: Source and use of new information will be developed as part of a) head-loss
analyses and internal flow design, including selection of turbomachinery for specific
fluids systems; b) open-channel flow analysis; and c) team building.
EG4b: Sharing of information will be developed through the team building exercises
involving computer projects.
EG4c: Mastery of fundamental knowledge for continued learning is stressed through the
multiple fundamental aspects of this course, including: a) fundamental fluid concepts; b)
control-volume analyses; c) differential analyses; d) dimensional analyses; e) lift and
drag concepts; f) open-channel flows.
EG4d: Graduates are prepared for graduate-level education through the development of
the most broad and powerful theory behind fluid mechanics: the Navier-Stokes equations.
Industrial preparation is developed through the more-practical aspects of the course,
including head-loss determinations in internal flow, and the team-building aspects of the
course. EG4e: The broad fundamentals developed in this course will allow graduates to be active in professional
and service organizations involved in fluid-mechanical systems, including mechanical and civil engineering
groups.
232
EGGN 371 – Thermodynamics I
Course Description: A comprehensive treatment of thermodynamics from a mechanical
engineering point of view. Thermodynamic properties of substances inclusive of phase
diagrams, equations of state, internal energy, enthalpy, entropy, and ideal gases.
Principles of conservation of mass and energy for steady-state and transient analyses.
First and Second Law of thermodynamics, heat engines, and thermodynamic efficiencies.
Application of fundamental principles with an emphasis on refrigeration and power
cycles. Prerequisite: MATH213/223. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Robert J. Braun
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Borgnakke & Sonntag, Fundamentals of Thermodynamics, 7th
Ed., Wiley (2009).
Other Required Supplemental Information: None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
During this course the student will demonstrate that they can solve problems involving:
Properties of a pure substance (Equation of state, Property tables, Thermodynamic
surfaces)
Work and Heat (Path dependence, Quasi-equilibrium processes)
Continuity (Conservation of mass)
First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of energy)
Second Law of Thermodynamics (Carnot cycle, Energy quality, Impossible
processes) and Entropy
Power and refrigeration cycles (Power plants, Vapor compression systems,
Internal/External combustion engines)
Students will also become competent in using software (EES or Excel) in solving
thermodynamics problems
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1. Properties of a pure substance (Equation of state, Property tables, Thermodynamic
surfaces)
2. Work and Heat relationships (Path dependence, Quasi-equilibrium processes)
3. Continuity (Conservation of mass)
233
4. First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of energy) for closed and open
systems
5. Second Law of Thermodynamics (Carnot cycle, Energy quality, Impossible
processes) and Entropy as a property and entropy balances
6. Power and refrigeration cycles (Power plants, Vapor compression systems,
Internal/External combustion engines)
234
EGGN413 – Computer Aided Engineering
Course Description: This course introduces the student to the concept of computer
aided engineering. The major objective is to provide the student with the necessary
background to use the computer as a tool for engineering analysis and design. The
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method and associated computational engineering
software have become significant tools in engineering analysis and design. This
course is directed to learning the concepts of FEA and its application to civil and
mechanical engineering analysis and design. Note that critical evaluation of the
results of a FEA using classical methods (from statics and mechanics of materials)
and engineering judgment is employed throughout the course.
Prerequisite: EGGN320. 3 hours lecture; 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required for Mechanical Engineering and Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Instructor or Coordinator: Dr. Graham G.W. Mustoe, Coordinator.
Textbook and/or other requirement materials: Required Text: P. M. Kurowski, Engineering Analysis with SolidWorks
Simulation 2011, SDC Publications, ISBN: 978-1-58503-632-5, 464 pgs.
Other Required Supplemental Information: Files posted on Blackboard
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes: EGGN413 is an introductory course that focuses on
using industry-standard finite element software and associated computational
tools to perform engineering analysis and design primarily in the area of solid
mechanics. The specific outcomes of this course are:
1. Understand the basic concepts of the global stiffness force-displacement
matrix equations in the displacement finite element method.
2. Use a commercial finite element software package (SW Simulation) ,
associated CAD modeling software (SolidWorks) and an engineering math
software (MATHCAD) to perform engineering analysis.
3. Apply classical engineering methods such as statics and mechanics of
materials to check whether the results of a finite element analysis are sensible.
4. Apply finite element analysis in the engineering design process. For example,
design a simple truss structure and perform finite element analyses to determine
the dimensions of the structural members based on specified design constraints.
5. Write clear and concise technical memoranda and reports describing the results
of an engineering analysis and their use in an engineering design if appropriate.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program
criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered: Provide listing of topic areas covered
235
Introduction to 413 and Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
SolidWorks (SW) Review
Introduction to FEA using SolidWorksSimulation (SWS)
Introduction to Engineering Computations using Mathcad
Review of Mechanics of Materials (Combined Loading, Stress Concentrations,
Failure Criteria, etc)
1-D FEA Fundamentals
Creating Structural FEA Models employing Truss and Beam Elements
Defeaturing & Configurations of Solid Models in SW
3D Linear FEA of Solids
Accuracy and Convergence of FEA Models - Mesh Control and Adaptive Methods
Interpreting Results of FEA Models under Combined Loading
3D Solid FEA Restraints and Loading
Using Symmetry in FEA Models
Building Assemblies and using Assembly Mates in SW
FEA of Mechanical Assemblies
FEA of Contact Problems
Global-local FEA Analysis
Use of Connectors in SWS/FEA
FEA of Thermal Stresses
FEA of Shell Structures
FEA of Mechanical Vibrations and Frequency Analysis
236
EGGN491: Senior Design I
Syllabus – Spring 2013 3 Credits/6 Contact Hours
Course Coordinator/Faculty:
Dr. Cameron J. Turner, P.E.
Office: W370E
Phone: 273-3309
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Jered Dean
Office: W370D
Phone: 273-3673
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Jeff Schowalter
Office: BB324
Phone: 273-3673
Email: [email protected]
Course Description: (I, II) (WI) This course is the first of a two-semester capstone
course sequence giving the student experience in the engineering design process.
Realistic open-ended design problems are addressed for real world clients at the
conceptual, engineering analysis, and the synthesis stages and include economic and
ethical considerations necessary to arrive at a final design. Students are assigned to
interdisciplinary teams and exposed to processes in the areas of design methodology,
project management, communications, and work place issues. Strong emphasis is placed
on this being a process course versus a project course. This is a writing-across-the-
curriculum course where students' written and oral communication skills are
strengthened. The design projects are chosen to develop student creativity, use of design
methodology and application of prior course work paralleled by individual study and
research.
Prerequisites: Field session appropriate to the student's specialty and EPIC251. For
Mechanical Specialty students, concurrent enrollment or completion of EGGN411.
This course is REQUIRED by the BSCE, BSEE, BSEnvE, BSE and BSME degree
programs.
Required Course Text(s): EGGN491, (2010). Project Management Guide, Compiled by Turner, C., Sulzbach, C.
and Schowalter, J., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
EGGN491, (2010). Design Methods Guide, Compiled by Turner, C., Sulzbach, C. and
Schowalter, J., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Which contain selections from:
Davis, M. (2010). Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and
Practice, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Dieter, G. and Schmidt, L. (2009). Engineering Design, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, New York.
Ford, R. and Coulston, C. (2008). Design for Electrical and Computer Engineers:
Theory, Concepts and Practice, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Larson, E. and Gray, C. (2010). Project Management: The Managerial Process, 5th
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Ullman, D. (2010). The Mechanical Design Process, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
New York.
Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2007). Product Design and Development, 4th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Additional References:
237
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 4th
Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Dym, C. and Little, P. (2004). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, 2nd
Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Jones, J. (1992). Design Methods, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New
Jersey.
Otto, K. and Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering
and Product Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 2nd Ed.,
Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Course Goals: Through this course, students will
1) Practice Open-Ended Problem Solving Skills through a Hands-on Technical
Project;
2) Improve written and oral communication skills;
3) Work in inter-disciplinary design teams;
4) Interface with people in the real world;
5) Develop a professional work ethic as evidenced through design notebooks and
engineering documentation;
6) Practice Ethical and Professional Behavior; and
7) Apply formalized design methods and design processes to design problems.
Student Outcomes:
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and
safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (ABET c);
An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (ABET d);
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (ABET f);
An ability to communicate effectively (ABET g);
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions
in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (ABET h);
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
(ABET i); and
A knowledge of contemporary issues (ABET j).
Topics Covered: Team Building Strategies ∙ Typology for Teams ∙ Identifying Stakeholders & Customers ∙ Surveys, Focus
Groups, & Interviews ∙ Customer Needs Analysis, Affinity diagrams, & Mind-maps ∙ Kano Diagram of
Needs ∙ Product Development S-curves ∙ Types of Design: Original, Variant & Adaptive Designs ∙ Project
Management Tools ∙ Scheduling, Critical Path, Float, Work Breakdown Structures ∙ Process Models ∙ Black
Box Models ∙ Function Structures ∙ Product Abstraction & Decomposition ∙ Product Disassembly: Bills of
Materials, Disassembly Plan, & Exploded View Diagrams ∙ Subtract and Operate ∙ Force & Energy Flow
Analysis ∙ Quality Functional Deployment ∙ Design Requirements & Specifications ∙ Concept
Generation/Ideation: Brainstorming, Brainball, C-sketch, 6-3-5 ∙ Morphological Matrices ∙ Decision
Methods: Pugh Charts & Numerical Decision Matrices ∙ Estimation Calculations ∙ Embodiment Design ∙
Virtual & Physical Prototyping ∙ Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA) ∙ Systems Engineering
challenges & methods ∙ Design for Manufacturing & Assembly (DFMA)/Design for Environment (DFE) ∙
Design Optimization/Robust Design
238
EGGN492: Senior Design II
Syllabus – Spring 2013 3 Credits/6 Contact Hours
Course Coordinator/Faculty:
Dr. Cameron J. Turner, P.E.
Office: W370E
Phone: 273-3309
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Jered Dean
Office: W370D
Phone: 273-3673
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Jeff Schowalter
Office: BB324
Phone: 273-3673
Email: [email protected]
Course Description: This course is the second of a two-semester sequence to give the
student experience in the engineering design process. Design integrity and performance
are to be demonstrated by building a prototype or model, or producing a complete
drawing and specification package, and performing pre-planned experimental tests,
wherever feasible, to verify design compliance with client requirements.
Prerequisites: EGGN491.
Course Designation: Required
Required Course Text(s): EGGN491, (2010). Project Management Guide, Compiled by Turner, C., Sulzbach, C.
and Schowalter, J., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
EGGN491, (2010). Design Methods Guide, Compiled by Turner, C., Sulzbach, C. and
Schowalter, J., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Which contain selections from:
Davis, M. (2010). Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and
Practice, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Dieter, G. and Schmidt, L. (2009). Engineering Design, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, New York.
Ford, R. and Coulston, C. (2008). Design for Electrical and Computer Engineers:
Theory, Concepts and Practice, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Larson, E. and Gray, C. (2010). Project Management: The Managerial Process, 5th
Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Ullman, D. (2010). The Mechanical Design Process, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
New York.
Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2007). Product Design and Development, 4th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Additional References:
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 4th
Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Dym, C. and Little, P. (2004). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction, 2nd
Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
Jones, J. (1992). Design Methods, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New
Jersey.
239
Otto, K. and Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering
and Product Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 2nd Ed.,
Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Course Goals: Through this course, students will
8) Practice Open-Ended Problem Solving Skills through a Hands-on Technical
Project;
9) Improve written and oral communication skills;
10) Work in inter-disciplinary design teams;
11) Interface with people in the real world;
12) Develop a professional work ethic as evidenced through design notebooks and
engineering documentation;
13) Practice Ethical and Professional Behavior; and
14) Apply formalized design methods and design processes to design problems.
Student Outcomes:
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and
safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (ABET c);
An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (ABET d);
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (ABET f);
An ability to communicate effectively (ABET g);
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions
in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (ABET h);
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
(ABET i); and
A knowledge of contemporary issues (ABET j).
Topics Covered:
Design Reviews ∙ Detailed Design Considerations ∙ Design of Experiments/Design
Validation ∙ Prototyping Advice from the Manufacturers ∙ Intellectual Property ∙ Legal
Issues for Engineers: Liability, NDAs/CDAs, Export Control, etc. ∙ Entrepreneurship ∙
Ethics and Professionalism ∙ Industrial Design
240
EPIC151 Design EPICS I (I,II,S) Course Description: Design EPICS I introduces students to a design process that
includes open-ended problem solving and teamwork integrated with the use of computer
software as tools to solve engineering problems. Computer applications emphasize
graphical visualization and production of clear and coherent graphical images, charts and
drawings. Teams assess engineering ethics, group dynamics and time management with
respect to decision making. The course emphasizes written technical communications
and introduces oral presentations. 3 semester hours, 5 contact hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Current instructor roster (Fall 2011) is as follows:
Full time faculty:
Robert Knecht
Martin Spann
Natalie Van Tyne
Matthew Young
Adjunct faculty:
Anna Berlin Robert Neukirchner
Melanie Brandt Dedi Sadagori
Tamara Carey Kerry Shaklee
Mary-Margaret Coates Ted Smathers
Danny Darr Manfred Staab
Leslie Landefeld Emil Tanner
Mirna Mattjik Paul Van Susante
Odon Musimbi James Wong
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Visualization for Engineers and Scientists, Second Edition, Ted Smathers, 2011
Recommended Texts:
A Guide for an Engineering Design Process, Bob Knecht, 2010.
A Guide to Writing as an Engineer, Third Edition, David Beer and David McMurrey,
2009.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Online access to instructor course notes, tutorials and homework assignments
Instructional Outcomes:
1. Develop an ability, through practice, to apply creative and critical thinking skills
through a guided design methodology with an emphasis on visual solutions to
engineering problems.
2. Analyze engineering alternatives in order to select the “most desirable option” by
applying a decision analysis method in conjunction with graphic representation of those
options.
241
3. Participate as a member of a team that is committed to solving an open-ended
problem through practice in building team and interpersonal skills, as well as identifying
and meeting deadlines.
4. Prepare communications documents, which develop the evidence necessary to
build an engineering case by writing a clear and concise conclusion based on evidence.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Project Definition Soldering
Brainstorming Design Synthesis and Integration
Decision Analysis Marketing
Component/Subsystem Analysis Technical Writing
Design Visualization Oral Presentations
Manual Drafting Team Dynamics
Computer-Aided Drawing Engineering Ethics
Shop Safety Awareness of the Engineering Profession
242
EPIC251 Design EPICS II (I,II,S)
Course Description: Design EPICS II builds on the design process introduced in Design
EPICS I, which focuses on open-ended problem solving in which students integrate
teamwork and communications with the use of computer software as tools to solve
engineering problems. Computer applications emphasize information acquisition and
processing based on knowing what new information is necessary to solve and problem
and where to find the information efficiently. Teams analyze team dynamics through
weekly team meetings and progress reports. The course emphasizes oral presentations
and builds on written communications techniques introduced in Design EPICS I.
Prerequisite: EPIC151. 3 semester hours, 5 contact hours.
Course Designation: Required for all engineering programs
Instructor or Coordinator: Current instructor roster (Fall 2011) is as follows:
Full time faculty:
Robert Knecht
Joel Duncan
Martin Spann
Natalie Van Tyne
Matthew Young
Adjunct faculty:
Robert Dullien David Roberts
Susan Melvin Jesus Rodriguez
Joel Mize Carrie Sonneborn
Robert Neukirchner Paul Van Susante
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Recommended Texts:
A Guide for an Engineering Design Process, Bob Knecht, 2010.
A Guide to Writing as an Engineer, Third Edition, David Beer and David McMurrey,
2009.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Online access to instructor course notes, tutorials and homework assignments
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
1. Develop an ability, through continued practice, to apply creative and critical
thinking skills through an external client project with an emphasis on data analysis and
numerical solutions.
2. Analyze engineering alternatives in order to select the “most desirable options” by
applying commercial software to model a system or product.
3. Participate as a member of a team that is committed to solving an open-ended
project through practice in managing people, materials, money and other available
resources.
4. Prepare communications documents, which develop the evidence necessary to
build an engineering case by communicating the technical and economic feasibility of an
engineered strategy.
243
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P P S P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to Engineering
Topics
Brief List of Topics Covered:
Project Definition Project management and scheduling
Brainstorming Design Synthesis and Integration
Decision Analysis Marketing
Component/Subsystem Analysis Technical Writing
Team Dynamics Oral Presentations
Client-Team Dynamics Numerical analysis
Data management, analysis, interpretation, modeling
Project-Specific Technical Skills
Introduction to spatial data analysis
Marketing and promotion strategy
244
LAIS100 NATURE AND HUMAN VALUES (NHV) Course Description: Nature and Human Values will focus on diverse views and critical
questions concerning traditional and contemporary issues linking the quality of human
life and Nature, and their interdependence. The course will examine various disciplinary
and interdisciplinary approaches regarding two major questions: 1) How has Nature
affected the quality of human life and the formulation of human values and ethics? (2)
How have human actions, values, and ethics affected Nature? These issues will examine
cases and examples taken from across time and cultures. Themes will include but are not
limited to population, natural resources, stewardship of the Earth, and the future of
human society. This is a writing-intensive course that will provide instruction and
practice in expository writing, using the disciplines and perspectives of the Humanities
and Social Sciences. 4 hours lecture/seminar; 4 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Coordinator: Cortney Holles, NHV Coordinator
Textbook and/or other requirement materials: Required Text: A Student’s Guide to Nature and Human Values, Paula Farca, Cortney
Holles, and Shira Richman, 2010
Other Required Supplemental Information: Course readings distributed electronically
through Blackboard.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
At the conclusion of LAIS 100, Nature and Human Values, students should be able to
successfully perform the following:
1. Demonstrate understanding of major ethical theories and concepts by applying
them to contemporary and recent debates on technology, resource use, environmental
issues, and engineering practices.
2. Critically read and analyze arguments, accurately identify the central argument
within readings, and synthesize diverse points of view.
3. Construct effective, well-organized arguments, written and oral, whose central
claims are adequately supported and logically entail the argumentative conclusion.
4. Successfully research topics related to engineering, ethics, and the environment,
incorporate source material into a researched paper, and correctly document sources.
5. Write clear, readable, grammatical prose developed through the process of
drafting and revision.
6. Demonstrate understanding of the impact of engineering and applied science in
social and environmental contexts.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h I j k
P P S P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 4 credit hours to the Humanities
and Social Sciences Core Curriculum requirement. General Education.
Brief List of Topics Covered:
245
I. Topics related to engineering, engineering ethics, engineering and the
environment:
Professional ethical obligations for engineers, NSPE Code of Ethics
Requirements of rational ethical thought
Limits of ethical relativism
Major schools of moral philosophy: Consequentialism, Deontology, Virtue Ethics
Central concepts in environmental ethics: the Precautionary Principle, obligations
to future generations, anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric perspectives,
instrumental and intrinsic value
Other topics often covered in NHV lectures, varying from year to year but have
included; the Challenger disaster, genetic engineering of food crops, human genetic
engineering, effects of digital communication, global energy challenge, coal mining and
mountaintop removal, nuclear power, wilderness debates, and water use
II. Topics related to writing:
Critical reading
Techniques for writing paraphrases and accurate summaries, avoiding plagiarism
The writing process: pre-writing, drafting, revision
Types of argument: deduction and induction
Evaluating strengths and weaknesses of arguments
Constructing effective arguments
Logos, ethos, and pathos in argumentation
Presenting arguments in discussion or formal presentations
Strategies, techniques, and tools for research
Evaluating sources
Using and correctly documenting source material in a researched paper
IEEE and MLA documentation styles
246
LAIS300/400 Elective Level Courses
Course Description: Varies by course.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor: Varies by course.
Textbook and/or other requirement materials: Required Text: Varies by course.
Other Required Supplemental Information: Varies by course.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
At the conclusion of LAIS 400-level courses, students should be able to successfully
perform the following:
1.) Demonstrate the ability to develop innovative conclusions on the basis of existing
research and thought.
2.) Critically analyze expert arguments related to the course topic.
3.) Construct logical, effective, well-organized arguments, written and oral, that
synthesize diverse information and points of view.
4.) Successfully conduct substantial research related to course topic.
5.) Demonstrate advanced writing skills developed in Nature and Human Values,
Human Systems and succeeding courses.
6.) Demonstrate the ability to intelligently analyze evidence and discern significant
patterns, differences and similarities, or courses of development.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h I j k
S P P P S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: These courses satisfy the requirement for 9 semester hours
in the Humanities and Social Sciences beyond LAIS 100, EBGN 201, and SYGN 200.
General Education.
Brief List of Topics Covered: Varies by course.
247
MATH111 – Calculus for Scientists and Engineers I
Course Description: This is the first course in the calculus sequence. Topics covered in
this course include elements of plane geometry, functions, limits, continuity, derivatives
with applications, and definite and indefinite integrals. 4 credit hours, 4 hours lecture.
Prerequisites: Precalculus or equivalent.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Holly Eklund, G. Gustave Greivel
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Calculus: Early Transcendentals, 2nd
ed., by John Rogawski (2011).
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course, students are introduced to the fundamental Calculus concepts of limits and
continuity of functions of a single variable. This knowledge is applied to define the
derivative and the integral and to derive applications of the derivative. Students are also
introduced to the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 4.0 credit hours to Math & Basic
Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered: Provide listing of topic areas covered
The student will:
1. Define a function.
2. Determine the domain and range of a function.
3. Describe the following functions graphically, numerically, and analytically:
Linear.
Exponential.
Logarithmic.
Polynomial.
Rational.
Trigonometric.
Piecewise.
Inverse.
4. Determine if a function is even or odd.
5. Translate functions.
6. Determine the zeroes of a function.
7. Determine whether a function is continuous.
8. Determine the one-sided limits of a function and the limit of a function.
9. Relate the secant line to the tangent line.
10. Define the derivative of a function.
248
11. Differentiate:
Powers.
Polynomials.
Products.
Quotients.
Composite functions.
Trigonometric functions.
Implicit functions.
Exponential functions.
Logarithmic functions.
Inverse functions.
12. Apply derivatives to solve:
Rates of change problems.
Maxima/minima problems.
Related rate problems.
13. Find and interpret higher-order derivatives.
14. Approximate functions linearly and with Taylor Polynomials.
15. Approximate the change in a function using differentials.
16. Relate the graphs of functions and derivatives.
17. Evaluate limits of indeterminate forms using L’Hopital’s Rule.
18. Find antiderivatives of functions.
19. Estimate integrals with finite sums.
20. Define the definite integral.
21. Relate derivatives and integrals (Fundamental Theorem of Calculus).
22. Integrate using substitution.
23. Apply integration methods to find areas.
24. Relate exponential and log functions.
25. Integrate exponential and logarithmic functions.
249
MATH112 – Calculus for Scientists and Engineers II
Course Description: This is the second course in the calculus sequence. Topics covered
in this course include vectors, applications and techniques of integration, infinite series,
and an introduction to vectors and three-dimensional space. 4 credit hours, 4 hours
lecture. Prerequisites: grade of C or better in MATH111 or equivalent.
Course Designation: Required
Coordinator: Holly Eklund, G. Gustave Greivel
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Calculus: Early Transcendentals, 2nd
ed., by John Rogawski (2011).
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course, students learn techniques of integration as well as several applications of
the definite integral. Students are given a brief introduction to separable differential
equations and their solutions. Sequences and series are also presented, including the
application of power series to engineering problems and an introduction to the complex
plane and Euler’s formula. Finally, students are given an introduction to vectors and
three-dimensional space, with an emphasis on lines and planes in 3-D.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 4.0 credit hours to Math & Basic
Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
The student will:
1. Parametrize curves in the plane as well as in three-dimensional space.
2. Find the tangent to a parametrized curve.
3. Find the length of a parametrized curve.
4. Define a vector in the plane and in space.
5. Resolve a vector into components.
6. Add and subtract vectors.
7. Find the magnitude of a vector.
8. Find and interpret the dot product of two vectors.
9. Project a vector onto another vector.
10. Find and interpret the cross product of two vectors.
11. Solve a system of linear equations.
12. Write the equations for a line in space.
13. Write the equation for a plane in space.
14. Define a vector-valued function.
15. Differentiate vector-valued functions.
16. Integrate vector-valued functions.
17. Model projectile motion.
250
18. Evaluate integrals using:
Substitutions.
Integration by parts.
Numerical methods.
Trigonometric integrals.
Trigonometric substitutions.
Partial fraction decomposition.
19. Apply the definite integral to solve problems in a variety of applications including:
Areas.
Volumes.
Work.
Mass.
Center of Mass.
20. Solve separable first order differential equations, including initial value problems.
21. Identify and evaluate improper integrals.
22. Determine the convergence of an infinite sequence.
23. Determine the convergence of an infinite series.
24. Find the sum of a geometric series and Maclaurin series.
25. Approximate the sum of an infinite series and determine the error in the
approximation.
26. Represent a function as a power series using the Taylor series.
27. Use Taylor approximations.
251
MACS213 – Calculus for Scientists and Engineers III
Course Description: This is the final course in the calculus sequence. Topics covered in
this course are drawn from multivariable calculus, including partial derivatives, multiple
integration, and vector calculus. 4 credit hours, 4 hours lecture. Prerequisites: grade of C
or better in MATH112 or equivalent.
Course Designation: Required
Coordinator: Holly Eklund, G. Gustave Greivel
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Calculus: Early Transcendentals, 2nd
ed., by John Rogawski (2011).
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course, students learn to find partial derivatives and consider several applications
of partial derivatives including related rates, linear approximations and the total
differential, directional derivatives and the gradient, and constrained and unconstrained
optimization. Students learn to set up and evaluate double and triple integrals in Cartesian
coordinates as well as polar, cylindrical and spherical coordinates with an emphasis on
applications of these integrals. Students are also introduced to general transformations for
double and triple integrals. Finally, students are introduced to Vector Calculus with an
emphasis on work and flux integrals for vector fields. The Fundamental Theorem for
Line Integrals, Green’s Theorem, Stokes’ Theorem and the Divergence Theorem are all
presented.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 4.0 credit hours to Math & Basic
Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
The student will:
1. Parametrize surfaces in three-dimensional space.
2. Define a function from Rn to R1.
3. Plot equations and functions in three dimensions and also sketch their contour plots.
4. Find partial derivatives of a multivariable function.
5. Write the equation of a plane tangent to a function.
6. Find the linearization of a differentiable function at a point.
7. Predict the change in a function using differentials.
8. Use the chain rule to differentiate a multivariable function.
9. Define and determine the gradient vector of a function.
10. Define and determine the directional derivative of a function.
11. Apply gradients and directional derivatives to real problems.
12. Find the maxima and minima of functions.
13. Apply the method of Lagrange multipliers to solve simple constrained optimization
252
problems.
14. Integrate functions of two and three variables.
15. Use multiple integrals to find:
Areas.
Surface areas.
Volumes.
Moments and center of mass.
16. Use cylindrical and spherical coordinates to evaluate multiple integrals.
17. Make general transformations of coordinate systems to evaluate multiple integrals.
18. Define and graph vector fields from R2 to R2 and from R3 to R3.
19. Parametrize curves and compute line integrals along those curves. Applications
include:
Line integrals of scalar functions to find the arc length, center of mass, or charge.
Line integrals of vector fields to find the work done by a vector field.
20. Identify conservative fields and apply the Fundamental Theorem for Line Integrals.
21. Use Green’s Theorem to evaluate line integrals on appropriate closed paths in the
plane.
22. Compute surface integrals over parametrized surfaces as well as the graphs of
functions. Applications include:
Surface integrals of scalar functions to find surface area, center of mass, or charge.
Surface integrals of vector fields to find the flux of a field through a surface.
23. Apply Stokes’ Theorem to evaluate line integrals on appropriate closed paths in
space.
24. Apply the Divergence Theorem to evaluate flux integrals through appropriate
closed surfaces.
253
MATH225 – Differential Equations
Course Description: This is an introductory course in differential equations. Topics
include classical techniques for first and higher order equations and systems of equations,
Laplace transforms, and phase plane and stability analysis of non-linear equations and
systems. Applications to physics, mechanics, electrical engineering and environmental
sciences are considered. 3 credit hours, 3 hours lecture. Prerequisites: MATH213 or
equivalent.
Course Designation: Required
Coordinator: Jennifer Strong, G. Gustave Greivel
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Differential Equations with Boundary-Value Problems, 7th ed., D. Zill, M. Cullen,
Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, (2009).
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
This course is an introductory course in Differential Equations. In this course, students
are introduced to classical solution techniques for first and second order differential
equations as well as systems of first order linear equations. Students are also introduced
to Laplace transforms. Students apply these methods to solve engineering problems and
interpret solutions in the context of engineering problems.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3.0 credit hours to Math & Basic
Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
The student will:
1. Classification of differential equations.
2. Linear equations with variable coefficients.
3. Separable differential equations.
4. Modeling with first order equations.
5. The Method of Integrating factors.
6. The existence and uniqueness theorem for first order differential equations.
7. Slope Fields and phase lines
8. Euler's Method
9. Fundamental solutions of linear homogeneous equations.
10. Homogeneous equations with constant coefficients.
Complex roots and the characteristic equation.
Repeated roots.
11. Nonhomogeneous equations: Method of undetermined coefficients.
12. Mechanical and electrical vibrations; forced vibrations, including resonance
254
13. Introduction to power series solutions to differential equations.
14. The Laplace transform:
Definition.
Solution of initial value problems.
Step functions.
Differential equations with discontinuous forcing functions.
Impulse functions.
The convolution integral.
15. Systems of first order linear equations:
Introduction.
Review of matrices, linear independence, eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
Homogeneous linear systems with constant coefficients.
Complex eigenvalues.
Repeated eigenvalues.
The phase plane and phase portraits
16. Linearization of nonlinear differential equations and stability
255
MATH 323 SYLLABUS
Instructor: William Navidi
Course Objectives:
The primary objective of the course is to provide you with the basic knowledge of
probability
and statistics that every well-educated scientist and engineer should have. To this end,
the
following topics will be covered.
1. Samples and populations
2. Probability
3. Propagation of error
4. Commonly used distributions
5. Confidence intervals
6. Hypothesis tests
7. Correlation and simple linear regression
Text:
Navidi, W. Statistics for Scientists and Engineers, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 2011.
Assignments:
Homework will be assigned and collected weekly. Some homework assignments will
involve the use of the software package MINITAB, which you will learn how to use as
the semester progresses.
Exams:
There will be two midterms and a final exam.
256
PAGN101 Physical Education I Course Description: A general overview of life fitness basics which includes exposure to educational units of Nutrition, Stress Management, Drug and Alcohol Awareness. Instruction in Fitness units provides the student an opportunity for learning and the beginning basics for a healthy life style. 0.5 credit hours.
Course Designation: Required
Coordinator: Dixie Cirillo
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
N/A
Other Required Supplemental Information:
N/A
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Each student will learn how physical activity can reduce stress, increase their immune
system and be a life time asset. In PAGN101 and 102 classes the students learn a wide
variety of activities.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes .5 credit hour to the General
Education.
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1) Safe way to exercise
2) Benefits of exercise
3) Physically getting the students to move
257
PAGN102 Physical Education II Course Description: Sections in physical fitness and team sports, relating to personal health and wellness activities. 0.5 credit hours. Prerequisite: PAGN101 or consent of the Department Head.
Course Designation: Required
Coordinator: Dixie Cirillo
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
N/A
Other Required Supplemental Information:
N/A
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Each student will learn how physical activity can reduce stress, increase their immune
system and be a life time asset. In PAGN101 and 102 classes the students learn a wide
variety of activities.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes .5 credit hour to the General
Education.
Brief List of Topics Covered: 4) Safe way to exercise
5) Benefits of exercise
6) Physically getting the students to move
258
PAGN200 Elective Level Courses
Course Description: Varies by course.
Coordinator: Dixie Cirillo
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
N/A
Other Required Supplemental Information:
N/A
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Each student will learn how physical activity can reduce stress, increase their immune
system and be a life time asset.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes .5 credit hour to the General
Education.
Brief List of Topics Covered: Varies by course.
259
PHGN100 – Mechanics
Course Description: A first course in physics covering the basic principles of mechanics
using vectors and calculus. The course consists of a fundamental treatment of the
concepts and applications of kinematics and dynamics of particles and systems of
particles, including Newton’s laws, energy and momentum, rotation, oscillations, and
waves. Prerequisite: MATH111 and concurrent enrollment in MATH112/122 or consent
of instructor. 2 hours lecture; 4 hours studio; 4.5 semester hours. Approved for Colorado
Guaranteed General Education transfer. Equivalency for GT-SC1.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Alex T. Flournoy
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 6th ed., by Tipler and Mosca
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
In this course students will learn to apply Newton’s laws and the related concepts of
work-energy and impulse-momentum to solve a variety of science and engineering
problems. The class will focus on developing a strong conceptual and rigorous
mathematical understanding of these tools. These and the problems to be addressed will
be presented in full with a de-emphasis on simplified special case scenarios. The
students will develop skills in vector manipulation including representation, addition, dot
and cross products, to address problems in more than one dimension. They will regularly
employ calculus including differentiation, indefinite and definite integration,
extremization, graphical analysis, and surface and volume integrals. The course will also
provide an introduction to mechanical waves, integral evaluations of inertial quantities,
and a rigorous treatment of Newtonian gravity with an emphasis on symmetry arguments
for problem solving.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e F g h i j K
P P P S S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S – Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 4.5 credit hours to Math & Basic
Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1. Kinematics in one and two dimensions
2. Newton’s three laws of motion
3. Application of Newton’s laws in static and dynamic contexts
4. Application of Newton’s laws to multiple objects
5. Kinematics and dynamics of non-uniform and uniform circular motion
6. Mechanical oscillations and the special case of simple harmonic motion
260
7. Rotational kinematics and dynamics including torque and moment of inertia
8. Combined rotation and translation including rolling
9. Work, mechanical energy, and power
10. Thermal energy
11. Potential energy functions and their use
12. Linear impulse, momentum, and applications to collisions
13. Angular momentum
14. Basic wave properties and their mathematical description
15. Interference and superposition of waves
16. Standing waves on strings and in air columns
17. Evaluation of inertial quantities
18. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation and symmetry
261
PHGN200 – Introduction to Electromagnetism and Optics
Course Description: Continuation of PHGN100. Introduction to the fundamental laws
and concepts of electricity and magnetism, electromagnetic devices, electromagnetic
behavior of materials, applications to simple circuits, electromagnetic radiation, and an
introduction to optical phenomena. Prerequisite:
Grade of C or higher in PHGN100/110, concurrent enrollment in MATH213/223. 2 hours
lecture; 4 hours studio; 4.5 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: Patrick Kohl (Fall 2011)
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Physics For Scientists and Engineers, 6th ed., Tipler &Mosca, W. H. Freeman &
Company, 2008.
Other Required Supplemental Information:
None
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
Students should be able to understand the fundamental laws of electromagnetism as
summarized in Maxwell's equations, along with related concepts and principles.
Students should be able to recognize and apply these laws in conjunction with the
fundamental laws, concepts, and principles of mechanics.
Students should become proficient in using calculus to solve applied problems involving
electromagnetism.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b(i) b(ii) c d e f g h i j k
P S P S P S S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S -
Secondary
program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 4.5 credit hours to Math & Basic
Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered: 1. Charge and its interaction with matter
2. Coulomb’s law
3. Electric fields and flux
4. Gauss’s law
5. Electric potential and potential energy
6. Basic principles of circuits
7. Current and resistance
8. Capacitance
9. Kirchoff’s rules
10. RC Circuits
262
11. AC circuits
12. Magnetic fields and sources thereof
13. The Biot-Savart law
14. Ampere’s law
15. Magnetic forces on currents and free charges
16. Faraday’s law and electromagnetic induction
17. Inductance and RL circuits
18. Maxwell’s equations
19. Electromagnetic waves
20. Antenna
21. Ray optics
22. Wave optics & diffraction
263
SYGN101 – Earth and Environmental Systems
Course Description: (I, II, S) Fundamental concepts concerning the nature, composition
and evolution of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere of the earth
integrating the basic sciences of chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics.
Understanding of anthropological interactions with the natural systems, and related
discussions on cycling of energy and mass, global warming, natural hazards, land use,
mitigation of environmental problems such as toxic waste disposal, exploitation and
conservation of energy, mineral and agricultural resources, proper use of water resources,
biodiversity and construction.
3 hours lecture, 3 hours lab; 4 semester hours.
Course Designation: Selected Elective
Instructor or Coordinator: Christian V. Shorey
Textbook and/or other requirement materials: Recommended Text: Earth Science (12
th ed.). Tarbuck, Lutgens, Tasa.
Required Text: SYGN 101 Lab Manual
Other Required Supplemental Information:
iClicker
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
This course utilizes knowledge of math and science to drive student understanding of a
highly complex system – the Earth. Lectures focus on specific components of the Earth
system – lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere, and use physical science
concepts to explain Earth system mechanisms. Engineered systems and their interaction
with the Earth system are utilized as examples throughout the course and laboratory.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h i j k
P S S S
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification:
This course contributes 4 credit hours to Math & Basic Sciences
Brief List of Topics Covered:
1) The nature of science
2) Atomic structure and bonding
3) Mineralogy
4) Rock types and rock forming processes
5) Soil and soil forming processes
6) Geologic time
264
a. Relative age dating
b. Absolute age dating
7) Earthquakes; processes and hazards
8) Plate tectonic theory; history and mechanisms
9) Oceans and shorelines; features and processes
10) Streams and flooding; features and processes
11) Groundwater; features, processes, and conservation
12) Cryosphere and glaciers; features and processes and recent changes
13) Atmospheric chemistry and physics
14) Meteorology; basic concepts and processes
15) Climate change; history of the science
16) Paleoclimatology; forcers and record
17) Modern climate change; methods of prediction and results
18) Life; definition and basic ecology
19) Evolution; mechanisms and evidence
20) Population dynamics
21) Energy and material resource acquisition and conservation
22) Universal and geologic history
265
SYGN200 Human Systems
Course Description: This course in the CSM core curriculum articulates with LAIS100:
Nature and Human Values and with the other systems courses. Human Systems is an
interdisciplinary historical examination of key systems created by humans - namely,
political, economic, social, and cultural institutions - as they have evolved worldwide
from the inception of the modern era (ca. 1500) to the present. This course embodies an
elaboration of these human systems as introduced in their environmental context in
Nature and Human Values and will reference themes and issues explored therein. It also
demonstrates the cross-disciplinary applicability of the “systems” concept. Assignments
will give students continued practice in writing. Prerequisite:LAIS100. 3 semester hours.
Course Designation: Required
Instructor or Coordinator: James Jesudason, SYGN Coordinator
Textbook and/or other requirement materials:
Required Text:
Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Manfred B. Steger, 2003
Other Required Supplemental Information:
Additional texts selected by instructors of individual sections.
Specific Course Goals:
Instructional Outcomes:
At the conclusion of SYGN 200, Human Systems, students should be able to successfully
perform the following:
1.) Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the historical development of
social, political, economic, and cultural systems in the modern era.
2.) Be able to draw informed comparisons between different societies and courses of
social development.
3.) Demonstrate critical awareness of contemporary social systems and institutions
and the implications of life and work within a globalized world.
4.) Critically analyze and construct effective, well-organized arguments on issues
related to human systems, socio-economic development, and globalization.
5.) Apply and improve the writing skills developed in Nature and Human Values.
Student Outcomes Addressed by Course:
a b c d e f g h I j k
S S P P P
Criterion 3 P – Primary S - Secondary program criteria
Subject Area Classification: This course contributes 3 credit hours to the Humanities
and Social Sciences Core Curriculum requirement. General Education.
Brief List of Topics Covered: Specific topics covered vary from section to section, but
this list below offers a representative set of topics.
Globalization and the modern world
Distribution of well-being, freedom, and power within globalization
Rise of the West
Emergence of the nation-state
266
Capitalism: definitions, central theories, international variations
Competing theories and current debates about development
Impact of colonialism
Emergence of nationalism
Globalization and non-Western cultures: China, Japan, India, Africa, the Islamic
world
Roles of the state, religion, and culture in economic change
Contemporary international system and international relations
267
Appendix B - Faculty Vita
268
Table B-1: List of Included Faculty
CEE T/TT Faculty (BSCE Program)
Lauren Cooper
Joseph Crocker
D.V. Griffiths
Marte Gutierrez
Panagiotis Kiousis
Ning Lu
Mike Mooney
Susan Reynolds
Candace Sulzbach
Alexandra Wayllace
Judith Wang
Ruichong Zhang
Faculty from Other Departments Teaching BSCE classes
Raymond Henn
Jerry Higgins
Ventzislav Karaivanov
Ugur Ozbay
Paul Santi
Cameron Turner
CEE T/TT Faculty (BSEV)
Tzahi Cath
Ron Cohen
Linda Figueroa
Chris Higgins
Terri Hogue
Tissa Illangasakere
John McCray
Junko Munakata-Marr
Josh Sharp
Bob Siegrist
Kate Smits
John Spear
CEE Adjunct Faculty (BSEV)
Sidney Innerebner
Paul Queneau
Paddy Ryan
269
Faculty from Other Departments Teaching BSEV classes
Linda Battalora
Judy Schoonmaker
Kamini Singha
Brian Trewyn
270
1. Name: Lauren Anne Cooper
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D.
(candidate
status)
Mechanical Engineering,
specialty in Engineering
Education
University of Colorado at
Boulder
Expected
graduation
2013
M.S. Civil Engineering University of Colorado at
Boulder
2009
B.S. Engineering –
Mechanical Specialty
Colorado School of Mines 2006
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Teaching
Assistant
Professor
2011 - 2013 FT
University of
Colorado at
Boulder
Adjunct
Instructor
2010 - 2011 PT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
NexGen Energy
Partners
Consultant Technical grant
writing,
curriculum
development
2009 - 2010 PT
International
Center for
Appropriate and
Sustainable
Technology
Consultant Curriculum
development for
renewable
energy training
program
2008 - 2009 PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
NONE
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Engineering Education
b. Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
7. Honors and awards
NONE
271
8. Service activities
Volunteer mentor for Denver Kids, Inc.
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Identifying Factors of Student Motivation in Project-Based Learning and Project-
Based Service Learning, Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 2012.
b. Cooper, L., D. Kotys-Schwartz, and D. Reamon. 2011. Project-Based Service-
Learning and Student Motivation, Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November 2011.
c. Rockenbaugh, L., D. Kotys-Schwartz, and D. Reamon. 2011. Project-Based
Service-Learning and Student Motivation, American Society for Engineering Education
Annual Conference, June 2011.
d. Rockenbaugh, L., M. Zarske, D. Kotys-Schwartz, and D. Reamon. 2011.
Engineering for American Communities: Engaging Engineering Students in
Multidisciplinary Altruistic Engineering Design Projects, American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference, June 2011.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Curriculum development for Mechanics of Materials (undergraduate course)
272
1. Name: Joe Crocker, P.E., Ph.D, S.E., Teaching Professor
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
BS Civil Engineering Oklahoma State University 1975
MS Civil Engineering Oklahoma State University 1987
Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Utah 2001
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Mesa St. Coll Instructor Dept Head 2000-2003 FT
N. AZ Univ Asst Prof 2003-2004 FT
CSM Lecturer 2004-2008 FT
CSM Senior Lect 2008-2011 FT
CSM Teach Prof 2011-2013 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Mesa Cty, CO Pub Wk Dir Lead Dept 1993-1997 FT
Mesa Cty, CO Dir Eng Lead Division 1989-1993 FT
Mesa Cty, CO Engineer Design 1985-1989 FT
Nat’l Pk Svc Proj Supv Construction 1976-1985 FT
Crocker Eng Owner Consulting 1986-2003 PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Colorado, P.E.
b. Utah, S.E.
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
b. Member, American Concrete Institute
c. Member, American Institute of Steel Construction
d. Member, American Wood Council
e. Member, The Masonry Society
f. Member, American Indian Science and Engineering Society
g. Member, Structural Engineering Institute
7. Honors and awards
a. Order of Omega Outstanding Teacher Award, 2006 & 2012
b. Civil Engineering Graduating Senior Outstanding Faculty Award, 2010
c. Engineering Graduating Senior Student Outstanding Faculty Award, 2006 & 2008
d. Engineering Graduating Graduate Student Outstanding Faculty Award, 2006
e. Minority Engineering Program Outstanding Faculty Award, 2005, 2006, 2008,
2010
8. Service activities
273
a. Diversity Committee
b. Assessment Committee
c. Ad-Hoc Teaching Faculty Policy Committee
d. Teaching Faculty Promotion and Tenure Committee
e. Department Promotion and Tenure Committee
f. Petroleum Department Promotion and Tenure Committee
g. Senior Design Technical Consultant
h. Chief Proctor Fall 2012 FE Exam
i. Faculty Advisor for AISES
j. Structural Engineering Institute Connections Committee
k. American Concrete Institute Education Committee
l. Department Teaching Faculty Search Committee
m. Department Assistant Professor Search Committee
n. Department Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
9. Publications and Presentations
a. Skokan, C., Crocker, J., and Baughman, G., 2009, Introduction of Energy Courses
into Native American Tribal Colleges: Innovations in Engineering Education, 2009
Innovations in Engineering Education, iNEER.
b. Introduction to Engineering Course, Tribal College Faculty Workshop, Summer
2011, Colorado School of Mines
c. Land Surveying Course, Tribal College Faculty Workshop, Summer 2011,
Colorado School of Mines
d. Solar Power Course, Tribal College Faculty Workshop, Summer 2009, United
Tribes Technical College, Bismark, ND
10. Recent professional development activities
a. NASCC 2009
b. NASCC 2010
c. ASCE Structures Congress 2011
d. NASCC 2012
e. NASCC 2013
f. AISC Short Course - Connection Design
g. AISC Short Course - Seismic Design of Braced Frames
h. AISC Short Course - Analysis Methods
i. AISC Short Course - Practical Steel Design
j. AISC Short Course - Moment Connection Design
274
1. Name: D.V. Griffiths
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.Sc. Civil Engineering University of Manchester 1974
M.S. Geotechnical Engineering University of California(Berkeley) 1975
Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Manchester 1980
D.Sc. Geomechanics University of Manchester 1994
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title Dates Held FT/PT
University of
Manchester
Lecturer, Senior
Lecturer
1977-1994 FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Professor 1994-present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Dames and
Moore
Assistant
Engineer
Site
investigation,
report writing
1976-77 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. PE (Colorado), C.Eng. (UK)
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, F. ASCE
b. Member, M.I.C.E.
7. Honors and awards
a. Fellow of the ASCE
b. Robert Stephenson Prize (I.C.E.)
c. Thomas Keefer Medal (Can. Soc. Civ. Eng.)
d. IACMAG Award fro Contributions to Geomechanics
8. Service activities
a. Board of Direction, ASCE, 2010-2013
b. Governor of ASCE, 2006-2010
c. Editor, J Geotech Geoenv 2008-2012
d. Editor, Computers & Geotechnics, 2013-
e. CSM Faculty Senate, 1995-98, 2005-2008
275
f. CSM Budget Committee, 2003-2006, 2009-2012
g. CSM Handbook Committee, 2005-2008
h. CSM Research Council, 1999-2002
i. Chaired six search committees in EG and CEE.
j. Served on two CSM Appeal Committees
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a) Smith, I.M. and Griffiths, D.V. “Programming the Finite Element
Method.”, 5th edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, (2013, to appear).
b) Fenton, G.A. and Griffiths, D.V. “Risk Assessment in Geotechnical
Engineering”, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, (2008).
c) Griffiths, D.V. and Fenton G.A. “Probabilistic settlement analysis by stochastic
and random finite element methods.” J Geotech Geoenviron, vol.135, no.11, pp.1629-
1637, (2009).
d) Griffiths, D.V. and Huang, J. “Observations on the extended Matsuoka-Nakai
failure criterion.” Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech, vol.33, pp.1889-1905, (2009).
e) Griffiths, D.V., Huang, J. and deWolfe, G.F. “Numerical and analytical
observations on long and infinite slopes.” Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech, vol.35,
no.5, pp.569-585, (2011).
f) Griffiths, D.V., Huang, J. and Fenton G.A. “Probabilistic infinite slope
analysis.” Comput Geotech, vol.38, no.4, pp.577-584, (2011).
g) Griffiths, D.V., Paiboon, J, Huang, J. and Fenton, G.A. “Homogenization of
geomaterials containing voids by random fields and finite elements.” Int J Solids Struct,
vol.49, pp.2006-2014 (2012).
h) Griffiths, D.V., Paiboon, J, Huang, J. and Fenton, G.A. “Reliability analysis of
beams on random elastic foundations.” Géotechnique, vol.63, no.2, pp.180-188, (2013).
i) Presentations given during a recent sabbatical in Australia (2011-2012) under the
auspices of the Australian Geomechanics Society in Newcastle, Sydney, Melbourne,
Adelaide, Perth and Hobart
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Regular attendance at ASCE Leadership Conferences (Milwaukee 2013, Fort
Worth 2011, Cleveland 2010).
b. Short courses given to practitioners in numerous under the auspices of the ASCE
Continuing Education Division (e.g. New Orleans 2010, San Francisco 2010, San Diego
2011, Chicago 2011)
276
1. Name: Marte Gutierrez
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.S. Civil Engineering St. Mary’s University 1980
MS Civil Engineering Univ. of the Philippines 1984
Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Tokyo 1989
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Univ. of Oslo Adj. Prof. 9/1996-8/2000 FT
Virginia Tech Assoc. Prof. 9/2000-7/2006 FT
Virginia Tech Professor 8/2006-12/2007 FT
CSM Professor J.R. Paden Dist.
Professor
1/2008-present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Norwegian
Geotechnical
Inst.
Senior
Engineer
Research and
Consulting
9/1989-8/2000 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
None
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineering
b. Member, American Society of Engineering Education
c. Member, American Rock Mechanics Association
d. Member, Society of Petroleum Engineers
e. Member, International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
f. Member, International Society of Rock Mechanics
7. Honors and awards
a. Geotechnical Research Medal, Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), United
Kingdom, 2011
b. Kwang Hua Visiting Professorship, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, 2009-
2010
c. Guest Professorship, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, 2009-2012
d. Visiting Researcher Award, Korea Railroad Research Institute, Uiwang, South
Korea, May-June, 2010
e. ÉGIDE Visiting Professorship, École Nationale des Ponts et Chausses, Paris,
France, March to July 2007
f. Virginia Tech Faculty Fellow Award, 2006-2009
g. Visiting Professorship, University of Chile, May 2004
h. Outstanding Alumnus Award given during the Diamond Jubilee of Saint Mary’s
University, December 7, 2003
8. Service activities
a. Board Member, US Universities Council on Geotechnical Education and
Research (USUCGER), January 2008 to June 2012. Treasurer, January 2010 to June
2012
277
b. Member, Inaugural Editorial Advisory Panel, Géotechnique Letters, October 2010
to present
c. Associate Editor, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, October 2002 to present
d. Editorial Board Member, Acta Geotechnica, March 2009 to present
e. Editorial Board Member, The Open Petroleum Engineering Journal, January 2008
to present
f. Team Leader, US Reconnaissance Survey of the February 17, 2006, Leyte,
Philippines, Landslide
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Li, X., Pei, X., Gutierrez, M. and He, S. (2012),” Optimal Location of Piles in
Slope Stabilization by Limit Analysis,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 253-259,
DOI: 10.1007/s11440-012-0170-y
b. Vardakos, S., Gutierrez, M. and Xia, C. (2012), “Back-Analysis of Tunnel
Response Using Differential Evolution Genetic Algorithm,” Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, vol. 28, 109-123, DOI:10.1016/j.tust.2011.10.003
c. Katsuki, D. and Gutierrez, M. (2011), “Modeling Strain Rate Sensitive Behavior
of Asphalt Concrete,” Acta Geotechnica, vol. 6, pp. 231–241.
d. Nam, S., Gutierrez, M., Diplas, P. and Petrie, J. (2011), “Determination of the
Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils Using the Multistage Direct Shear Test,”
Engineering Geology, vol. 122, pp. 272-280.
e. Gutierrez, M. (2011), “Effects of Constitutive Parameters on Strain Localization
in Sands,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
vol. 31, pp. 161–178.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Session Co-organizer and Co-chair, 46th U.S. Rock Mechanics and
Geomechanics Symposium, Chicago, IL, June 24-27, 2012
b. Session Co-organizer and Co-chair, ASCE GeoCongress 2012, Oakland, CA,
March 25-29, 2012
c. Session Co-chair, 12th ISRM International Congress on Rock Mechanics. Beijing,
China, October 18-21, 2011
d. Session Co-chair, 45th U.S. Rock Mechanics and Geomechanics Symposium, San
Francisco, CA, June 23-26, 2011
e. Session Chair, 9th International Workshop on Bifurcation and Degradation in
Geomaterials (IWBDG), Ile de Porquerolles, France, May 23-26, 2011
f. Session Chair, 5th International Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering, Santiago, Chile, January 10-13, 2011
g. Session Chair, International Symposium on Geomechanics and Geotechnics:
From Micro to Macro (IS-Shanghai 2010), Tongji University, Shanghai, China, October
10-12, 2010
h. Session Co-organizer and Session Chair, Weak Rocks and Shales, 44th US Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 27-30, 2010.
278
1. Name: Panos D. Kiousis
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Diploma (5yr
program)
Civil Engineering Democritus University of
Thrace, Greece
1980
PhD Civil Engineering Louisiana State University 1985
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
The University
of Arizona
Assistant
Professor
1985 -1991 FT
The University
of Arizona
Associate
Professor
1991-1999 FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Associate
Professor
2000-Present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Tetra Tech Consultant Engineering
Services
2011-2012 PT
Carbon Wrap
Solutions
Consultant Engineering
Services and
Software
Development
2012 PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Professional Engineer – Greece – Extended to all European Union Countries.
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, ASCE
b. Member, ACI
c. Member, Technical Chamber of Greece
7. Honors and awards
a. 2007 Outstanding Civil Engineering Faculty Member. Selected by the Colorado
School of Mines Graduate Students.
b. 1999 Outstanding Faculty Member. Presented for exceptional performance
rendered during the graduating class' years in Civil Engineering
c. 1999 Outstanding Professor of the Year ASCE Student Chapter of the University
of Arizona.
d. 1996 Outstanding Faculty Member. Presented for exceptional performance
rendered during the graduating class' years in Civil Engineering.
279
e. 1996 El Paso Natural Gas Foundation. Faculty Achievement Award. In
Recognition of Excellence in Teaching and Scholarship.
f. 1996 College of Engineering and Mines. The University of Arizona. Recognition
of Excellence at the Student Interface.
8. Service activities
a. Committee on Graduate Curriculum.
b. ACI committee 237 on Self Consolidating Concrete.
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. “Finite Element Analyses of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls Subjected to
Midlevel Seismic Loads,” R. M. Walthall, J. Wang, P. D. Kiousis, and A. Khan, ASCE
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Vol. 27, No. 2 pp.171-180
b. “Effects of Recycled Concrete Aggregates on the Compressive and Shear
Strength of High-Strength Self-Consolidating Concrete,” C. G. Fakitsas, P. E. A.
Papakonstantinou, P. D. Kiousis, and A. Savva, ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol 24, No. 4, pp 356-361, 2012.
c. “Truss Modeling of Concrete Columns in Compression,” Panos D. Kiousis, P. G.
Papadopoulos, H. Xenidis, ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 136, No.8, pp
1006-1014, 2010.
d. “Development of Self-Consolidating Concrete for Thin Wall Applications
Including Validation” Brent L. Whitcomb and Panos D. Kiousis, ASCE Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 21, No 10, pp587-593, 2009.
e. “Analytical modeling of Plastic Behaviour of Uniformly FRP Confined Concrete
Members” Theodoros C. Rousakis, Athanasios I. Karabinis, Panos D. Kiousis and Ralejs
Tepfers, Composites Part B: Engineering Journal. Vol. 39, pp 1104-1113, 2008.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Tailings and Mine Waste Conference, 2012, Keystone CO.
b. 12th Sino-American Technology Conference, SATEC 12, Beijing China, April
14-23, 2012.
c. Structural Design of Steel Stairs and Rails --- A Live ASCE Web/Teleconference
Seminar, 2011.
d. Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) for Geotechnical Engineering
Features - Earth Retaining Structures: Fill Walls -- A Live ASCE Webinar 2011.
280
1. Name: NING LU
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D. Civil Engineering The Johns Hopkins University 1991
MS Civil Engineering The Johns Hopkins University 1988
BS Civil Engineering Wuhan University of
Technology
1982
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado School
of Mines
Professor Since May, 2004 FT
Colorado School
of Mines
Associate
Professor
May 2000-May 2004 FT
Colorado School
of Mines
Assistant
Professor
December 1997-May
2000
FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
US Geological
Survey
Hydrologist Research on vadose
zone hydrology and
nuclear waste disposal
January 1994-
May 1997
FT
Disposal Safety
Inc.,
Washington,
DC
Hydrologist Consulting on
subsurface waste
remediation and
nuclear waste disposal
January 1991-
December 1993
FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. None
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
b. Member, Geological Society of America
7. Honors and awards
a. Normal Medal, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2007
b. Croes Medal, America Society of Civil Engineers, 2010_
8. Service activities
a. Committee on ASCE: Unsaturated Soils Committee
b. Committee on ASCE: Material Properties Committee
c. Committee on ASCE: Engineering Geology Committee
281
Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Lu, N., Anderson, M.T., Likos, W.J., and Mustoe, G.W., A discrete element model for
kaolinite aggregate formation during sedimentation, International Journal of Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 32, 965-980, 2008.
b. Lu, N., Miller, K.T., and Lechman, J., Experimental verification on capillary force and
water retention between two uneven-sized particles, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
Vol. 134(5), 385-395, 2008.
c. Lu, N., Is matric suction a stress variable? Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134(7), 899-905, 2008.
d. Lu, N., and Godt, J., Infinite slope stability analysis under steady unsaturated seepage
conditions, Water Resources Research, Vol. 44, W11404, doi:10.1029/2008WR006976,
2008.
e. Godt, J.W., Baum, R., and Lu, N., Can landslides occur under unsaturated soil
conditions? Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L02403,doi:10.1029/2008GL035996,
2009.
f. Lu, N., Kim, T.H., Sture, S., and Likos, W.J., Tensile strength of unsaturated sand,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 135(12), 1410-1419, 2009.
g. Lu, N., Reply on “Is matric suction a stress variable?” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136(2), 407-408, 2010.
h. Lu, N., Godt, J., and Wu, D., A closed-form equation for effective stress in variably
saturated soil, Water Resources Research, doi:10.1029/2009WR008646, 2010.
i. Lu, N., Zeidman, B., Willson, C., Lusk, M., and Wu, D.T., A Monte Carlo paradigm
for capillarity in porous materials, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:
10.1029/2010GL045599, 2010.
j. Lu, N., Sener, Basak, and Godt J.W. Direction of unsaturated flow in a homogeneous
and isotropic hillslope, Water Resources Research, Vol. 47, W02519,
doi:10.1029/2010WR010003, 2011.
k. Wayllace, A., and Lu, N., Transient water release and imbibitions method for rapidly
measuring wetting and drying soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity functions,
Geotechnical Testing Journal, in press, 2012.
9. Recent professional development activities
a. Editorial Board Member, Georisk, 2008-
b. Geotechnical Testing, ASCE 2009-
c. Editorial Board Member, International Journal of Geomechanics and
Engineering 2009-
d. Associate Editor, Vadose Zone Journal, SSSA, 2010-
282
1. Name: Michael A. Mooney
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
PhD Civil Engineering Northwestern 1996
MS Civil Engineering California – Irvine 1993
BS Civil Engineering Washington University 1991
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Prof,
Associate
Prof
2003-present FT
U. Oklahoma Assoc. Prof,
Asst Prof
1996 – 2002 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Consulting (self
owned)
Consulting 1996 – present PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. PE, Oklahoma 1999-2005 (#19151), Colorado 2005-present (#39682)
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, ASCE Geoinstitute
b. Member, UCA of SME
c. Member, ISSMGE
7. Honors and awards
a. 2009-2010 CSM Outstanding Civil Engineering Faculty Award (2010)
b. Martin Luther King Jr. Faculty Award, Colorado School of Mines (2009)
c. The Best Paper, 22nd Intl. Symp. on Automation and Robotics in Construction,
Ferrara, Italy (2005)
d. Minority Engineering Program Outstanding Faculty Award, Colorado School of
Mines (2005)
e. ASCE Arthur Casagrande Award (2003)
f. National Science Foundation CAREER Award (2000)
g. Williams Faculty Innovator Award for Sooner City team, University of Oklahoma
(2000)
283
8. Service activities
a. Chair, Graduate Affairs Committee, Civil & Env. Engr. Department, Colorado
School of Mines (2012-present)
b. University Promotion & Tenure Committee, Colorado School of Mines (2012-
present).
c. ASCE Underground Engineering & Construction Comm., 2012-present.
d. ASCE Embankments, Dams and Slopes Committee, 2011-present.
e. TRB Committee on Soils & Rock Instrumentation, 2009-present.
f. ISSMGE Committee on Underground Construction & Tunneling TC204, 2011-
present.
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Mooney, M.A. and Miller, P.K. "Analysis of Lightweight Deflectometer Test
based on In-situ Stress and Strain Response," J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engineering, ASCE,
135(2), 2009, 199-208.
b. Rinehart, R.V. and Mooney, M.A. "Measurement of Roller Compactor Induced
Triaxial Soil Stresses and Strains," Geotech. Testing Journal, ASTM, 2009, 32(4).
c. Ryden, N. and Mooney, M.A. "Surface Wave Analysis from the Light Weight
Deflectometer," Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 2009, 29(7), 1134-1142.
d. Mooney, M.A., and Rinehart, R.V. "In-Situ Soil Response to Vibratory Loading
and its Relationship to Roller-Measured Soil Stiffness," J. Geotech. & Geoenv.
Engineering, ASCE, 2009, 135(8), 1022-1031.
e. Rinehart, R.V. and Mooney, M.A. "Measurement Depth of Vibratory Roller-
Measured Soil Stiffness," Géotechnique, 2009, 59(7), 609-619.
f. Facas, N.W., van Susante, P.J. and Mooney, M.A. "Influence of Rocking Motion
on the Vibratory Roller-Based Measurement of Soil Stiffness," J. Engineering
Mechanics, ASCE, 2010, 136(7), 898-905.
g. Toohey, N.M. and Mooney, M.A. "Seismic Modulus Growth during Laboratory
Curing of Lime-Stabilized Soils," Géotechnique, 2012, 62(2), 161-170.
h. Buechler, S.R., Mustoe, G.G.W., Berger, J.R. and Mooney, M.A. "Understanding
the Soil Contact Problem for the Light Weight Deflectometer and Static Drum Roller
using Discrete Element Methods," J. Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 2012, 138(1), 124-
132.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Attended a number of conferences, e.g., North American Tunneling 2012, Rapid
Excavation & Tunneling 2011, ASCE Geocongress 2012
284
1. Name: Susan M. Reynolds
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
M.S. Civil Engineering
(Structural)
University of Illinois 2004
B.
Arch.
Architecture Auburn University 2000
B.A. Spanish Auburn University 2004
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Teaching
Associate
Professor
n/a 8/2012 – present FT
Tuskegee
University
Assistant
Professor
n/a 1/2011 – 5/2012 FT
University of
Illinois
Graduate
Teaching
Assistant
n/a 2002-2004 PT
University of
Illinois
Graduate
Research
Assistant
n/a 2002-2004 PT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
AECOM Structural
Engineer
(Associate)
Structural
Design and
Analysis
2007 – 2010 FT
Robert Silman
Associates
Structural
Engineer
Structural
Design and
Analysis
2004-2007 FT
ICCROM9 ICOMOS
10
Intern
Research on
Structural
Design Practice
for Historic
Buildings
Summer 2006 FT
The National
Trust
RSA Fellow
for
Preservation
Engineering
Structural
Design and
Analysis
2004-2005 FT
tvs design Intern
Architect
Architectural
Design and
2000-2002 FT
9 International Center for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
10 International Council on Monuments and Sites
285
Documentation
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Professional Engineer, State of Alabama
b. Professional Engineer, Commonwealth of Virginia
c. Registered Architect, District of Columbia
d. LEED Accredited Professional, U.S. Green Building Council
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society for Engineering Education
b. Member, National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying
c. Member, American Institute of Steel Construction
d. Member, International Council on Monuments and Sites
7. Honors and awards
a. Tuskegee University 2011-2012 Faculty Performance Award for Research in the
School of Architecture and Construction Science, 4/24/2012
b. AECOM Performance Award, 3/21/2010
8. Service activities
a. Sustainable Structures Faculty Search Committee, Colorado School of Mines, AY
2012-2013
b. The Architecture & Engineering of Sustainable Buildings, Juror for
Undergraduate Competition, 2012-2013
c. Varner House Restoration Committee, member, Tuskegee University, 2011-2012;
Pro bono condition assessment and structural report
d. Curriculum Committee, School of Architecture and Construction Science,
Tuskegee University, 2011-2012
e. IT Committee, School of Architecture and Construction Science, Tuskegee
University, 2011-2012
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. “Preservation Challenges of African American Sites With Ties to Tuskegee:
Three Case Studies,” Tuskegee Univ. Black History Month lecture series, 2/2012
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Architecture and Engineering of Sustainable Buildings, 7/2012
b. LEED Green Associate Test Preparation, 5/2012
c. Robert R. Taylor Symposium, 4/2011
d. Progressive Collapse Seminar, 7/2008
286
1. Name: Candace S. Sulzbach
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
BS Mineral Engineering Colorado School of Mines 1981
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colo. School of
Mines
Instructor 1983-2000 FT
Colo. School of
Mines
Lecturer 2000-2011 FT
Colo. School of
Mines
Teaching
Asst.
Professor
2011-2012 FT
Colo. School of
Mines
Teaching
Professor
2012-present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Exxon Co USA Project
Engineer
Managing new
capital
construction at a
refinery in CA
July 1981-July 1983 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Professional Engineer - Colorado
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
b. Member, Tau Beta Pi
c. Member, Society of Women Engineers
7. Honors and awards
a. June 2011 Received Region 7 ASCE Outstanding Faculty Advisor Award
b. May 2011 Received the CSM Board of Trustees “Outstanding Faculty
Award”
c. May 2011 Received the ASCSM “Distinguished Faculty Award” – Civil
Engineering
d. April 2011 Received the CSMAA “Outstanding Alumna Award”
287
e. Oct. 2010 Received National Society of Women Engineers Outstanding
Faculty Advisor Award
f. June 2010, June 2008, June 2007 Received Region 7 Outstanding ASCE
Student Chapter Faculty Advisor Award
g. June 2006 Selected as the 2006 CSM “Faculty Senate Distinguished
Lecturer”
h. 1996-2009 "Outstanding CSM Faculty Member” as voted by the graduating
classes (EG-civil specialty) of Dec. 1996, May 1997, Dec. 1997, Dec. 1998, Dec. 2000,
May and Dec. 2001, May and Dec. 2002, May and Dec. 2003, May and Dec. 2004, May
and Dec. 2005, May 2006, May and Dec. 2007, May 2008, May 2009
8. Service activities
a. CSM Faculty Senate
b. CSM Faculty Senate Executive Committee
c. CSM Student Conduct Committee
d. CSM Re-Admissions Committee
e. CEE Undergraduate Committee
f. CSM Assessment Committee
g. CSM Affiliated Faculty member of the Center for Engineering Education
h. CSM Distinguished Lecturer Committee
i. CSM Awards Committee
j. Faculty Advisor for the CSM Collegiate section of Society of Women Engineers
k. Faculty Advisor for the CSM student chapter of the American Society of Civil
Engineers
l. Faculty Advisor for the CSM student chapter of Tau Beta Pi
m. Faculty Advisor for the CSM Civil Engineering Honor Society
n. Served as a board member of the CSM Alumni Board of Directors (2002-2007)
o. Course Coordinator for:
EGGN320 - Mechanics of Materials
EGGN433 - Surveying II
EGGN234 - Civil Field Session
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. “The Role of Institutional Commitment in the Utilization of Collegiate SWE
Sections as a Recruitment and Retention Strategy”, by Debra Lasich and Candace
Sulzbach
288
1. Name: _Alexandra Wayllace_
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.S. Engineering, Civil
Specialty
Colorado School of Mines 2002
M.S. Systems Engineering Colorado School of Mines 2004
Ph.D. Civil Engineering University of Missouri 2008
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Lecturer 08/2008 - 08/2010 FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Teaching
Associate
Professor
08/2010 - Present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
University of
Missouri
Research
Assistant
Conduct and
design
experiments on
swelling soils
08/2004 - 02/2008 FT
U.S.G.S.
Shallow
Landslides
Group
Research
Laboratory
Technician
Design and
implement
equipment to
test unsaturated
soils
05/2006 - 08/2006 FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Visiting
Researcher
Design and
implement
equipment to
test unsaturated
soils
05/2005 - 08/2005 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. __Registered Engineer Intern in the State of Colorado
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, ASCE__
b. Member, TRB Unsaturated Soils Committee __
7. Honors and awards
289
a. Recipient of one of six 2006 PCA Education Foundation Fellowships ($20,000)
b. Outstanding Graduate Student Award (Univ. of Missouri-Columbia) 2007.
c. Outstanding Graduating Senior in Civil Engineering (Colorado School of Mines)
d. Andes Scholarship award for academic excellence (1998-2002)
8. Service activities
a. Undergraduate Committee
b. Conflict of Interest Committee
c. Reviewer for Professional journals
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Lu, N.; Şener, B.; Wayllace, A.; Godt, J. “Analysis of Rainfall-induced Slope
Instability using a Field of Local Factor of Safety,” WATER RESOURCES
RESEARCH, doi:10.1029/2012WR011830
b. Morse, M.; Lu, N.; Wayllace, A.; and Take, W.A. "Experimental Test of Theory
for the Stability of Partially Saturated Vertical Cut Slopes," submitted to Journal of
Geotech. and Geoenvironmental Eng.
c. Wayllace, A., Lu, N. “A Transient Water Release and Imbibitions Method for
Rapidly Measuring Wetting and Drying Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic
Conductivity Functions,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 35, No 1, 2012.
d. Likos, W.J., Wayllace, A., Lu, N. and Godt, J., (2010) “Modified direct shear
apparatus for unsaturated sands under low suction and stress,” Journal of Geotechnical
Testing, VOL. 33 (5).
e. Likos, W.J., Wayllace, A. (2010) “Porosity Evolution of Free and Confined
Bentonites During Interlayer Hydration” Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 58 (3), pp. 399-
414.
f. D. Jougnot, A. Revil, N. Lu, A. Wayllace (2010) “Transport properties of the
Calloxo-Oxfordian clay-rock under partially saturated conditions,” Journal of Water
Resources, VOL. 46, W08514, doi:10.1029/2009WR008552.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. In depth presentation on ASTM Workshop on Unsaturated Soils, San Diego, CA.
Wayllace,, A.; Lu, N. " A Transient Water Release and Imbibitions Method for
Rapidly Measuring Wetting and Drying Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic
Conductivity Functions" ASTM Workshop on Unsaturated Soils, San Diego, CA.
b. Providing training on hydrological soil properties measurement to researchers
from Korean Institute of GeoSciences and Mineral Resources (South Korea), Wuhan
University (China), University of Geosciences (China), University of Chonqin (China).
290
1. Name: Judith Wang
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D. Civil Engineering Case Western Reserve
University
2007
M.S. Civil Engineering Case Western Reserve
University
2004
B.S.E. Civil Engineering Case Western Reserve
University
2003
B.A. English Case Western Reserve
University
2003
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Assistant
Professor
N/A 2007 – present FT
4. Non-academic experience
None.
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. E.I.T., State of Ohio
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
b. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers Earthquake Engineering and Soil
Dynamics Technical Committee
c. Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
7. Honors and awards
a. American Society of Civil Engineers Outstanding Paper of 2006 Award
8. Service activities
a. Colorado School of Mines Research Council, Civil and Environmental
Engineering Representative
b. Editorial Review Board Member, ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities
c. Reviewer/Panelist for multiple National Science Foundation programs, including
NEESR, BRIGE, and Geohazards and Geo-environmental Program
291
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Walthall, R.; Wang, J,; Kiousis, P.; and Khan, A. (accepted for publication, April
2012). “Finite Element Analyses of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls Subjected to
Midlevel Seismic Loads,” ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.
b. Ham, A.; Wang, J.; and Stammer, J. (2012). “Relationships Between Particle
Shape Characteristics and Macroscopic Damping in Dry Sands,” ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Vol. 138(8), pp. 1002-1011.
c. Mott, G. and Wang, J. (2011). “The Effects of Variable Soil Damping on Soil-
Structure Dynamics,” Journal of Vibration and Control. Vol. 17 (3).
d. Wang, J. (2010). “Intrinsic Damping: Modeling Techniques for Engineering
Systems,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. Vol. 135(3), pp. 282 – 291.
e. Wang, J.; Zeng, X.; and Gasparini, D. (2008). “Dynamic Response of High-
Speed Rail Foundations Using Linear Hysteretic Damping and Frequency Domain
Substructuring,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. Vol. 28(4), pp. 258 – 276.
10. Recent professional development activities
None.
292
1. Name: Ruichong Zhang
2. EDUCATION
Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, 1992, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL
M.S. Structural Engineering, 1987, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
B.S. Engineering Mechanics, 1984, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
3. Academic Experience
Institution Rank Title (if
any)
Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado School of
Mines, Department of
Civil and
Environmental
Engineering
Associate Professor 2011-present FT
Colorado School of
Mines
Assistant/Associate
Professor
1997-2011 FT
University of Southern
California
Research Assistant
Professor
1995-1997 FT
Princeton University Post-Doctor
Research Associate
1992-1995 FT
4. Non-academic experience
N/A
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Professional Civil Engineer in California
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Engineering Mechanics Institute
b. International Association for Structural Safety and Reliability
7. Honors and awards
N/A
8. Service activities
a. Senior Member of CSM Faculty Senate Committee
b. Search Committee Member for Tenure-track Faculty in Mechanical Design
c. Member, sub-GARC committee
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. “Modeling of seismic wave motion in high-rise buildings,” R.R. Zhang, R..
Snieder, L. Gargab and A. Seibi, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 26, 520-527
(2011).
b. “System identification with generalized impulse and frequency response
function,” R.R. Zhang and L. Gargab (2011) Structural Health Monitoring 2011 –
293
Condition Based Maintenance and Intelligent Structures, Fu-Kuo Chang (ed.), DEStech
Publications, Inc., ISBN: 978-1-60595-053-2, Vol. 2, 2553-2559. Proceedings of the
Eighth International Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring, Stanford
University, Palo Alto, California, September 13–15, 2011. c. “A Wave-based Approach for Seismic Response Analyses of High-Rise
Buildings,” R. Zhang, S. Al Hilali, A. Abdulla, and M. Al Kurbi, Proceedings of the
Symposium, Vol. 29, Nonlinear Stochastic Dynamics and Control (Zhu, Lin and Cai,
eds.), IUTAM BOOKSERIES, Vol. 29, 315-325, ISBN: 978-94-007-0731-3, Springer
Science + Business Media, B.V., (2011).
d. “Wave-based modeling and identification of high-rise building structures, R.R.
Zhang and L. Gargab, Proceedings of 2011 Engineering Mechanics Institute Annual
Conference, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, June 2-4, (2011).
e. “Advanced Data Analysis for Geological and Engineering Hazard Study,” R.R.
Zhang, International Journal of Geology, 2(3), 27-37 (2011).
f. “Impact-echo nondestructive testing and evaluation with Hilbert-Huang
transform,” R.R. Zhang, and A. Seibi International Journal of Mechanics, 4(4), 105-112
(2010).
g. “Improved impact-echo approach for non-destructive testing and evaluation,”
Advances in Sensors, Signals and Materials (Frazao, ed.), WSEAS Press, R. Zhang, L.
Olson, A. Seibi, A. Helal, A. Khalil and M. Rahim 139-144. ISBN: 978-960-474-248-6
(2010).
h. “A recording-based approach for identifying seismic site liquefaction and non-
linearity via HHT data analysis,” R.R. Zhang, Advances in Adaptive Data Analysis, 1(1),
89-123 (2009).
i. “A simple approach for quality evaluation of non-slender, cast-in-place piles,”
R.R.Zhang, Smart Structures & Systems, 4(1), 1-17 (2008).
j. “Characterizing and quantifying earthquake-induced site nonlinearity,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, R.R. Zhang, 26(8), 799-812 (2006).
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Chair, two technical sessions “System Response” and “Various Topics” in the
IUTAM Symposium on Nonlinear Stochastic Dynamics and Control in Zhejiang
University, Hangzhou, China on May 10-14, 2010.
294
Raymond W. Henn, Ph.D., P.G.
Senior Consultant, Brierley Associates, LLC
Adjunct Professor, Colorado School of Mines
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Mining and Earth Systems Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 2005
Professional Degree in Engineering (Civil), University of Wisconsin, 1996
M.S., State University of New York,
Engineering/Construction Management, 1988
B.A., City University of New York, Geology ,1974
A.A.S., City University of New York, Construction Technology, 1971
SERVICE ON THIS FACULTY (3 1/2 years)
2010-2012 - Adjunct Professor
2009-2010 - Adjunct Associate Professor
OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (40 years)
2010-2012 – Brierley Associates, LLC, Sr. Consultant
2003-2010 – Lyman Henn, Inc., Principal
1995-2003 – Haley & Aldrich, Inc., Associate
1975-1995 – Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Construction Manager
1974-1975 – Morrison Knudsen Corporation, Construction Engineer
1973-1974 – Full-time Student
1971-1973 – Port of New York Authority, Surveyor
CONSULTING AND EXPERT PANELS
Disputes Review Boards; has served on 30 dispute review boards.
Expert Witness; have served as an expert witness on 12 cases.
Arbitration; have served as an arbitrator for two construction cases.
Construction Appraiser; have served as an appraiser on a microtunneling case.
Value Engineering Teams; have been a member of 16 value engineering teams.
CERTIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
Professional Geologist: Indiana and Minnesota
Certificate of Advanced Studies in Alternative Dispute Resolution University of Denver,
1998
RECENT PUBLICATIONS
“2011 Permeation Test Results for Grouts Made with Ultrafine Cements” Tunneling &
Underground Construction Magazine, December 2011.
MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Society of Civil Engineers
Society of Mining Engineers
International Society of Explosive Engineers
Dispute Resolution Board Foundation
The Beavers
The Moles
Session Chair for the Shaft and Tunnel Program at SME’s Annual Conference 2010
Past President of the American Underground Construction Association (AUA) 2002-
295
2004
Conference Chair for North American Tunneling 2004 (NAT 2004)
Member of the Organizing Committee for North American Tunneling 2008 (NAT 2008)
Chairman of the AUA Committee on Backfilling and Contact Grouting of Tunnels and
Shafts
Member of the UTRC Committee on Groundwater in Tunnels
HONORS AND AWARDS
Recipient of the American Society of Civil Engineers 2002 Roebling Award for
Advances and Innovations in Construction Engineering
Recipient of the Underground Construction Association of SME’s 2008 Outstanding
Individual Award
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE (LAST FIVE YEARS)
Have been an adjunct faculty member for the last 3 ½ years in the Colorado School of
Mines, Mining Engineering Department, teaching Underground Design and Construction,
Tunneling and Excavation Project Management. He is the Faculty Advisor to the Student
Chapter of the Underground Construction Association of SME. He serves on one Ph.D.
and one Masters thesis committees.
TIME DISTRIBUTION
5% Teaching, 5% Research, 90% Professional Position
296
Jerry D. Higgins
Associate Professor
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Geological Engineering, 1980, Missouri University of Science & Technology
(formerly University of Missouri-Rolla)
M.S., Geology, 1975, Missouri University of Science & Technology (formerly University
of Missouri-Rolla)
B.S., Geology, 1969, Missouri State University
SERVICE ON THIS FACULTY (26 years)
1986 to present, Associate Professor
OTHER RELATED EXPERIENCE
2/80-8/86, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
8/69-8/70, 4/72-8/73 Engineering Geologist in consulting industry and for the City of
Springfield, MO
8-70-3/72, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Fort Hood,
Texas
CONSULTING AND PATENTS
Consulting activities include employment by engineering companies, as an independent
consultant, and as a technical advisor and expert witness on legal cases. Recent
consulting activities have included senior project advisor to Hatch Engineering, Seattle,
WA, on abutment stability for a thin arch dam; member of Board of Consultants to Puget
Sound Energy to review rock and soil slope stability issues and tunnel design and
construction at a new hydropower site; and expert witness work on a rockfall incident in
Orange County, CA.
STATE IN WHICH REGISTERED Arkansas, RPG
PUBLICATIONS LAST FIVE YEARS (student names in italics) 1. Higgins, J.D. and Andrew, R., (in press) Chapter 2, Rockfall Types and Causes. In
Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L. editors, Rockfall Characterization and Control.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
2. Higgins, J.D. and Andrew, R., (in press) Chapter 6, Site Characterization. In Turner,
A.K. and Schuster, R.L. editors, Rockfall Characterization and Control. Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
3. Schulz, W.H., Galloway, S.L., Higgins, J.D., 2012, Evidence for earthquake
triggering of large landslides in coastal Oregon, USA. Geomophology 141-142, pp. 88-
98.
4. Santi, P.M., Russell, C.P, Higgins, J.D., and Spriet, J.I., 2009, Modification and
statistical analysis of the Colorado Rockfall Hazard Rating System. Engineering
Geology, Vol. 104. No. 5, Elsevier, pp. 55-65.
297
5. Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., Higgins, J.D., Cannon, S.H., 2008, A study of methods
to estimate debris flow velocity. Landslides, Vol. 5, Springer-Verlag, pp. 431-444. (Best
Paper Award 2008, Landslides, Journal of the International Consortium on Landslides)
6. Cook, D., Santi, P.M., Higgins, J.D., 2008, Horizontal landslide drain design: state-
of-the-art and unanswered questions. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience,
Association of Engineering Geologists and Geological Society of America, Vol. XIV,
No. 4, pp. 241-250.
7. Prochaska, A., Santi, P.M., Higgins, J.D., 2008, Debris basin and deflection berm
design for fire-related debris flow mitigation. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience,
Vol. XIV, No. 4, Association of Engineering Geologists and Geological Society of
America, pp. 297-313.
8. Cook, D.I., Santi, P.M., Higgins, J.D., and Short, R.D., 2008, Field-scale
measurement of groundwater profiles in a drained slope. Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience, Vol XIV, No. 3, Association of Engineering Geologists and Geological
Society of America, pp. 167-182.
9. Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., and Higgins, J.D., 2008, Relationships between size and
velocity for particles within debris flows, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 45, pp.
1778-1783.
10. Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., and Higgins, J.D., 2008, Debris-flow runout predictions
based on the average channel slope (ACS). Engineering Geology, Vol 98, Issues 1-2, pp.
29-40.
11. Santi, P.M., de Wolfe, V.G., Higgins, J.D., Cannon, S.H., and Gartner, J.E., 2008,
Sources of debris flow material in burned areas. Geomorphology, Vol. 96, Issues 3-4, pp.
310-321.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists
International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment
Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration
HONORS AND AWARDS 1. 2010, Karl and Ruth Terzaghi Outstanding Mentor Award, for achievements in
mentoring throughout his carreer. Association of Environmental and Engineering
Geologists
2. 2008, Best Paper Award, Landslides, Journal of the International Consortium on
Landslides
3. 2007, Outstanding Student Professional Paper, Graduate Division, Association of
Environmental and Engineering Geologists
4. 2006 Richard Jahns Distinguished Lecturer in Engineering Geology, Association of
Environmental and Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America
5. 2006 Ivan B. Rahn Education Award, for distinguished contributions to engineering
education. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE (LAST FIVE YEARS)
National
2001-2012 Member, Engineering Geology Committee, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council
2001-2012 Member, Rockfall Subcommittee, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council
298
2005-present Member, Rockfall Manual Task Force, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council
2006-present Chair of Landslide Working Group, Association of Engineering
Geologists
2007-present ABET program evaluator for geological and geophysical engineering
University/Department
Chairman, Undergraduate Geological Engineering Program Committee
Chair, GE Dept. Graduate Advisory Committee
Chair, Graduate Geological Engineering Program Committee
299
Ventzislav Karaivanov
Teaching Associate Professor
EDUCATION
PhD - Mechanical Engineering, 2009, University Of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa
MS - Mechanical Engineering, Automotive Technology, 1995, Technical University,
Sofia, Bulgaria
SERVICE ON THIS FACULTY (1 year)
2010-2011, Adjunct Faculty
2011-present, Teaching Associate Professor
OTHER RELATED EXPERIENCE
05/07 – 08/09 Research Assistant, University Of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa
01/06 - 05/07 Teaching Assistant, University Of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa
CONSULTING AND PATENTS (n/a)
STATE IN WHICH REGISTERED (n/a)
PUBLICATIONS LAST FIVE YEARS
1. “Compressive Creep Testing of Thermal Barrier Coated Nickel-based
Superalloys”, Karaivanov, V.G., Slaughter, W.S., Siw S., Chyu, M.K., Alvin, M.A.
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, GTP-10-1210, in print, (2010).
2. “Compressive Creep Testing of Thermal Barrier Coated Nickel-based
Superalloys”, Karaivanov, V.G., Slaughter, W.S., Siw S., Chyu, M.K., Alvin, M.A.,
GT2010-23421. Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2010, Glasgow, UK (2010).
3. “Substrate Damage Modeling for Advanced Turbine System Airfoils,”
Karaivanov, V.G., Slaughter, W.S., Siw S., Chyu, M.K., Alvin, M.A. GT2009-60112.
Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2009, Orlando, Florida, USA, (2009).
4. "Influence of Internal Cooling Configuration on Metal Temperature Distributions
of Future Coal-Fuel Based Turbine Airfoils", Siw S., Chyu, M.K., Slaughter, W.S.,
Karaivanov, V.G., Alvin, M.A. GT2009-59829. Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo
2009, Orlando, Florida, USA, (2009).
5. "Aerothermal Challenges in Syngas, Hydrogen-fired and Oxy-fuel Turbines: Part
I - Gas Side Heat Transfer", Chyu, M.K., Mazzotta, D.W., Siw S., Karaivanov, V.G.,
Slaughter, W.S., Alvin, M.A. Thermal Science and Engineering Applications, Vol.1, Iss.
1, (2009).
300
6. "Aerothermal Challenges in Syngas, Hydrogen-fired and Oxy-fuel Turbines: Part
II - Effects of Internal Heat Transfer", Chyu, M.K., Mazzotta, D.W., Siw S.,
Karaivanov, V.G., Slaughter, W.S., Alvin, M.A. Thermal Science and Engineering
Applications, Vol. 1, Iss. 1, (2009).
7. “Three-Dimensional Modeling of Creep Damage in Airfoils for Advanced
Turbine Systems”, Karaivanov, V.G., Mazzotta, D.W., Chyu, M.K., Slaughter, W.S.,
Alvin, M.A. GT2008-51278. Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2008, Berlin
Germany, (2008).
8. “Gas-side Heat Transfer in Syngas, Hydrogen-Fired, and Oxy-Fuel Turbines”,
Mazzotta, D.W., Chyu, M.K., Siw, S., Karaivanov, V.G., Slaughter, W.S., Alvin, M.A.
GT2008-51474, Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2008, Berlin, Germany, (2008).
9. “Materials and Component Development for Advanced Turbine Systems”, Alvin
M.A., Pettit F., Meier G., Yanar N., Chyu M., Mazzotta D., Slaughter W.S., Karaivanov
V.G., B.Kang, C.Feng, R.Chen, T-C.Fu, EPRI 5th International Conference on Advances
in Materials Technology for Fossil Power Plants, FL, Oct 3-5, (2007).
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Society of Automobile Engineers
HONORS AND AWARDS (n/a)
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE (n/a)
TIME DISTRIBUTION
100% Committed to Mechanical Engineering Program.
301
Dr. Ugur Ozbay
Education
University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Ph.D. Mining Engineering , 1987
“Design Considerations for Mining of Hard Rock Tabular Deposits Situated at Moderate
Depths.”
M.Sc. Mining Engineering, 1983.
“A study of the Application of Short Delay Blasting to Narrow Reef Gold Mining of
South Africa.”
B. Sc. Mining Engineering, 1977, Ankara, Turkey
Middle East Technical University
Academic Experience
1998 – Present: Colorado School of Mines
Department of Mining Engineering Professor
1997 – 1998: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Professor Centennial Chair of Rock Mechanics
1996 – 1997: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Acting Head of Department, Department of Mining Engineering
1991 – 1997: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer
Non-Academic Experience
1981 – 1991: Chamber of Mines Research Organization, Johannesburg, S.A.
Project Manager, Principal Engineer, Chief Engineer, Senior Engineer.
1980-1981: Westrand Gold Mine, Randfontain, S. A.
Research Engineer
1977 – 1980: Mineral Research and Exploration Institute, Ankara, Turkey
Mining Engineer
Certifications or Professional Registrations
Registered Professional Engineer, ECSA (Engineering Council of South Africa)
Current Membership in Professional Organizations Fellow Member of South African Institution of Mining and Metallurgy
Member, Society of Mining Engineers (SME), Denver, Colorado.
Member, American Rock Mechanics Association
Honors and Awards
CSMAA Alumni Teaching Award, in recognition of Record of Excellence in
Undergraduate Teaching, 2004 at the Colorado School of Mines.
Outstanding Faculty Member in Department of Mining Engineering, Awarded by
Graduating Seniors of Fall 2004, Spring 2004, Fall 2003, Spring 2003, Spring 2002, Fall
2001.
302
Silver Medal awarded five times by the refereed journal of the South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy for the best paper in 1991, 1995, 1995, 1995, 1999.
Salamon Prize a warded by the South African National Group on Rock Mechanics for the
best paper in 1991.
Service Activities
Symposium Chair, 41st U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, June 17-21, 2006
Editorial Committee, Journal of Coal Science and Engineering of China
Editorial Committee, Journal of Earth Science, Hacettepe University, Turkey
ISRM Commission on Education member, (International Society for Rock Mechanics).
Publications and Presentations
Books
Chapter contributions to: Rock Engineering Practice for Tabular Hard Rock Mines,
Edited by A. J. Jager and J. A . Ryder. 1999
Chapter contributions to: A Textbook on Rock Mechanics for Tabular Hard Rock mines,
Edited by J. A. Ryder and A. J. Jager. 2002
Papers
Garvey, R. and Ozbay, U., 2011. Computer aided calibration of PFC3D coal samples
using a genetic algorithm. Proceedings of the 2nd FLAC/DEM Symposium, Melbourne,
Australia.
Ozbay, U. and Neugebauer, E. 2009 In-situ pull testing of a yieldable rock bolt, roofex.
RaSiM7, Controlling Seismic Hazard. Dalian, China. pp 1081 – 1090
Cedron, M, Phillips, H.R., Lagos, G., Cockle A, and Ozbay, U (2007). Preparing
Globally Employable Mining Engineers, GEME. 28th
Mining Convention of Peru,
Arequipa.
Isago, N., Mashimo, H. and Ozbay, U. (2005) Performance analysis of friction stabilizer
bolt in pull test by numerical modeling. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Japan.
Schissler, A., Badr, S., Salamon, M. and Ozbay, U. (2004) Yield Pillar Design at Depth
Based on Review of Case Histories. Transactions Volume 316, 2004, Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO, 8 p.
Ozbay U. , Badr, S., and Salamon, M. 2004. Design considerations for yield pillars in
Deep Longwall Mines. International Mine Safety Professionals Society Conference in
Salt Lake City Utah.
Sagawa, Y., Yamatomi, J., Ozbay, U., Shimizu, N., Ito, K., and Takahashi, A. (2003)
Stope Design in the Sanjin Deposit of the Hishikari Gold Mine. Journal of the Mining
and Materials Processing Institute of Japan. Vol. 119, pp. 370-375.
Miller, B. H., Ozbay, M. U., Steele, J. P. H. Chip formation in mechanical Excavation:
An indicator of machine. SME 2002 meeting, Phoenix.
Calderon, A.R., Ozbay, M.U. Shear strength determination by back-analysis of slope
failures using maximum likelihood method. ARMA DC Rocks symposium in
Washington DC in 2001.
Ozbay, U (2001) A case study on safety factor and failure probability of rock slopes.
Invited Keynote address, 17th International Mining Congress in Turkey, 2001.
303
Salamon, M D G, Ozbay, M U and Madden, B J. (1998) Life and design of bord and
pillar workings affected by pillar scaling. S. A. Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Journal. vol.98, no.4.
304
Paul M. Santi
Professor
EDUCATION
Ph.D., Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1995
M.S., Geology, Texas A&M University, 1988
B.S. with honors, Geology and Physics, Duke University, 1986
SERVICE ON THIS FACULTY (11 years)
2001-2008, Associate Professor
2008-present, Professor
OTHER RELATED EXPERIENCE
1995-2001, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri-Rolla
1992-1994, Project Geologist, Department Manager, Grant Environmental
1988-1992, Staff and Project Geologist, Dames & Moore
STATE IN WHICH REGISTERED
Professional Geologist 3590, Wyoming
Registered Geologist 0196, Missouri (inactive)
Registered Geologist 5310, California (inactive)
Certified Engineering Geologist 1710, California (inactive)
PUBLICATIONS LAST FIVE YEARS
(Books and Book Chapters)
1. deWolfe, V. G. and Santi, P.M., 2009, Debris-Flow Erosion Control Treatments After
Wildfire: An Evaluation of Erosion Control Effectiveness: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller,
Saarbrucken, Germany, 156 p.
2. Santi, P.M., Cannon, S.H., and DeGraff, J.D., accepted for publication, Wildfire and
Landscape Change, in Shroder, J., ed., Treatise on Geomorphology, Elsevier.
(Journal Publications)
1. Swanson, N.R. and Santi, P.M., accepted for publication, “Comparison of colluvium,
debris flow, glacial till and outwash deposits using geotechnical and geological
properties, Durango, Colorado,” Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, (awarded
the 2011 AEG Student Professional Paper, Graduate Division).
2. McKenna, J.P., Santi, P.M., Amblard, X., and Negri, J., 2011, Effects of soil-
engineering properties on the failure mode of shallow landslides, Landslides, DOI
10.1007/s10346-011-0295-3.
3. Mininger, K.T. and Santi, P.M., 2011, “Lifespan of Horizontal Wick Drains Used for
Landslide Drainage,” Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.
103-121 (awarded the 2010 AEG Student Professional Paper, Graduate Division).
4. Santi, P.M., Hewitt, K., and Barillas, E.M., 2010, Debris-Flow Impact, Vulnerability,
and Response, Natural Hazards, DOI 10.1007/s11069-010-9576-8.
5. Santi, P.M., Russell, C.P., Higgins, J.D., and Spriet, J.I., 2009, “Modification and
Statistical Analysis of the Colorado Rockfall Hazard Rating System,” Engineering
Geology, Vol. 104, pp. 55-65.
6. Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., and Higgins, J.D., 2008, “Relationships between size
and velocity for particles within debris flows,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 45,
pp. 1778-1783.
305
7. Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., Higgins, J.D., and Cannon, S.H., 2008, “A Study to
Estimate Debris Flow Velocity,” Landslides, Vol. 5, pp. 431-444. (winner of the 2008
Best Paper Award for the journal)
8. Prochaska, A.B., Santi, P.M., and Higgins, J.D., 2008, “Debris Basin and Deflection
Berm Design for Fire-Related Debris-Flow Mitigation,” Environmental and Engineering
Geoscience, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 297-313.
9. Cook, D.I., Santi, P.M., and Higgins, J.D., 2008, “Horizontal Landslide Drain Design:
State-of-the-Art and Unanswered Questions.” Environmental and Engineering
Geoscience, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 241-250 (awarded the 2007 AEG Student Professional
Paper, Graduate Division).
10. Cook, D.I., Santi, P.M., Higgins, J.D., and Short, R.D., 2008, “Field Scale
Measurement of Groundwater Profiles in a Drained Slope,” Environmental and
Engineering Geoscience, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 167-182.
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists
American Society for Engineering Education
Geological Society of America
HONORS AND AWARDS (last five years) 2010-11 Distinguished Faculty Award, Geology and Geological Engineering
2010 Meritorious Service Award, Engineering Geology Division, Geological Society of America
2008 Best Paper Award, Landslides (Journal of the International Consortium on Landslides)
2008 Visiting Erskine Fellow, Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
2007 Claire P. Holdredge Award, Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists (for
a “publication within the last 5 years judged to be an outstanding contribution to the Engineering
Geology Profession”)
INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE (last five years) Underground Construction and Tunneling Research Center Development Team (2010-present)
University Promotion and Tenure Committee (2010-2011)
Ad Hoc Committee and Statics and Mechanics of Materials (2009-2010)
University Assessment Committee (2008-2011)
Geological Society of America, Academic and Applied Geoscience Relations Committee (2012 –
present)
Member, IAEG Commission No. 1, Engineering Geology Characterization and Visualization,
International Association of Engineering Geologists
2007 First North American Landslide Conference (Vail, CO), Finance Chair
Core Member (USA, IAEG representative), Joint Technical Committee JTC-7, Soft Rocks and
Indurated Soils, ISRM, ISSMGE, IAEG
Geological Society of America, Engineering Geology Division Newsletter Editor (2010 –
present)
Geological Society of America, Engineering Geology Division, Burwell Award Committee (2010
– present)
Geological Society of America, Engineering Geology Division, Chair (2007-08)
Member, Colorado Earthquake Hazards Mitigation Council, 2003 - present
Coordinator, Marliave Scholar Selection, AEG Foundation, 1999 – present
Committee Chair, Academic and Student Affairs Professional Practice Committee, Association
of Environmental and Engineering Geologists, 2001 – 2009
306
Cameron J. Turner
Assistant Professor
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, 2005, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
M.S.E. Mechanical Engineering, 2000, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
B.S.M.E. Mechanical Engineering, 1997, The University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
SERVICE ON THIS FACULTY (3 years)
2009-present, Assistant Professor
OTHER RELATED EXPERIENCE
06/95- present, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Engineering Sciences and Applications
Division, Nuclear Materials Technology Division, Plutonium Manufacturing Technology
Division, Manufacturing Engineering Technology Division, Los Alamos, NM.
01/10- Present, Guest Scientist
01/09- 01/10, Laboratory Affiliate
05/08- 01/09, Advanced R&D Engineer III
01/06- 05/08, Full Term Technical Staff Member
06/97- 01/06, Research Assistant Technical Staff Member
06/95- 05/97, Undergraduate Student Technician
08/01- 08/03, The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Austin, TX.
05/03- 08/03, Instructor DTEACh Program
01/03- 05/03, Associate Instructor for Machine Elements
08/02- 05/03, Associate Instructor for Mechanical Engineering Design
Methodologies
08/01- 05/02, Teaching Assistant for Mechanical Engineering Design Methodologies
CONSULTING AND PATENTS (n/a)
STATE IN WHICH REGISTERED
New Mexico
PUBLICATIONS LAST FIVE YEARS (5 of 46 Selected)
1. "Panel Report: Nifty Ideas and Surprising Flops," Howe, S., Caves, K., Kleiner, C.,
Livesay, G., Norback, J., Rogge, R., and Turner, C. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 27:6, pp. 1174-1185 (2011).
2. “Waypoint-Based Robot Navigation Using NURBs-Based Metamodels,” Steuben,
J. and Turner, C., Proceedings of the 2011 ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, IMECE2011-62450, Denver, CO (November 11-7, 2011).
3. “Metamodeling in Product and Process Design,” Turner, C., Proceedings of the
2011 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences/Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC2011-47483, Washington, DC (August
28-31, 2011).
307
4. “Re-Designing Capstone Design: Two Years of Experience,” Turner, C.,
Proceedings of the 2011 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Vancouver, BC,
Canada (June 26-9, 2011).
5. “Teaching Design Methodologies Across Engineering Disciplines,” Turner, C.,
Proceedings of the 2010 ASME International Congress and Mechanical Exposition
Conference, IMECE2010-38331, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (November 12-
18, 2010).
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Association for Computing Machinery,
National Society of Professional Engineers, American Society for Engineering
Education, Pi Tau Sigma, Tau Beta Pi, Phi Kappa Phi, Golden Key National Honor
Society
HONORS AND AWARDS (LAST FIVE YEARS, Selected)
2011 ASME IMECE Contributions Award
2011 ASME CAPPD Leadership and Service Award
2010 Engineering Division Director Faculty Award
2009 CSM Society of Women Engineers Outstanding Faculty Member
INSTITUTIONAL & PROFESSIONAL SERVICE (LAST FIVE YEARS, Selected)
EG - Senior Design Leadership Group, 2009-11
EG - Mechanical Engineering Lecturer Search Committee, 2010
ME - BSME Curriculum Development Committee, Chair, 2011-present
CECS - Senior Design Leadership Committee, Chair and Mechanical Engineering
Representative, 2011-present
CECS - Multidisciplinary Engineering Committee, 2011-present
CSM - Research Council, Division of Engineering/Mechanical Engineering
Representative, 2010-present
CSM - ORwE Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program, Mechanical Engineering
Representative, 2011-present
ASME - CAPPD Awards Nomination Committee, 2010-present
ASME - Review Coordinator, 2011 ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, 2011
ASME - Review Coordinator, ASME IDETC/CIE Conference, 2006-2011
ASME - Track Co-Chair, 2011 ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, 2010-11
ASME - Past Chair/Chair/Vice Chair/ Secretary, Computer Aided Product &
Process Design Committee of the CIE Division of ASME, 2007-11
TIME DISTRIBUTION
40% Scholarship and Research, 40% Teaching and Instruction, 20% Service
100% Committed to Mechanical Engineering Program
308
1. Name: Tzahi Cath, PhD
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
PhD Civil & Environmental Eng. University of Nevada, Reno 2003
MS Civil & Environmental Eng. University of Nevada, Reno 2001
BSc Mechanical Engineering Tel Aviv University, Israel 1992
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
CSM Associate Prof. 2012-present FT
CSM Assistant Prof. 2006-2012 FT
UNR Res. Assist. Prof. 2004-2006 FT
UNR Postdoc associate 2004 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
GOI Engineer Design &
operations
1992-1998 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. None
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Chemical Society (ACS)
b. Member, American Water Works Association (AWWA)
c. Member, Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors
(AEESP)
d. Member, North American Membrane Society (NAMS)
e. Member, Water Reuse Association (WRA)
f. Member, Water Environment Federation (WEF)
7. Honors and awards
a. None
8. Service activities
a. Board member, WateReuse Colorado (2008-2012)
b. Treasurer, WateReuse Colorado (2010-2012)
c. Scientific Board member, Oasys Water (2009-present)
d. Scientific Board member, BioVantage Resources (2010-2012)
e. Technical advisor, Healing Water International (2008-2010)
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
309
a. Siegrist, R.L., McCray, J.E., Lowe, K.S., Cath, T.Y., Munakata-Marr, J, Onsite
and decentralized Wastewater Systems: Advances from a decade of research and
educational efforts, WATER, February 2013.
b. Cath, T.Y., Elimelech, M, McCutcheon, J.R., McGinnis, R.L., Achilli, A.,
Anastasio, D., Brady, A.R., Childress, A.E., Farr, I.V, Hancock, N.T., Lampi, J., Nghiem,
L.D., Xie, M., Yip, N.Y., Standard methodology for evaluating membrane performance
in osmotically driven membrane processes, Desalination 312 (2013) 31-38.
c. Hickenbottom, K.L., Hancock, N.T., Hutchings, N.R., Appleton, E.W., Beaudry,
E.G., Xu, P., Cath, T.Y., Forward osmosis treatment of drilling mud and fracturing
wastewater from oil and gas operations, Desalination, 312 (2013) 60-66.
d. Hancock, N.T., Black, N., Cath, T.Y., Life cycle assessment of hybrid osmotically
driven membrane processes for seawater desalination and wastewater reclamation, Water
Research, 46 (4) (2012) 1145–1154.
e. Hancock, N.T., Phillip, W., Elimelech, M., and Cath, T.Y., Modeling bi-
directional solute permeation in osmotically driven membrane processes, Environmental
Science and Technology, 45 (24) (2011) 10642–10651.
f. Nghiem, L.D., Hildinger, F., Hai, F.I., Cath, T.Y., Treatment of saline aqueous
solutions using direct contact membrane distillation, Desalination and Water Treatment,
32 (2011) 234–241.
g. Hancock, N.T., Xu, P., Heil, D.M., Bellona, C., and Cath, T.Y., A comprehensive
bench- and pilot-scale investigation of trace organic compound rejection by forward
osmosis, Environmental Science and Technology, 45 (19) (2011) 8483-8490.
h. Nghiem, L.D., Cath, T.Y., A scaling mitigation approach during direct contact
membrane distillation, Separation and Purification Technology, 80 (2) (2011) 315-322.
i. Cath, T.Y., Osmotically and thermally driven membrane processes for
enhancement of water recovery in desalination processes, Desalination and Water
Treatment, 15 (2010) 279–286.
j. Cath, T.Y, Hancock, N.T., Lundin, C.D., Hoppe-Jones, C., and Drewes, J.E., “A
multi barrier hybrid osmotic dilution process for simultaneous desalination and
purification of impaired water”, J. Membr. Sci., 362 (2010) 417–426.
k. Achilli, A., Cath, T.Y., Childress, A.E., "Selection of inorganic-based draw
solutions for forward osmosis applications”, J. Membr. Sci., 364 (2010) 233–241.
l. Hancock, N.T. and Cath, T.Y., Solute coupled diffusion in osmotically driven
membrane processes, Environmental Science and Technology 43 (17) (2009) 6769–6775.
Supporting Information
m. Achilli, A., Cath, T.Y., Childress, A.E., Power generation with pressure-retarded
osmosis: Experimental and theoretical investigation, J. Membr. Sci., 343 (2009) 42-52.
n. Martinetti, C.R., Childress, A.E., Cath, T.Y., Advanced membrane processes for
desalination of concentrated RO brines, J. Membr. Sci., 331 (2009) 31-39.
o. Achilli, A., Cath, T.Y., Marchand, E.A., Childress, A.E., The forward osmosis
membrane bioreactor: A low fouling alternative to MBR processes, Desalination 239
(2009) 10-21.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. 2012 National Science Foundation Engineering Research Centers Annual Meeting
310
Name: Ronald R. Hewitt Cohen
Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D. Environmental Science &
Engr
University of Virginia 1979
B.A. Biology/Biophysics Temple University 1971
Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Associate
Professor
1990-present FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Assistant
Professor
1986-1990 FT
North West
University,
South Africa
Professor Professor
Extraordinaire,
Environmental
Science and
Management
2013-2016 PT
Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
U.S. Geological
Survey
Water
Resources
Environmental
Engineer
Research 1978-1985 FT
Certifications or professional registrations
Hydraulic and Fluid Mechanics, USGS Certificate
Current membership in professional organizations
Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
Member, American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
Water Environment Federation
Honors and awards
311
Shared in 1991 First Prize for Environmental Projects from the American Consulting
engineers Council
Certificate of Recognition from the U.S. Congress for work with cleanup of Nuclear
Weapons Plants
Outstanding Professor of Year, 1996 through 2010
Outstanding Professor of the Year, Minority Engineering Program
Service activities
Committee on Graduate Council CSM
Undergraduate Council CSM
Student Affairs Committee CSM
McBride Honors Program CSM
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee CSM
Awards Committee Chair CSM
Advisor on treatment technologies for acid mine drainage, EPA
Advisor for Tennessee Dept of Transportation on generation of acid generation from road
construction
Committee for remediation of uranium contamination in the Wonderfonteinspruit, South
Africa
Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
Cohen, R.R.H. 2011. Uranium Contamination In The Wonderfonteinspruit Catchment:
Potential Solutions, Government Interference, And Sorting Genuine Risk From Public
Hysteria. SAIMM, Water in The Southern African Minerals Industry Conference.
Cohen, R.R.H. and Abt Engineering. 2010. Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory. Metals
Mining Facilities, Industry Guidance. Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act. Rewriting and revisions of 1999 document. EPA, Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, D.C.
Mohan B. Dangi; Ronald R. H. Cohen; Michael A. Urynowicz; Khem N. Poudyal. 2008.
Searching for a Way to Sustainability - Technical and Policy Analyses for Solid Waste
Issues in Kathmandu. Waste Management and Research.
Ronald R.H. Cohen (2006) “Use of microbes for cost reduction of metal removal from
metals and mining industry waste streams”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14: 1146-
1157
Recent professional development activities
Development of technology for the use of pyritic mine tailings as a substitute for
aggregate in the synthesis of concrete
312
1. Name: Linda A. Figueroa, P.E.
2. Education
Ph. D., Civil Engineering, 1989, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
M.S., Civil Engineering, 1985, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
B.S., Civil Engineering, 1978, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
3. Academic Experience
Associate Director, Nuclear Science and Engineering Center, Colo. School of Mines
1/09-date
Director, Laboratory of Applied and Environmental Radiochemistry
12/08-date
Associate Professor, Colo. School of Mines, Civil & Environ. Engin., Golden, CO
8/97-date
Assistant Professor, Colo. School of Mines, Environ. Sci. & Engin., Golden, CO
8/91-7/97
Visiting Asst. Prof., Colo. School of Mines, Environ. Sci. & Engin., Golden, CO
8/90-7/91
4. Non-Academic Experience
Environmental Engineer, Engineering Science Co., Arcadia, CA.
3/81-5/83
Civil/Environ. Engineer, Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall, L.A., CA.
11/78-2/81
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Professional Engineer - California
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI)-Metal Mining Sector
b. American Society for Mining
c. International Network for Acid Prevention Global Alliance
d. Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration
e. Water Environment Federation
f. American Society of Civil Engineering
g. International Mine Water Association
h. Society for Professional Hispanic Engineering
i. Society for Women in Engineering
7. Honors and Awards (selected)
a. 2011 CSM Diversity Award
b. 2011 Society for Mining Metallurgy and Exploration Best Paper Award
c. 2011 Environmental Science and Engineering (ESE) Nevis Cook Teaching Award
8. Service Activities
a. Departmental Committees (and other departmental service): ESE Promotion and
313
Tenure Committee, Search Committee, Undergraduate Studies Committee, Director of
the Laboratory of Applied and Environmental Radiochemistry, and Director of GAANN
Environmental Stewardship of Nuclear Resources Program
b. Institutional Committees (and other institutional service): Associate Director of the
Nuclear Science and Engineering Center, Diversity Committee, NSF SmartGeo IGERT
Executive Committee, Nuclear Science and Engineering Search Committee, Radiation
Safety Officer Search Committee, Nuclear Science and Engineering Program
Management Committee, National Science Foundation Bridge to the Doctorate Program
Management Team
c. Professional: Chair SME Environmental Division Session, International Conference
on Acid Rock Drainage Conference committee, Journal reviewer, NSF panel reviewer
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
Campbell, K. M., Kukkadapu, R. K., Qafoku, N. P., Peacock, A. D., Lesher, E.,
Williams, K. H., Bargar, J.R., Wilkins, M.J., Figueroa, L., Ranville, J., Davis, J.A. and
Long, P. E. (2012). Geochemical, mineralogical and microbiological characteristics of
sediment from a naturally reduced zone in a uranium-contaminated aquifer. Applied
Geochemistry 27 pp.1499–1511.
Vatterrodt, K., Davies, M., Figueroa, L., Wildeman, T., and Bucknam, C. 2012. The
Effects of Aluminum, Iron, Manganese and Hydrogen Peroxide on Thallium Removal,
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Acid Mine Drainage, May 20-24,
2012, Ottawa, Canada.
Miller, A, Figueroa, L, and Wildeman, T., 2011, Zinc and Nickel Removal in Simulated
Limestone Treatment of Mining Influenced Water, Applied Geochemistry 26 (1) pp. 125-
132, available online November 25, 2010.
Hemsi, P.S., Shackelford, C.D., and Figueroa, L.A., 2010, Calibration of Reactive
Transport models for Remediation of Mine Drainage in Solid-Substrate Bio-Columns,
Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 9, pg. 914-925.
Tenney, K., Figueroa, L., Venot, C., Holmes, M., and Boardman, M. (2010) Third-year
Performance of 55-gallon Bioreactors Treating Mining Influenced Water from the
National Tunnel in Black Hawk, Colorado, Proceedings of the 27th
Annual Meeting of
American Society of Mining & Reclamation, June 5-10, 2010, R.I. Barnhisel (Ed.)
Published by ASMR, 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY 40502.
Bucknam, C.H., Perry, E., Turner, D., Figueroa, L.A., Castendyk, D, Eary, L.E. and
Gusek, J.J. (2009) Update on the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI), the INAP
Global Alliance Member Representing the United States, Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Acid Mine Drainage, June 22-26, 2009, Skelleftea, Sweden.
Figueroa, L.A., Venot, C., Gilbert, A., and Wildeman, T. (2009) Removal of Reduced
Manganese from Mining Influenced Water in Biochemical Reactors. Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Acid Mine Drainage, June 22-26, 2009, Skelleftea,
Sweden.
Gusek, J. and Figueroa, L. Editors (2009) Management Technologies for Metal Mining
Influenced Water: Mitigation of Metal Mining Influenced Water, Volume 2, Published by
the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, 170 pages.
314
1. Name: Christopher P. Higgins
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
A.B. Chemistry and Chemical
Biology
Harvard University 1998
M.S. Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Stanford University 2002
Ph.D. Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Stanford University 2007
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Assistant
Professor
Jan 2009 – present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
The Cadmus
Group, Inc.
Analyst Research and
Prepare
Technical and
Regulatory
Guidance for
U.S. EPA
Jun 1998 – Aug 2011 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. None
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors
(AEESP)
b. Member, American Chemical Society (ACS)
c. Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC)
7. Honors and awards
a. Nevis Cook Teaching Award for Outstanding Graduate Teaching in
Environmental Science and Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 2011
b. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry - North America, Best
Student Platform Presentation, 27th Annual Meeting, 2006
c. Best Student Poster Presentation Award, FLUOROS, 2005
d. National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, 2005-2006
315
e. National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship, 2002-2005
f. Dean’s Graduate Fellowship, Stanford University School of Engineering, 2001-
2002
g. John Harvard Scholarship for Academic Achievement, 1997, 1998
8. Service activities
a. CEE Representative to CSM Campus Undergraduate Council
b. Environmental Science & Engineering (ESE) Space and Facilities Committee
c. CEE/ESE Student Awards Committee
d. CEE Undergraduate Committee
e. Exploratory Team Member, Water Environment Research Foundation Trace
Organics in Biosolids Grand Challenge
9. Publications and Presentations (most important within 5 years)
a. Pace, H.E., Rogers, N.J., Coleman, V.A., Gray, E.P., Higgins, C.P., and J.F.
Ranville. 2012. Single Particle Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry: A
Performance Evaluation and Method Comparison in the Determination of Nanoparticle
Size. ES&T. 46(20):12272-12280.
b. Teerlink, J., Martinez-Hernandez, V., Higgins, C.P. and J.E. Drewes. 2012.
Removal of Trace Organic Chemicals in Onsite Wastewater Soil Treatment Units: A
Laboratory Experiment. Water Research, 46:5174-5184.
c. Pace, H.E., Rogers, N.J., Jarolimek, C., Coleman, V.A., Higgins, C.P., and J.F.
Ranville. 2011. Determining Transport Efficiency for the Purpose of Counting and Sizing
Nanoparticles via Single Particle Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry.
Analytical Chemistry. 83:9361-9369.
d. Sepulvado, J.G., Blaine, A.C., Hundal, L.S. and C.P. Higgins. 2011. Occurrence
and Fate of Perfluorochemicals in Soil Following the Land Application of Municipal
Biosolids. ES&T. 45(19):8106-8112.
e. Higgins, C.P., Paesani, Z., Chalew, T.E.A., Halden, R.U. and L. Hundal. 2011.
Persistence and Bioaccumulation of Triclocarban and Triclosan in Soils after Land
Application of Biosolids. ET&C. 30(3):556-563.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. None
316
1. Name: Terri S. Hogue, Ph.D, Associate Professor and Vice Chair
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
BS Geology University of Wisconsin-Eau
Claire
1995
MS Hydrology University of Arizona 1998
Ph.D. Hydrology University of Arizona 2003
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
UCLA Assistant
Professor
7/2003-6/2009 FT
UCLA Associate
Professor
7/2009-6/2012 FT
CSM Associate
Professor
Vice Chair 8/2012-present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Miscellaneous n/a Consulting 2005-present PT
Wis. DNR Environmental
Specialist
LUST program
review
5/1994-6/1995 PT
Univ. Colorado Research
Assistant
Biochemist 9/1987-3/1991 FT
Mayo Clinic Med Tech Lab analysis 8/1979-6/1987 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. none
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU)
b. Member, American Meteorological Society (AMS)
c. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
7. Honors and awards
a. American Geophysical Union, Hydrology Section Secretary, January 2013-
present
b. Speaker at “Hazards on the Hill” Event, U.S. Senate, September 2011
c. AMS Journal of Hydrometeorology Editor’s Award, 2011
d. UCLA-HSSEAS Engineering Society Professor of the Year, 2010
e. NSF Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Award, 2009
f. UCLA Northrop Grumman Excellence in Teaching Award, 2008
g. UCLA-ASCE Professor of the Year 2007, 2004
h. AMS Science and Policy Colloquium Fellowship, 2002
i. NASA Earth Observing System (EOS) Graduate Fellowship, 2001-2002
317
j. National Science Foundation Fellowship Trainee Award, 1998-99, 1995-1996
8. Service activities
a. CSM CEE Vice Chair for Undergraduate Affairs
b. CSM CEE Chair Undergraduate Committee
c. CSM CEE Department ABET coordinator
d. CSM Colorado Geological Survey Advisory Committee
e. AGU Hydrology Section Secretary, Jan. 2013-present
f. AGU Surface Water Committee Chair, 2010-2012
g. AGU Surface Water Committee Deputy Chair, 2007-2009
h. UCLA Faculty Advisor, Society for Women Engineers, 2007-2009
i. UCLA Faculty Advisor, ASCE Student Chapter, 2008-2011
j. Proposal Reviewer: NSF (review panels 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013), NASA, NOAA;
Manuscript Reviewer for numerous professional journals
9. Publications and Presentations (select examples within last 5 years)
a. Barco, J., T.S. Hogue, V. Curto, and L. Rademacher, 2008: Linking Hydrology
and Stream Geochemistry in Urban Fringe Watersheds, Journal of Hydrology, 360, 31-
47.
b. Barco, J., T.S. Hogue, M. Girotto, D.R. Kendall, and M. Putti, 2010: Climate
Signal Propagation in Southern California Aquifers, Water Resources Research, 46,
W00F05, doi:10.1029/2009WR008376.
c. Pataki, D.E., C.G. Boone, T.S. Hogue, G.D. Jenerette, J.P. McFadden, and S.
Pincetl, 2011: Socio-ecohydrology and the urban water challenge in the western U.S.,
Ecohydrology, 4, 341-347
d. He, M., T.S. Hogue, K Franz, J. Vrugt and S. Margulis, 2011: Corruption of
parameter behavior and regionalization by model and forcing data errors: A Bayesian
example using the SNOW17 model, Water Resources Research, 47(7), W07546,
10.1029/2010WR009753
e. Franz, K.J. and T.S. Hogue, 2011: Evaluating Uncertainty Estimates in
Hydrologic models: Borrowing Measures from the Forecast Verification Community,
Hydrology and Earth System Science, 15, 3367-3382.
f. Stein, E.D, J. S. Brown, T. S. Hogue, M. P. Burke, and A. Kinoshita, 2012:
Regional Patterns of Storm Water Contaminant Loading Following Southern California
Wildfires, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31 (11), 2625-2638.
g. ** over 70 presentations in the last 5 years
10. Recent professional development activities
a. AGU Fall National Meetings – Yearly attendee since 2001
b. AMS National Meetings – Attendee 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2012, 2013
318
1. Name: _Tissa H. Illangasekare_
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
BS Civil Engineering University of Ceylon, Sri Lanka 1971
M.Eng Water Resou. Enging. Asian Institute of Technology 1974
Ph.D. Civil Engineering Colorado State University 1978
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
CSM Professor AMAX chair 1998-date FT
CU Boulder Professor 1990-1998 FT
CU Boulder Assoc.Professor 1986-1989 FT
LSU Assis. Professor 1983-1986 FT
CSU Resh. Asst. Prof. 1978-1983 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
NSF Progm. Director Grants Mgt. 1/1/07-12/31/08 FT
CSM Interim DH Academic Mgt. 8/24/12-1/4/13 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Registered Professional Engineer in Colorado (Registration #: 17901)
b. Registered Professional Hydrologist- American Institute of Hydrology
(Registration # 289)
c. Board Certified Environmental Engineer) -American Academy of Environmental
Engineers (selected by eminence)- BCEE
d. Diplomate, American Academy of Water Resources Engineering (ASCE/EWRI)-
DWRE
e. OSHA 40 Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
b. Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU)
c. Member, European Geological Union (EGU)
d. Member, American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS)
e. Member, National Groundwater Association
f. Member, Soil Science Society of America (SSA)
g. American Academy of Water Resources Engineers
h. American Academy of Environmental Engineers
i. American Institute of Hydrology
7. Honors and awards
a. Honorary Doctor, Natural Science and Technology, Uppsala University, Sweden,
2010.
b. Fellow, American Geophysical Union (AGU)
c. Fellow, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
319
d. Fellow, American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS)
e. 2012 Henry Darcy Medal from the European Geosciences Union
f. Boland Hydrology Award, American Geophysical Union, Hydrology Days,
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado, March 2011
8. Service activities
a. Chair of the Gordon Research Conference on Flow in Permeable Media held in
2012.
b. AGU Hydrology Section Fall Organizing Committee, 2008.
c. Editor, Water Resources Research, 2009-date
d. Managing Editor (Hydrology) Earth Science Review, 2000-2009.
e. Co-editor, Vadose Zone Journal, 2006- 2009
f. Department and College Promotion and Tenure Committee at CU-Boulder.
g. Chair. P&T committee, ESE and CEE at CSM.
h. Chair, CSM P&T Committee.
i. Faculty Trustee, CSM BOT, 2013-date.
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Sakaki, T., A. Limsuwat, A. Cihan, C. C. Frippiat, and T. H. Illangasekare (2012),
Water retention in a coarse pocket under wetting and drainage, Vadose Zone Journal,
11:223-230, doi:10.2136/vzj2011.0028.
b. Smits, K. M., T. Sakaki, A. Limsuwat, and T. H. Illangasekare (2010). Thermal
conductivity of sands under varying moisture and porosity in drainage-wetting cycles.
Vadose Zone J., 9:doi:10.2136/vzj2009.0095.
c. Smits, K.M., T. Sakaki, S.E. Howington, J. F. Peters and T.H. Illangasekare
(2012). Temperature dependence of thermal properties of sands over a wide range of
temperatures [30-70oC], Vadose Zone J., 10.2136/vzj2012.0033
d. Smits, K.M., A. Cihan, T. Sakaki, S.E. Howington, J.F. Peters, and T. H.
Illangasekare (2012). Experimental and modeling investigation of soil moisture and
thermal behavior in the vicinity of buried objects. IEEE Trans. in Geosci. Remote Sens.,
10.1109/TGRS.2012.2214485
e. Smits, K.M., A. Cihan, V. Ngo, T. Sakaki, and T.H. Illangasekare (2012). An
evaluation of models of bare soil evaporation formulated with different land surface
boundary conditions and assumptions. Water Resour. Res., 10.1029/2012WR012113
f. Vithanage, M., Engesgaard, P. Jensen, K. H. Illangasekare, T. H. Obeysekera, J..
(2012). "Laboratory investigations of the effects of geologic heterogeneity on
groundwater salinization and flush-out times from a tsunami-like event." Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 136: 10-24. Doi 10.1016/J.Jconhyd.2012.05.001
10. Recent professional development activities
a. None
320
1. Name: John E. McCray
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.S. Electrical Engineering West Virginia Univ. 1986
M.S. Environmental Systems
Engineering
Clemson Univ. 1994
PhD Hydrology & Water Resources Univ. Arizona
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado School of
Mines (Civil and
Environmental
Engineering)
Prof. Department Head 2010-current FT
Stanford Univ. Prof. Shimizu Visiting
Prof
2012 FT
CSM (Civil and
Environmental
Engineering)
Prof. and
Assoc.
Prof
2004-2010 FT
Univ. Texas Assoc.
Prof
Alexander Deussen
Chair
2003-2004 FT
CSM (Geological
Engineering)
Asst. Prof 1998-2003 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Various
consulting jobs
Independent
consultant
Hydrologic
engineering
consulting
Various
between 1998
and 2013
PT
U.S. Navy Nuclear Engineer,
Engineer Officer
Reactor
operations,
engineering
repairs
May 1986-
October 1991.
FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. _EIT (South Carolina),
b. Professional Geoscientist-Hydrology (Texas)
c. Engineer, U.S. Naval Reactors_
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
321
b. Member, Assoc. of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors
c. Member, National Ground Water Association
7. Honors and awards
a. Fulbright Scholar (Chile), AY 2013
b. Shimizu Visiting Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford
University
8. Service activities
a. Chair, Ground Water Quality Committee, ASCE/EWRI (2008-2010)
b. Engineering College Reorganization Committee (2011-12)
c. Expert Panel for U.S. Undersecretary of Energy (Yucca Mountain hydrology)
d. National Ground Water Association Awards Committee 2008-2010
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years) – McCray students/post-docs
underlined
a. Mikkelson, K.M., Dickenson, E., McCray, J.E., Maxwell, R.M., and Sharp, J.O.,
2013. Water quality impacts from climate-induced forest die-off, Nature Climate
Change, doi: 10.1038/nclimate1724
b. Bischel, H.N., J.E. Lawrence, B.J. Halaburka, M.H. Plumlee, A.S. Bawazir, J.P.
King, J.E. McCray, V.H. Resh, R.G. Luthy, 2013. Renewing urban streams with recycled
water for streamflow augmentation: Hydrologic, water quality, and ecosystem services
management. Environmental Engineering Science, in press
c. Silva, J., Liberatore, M. McCray, J.E., 2013. Characterization of bulk fluid and
transport properties for simulating polymer-improved aquifer remediation, ASCE J.
Environ. Engr., 139(2), 149-159.
d. Wunsch, A., Navarre-Sitchler, A.K. McCray, J.E., 2013. Geochemical
implications of brine leakage into freshwater aquifers, Ground Water, in press.
e. McCray, J.E., Tick, G., Jawitz, J.J., Annable, M., Brusseau, M.L., Falta, R.,
Gierke, J., Knox, R., Sabatini, D., Wood, A.L., 2011. Remediation of NAPL Source
Zones: Lessons Learned from Field Studies at Hill and Dover AFB, Ground Water,
49(5), 727-744
f. Schaefer; C., Towne, R.M., Root, D., McCray, J.E., 2012. Assessment of
chemical oxidation for treatment of DNAPL in fractured sandstone blocks, ASCE J.
Environ. Engineering, 138(1), 1-7.
g. Geza M. Murray, K.E., McCray J.E. 2010. Watershed scale impacts of nitrogen
from onsite wastewater systems: parameter sensitivity and model calibration ASCE J.
Environ. Engineering, 136 (9), 926-928.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Fulbright trip to Chile to help build interdisciplinary graduate program in
Hydrologic Engineering at the Universidad de Concepcion (Chillan)
b. Shimizu Visiting Professor- Stanford Univ, research at Stanford and Berkeley in
NSF Engineering Research Center on Urban Water, taught class at Stanford
322
1. Name: Junko Munakata Marr
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.S. Chemical Engineering California Institute of Technology 1989
M.S. Civil Engineering Stanford University 1990
Ph.D. Civil Engineering Stanford University 1996
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado School of Mines Associate Professor Apr 2006-present FT
Colorado School of Mines Assistant Professor Aug 1999-Apr 2006 FT
Colorado School of Mines Research Assistant
Professor
Jun 1996-Aug 1999 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
James M.
Montgomery,
Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Associate
Engineer
Applied research: data analysis
from pilot studies, bench-scale
testing
Summers
1989, 1990
FT
General Motors Intern Pollution monitoring;
assessment of hazardous waste
generation and waste
minimization by plants
Summers
1987, 1988
FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations: None
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society for Engineering Education
b. Member, American Society for Microbiology
c. Member, Association of Environ. Engineering and Science Professors
d. Member, Water Environment Federation
7. Honors and awards
a. Fellow, Red Rocks Institute for Sustainability in Education, 2010-12
b. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Invitation Fellowship, 2008
c. Fulbright Senior Scholar, Bangkok Thailand, 2007-08
323
d. 2005 Project of the Year, “Reaction and Transport Processes Controlling In Situ
Chemical Oxidation of DNAPLs”, SERDP, with R. Siegrist PI, M. Crimi, T.
Illangasekare
e. Alumni Association Outstanding Faculty Award, December 2004 and 2005, May
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, Order of Omega Faculty of the Year, 2011, Dr.
Nevis Cook Excellence in (Graduate) Teaching Award, 2004, Alumni Association
Outstanding Faculty Award, Minority Engineering Program, 1997
8. Service activities
a. ASEE Environmental Engineering Division program chair (current), treasurer
(past), secretary (past)
b. WEF Groundwater Committee
c. Chair, President’s Committee on Diversity
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. K.G. Dahm, C.M. Van Straaten, J. Munakata-Marr, J.E. Drewes, “Identifying
Well Contamination through the use of 3-D Fluorescence Spectroscopy to Classify
Coalbed Methane Produced Water”, Environ Sci Technol, 47(1):649-656 (2013).
b. J.A.K. Silva, M.M. Smith, J. Munakata-Marr, J.E. McCray, “The Effect of System
Variables on In situ Sweep-Efficiency Improvement via Viscosity Modification”, J
Contam Hydrol, 136-137:117-130 (2012).
c. N. Sinbuathong, P. Sirirote, B. Sillapacharoenkul, J. Munakata-Marr, S.
Chulalaksananukul, “Biogas production from two-stage anaerobic digestion of Jatropha
curcas seed cake”, Energy Sources Part A, 34(22):2048-2056 (2012).
d. J. Munakata-Marr, K.S. Sorensen Jr., B.G. Petri and J. Cummings (2011).
“Principles of Combining ISCO with Other In situ Remedial Approaches”. In R.L.
Siegrist, M.L. Crimi and T. Simpkin, eds., In situ Chemical Oxidation for Remediation of
Contaminated Groundwater, Springer Science+Business Media, New York.
e. J. Lucena, J. Delborne, K. Johnson, J. Leydens, J. Munakata-Marr and J.
Schneider, “Integration of climate change in the analysis and design of engineered
systems: Barriers and opportunities for engineering education”, Proceedings of the
ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (2011).
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Adding Sustainability to Engineering Education, Center for Sustainable
Engineering workshop, May 23-24, 2011, Syracuse, NY
b. Women’s International Research Engineering Summit 2 (WIRES2) participant,
March 30-April 1, 2011, Orlando, FL
c. Academic Management Institute: September 2008-April 2009, Vail, Aurora,
Denver and Estes Park, CO
324
1. Name: Jonathan O. (Josh) Sharp
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.A. Geosciences Princeton University 1997
M.S. Civ and Env Engineering U.C. Berkeley 2001
Ph.D. Civ and Env Engineering U.C. Berkeley 2006
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
EPFL
Switzerland
Scientific
Collaborator
2006-2008 FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Assistant
Professor
2009-present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Schlumberger Petroleum
Field
Engineer
Subsurface
characterization
of oilfields
1997-1999 FT
US Geological
Survey
Staff
Research
Hydrologist
Laboratory
Geomicrobiology
1999-2000 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations: None
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors
(AEESP)
b. Member, American Chemical Society (ACS)
7. Honors and awards
a. NSF Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) Recipient
8. Service activities
a. CSM Graduate Council
b. CEE Department Graduate Curriculum and Admissions Committee
c. Undergraduate, community, and nonprofit outreach addressing water quality
implications associated with abandoned mine runoff
d. Ad-hoc peer reviewer for: Environmental Science and Technology,
Bioremediation, FEMS Microbial Reviews, Water Research
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Mikkelson K, Dickenson E, McCray J, Maxwell R, Sharp JO (2012) Adverse
water quality impacts from climate-induced forest die-off. Nature Clim. Change.
doi:10.1038/nclimate1724
325
b. Li D, Sharp JO, Saikaly P, Ali S, Alidina M, Alarawi MS, Keller S, Hoppe-Jones
C, Drewes J (2012) Dissolved organic carbon influences microbial community
composition and diversity in geographically distinct managed aquifer recharge systems.
Appl. Envron. Microbiol. 78(19):6819
c. Mikkelson, KM, Maxwell, RM, Ferguson, IM, McCray, JE, Stednick, JD, Sharp,
JO (2012). Mountain pine beetle infestation impacts: Modeling water and energy budgets
at the hill-slope scale. Ecohydrology, doi: 10.1002/eco.278
d. Veeramani H, Alessi DS, Suvorova EI, Lezama-Pacheco JS, Stubbs JE, Sharp JO,
Dippon U, Kappler A, Bargar JR, Bernier-Latmani R (2011). Products of abiotic U(VI)
reduction by biogenic magnetite and vivianite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 75(9): 2512-
2528.
e. Sharp JO, Schofield EJ, Lezama J, Ulrich K, Veeramani H, Junier P, Roquier C,
Suvorova EI, Webb S, Tebo B, Giammar DE, Bargar JR, Bernier-Latmani R (2011).
Uranium speciation and stability after reductive immobilization in sediments. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta. 75(21):6497-6510.
f. Sharp JO, Sales C, and Alvarez-Cohen L (2010). Functional insights towards
propane- enhanced n-nitrosodimethylamine removal by two actinomycetes. Biotechnol
Bioeng. 107(6): 924-32.
g. Bernier-Latmani R, Veeramani H, Vecchia ED, Junier P, Lezama-Pacheco JS,
Suvorova EI, Sharp JO, Stubbs JE, Wigginton, Bargar JR (2010). Non-uraninite products
of microbial U(VI) reduction. Environ Sci Technol 44(24): 9456–9462.
h. Ulrich KU, Ilton E, Veeramani H, Sharp JO, Bernier-Latmani R, Schofield EJ,
Bargar JR, Giammar DE (2009). Comparitive dissolution kinetics of biogenic and
chemogenic uraninite under oxidizing conditions in the presence of carbonate. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta. 73(20): 6065-6083.
i. Veeramani H, Schofield E, Sharp JO, Suvorova E, Ulrich KU, Mehta A, Giammar
DE, Bargar JR, Bernier-Latmani R (2009). Effect of Mn(II) on the structure and
reactivity of biogenic UO2. Env. Sci. Technol. 43(17): 6541-6547.
j. Sharp JO, Schofield EJ, Veeramani H, Suvorova EI, Junier P, Kennedy DW,
Marshall MJ, Mehta A, Bargar JR & Bernier-Latmani R (2009). Structural similarities
between biogenic uraninites produced by phylogenetically diverse bacteria. Env. Sci.
Technol. 43(21): 8295-8301.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. CSM Teaching and Learning Workshop Participant, Aug 18-19, 2011
b. DOE SBR Principle Investigator Meeting Apr 2012
c. Course development and coordinator for ESGN 335 Env. Engineering Field
Session and ESGN 355 Env. Eng. Undergraduate Laboratory
326
1. Name: Robert L. Siegrist, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.S. Civil Engineering University of Wisconsin 1972
M.S. Civil and Environ. Eng. University of Wisconsin 1975
Ph.D. Civil and Environ. Eng. University of Wisconsin 1986
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado School of
Mines
Professor University
Professor Emeritus
02/2010 – date PT
Colorado School of
Mines
Professor 05/2010 –
12/2010
FT
Colorado School of
Mines
Professor Division Director 05/2001 –
05/2010
FT
Colorado School of
Mines
Associate
Professor
01/1995 –
04/2001
FT
Agricultural Univ. of
Norway
Visiting Senior
Scientist
03/1988 –
04/1989
FT
University of
Wisconsin
Research
staff
Research Specialist 02/1975 –
12/1984
FT
4. Non-academic experience Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory
Adjunct Faculty
Research
Participant
Conduct research in collaboration
with research staff at ORNL
01/1995 –
09/2000
PT
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory
Group Leader,
Environmental
Engineering
Conduct research into
characterization and site
remediation; direct a group of
10+/- scientists and engineers
06/1990 –
12/1994
FT
Ayres
Associates, Inc.
Senior Engineer Manage environmental projects
involving water and wastewater
engineering and site remediation
05/1986 –
02/1988 and
06/1989 –
06/1990
FT
RSE, Inc. Principal Engineer
and partner
Conduct applied research and
analysis projects involving water
reclamation
06/1982 –
12/1984
PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Professional Engineer, Wisconsin, Credential no. 18239-6, 10/1978 to date
b. Board Certified Environmental Engineer, Cert. no. 07-E0001, 05/2007 to date
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society of Civil Engineers
327
b. Member, Water Environment Federation
c. Member, Soil Science Society of America
d. Member, American Society for Engineering Education
7. Honors and awards
a. University Professor Emeritus award, Colorado School of Mines, 2011
b. Outstanding Project of the Year Award, DoD Strategic Environmental Research
and Development Program, Washington, D.C., 2005
c. Inducted into Wall of Fame, Waukesha High School, Waukesha, WI, 2004
d. Fellow, NATO Committee on Challenges to Modern Society, 1995 – 2002
e. Technical Achievement Award, X-231B In Situ Treatment Project, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, 1995
8. Service activities
a. Member CEE Faculty Search Committees (2) – AY12-13
b. Member, CSM Research Management Cabinet (2008 - 2010)
c. Member, CSM Sustainability Committee (2008 - 2010)
d. Member, CSM Budget Committee (2008 - 2009)
e. Member, CSM Search Committee for Provost (2008)
f. Member, WERF Decentralized Research Advisory Comm. (2003-2010)
g. Program Committee, Water Environment Federation (2000-2005)
h. Executive Committee, Consortium of Inst. for Decentralized Wastewater
(1996-2003)
9. Publications and Presentations (6 selected from 17 peer-reviewed works, 2008 to
2012)
a. Siegrist RL, M Crimi, TJ Simpkin (Eds). 2011. In Situ Chemical Oxidation for
Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater. Springer, New York, NY. 678 p.
b. Woods Poon L, RL Siegrist, M Crimi. 2012. Effects of In Situ Remediation Using
Oxidants or Surfactants on Subsurface Organic Matter and Sorption of Trichloroethene.
J. Ground Water Mon. Rem., 32(2):96-105, Spring 2012.
c. McKinley JW, RL Siegrist. 2011. Soil Clogging Genesis in Soil Treatment Units
used for Onsite Wastewater Reclamation: A Review. Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science & Technology, 41:2186-2209.
d. Krembs FJ, RL Siegrist, M Crimi, RF Furrer, BG Petri. 2010. ISCO for
Groundwater Remediation: Analysis of Field Applications and Performance. J. Ground
Water Mon. Rem., 30(4):42–53.
e. Conn KE, RL Siegrist, LB Barber, MT Meyer. 2010. Fate of Trace Organic
Compounds during Vadose Zone Soil Treatment in an Onsite Wastewater System. J.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 29(2):285-293.
f. Tsitonaki A, B Petri, M Crimi, H Mosbaek, RL Siegrist, PL Bjerg. 2010. In Situ
Chemical Oxidation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater using Persulfate: A Review.
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science & Technology, 40(1):55-91.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Participation in conferences concerning environmental science and engineering
328
1. Name: Kathleen M. Smits, Ph.D., P.E.
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D. Environmental Engineering Colorado School of
Mines
2010
M.S. Civil Engineering, Water
Resources
University of Texas,
Austin
2000
B.S. Environmental Engineering U.S. Air Force Academy 1999
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Assistant
Professor
Assistant
Professor
2012-present FT
U.S. Air Force
Academy
Assistant
Professor
Captain, U.S.
Air Force
2004-2007 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
U.S. Air Force Officer Civil and
Environmental
Engineer
1999-2007 FT
U.S. Air Force Officer Analyst 2007-present PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
Licensed Professional Engineer (Civil Engineering), State of Colorado
6. Current membership in professional organizations
Member of American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Society of Civil Engineer
(ASCE), the International Society of Porous Media (InterPore), Society of American
Military Engineers (SAME), Association of Environmental Engineering and Science
Professors (AEESP). Society of Women in Engineering (SWE), Tau Beta Pi.
7. Honors and awards
2011CH2MHill Graduate Student of the Year Award, Environmental Science and
Engineering, Colorado School of Mines
2011Outstanding Student Paper Award, Environmental Science and Engineering,
Colorado School of Mines
2010Outstanding Student Paper Award, Environmental Science and Engineering,
Colorado School of Mines
2008Outstanding Student Paper Award in Hydrology, AGU Fall Meeting
2007Outstanding Academy Educator Award for the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the U.S Air Force Academy (1/25) in recognition of
superior teaching accomplishments and a demonstrated ability to instill high standards of
integrity, service and leadership in students
2007 Air Force Meritorious Service Medal for meritorious service
8. Service activities
CEE Graduate Research Council
329
Geology and Geological Engineering search committee external member
Society of Women Engineers
International Society of Porous Media (Interpore) taskforce committee chair
American Geophysical Union Unsaturated Zone Committee Chair
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
*Trautz, A., K.M. Smits, P. Schulte, and T.H. Illangasekare (2013). Laboratory
validation and numerical testing of the sensible heat balance and heat-pulse methods to
determine in situ soil-water evaporation. Vadose Zone J., in review.
*Kirby, E., K.M. Smits and W.J. Massman, (2013). The effect of forest fires on
the thermal properties of soils. Vadose Zone J., in review.
Petri, B., T.H. Illangasekare, C. Sauck, T. Sakaki, K.M. Smits, R. Fučík, and J.
Christ (2013). Effect of fluid phase distribution on mass-transfer from non-aqueous
phase liquids in the vadose zone contributing to vapor intrusion. Env. Sci. Tech., in
review
Smits, K.M., T. Sakaki, S.E. Howington, J. F. Peters and T.H. Illangasekare
(2012). Temperature dependence of thermal properties of sands over a wide range
of temperatures [30-70oC], Vadose Zone J., 10.2136/vzj2012.0033
Smits, K.M., A. Cihan, T. Sakaki, S.E. Howington, J.F. Peters, and T. H.
Illangasekare (2012). Experimental and modeling investigation of soil moisture and
thermal behavior in the vicinity of buried objects. IEEE Trans. in Geosci. Remote
Sens., 10.1109/TGRS.2012.2214485
Smits, K.M., A. Cihan, V. Ngo, T. Sakaki, and T.H. Illangasekare (2012). An
evaluation of models of bare soil evaporation formulated with different land surface
boundary conditions and assumptions. Water Resour. Res.
Smits, K.M., A. Cihan, V.Ngo, and T.H. Illangasekare (2012). Reply to comment
by Michael D. Novak on ‘‘Evaporation from soils under thermal boundary conditions:
Experimental and modeling investigation to compare equilibrium and nonequilibrium
based approaches.” Water Resour. Res., doi:10.1029/2011WR011609, 2012
Smits, K. M., A. Cihan, T. Sakaki, and T. H. Illangasekare (2011). Evaporation
from soils under thermal boundary conditions: Experimental and modeling
investigation to compare equilibrium- and nonequilibrium-based approaches, Water
Resour. Res., 47, W05540, doi:10.1029/2010WR009533.
Smits, K. M., T. Sakaki, A. Limsuwat, and T. H. Illangasekare (2010). Thermal
conductivity of sands under varying moisture and porosity in drainage-wetting cycles.
Vadose Zone J., 9:doi:10.2136/vzj2009.0095
Sakaki, T., A. Limsuwat, K. M. Smits, and T. H. Illangasekare (2008). Empirical
two-point alpha mixing model for calibrating the ECH2O EC-5 soil moisture sensor in
sands. Water Res. Res. 44: W00D08, doi:10.1029/2008WR006870.
*Wu, M.Y., K.M. Smits, M.N. Goltz, and J.A. Christ (2008). A screening model
for injection-extraction treatment well recirculation system design. Ground Water
Monitoring and Remediation, 28:63-71.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. NSF proposal writing workshop, June 2012
330
1. Name: John R. Spear
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D. Env. Sci. and Engineering Colorado School of Mines 1999
M.S. Env. Sci. and Engineering Colorado School of Mines 1994
B.A. Animal Physiology U.C. San Diego 1984
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Associate
Professor
March 2010 - Present FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Assistant
Professor
August 2005 –
March 2010
FT
University of
Colorado,
Boulder
Postdoctoral
Fellow
July 1999 – August
2005
FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Luca
Technologies, Inc.
Science
Advisor
Advisement August 2008 -
Present
PT
Oberon FMR, Inc. Science
Advisor
Advisement December 2012 -
Present
PT
National Outdoor
Leadership School
Operations
Manager
Manage Alaska
Branch; 200
employees
1990 - 1992 FT
National Outdoor
Leadership School
Instructor Mountaineering 1987 - 1992 FT
Keystone Ski Area Rental
Shop
Manager
Manage 3
shops; 250
employees;
$85M in annual
sales
1986 - 1989 FT
The Scripps
Research Institute
Research
Technician
III (Top)
Synthetic
Vaccines for
Tuberculosis
1984 - 1986 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
None.
331
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Society for Microbiology (ASM)
b. Member, International Society for Microbial Ecology (ISME)
c. Member, American Chemical Society (ACS)
d. Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU)
e. Member, National Speleological Society (NSS)
7. Honors and awards
a. 2012, Faculty of the Year, Colorado School of Mines
b. 2010, Martin Luther King, Jr. Recognition for the Promotion of Diversity,
Colorado School of Mines
c. 2007, Outstanding Faculty Member, Colorado School of Mines
d. 2006, Outstanding Faculty Member, Colorado School of Mines
8. Service activities
a. 2010 – Present, Co-Director, International Geobiology Course
b. 2002 – 2009, Instructor, International Geobiology Course
c. 2012-2014, Senate President, Colorado School of Mines
d. 2010-2012, Chair, Research Council, Colorado School of Mines
e. 2008 – Present, Colorado School of Mines Sustainability Committee
f. 2006 – Present, Colorado School of Mines Safety Committee
9. Publications (within 5 years; more than 60 Peer Reviewed Journal Papers)
AlAbbas, F.M., R. Bhola, J.R. Spear, D.L. Olson and B. Mishra. 2013. “Electrochemical
Characterization of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion on Linepipe Steel Exposed to
Facultative Anaerobic Desulfovibrio sp. Int. J. of Electrochemical Science, 8: 859-871.
Reyes, K., N.I. Gonzalez, J. Stewart, F. Ospino, D. Nguyen, D.T Cho, N. Ghahremani,
J.R Spear and H.A. Johnson. 2012. “Surface Orientation Affects the Direction of Cone
Growth by Leptolyngbya sp. Strain C1, a Likely Architect of Coniform Structures,
Octopus Spring (Yellowstone National Park).” Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 79(4): 1302-1308.
Pepe-Ranney, C., W.M. Berelson, F.A. Corsetti, M. Treants and J.R. Spear. 2012.
“Cyanobacterial Construction of Hot Spring Siliceous Stromatolites in Yellowstone
National Park.” Environmental Microbiology, 14(5): 1182-1197.
Sahl, J.W., M.O. Gary, J.K. Harris and J.R. Spear. 2011. “A Comparative Molecular
Analysis of Water-Filled Limestone Sinkholes in Northeastern Mexico.” Environmental
Microbiology, 13(1): 226-240.
Gleeson, D., C. Williamson, S. Grasby, J.R. Spear, R. Pappalardo, K. Wright, A.
Templeton. 2011. “Low temperature S0 biomineralization at a supraglacial spring
system in the Canadian High Arctic” Geobiology, 9: 360-375.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Writing of the new textbook, Geobiology for the American Society of
Microbiology Press.
332
1. Name: Jennifer Catherine Innerebner, PhD, PE, CWP
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.S. Chemistry / Biology Regis University 1993
M.S. Environmental Science
and Engineering
Colorado School of Mines 1998
Ph.D. Environmental Science
and Engineering
Colorado School of Mines 2001
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Adjunct
Professor
Jan – May 2010
Jan – May 2011
Jan – May 2012
Jan – May 2013
PT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Indigo Water Group Principal Consulting
Engineer
specializing in
water and
wastewater
treatment
October 2007 –
present
FT
Integra Engineering Environmental
Scientist
March 2002 –
October 2007
FT
RTW Engineering Environmental
Scientist
September 2001
– March 2002
FT
Littleton/Englewood
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Senior
Analytical
Chemist
Daily sampling
and analysis
required for
permit
compliance and
process control
of a WWTP.
May 1995 –
September 2001
FT
Rocky Flats
Environmental
Technology Site
Intern
Senior
Analytical
Chemist
Manage trace
metals
laboratory.
Review data
and prepare
technical
reports for
August 1990 –
May 1995
FT
333
environmental
compliance
reporting.
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Professional Engineer State of Colorado #38830
b. Certified Water Professional – A Industrial #12746
c. Certified Water Professional – A Municipal Wastewater #12170
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, Rocky Mountain Water Environment Association
b. Member, Water Environment Federation
c. Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science
7. Honors and awards
a. None.
8. Service activities
a. Committee on Plant Operations and Maintenance Committee Vice-Chair, Water
Environment Federation
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. None in last 5 years.
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Attend Water Environment Technical Exposition and Conference
i. 2012 – New Orleans
ii. 2011 – Los Angeles
iii. 2010 – New Orleans
iv. 2008 – Chicago
b. Attend Joint Annual Conference of RMSAWWA and RMWEA in 2012 in
Copper Mountain, Colorado
334
1. Name: Paul B. Queneau
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.S. Metallurgical Engineering Cornell University 1964
Ph.D. Metallurgical Engineering University of Minnesota 1967
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
CSM Adjunct
Professor
Dec 1989 - Present PT
CSM –
Continuing
Education
Adjunct
Professor
Organizer –
Recycling
Metals from
Industrial Waste
1992 - Present PT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
P.B. Queneau &
Associates, Inc.
Consulting
Metallurgical
Engineer
Extractive
metallurgy;
Creating wealth
1997 - Present FT
Hazen
Research, Inc.
Principal
Metallurgical
Engineer
Extractive
metallurgy;
Creating wealth
1983 - 1997 FT
American Metal
Climax, Inc.
Kennecott
Copper
R&D
Supervisor
Research
Engineer
Extractive
metallurgy;
Creating wealth
Extractive
metallurgy
1972 - 1982
1967 - 1972
FT
FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. Registered Professional Engineer, Colorado
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers
(AIME)
b. Member, Mining and Metallurgical Society of America (MMSA)
c. Member, Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (CIM)
335
7. Honors and awards
a. Elected to membership in Tau Beta Pi
b. Past President of the Denver Section, AIME-ASM Chapter
c. Plenary Speaker at the Wadsworth Hydrometallurgy Symposium (‘93)
d. AIME-TMS 2001 Extraction & Processing Distinguished Lecturer Award
8. Service activities
a. Organizer of multiple short courses over the past 25 years on Metals Recycling at
both TMS and CIM annual meetings
b. Advisor to The Journal of Metals
c. Chairman of the Cu-Ni-Co Committee (‘91-’92)
d. General Meeting Co-Chairman for AIME’s Third International Recycling
Symposium (Point Clear, AL, ‘95)
e. Chairman of the EPD Award Committee (‘95-’96)
f. AIME Hoover Award Nominating Committee
g. Reviewer for Metallurgical Transactions B
h. Chairman of the TMS Extractive and Process Lecture / Best Papers Committee
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Recycling Metal-Rich Industrial Products, 375th
Anniversary, Nickelhütte Aue,
Aue, Germany (2010)
b. Roasting Molybdenite – Today and in the Future, Materials Research Seminar,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO (2009)
c. Rich Country – Rich Wastes: Meeting Needs and Grasping Opportunities,
MiMeR/Boliden Foresight Seminar, Lulea, Sweden (2008)
d. Recent Developments: Specialty U.S. Metals Recycling Plants, Recycling Metals
from Industrial Waste Short Course, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO (2008)
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Recycling Metals from Industrial Waste, CSM Continuing Education (1992 to
2012)
b. SME Colorado Mineral Processing Annual Meeting, Colorado Springs (2008 -
2013)
c. AIME-TMS Annual Meeting, Orlando (2011)
d. CIM Conference of Metallurgists (2008 – 2010; 2012)
336
1. Name: Patrick (Paddy) Ryan
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
B.Sc.(hons) Zoology University of Canterbury 1973
Ph.D. Ecology University of Canterbury 1978
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Johnson &
Wales
University
Professor 2001- present FT
Colorado
School of Mines
Associate
Professor
2000- present PT
Metropolitan
State College of
Denver
Visiting
Assistant
Professor
1998 and 1999 FT
University of
the South
Pacific
Senior
Lecturer
1978-1988 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
Ryan
Environmental
Owner Carry out freshwater
consultancy work
1995-1997 FT
West Coast
Regional
Council
Environmental
Planner
Co-ordinate writing and
publication of Regional
Policy Statement
1989-1994 FT
Westland
Catchment
Board
Freshwater
Biologist
Freshwater monitoring,
presentation of evidence
in Environment Court
1988-1989 FT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. PADI Dive master
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, Union of Concerned Scientists
b. Member, PADI
c. Member, New Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society
d. Member, New Zealand Marine Sciences Society
7. Honors and awards
337
a. Teacher of the Year, Johnson & Wales University (JWU), 2005
8. Service activities
a. Chair of the JWU Denver Campus University Committee on Academic Rank
b. Member of the University Committee on Academic Rank Chairs’ Committee
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. Paddy Ryan. 'Eels', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 25-Sep-
2011 URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/TheBush/FishFrogsAndReptiles/Eels/en
b. Paddy Ryan. 'Frogs', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 25-Sep-
2011 URL: http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/TheBush/FishFrogsAndReptiles/Frogs/en
c. Paddy Ryan. 'Snails and slugs', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
updated 25-Sep-2011 URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/TheBush/InsectsAndOtherInvertebrates/SnailsAndSlugs/en
d. Paddy Ryan. 'Peripatus', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 25-
Sep-2011 URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/TheBush/InsectsAndOtherInvertebrates/Peripatus/en
e. Paddy Ryan. 'Fiords', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 24-
Sep-2011 URL:
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/MarineEnvironments/Fiords/en
f. Ryan P.A. 2010. Fort Worth Zoo Souvenir Book. Second edition. Streamline
Creative Ltd., Auckland. 92 pp.
g. Ryan, P.A. 2009. Fiji, Biology. In: Encyclopedia of Islands edited by R.G.
Gillespie and D. A. Clague. Pages 298-305. University of California Press at Berkeley.
h. Paddy Ryan. 'Deep-sea creatures', Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand,
updated 2 March -2009
http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/SeaLife/DeepSeaCreatures/en
i. Ryan, Patrick 2007. Impacts of global warming on New Zealand freshwater
organisms: a preview and review. Paper presented to the New Zealand Freshwater
Sciences Society, Rotorua.
338
1. Faculty
Linda Ann Battalora
2. Education
J.D. Loyola University New Orleans College of Law: May 1993
M.S. Petroleum Engineering; Colorado School of Mines: December 1989
B.S. Petroleum Engineering; Colorado School of Mines: May 1987
3. Academic Experience
Colorado School of Mines; Associate Professor; 2006-2012; Full time
4. Non-Academic Experience
Kerr-McGee Corporation; Operations and Production Engineer; Full time
Oil and Gas Project Development: Africa, Central and South America, Europe and the
Middle East, the Netherlands Antilles and the West Indies; Attorney / In-House Counsel /
International Negotiator; Full time/Part time
Bonna Auzas Avocats, Law Firm: Paris, France; Consultant; Part time
5. Certifications or Professional Registrations
Licensed to practice law in Colorado (Common Law) and Louisiana (Civil Code)
Registered Patent Attorney
Registered with the Colorado Bar and Louisiana Bar; Registered Patent Attorney, U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office
6. Current Membership in Professional Organizations American Association of Engineering Educators
Society of Petroleum Engineers International
Association of International Petroleum Negotiators
Society of Women Engineers
American Inns of Court
Colorado Bar Association
Denver Bar Association
Louisiana State Bar Association
Denver Council on Foreign Relations
7. Honors and Awards CSM Martin Luther King Day Diversity Award 2007
8. Service Activities CSM SPE Student Chapter – Faculty Advisor
SPE Denver Section Board of Directors – Member and Liaison for CSM
Student Chapter
SPE Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social Responsibility
(HSSE-SR) Advisory Board
Association of International Petroleum Negotiators – AIPN Education
Advisory Board
339
Exempla-Saint Joseph Hospital – Volunteer
9. Publications and Presentations From the Past Five Years
Battalora LA, Spear JR, Young B.: “HIV and Aging: An Evolving Challenge for the Oil
and Gas Industry” SPE-158121, SPE/AAEA International Conference on Health, Safety,
and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production. Perth, Australia 11-13
September 2012.
Battalora, L., Curtis, J., Miller, M., Smith, B., Sonnenberg, S.; “Multidisciplinary Team
Implementation: A Step Beyond Integration” SPE 147610, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 31–November 2, 2011.
Battalora, L., Graves, R., and Brown, J.; “Petroleum Engineer or Energy Engineer:
Should We Be Both?” SPE 135437, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Florence, Italy, September 19-22 2010.
10. Professional Development Activities
Through workshops and materials from the American Society of Engineering Educators
(ASEE) and other organizations with emphasis on engineering education, I will continue
to improve my teaching style. This includes updates to course notes, implementation of
adaptive learning techniques, and providing a bridge from the classroom to industry by
inviting industry representatives into the classroom.
I will augment the curriculum of the PEGN439 Multidisciplinary Petroleum Design
course (cross-listed with GEGN439 and GPGN439) to include a Health, Safety, Security,
Environment and Social Responsibility (HSSE-SR) education component.
I will continue to submit conference abstracts and prepare manuscripts for conference
proceedings. Additionally, I will continue my work on the SPE International HSSE-SR
Advisory Board, participate in the development of technical conference programs,
including SPE International Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (ATCE) and
serve on the ATCE Health Safety and Environment Subcommittee.
340
1. Name: Judy Schoonmaker
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D. Physiology University of Michigan 1980
B.S. Honors Biology University of Illinois 1974
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if any) Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado
School of Mines
Teaching
Associate
Professor
2011 to present FT
D’Evelyn Jr/Sr
High School
Science
Teacher
1998 to 2011 FT
4. Non-academic experience : none
5. Certifications or professional registrations: none
6. Current membership in professional organizations: none
7. Honors and awards
a. Teacher of the Year, 2011, D’Evelyn Jr/Sr High School, Denver CO
b. Jamin B Wilson Excellence in Education Award, 2010
c. Siemens Award for Outstanding School AP Program in Math and Science, 2007
8. Service activities
a. BELS Working Group for ABET
b. Studio Biology Committee
c. BELS Reorganization Committee
d. BELS Transition Committee
e. Faculty and Administration Coalition to Improve Retention
f. RISE Teacher Exchange Program
g. RISE Engineering by Doing
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years) : none
10. Recent professional development activities
a. Anatomy in Clay Professional Development Workshop
b. National Academy of Science Summer Institute for the Improvement of
Undergraduate Biology Education
341
1. Name: Kamini Singha
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
Ph.D. Hydrogeology Stanford University 2005
B.Sc. Geophysics University of Connecticut 1999
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Title (if
any)
Dates Held FT/PT
Penn State University Assistant
Professor
6/2005-6/2011 FT
Penn State University Associate
Professor
6/2011-7/2012 FT
Colorado School of Mines Associate
Professor
8/2012-present FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
USGS Student
Trainee
Hydrologic and
geophysical data
collection and
analysis
6/1997-6/2000 PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
a. None
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Geophysical Union
b. Member, Society of Exploration Geophysicists
7. Honors and awards
a. Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Wilson Award for Excellence
in Teaching, 2012
b. Penn State George W. Atherton Award for Excellence in Teaching, 2011
c. Early Career Award, Environmental Engineering and Geophysical
Society/Geonics, 2009
d. NSF CAREER Award, 2008
e. EPA STAR Fellow, 2000-2003
f. Outstanding Woman Student in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences,
University of Connecticut, 1999
8. Service activities
a. Member of the AGU Horton Medal Committee (2013-present)
b. Committee member for the National Academy of Sciences/National Research
Council study on Subsurface Characterization, Modeling, Monitoring, and Remediation
of Fractured Rocks (2012-present)
c. Member of the AGU-SEG Collaboration Committee (2012-present)
342
d. Member of Geological Society America Hydrology Division’s O. E. Meinzer
Award Committee (2012-present)
e. Member of search committee for new editor-in-chief of Water Resources
Research (2012)
f. Elected Chair of the American Geophysical Union Hydrogeophysics
Technical Committee, (2009-2012), Elected Deputy Chair of the American
Geophysical Union Hydrogeophysics Technical Committee, (2006-2009), Committee
Member (2004-present)
g. Member of the CSM Hydrologic Science and Engineering Graduate Admissions
Council (2012)
h. Member of the Humanitarian Engineering Minor Working Group at CSM (2013-
present)
i. Member of the CSM Graduate Council (2012-present)
9. Publications and Presentations (most recent, within 5 years)
a. Swanson, R.*, Singha, K., Day-Lewis, F.D., Binley, A., Keating, K., Haggerty,
R. (2012). Direct Geoelectrical Evidence of Mass Transfer at the laboratory scale. Water
Resources Research, 48, doi:10.1029/2012WR012431, 10 p.
b. Ward, A.S.*, Fitzgerald, M.#, M.N. Gooseff, Voltz, T.*, Binley A., and Singha,
K. (2012). Hydrologic and geomorphic controls on hyporheic exchange during baseflow
recession in a headwater mountain stream. Water Resources Research, 48, W04513,
doi:10.1029/2011WR011461, 20 p. (Selected as an AGU Research Spotlight)
c. Ward, A.S.*, M.N. Gooseff, and Singha, K. (2012). How does subsurface
characterization affect predictions of hyporheic exchange? Ground Water, doi:
10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00911.x, 15 p.
d. Pidlisecky, A., Singha, K., and Day-Lewis, F. D. (2011). A distribution-based
parametrization for improved tomographic imaging of solute plumes. Geophysical
Journal International, 187(1), doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05131.x, 11 p.
e. Kuntz, B.*, Rubin, S.*, Berkowitz, B., and Singha, K. (2011). Quantifying Solute
Transport Behavior at the Shale Hills Critical Zone Observatory. Vadose Zone Journal,
10, doi:10.2136/vzj2010.0130, 15 p.
f. Regberg, A.*, Singha K., Tien, M., Picardal, F., Zhang, Q., Schieber, J., Roden,
E. and Brantley S. L. (2011), Electrical conductivity as an indicator of iron reduction
rates in abiotic and biotic systems, Water Resources Research, 47, W04509,
doi:10.1029/2010WR009551.
g. Singha, K., Li, L., Day-Lewis, F.D., and Regberg, A. B.* (2011). Quantifying
Solute Transport Processes: Are Chemically “Conservative” Tracers Electrically
Conservative? Geophysics, 76(1), doi: 10.1190/1.3511356, 11 p.
h. Also: over 70 presentations made during these 5 years
10. Recent professional development activities
a. None.
343
1. Name: Brian G. Trewyn
2. Education
Degree Discipline Institution Year
BS Chemistry &
Microbiology
University of Wisconsin-La
Crosse
2000
PhD Inorganic Chemistry Iowa State University 2006
3. Academic experience
Institution Rank Dates Held FT/PT
Colorado School of Mines Assistant Professor August 2012-present FT
Des Moines Area
Community College
Adjunct Instructor August 2009-May 2010 PT
Iowa State University Adjunct Professor May 2010 – July 2012 FT
4. Non-academic experience
Organization Title Duties Dates FT/PT
US Department
of the Interior
Student
Intern
Assistant scientist
in fish virology,
bacteriology, and
histology
laboratories
04-1999-08-2000 PT
5. Certifications or professional registrations
None.
6. Current membership in professional organizations
a. Member, American Chemical Society, since January 2002
b. Member, Sigma Xi, Scientific Research Society, since April 2006
7. Honors and awards
Iowa State University Department of Chemistry Excellence in Teaching Award,
May 2001
Procter & Gamble Travel Award, March 2005
Zaffarano Research Award, Honorable Mention, March 2006
Sole-nomination for 2006 CGS/University Microfilms International Distinguished
Dissertation Award by ISU
Ames Laboratory Inventor Incentive Award for Fiscal Year 2011, March 2011
Ames Laboratory Inventor Incentive Award for Fiscal Year 2011, March 2012_
8. Service activities
344
a. Committee on Graduate Affairs, Safety and Environmental Hygiene, Advisory
Board for Core Biology Course
9. Publications and Presentations (within 5 years)
a. “Functional Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for the Selective Sequestration of
Free Fatty Acids from Microalgal Oil,” Justin S. Valenstein, Kapil Kandel, Forrest
Melcher, Igor I. Slowing, Victor S.-Y. Lin, and Brian G. Trewyn, ACS Applied Materials
& Interfaces, 2012, 4, 1003-1009.
b. “Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticle Mediated Protein and DNA Codelivery to Plant
Cells via Biolistic Method,” Susana Martin-Ortigosa, Justin S. Valenstein, Brian G.
Trewyn, and Kan Wang, Advanced Functional Materials, 2012, 17, 3576-3586.
c. “Chemically Reducible Lipid Bilayer Coated Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles
Demonstrating Controlled Release and HeLa and Normal Mouse Liver Cell
Biocompatibility and Cellular Internalization,” Robert A. Roggers, Victor S.-Y. Lin, and
Brian G. Trewyn, Molecular Pharmaceutics, 2012, 9, 2770-2777.
d. “Morphology Effects of Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles on Human
Erythrocytes,” Madhura Joglekar, Robert A. Roggers, Yannan Zhao, and Brian G.
Trewyn, ACS Advances, 2013, 3, 2454-2461.
e. “Surface-functionalized nanoporous catalysts towards biofuel applications, 2nd
edition” Brian G. Trewyn, in Nanotechnology for the Energy Challenge, Javier Garcia-
Martinez, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: United Kingdom, 2013.
f. Anschutz Medical Campus-University of Colorado, Denver, CO, November 2012
“Tackling a Variety of Biomedical Challenges of Tomorrow with Mesoporous
Nanoparticle Technology Today” (Presentation)
10. Recent professional development activities
a. CSM Chemistry Faculty retreat, January 2013
345
Appendix C - Equipment
Equipment available to for student use is described in detail in Criterion 7.
346
Appendix D - Institutional Summary
347
1. The Institution
a. Name and address of the Institution
Colorado School of Mines
1500 Illinois Street
Golden, CO 80401
b. Name and title of chief executive officer of the institution
Dr. Myles W. Scoggins, President
c. Name and title of person submitting the self-study report
Dr. Terrance Parker, Provost
d. Name and organizations by which the institution is now accredited and the
dates of the initial and most recent accreditation evaluations
North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
through the Higher Learning Commission
There is a faint record of recognition by the NCA going back to
1929. Clear-cut accreditation as a doctoral institution began in 1960.
CSM's most recent comprehensive evaluation occurred 2002-2003.
A comprehensive evaluation occurred during April 2013, the results
of which are still pending.
ABET
The most recent general review occurred in 2012. The final results of
that review are still pending.
Initial accreditation dates are as follows:
Chemical Engineering – 1956
Chemical and Biochemical Engineering – 2010
Engineering (with areas of specialization in civil, electrical and
mechanical) – 1983
Engineering Physics – 1977
Geological Engineering – 1953
Geophysical Engineering – 1953
Metallurgical Engineering – 1936
Mining Engineering – 1936
Petroleum Engineering – 1936
American Chemical Society
Approves the BS in Chemistry degree. Initial certification took place
in 1967. The most recent certification took place in 2011.
348
2. Type of Control
State
3. Educational Unit
The Bachelor of Science in Environmental Engineering is delivered by the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, a unit in the College of
Engineering and Computational Sciences (CECS). The Department Head of the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering reports of the Dean of
CECS, who reports to the Provost, as shown in the organizational charts in the
preface and in Section 1 above.
4. Academic Support Units
Below are the names and titles of the individuals responsible for each of the units
that teach courses required by the BSEV program.
Applied Mathematics and Statistics
Dr. Willy Hereman, Professor and Interim Department Head
Chemical and Biological Engineering
Engineering
Dr. David Marr, Professor and Department Head
Chemistry and Geochemistry
Dr. David Wu, Professor and Department Head
College of Engineering and Computational Sciences
Dr. Kevin Moore, Professor and Dean
Economics and Business
Dr. Roderick Eggert, Professor and Division Director
Geology and Geological Engineering
Dr. John Humphrey, Associate Professor and Department Head
Liberal Arts and International Studies
Dr. Elizabeth Davis, Professor and Division Director
349
Mining Engineering
Dr. Hugh Miller, Professor and Interim Department Head
Physics
Dr. Thomas Furtak, Professor and Department Head
5. Non-academic Support Units
Below are the names and titles of the individuals responsible for each of the units
that provide non-academic support to the BSEV program
Career Center
Ms. Jean Manning-Clark, Director of Career Center
Computing, Communications and Information Technology
Mr. Derek Wilson, Chief Information Officer
Library
Ms. Joanne Lerud-Heck, Director of the Library
Registrar
Ms. Lara Medley, Registrar
Student Development and Academic Services
Mr. Ron Brummett, Director of Student Services
6. Credit Unit
The number of times a class meets during the week determines the number of
semester hours assigned to that course. Class sessions are normally 50 minutes
long and represent one hour of credit for each hour meeting per week. A
minimum of two hours of laboratory work per week is equivalent to one
semester hour of credit. Fall and Spring semesters are normally 17 weeks
long.
7. Tables
350
Tables D-1 and D-2 are included on the following pages.
351
Table D-1. Program Enrollment and Degree Data
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Academic
Year
Enrollment Year
Tota
l
Under
gra
d
Tota
l
Gra
d Degrees Awarded
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Associates Bachelors Masters Doctorates
2012-2013 F12
FT 98 92 67 97 33 387 141
PT 0 1 3 4 4 12 45
2011-2012 F11
FT 90 84 82 83 33 372 130 85 51 9
PT 2 2 11 3 5 23 35
2010-2011 F10
FT 102 89 87 78 28 384 127 78 57 6
PT 3 3 1 4 4 15 30
2009-2010 F09
FT 116 85 80 62 35 378 97 77 48 3
PT 0 2 3 1 6 12 34
2008-2009 F08
FT 99 63 65 68 29 324 80 76 44 5
PT 0 0 3 10 10 23 31
Includes all students enrolled in degree programs overseen by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. This
includes undergraduate degrees in: Civil Engineering, Engineering (Civil and Environmental specialties), and Environmental
Engineering; and graduate degrees in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Engineering Systems (Civil specialty), Environmental
Science and Engineering.
352
Table D-1. Program Enrollment and Degree Data
Civil Engineering
Academic
Year
Enrollment Year
Tota
l
Under
gra
d
Tota
l
Gra
d Degrees Awarded
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Associates Bachelors Masters Doctorates
2012-2013 F12
(S13)
FT 0 (1) 0 (7) 0 (6) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (17) 1 (31)
PT 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
2011-2012 F11
FT
PT
2010-2011 F10
FT
PT
2009-2010 F09
FT
PT
2008-2009 F08
FT
PT
Includes only undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in the degree Civil Engineering.
353
Table D-1. Program Enrollment and Degree Data
Environmental Engineering
Academic
Year
Enrollment Year
Tota
l
Under
gra
d
Tota
l
Gra
d Degrees Awarded
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Associates Bachelors Masters Doctorates
2012-2013 F12
(S13)
FT 0 (0) 0 (5) 0 (4) 0 (1) 0 (3) 0 (13) 0 (12)
PT 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (3)
2011-2012 F11
FT
PT
2010-2011 F10
FT
PT
2009-2010 F09
FT
PT
2008-2009 F08
FT
PT
Includes only undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in the degree Environmental Engineering.
354
Table D-2. Personnel
Civil and Environmental Engineering
Year1: Fall 2012
HEAD COUNT FTE
FT PT
Administrative2
0 0 0
Faculty (tenure-track)3
18 2 18.7
Other Faculty (excluding student
Assistants)
4 4 5.3
Student Teaching Assistants4
8 0 8
Student Research Assistants4 49 0 49
Technicians/Specialists 0 0 0
Office/Clerical Employees 2 0 2
Others5
12 8 14.7
Report data for the program being evaluated.
1 Data on this table should be for the fall term immediately preceding the visit.
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 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.
3 For faculty members, 1 FTE equals what your institution defines as a full-time
load.
4
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.
5
Specify any other category considered appropriate, or leave blank.
355
Appendix E - Constituency Meetings
356
Minutes from Alumni/Industry Advisory
Committee Meeting
357
Alumni/Industry Committee Meeting – April 3, 2013
All Alumni/Industry/Government members present (table below)
Minutes
1. All participants introduced themselves
2. Dean Kevin Moore’s introduction
a. History of the CECS college, BSE and BSxE specialty degrees and
relationship with ABET,
b. CEE is poster child, strength of ESE graduate program and scholarship,
strength of BSCE
3. John McCray
a. What we’re looking for out of this committee
i. Feedback, everyone here has a stake in the department –
internships, hiring,
ii. Long run – advice to dept on UG and GRAD curriculum.
b. Today’s focus: UG program.
i. General description
ii. PEOs
iii. Curriculum
c. The case for CEE
i. As a department we are stronger now. #27 program in Env. Eng
(increased by a few)… probably we will be well in the top 20 soon.
Ugrad programs were not able to ranked previously because there
were not specialized degrees/departments… now they will be.
ii. Department has led vision making for the college.
iii. We’re doing great but we can’t do everything – this is where the
committee comes in.
1. Not aiming to play the political/advertising game of getting
in the top 20 nationally
358
2. But, keep producing highly trained, highly recruited
students with great regional respect. McCray : “Nationaly
recognized, regionally revered.”
a. Kendra: what about international?
b. Craig: focus on a few market sectors?
i. Oil and gas, water, env. Consult, …
currently mining is not a big hirer of our
grads
iv. 1. Balance between applied and fundamental research – status
quo is that we do have a balance. Keep it that way?
2. 5 year program versus highly recommended non-thesis
masters? A year of project management (Chile)
d. Current Curriculum.
i. Enrollment
ii. Degree programs
1. BSCE – 4 specialties – Geotech, Env, strut, eng. Mech
a. Tim: what’s the difference between BSCE-env
specialty and BSEV? John: a lot.
b. The biggest chunk of students want to be structural,
c. BUT that is our weakest area
d. Kendra: is that just because they don’t see the other
parts of the field? Do students equate civil with
structural?
iii. Senior design – whats more valuable? Interdisciplinary teams, or a
more focused civil/environmental. Do we need more design in the
BSCE or BSEV?
iv. BSCE curriculum:
1. Kendra: do civils do presentations anywhere besides Sr.
design? John: no. Probably they should. Craig: general
communication is important. Written communication is
important too. There is some in EPICS. There is a lot in
NHV but it is non-technical.
2. Wilson: aware of the reputation that CSM doesn’t do much
writing, but all grads he has hired have been good writers.
359
3. Wilson: Senior design is a differentiating experience. We
should market it more. John has seen a huge difference
between the writing in the early portion of the course to
mid-semester even. John: there is as much project
management as there is design, and that’s important.
4. John: Senior thesis should be an option.
5. Yuliana: civil field session – really a sophomore level
course? Actually 90% juniors.
a. Need to beef it up with data collection?
b. Tom: IS the technical content more appropriate for
Jrs? Could be. If it’s
c. Tim: they should do it as sophomores so that they
can focus on internship as juniors.
d. College visiting committee and board really like
field session.
e. Kendra: Employers have much more interest in
internships than field session. And there is no
program to place them.
f. Should internships be more formal? Credits for it?
Yuliana: Maybe more guidance in how to get the
right internship. Chem E field session is like an
internship, it is all summer.
g. Craig: preserve junior summer for internships.
That’s when we want them.
h. Terri: what skills do you want them to learn in field
session. Surveying is maybe not that important –
even Autocad is done by techs. Tracy and Tom do
want their hires to be able to collect water samples,
survey, autocad.
i. Dave: (he is former pres of engineers w/o borders) –
many schools do a freshman through senior EWB
project. Pulls in women (interested in water, public
health, communication). Juniors and Seniors
mentor Freshmen and Sophomores. Also mentoring
from professionals.
j. John: environmental students it’s harder to get
internships.
k. John: what do you think about field session overall,
useful? Differentiating?
i. Tom: yes, it’s a differentiating experience.
ii. Craig: field session can give be a confidence
booster.
iii. Kendra: employers only see degree. Then
they hear the stories – sr. design, field
session, internship.
iv. Bottom line – useful, differentiating.
360
v. Wilson – is there a way to incorporate
drilling wells, boring? Geotech?
vi. Jonathan: Any geotech or lab experience is
very useful.
vii. Craig: don’t erode ability to do an
internship. Could internship substitute for
replacement? Maybe if it is junior summer
summer it should be longer.
viii. Tom: identify the best students early,
promote them into good internships. We do
that a little but perhaps we should formalize
it. Mentoring.
6. Electives. John: do we need to require any more class or
limit choices? Mike and Jonathan – no. They should self
select. We need to leave a path open for grad
school/research too. Jonathan – USGS is a very minor
player in the hiring aspect of grads, but they do internships
too and they need a research experience. Craig: flexibility
allows them to change their specialty.
7. Surveying – how much do civils need? Better in field
session or semester class? Tim: surveying is necessary.
Terri: most big schools do not teach surveying.
v. BSEV curriculum:
1. Do environmental engineers need circuits?
a. Yuliana: yes, if you’re doing pilot projects.
b. John: good for FE exam.
c. Tom: some of the fate and transport equations come
from /analogous to circuits.
2. Tom: should elective Fate and Transport class be required
(440)? John: Some of that material is covered in ESGN
353. 353/354 textbook may not be that in depth though.
3. Wilson – saw control systems as an elective – Wilson sees
this as a very useful thing in the workplace, more future
oriented. Less useful for grad school maybe.
4. Jonathan – also the market is changing, so some breadth is
good.
5. Wilson – how does student know what electives to take?
e. Student groups – how important? SWE and ASCE have been so strong
but Candy is retiring.
i. Yuliana – you get so many different skills from these that you
don’t get from classes (specifically SWE and SHPE) – you get
exposed to different types of mentors (beyond peers and faculty)-
the conferences are very valuable, as well as networking and
communication skills.
361
ii. Dave and Craig - Bright light indicator – they’re spending 20 hr
outside of class on engineering. It’s a huge performance indicator
f. Our degrees require 138/139 credits. CU is 128. How valuable? State
wants us to graduate more in 4 years. Dave: that is the mines mystique.
Yuliana: in hiring, she appreciates the strong, broad background. Bureau
of Rec takes all CSM grads for this reason. General consensus is keep the
high credit requirement, but:
i. Craig: a little more flexibility. They haven’t made a lot of choices.
They want direction on how to proceed in their career, be given
directions. Jonathan: critical thinking is a little lacking in CSM.
When do students have to forge their own path, fight for signing up
for classes. Tracy: some of the ones she didn’t want to take were
the most useful. Freshman and sophomores don’t know anything.
Wilson: CSM grads are immensely productive, but then, ok what’s
next.
1. Wilson: this could tie into advising.
g. Minors – how useful are they? They are becoming more popular among
students. Should it be additional course credits? Or a body of knowledge
in some area (all classes count toward major as well).
i. Kendra – loved my minor. Was able to navigate the courses and
left me more broadly trained.
ii. John: our dept. thinks their shouldn’t be a “cost”.
iii. Some people think there should be “cost” ---
iv. Craig: I don’t think it adds anything, especially because the CSM
grads are already so strong. Mike agrees. Kendra agrees even
though she thinks it was valuable for her own career. She would
not have done it if it cost extra time.
v. Yuliana did not have a minor – Tracy was Econ and Bus.
vi. Tom: If there’s a very unique field that could be something
differentiating. Energy infrasctructure would be useful. Craig:
then probably they should be cutting edge, constantly changing.
Probably no students will do a minor if they don’t see value to it.
h. Faculty and Research (John)
i. Peer institutions (John)
i. The civil specialties – we are heavy on geothech… probably need
another emphasis specialty. We don’t have any air people on env.
Side, but neither do peer institutions.
ii. John: If we hire two more civil faculty, where do we focus? Mike:
transportation is the glaring hole. “As much as we like mines
grads, that is the issue”. We like to hire mines grads, and would
hire them over CU grads.
iii. John: if we hire transportation faculty, would they need to be
T/TT? Teaching or adjunct?
iv. Tom: the backend of all civil engineering is the construction and
transportation.
362
v. Kendra: who hires our grads, and who do we WANT to hire our
grads (these are two different questions).
vi. John: we have a much worse undergrads per T/TT faculty ratio
than most peer (except MI tech)
vii. Jonathan: the bad ratio is very interesting…. And probably making
it into the top 10 is as simple as fixing that ratio.
viii. Kendra: are we trying to grow? Answer: no (grow faculty but not
students). We don’t need more numbers… new hires would
enhance the program. Give the students more options, smaller
classes, better design/research experiences, more exposure
(transportation).
4. More discussion over questions and other things that people think are important.
a. Kendra: where do the students come from? Where would you LIKE them
to come from. We’re okay with the in state/out of state balance, and we
don’t have input in admissions. We don’t think we could do much better
in terms of attracting freshman/sophomores to CEE…
i. Terri: individual faculty don’t do much HS outreach.
ii. Craig: promoting EWB and humanitarian engineering is good but
if humanitarian engineering becomes a major, it could pull away
some of our diversity.
b. Dave: other important things (besides mentoring) – he’s seen programs for
top students that focus on creativity and leadership that teach students to
think outside the box. Example: thinking of water treatment as harvesting
the resources from wastewater. Coal bed methane has a lot of Li.
c. Dave: Allan Kirkpatrick – at CSU engineering dept., - did Berkeley ABET
– he has promoted outreach to industry. Creative applied research.
i. Yuliana – industry would be really interested in have a relationship
that results in the school providing solutions.
ii. John and Terri this could tie into a structured internship.
iii. Tracy: ASC chapter career fair – was really useful.
iv. Should there be a more focused, department run CEE focused
career fair.
d. More discussion on senior design.
i. We need more ideas and more funded projects – more civil and
environmental projects for sure.
ii. Mike: the multidisciplinary nature is good. Craig: agrees. That the
social science nature contributes to the team formation is not
exactly realistic.
iii. Dave: $$$ is a big limiting factor on projects so maybe they should
be collaborating with the econ people? It would be good for them
to have exposure to budgeting and triple bottom line accounting
(no longer use cost-benefit ratio).
iv. Social science, customer relations. Kendra, Yuillana –
understanding who is the customer is really important and belongs
in sr. design.
363
e. Computing skills. Philisophical question: should students know how to
use auto cad? Matlab or solidworks or fortran or other programing.
i. Mike and Tracy: autocad is key.
ii. Tom: hired UMass student interns with very strong CAD skills.
Very useful.
iii. Jonathan: academic scene is probably behind industry.
iv. Craig/Jonathan: Systems modeling (matlab) – they should
conceptually understand the transformation of math into real world
applications and numerical models. There is a difference between
teaching a specific modeling software and a course that teaches
basic skills of using math to capture real systems. John/Terri: this
could be accomplished in Kamini’s class.
v. Little support for Fortran. Jonathan uses it because it’s in legacy
models.
f. Should we even have an Environmental Engineering BS degree.
Alternative BSCE w/environmental specialty.
i. Mike: few of the Big 12 grads that they hire have the
environmental degree. NEPA work is done by geologists,
biologists. Would be fine without a BSEV
ii. Tim: we want BSEVs
iii. Dave: we hire BSEVs but we want them to have masters.
iv. Craig: from promoting diversity and recruiting students standpoint
CSM should have BSEV. From hiring perspective, the BSEV
applicant would have an advantage.
v. Kendra: “Earth, energy and environment” – would be quite
contrary to mission to get rid of BSEV.
vi. John: we’re already probably top 5 UG BSEV degree in size.
g. Figure out what we’re doing, and come up with a catchy slogan. We
should market ourselves!
5. Closing. First thing to work on is a formalized internship structure.
a. Next meeting – proposed for September.
364
Powerpoint from Alumni / Industry Committee
Meeting
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
Minutes from Undergraduate Advisory
Committee Meeting
373
Undergraduate Advisory Committee Meeting – May 1, 2013
1) Overview of ABET and accreditation
John – good goals but many friends are not getting the jobs they want. It is probably
the economy. Some friends taking engineering tech job.
Junko – three year horizon.
Do we have to prove that we are meeting these? Terri - Not anymore.
Ray – goals seem ambitious. Junko – leadership is a process, developing leadership
skills.
John – grad school info - there’s probably info out there, but it’s not right there.
Jacob got info at the ASCE meeting.
Did you know what civ/env eng was as a freshmen?
Arielle – yes. John – gained that info as he progressed in classes.
Alice – transferred from UNH, freshman year at UNH she took a class Eng 101 where
they learned about various career paths, types of engineering.
2) Outcome mapping – which were hard to think of
a) Lifelong learning – we get more from seminars and presentations rather than
coursework
3) EPICS
a) What do we do with this, EPICS II to departments, do we want an EPICS in Env
(Civ has concrete canoe)
b) Terri to students – what did you do in EPICS? List the skills you learned, and the
topics you learned about. What do you remember?
i) Writing skills
ii) Wished I took GIS
iii) Too much Solid Works (no one knows what it is)
iv) No environmental specific stuff until way too late in college.
v) EPICS II should be in departments/majors.
vi) EPICS I could be more well rounded
vii) Expectations should be high but they thought we knew about concrete, etc.
viii) Taught us to work through and research answers when we didn’t know
anything about it.
ix) EPICS II did go through Microsoft suite (although some disagree).
4) Communication
a) Good overall
5) Field session
a) Yes, it interferes with internships
6) Sr. Design
a) Should it be moved into CEE, or CEE Focused. YES!!!
b) Although Alice, Arielle like working with students from other majors.
7) Water resources specialty in addition or instead of environmental.
a) Most of the env courses are water related anyway. (Terri – but not hydro/physical
oriented)
b) John – there’s also the hydro degree in geology?
8) Random
a) Civil electives need to be updated on flow charts
374
9) Next Steps – proposed meeting next fall. Few students requesting individual meetings
with Vice Chair who will follow up
375
Powerpoint from Undergraduate Advisory
Committee Meeting
376
6/4/2013
1
Civil & Environmental Engineering
1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Role of UG advisory committee 3. Overview of ABET and accreditation efforts 4. PEO’s - what are they, brief discussion, feedback 5. Curriculum 6. Program Structure 7. Advising at Mines and in CEE 8. Miscellaneous – Internships, CEE Career Fair, Minors at
Mines, Career panel seminar series or course 9. ABET visit in the fall – role of undergrads (campus guides,
luncheon on Monday) 10.Open Discussion 11.Wrap-up and next steps
CEE UG ADVISORY MEETING May 1, 2013
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Overview of ABET and Accreditation Efforts
What is ABET? accredits over 3,100 applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology programs at more than 670 colleges and universities in 24 countries worldwide. Approximately 85,000 students graduate from ABET-accredited programs each year. Accreditation – “proof that a collegiate program has met certain standards necessary to produce graduates who are ready to enter their professions. Students who graduate from accredited programs have access to enhanced opportunities in employment; licensure, registration and certification; graduate education and global mobility.”
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Overview of ABET and Accreditation Efforts
ABET Reviews 8 Criteria for Accreditation: 1 – Students 2 – Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) 3 – Student Outcomes 4 – Continuous Improvement 5 – Curriculum 6 – Faculty 7 – Facilities 8 – Institutional Support Civil & Environmental Engineering
Role of UG Advisory Committee
Constituencies
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Program Educational Objectives (PEOs)
Within three years of attaining the BS degree: • Graduates will be situated in growing careers or will
be successfully pursuing a graduate degree in civil or environmental engineering or a related field.
• Graduates will be advancing in their professional standing, generating new knowledge and/or exercising leadership in their field.
• Graduates will be contributing to the needs of society through professional practice, research, and/or service.
Civil & Environmental Engineering
ABET Student “Outcomes”
(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 needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability;
(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 and societal context;
(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability 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.
377
6/4/2013
2
Civil & Environmental Engineering
New Degrees in CEE BS Engineering – Civil Specialty BS Engineering – Environmental Specialty
BS Civil Engineering BS Environmental Engineering
Geotechnical, Environmental, Structural, Engineering Mechanics Essentially identical to Engineering degree with Civil Specialty
Similar to Eng-Env specialty degree, but new multimedia laboratory course, bioscience requirement, environmental chemistry requirement, and hydrology requirement.
Accreditation Visit in October 2013!! Civil & Environmental Engineering
High Demand for CEE Students Why?? Fastest Growing Job Markets in Engineering
#4 Civil Engineer *Median pay: $74,700* Top pay: $110,000 10-year job growth: 24% Total jobs: 170,000
#10 Environmental Engineer Median pay: $81,200* Top pay: $113,000 10-year job growth: 31% Total jobs: 50,000
Money Magazine/CNN – BEST JOBS IN FAST GROWTH FIELDS
US Bureau of Labor, 2008
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Key Part of our Assessment: Evaluation of our Student Outcomes
• Which courses provide ABET student outcomes?
(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 needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability; (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 and societal context;
(i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning;
(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues; and
(k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Civil & Environmental Engineering Civil & Environmental Engineering
ABET Student Outcomes and
Curriculum Mapping
378
6/4/2013
3
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Environmental Courses-Outcomes
Course # Course Title Dept (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)
EGGN 335 env field session CEE s p p s
ESGN 353 fund of env sci I CEE p s p s
ESGN 354 fund of env sci II CEE p s s/p s p s s p s p
ESGN 355 env. eng lab CEE s p s p p
ESGN 401 Fund. Ecology CEE p s s p s p s p
ESGN 440 Env. Polution CEE p s
ESGN 453 wastewater eng CEE p s s
ESGN 454 water supply eng CEE p s s
ESGN 457 site remediation CEE p p s p s s s s p
ESGN 459 principles hydrology CEE p p
ESGN 460 water reclam/reuse CEE p p s s s p
ESGN 462 solid waste CEE p s p
ESGN 463 Pollution prev CEE p s p/s p/s s p/s
ESGN 490 environmental law CEE p p p p p s p p
EGGN 490 sust eng design CEE S S S P P s
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)
MEL II Sr.
Des MEL II Sr.
Des MEL II Sr.
Des Sr.
Des Sr.
Des
Sr.
Des Sr.
Des Civil & Environmental Engineering
Civil Courses-Outcomes
Course # Course Title Dept (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)
EGGN 234 Civ Field Session CEE p s s p p s s s p
EGGN 320 Mech of Mat CEE p s p s p p
EGGN 342 struct theory CEE s s p
EGGN 361 Soil Mechanics CEE p p s s p s p s p s s
EGGN 363 Soil Mech Lab CEE p s
EGGN 431 soil dynamics CEE p p p p s s s s p
EGGN 433 surveying II CEE p s s p p s s s P p
EGGN 441 adv. Struct analysis CEE p s s
EGGN 444 design steel struct CEE p p p p s p
EGGN 445 design reinforced conc CEE p p p p s p
EGGN 447 timber/masonry CEE p p p p p s p
EGGN 460 num methods CEE p s p s s
EGGN 464 foundations CEE s P s s s s
EGGN 478 eng vibration CEE p s s s
EGGN 494 seismic design CEE p p p p s s s s p
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)
MEL II Sr.
Des MEL II Sr.
Des MEL II Sr.
Des Sr.
Des Sr.
Des
Sr.
Des Sr.
Des
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Other Curriculum Issues
• Field Session
– Inteference with internships?
• Sr. Design
• Communication Skills
• Data analysis and interpretation
• Formal Internship Program (?)
• Others?
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Program Structure
• Environmental degree vs. CE with environmental specialty (we have both now, should we have just one?)
• Water resources specialty in CE instead of, or in addition to, environmental?
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Other Items
• Minors at Mines (18 credit hours)
Bioengineering and Life Science (BELS) (being phased out)
Underground Construction and Tunnelling
Energy
Humanitarian Engineering
McBride Honors Program
Area of Special Interest (ASI) – 12 crs. (being phased out)
• Career panel seminar series or course
• Internships
• CEE Career Fair
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Advising at Mines and in CEE
• CASA
• UG coordinators (CECS)
• CEE – Faculty advisors, Tim H, Terri H
379
6/4/2013
4
Civil & Environmental Engineering
ABET visit Oct. 2013 (?)
Role of CEE Undergraduates
• Campus guides – walk ABET folks around
• luncheon on Monday with ABET, Industry, Alumni groups
• Organization
• Other (meetings, ASCE, SWE, etc.)
Civil & Environmental Engineering
Wrap-up and next steps
THANK YOU!!
Civil & Environmental Engineering Civil & Environmental Engineering
Civil & Environmental Engineering Civil & Environmental Engineering
Overview of ABET and Accreditation Efforts
Assessment Process – documentation of our educational process Implement an assessment process for student outcomes (a-k). Demonstrate a continuous improvement loop. Collect student work examples. Yearly review of coursework and outcome assessment 6-year cycle of ABET visits
380
Appendix F - Common and Distributed Core
Curriculum
381
Mines’ curriculum has three parts: the common core, the distributed core, and
program-related courses. Common and distributed core courses map to student
outcomes (a)-(k) and are assessed in common at the campus-level as part of the
overall continuous improvement process for the common and distributed core.
Because CSM’s nine previously-accredited engineering degree programs were
reviewed in Fall 2012, and most student outcome assessments are done biannually,
there is not significant new data about assessment of the common and distributed core
relative to student outcomes. Thus, we present here assessment information about the
common and distributed core curriculum that was found in the various 2012 Self-
Studies, organized as follows:
Criterion 4 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
A) Student Outcomes
i) Common Core
ii) Distributed Core
B) Continuous Improvement
i) Common Core
ii) Distributed Core
Criterion 5 CURRICULUM
A) Program Curriculum
i) Alignment of Common Core Curriculum to Student Outcomes
ii) Alignment of Distributed Core Curriculum to Student Outcomes
Criterion 4 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
A. Student Outcomes
i) Common Core
The following processes and procedures are used by departments offering service
coursework through the Common Core Curriculum, as defined in Criterion 5 and the
Institutional Context (see preface to this Self Study), to gather data upon which the
evaluation of student learning outcomes is conducted.
Applied Mathematics and Statistics (MATH111, MATH112, MATH213)11
. For the
calculus sequence common exams, common homework sets, quizzes and worksheets
are used throughout to evaluate criteria outcomes a, b, e, and g. Common exams are
developed through a collaborative effort of all of the course instructors and are
administered during the same testing period to all students. Common exams ensure
that all students are assessed in a consistent manner with respect to the above-
11
Organized as Responsible Unit (Common Core Courses Overseen by Unit).
382
described outcomes. Criterion k is further evaluated through homework and quizzes.
Samples of each of these tools are available in the course assessment notebook.
Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates are also tracked by the department.
Chemistry and Geochemistry (CHGN121). The following assessment tools are used
to evaluate student attainment of student learning outcomes: exams (criteria a, b), and
laboratory quizzes and reports (criteria a, b, g). Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates are
tracked and recommendations for changes to the curriculum and manner of its
presentation are made. An important measure of the core chemistry offerings is
determined by how well the students are prepared to continue to advanced chemistry
topics including distributed core thermodynamics courses, as well as organic and
physical chemistry courses. The key fundamental topics required for successful
performance in these subsequent courses are determined by faculty evaluation and
implemented accordingly.
College of Engineering and Computational Sciences (EPIC151, EPIC251). Team
and individual deliverables, and student, mentor and client feedback provide
confirmation of the fulfillment of the EPICS learning objectives relating to specific
ABET a-k outcomes as follows:
Table F-1: EPICS Learning Objectives as Fulfillment of Specific ABET Student
Outcomes
EPICS Learning Objective ABET Student Outcome
Open-ended design problem solving (c): design a system, component or process;
(k): use modern tools for engineering
practice
Work with a team to solve an
engineering problem
(d): function on multidisciplinary teams
Prepare/present communications
documents building evidence
for solution
(g): communicate effectively
Select most desirable engineering
options
(c): design a system, component or process;
(k): use modern tools for engineering
practice
In addition, student learning outcome (f): understand ethical and professional
responsibility, is partially fulfilled through a set of two workshops in engineering
ethics and professionalism. Periodic assessment instruments relating to the ABET
outcomes shown above are as follows:
Table F-2: Assessment Instruments for ABET Student Learning Outcomes
Assessment Instrument ABET Student Outcome
Final design report (c): design a system, component or process
Graphics portfolio (EPICS I) (c): design a system, component or process
Team contract (d): function on multidisciplinary teams
383
Average final peer evaluation (d): function on multidisciplinary teams
Project plan (g): communicate effectively
Subsystem analysis memo (g): communicate effectively
Manual sketching project (EPICS I) (k): use modern tools for engineering
practice
CAD examination (k): use modern tools for engineering
practice
Post-project client survey (EPICS II) (c), (d), (g) above
Economics and Business (EBGN201). Assessment of student learning outcomes is
based on student performance on exams, quizzes, problem sets and participation in
cooperative and active learning activities. The nationally-normed Test of Economic
Literacy (TEL) is administered to all students at the beginning and end of each
semester. Across semesters, the instructor, teaching assistants and division director
review student performance in the class using data from the TEL and the
comprehensive final exam. The preparedness of students taking subsequent
economics courses that have EBGN201 as a prerequisite, is regularly monitored,
especially the subsequent theory courses (intermediate microeconomics and
intermediate macroeconomics).
Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS100, SYGN200). Assessment of
student attainment of program and ABET outcomes is overseen by an Liberal Arts
and International Studies (LAIS) standing assessment committee chaired by the
Assistant Division Director with membership drawn from the Coordinator of Nature
and Human Values (NHV), the Coordinator of Human Systems, and faculty teaching
300- and 400-level LAIS courses.
In the spring of 2011, a new assessment plan was designed, approved by the Division,
and put into effect. LAIS100, SYGN200, and all 400-level LAIS course instructors
complete an assessment rubric for each student at the end of each semester. The
categories of student performance in the rubric are tightly correlated with ABET
Criteria 3 outcomes and with newly revised student learning outcomes. Those
learning outcomes and their connections to ABET outcomes are listed on the course
syllabi provided in Appendix A.
The numerical results from the assessment rubrics are tabulated, analyzed, and shared
with faculty. As data from a number of semesters is gathered, faculty will be able to
see how successfully their courses lead to the achievement of outcomes, to know
whether progress is being made and in what areas of student performance, and to
make the appropriate changes in course design and instructional methods.
Prior to this plan, assessment took place through student evaluations, discussions
among NHV and Human Systems faculty, and feedback from students. The changes
in LAIS100 and SYGN200 since 2006 detailed below emerged from that process.
384
Physics (PHGN100). In PHGN100, the following assessment tools are used to
evaluate student attainment of these outcomes: exams (criteria a, b, e, h); studio group
activities (criteria a, d, e, g, h); and pre- and post-tests of the Force Motion Concept
Evaluation (FMCE) (criteria a, b, e). Samples of each of these tools are available in
the course assessment notebook. We calculate the normalized gains for the FMCE,
and compare the results from semester to semester. Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates
are tracked. Results of the assessment are tabulated each semester, and
recommendations made for the following semester appear in the assessment
notebook.
Student Life (CSM101). The Coordinator of Student Academic Services conducts
assessment of student learning outcomes annually. All students, instructors and peer
mentors, for all sections complete course evaluations. As a result of a significant
campus-wide effort to evaluate this course in 2009, major curriculum changes have
been made including refining measurable course objectives, reducing the number of
sections of the course, separating the instruction/mentoring role from the academic
advising role, structuring the curriculum to decrease the cookbook approach and
replace it with more effective pedagogy.
ii) Distributed Core
The following processes and procedures are used in departments offering service
coursework through the Distributed Core Curriculum that as utilized by this program,
to gather data upon which the evaluation of student outcomes is conducted.
Distributed Core Curriculum requirements are defined in Criterion 5 and the
Institutional Context (see preface to this Self Study),
Chemical and Biochemical Engineering (BELS101, DCGN210)12
. All BELS101
students are required to take a placement exam at the beginning of the semester.
Several of the placement exam questions are repeated in the final exam, allowing a
calculation of student growth. These assessments are tracked from semester to
semester and used to improve course effectiveness. Student outcomes (criteria a, g, j)
in BELS101 are assessed in four ways: (1) daily online homework assignments with
graded multiple-choice questions that assess understanding of textbook reading, short
online video lectures, and readings on current topics; (2) daily in-class clicker quizzes
serve as a follow-up to assigned reading and homework problems; (3) small group
discussion during class occurs routinely as a check for understanding, to solve
problems and discuss difficult questions; and (4) four exams and a cumulative final
exam composed of multiple choice questions and short essay questions that require
students to apply biological basics to engineering applications. Multiple-choice
questions go beyond rote memorization and are predominantly “Type II”, requiring
multiple logic steps and application of knowledge or formulae to solve a problem.
Assessment tools utilized in DCGN210 to evaluate student outcomes include:
12
Organized as Responsible Unit (Distributed Core Courses Overseen by Unit).
385
Examinations (criteria a, b, e, and h), short quizzes (criteria a, b, e, and h), homework
(criteria a, b, e, h, and k) and in-class exercises (criteria a, e, and h). In-class
exercises are structured to include: (1) active questioning of individual students at the
start of the lecture to determine gaps or misunderstandings of material previously
presented, (2) modified Studio quizzes, and/or (3) a “question of the day”. The
chemistry section of the FE exam is also used to assess student outcomes (criteria a,
b, and e).
Chemistry and Geochemistry (CHGN122, DCGN209). The following assessment
tools are used to evaluate student attainment of these outcomes: exams (criteria a, b),
laboratory quizzes and reports (criteria a, b, g). Drop/Fail/Withdraw (DFW) rates are
tracked and recommendations for changes to the curriculum and manner of its
presentation are made. An important measure of the core chemistry offerings is
determined by how well the students are prepared to continue to advanced chemistry
topics including distributed core thermodynamics courses, as well as organic and
physical chemistry courses. The key fundamental topics required for successful
performance in these subsequent courses are determined by faculty evaluation and
implemented accordingly.
Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (CSCI101, EGGN381). In
Introduction to Computer Science (CSCI101), criteria outcomes a and e are assessed
through common exams and quizzes. Criteria outcomes d, g, e, i, and j are assessed
through daily evaluation of group homework assignments. Criteria outcomes c, b-1, e,
and k are assessed through individual programming assignments.
The assessment process for EGGN381 includes a review of the course performed
twice a year. Standardized forms are used to facilitate the assessment process. An
assessment of the learning outcomes is performed after each semester by faculty
teaching the course. The primary assessment tools used to evaluate student
performance on student outcomes include weekly homework assignments, short
quizzes, three semester exams, and a final exam. The course coordinator is
responsible for compiling all the information into the standardized form. This
document provides an assessment of the effectiveness of relevant pre-requisite
courses, course outcomes, and a discussion of data gathered from student evaluations.
Based on this information, faculty members teaching EGGN381 suggest
recommendations for future course improvements, and evaluate the effectiveness of
any previous course changes that have been implemented.
Supported by the semi-annual assessments that have been conducted, some changes
have been implemented: 1) A formal review of complex numbers helping the students
better grasp the fundamental AC circuit analysis principles of phasors and impedance.
2) Adopting an exam format that includes a multiple choice section and a problem
section. The students have mixed feelings about the multiple choice question format,
because no partial credit is awarded. All of the instructors support using multiple
choice questions, given that this format is used on the FE exam. Most of the students
enrolled in EGGN381 take the FE exam so the multiple choice format provides them
386
with some valuable experience. 3) Offering extra tutoring sessions (conducted by the
CSM IEEE Student Chapter officers) before each exam.
Geology and Geological Engineering (SYGN101). The assessment of outcomes is
overseen on a semester-to-semester basis by the team of faculty and teaching
assistants involved in presenting the course. Data for this assessment come from
student scores, individual course evaluations (for both the lecture and lab) from the
students, and informal class surveys. In 2005, we hired a Teaching Associate
Professor to be the coordinator for SYGN101, with responsibilities for course content
coordination, laboratory oversight, and course assessment. This individual also hires,
trains, and oversees the Teaching Assistants for the laboratory sections.
The laboratory manual for the course is produced in-house and emphasizes local
geoscience and engineering problems. There has been ongoing work to improve
laboratory exercises and an average of one problem per year has been modified
significantly. The labs are becoming more “hands on” field problems rather than in-
class lab manual exercises; this work is on-going and is directed by the above
mentioned teaching faculty member.
We have experimented with multiple forms of testing within the class including both
standardized and essay tests. Individual computerized “clickers” are also being used
to gauge student understanding through questions to the entire group during lectures.
Feedback from students and faculty has been very supportive of the in-class use of
these clickers.
Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS 3xx/4xx). Assessment of LAIS 300-
and 400-level courses fulfilling the Humanities and Social Sciences requirement
follows the same procedures as those outlined above for LAIS Core Curriculum
courses.
Mechanical Engineering (EGGN371). The assessment process for EGGN371 is the
same as for all EGGN courses and is based on a review of the course performed twice
a year. Standardized forms are used to facilitate the assessment process for the
Engineering degree program. An assessment of student learning outcomes is
performed after each semester by the faculty teaching the course. The primary
assessment tools used to evaluate student performance include homework
assignments and exams as appropriate to the course. The course coordinator is
responsible for compiling all the information into the standardized form. This
document provides an assessment of the effectiveness of relevant pre-requisite
courses, course outcomes, and a discussion of data gathered from student evaluations.
Based on this information, faculty members suggest recommendations for future
course improvements, and evaluate the effectiveness of any previous course changes
that have been implemented.
For EGGN371, this process has been followed somewhat regularly, but not as often
as prescribed. However, fundamentally this course has not changed significantly since
387
the last ABET visit beyond the introduction of computational tools and more real-
world problems (these changes were motivated by student requests and instructor
observations about ways to improve the pedagogical methods in the class).
Mining Engineering (DCGN241). In Fall 2009, a web-based homework management
system was introduced as a method to improve test scores, FE topic performance and
long-term retention of concepts in Statics. The results were impressive after a
comparison of test scores from previous years were plotted. The online homework
management system employs a randomized approach to problem solution, and thus
eliminating cheating by the students and improving their understanding of the
underlying concepts. Manual grading of homework is replaced by an online grade
book. This improves efficiency, accuracy and cuts cost.
Physics (PHGN200). In PHGN200, assessment of outcomes is overseen on a
semester-to-semester basis by the team of faculty involved with teaching the course.
The course is further reviewed by the physics faculty at annual assessment retreats.
The course has been carefully coordinated with the calculus sequence to ensure
proper sequencing of mathematical concepts. The assessment materials used include
exams, studio quizzes and lab reports, pre- and post-tests of the Conceptual Survey on
Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM), and pre- and post-tests of the Colorado Learning
About Science Survey (CLASS). Samples of each of these tools are available in the
course assessment notebook. The normalized gains on the CSEM and shifts on the
CLASS are calculated, and compared with the results from semester to semester.
DFW rates are tracked. Informal, qualitative feedback is also collected based on
interaction with individual students and via informal class surveys. Results of the
assessment are tabulated each semester, and recommendations made for the following
semester appear in the assessment notebook.
388
B. Continuous Improvement
i) Common Core
Table 4-2 Summary of Actions Affecting All Programs and Courses
AY 06-
07
AY 07-
08
AY 08-
09
AY 09-
10
AY10-11 AY 11-
12
3 1 2 2 0 2
Action 1. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Abolish LAIS cluster requirement. Prior to this
action all students were required to meet H&SS
requirements by completing 9 credit hours of
H&SS coursework in specific course clusters.
This action removed the cluster requirement
while retaining the number of H&SS credit
hours required for graduation. New H&SS
requirement was simplified to a requirement of
9 credit hours of upper division LAIS/EB
courses of which 3 credit hours must be 400-
level writing intensive.
Basis for Action: Defined in Undergraduate Council Minutes;
September 5, 2006, an ad hoc Curriculum
Committee reviewed LAIS proposal and
provided Undergraduate Council and the
Faculty Senate a report on their findings. This
reported is available as part of Undergraduate
Council Minutes; March 14, 2007. Briefly,
maintenance of clusters required heavy adjunct
faculty load to ensure breadth of offerings was
maintained, clusters created significant
scheduling difficulties for students, degree
auditing issues, significant exceptions approved
to published graduation requirements and a
continued need to meet ABET Criterion 3
Outcomes through the H&SS requirement.
Date: AY 06-07
Results: Streamlined registration and scheduling process
for students, fewer graduation exceptions and
continued maintenance of ABET Criterion 3
Outcomes.
Action 2. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Allow programs to determine set of courses to be
used in computation of major GPA graduation
requirement.
389
Basis for Action: Defined in Undergraduate Council Minutes;
October 2, 2006. Prior to this, all courses with a
program designation were unilaterally used to
determine in-major GPA. This action allowed
programs to define the set of courses to be used
to compute in-major GPA.
Date: AY 06-07
Results: Provided programs authority to determine set of
course work used to computer in-major GPA. In-
major coursework for GPA purposes are
published in the Undergraduate Bulletin for
programs that do not limit this calculation to all
courses completed with the appropriate program
designation.
Action 3. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: For cumulative GPA purposes, use grade
received in final attempt of course.
Basis for Action: In Fall, 2006, the Faculty Senate directed
Undergraduate Council to consider establishing
rules for how many times a student could
complete a course and have the grade count
toward GPA (Undergraduate Council, October
11, 2006). The Senate proposed that for GPA
purposes repeated course grades only count once
(Undergraduate Council, November 8, 2006).
Proposal to use last instance of grade assignment
passed and went into effect Fall, 2007.
Date: AY 06-07
Results: In Fall, 2009 the Faculty Senate asked the
Registrar to conduct a study to document the
affect of this change. The Registrar produced a
formal report to the Senate documenting
difficulties the policy had produced. In addition,
Student Life provided the Faculty Senate a report
on Readmission difficulties associated with the
policy. Based on these results the Senate
reversed the repeat policy at its meeting of
October 27, 2009 so that effective Fall, 2011 all
attempts of courses apply to the cumulative GPA
computation, a return to the original GPA policy.
Action 4. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Revised language describing the requirements
and regulations for Minor degree programs and
Areas of Special Interest.
390
Basis for Action: Defined in Undergraduate Council Minutes;
September 12, 2007 and January 9, 2008. Old
Minor and ASI language prohibited students
from completing minors or areas of special
interest if the minor or ASI included substantial
coursework within a student’s major field of
study. The revision explicitly provided
exemptions from this requirement for
institutionally recognized interdisciplinary
minors and ASIs, namely BELS and the Energy
minor.
Date: AY 07-08
Results: Allowed for greater participation in BELS and
Energy minor.
Action 5. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Implementation of +/- grading for undergraduate
courses. Plus-minus grading option approved, but
not to go into effect until Fall, 2011.
Implementation was delayed due to
undergraduate student resistance to this change.
Basis for Action: Defined in Undergraduate Council Minutes;
October 8, 2008. To provide for more granularity
in undergraduate evaluation system and to match
grading system used in undergraduate courses
with that used in graduate-level courses.
Date: AY 08-09
Results: Fully implemented Fall, 2011.
Action 6. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Creation of ad hoc First Year Project Committee.
A committee jointly chaired and staff by
Academic Affairs and Student Life. Propose of
the Committee was to explore ways to improve
freshman to sophomore retention and student
performance in freshman classes. Committee
investigated best practices and hosted visit by
Betsy Barefoot, Co-director of the Policy Center
on the First Year of College. Actions resulting
from this effort included 1) creation of a revised
“Letter to Parents”, 2) focus on core curriculum
changes as ways to improve retention and
success of lower-division students, 3) revised
freshman advising model, 4) created freshman
cohorts for longitudinal study, and 5) exit
interview analysis.
391
Basis for Action: Comparison of Mines retention metrics to that of
peer and aspirational peer institutions.
Date: AY 08-09
Results: Board of Trustees presentation providing
background of project and actions to date taken
to date given at December 16, 2010 Board
Meeting. Cohort results still being analyzed and
cohorts tracked.
Action 7. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Revision of Core Curriculum. Proposal to reduce
size of core curriculum and allow for flexibility
in a core curriculum that new degree offerings
demanded.
Basis for Action: Defined in Undergraduate Council Minutes;
September 9, 2009. Proposal for broad core
curriculum changes produced by a Provost-
appointed ad hoc Curriculum Committee. Over
the course of a two-year evaluation period, the ad
hoc Curriculum Committee conducted significant
research in formulating its proposal. This
involved analysis of the core curriculum,
surveying of programs regarding various aspects
of the core curriculum, and feedback and input
from a variety of constituencies.
Date: AY 09-10
Results: Core curriculum revised officially in AY 10-11
to include distributed science requirement,
reduced core size, and elimination of EPIC251 as
a core requirement for non-ABET accredited
programs.
Action 8. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Creation of ad hoc Sophomore Project
Committee. The Sophomore Project Committee
is jointly chaired and staff by Academic Affairs
and Student Life. Propose of the Committee was
to explore ways to improve sophomore to junior
retention. The Committee is focusing on
analyzing 2009 First Year Cohorts, reviewing
exit interview data to understand why students
leave, considering methods to better integrate
academic and life-skills programming and
392
probing the economics consequences of changes
to retention percentages.
Basis for Action: Comparison of Mines retention metrics to that of
peer and aspirational peer institutions.
Date: AY 09-10
Results: Board of Trustees presentation providing
background of project and actions to date taken
to date given at December 16, 2010 Board
Meeting. No formal results or actions yet taken.
Action 9. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Hire Institutional Director of Assessment, Fall
2011.
Basis for Action: Institutionally observed need to develop
assessment activities that span programmatic
assessment activities (e.g., assessment of the
Core Curriculum), to assist programs in
developing sustainable assessment practices for
all degree programs – both undergraduate and
graduate, and to assist programs in interpreting
and implement the results of their assessment
activities.
Date: AY 11-12
Results: The director engages in ongoing consultations
with faculty regarding development and
implementation of assessment plans. Non-
degree granting programs, such as
international/overseas travel and the Ethics
Across Campus initiative, have also enhanced
their assessment efforts as a result of
consultation with the director. Pilot assessment
projects have been developed to assess graduate
learning outcomes, experiences of student
athletes, an experimental mechanics class, and
federally funded grants.
In fall 2011, the assessment committee
implemented a new annual reporting process for
undergraduate degree granting programs. The
committee developed a rubric for reviewing the
assessment plans and provided written feedback
to departments. The director will meet with each
department chair to discuss suggested
improvements. In order to share best practices
393
with the campus community, we have sponsored
workshops and created a monthly assessment
newsletter. Funds are available to support
faculty members’ attendance at assessment
conferences and we expect at least one faculty
member to take advantage of this funding in
spring 2012. At the request of the faculty, the
director and a small group of faculty are
evaluating software that will enhance the
management and reporting of accreditation and
assessment information.
Action 10. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Creation of an ad hoc Core Curriculum
Committee.
Basis for Action: The Core Curriculum Committee was formed in
summer 2011 for the purpose of assessing the
effectiveness of the Core curriculum. The
committee reviewed the “Engineer of 2020”
report to gain insights regarding competencies
required for future success in engineering. We
developed extensive comparisons of the Core
curricula at Mines and at peer/aspirant
institutions as part of our efforts to determine
best practices.
We implemented several strategies assess the
effectiveness of the Core: 1.) We administered
an alumni survey. 2.) We conducted focus
groups of upper-level students. 3.) We
administered a survey of faculty. 4.) We
administered a graduating senior exit survey. All
of this feedback was shared extensively with the
campus community.
Date: AY 11-12
Results: We are considering a variety of strategies that are
designed to increase faculty members’
knowledge of the Core. We will continue to
assess the Core on an ongoing basis and will
make recommendations for changes that will
enhance student-learning outcomes.
Table 4-3 shows a summary of the number of actions taken each academic year that
affect specific courses in the Common Core Curriculum. See Table 5-2 or the
Institutional Context that is provided as a preface to this document for a listing of
394
courses in the Common Core. Individual tables showing an overview of each specific
action are included in the tables that follow Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 Summary of Actions Affecting Common Core Courses Completed by
All Students
AY 06-
07
AY 07-
08
AY 08-
09
AY 09-
10
AY10-11 AY 11-
12
7 8 4 17 8 3
Calculus: MATH111, MATH112, MATH21313
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Undergraduate curriculum and degree options
had been recently revised. This resulted in a need
for a review and revision of our assessment plan.
Basis for Action: A departmental assessment committee was
formed and our previous plan was reviewed. This
resulted in the development of new Program
Educational Objectives and Outcomes as well as
a complete revision of the plan.
Date: AY 06-07 through AY 07-08
Results: Revisions completed for core curriculum.
Action 2. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: In Fall 2007, assessment results from Calculus III
courses barely met or fell short of the
requirements for two of the three outcomes
designated in the assessment plan.
Basis for Action: It is recommended that more emphasis be placed
on the following desired outcomes in Calculus III:
- Extending course material to solve original
problems, some in other fields, and
- Identifying, formulating, and solving
mathematical problems.
Date: AY 07-08
Results: A follow-up assessment was completed in Fall
'09. All objectives were met.
Action 3. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: In Fall 2008, assessment results from Statistical
Methods barely met or fell short of the
requirements for two of the four outcomes
designated in the graduate assessment plan.
13
Organized as Course Subject (Course Numbers).
395
Basis for Action: It is recommended that more emphasis be placed
on the following desired outcomes in Statistical
Methods:
- Designing and implementing techniques to
solve problems from applied statistics on exams,
and
- Using statistical software, such as MATLAB,
Minitab, or R, to solve problems given in
assignments.
Date: AY 08-09
Results: Information shared with instructors who
addressed issues.
Action 4. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: In Spring 2010, a faculty member reported being
unaware of assessment plan requirements.
Basis for Action: A presentation was made at a department faculty
meeting regarding the Departmental Assessment
Plan.
Clear explanation pages will be created to
summarize requirements for each course - this is
in the development phase.
Date: AY 09-10
Results: Addressed previous concerns about being
unaware of assessment plan requirements by
introducing "one-sheets". A one sheet printout
detailing the expected objectives and outcomes
from each course. These are distributed to
instructors at the beginning of each semester
starting in Spring '11.
Action 5. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: The objectives and outcomes listed on the MCS
website were inconsistent with ABET criteria.
Basis for Action: The discrepancies between the website and the
ABET criteria were rectified and the website
updated.
Date: AY 10-11
Results: Updates completed.
Chemistry: CHGN121
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Redesign of laboratory experiments in
CHGN121
Basis for Action: Laboratory experiments were not well aligned
with the sequence of lecture material, which did
396
not adequately provide for laboratory
experiments to reinforce lecture material.
Date: AY07-08 to present
Results: A Colorado School of Mines specific laboratory
manual has been developed and utilized.
Action 2. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Combine CHGN124, Principles of Chemistry II,
with CHGN126, Quantitative Chemical
Analysis Laboratory into one course CHGN122
Principles of Chemistry II.
Basis for Action: Students could move the quantitative chemical
analysis laboratory to their sophomore, junior,
and senior years thus negating the idea of the
laboratory as part of a first year core curriculum.
Date: AY 07-08
Results: Students complete a combined lecture and
laboratory course where the laboratory
experiments are focused on quantitative
measurement.
Action 3. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Requirement of a C or better in CHGN121 in
order to move on to CHGN 122.
Basis for Action: The majority of students receiving a D in
CHGN 121, Principles of Chemistry I, went on
to either withdraw from or received an F in
Principles of Chemistry II. It was determined
that the students who received a D did not have
the necessary background understanding to
move on to the next course.
Date: AY 09-10
Results: All students must now obtain a minimum
proficiency determined by a C or better grade in
CHGN121. Performance improvement in
CHGN122 is being measured.
Economics: EBGN201
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Revision of course content to focus on fewer
basic economic models and to add content
related to cost-benefit analysis.
Basis for Action: Instructors in upper division economics courses
were dissatisfied with student preparedness.
Survey of key CSM faculty indicated that cost-
benefit analysis skills are more relevant for
397
engineering and applied science students than
some other topics that had been presented in the
course.
Date: AY 09-10 through present
Results: Instructors in upper division economics satisfied
with student preparation.
Action 2. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Additional problem sets and active learning
exercises added to the course to give students
more practice applying the economic models and
concepts
Basis for Action: Test of Economic Literacy (TEL) administered
in Fall 2008 showed no statistically significant
progress during the semester.
Date: AY 09-10 through present
Results: Significant improvement in scores on the TEL
over the semester
Action 3. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Revision of recitation sections to provide a
uniform set of student activities and additional
training for teaching assistants.
Basis for Action: Student evaluations indicated very uneven
satisfaction across teaching assistants.
Date: AY 09-10 through present
Results: Significant improvement in student satisfaction
with recitation sections. Student evaluations of
the teaching assistants are more consistent across
recitation sections.
Introduction to Engineering Design: EPIC151, EPIC251
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: EPICS I visualization and manual sketching
proficiency assignment for all classes (each
semester, pass/fail)
Basis for Action: Compare student proficiency among EPICS I
sections as feedback for instructors and teaching
assistants, and to identify overall EPICS I
performance in visualization and manual
sketching
Date: AY 06-07 and prior
Results: Overall pass rate is 85-90% for the F2006-S2011
period
Action 2. (Direct Assessment)
398
Action Taken: EPICS I CAD exam results summary for all
classes (each semester, initial exam and retake
exam, pass/fail)
Basis for Action: Compare student proficiency among EPICS I
sections as feedback for instructors and teaching
assistants, and to identify overall EPICS I
performance in CAD proficiency
Date: AY 06-07 (initiated)
Results: Overall average pass rate for the initial exam is
50-75%, and for the retake is 80-100% for the
F2006-S2011 period.
Action 3. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: EPICS II post-project written client surveys
(ongoing)
Basis for Action: Need for direct feedback from project clients for
all projects in all sections
Date: AY 07-08 (initiated)
Results: A one-page written survey, containing 6
questions scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale
(Strongly Agree to Cannot Evaluate) was sent to
all project clients after each semester. The
clients were asked to rate the team’s performance
on this scale, and offer comments to two
additional questions: what did the team do
exceptionally well? What could the team have
done better in developing and presenting their
design solution?
Action 4. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Sample document library for EPICS deliverables
(ongoing)
Basis for Action: Show students how to format documents, and
depth of detail to include at each stage of project
development
Date: AY 08-09 (initiated)
Results: Mentors keep a collection of sample final reports
and intermediate documents, with graded rubrics
included, to help students to understand what a
reasonably good to excellent document contains,
and how it is composed.
Action 5. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Review of EPICS Program by Ad-Hoc Faculty
Committee
Basis for Action: CSM Provost appointed committee to conduct
399
review approximately ten years after last review.
Date: AY 08-09, recommendations adopted AY 09-10
Results: The review committee’s recommendations are
summarized as follows:
1. The EPICS I curriculum should be regularly
reviewed with members of the campus
community to ensure that the course meets
the needs of the various degree-granting
departments. The committee recommended
that an institutionalized review process be
created to meet this need.
2. The students enrolled in EPICS II were found
to be receiving widely varying experiences
resulting in inconsistent meeting of core
learning objectives. The committee
recommended that these experiences become
more common, with better oversight and
coordination to insure that the learning
objectives are universally met.
3. The committee recommends that, as in
EPICS I, a regular review of the traditional
EPICS II curriculum take place with the
campus community to guarantee that the
course meets the needs of the various degree-
granting departments.
4. To insure consistent and high quality
participation by the degree-granting
programs, departments should be
encouraged, if not required, to submit
projects for the EPICS II students with
tenure/tenure track faculty as the clients.
5. The CSM curriculum is designed with a
vertically integrated design stem. To insure
[that] this pedagogic strategy functions
properly, departments should require and
enforce EPICS II as a prerequisite for a
junior or senior level class (Field Session or
Capstone Design, for example).
6. The EPICS II classes that are housed in
individual departments seem to be working
better (in that they are more valued by the
faculty) than the traditional EPICS courses.
For a more consistent experience, the
committee recommended that all EPICS II
classes be placed in the EPICS program.
However, departments should continue to be
400
involved the delivery of these courses.
7. The committee identified EPICS II projects
where the student[s] proposed a project and
team, the student[s]/team has no regular
course requirements, the student[s]/team
worked independently and only “checked in”
with an instructor/supervisor about progress,
and that the only deliverable for the
student[s]/team was a final report. The
committee questioned whether this practice is
in the best interest of student learning.
Action 6. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Evaluation process for EPICS I or EPICS II
transfer credit (ongoing)
Basis for Action: Students who transfer into CSM with potentially
equivalent coursework completed at other
institutions
Date: AY 09-10 (initiated)
Results: Catalog descriptions of major learning objectives
or outcomes, or syllabi indicating same, are
evaluated against the EPICS I or EPICS II
learning objectives, and a determination is made
as to whether the student would benefit further
from taking EPICS I or EPICS II specifically. If
the course is equivalent to EPICS I or EPICS II
in this respect, the student may receive academic
credit against the EPICS requirement, provided
that the course had not already been applied for
credit elsewhere at CSM. Approximately 5
students qualify for academic credit for EPICS
each academic year.
Action 7. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Trend analysis for instructor/course evaluation
ratings (ongoing)
Basis for Action: Quantify mentor effectiveness in EPICS classes
and compare to program averages as an indicator
of areas for improvement in course content and
delivery
Date: AY 09-10 (initiated)
Results: Data are derived from end-of-semester instructor
evaluation reports, compiled from institution-
wide, computer-generated and scored evaluation
forms, in which students give ratings against 14
questions relating to instructor and course
401
effectiveness, using a scale of A, B, C, D, and E.
Specific scores used in this analysis were given
for this question: “Overall, this instructor is
effective.” The ratings are converted to numeric
values; program and institution-wide averages are
reported for each semester’s courses. The EPICS
Program average has been nearly constant at 2.9
out of 4, while the CSM average has been 3.2 out
of 4. Trends are identified for instructors with
higher or lower than average overall scores, for
indications of areas where pedagogy, course
content and delivery might be improved. This
type of analysis also provides an evaluation
method for adjunct faculty; full time faculty
scores are included in annual performance
reviews.
Action 8. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Examples of deliverable documents explained in
class and posted on Blackboard site (ongoing)
Basis for Action: Give students an outline or framework for
construction of deliverables in EPICS courses
Date: AY 09-10 (initiated)
Results: Use examples of documents from past EPICS
projects to illustrate expected format, layout and
depth of detail in content.
Action 9. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Mentors’ Blackboard sharing site for course notes
and related materials (ongoing)
Basis for Action: Provide new mentors with example lecture notes
on which to base their pedagogy methods and
delivery
Date: AY 09-10 (initiated)
Results: Mentors have posted their lecture notes, rubrics,
supplemental course material, and other
information for the benefit of all mentors with
access to the site. Site access is limited to
instructors; students have access to section-
specific Blackboard sites maintained by their
instructors.
Action 10. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: New instructors’ orientation and training
Basis for Action: Adjunct instructors hired into the program need a
402
basis for understanding the unique nature of
EPICS courses (ongoing)
Date: AY 09-10 (initiated)
Results: New instructors receive a 2-hour introduction to
the EPICS Program and specific directions for
how to begin their first week of classes, to be
augmented by on the job practice throughout the
semester with experienced instructors as teaching
partners. New instructors offer feedback about
the training experience, and share issues not
specifically covered in the training. New
instructors are paired with experienced
instructors for their first semester teaching in the
program.
Action 11. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Establishment of EPICS I Graphics course for
non-traditional students who qualify
Basis for Action: Better meet the educational needs of non-
traditional students, including military veterans
Date: AY 09-10
Results: CSM Undergraduate Council approved the
addition of EPIC155, EPICS I Graphics, as a
one-credit EPICS course for non-traditional
students to obtain EPICS skills in engineering
visualization and graphical depiction. These
students qualified for and were granted a partial
exemption from EPICS I on the basis that they
had already achieved the EPICS I learning
objectives through their military or other work
experience, except for visualization and graphics.
Students with permission to take EPICS I
Graphics must also take two credits of technical
electives to apply to their EPICS I requirement.
Action 12. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: EPICS II Project, Client and Team Census
(ongoing)
Basis for Action: Describe the scope, depth and breadth of EPICS
II projects by section and mentor, and identify
how many teams in how many sections have the
same projects and clients.
Date: AY 10-11 (initiated)
Results: Approximately 70 projects, 30 clients and 70
teams were reported in the census, which served
to provide a cross-reference for the post-project
403
client surveys, a project and client history, and
feedback to mentors about how many teams were
working on each project and for each client.
Action 13. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Design EPICS Program Review of “EPICS II-
Equivalent” Courses Taught by CSM Degree-
Granting Academic Departments in Response to
EPICS Review Committee Recommendations.
Basis for Action: Response to Recommendation #6 from Review of
EPICS Program by Ad-Hoc Faculty Committee
(see above) and Design EPICS Response to
EPICS Review Committee Recommendations
Over Academic Year 2009-2010 (see above).
Date: AY 10-11
Results: Individual EPICS Cabinet members reviewed
each of the proposed equivalent courses against
the EPICS II learning objectives, by analyzing the
course materials and interviewing the course
instructors. The results were submitted to
Academic Affairs for dissemination to the
reviewed academic department.
Action 14. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Changes to course numbers for eight different
versions of EPICS II
Basis for Action: Enable students to receive credit for more than
one version of EPICS II, and clarify the respective
areas of concentration among versions of EPICS
II taught by the EPICS Program and by academic
departments. In addition, these changes would
enable academic departments to more easily
designate a particular version of EPICS II as
required or recommended for their individual
academic programs.
Date: AY 10-11
Results: Action was approved by Undergraduate Council
for the AY 11-12 Undergraduate Bulletin, and is
being implemented in online course listings for
registration.
Action 15. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Distribution of results from EPICS II post-
project client surveys in Spring 2011 and Spring
2010
Basis for Action: Provide feedback to EPICS II mentors and
404
students for continuous improvement
Date: AY 11-12
Results: A summary of key observations from Spring
2011 and Spring 2010, organized into three
categories (content, communication and
professionalism) was compiled and distributed to
EPICS II mentors and students to indicate
ongoing issues with client interactions and
expectations.
Action 16. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: EPICS II team, project and client coordination
summary (each semester)
Basis for Action: Provide an orderly method to enable teams to
schedule meetings with clients with more than
one team and/or project, to minimize
inconvenience to clients and teams.
Date: AY 11-12 (initiated)
Results: There were 14 projects requiring this type of
coordination in Fall 2011, with some clients
sponsoring more than one project, and/or were
working with more than one team in multiple
sections. Final results will be collected and
compiled at the end of the semester.
Freshman Success Seminar: CSM101
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Course was revised so that those most qualified to
teach the course were utilized. Revised the
previous position of Advising Coordinator to
Coordinator of Student Academic Services, to
more accurately reflect job duties and
responsibilities.
Basis for Action: Associate Provost directed by President to evaluate
course and make recommendations regarding how
to involve more academic faculty. The CSM101
Innovation Committee was formed, comprised of
Student Life professionals and academic faculty
and department heads.
Date: AY09-10
Results: Reduced the number of sections of the course by
50%, created lead instructor/mentor roles and
revised the curriculum based on creation of six
new measurable outcomes. Created Blackboard
courses for instructors and students. In AY11-12,
45% of sections are taught by academic faculty.
405
Action 2. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Academic advising provided solely by academic
faculty. Creation of a coordinator of first-year
academic advising within Academic Affairs.
Basis for Action: Associate Provost directed by President to
evaluate course and make recommendations
regarding how to involve more academic faculty.
The CSM101 Innovation Committee was
formed, comprised of Student Life professionals
and academic faculty and department heads.
Date: AY09-10
Results: One academic faculty member per class section
to serve as first-year academic advisor for
approximately 25 students. Academic faculty
involvement in the First-Year Seminar Program
increased substantially.
Nature and Human Values: LAIS100
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Existing handbook replaced with smaller, more
usable text.
Basis for Action: Students find existing handbook expensive and
difficult to use.
Date: Spring 2007
Results: Greater student use of handbook.
Action 2. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: New course objectives written and approved.
Basis for Action: Existing course objectives no longer accurately
describe the course.
Date: Fall 2007
Results: More accurate course objectives foster greater
consistency among sections.
Action 3. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: LAIS100 Coordinator solicits comments from
instructors and student reactions and
communicates the results to lecturing faculty.
Basis for Action: Lecturing faculty need better feedback on
effectiveness of lectures.
Date: Fall 2007
Results: Faculty revise lectures for greater effectiveness.
406
Action 4. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: CSM policies on plagiarism reviewed with
LAIS100 instructors and plagiarism “flowchart”
developed and distributed.
Basis for Action: Procedures for handling plagiarism not clear to
instructors.
Date: Spring 2007
Results: Cases of plagiarism handled more consistently.
Action 5. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Norming sessions for NHV instructors
instituted.
Basis for Action: Student concerns about inconsistent grading
across LAIS100 sections.
Date: Spring 2007
Results: Grading criteria made more consistent.
Action 6. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: New major paper assignments focused on
argumentation piloted by selected instructors.
Basis for Action: Instructor and student dissatisfaction with
existing major paper assignments.
Date: Spring 2007
Results: New assignments adopted in Spring 2008.
Action 7. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Writing outcomes assessment undertaken to
compare student writing early in the semester to
student writing late in the semester.
Basis for Action: Lack of empirical measurement of student
progress.
Date: Fall 2008
Results: Results inconclusive since students not
sufficiently motivated to perform to the best of
their abilities on both exercises; high degree of
instructor agreement revealed in two evaluation
sessions.
Action 8. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Criteria for all LAIS100 lectures developed and
lecturing faculty asked to design lectures to meet
those criteria.
Basis for Action: Students and instructors feel the course of
lectures lacks coherence and unity and that the
lecture and seminar components of the course are
not well integrated.
407
Date: Spring 2008
Results: Instructors able to make better use of lectures in
seminar discussions and report that students see
more coherence in and justification for the
lectures. Student evaluations of the lectures
component improves.
Action 9. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: After trials, three new major paper assignments
adopted: 1) Response to an argument, 2)
Response to a debate, 3) Researched Argument.
Basis for Action: Instructor uncertainty about and student
dissatisfaction with existing major paper
assignments.
Date: Spring 2008
Results: Greater coherence is the sequence of paper
assignments; clearer focus on argumentation
throughout the course.
Action 10. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Lecture series reorganized to move from specific
cases involving engineering ethics to broader
issues related to the impact of engineering and
applied science on the environment and society.
Basis for Action: Internal coherence of the lecture series still felt
by instructors and students to be weak.
Date: Fall 2009
Results: Clearer justification of LAIS100 lectures;
progression of lectures clearer to students.
Action 11. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Common textbook, A Student’s Guide to Nature
and Human Values, authored by LAIS100
instructors.
Basis for Action: Perceived need to more clearly define common
course content; desire to provide students with
reference book for central concepts and with
assistance in writing, research, and
documentation styles.
Date: Spring 2010
Results: Textbook required for all sections and students
starting Fall 2010
Action 13. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Selected instructors pilot the use of Writer’s
Help, an online grammar and writing reference.
408
Basis for Action: Faculty and students express need for a better
writing and grammar resource.
Date: Spring 2011
Results: Some instructors find the resource of use; others
feel there is not sufficient time in the course to
make effective use of it.
Action 14. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Reference librarian Lia Vella attends LAIS100
lectures and instructor meeting, establishes an
LAIS100 Help Desk in the Arthur Lakes
Library.
Basis for Action: Reference librarians seek to assist LAIS100
students better in research.
Date: Fall 2011
Results: Greater cooperation between Library and
LAIS100 instructors in assisting students in
research.
Action 15. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Position of LAIS100 Tutor created to assist
students with reading assignments.
Basis for Action: Some students, particularly those for whom
English is a second language, experience
difficulty with reading assignments.
Date: Fall 2011
Results: Some students benefit with additional help, but
more instructor referrals needed.
Human Systems: LAIS200
Action 1. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Class size reduced from 150 to 70 students.
Basis for Action: Low student evaluations for the course.
Date: Spring 2010
Results: With greater individual attention to students,
course evaluations have improved.
Action 2. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Course content modified to better reflect
knowledge and understanding of social, political,
economic, and cultural systems of the modern
era.
Basis for Action: Faculty assessed that the course did not sufficient
address student interests and needs.
Date: Fall 2010
Results: Student course evaluations have improved, and
409
faculty are more comfortable with scope and
focus of course.
Action 4. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: All sections will require two written, graded
assignments.
Basis for Action: Faculty dissatisfied with student abilities to
present logical, well-supported arguments in
readable prose.
Date: AY 10-11
Results: More students’ paper reflect logical argument
and effective writing.
Physics: PHGN100
Action 1. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Expanded and improved homework help and TA
assistance sessions with improved TA training
and regularly structured TA assignments. TAs
required to provide regular homework help,
general assistance sessions and participation in
both meetings of studio section per week. TAs
trained to facilitate student-to-student interaction
and to strongly encourage properly presented
work. TA preparation expanded to required two-
day Fall intensive workshop with weekly two-
hour trainings.
Basis for Action: TAs who provide only studio assistance without
any homework participation were of limited
value to the students. Without proper training,
TAs tend to “help” students by either pointing
out their mistakes or showing them the correct
answer which is an inferior method of assistance.
Without required trainings, TAs would tend to
insufficiently prepare for studio oversight.
Date: AY 08-09
Results: By requiring TA assistance on homework help as
well as studio oversight, TAs are accountable for
all course material rendering them more valuable
course personnel as determined from incidental
student feedback. Targeted pedagogy training
for TAs resulted in improved TA performance in
studio oversight and assistance sessions as
observed by faculty. Despite using fewer TAs at
any given time, the homework help sessions
exhibited boosted attendance with enhanced
effectiveness from the enforcement of student-
410
student interactions.
Action 2. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Laboratory notebook and graded activity
collection with focus on algebraic problem
solving and heavy emphasis on problem solution
presentation skill development. Significant re-
writing of material to replace numerical based
problems with algebra based ones. Significant
emphasis in lecture and studio presentations on
the benefits of proper problem solving methods
and presentation.
Basis for Action: Poor student performance on free-response exam
questions largely stemming from sloppy
presentation. Employer demand for
communication skills and the spread of the
Writing Across the Curriculum program on our
campus.
Date: AY 09-10
Results: Student performance on free-response exam
questions markedly improved. Students carried
skills into homework and studio activities which
enhanced the peer-to-peer interaction through
improved clarity and uniformity of work.
Action 3. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Supplemental online study aid development.
Significant development of example problem set
with video recorded solutions made available to
the students in the LONCAPA system.
Basis for Action: With two to three faculty handling over five-
hundred students, office hours were often over-
packed. With busy student schedules, posted
office hours were often inconvenient to many
students. Most assistance in lecture, studio,
office hours and homework help proceed at slow
pace to allow real-time assessment of student
understanding.
Date: AY 10-11
Results: The example problem videos developed provide
students with relevant study aids available at any
time on or off campus. The solutions are worked
and narrated at a swift pace in order to
demonstrate that proper problem-solving
411
methods and good presentation can be
implemented in a timely manner. A noticeable
decrease in faculty office hour attendance has
been seen, though this may be anecdotal and/or
influenced by enhanced assistance throughout the
course. Student use is logged in the LONCAPA
system and regular feedback from students
indicate that these are a heavily used resource.
ii) Distributed Core
Table 4-4 shows a summary of the number of actions taken each academic year that
affect specific courses in the Distributed Core Curriculum utilized by this program14
.
See Table 5-1 or the Institutional Context provided as a preface to this document for
Distributed Core courses required for this program. Individual tables showing an
overview of each specific action are included in the tables that follow Table 4-4.
Table 4-4 Summary of Actions Affecting Distributed Core Courses
AY 06-07 AY 07-08 AY 08-09 AY 09-10 AY10-11 AY 11-12
2 6 3 3 1 5
BioEngineering and Life Sciences: BELS10115
Action 1. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Biological concepts are discussed in the context
of case studies.
Basis for Action: Need for a problems-based engineering approach
to teach the big ideas of biology
Date: Spring 2011
Results: Improved student understanding as they apply
biology to engineering problems.
Action 2. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Minimization of PowerPoint presentations of
course content.
Basis for Action: Lower than desired student outcomes, negative
student responses to traditional lecture format
using all slides.
Date: Fall 2011
Results: Increased student involvement in class;
improved student attitude. Initial comparison of
exam results between Spring 2011 and Fall
14
Components of the Distributed Core Curriculum not utilized by this program are shown in gray in Table
4-3. 15
Organized as Course Subject (Course Numbers).
412
2011 indicates a 10-30% improvement in
student performance on individual questions and
20% overall increase in exam scores.
Action 3. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Implementation of an active classroom
environment utilizing (a) “quick start” questions,
(b) direct questioning during class, (c) clicker
quizzes and questions during lecture, and (d)
small group discussions as follow-up to points of
confusion.
Basis for Action: To obtain immediate feedback on areas needing
immediate clarification or improvement.
Date: Fall 2011
Results: Overall classroom environment is open and
inviting of student questions; student
understanding is improved, as indicated in exam
scores.
Action 4. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Students are required to complete textbook
reading assignments prior to class discussions.
Homework now counts for 10% of total grade.
Basis for Action: Desire for more need-based class discussion and
less passive delivery of information. Desire to
have students arrived prepared for class.
Date: Fall 2011
Results: Class time is more effectively focused on issues
of confusion; student involvement is improved.
Chemistry: CHGN122
Action 1. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: “Greener” experiments introduced in CHGN122
Basis for Action: Laboratory experiments were not in line with the
contemporary topics of sustainability and by
introducing experiments that result in decreased
waste, the students have an exposure to
contemporary topics.
Date: AY 07-08 to present
Results: Students are presented with the ideas of
minimizing waste in the laboratory.
Action 2. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Combine CHGN124, Principles of Chemistry II,
with CHGN126, Quantitative Chemical
413
Analysis Laboratory into one course CHGN122
Principles of Chemistry II.
Basis for Action: Students could move the quantitative chemical
analysis laboratory to their sophomore, junior,
and senior years thus negating the idea of the
laboratory as part of a first year core curriculum.
Date: AY 07-08
Results: Students complete a combined lecture and
laboratory course where the laboratory
experiments are focused on quantitative
measurement.
Action 3. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Requirement of a C or better in CHGN121 in
order to move on to CHGN122.
Basis for Action: The majority of students receiving a D in
CHGN 121, Principles of Chemistry I, went on
to either withdraw from or received an F in
Principles of Chemistry II. It was determined
that the students who received a D did not have
the necessary background understanding to
move on to the next course.
Date: AY 09-10
Results: All students must now obtain a minimum
proficiency determined by a C or better grade in
CHGN121. Performance improvement in
CHGN122 is being measured.
Earth and Environmental Systems: SYGN101
Action 1. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Laboratory Exercise Upgrades/Modifications
Basis for Action: Faculty, TA, and student displeasure with some
labs or parts of some labs was noted through
course assessment. Desire of faculty to introduce
new technology and/or earth science concepts.
Date: Ongoing
Results: Students are now learning application of GPS
technology to earth science/engineering
problems. A new field-based lab replaced a
previous classroom lab that was seen to be
“supervised homework”. Another lab exercise
now includes a basic introduction to earth system
modeling related to carbon budgets and climate
change.
414
Introduction to Computer Sciences: CSCI101
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Development of CSCI101, Introduction to
Computer Science.
Basis for Action: Recognized need on campus to provide
instruction in basic computational thinking and
expose students to programming and algorithm
development early in their engineering and
applied sciences education.
Date: CSCI101 researched, planned, and developed
AY 2008-Spring 2010; first lectures AY Fall
2010
Results: Core curriculum revised in AY 2010 to include
CSCI101 as a distributed science offering for all
majors. Anecdotal evidence that students fair
better in CSCI261 (Programming with C++)
during AY Fall 2011 semester.
Physics: PHGN200
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Conversion of PHGN200 to Studio Physics
Basis for Action: DFW rate in the 30-40% range. Generally
negative student course evaluations.
Documented success in moving PHGN 100 to
Studio Physics.
Date: AY 07-08
Results: All students in PHGN200 now take Studio
Physics. Lab and recitation were replaced
completely, and the amount of lecture time has
been reduced to two hours per week.
Assessments indicated improved problem-
solving skills, increased retention, and better
student satisfaction.
Action 2 (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Institution of a formal two-day TA training
workshop with weekly follow-up training
Basis for Action: Conversion to Studio Physics 200 required more
independent TAs with understanding of the
philosophy behind Studio. We did not wait for
any kind of measurable failure before taking this
action.
Date: AY 08-09 (implementation), AY11-12
(revisions)
Results: No direct assessments available. Anecdotal
reports suggest higher, more uniform TA quality.
415
Action 3 (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Addition of writing tasks throughout the
PHGN200 curriculum.
Basis for Action: Employer demand for communication skills.
The spread of the Writing Across the Curriculum
program on our campus.
Date: AY 07-08
Results: Measurable increases in the quality of written
assignments over individual semesters. No
longer term assessments available yet.
Statics: DCGN241
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Online homework management system was
incorporated in the Statics curriculum
Basis for Action: Implement a web-based homework management
system as a method to improve test scores, FE
topic performance and long -term retention of
concepts in Statics was introduced in Fall 2009
resulting in efficiency, accuracy and cost
reduction.
Date: AY 09-10
Results: The longitudinal research to study the effect of
the curriculum improvement in a follow up
course on Mechanics of Materials is under way.
Thermodynamics: DCGN209
Action 1. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Revision of topics in an effort the streamline the
course, and cover more topics of interest to the
client departments.
Basis for Action: Discussions with faculty in client departments
who are teaching courses for which DCGN209 is
a prerequisite; also student feedback.
Date: Summer 2007 through AY10-11
Results: Reading notes, lecture materials and homework
problems covering topics of interest.
Action 2. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Selection of chemically-based textbook and other
preparations for involvement of a broader
diversity of chemistry faculty.
Basis for Action: Beginning with the summer 2007, DCGN209 has
been taught (fall, spring & summer) by a single
416
faculty member. The move of this individual to
a transitional retirement appointment necessitates
the involvement of additional faculty
Date: AY 11-12
Results: Chemistry faculty are in the process of preparing
& collecting material which will facilitate the
involvement of a broader diversity of Chemistry
faculty.
Thermodynamics: DCGN210
Action 1. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Minimization of PowerPoint presentations of
course content.
Basis for Action: Lower than desired student outcomes, negative
student responses to traditional lecture format
using all slides.
Date: AY 06-07
Results: Increased student outcomes, increased student
attendance in class.
Action 2. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Implementation of an active classroom
environment utilizing (a) direct questioning, (b)
modified Studio problems, and (c) the “question
of the day”. Attempts to use “clickers” were
unsuccessful due to limitations in hardware and
software.
Basis for Action: To obtain immediate feedback on areas needing
immediate clarification or improvement.
Date: AY 07-08
Results: Student outcomes have improved and the overall
classroom environment is more open and inviting
of student questions.
Action 3. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: DCGN210 implementation of new and improved
ways to present course content, specifically using
an instructor tablet PC and the document camera.
Basis for Action: To present a more interactive environment in
which problems can be worked in class. This
minimizes the need for traditional lecture and
gets the student involved in actually solving
typical problems.
Date: AY 08-09
Results: Student outcomes have improved and the overall
classroom environment is more dynamic and
417
involved.
Action 4. (Indirect Assessment)
Action Taken: Implementation of YouTube Fridays
Basis for Action: To present a more interactive environment in
which problems can be worked in class. This
teaching tool directly involves students
formulating and solving engineering problems
based on thermodynamics-related YouTube
videos illustrating key concepts. Additionally,
students learn how to work in small groups,
present material and solve relevant, poorly
specified, problems.
Date: AY 08-09
Results: Student outcomes have improved and the overall
classroom environment is more dynamic and
involved.
Action 5. (Direct Assessment)
Action Taken: Inclusion of Gibb’s Free Energy topics in DCGN
210.
Basis for Action: Low student outcomes on FE exam and
consequent modification of departmental
thermodynamic sequence.
Date: FY 11-12
Results: Has not yet been determined.
418
Criterion 5 CURRICULUM
A) Program Curriculum
i) Alignment of Common Core Curriculum to Student Outcomes:
Components of the curriculum provided through the Common Core Curriculum are
aligned with Criterion 3 (a) through (k) Student Outcomes as identified in Table 5-2.
The outcome assignments defined for courses in the Common Core Curriculum, as
defined in Table 5-2, are supported by the following course-specific activities.
Applied Mathematics and Statistics (MATH111, MATH112, MATH213,
MATH225)16
. The Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics delivers four
required courses for all undergraduate students, Calculus for Engineers I
(MATH111), Calculus for Engineers II (MATH112), Calculus for Engineers III
(MATH213), and Differential Equations (MATH225).
MATH111, MATH112 and MATH213 are referred to as the calculus sequence. This
sequence comprises coordinated courses, which means that all students, regardless of
section, follow a common syllabus and complete common exams and homework sets.
The calculus sequence is designed to support the attainment of the following ABET
Criteria 3 student learning outcomes.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
Throughout the calculus sequence, students are introduced to key results and
theorems through their applications to science and engineering. Calculus is taught as
a tool for understanding physical phenomena. Course exams, homework and quizzes
reflect this emphasis, requiring students to demonstrate the application of calculus to
Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Economics etc.
Criterion 3-b: Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)
Another common thread throughout the calculus sequence is the importance of using
data to motivate functions. Students plot data, analyze trends, describe data using
functions and approximate solutions based on functions. Students also use linear
approximations and differentials to approximate error. Each of these concepts is
tested through the common exams.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
Students are often asked to solve ill structured problems that illustrate the application
of mathematics to engineering. In this context, students are expected to identify,
formulate and solve problems using the mathematical tools developed in their
calculus courses. As was previously discussed, these problems are graded and
included in the calculation of students’ final grades.
Homework assignments, quizzes and common exams often contain word problems
embedded in an engineering context. These problems require students to
independently identify, formulate and solve engineering problems.
16
Organized as Responsible Unit (Common Core Courses Overseen by Unit).
419
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
In the calculus sequence, students are expected to read problem statements, develop a
solution and write a clear and concise explanation of their solution. Written
explanations are evaluated through common exams, homework and quizzes.
Through teamwork, students are expected to communicate orally with their peers.
Teamwork is evaluated through the grading of the final submitted team product.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
Calculators and the CAS system provided with the text are used throughout the
calculus sequence. These technologies are tested through homework and quizzes.
Chemistry and Geochemistry (CHGN121). The Department of Chemistry and
Geochemistry hosts one course that all undergraduate students must complete,
CHGN121. Within CHGN121, Principles of Chemistry I, the following ABET
Criteria 3 student learning outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in
this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
In CHGN121, the major emphasis of the course is to understand the fundamental
science of chemistry, part of which is accomplished through solving chemical
problems, both quantitatively and qualitatively. In order to solve quantitative
problems, extensive use of algebra is necessary. In every homework assignment, lab
activity, and exam, there is a large emphasis on the application of mathematics.
Criterion 3-b: Design and conduct experiments (Primary)
The lab activity associated with CHGN121 requires students to conduct experiments
with particular attention to observation.
Criterion 3-b: Analyze and interpret data (Primary)
Students are required to analyze real data collected during lab activities, and compare
the data with what is predicted by the chemical principles taught in the lecture portion
of CHGN121. They are also required to manipulate data, both tabular and graphical,
made available in lecture and show that it is consistent with physical laws.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
The laboratory portion of CHGN121 requires that each student summarize laboratory
results and communicate these in a written form. Emphasis is placed on the clarity of
summary.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of contemporary issues (Secondary)
Students are presented with real world chemical problems in learning the fundamental
topics.
Economics and Business (EBGN201). The Division of Economics and Business
hosts one course all undergraduate students must complete, Principles of Economics
420
(EBGN201). Within EBGN201, the following ABET Criteria 3 student learning
outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-b: Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)
The study of economics revolves around assembling and analyzing data on various
economic and business indicators, such as economic growth, GDP, inflation,
unemployment, exchange rates, and product prices in specific markets (e.g., oil).
Students are required to collect, analyze and interpret economic data in recitation
activities, in problem sets and during examinations.
Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Secondary)
The large lecture sections are broken down into much smaller groups for weekly
recitations that focus on active and cooperative learning exercises including
experiments, discussions and group problem-solving. Students are expected to work
in groups in every recitation section to generate and analyze data, to solve problems
and to discuss readings and current events. These student groups change composition
weekly.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
The course gives students many opportunities to practice communication skills.
Students participate in small-group and classroom discussions on readings and current
economic issues. Students prepare written reports on economic experiments. Students
write analyses of applications of economic models to current issues.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Primary)
Public and private organizations develop and implement engineering solutions in the
broader context of the economic, business, and public-policy environment in which
these organizations operate. This course exposes students to the macroeconomic
environment in which organizations operate and the ways in which economic growth,
inflation, unemployment, monetary policy and fiscal policy influence the viability of
firms and their engineering solutions and to the microeconomic environment in which
technological change, consumer preferences, labor markets, government policies and
other factors influence the viability of firms and their engineering solutions. The
course also exposes students to basic tools of cost-benefit analysis (economic
decision-making, time value of money, valuing nonmarket goods) that are useful not
only for economic analysis but also for engineering decisions.
Criterion 3-i: Recognize need for and engage in life-long learning (Primary)
Many undergraduate students in engineering and the applied sciences come to college
with limited exposure to current events and public affairs. The study of economics
encourages students to read and develop informed opinions about economic issues in
the news and to apply economic principles to their decisions. These issues and
decisions are not limited to a semester or a course of study but form the basis for life-
long learning.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of contemporary issues (Primary)
421
EBGN201 is a relatively practical introduction to economics so the focus of the
course is on using economics to analyze what's happening in the world. Therefore,
students are constantly reminded to view contemporary issues through the lens of
economics. Students learn that the news of the day -- financial crises, Federal
Reserve policy, market shocks, government regulation, environmental policy -- may
become more comprehensible by applying some basic economics.
College of Engineering and Computational Sciences (EPIC151, EPIC251). The
Design EPICS program contains two one-semester, 3-credit courses, EPICS I
(EPIC151) and EPICS II (EPIC251). All students are required to complete EPICS I
and all students pursuing ABET-accredited engineering programs are required to take
EPICS II. These courses are typically taken during the first and second years,
respectively, and are taught at these expected levels of current and emerging
knowledge and technical skill. Both courses offer instruction and practice in the
development of key engineering skills, e.g., the ability to solve complex, open-ended
design problems using a systematic design methodology, the ability to choose among
alternative solutions, the ability to work on an interdisciplinary team, and the ability
to communicate effectively. Students in the EPICS II course experience more
frequent and extensive interaction with project clients, have responsibility to schedule
client meetings with presentations, solve more technically complex and less clearly
defined design problems, use data and other evidence to build a technically
persuasive solution, and learn how to use a variety of software packages in their
designs.
Within EPICS I and EPICS II, the following ABET Criteria 3 student learning
outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-c: Design a system, component or process (Primary)
A course in engineering practice must have something on which to practice, and the
open-ended design problem fulfills this role in EPICS courses. The selection of
projects for EPICS I emphasizes visual solutions to conceptual engineering problems,
which utilize fundamental sketching techniques and CAD computer packages to
graphically display a system, component or process. The selection of projects for
EPICS II emphasizes data analysis and construction of a physical and/or virtual
model to support resource assessment. Teams also apply commercial computer
packages to build models of systems, components or processes. Recent examples of
design problems solved by EPICS I student teams include a playground for disabled
students in South Africa, an alternative crossing over a busy highway running through
the campus, a new student health center, and the feasibility of sustainable energy
generation using wind power at local small business sites. Representative design
problems in EPICS II courses were a near earth orbit sample acquisition system,
fiberglass mannequin packaging, wireless temperature control, and a multi-phase
flow pump for a natural gas well.
Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Primary)
422
The ability to work well with others on a multidisciplinary team is a nearly universal
skill in the engineering work world, in part because the knowledge base of a team is
much more extensive than that of one person. Students in EPICS courses work on
teams of four to six students each, and are directed by a course mentor who is
typically in charge of four or five teams. Successful teams exhibit these qualities:
technically sound work products, team satisfaction, effectively applied project
management techniques, and professionally-oriented interpersonal communications.
Approximately 40% of the course grade is based on team-generated deliverables,
which further encourages team cooperation.
Criterion 3-f: Understand ethical and professional responsibility (Secondary)
The EPICS I course contains two workshop sessions in professional responsibility
and ethics, generally held during the fourth and ninth weeks of the 16-week semester.
In the Ethics workshop, discussion is based on the ABET Code of Ethics of Engineers
as well as the case study, Gilbane Gold , published by the National Institute for
Engineering Ethics (NIEE) at Texas Tech University. A second case study, Incident
at Morales, also published by NIEE, has been used in EPICS II courses to explore
ethical dilemmas in the workplace in greater depth. The second workshop, The
Engineering Profession, introduces students to the perceptions of the profession by
the media and the general public, and reinforces student affinity with the study of
engineering and adherence to the professional ethics code through a discussion of the
14 Grand Challenges to the engineering profession, as identified by the National
Academy of Engineering.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Primary)
Project/course deliverables form the basis for assessment of student skills in written
and oral communications, which students practice at least four times during each one-
semester course. Focus on the needs and interests of the intended audience are
paramount: it drives coherence and the value of content. Writing assignments
combines these elements to create various records, which document the team’s
progress through the design process. The Letter of Understanding/Problem Definition
defines the contract between the team and client with respect to the needs of the
project. The Project Plan outlines the team’s strategy to resolve the design issues,
forming a contract with the client regarding how the problem will be solved. The
team divides the issues to create individual research areas, which are documented in
the Subsystems Analysis. All of these intermediate documents are then combined to
form sections of the Design Report corresponding to the stages of the design
methodology, and form the basis for marketing and presentation activities. The
sequence produces a logical order in which to evaluate student communication
proficiency, both individually and as a team, while following the team’s progress
throughout the project.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Primary)
Engineering tools in the most common use in EPICS courses include manual
sketching, visualization methods and CAD programs (EPICS I) and software
packages devoted to modeling and data analysis (EPICS II). Additional skill-specific
423
workshops are also conducted, for all EPICS I students, in physical modeling,
soldering and shop safety. Certain projects may also offer opportunities for advanced
students to implement a "brain stem" or HOBO™ device as an electronic control and
data acquisition system or to otherwise build a working model to enhance their
learning experience. Certain projects may require testing to determine properties that
support the team’s body of evidence for a particular solution. An on-site shop
contains both hand and power tools, as well as modeling materials, to enable students
to build models of what they have designed.
Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS100, LAIS200). The Division of
Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS) houses all humanities, social sciences
(except Economics), communication, foreign language, and performing arts courses
at Colorado School of Mines. Its primary contribution to the professional component
of engineering education, therefore, is in general education at the undergraduate level.
In this role it hosts two courses which all undergraduate students must complete,
LAIS100 and SYGN200.
Within LAIS100, Nature and Human Values (NHV), the following ABET Criteria 3
student learning outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this
course.
Criterion 3-f: Professional and Ethical Responsibility (Primary)
Students are acquainted with professional codes of ethics in engineering and are
introduced to the major schools of ethical thought (Utilitarianism, Deontology, and
Virtue Ethics), as well as central concepts in environmental ethics. LAIS100 asks
students to make reasoned ethical decisions in matters pertaining to the impact of
engineering and applied science on the environment and society. Topics covered in
LAIS100 lectures and seminar discussions progress from specific cases in
engineering ethics (the Challenger Disaster) to contemporary environmental issues
(water use, nuclear power, global energy challenges) to matters on the cutting-edge of
engineering (genetically altered food crops, human genetic engineering, and impact of
digital technologies on human social life).
Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Primary)
Mines and LAIS have devoted significant resources to staffing some 50 sections per
year of 20-student seminars with instructors (both full-time lecturers and adjuncts)
who possess expertise in composition. Each student completes about 40 pages’ worth
of writing assignments during the semester at what is considered a first-year level of
difficulty. The course trains students in techniques of drafting and revising prose,
organizing essays, doing and correctly documenting research.
Criterion 3-h: Understanding Engineering Solutions in Global and Societal Contexts
(Primary)
Lectures and seminar discussions in LAIS100 focus on the global, social, and
environmental contexts within which engineering solutions are now and increasingly
will have to be crafted. LAIS100 students are asked to consider both the
424
environmental and social impacts of limited resources and increasing demand. They
explore such issues as the competition for energy resources between developed and
developing countries, the effect of genetically altered food crops on indigenous
farming, and the implications of world population growth.
Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)
By choosing controversial and provocative topics and issues as the core of LAIS100’s
subject matter, LAIS100 contributes to stimulating students’ intellectual curiosity and
exposes them to new ways of thinking about the world and their future professional
lives. Further, it introduces them to basic research skills in non-technical areas that
the students must employ in completing a portion of their composition assignments,
thereby adding depth to their “intellectual tool box.”
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Primary)
Many of topics covered in LAIS100 and mentioned previously introduce students to
contemporary issues relevant to engineering and applied science. Through lectures,
seminar discussions, reading assignments, research, and writing, NHV students deal
with complex issues in resource use, energy development, and policy. In some cases,
LAIS100 presents students with issues such as nanotechnology and genetic
engineering that are not currently under wide public debate but very likely to become
pressing in the near future.
Within SYGN200, Human Systems, the following ABET Criteria 3 student learning
outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Secondary)
Human Systems promotes improved communication skills in two ways. One is
through the required readings in which students must engage, which contribute to the
expanse of social science-based ideas and concepts they have at their disposal, and
thus their capacity to articulate their own thoughts and ideas better. The second is
through essays that require a student to (a) demonstrate that he/she has digested the
reading and lecture materials; (b) engage in additional research on the topic of the
essay; and (c) craft an essay reflecting both (a) and (b) as expressed in the student’s
own way.
Criterion 3-h: Understanding Engineering Solutions in Global and Societal Contexts
(Primary)
The focus on globalization in Human Systems provides individual instructors with an
opportunity to bring their disciplinary expertise to bear in the selection of case studies
and topics that contribute to an understanding of global and societal contexts in which
engineering takes place.
For example, an international political economy professor explores the “impact of
engineering solutions” in an integrated societal context through the prism of a variety
of industrialization processes found in today’s developing world, such as import-
425
substitution, export promotion, technology licensing, and turnkey industrial models in
various economies and societies. A sociologist examines how multiethnic societies
define and implement development models in the face of ethnic tensions, either
successfully or unsuccessfully. A political scientist reveals how wars and corrupt
practices impact natural resource production globally. A geographer discusses how
management of a natural resource like water can either provoke interstate or inter-
community conflicts or help resolve them. All of these and other social science-based
topics require students to appreciate a world that is mostly “gray” – not black and
white – and to learn how to think through intersecting and complex sets of social,
political, economic, cultural, and environmental factors that comprise the context in
which engineering is practiced.
Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Primary)
The core lesson of Human Systems is the age-old dictum that those who fail to learn
from the errors of the past will be condemned to repeat them. For this reason, much of
the course focuses on those historical processes that have contributed to defining
today’s world. The specific historical topics that the course covers help students
identify past successes and failures of the human condition and how the forces of the
past are part of an ever-changing continuum of human activity.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Primary)
The main goal of Human Systems is to bring students to a historically informed
understanding of today’s world, especially those issues emerging from the ongoing
process of globalization. From cultural clashes to war, poverty, pandemic disease, the
impact of rapidly changing technologies on social structures and values, and the rise
of new economies and economic structures, Human Systems’ most significant
contribution to the CSM undergraduate curriculum is the conceptual and factual
knowledge it imparts to students about a constant and rapidly changing world, the
magnitude of problems it faces, and the resulting challenges it poses to the
engineering profession.
Physics (PHGN100). The Department of Engineering Physics hosts two courses. All
undergraduate students must complete PHGN100. Within PHGN100, Physics I, the
following ABET Criteria 3 student learning outcomes are supported by activities
students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
In PHGN100, the major emphasis of the course is to solve mechanics problems, both
quantitatively and qualitatively. In order to solve quantitative problems, extensive use
of algebra, trigonometry, and calculus is necessary. In every homework assignment,
studio activity, and exam, there is a large emphasis on applying mathematics to
mechanics situations. In particular, there is a strong emphasis on calculus.
Criterion 3-b: Analyze and interpret data (Primary)
Students are required to analyze real data collected during studio activities, and
compare the data with the mathematical laws introduced in PHGN100. They are also
426
required to show the ability to predict what data (in graphical form) would look like
given a description of a situation. This is required both on activities in the studio and
on exams.
Criterion 3-d: Function on multi-disciplinary teams (Primary)
Students in PHGN100 are assigned to studio workgroups based on performance
levels on various assessments. The result is usually a collection of students from
differing backgrounds and varied academic aims. These students must work together
on studio activities as a team exploring and capitalizing on individual strengths.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
PHGN100 is the first course the students’ career where they are given a situation and
are left to formulate the system of equations using fundamental laws in order to solve
for some outcome of the situation. This permeates the class in the form of studio
activities, homework, and exams.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
The students participate in studio in assigned groups. Students must learn to
effectively communicate with other members of their group in order to successfully
complete the activities. In addition, a stronger emphasis on problem solving
presentation skills has been developed through modification of office hours,
homework help sessions, studio activities, lecture content and exam administration.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
The material presented in PHGN100 incorporates real-life situations with engineering
applications. In all the studio activities and exams emphasis is placed on making the
situations realistic and the answers that the students get to be within reasonable
ranges.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
The studio facility used in PHGN100 uses state-of-the-art computer interfaced
equipment to do many of the activities. This includes data acquisition and analysis
using Vernier software and hardware, computer simulations using InteractivePhysics,
and use of symbolic math programs.
Student Life (CSM101). The Division of Student Life houses all student affairs
functions: Vice President of Student Life and Dean of Students; Associate Dean of
Students; Career Center; disability services; student health program (Student Health
Center, Counseling Center, Student Health Benefits Plan and Athletic Trainer for
Intercollegiate Athletics); freshman seminar, tutoring and academic excellence
workshops; academic counseling and coaching program; enrollment management
(admissions and financial aid); Minority Engineering Program; student activities;
athletics; public safety; and housing and auxiliary services at Colorado School of
Mines. Its primary contribution to the professional component of engineering
education, therefore, is in general education at the undergraduate level. In this role it
hosts one course that all undergraduate students must complete, CSM101.
427
CSM101 has six (6) specific objectives. Students will:
1. Feel further connected to the campus community of students, faculty, staff and
administrators.
2. Be able to articulate an awareness of campus resources and policies, including
academic administrative, and student services.
3. Gain a personal understanding of personal learning styles, learning skills and
strengths necessary for integration into the academic and social culture at Mines.
4. Demonstrate an active engagement in the campus community via social,
academic and personal involvement.
5. Formulate and revise academic and career goals; be able to articulate steps
required to achieve these goals.
6. Be able to identify an communicate personal values and standards related to
wellness, healthy choices and community.
Within CSM101, Freshman Success Seminar, the following ABET Criteria 3 student
learning outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-f: Professional and Ethical Responsibility (Primary)
Students receive instruction on the Student Honor Code and the rules and regulations
of the college environment. An online video by the Associate Dean of Students and
class discussion are used in the course to teach students about campus policies,
academic integrity and to help them develop an understanding of the ethical
responsibilities of being a student and an engineering professional. A connection is
made between taking responsibility and developing a sense of engagement in the
campus community via assignments that explore the history of the university and
campus resources. Further class discussion and assignments foster connections
between identified personal values and comparing and contrasting those values to the
expectations and academic culture at Mines. This criterion is tied to learning
objectives # 2 and #6.
Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)
CSM101 provides assignments and exercises to foster the importance of self-
assessment, and the social and cultural interactions that affect life as a student and as
a future professional. CSM101 introduces students to the importance of connecting
with peers, faculty, campus resources, academic support programs and career
services. The importance of life-long learning is conveyed through several
assignments on goal setting, starting with an individual assignment and culminating
with a goal actualization worksheet informed by Steven Long’s Level Six
Performance, Chapter 8 and a one-on-one meeting between the student and his/her
mentor. A personality type indicator assessment (similar to the Myers Briggs Type
Indicator) is incorporated to tie the concept of how engagement and interactions in
social, academic and professional activities often differ with personality. This
criterion is tied to learning objectives #1 and #3.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Secondary)
CSM101 presents an opportunity for students to connect with representatives from
corporations and academic departments, gaining first-hand knowledge of employment
trends, organizational approaches, and core competencies related to engineering
employment and labor markets. Assignments provide students with opportunities to
428
learn from engineering professionals and college relations representatives at Career
Day and by attending company information sessions. Additional assignments guide
students to connect with students and faculty in the academic departments at
Declaration Day (Major and Minors Fair held in the Spring semester), and student
chapters of professional societies. This criterion is tied to learning objectives #4 and
#5.
ii) Alignment of Distributed Core Curriculum to Student Outcomes:
Components of the curriculum provided through the Distributed Core Curriculum are
aligned with the stated Criterion 3 (a) through (k) Student Outcomes as identified
below. Outcomes assigned to courses completed as part of the Mines Distributed
Core Curriculum are shown in Table 5-3. Not all courses are completed by all
students. See Table 5-1 for Distributed Core courses required for this degree
program17
. Distributed Core courses greyed-out in Table 5-3 are not required by this
degree program. The outcome assignments defined for courses in the Distributed
Core Curriculum, as defined in Table 5-3, are supported by the following course-
specific activities.
Chemical and Biological Engineering (BELS101, DCGN210)18
. The
Bioengineering and Life Sciences program hosts two courses in the Distributed Core
curriculum, BELS101 and DCGN210.
Within BELS101 the following ABET Criteria 3 student learning outcomes are
supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
This course utilizes knowledge of science and math to study four big ideas in
Biology: (1) The process of evolution drives the diversity and unity of life; (2)
biological systems utilize free energy and molecular building blocks to grow, to
reproduce and to maintain dynamic homeostasis; (3) living systems store, retrieve,
transmit and respond to information essential to life processes; (4) biological systems
interact, and these systems and their interactions possess complex properties.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Secondary)
Small group discussions occur daily as students check for understanding at the
beginning of each lecture. A “quick check” focuses on student ability to distinguish
among key terms and describe key concepts from the reading. Follow-up clicker
questions often provide further opportunity for learning as students share their
reasoning and logic path used to solve problems.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Secondary)
BELS101 asks students to apply basic engineering principles to biological systems in
the context of case studies that reveal current biotechnology applications to treatment
of disease. Biodiversity is discussed from the perspective of biomimetic solutions to
17
Components of the Distributed Core Curriculum not utilized by this program are shown in gray in
Table 5-3 and in the subsequent discussion of curriculum component alignment. 18
Organized as Responsible Unit (Distributed Core Courses Overseen by Unit).
429
engineering problems. For example, we draw inspiration from the superhydrophobic
Lotus-leaf as we discuss the use of self-cleaning materials in solar panels. Other
contemporary topics include why sticky-tape makers want to copy the gecko’s foot,
glue-makers want to copy the mussel’s byssal thread wet adhesive, how the folding of
leaves and insect wings can be applied to solar arrays, and how the sea mouse
invented the photonic crystal years before fiber optics were invented. Human
interactions with the environment are studied in terms of the impact of human
populations on climate, air, water, food and energy sources as well as waste
production and disposal.
Within DCGN210 the following ABET Criteria 3 student learning outcomes are
supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science, and engineering (Primary)
This course is one of the introductory engineering courses where basic knowledge
from mathematics, physics, and chemistry is integrated into the solution of simple
engineering problems. Concepts that have been taught in an abstract fashion (e.g.
integration of a differential equation) are now put into use in solving fully integrated
engineering problems (e.g. now, at this point in the solution you must integrate the
following equation). All of our assessment tools (exams, short quizzes, homework
assignments and in-class exercises) rely on the students’ ability to apply their
knowledge to solve an engineering problem in a focused way rather than in an
abstract fashion.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)
Data analysis and interpretation are critical to understanding functional forms of
relationships, to being able to obtain data from tabular or graphical forms, and to
understanding the relationships between properties of thermodynamic processes.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
Typical engineering problems presented in DCGN210 are complex descriptions of
thermodynamic problems. The students must be able to identify key concepts,
determine the correct equations to use that describe the problem, and then solve the
problem resulting in a correct numeric answer with correct units.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
Part of learning about engineering problems is being able to determine if a numeric
solution is reasonable. Problems worked during lecture have a component of “does
this make any sense?” associated with them. Additionally, problems related to
current world affairs are commonly chosen as examples and class problems.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
Iterative or trial-and-error solutions are taught using Solver in Excel, typically as
homework problems and sometimes as part of projects.
430
Chemistry and Geochemistry (CHGN122). The Department of Chemistry and
Geochemistry hosts two courses that are part of the distributed core, CHGN122 and
DCGN209.
CHGN122 is a new course that is a result of combining previously separated lecture
(CHGN124) and laboratory (CHGN126) courses. Within CHGN122, Principles of
Chemistry II, the following ABET Criteria 3 student learning outcomes are supported
by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
The use and mastery of basic mathematics skills is a requirement for CHGN122. The
solutions to the problems of chemical equilibria and kinetics are among the most
complex the student is likely to see. CHGN122 provides the opportunity for students
to strengthen their general mathematical and logic skills through homework, in class
exercises and exams. The quantitative analysis performed requires the data collected
during the experimental portion of the laboratory exercises be reduced to a compact
set of quantities through the application of algebraic manipulation. Execution of
experiment procedures requires a basic understanding of underlying scientific
principles
Criterion 3-b: Design and conduct experiments (Primary)
The quantitative analysis performed in the laboratory portion requires precision in the
execution of experimental procedure and attention to detail in the design of the
experiment.
Criterion 3-b: Analyze and interpret data (Primary)
The CHGN122 format presents data that is, or could have been the result of actual
experimental settings. The students are then asked to interpret this data in terms of
both macroscopic (e.g. the rate of a chemical reaction) and microscopic (e.g. the
nature of the molecular interactions at the transition state) context. Data analysis is
the essential product of the laboratory portion. Data analysis and computational
accuracy are verified through a series of computer algorithms that check students’
calculations and a laboratory report cannot be handed in for grading until it has been
successfully checked for accuracy.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
Four lab reports are required for completion of the laboratory portion. These reports
are graded for both accuracy and for clarity of communication. The reports are
generally the students’ first exposure to proper quantitative data collection, record
keeping, and science reporting.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of contemporary issues (Secondary)
Students are presented with real world chemical problems in learning the fundamental
topics.
431
Within DCGN209, Introduction to (Chemical) Thermodynamics, the following
ABET Criteria 3 student learning outcomes are supported by activities students
undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
The use and mastery of basic mathematics skills is a requirement for DCGN209. The
solutions to the problems for thermodynamics aimed toward phase and chemical
equilibria enable students to set realistic limits to real-world problems, and are among
the most complex the student is likely to see. DCGN209 provides the opportunity for
students to strengthen their general mathematical and logical skills through
homework, in class exercises and exams.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Secondary)
In DCGN209, students are presented with data, and then asked to interpret this data in
terms of both macroscopic and microscopic properties of matter.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
Based upon lectures and readings, students are expected, on homework assignments
and exams, to solve engineering–related problems from first principles. The steps
involved include: identifying the problem, selecting the appropriate fundamental
relationship(s) needed, developing/deriving the specific equation(s) needed, then
using the relevant mathematical tools to obtain the desired quantitative result.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
In lecture, reading, homework and exam materials, problems are related to real-world
applications whenever possible.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
As part of graded homework assignments, students are often asked to use computer
applications to obtain quantitative and graphical results. At the present time, this
criterion does not involve commercially available engineering software. These
assignments are completed using generally available software, such as spreadsheet
applications.
Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (CSCI101, EGGN381). CSCI101 is
designed to expose students to some of the many facets of Computer Science. The
course covers three aspects of the field: systems design and analysis (operating
systems, process management, file systems, networks, contention for shared
resources), basic theory and principles (algorithms, procedures, recursion, data
representation, and Von Neumann machines), and applications (compression, error
detection and recovery, and relational databases).
CSCI101 is a coordinated course that uses individual programming assignments,
group work, quizzes, and exams for assessment. CSCI101 is designed to support
students in attaining the following Criterion 3 outcomes.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
432
CSCI101 has students apply algebraic techniques to quantify system metrics and
solve simple optimization or minimization problems. Exponentiation, modulus,
logarithms, finite series, as well as finite automata (state machines), set theory and
graph theory are used throughout the semester. All assessment strategies touch on
criteria 3-a.
Criterion 3-c: Ability to design a system, component, or process (Primary)
During the second half of the semester, students are often asked to write algorithms
with and without procedures. The steps of identifying input, input form or
representation, an algorithm, and identifying the result(s) represent repeated practice
and refinement of these skills. All assessment strategies touch on criteria 3-a.
Criterion 3-d: Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (Primary)
CSCI101 is taught throughout the semester using formal learning groups. These
groups are initially determined randomly, and subsequently based on student
performance and previous group memberships. Lecture assignments and students’
daily evaluation of their contributions to the group effort are used to develop and
nurture their ability to work on teams. Criteria 3-d is assessed through group work.
Criterion 3-g: Ability to communicate effectively (Primary)
CSCI101 uses formal learning groups throughout the semester; students are expected
to contribute, in written form, their solutions or research results to others in their
learning group. Students also explain their thought-process for each of their
solutions, and are responsible for “teaching” their group peers any specialized
knowledge that was problem-specific. Additionally, the study of algorithms written
in prose and pseudo code stresses the need for clarity and conciseness when
communicating. Criteria 3-g is assessed through group work.
Criterion 3-k: Ability to use the tools, techniques, skills, and modern engineering
tools necessary for engineering practice (Primary)
The computer is a critical tool in engineering and science. As such, knowing the
basics of how computers work, intercommunicate and are programmed empowers
students to use computers in a more sophisticated manner. All assessment strategies
touch on criteria 3-k.
Criterion 3-b-1: Ability to design and conduct experiments (Secondary)
The skills developed while learning the basics of algorithm development, as well as
writing computer programs in a high-level language, emphasize the basic art of
experimentation. In this case, in writing the algorithm or program; experimentation is
the analysis or testing with different inputs to verify correctness and discover the
limitations of the design. Criteria 3-b-1 is assessed through individual programming
assignments.
Criterion 3-e: Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
(Secondary)
433
CSCI101 covers the properties of pseudo-random number generators, Monte-Carlo
simulations and discrete event simulation. These are presented in the context of
solving computationally excessive and difficult to analyze problems. Criteria 3-e is
assessed through individual programming assignments.
Criterion 3-i: Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long
learning (Secondary)
CSCI101 introduces a high-level language through online tutorials and short
assignments. Students have access to tutors in a public computing cluster, and are
allowed to collaborate on assignments, although they are required to submit their own
work. Little time is spent during lecture on the syntax or semantics of the language.
This approach has been chosen so that students experience the success of learning the
basics of a programming language in a largely independent fashion. Criteria 3-i is
assessed through individual programming assignments and course exams.
Criterion 3-j: A knowledge of contemporary issues (Secondary)
CSCI101 makes occasional use of popular media to highlight Computer Science
topics covered in the course. Selected readings from Blown to Bits are used to
highlight the effect of computers and technology in our world. Criteria 3-j is assessed
through group work.
EGGN381: Introduction to Electric Circuits, the following ABET student learning
outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
DCGN381/EGGN381 utilizes knowledge of math, science and engineering to
investigate electrical circuits and systems. Electrical circuits are described using
complex mathematical models, so the course requires that students understand how to
apply the scientific principles to practical engineering applications. The lectures,
weekly homework assignments, short quizzes, three semester exams, and a final exam
focus on this primary outcome.
Criterion e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Primary)
Much of the DCGN381/EGGN381 coursework incorporates the use of real world
applications into the lectures and weekly homework assignments. Consequently, in
addition to mastering the circuit analysis tools the students are required to understand
how to apply the techniques to solve electrical engineering problems.
Criterion i: Life-long learning (Secondary)
Many electrical engineering concepts are very abstract, requiring a student to
frequently “visualize the invisible.” The strategies developed in DCGN381/EGGN
381 to evaluate abstract engineering problems may help students in their future
educational endeavors.
Geology and Geological Engineering (SYGN101). The Department of Geology and
Geological Engineering hosts one course all undergraduate students must complete,
SYGN101.
434
Within SYGN101, Earth and Environmental Systems, the following ABET Criteria 3
student learning outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this
course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
This course utilizes knowledge of math and science to investigate a highly complex
system – the earth. Lectures focus on specific components of the earth system
(lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere) and use physical science
concepts to explain earth system mechanisms. Engineered systems and their
interaction with the earth system are utilized as examples throughout the course.
Standard tests on these materials are given four times during the semester. Some
sections have also utilized essay questions that require students to apply their
knowledge to current societal issues. The course includes an integrated laboratory that
focuses on the earth system in the Golden area. Students utilize concepts from the
course individually and in teams to solve problems dealing with local cartographic
and coordinate systems (map reading, GPS, and orienteering), geology (stratigraphy),
geological engineering (soil types, natural hazards for construction), and hydrology
(surface and ground water quantity and quality). Laboratories involve frequent
quizzes as well as graded laboratory reports. The reports include simple engineering
calculations such as determining the maximum volumes of water that flow between
bridge abutments based on flood histories.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
Two laboratory exercises are assessed through submitted essays. The essays are
critiqued for content, style, and grammar.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
The course investigates the interaction of engineering systems with earth systems.
The course deals with formation, acquisition, and use of natural resources such as
water, energy (fossil, solar, hydro, biomass, and geothermal), metals, earth building
materials, and soils. Emphasis is placed on concepts of sustainable development and
resource capacity. The concept of geologic time is utilized to better understand
human impacts on the earth system in context.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Secondary)
The SYGN101 course is critical for Mines students in their exploration of
contemporary issues. The course deals with the scale of human engineered systems
in relation to the earth system. It provides the basis of understanding the role of
natural resources in human cultures and the concept of sustainable development.
Specific areas covered are energy, water, and mineral resources. The course also
examines natural hazards and disasters, their causes, and possible engineered means
of mitigation and preparedness. The course deals with these questions and issues at
global, national, and local scales.
435
Liberal Arts and International Studies (LAIS3xx/4xx). The Division of Liberal Arts
and International Studies (LAIS) houses all humanities, social sciences (except
Economics), communication, foreign language, and performing arts courses at
Colorado School of Mines. Its primary contribution to the professional component of
engineering education, therefore, is in general education at the undergraduate level. In
this role it hosts two courses (LAIS100 and SYGN200) which all undergraduate
students must complete and a series of three additional courses from which students
must chose, including one 400-level course.
Within LAIS 300- and 400-level courses, the following ABET Criteria 3 student
learning outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and Interpret Data (Secondary)
400-level LAIS courses ask students to analyze and interpret information at an
advanced level. These courses require students to learn and put into practice modes of
analysis and interpretation different from those learned in science courses, adding to
students’ intellectual abilities and flexibility.
Criterion 3-f: Professional and Ethical Responsibility (Primary)
Upper-level LAIS courses such as Engineering and Social Justice, Ethics, and
Environmental Philosophy reinforce and extend what students have learned about
professional and ethical responsibility in NHV. These and other LAIS courses
provide students with the backgrounds and intellectual abilities needed to make
informed decisions in complex situations.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate Effectively (Primary)
400-level LAIS courses, of which all CSM students must take one, require students to
do substantial reading and writing at an advanced level. They ask that students further
develop the writing skills practiced in NHV and other courses and apply them to more
sophisticated and demanding writing tasks. In many cases, courses stress effective
oral as well as written communication.
Criterion 3-h: Understanding Engineering Solutions in Global and Societal Contexts
(Primary)
Upper-level LAIS courses in such areas as globalization, African, Asian, and Latin
American development, international political economy, natural resources and
development, political science, international relations, and public policy prepare
students to design engineering solutions that take into account larger contexts. These
courses give students the intellectual preparation needed for professional work in an
increasingly globalized world.
Criterion 3-i: The Need to Engage in Life-Long Learning (Secondary)
In addition to social science courses, LAIS offers upper-division courses in the
humanities—American, British, and Comparative literature, Literature and the
Environment, Science in Literature, History of Science, and others—that encourage
students to broaden their horizons and prepare them to be life-long learners. In both
436
humanities and social science courses, students are exposed to fields of study outside
of engineering and applied science and given the intellectual tools to continue reading
and learning throughout their careers.
Criterion 3-j: Knowledge of Contemporary Issues (Primary)
LAIS junior- and senior-level courses on topics such as water use and policy, nuclear
power and public policy, science, technology and policy, and energy and society
introduce students to significant contemporary issues relevant to engineering and
applied science. They make students aware of current and future issues related to their
professional work and help them take informed positions on those issues.
Mechanical Engineering (EGGN371). The EGGN371 course outcomes support the
following ABET Outcomes:
Criterion 3- a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
EGGN371 utilizes knowledge of math, science and engineering to describe and
quantify the thermodynamic properties of matter. The course requires that students
understand how to apply mathematical principles to practical engineering
applications.
Criterion 3-c: Design a system, component, or process (Primary)
EGGN371 requires students to learn the properties of energy flow in a variety of real-
world systems, such as refrigeration cycles and others, and to then apply these
properties to devise systems that achieve desired energy flow properties.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Primary)
Much of the EGGN371 coursework incorporates the use of real-world applications.
Consequently, in addition to mastering the thermodynamic analysis tools the students
are required to understand how to apply the techniques to solve mechanical
engineering problems related to thermodynamics
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
Because thermodynamics is the foundational set of knowledge that underlies the
energy problems facing our world and because the course uses real-world examples,
students in EGGN 371 are introduced to the real-world context of the solutions they
develop.
Mining Engineering (DCGN241). The following ABET Criteria 3 student learning
outcomes are supported by activities students undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
The perquisites to this course are Physics I and Calculus I. The course subject
material is based on thorough understanding of elementary particle physics, vector
algebra and calculus. The students learn the principles of 2D and 3D particle and
rigid body equilibrium using vector algebra leading to the analysis of elementary
structural analysis e.g. trusses, frames and machines.
437
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Primary)
Students learned Free Body Diagrams (FBD) to formulate and solve structural
systems like truss bridges, frames, machines, cable supported bridges and water
retaining structures.
Criterion 3-k: use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
Homework is assigned and submitted online on each day of the class day (or
“Students submit homework….”). Students are given daily in-class quizzes with
clickers to test their fundamental concepts learned during lectures. Written
examinations are given four times during the semester.
Physics (PHGN200). The Department of Engineering Physics hosts one course in the
Distributed Core Curriculum, PHGN200. Within PHGN200, Physics II, the following
ABET Criteria 3 student learning outcomes are supported by activities students
undertake in this course.
Criterion 3-a: Apply knowledge of math, science and engineering (Primary)
This over-arching criterion is present in every student activity undertaken in the
course. Each student completes a computer-based homework assignment consisting
of 10-15 quantitative and qualitative problems each week. Immediate feedback is
provided to the students and they have multiple opportunities to arrive at the correct
answer. Students participate in twice weekly Studio activities in which they can
improve their understanding of both concepts and specific problems taught in the
class. These Studio activities include phenomenological investigations of
electromagnetic principles, structured problem-solving sessions, and laboratory
experiments. We also administer a total of four exams in the course which include
conceptual questions, standard “physics” questions, questions about the laboratory,
and occasionally questions about other “real-world” phenomena. Finally, we
administer pre- and post-tests of the Conceptual Survey on Electricity and Magnetism
(CSEM), which requires students to apply their knowledge to specific scenarios.
Criterion 3-b(i): Design and conduct experiments (Secondary)
Our sequence of laboratory experiments starts students with an essentially cookbook
laboratory, and slowly takes them to the last lab, in which they must develop the
entire procedure, including methods for analyzing and interpreting their data.
Criterion 3-b(ii): Analyze and interpret data (Primary)
Several of our homework assignments include exercises in which students must
analyze provided graphs as part of the solution. In addition, our laboratory exercises
require students to interpret and perform error analysis on their experimental data.
Exams and the CSEM also assess students’ abilities to analyze either numeric or
graphical data.
Criterion 3-c: Design a system, component or process (Secondary)
438
Our sequence of laboratory experiments starts students with an essentially cookbook
laboratory, and slowly takes them to the last lab, in which they must develop the
entire procedure. In addition to many other activities, as the semester progresses
students must: design a sliding mass to calibrate a sensitive balance; optimize the
number of turns in both the pick-up and field coils of a metal detector to minimize the
amount of wire used, while still obtaining the required signal strength; determine the
number of turns required on a transformer to obtain the desired voltage; and optimize
the design of a simple electrical generator.
Criterion 3-d: Function on multidisciplinary teams (Primary)
Students spend four out of their six weekly contact hours working in the physics
Studio on three-person teams with representatives from a variety of majors. This
includes group-based assessments like quizzes and lab reports.
Criterion 3-e: Identify, formulate and solve engineering problems (Secondary)
Students solve a different engineering problem in each of our laboratories, and in the
final lab we provide the required equipment, but students must determine exactly how
to both perform and evaluate the required measurements. The homework also
includes problems of an engineering nature.
Criterion 3-g: Communicate effectively (Secondary)
Students are required to turn in one homework problem per week in a written format
that focuses on presentation, clarity, and procedure. In nearly all Studio sessions,
student groups find at least one question that demands a written, plain English
explanation of some concept or result.
Criterion 3-h: Understand engineering solutions in context (Secondary)
The laboratory setting provides many opportunities for students to see how the ideas
of electricity and magnetism can be applied in the context of real problems,
measurements, and devices. Among these are Studios in which students build their
own electrical generators and metal detectors.
Criterion 3-k: Use modern tools for engineering practice (Secondary)
In the laboratories, students use spreadsheets for elementary data analysis and Logger
Pro data acquisition software. On the hardware side, students use digital multimeters,
digital storage oscilloscopes, operational-amplifier circuits, microwave transmitters
and receivers, DC power supplies, and function generators.
439
Signatures Attesting to Compliance
By signing below, we attest to the following:
That Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering's Bachelor of Science in
Civil Engineering Program has conducted an honest assessment of compliance and
has provided a complete and accurate disclosure of timely information regarding
compliance with ABET’s Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs to include
the General Criteria and any applicable Program Criteria, and the ABET
Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual.
___Kevin L. Moore_____________________________
Dean, College of Engineering and Computational Sciences
27 July 2013
________________________________ _______________________
Signature Date
___Terrance Parker____________________________
Provost, Colorado School of Mines
27 July 2013
________________________________ _______________________
Signature Date