ABET Self-Study Report - Auburn University Self-Study Report for the ... The most significant change was the developing new courses in the ... example, the two,

1

ABET Self-Study Report

for the

BACHELOR OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING PROGRAM

at

AUBURN UNIVERSITY AUBURN, ALABAMA

July 1, 2010

CONFIDENTIAL

The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET and its authorized agents, and will not be disclosed without authorization of the institution concerned, except for summary data not identifiable to a specific institution.

2

Table of Contents BACKGROUND INFORMATION……………………………………….…..3

CRITERION 1. STUDENTS………………………………………..….………7

CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES..…….…....15

CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES……………………..…………..22

CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT……..…………………29

CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM…………………..…………………………34

CRITERION 6.

FACULTY……………………………..…………………….400

CRITERION 7 FACILITIES…………………………………………………49

CRITERION 8. SUPPORT………………………………...………………….56

CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA ……………..…………….……..62

APPENDIX A – COURSE SYLLABI……………………….……………….63

APPENDIX B – FACULTY RESUMES…………………..………………....88

APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT…………..……………...110

APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY….……….………….......112

SelfStudy Report

Aerospace Engineering Bachelor of Aerospace Engineering

Auburn University BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Contact Information The primary pre-visit contact person, is Dr. John E. Cochran, Jr. Professor and Head Department of Aerospace Engineering 211 Aerospace Engineering Building Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 36849-5338 (334) 844-6815 [email protected] However, for many Program details, the Program Evaluator may wish to contact Dr. Robert S. (“Steve”) Gross Undergraduate Program Coordinator Department of Aerospace Engineering 211 Aerospace Engineering Building Auburn University Auburn, Alabama 36849-5338 (334) 844-6846 [email protected] B. Program History The origins of the undergraduate program in aerospace engineering at Auburn University are found in the courses in aeronautical engineering at the Alabama Polytechnic Institute in the late 1920’s. Over more than seven decades, the program has evolved to meet the changing educational requirements of engineers who specialize in “things that fly.” A paper on the history of aerospace education at Auburn University may be found on our website, www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/.

4

The 2009-2010 Auburn University Undergraduate and Graduate Bulletin www.auburn.edu/student_info/bulletin/engineering.pdf includes the following descriptive information of the current curriculum:

“Aerospace engineers are concerned with the application of scientific principles and engineering concepts and practices to design, build, test, and operate aerospace systems. The curriculum is intended to provide students with a broad understanding of fundamental scientific and technological principles, and to develop the ability to use these principles in developing solutions to engineering problems. … Required courses cover aeronautical and astronautical subjects. Technical electives allow concentration in such areas as aerodynamics, astronautics, flight dynamics and control, propulsion, structures and structural dynamics. The design of aerospace components and systems is considered to be an integral part of the education of aerospace engineers. Hence, design is included throughout the curriculum, beginning with a sophomore course in aerospace fundamentals and culminating in the senior design course sequence. Students are required to apply their theoretical knowledge of aerodynamics, dynamics, structures and propulsion to solve open-ended problems and to produce portions of preliminary designs.”

A program in Aeronautical Engineering was implemented at Alabama Polytechnic Institute in 1942 and the Department of Aeronautical Engineering was established in 1945. In 1960, Alabama Polytechnic Institute was renamed Auburn University and the designation “Aeronautical” in the program and department names was changed to “Aerospace” to reflect changes in curriculum in response to the start of the “Space Age.” The Aerospace Engineering Program (“the Program”) has continuously produced graduates since 1960. Major Program changes occurred in 2000 when Auburn University changed to the semester system. The most significant change was the developing new courses in the semester format from our quarter format courses while keeping the total content the same. This was rather difficult due to the constraints of 128 total semester hours with 36 of those in “core” curriculum. We restructured our labs and combined some courses. For example, the two, three-quarter-hour courses, Static Stability and Control and Dynamic Stability and Control, were combined as Flight Dynamics, a four-semester-hour course. Since there are fewer courses in the semester system curriculum than the quarter system, options are more limited and we are still looking for ways to get more variety. Additional aspects of these changes were discussed during the 2004 ABET visit. Since 2004, a number of changes “fine-tuning” have been made as a part of the ABET continuous quality improvement process. These are discussed in section 4-B of this Self-Study. C. Options There are no options or tracks in the Program. The Program is more heavily weighted toward aeronautical engineering with a required course in orbital mechanics, some rocket

5

propulsion in AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion, and electives in orbital mechanics, rocket propulsion, space propulsion, and other astronautical subjects. D. Organizational Structure The Aerospace program is the responsibility of the Aerospace department chair, Dr. John Cochran, with the assistance of the Aerospace Curriculum Committee, chaired by the Undergraduate Program Coordinator, Dr. Steve Gross. On academic matters, Dr. Cochran reports to the Dean of Engineering, Dr. Larry Benefield, via the Associate Dean for Academics, Dr. Joe Morgan, and the Associate Dean for Assessment, Dr. Nels Madsen. The Dean of Engineering reports to Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Mary Ellen Mazey. Under the provost is the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies, who chairs the University Curriculum Committee, which reviews and approves all curriculum changes. The provost reports to the University President, Dr. Jay Gogue, who in turn reports to the Board of Trustees. Further details on the Organizational Structure are available in the College Self-Study. E. Program Delivery Modes All undergraduate engineering programs are on-campus in nature. Courses include a variety of experiences including lectures, recitations, and laboratories. Many courses and instructors make extensive use of the Blackboard Learning System (campus learning management system). A substantial portion of the classrooms used are technology-enabled. Within the College of Engineering most lecture courses are taught by faculty. Graduate teaching assistants provide support and often conduct laboratory sessions. Cooperative education opportunities are available and are exploited by many students, but do not replace any program requirements. Many extra-curricular professional activities are explored by students, but again those do not replace any program requirements. F. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions Taken to Address Them The Final Statement for the Program in the 2004 ABET Report included program strengths, observations, and concerns, but no weaknesses or deficiencies. Only two Concerns were mentioned. The first Concern was that the number of faculty members (ten full-time and one part-time) was not large enough to meet the requirements of the Program and achieve the goals and objectives of the college in research and graduate education. Although funds have not been available to add additional faculty members, we have done well in finding new faculty members to fill positions left vacant by retirements. Dr. Rhonald M. Jenkins retired in August 2004 and we hired Dr. Brian S. Thurow, an Ohio State graduate, in December 2005. Dr. Thurow, who specializes in non-obtrusive measurement of fluid flows, has done exceptionally well in both instruction and research. He achieve tenure and promotion in 2009. When Dr. John E. Burkhalter retired in December 2004, we started a search for a faculty member with expertise in the area of dynamics and control.

6

We were fortunate to find and hire Dr. Andrew J. Sinclair, a Texas A&M Ph.D., who has also done very well, achieving tenure and promotion this year (2010). Another change occurred in 2005 when Dr. Ron Barrett went back to his alma mater, the University of Kansas. We conducted another search and found Dr. Gilbert L. Crouse (Ph.D., University of Maryland). As explained later in this report, Dr. Crouse was an excellent replacement for aircraft design. Still another change occurred in 2005. Col. James Voss, a former astronaut, who was an associate dean in the College of Engineering, but also taught our Space Mission Design course, left the university to take a position in the aerospace industry. Finally, another personnel change occurred in 2007 when Dr. Christopher J. Roy, went to Virginia Tech. We were fortunate to rather quickly find another CFD expert, Dr. Andrew B. Shelton, who has made the transition for industry to academia without any problems. The result of all the foregoing changes is that we have gotten some very good new faculty members, who will contribute in both instruction and research, but the number full-time Program faculty members has not increased. Our overall numbers have however increased because we were provided funds by the College for an additional staff member, Ms. Lisa Avrit, to serve as a Student Advisor. Ms. Avrit has done an excellent job, thereby relieving the Program Coordinator, Dr. Gross, of a substantial portion of the load he had been carrying. We are hopeful that our increased success in obtaining extramural research and a strong economic recovery will allow us to add some more faculty members, perhaps on non-tenure track appointments, who will also help with instruction. We also plan to seek some help from some of our alumni who have retired from NASA to add some more space related content to our Program. The second Concern was that the documentation of the assessment process needed to be improved. We have made a concerted effort to address this Concern and those efforts are detailed in the body of this Self-Study.

7

CRITERION 1. STUDENTS A. Student Admissions All entering students, both freshmen and transfers, apply for admission through the Admissions Office of Auburn University. Freshmen are required to submit copies of high school transcripts ACT or SAT records, answers to essay questions, information provided in the activities and interest from, and an application form with required fees. Transfer student admission and processes is described below in Section D. The Office of Admissions is responsible for evaluating all applicants to Auburn University. That office is authorized to admit students to the pre-engineering program. Transfer students who are admitted to pre-engineering are reviewed by personnel within the College of Engineering and may be admitted to the upper division, if qualified. Admission requirements for freshmen entering the pre-engineering program are based upon the evaluation of a number of criteria and meeting the needs and capacity requirements of the university. While no minimum test scores and grade point average are specified, generally students are expected to present a minimum 3.0 cumulative grade point average, ACT score of 23 or SAT score of 1090, and successful completion of 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 2 years of science, and 3 years of social studies. Exceptions to these “general” requirements may be made for applicants that fall within the range of acceptance based on university policy. Tables 1.1 Tables 1.1a, 1.1b and 1.1c: Students section provides historical information on admitted students over the past few years. B. Evaluating Student Performance Engineering Student Services advises, supports, and monitors the performance of engineering students. Freshmen admitted to pre engineering are expected to complete the requirements for admission to the upper division within four academic semesters and maintain a minimum cumulative grade point average of 2.2. Course requirements include the completion of two semesters of calculus, two semesters of lab science, one class in computing, one introductory class in engineering problem solving, and an engineering seminar. In addition, students must complete other freshman level courses in the university core curriculum and achieve sophomore standing. If a student does not satisfy the requirements within four semesters, prior to achieving junior status (61 hours), they are dismissed from the College of Engineering. Transfers admitted to pre engineering are evaluated by academic advisors within the College of Engineering to determine eligibility for advancement to the upper division. When a student has satisfied the pre-engineering requirements, they are advanced to the upper division and permitted to take course work within their chosen major. In the case of students who are not prepared to advance to the upper division, they are advised to take course work that will ensure the completion of all requirements. The time required for a transfer student to advance to the upper division is predicated on the number of transferable credit hours.

8

After admission to an engineering program, Engineering Student Services continues to provide student support and record keeping, however a larger share of the guidance progress moves to the academic program. C. Advising Students Academic advising is paramount for entering freshmen. At Auburn University this begins with Camp War Eagle. This two-day summer session is attended by nearly all entering freshman (over 98% in 2009). Students admitted to Pre-Engineering meet with faculty and staff from the College of Engineering and begin planning their academic career. Fall schedules are planned and finalized during Camp War Eagle. Academic advisors rely on high school grades, standardized test scores, math placement exams, and individual counseling when advising students. Advising policies are guided by the results of an extended research program conducted for the College of Engineering by two former Auburn University faculty members and researchers: Drs. Gerald Halpin and Glennelle Halpin. After Camp War Eagle, Engineering Student Services (ESS) continues to serve as a primary resource to students. Prior to every semester, every pre-engineering student works with ESS or specified departmental advisors to develop an approved schedule. After admission to an engineering program, schedule approval is a joint responsibility of ESS and the academic program. Academic advising is an extremely important part of the Aerospace Engineering program. Pre-aerospace engineering students are advised by personnel in Engineering Student Services. Once a student is in major (meaning they have completed all of the pre-aerospace requirements), our Academic Advisor, advises him/her. All official student records are maintained by Engineering Student Services; however, the Academic Advisor and Undergraduate Program Coordinator have access to all student records through BANNER. The Academic Advisor also keeps a folder on each student in the program and updates the progress of each student at least once per semester. Prior to the summer of 2009, all advising was done by the Undergraduate Program Coordinator, Dr. R. Steven Gross. Based on one of the Concerns noted by ABET in the 2004 review, the Dean of the College of Engineering authorized the creation of a full-time, staff, Academic Advisor position. In June of 2009, the department hired Mrs. Lisa Avrit into this position as Departmental Academic Advisor. She has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and three years of industrial experience. Currently, the Academic Advisor advises all aerospace engineering students on a one-on-one basis. Face-to-face meetings are the primary means of advisement, but communication via e-mail is also used. All aerospace students are required to meet with the academic advisor at least once per semester prior to registering for next semester’s classes. This is accomplished by blocking registration for students until they have met with the academic advisor. The Undergraduate Program Coordinator and Academic Advisor encourage and motivate students who appear to be having academic difficulties to contact them for further help.

9

Based on senior exit interviews and informal discussions with students, the students appear to be pleased with the advising process. The total enrollment of sophomores, juniors and seniors in the aerospace engineering program in the fall of 2010 was 117. D. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses Transfer students with 30 semester hours or more of credit are required to submit copies of transcripts from all colleges/universities attended and an application with required fees. If a transfer applicant presents fewer than 30 semester hours, in addition to the aforementioned information, high school transcripts and ACT or SAT records must be provided. Auburn University requires a 2.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale on all college work attempted by transfer students applying for enrollment to the university. Students must also be eligible to re-enter the institution last attended. Transfer applicants who were not eligible for admission to Auburn when they graduated from high school must present a minimum of 32 semester hours of college credit. At least one course in each of the following areas must be completed: English (college-level composition or literature), History, Mathematics (approved core mathematics for articulation and general studies), and Natural Science with a laboratory. Exceptions to these requirements are cleared through the Engineering Student Services Office. All students admitted to the College of Engineering by the Office of Enrollment Management are accepted to the pre-engineering program. Engineering advisors determine when a transfer student is eligible to advance into a departmental major based on the completion of courses required in their respective curricula. Alabama public institutions have an articulation agreement that outlines equivalent courses among member schools. The agreement is adhered to in accepting credit from Alabama institutions. More information on the articulation agreement can be found in the College Self-Study. Credit for engineering content course work from any program (within or outside of the state of Alabama) that is not specifically accredited by the EAC, is granted only after the fact, based upon careful review of the course content, and is limited to lower-level fundamental engineering science courses such as statics, for example. The articulation agreement led to the establishment of an Internet world wide web site (http://stars.troyst.edu/agsc_stars_home.htm) for the use of prospective transfer students and others who may have interests in learning more about the system and ascertaining which courses are likely to be readily transferred to specific Auburn University engineering programs. Transfer work from private institutions and out of state institutions is judged on the basis of catalog descriptions of general courses and a syllabus from specific courses. Core courses in question are referred to the equivalent department on campus to make a judgment. Engineering courses that are offered in other state institutions are evaluated

10

and accepted upon approval of the department of the incoming transfer student. University policy provides that credit for courses taken at another institution may be awarded, but the earned grade is not transferable and is not calculated in the student’s Auburn grade point average. Courses in which a student earned a grade of “D’ at another institution may be accepted for credit, however, the student is expected to present the required grade point average of 2.5 for admission. Transfer students are treated in the same manner as native students. If a “D” grade is considered passing for an Auburn student, the same treatment is provided for the transfer student. The state of Alabama requires a grade of “C” in English Composition I and II. Therefore, any grade below this level for a transfer student is not acceptable. Those cases in which an engineering department specifies that a grade of “C” or better is required for a course that serves as a prerequisite to the next course in the curriculum, transfer credit below the required “C” is not acceptable. Table 1.2 at the end of Criterion 1: Students section provides historical information on transfer students. E. Graduation Requirements Auburn University requires an overall 2.0 cumulative grade point average, and a 2.0 grade point average within the student’s major. Any additional program specific guidelines or requirements are described in the program self-study. Students preparing to graduate with an undergraduate engineering degree are required to “clear for graduation” through an academic advisor in Engineering Student Services. Prior to entering the scheduled term of graduation, students are required to enroll for UNIV 4AA0, a non-graded course entitled “Undergraduate Graduation”. Enrollment in this course alerts the Registrar’s Office and the academic advisor to the student’s status. Academic folders are maintained on each student with current information that indicates the satisfactory completion of all course requirements. During the student’s meeting with the advisor to clear for graduation, course completion is reviewed, grade point averages are calculated, and students are cleared to graduate if all requirements are fulfilled. If the student fails to meet any course requirements they are advised on the course(s) to take prior to graduation. In such cases where there is a deficit in the required grade point average, students are advised on the grades that must be earned for graduation. Sample student transcripts will be provided to the visiting team. Copies of the student folder and the corresponding checklist appropriate to the student program will accompany the transcripts. A written analysis of the student record by the Aerospace Engineering Academic Advisor will be prepared and included. For students completing their final semester, at the conclusion of final examinations and prior to graduation, the academic advisor reviews all information. If a student fails to meet the graduation requirements, in either the required curriculum or grade point average, the Registrar’s Office is notified and the student is not permitted to graduate.

11

F. Enrollment and Graduation Trends The strategic plans of Auburn University and the College of Engineering identify optimal enrollment levels as roughly 25,000 and 4,000 students respectively. Current enrollments at both the University and College levels are consistent with the plan, however both the University and the College would like to increase the percentage of enrolled students seeking graduate degrees. Auburn University targets a new freshman enrollment of roughly 4,000 each fall. The University seeks a talented, diverse student body. Table 1-1a indicates a steady climb in the average ACT and SAT scores of entering freshman. Entering freshman pre-engineering students are described in table 1-1b and their ACT and SAT score trends tend to reflect but typically exceed those of the general student body. The enrollment in the College of Engineering has been increasing, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Graduation numbers have remained relatively stable reflecting enrollment trends up to 2005. Table 1.3a and 1.3b at the end of the Criterion 1: Students section provides historical information on enrollment and graduation numbers for both the College of Engineering and Auburn University as a whole.

12

Table 1-1a. History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past Five Years

Aerospace Engineering

Composite ACT Composite SAT Percentile Rank in High

School Academic Year MIN. AVG. MIN. AVG. MIN. AVG.

Number of New Students Enrolled

2009-10 17 28 1090 1321 25 82 94 2008-09 21 28 1020 1256 37 77 119 2007-08 16 27 800 1194 33 74 89 2006-07 16 26 1030 1207 33 76 73 2005-06 20 27 1020 1204 40 84 71

Table 1-1b. History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past Five Years

Auburn University




2009-10 15 26.2 710 1183 10 78 3,918 2008-09 16 25.9 690 1175 14 78 3,984 2007-08 16 24.9 570 1138 3 76 4,191 2006-07 14 24.3 770 1128 4 75 4,092 2005-06 14 24.1 610 1127 5 74 4,197

Table 1-1c. History of Admissions Standards for Freshmen Admissions for Past Five Years

Auburn University – Pre-Engineering




2009-10 17 27.8 940 1266 22 81 890 2008-09 18 26.9 790 1236 20 79 841 2007-08 16 26.3 800 1198 7 79 770 2006-07 16 25.4 790 1199 10 78 712 2005-06 16 25.5 900 1194 12 77 692

Table 1-2. Transfer Students for Past Five Academic Years College of Engineering

Academic Year Number of Transfer Students

Enrolled 2009-10 214 2008-09 209 2007-08 200 2006-07 181 2005-06 166

13

Table 1-3a. Engineering Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years (College of Engineering)

Year

2005-06 Year

2006-07 Year

2007-08 Year

2008-09 Year

2009-10 Full-time Students 2,491 2,514 2,701 2,977 3,235 Part-time Students 280 302 312 357 316 Student FTE1 2,578 2,600 2,795 3,086 3,347 Graduates 651 653 671 720 754

1 FTE = Full-Time Equivalent

Table 1-3b. Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years (Auburn University)

Year

2005-06 Year

2006-07 Year

2007-08 Year

2008-09 Year

2009-10 Full-time Students 17,778 17,810 18,148 18,377 18,387 Part-time Students 1,476 1,557 1,664 1,660 1,539 Student FTE1 18,455 18,493 18,901 19,134 19,099 Graduates 4,079 4,180 4,325 4,493 4,676


Table 1-3c. Enrollment Trends for Past Five Academic Years (Aerospace Engineering)

Year

2005-06 Year

2006-07 Year

2007-08 Year

2008-09 Year

2009-10 Full-time Students 221 241 237 281 317 Part-time Students 19 6 18 19 12 Student FTE1 ? ? ? ? ? Graduates 48 48 55 45 43


14

Table 1-4. Program Graduates

Numerical Identifier

Year Matriculated

Year Graduated

Prior Degree(s) if

Master Student

Certification/Licensure (If Applicable)

Initial or Current Employment/Job

Title/Other Placement

1 2005 2009 Graduate Student/Purdue

2 2005 2009

3 2005 2009 Graduate Student/Auburn

4 2005 2009 5 2005 2009 Decisive Analytics 6 2003 2009 7 2004 2009 8 2004 2009 9 2005 2009 Decisive Analytics

10 2004 2009 Northrup Grumman

11 2001 2009 Mando/Quality Engineer

12 2005 2009

13 2004 2009 Graduate Student/Florida State

14 2003 2009


16 2005 2009 US Navy

17 2003 2009 Department of Defense

18 2004 2009 19 2005 2009



22 2003 2009


24 2004 2009


15

CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES A. Mission Statement The Mission Statement of Auburn University, published on page 5 of the Auburn University Bulletin, www.auburn.edu/student_info/bulletin/university.pdf is reproduced here:

“Mission. Auburn University’s mission is defined by its land-grant traditions of service and access. The university will serve the citizens of the State through its instructional, research and outreach programs and prepare Alabamians to respond successfully to the challenges of a global economy. The university will provide traditional and non-traditional students broad access to the institution’s educational resources. In the delivery of educational programs on campus and beyond, the university will draw heavily upon the new instructional and outreach technologies available in the emerging information age. As a comprehensive university, Auburn University is committed to offering high-quality undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to its students. The university will give highest priority for resource allocation for the future development of those areas that represent the traditional strengths, quality, reputation, and uniqueness of the institution and that continue to effectively respond to the needs of students and other constituents. Consistent with this commitment, the university will emphasize a broad and superior undergraduate education that imparts the knowledge, skills, and values so essential to educated and responsible citizens. At the same time, the university will provide high-quality graduate and professional programs in areas of need and importance to the state and beyond. To accomplish these educational goals, Auburn University will continue to compete nationally to attract a faculty distinguished by its commitment to teaching and by its achievements in research, both pure and applied. The university will strive to attract a faculty that will bring distinction and stature to the undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs offered by the university. Because research is essential to the mission of a land-grant university, Auburn University will continue development of its research programs. The primary focus of this research will be directed to the solution of problems and the development of knowledge and technology important to the state and nation and to the quality of life of Alabama citizens.”

B. Program Educational Objectives The Educational Objectives of the Program are:

1. to provide our new graduates with the necessary analytical and communication skills either to pursue graduate study or to enter the aerospace workforce directly;

16

2. to provide our alumni with an appreciation of the necessity to adapt, through life-long learning, to both the constantly changing needs and demands of society and to their evolving personal career goals.

These objectives are published on our web site http://www.eng.auburn.edu/programs/aero/programs/accreditation.html . C. Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the Institution A portion of the Mission of Auburn University Mission statement reads, “… The university will serve the citizens of the State through its instructional, research and outreach programs and prepare Alabamians to respond successfully to the challenges of a global economy...” and also provides “…Consistent with this commitment, the university will emphasize a broad and superior undergraduate education that imparts the knowledge, skills, and values so essential to educated and responsible citizens.” (emphasis added) Thus, the mission of Auburn University is consistent with Objective 1. There is implied consistency with Objective 2 because one of the values of “educated and responsible citizens” should be an appreciation of life-long learning. D. Program Constituencies The Program Constituencies are

1. Students 2. Alumni 3. Aerospace Employers 4. Government Employers

We consider our students, who are later alumni, and (in some cases) citizens of the State of Alabama, to be our primary constituency. Other “constituencies,” who are more like third party beneficiaries, are the aerospace industry and government employers of our graduates. All of these are represented on various committees and boards that provide advice and feedback to the Department, either directly, or indirectly. In fact, most of the above identified constituencies are represented by members of our Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council (AEAC), since it consists primarily of residents of the State of Alabama, who are, or were, affiliated with industry and/or government employers of our graduates, and were students in this department. E. Process for Establishing Program Educational Objectives Educational Objective 1 is intended to be broad enough to cover all graduates, if they do as well as we intend. Of course some graduates of our program enter a part of the workforce that is not categorized as “aerospace.” This is sometimes dictated by the graduate and sometimes by circumstances beyond their control, such as the economy. However, our program is intended to provide analytical and communication skills that will allow them all to enter the aerospace workforce and/or to pursue graduate study in aerospace engineering, or a closely related field, immediately upon graduation. For those

17

who choose other types of jobs or graduate education, the analytical and communication skills they acquire will enable them to be initially successful also. After the initial step of obtaining a job or entering graduate school, Objective 2 comes into play. Regarding the need for life long learning, faculty members frequently remind students in classroom lectures that, since aerospace engineering is a changing field, subsequent to their graduation they must continue to learn in order to remain competitive as an aerospace engineer. Before the 2004 visit, our educational objectives were developed and adopted in a collaborative effort. Faculty members formulated objectives similar to the ones adopted. Then, the Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council (AEAC) reviewed and discussed the proposed objectives and recommended changes, which were reviewed by the faculty and incorporated. We then established a process for periodically evaluating and, if necessary, modifying these Educational Objectives. The process includes the faculty, students, alumni, and AEAC members. Annually, the faculty, students, and the AEAC review our educational objectives, and the assessment results, and recommend actions to be taken. Our Aerospace Engineering Advisory Council played a major role adopting our Educational Objectives. In the Spring of 2010, the more active members of the AEAC were:

• Lawrence Burger '80 (ChE), Director, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command's (SMDC’s) Space and Missile Battle Lab, Huntsville, AL. • Louis Connor '66, Retired Principal Engineer, Lockheed Martin Space & Missile Defense Technologies. • Frederick A. Davis ‘72, Technical Director, Assessment and Demonstrations Division, Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate, Eglin AFB, FL. • U. S. Air Force Research Lab, Eglin AFB • Charles E. "Gene" Fuller ’63, '65*, CEO, REMTECH, Inc., Birmingham, AL • Ronald Harris '59, Senior Executive, NASA and Boeing (retired) • Ralph Hoodless '59, Senior Executive, NASA, MSFC (retired) • Robert M. Jones '66, ’68, Retired, Business Development Manager, Missile Defense Programs, Northrop-Grumman • Richard Kretzschmar ’89, Deputy Director, Systems Simulation and Modeling Development Directorate, AMRDEC, AMCOM, Huntsville, AL. • Mark Miller, '84, '85, Manager, Missile Systems Department, Dynetics, Inc., Huntsville, AL. • Morris Penny '59, Retired, Senior Engineer Lockheed Martin • Rex Powell '49, Retired, Director Applied Sensors, Guidance, and Electronics Directorate, AMRDEC, AMCOM, Huntsville, AL. • Norman O. Speakman ‘72, ‘74, Principal Research Engineer, Georgia Tech

Research Institute, Inc, Huntsville, AL. • James Voss ‘72, Retired NASA Astronaut, Col. (Ret.) U.S. Army, Currently, Scholar in Residence Aerospace Engineering Sciences and Roubos Chair, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. • Thomas J. Williams ‘87 (ME), Manager, Propulsion Systems Department

18

NASA/MSFC, Huntsville, AL. • John E. Cochran, Jr. ‘66, ‘67, Professor and Head, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University.

All members of the AEAC except Mr. Burger and Mr. Williams are graduates of the Program. Two members, Mr. Burger and Mr. Williams, accepted membership on the Council because of the relationships of their positions to aerospace. Since its formation in the early 1990’s, the AEAC has been actively involved in providing assistance to the department in achieving its goals and objectives regarding instruction and research. The AEAC meets twice a year and also at the request of the department head when circumstances warrant. In the mid to late 1990’s, AEAC members reviewed the aerospace engineering curriculum and the new semester curriculum prior to its implementation in 2000. The chairman and other members, frequently provide advice to the department head on the state of the aerospace industry and the suitability of the curriculum for preparing engineering graduates to contribute. Moreover, members serve as advocates to the university administration in efforts to obtain additional resources and faculty members. Although it pertains more to outcomes than educational objectives, we note here that three members of the AEAC, Mr. Morris Penny, Mr. Gene Fuller, and Mr. Louis Connor, have interviewed graduating seniors on essentially an annual basis since 2002. Initially, these interviews were face-to-face meetings between a sample of the graduating senior class and the members of the AEAC team. The current system is an on-line survey that is completed by all graduating seniors in the Spring semester with the survey results being directly sent to the AEAC team. The team members analyze the survey results and then write a summary report for the Department Head, Dr. Cochran. Prior to the students completing the on-line survey, the AEAC team comes to campus for a discussion with the students concerning the survey and their experiences with situations concerning professional ethics. The results obtained from the AEAC senior surveys are discussed in the section dealing with Outcomes. The on-line survey questionnaire and AEAC summary reports will be provided to the Visitor at the time of the visit. F. Achievement of Program Educational Objectives Although it is impossible to ensure 100% achievement of our educational objectives (because they are based on what our graduates achieve after graduation), we do expect that a large percentage of our graduates will either be employed in the aerospace field or enter graduate school. We are confident that our graduates who achieve a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 or better are qualified to pursue post-graduate engineering education. We are confident that all our graduates are prepared for entry-level positions in aerospace engineering.

19

In order to assess how well the Department is meeting these two Educational Objectives, a survey questionnaire was sent to a total of one-hundred and thirteen (113) of our alumni who graduated within the last five years. Twenty-nine (29) responses were received, for a response rate of 25.7%. The questions and a breakdown of responses follow. All questions were not answered by all respondents, nor were explanations and/or elaborations given in all cases. In some cases, multiple answers were given. Regarding Objective 1, the responses indicate that:

• 45% entered the aerospace workforce directly; • 45% either pursued and obtained (38%), or are still working towards (7%) an

advanced degree; • 10% entered the workforce in a non-aerospace related area (this includes military

service). These results are consistent with exit interviews of students conducted over the last six years by the Department Head. Results of those interviews will be provided at the time of the visit. Of those graduates who indicated that they entered the aerospace workforce directly,

• 14% obtained a job related to aerodynamics; • 17% obtained a job related to aerospace structures; • 3% obtained a job related to aerospace guidance, navigation, stability, and

control; • 7% obtained a job related to propulsion; • 34% obtained a job related to aerospace design, modeling, and/or simulation; • 21% obtained a job in “other” aerospace applications.

We think that this demonstrates that the Aerospace Engineering Department provides a well-balanced program which allows our graduates to successfully enter the aerospace workforce in a wide variety of program areas. Results concerning preparation for employment and/or graduate education are contained in Table 1:

Table 2-1. Assessment results for Educational Objective 1

Inadequate Adequate, with

Deficiencies* Adequate, with no

Deficiencies

Analytical Preparation 4% 50% 46%

Oral Communications Preparation

7% 29% 64%

Written Communications Preparation

7% 32% 61%

*Notes: (1) The word deficiencies was used in the questionnaire to indicate that something that the graduate would have liked to be included in the Program was, in

20

his/her opinion not present to the degree desired. (2) In this section it means that Percentages have been rounded to nearest percent. Regarding analytical preparation, one individual (4%) replied that analytical preparation was inadequate, but provided no additional feedback. The primary curriculum criticisms noted were: no business related curriculum content; no formal CAD instruction, and a need for a stronger connection between classroom theory and the “real world.” If we are to cover adequately the engineering component of our program, then there is currently no room in our curriculum for business-related content. However, students may now choose a Business-Engineering-Technology minor (16 hours of business). Regarding CAD instruction, the constraint of a maximum 128 semester hours limits the number of hours that can be devoted to CAD, machine shop practices and other technology-related activities. Courses introducing the students to CAD software packages such as Solid Edge and AutoCAD are offered by the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering departments at Auburn. Aerospace students are encouraged by the Academic Advisor and Program Coordinator to consider taking these courses as part of their Aero/Astro elective hours. Some students take the available courses. Others learn on their own when they perceive the need. Still others make drawings by hand, are work in teams with members who can provide assistance with CAD software. Regarding oral and written communications skills: 2 individuals (7%) replied that preparation was inadequate, but provided no additional feedback. A large portion of those responding cited the need for more oral classroom presentation experiences and additional technical writing experiences. In AERO 3130: Aerodynamics Laboratory, the students produce multiple, extensive individual written reports. In the two-semester, capstone design sequence (AERO 4710 and 4720), the students must submit an individual written report and make an oral presentation during the Fall semester. In the Spring semester, each student team completes both a final written report and oral presentation. Regarding Objective 2, the responses to the alumni survey indicate that:

• 41% believe that their personal career goals have not changed since graduation • 59% believe that their career goals have changed “somewhat” or “greatly”

Concerning the importance of life-long learning and intellectual growth, all respondents (100%) indicated that such activity was very important. The final survey question encompasses both Objective 1 and Objective 2 and relates to an overall assessment of our program with regard to its effectiveness:

• 4% said “overall, it could have been better” • 14% said “mostly adequate, but with some deficiencies” • 39% said “my preparation was adequate” • 43% said “my preparation was excellent”

Thus, the survey indicated that 82% of the respondents considered the Program to have been adequate to excellent.

21

The most common comments about the overall curriculum were (in no particular order):

• Too little relation between textbook equations and “real world” applications • A lack of “hands on experiences”

Making the connection between classroom theory and the “real world” is something that we are working on continuously. The ENGR 1100: Engineering Orientation course exposes the students to “real” engineers and the AIAA Student Chapter host speakers several times each year. Coursework involving “hands-on” experiences include the AERO 3130: Aerodynamics Laboratory and the AERO 3610: Aerospace Structures I courses. Students may also elect to participate on the AIAA, Design, Build and Fly team, the NASA Reduced Gravity Experiment team and several other College of Engineering student team projects.

22

Criterion 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES A. Process for Establishing and Revising Program Outcomes The entire departmental faculty developed the original set of program outcomes in 2002. These original (and current) outcomes consist of the ABET program outcomes a-k and an additional outcome specific to aerospace engineering. The entire faculty meets on a six-year cycle to consider program outcomes. The last meeting that specifically addressed the program outcomes was held during the Fall of 2008. B. Program Outcomes Our program outcomes are listed below

Table 3-1. Program Outcomes

Outcome Definition a An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering appropriate to

aerospace 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 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 in a 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 l a basic knowledge of the following aerospace fields: aerodynamics, flight dynamics,

orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials The program outcomes listed above encompass the ABET Outcomes and satisfy the Aerospace Program criteria. These program outcomes our documented on the Aerospace Engineering Department website. C. Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives The relationship between the Program Outcomes and Educational Objectives is depicted in the following table.

23

Table 3-2. Relationship of Educational Objectives to Program Outcomes

Outcomes

Educational Objectives

1 2 a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. ♠ ♠ b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

♠ ♠

c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired goals. ♠ ♠ d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams. ♠ ♠ e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems. ♠ ♠ f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility ♠ ♠ g) an ability to communicate effectively. ♠ ♠ h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global context.

l ti i l b l d i t l t t

♠ ♠

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.

♠ ♠

l) a basic knowledge of the following aerospace fields: aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials

♠ ♠

D. Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the Program Outcomes The relationships between the departmental courses and the program outcomes are depicted in following table.

Table 3-3. Course-Outcome Matrix Outcome a b c d e f g h i j k l /Course

2200 X X 3110 X X X 3120 X X X 3130 X X X X X X 3220 X X X X X X 3230 X X X X X X 3310 X X X 3610 X X X X X 4140 X X X 4510 X X X X X X 4620 X X X 4630 X X X 4710 X X X X X X 4720 X X X X X X X X 4AA0 X X

24

Since the last ABET review in 2004, the departmental faculty has seen an approximately 50% turnover, due to retirements and departures. Consequently, it became clear that the “newer” and “older” faculty needed to meet and discuss each course in detail to maintain continuity in the course material and coverage. The above table was created by the departmental faculty through a Course Review process that started in September of 2008 and extended to the end of January 2009. Small review committees (2-5 faculty members) were created to review each of the courses listed in the above table. The committee members consisted of faculty that were either responsible for teaching the particular course or those who taught “follow-on” courses. Each committee discussed and agreed upon the course topic coverage, the course textbook, and the program outcomes that are encompassed by the course material. A Course Review document was prepared for each course by the program coordinator, Dr. Steve Gross, for use in the discussion at each committee meeting. Also, a final set of minutes were produced for each of the Course Review meetings. These documents will be available for the ABET Visitor to review at the time of his/her visit. E. Documentation The documentation of the attempts by the Department to verify that our graduates meet all of the Program Outcomes is primarily associated with the coursework produced by our students as they progress toward their undergraduate degree. Samples of student coursework will be available for review by the ABET Visitor. We have set aside a small conference room (Davis 207) in which we will provide the information on the conference table and bookcases using labeled notebooks and files. Another important method employed to verify the achievement of these Program Outcomes is the self-assessment completed by our graduating senior students. Two self-assessments are done by the seniors. The first is a one-on-one interview with the Department Head, Dr. Cochran, during the semester of their graduation (Senior Exit Interview-SEI). The second self-assessment is on on-line instrument that was created by one of our AE Advisory Council members, Mr. Morris Penny (Advisory Council Instrument- ACI). The students fill out the on-line instrument and the results are sent via email to Mr. Penny. Mr. Penny and two other AE Advisory Council members, Mr. Gene Fuller and Mr. Louis Connor review the student assessments and then write a report to Dr. Cochran summarizing their findings. The on-line assessment offers the students an opportunity to evaluate the achievement of the Program Outcomes in an anonymous environment. The documentation associated with both of these self-assessments will be available for review during the ABET visit. Finally, our graduating seniors complete a series of assessment instruments collectively called the Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument (CPAI) in the areas of aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials

25

which are associated with Program Outcome l. The original intent of the CPAI was to try to measure the basic retained knowledge of the five subject areas associated with Outcome l. The five component instruments of the CPAI and results will be available for review during the ABET visit. F. Achievement of Program Outcomes It is the goal of the Aerospace Engineering department to make continual improvements in the undergraduate academic program. If the “product” of our undergraduate program is to be considered our students, then we can use the Program Outcomes as a set of goals for our Improvement Process (IP). The basic steps of the ideal IP are listed below Step #1: Assess the “product” with respect to the Program Outcomes Step #2: Note any “weaknesses” with the “product” Step #3: Inform the “controllers” of these “weaknesses”

Step #4: Have the “controllers” make adjustment to the “process” to strengthen the “weaknesses”

The definitions of the terms used above are “products” - undergraduate student “weaknesses” – weak attainment of a Program Outcome “controllers” - academic faculty To produce a complete IP, all factors that can affect the “product” have to be under the control of the “controllers.” In reality, within the Auburn University system, a significant set of factors, which influence the “product” that are outside the control of the “controllers.” First, the size of the undergraduate curriculum is fixed in terms of the allowable credit hours. University requirements limit the Aerospace Engineering undergraduate program in such a way that the Department has control over a maximum of 61 semester credit hours (out of 128 hours). The current curriculum is in a “zero-sum” situation. The introduction of any “new” course material must entail the removal of an equivalent amount of “old” material. Second, the undergraduate enrollment in the Aerospace Engineering program is controlled by the admissions policy of the University and by the College of Engineering. The undergraduate enrollment in the College of Engineering was 2578 (FTE) in 2005 and has risen to 3347 (FTE) in 2009 with a goal of 4000 in the near future. The Aerospace Engineering Department has no control over how many of these students enter the Aerospace Engineering program. Consequently, the “controllers” (faculty) must operate an IP that conforms to these outside constraints. Two factors that are somewhat within the control of the department faculty and which influence the “product” are course frequency and course instructor assignments. The Aerospace Engineering department is comprised of ten faculty members. To maintain viable bachelor, master and doctoral programs with such a small faculty, the required undergraduate courses are only offered once each academic year (Fall or Spring

26

semester). Along with offering the undergraduate courses on a yearly cycle, most required undergraduate courses are taught by the same faculty member from year to year. The faculty feels that this system is beneficial to the IP, since the faculty member has a “vested” interest in improving the course from year to year. The department is fortunate to have a faculty composed of individuals that are very interested in devoting the time and effort to continually improving the undergraduate curriculum. The faculty consider the IP to be a important task that is an expected activity associated with their professional duties. The Aerospace Engineering IP places the faculty as the sole “controller” for the process. Faculty members assess students through their coursework, discuss student “weaknesses” through faculty meetings and the Course Review process, obtain industrial-oriented input from the AE Advisory Council and review the data from the two student self-assessment instruments. The inputs from these various sources guide the faculty in altering the course content and curriculum to strengthen the “weaknesses” identified through the Program Outcomes. In an attempt to quantify the level of achievement of the Program Outcomes, numerical scores are collected from three sources: faculty course instructors, the senior interview with Dr. Cochran (SEI) and the online instrument created by the AE Advisory Council (ACI). The 2009-2010 scores from this effort are listed in the table below.

Table 3-4. Outcome Achievement Composite Data (Score out of 10 points)

Outcome Instructor

Score (2010)

SEI Score

(2005,6,8)

ACI Score (2010)

Average Score

Acceptable Score

Goal

a 8 8 8 8 5 10 b 8 8 8 8 5 10 c 9 7 7 8 5 10 d 9 9 8 9 5 10 e 8 8 8 8 5 10 f * 9 8 8 5 10 g 9 9 8 9 5 10 h 9 8 7 8 5 10 i * 9 8 8 5 10 j 9 7 6 7 5 10 k 8 8 8 8 5 10

*Not assessed by course instructors The “Instructor Score” listed in the above table are mean values computed from the scores supplied by the various instructors whose courses had that particular Outcome “covered” through the course material (Table 3-3). The student course material associated with the “Instructor Score” will be available for the ABET Visitor to review on-site. The documentation associated with the “SEI Score” and “ACI Score” will also be available for the ABET Visitor to review.

27

Both of the self-assessment instruments, SEI and ACI provided the students with the ability to identify “weaknesses” with the academic program by expressing verbal or written comments. These identified “weaknesses” are listed and discussed in the following section of this report. As mentioned previously, the faculty members responsible for each course review student performance after completion of the course (Spring or Fall semester) and make improvements to the course content and instructional process. This faculty-driven component of the IP is considered part of the faculty member’s professional responsibility to constantly improve our undergraduate program. Faculty members discuss these “weaknesses” through formal means such as department faculty meetings and the Course Review process. Faculty discussion of “weaknesses” also occurs informally through unscheduled meetings such as lunches and office meetings. With such a small faculty, information passes very easily and quickly through the department. Outcome l is assessed through the Comprehensive Program Assessment Instrument (CPAI). The details of the CPAI are

1. A required, zero credit, pass/fail, course entitled AERO 4AA0: Program Assessment, has been created as a vehicle for administering the CPAI.

2. The AERO 4AA0 course is included in the program curriculum in the spring semester of the senior year (see Table I-1) and it meets once every week for a 50 minute period.

3. The CPAI consists of five separate components with one each in aerodynamics, structures/materials, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion.

4. Each component of the CPAI is presented in the form of short-answer questions. These questions are designed to cover material from the required courses in each of the five areas mentioned in Outcome l.

5. The faculty did not want the students to prepare (study) in any way for the CPAI, since the premise of the instrument is that it should be a measure of retained knowledge. The satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading scheme was constructed in such a way as to discourage the student from preparing. A “satisfactory” grade in the course is earned, not by achieving any particular numerical grade on each component of the CPAI, but by simply completing each component.

The results of the CPAI are listed in the table below

Table 3-5. CPAI Average Results for Outcome l

(Score out of 100 points) Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Acceptable Topic

Aerodynamics 46 39 35 33 50 42 40 Flight Dynamics 76 71 76 72 69 77 40 Orbital Mechanics 62 63 60 65 68 65 40 Propulsion 57 55 58 56 66 63 40 Structures 53 49 49 37 50 49 40

28

Although the CPAI scores have been acceptable since 2005, there is a feeling among the faculty that the philosophy behind the CPAI needs to be re-evaluated. Some criticisms of the CPAI that have been voiced are listed below.

1. The students have no real incentive to devote significant effort on the various elements of the CPAI given that they receive no academic credit for this effort. (zero-credit course)

2. Since this is an “exit exam” and the questions are supposed to assess a basic understanding of the subject areas, it is difficult to use it as a feedback to the “controller” of the IP system to improve the subject courses.

3. Some of the material covered in the CPAI is from course work that the students may have taken almost 2 years prior to completing the CPAI. Is the CPAI just assessing an individual student’s memory capacity? Does a student typically remember material that he/she enjoyed and forget material that they found boring?

4. Can Outcome l be more efficiently assessed by using a passing grade in coursework associated with aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures?

One suggestion that has been made to alter the CPAI involves the construction of a problem or set of problems that will provide a measure of a student’s critical thinking skills associated with the areas of aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures. The faculty will be discussing the future of the CPAI after the upcoming ABET visit.

29

Criterion 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT A. Information Used for Program Improvement Information used for the Improvement Process (IP) of the Aerospace Engineering Program is obtained from multiple sources listed in the table below.

Table 4-1. Improvement Process Source Characteristics

Source Procurement Cycle

Documentation Available?

Student discussion with Faculty Continuous No Senior Exit Interviews with Dr. Cochran (SEI) Yearly Yes AE Advisory Council Senior Interviews (ACI) Yearly Yes CPAI Assessments Yearly Yes Faculty member assessment of student performance in individual courses

Yearly Yes

Faculty member involvement in the Course Review Process 3 Year Yes Faculty member involvement in Faculty Meetings Continuous Yes Alumni Survey 5 Year Yes The data from the sources listed above will be available for review by the ABET Visitor. B. Actions to Improve the Program Information obtained through the IP described in Table 4-1 pointed to several “weaknesses” with regard to the Program Outcomes. Such “weaknesses” that were noted by several sources and that were consistently mentioned during the 2005 to 2010 time period have been addressed by the Department. Student Identified Weakness #1: Outcome f: An understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities. Student comments from the self-assessment instruments SEI and ACI during the 2005-2006 period indicated that they felt the area of professional engineering ethics was not adequately covered in any of the Aerospace Engineering course material. The students did not feel that the required Philosophy 1020: Introduction to Ethics course covered what they felt constituted “professional ethics.” In response to this “weakness,” a lecture on Professional Ethics was introduced in Spring 2007 into the AERO 4AA0: Program Assessment course that all graduating seniors must complete. Dr. Cochran, a licensed attorney, prepares and delivers this lecture. Comments made as part of the Spring 2007 AEI indicated that the students felt that this lecture by Dr. Cochran did improve their knowledge and appreciation of professional engineering ethics. In a further attempt to strengthen this perceived “weakness”, starting this Spring 2010 semester, an additional lecture was added to the AERO 4AA0 course that was presented

30

by three of our AE Advisory Board members: Mr. Morris Penny, Mr. Gene Fuller and Mr. Louis Connor. They discussed various professional ethics situations that they have encountered during their industrial careers. Material related to these two ethics lectures will be available for review by the ABET Visitor. Student Identified Weakness #2: Outcome h: the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global context. and Outcome j: a knowledge of contemporary issues. Student comments from the self-assessment instruments SEI and ACI during the 2005-2006 period indicated that the program was “weak” with respect to these outcomes. This issue was discussed in several faculty meetings and during the 2008 Course Review. The faculty indicated that they did discuss this topic in their courses, but that they would increase their emphasis on this topic in the future. The three members of the AE Advisory Council responsible for the ACI have made some suggestions regarding this “weakness” during this last assessment cycle which the faculty will consider for this upcoming academic year. Student Identified Weakness #3: Senior Capstone Design Course At the time of the last ABET visit in 2004, the senior students could choose from two, year-long, senior design course sequences. The first, Aircraft Design, was taught by Dr. Ron Barrett. Dr. Barrett started with the Department in 1993 and his teaching specialty was aircraft design. He was a very experienced and excellent design instructor. The second design sequence, Space Mission Design, was taught by Col. Jim Voss. Col. Voss retired from the NASA astronaut program in 2003 after flying several Space Shuttle missions and came to Auburn as a Adjunct Professor. He had extensive experience in Space Mission definition and design and was an excellent instructor. Unfortunately, Dr. Barrett left Auburn in the Summer of 2005 and Col. Voss also left Auburn in the Summer of 2006. The Department lost two very experienced and excellent design instructors over a one year period. The Department was able to replace Dr. Barrett by hiring Dr. Gil Crouse, but Col. Voss could not be replaced since he occupied an Adjunct position. The Department returned to a single year-long (two semester) design course sequence in Aerospace Design with Dr. Crouse as the instructor. A significant number of students were very disappointed that the Space Mission Design course sequence had to be terminated and this is reflected in the comments in the ACI and SEI. Dr. Crouse has a significant amount of experience in aircraft design, but prior to his arrival at Auburn, he had never taught such a course in a university setting. It took a while for him to fully develop his teaching style and the structure for the Aerospace Design course. During the 2007 and 2008 academic years, the student comments from the ACI reflected a “weakness” associated with this design course. Dr. Crouse has worked very hard to create a strong Aircraft Design course and this has been reflected in the 2010 ACI comments. As soon as he arrived in Auburn, Dr. Crouse formed a AIAA

31

Design, Build and Fly team for the students and they have sent a team and plane to the national competition each year since 2006. Prior to Dr. Crouse’s arrival, the Department had never competed in these competitions. Dr. Crouse and the Department are dedicated to continually improving this sequence and the negative comments regarding the capstone design sequence found in the AEI and SEI have decreased. Student Identified Weakness #4: Limited computer programming experience Starting in 2005, the faculty has added more programming assignments to many of the required courses to strengthen the achievement of Program Outcome k. The curriculum in place in 2005 and the current curriculum contains only one official programming course COMP 1200: Introduction to Computing that students must completed during the Pre-Engineering program. The COMP 1200 course has two versions, a C++ and a MATLAB variant. The Aerospace students are expected to take the MATLAB version of this course. Many of the students do take this course during their freshmen year as shown in the curriculum model. The first Aerospace courses that require students to develop MATLAB programs are typically in the Spring of the junior year. These courses are AERO 3220: Aerospace Systems and AERO 3230: Flight Dynamics. Student feedback to the faculty and in the SEI during the Spring of 2006 indicated that they felt unprepared to complete the MATLAB programs due to the fact that either they did not do any extensive programming in the COMP 1200 course or that it had been “too long” since they had taken COMP 1200 (freshmen year). In response to this feedback, the Department created two, one-credit, elective courses under the heading of AERO 3970: Special Topics. The first AERO 3970 course is designed for the juniors to take in the Fall semester. This course instructs the students in developing MATLAB programs to solve problems commonly found in the AERO 3220 and AERO 3230 courses that they will take the following Spring semester. The second AERO 3970 course is designed for the juniors to take in the Spring semester. This course instructs students in developing FORTRAN programs to solve problems typically found in AERO 4510: Aerospace Propulsion and AERO 4620: Aerospace Structures II which are senior level courses they will be taking the following Fall semester. Although the faculty would rather that these two courses be required of all students, this could only be accomplished by reducing the size of some currently required course by two credits to offset the two credits associated with these elective programming courses. The faculty does not feel that the programming material present in these two courses is more valuable for our students, then any of the current material in the curriculum. The curriculum has six credit hours of Aero/Astro electives which are necessary to satisfy the University requirement to accommodate six credit hours of optional ROTC instruction. The two credits awarded for completing both of the AERO 3970 programming courses

32

can be used by the student to partially satisfy the six credit hours of Aero/Astro elective credit. On the average, 60% of our students take the optional MATLAB and FORTRAN courses. Since the introduction of these two elective programming courses, the number of student complaints regarding their preparedness for completing class assignments using MATLAB and FORTRAN has dropped significantly. Faculty Identified Weakness #1: Aerospace Structures Sequence was inefficient Up until the 2007-2008 academic year, the students were required to take a four course sequence in Aerospace Structures. AERO 3610: Aerospace Structures I (2 credit-Laboratory course) AERO 4620: Aerospace Structures II (3 credit-Lecture course) AERO 4630: Aerospace Structural Dynamics (3 credit-Lecture course) AERO 4640: Aerospace Structures III (2 credit- Laboratory course) The AERO 4640 course was a “laboratory” course where the students were introduced to state-of-the-art structural analysis software such as NASTRAN and PATRAN. The laboratory assignments were associated with the theoretical principles introduced in the AERO 4620 and 4630 courses. However, in practice, this separation of the laboratory activities in a separate course from the theoretical material proved very cumbersome. During the 2007-2008 academic year, the Department faculty approved a curriculum change that brought the laboratory component of AERO 4640 within the AERO 4620 and 4630 courses to create a better learning environment. AERO 4640: Aerospace Structures III was deleted from the curriculum model and the two freed up credit hours were reallocated to AERO 4620: Aerospace Structures II and AERO 4630: Aerospace Structural Dynamics in the form of a one credit computer laboratory. This change would boost the credit hours of AERO 4620 from three to four credit hours and also boost the credit hours of AERO 4630 from three to four. The total credit hours in the curriculum model remained at the same level of 128 hours. This reallocation of credit hours allowed the students to directly work on computer analysis of structural designs associated with the lecture topics in a laboratory environment. Summary of Program Improvement Efforts The most important component of any academic program improvement process is the faculty. The Department faculty are constantly assessing their and the students performance in the required courses. As mentioned earlier, for many of our required courses, a single faculty member teaches the same course from year to year. This system allows the faculty member to assess student performance on a year to year basis and make improvements to the presentation of the course material.

33

The Department faculty members interact with each other on almost a daily basis through informal means such as lunches and “water cooler” meetings. On a more formal basis, the faculty members discuss the courses and student performance during faculty meetings and the Course Review process. All program improvements start and end with the faculty.

34

CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM A. Program Curriculum The Department Alumni Survey results discussed in section 2-F of this report and recent experiences of our graduates (Table 1-4) are evidence that our program is meeting the stated Educational Objectives. The undergraduate curriculum provides the necessary educational background in the major areas of Aerospace Engineering: aerodynamics, flight dynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion and structures/materials. At least one semester-long course is required in each of the five major areas of study and a two-semester capstone design course. The breakdown of the courses comprising the undergraduate curriculum is shown in Table 5-1. Representative samples of student work such as homework, quizzes, examinations, laboratory reports, project reports and computer-assisted analyses will be available for review by the ABET Visitor. The senior design courses, AERO 4710 and 4720 constitute the senior capstone design requirement for aerospace engineering majors. The two courses are taught as a year-long course sequence rather than two one-semester courses. The fall semester focuses on design-level analysis techniques and the spring semester on design synthesis. During the fall semester, students review the engineering skills acquired from earlier courses such as aerodynamics, stability and control, and structural analysis; and learn to apply those engineering skills in a design environment. The assignments during the fall semester focus on performing analysis of existing aircraft to determine that they meet particular requirements. Those requirements include both commercial/performance requirements (e.g. cruise speed, or range) and regulatory/safety requirements (e.g. dynamic stability, spar strength). The appropriate FAA regulations including Part 23 for general aviation aircraft and Part 25 for transport aircraft are reviewed, and methods for demonstrating compliance are discussed such as those accepted by the FAA in Advisory Circular 23-19A. The spring semester is taught as a directed study course rather than a traditional lecture with the class broken down into design teams that select a design project for the semester. Each team is responsible for selecting and writing the requirements for their own design project. Alternatively, teams can choose to participate in a design competition such as the AIAA Design/Build/Fly competition or one of the AIAA paper design competitions. For teams that write their own requirements, their requirements are reviewed at the beginning of the semester to ensure they are realistic and sufficiently challenging. During the semester, the entire class meets one day per week for a lecture or to work examples in class. During the second class period of each week, the design teams meets individually with the instructor to review the team’s progress and provide feedback on their work. Teams are required to produce a final design report that documents the work they did over the semester and “sells” their design. In addition, each team prepares and presents a final oral presentation of their design.

35

5-B . Prerequisite Flow Chart

36

Table 5-1. Basic-Level Curriculum (Aerospace Engineering)

Category (Credit Hours)

Year; Semester

Course (Department, Number, Title)

Math & Basic

Sciences

Engineering Topics

Check if Contains

Significant Design ( )

General Education Other

1st Yr Fall MATH 1610 Calculus I 4 Core History I 3 CHEM 1030 Chemistry I 4 ENGL 1100 Written Composition I 3 COMP 1200 Intro to Computing 2 ENGR 1100 Engineering Orientation 0 1st Yr Spring MATH 1620 Calculus II 4 Core History II 3 PHYS 1600 Engr Physics I 4 ENGL 1120 Written Composition II 3 ENGR 1110 Intro to Engineering 2 ( ) 2nd Yr Fall MATH 2630 Calculus III 4 PHYS 1610 Engr Physics II 4 ENGR 2050 Statics 3 ENGL 2200 World Literature I 3 PHIL 1020 Intro to Ethics 3 2nd Yr Spring MATH 2650 Linear Diff Eqns 3 ENGR 2070 Mechanics of Materials 3 ENGR 2010 Thermodynamics 3 AERO 2200 Aero Fundamentals 2 Core Social Science I 3 ENGL 2210 World Literature II 3

37

Table 5-1. Basic-Level Curriculum (continued) (Aerospace Engineering)

Category (Credit Hours)

Year; Semester

Course (Department, Number, Title)

Math & Basic

Science

Engineering Topics

Check if Contains Significant Design ( )

General Education Other

AERO 3110 Aerodynamics I 3 AERO 3130 Aerodynamics Laboratory 2 ENGR 2350 Dynamics 3 MATH 2660 Topics in Linear Algebra 3 ELEC 3810 Fundamentals of EE 3

3rd Yr Fall

Core Fine Arts 3 AERO 3120 Aerodynamics II 3 AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures I 1 1 ( ) AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems 1 2 AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics 4

3rd Yr Spring

AERO 3310 Orbital Mechanics 3 AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III 3 AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion 4 ( ) AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II 4 AERO 4710 Aerospace Design I 3 ( )

4th Yr Fall

Aero/Astro Elective or ROTC 3 AERO 4630 Aero Struct Dynamics 4 AERO 4AA0 Program Assessment 0 AERO 4720 Aerospace Design II 3 ( ) Aero/Astro Elective or ROTC 3 Core Social Science II 3

4th Yr Spring

TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS 32 58 36 2 OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEGREE

128

PERCENT OF TOTAL 25% 45% 28% 2% Totals must Minimum semester credit hours 32 hrs 48 hrs

satisfy one set Minimum percentage 25% 37.5 %

38

Table 5-2. Course and Section Size Summary (Aerospace Engineering)

Responsible

Faculty Type of Class1 Course No. Title

No. of Sections offered in Current

Year Avg. Section Enrollment Lecture Laboratory Recitation Other

Summer 2009 AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals Foster 1 4 100% ENGR 2100 Fundamentals of Mechanics Foster 1 21 100% ENGR 2350 Dynamics Foster 1 20 100% Fall 2009 ENGR 1110 Introduction to Aerospace Eng Gross 1 25 50% 50% ENGR 2050 Statics Gross 1 35 100% ENGR 2350 Dynamics Sinclair 2 54 100% AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals Thurow 1 24 100% AERO 3110 Aerodynamics I Shelton 1 45 100% AERO 3130 Aerodynamics Lab Ahmed 1 44 100% AERO 3970 MATLAB Applications Gross 1 15 100% AERO 3970 UAV Flight Performance Gross 1 3 100% AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III Shelton 1 32 100% AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion Hartfield 1 30 75% 25% AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II Foster 1 29 100% AERO 4710 Aerospace Design I Crouse 1 29 100% AERO 5330 Applied Orbital Mechanics Sinclair 1 9 100%

39

Table 5-2. Course and Section Size Summary (continued) (Aerospace Engineering)

Responsible

Faculty Type of Class1 Course No. Title

No. of Sections offered in Current

Year Avg. Section Enrollment Lecture Laboratory Recitation Other

Spring 2010 ENGR 2050 Statics Gross 1 32 100% ENGR 2350 Dynamics Sinclair 2 44 100% AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals Ahmed 1 57 100% AERO 3120 Aerodynamics II Thurow 1 46 100% AERO 3220 Aerospace Systems Sinclair 1 38 100% AERO 3230 Flight Dynamics Cochran 1 33 75% 25% AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures I Gross 1 49 50% 50% AERO 3310 Orbital Mechanics Cicci 1 23 100% AERO 4620 Aerospace Structural Dynamics Foster 1 29 100% AERO 4720 Aerospace Design II Crouse 1 30 100% AERO 4AA0 Program Assessment Gross 1 26 100% AERO 4970 Starship Propulsion Jenkins* 1 6 100% *retired

40

CRITERION 6. FACULTY A. Leadership Responsibilities The Department Head, Dr. John E. Cochran, Jr. has leadership responsibilities for the program. He depends heavily on the leadership and administrative assistance of the Undergraduate Program Coordinator, Dr. Robert S. (“Steve”) Gross regarding the day-to-day operations of the Program. Dr. Cochran sets the basic policies and makes final decisions regarding changes in the Program at the department level, ordinarily on the basis of recommendations from Dr. Gross and/or the departmental Undergraduate Program Committee. Dr. Cochran is responsible for handling budgetary matters. He also approves all faculty teaching and graduate teaching assistant assignments . B. Authority and Responsibility of Faculty The Undergraduate Program Committee (currently all the faculty members, or the “Department Faculty”) is ultimately responsible for the content and quality of the Program. Regarding creation of courses, there is little flexibility in the current Program curriculum to put in new courses. However, the procedure for doing so is well established. The initial part of the creation of a new course is generally done by a single faculty member, perhaps two. First, course material is developed and the course is taught as an elective under AERO 3970 Special Topics. Second, after a “trial run” or two, if there appears to be justification for adding the course, then the matter is presented to the Undergraduate Program Committee for review. Generally, all the faculty members do not review the course at this point, but the Undergraduate Program Coordinator and several other faculty members do. Third, if that committee thinks that the course should be offered as an elective, or should replace a course or courses in the curriculum, then that committee will recommend approval by the Department Faculty. Fourth, if the Department Faculty approves the course, then the Department Head makes the final decision as to whether to send the course description and justification to the College Curriculum Committee. If the course information is submitted for approval at the College level, then we wait for College and University approval. There are several methods for evaluating courses. First, Program Faculty members continuously up-date and modify details of “their courses,” that is, the courses they teach on a regular basis. These modifications are documented in the course syllabi that are reviewed periodically and evaluated by all or several, of the Undergraduate Program Committee members as noted below. Second, students evaluate the courses and provide their input during senior exit interviews. Third, we have instituted a Course Review Process that occurs every three years in which the faculty member principally responsible for the class discusses the course objectives and the outcomes it is expected to produce with the Undergraduate Program Coordinator and several colleagues. All these methods have been used to improve the content of our courses. Consistency is considered in the Course Review Process. Generally, with only one professor teaching a particular course there will be consistency.

41

C. Faculty The aerospace engineering faculty is dedicated to excellence in undergraduate instruction. At the present time, ten full-time faculty members are actively involved in teaching undergraduate courses. This number is, we think, sufficient for the undergraduate program. However, we would like to add five faculty members to strengthen our research program and our Master of Science, and Doctor of Philosophy programs that are also important parts of this department’s mission and especially the mission of the college of engineering. All current faculty members are well-qualified. They all have terminal degrees in aerospace engineering, or closely related engineering disciplines. In addition to being technically competent, most faculty members have received teaching awards. Generally, Program faculty members spend a large portion of their time outside the classroom interacting with students. All have office hours and, to the extent possible, “open-door” policies. Dr. Brian Thurow employs undergraduate students in his Advanced Laser Non-obtrusive Diagnostics Lab. He is currently the advisor for the AIAA student chapter and has successfully advised winners in the AIAA southeastern undergraduate paper competitions. Dr. Anwar Ahmed is faculty advisor of the Auburn Chapter of Sigma Gamma Tau and has assisted them in projects. Students frequently work with Dr. Ahmed on special projects involving experimental fluid mechanics. Dr. Steve Gross has created two Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) courses in which students build flying “radio controlled” models in the classic manner from balsa wood and other materials. We have one or two teams of students participating each year in the AIAA Design, Build, and Fly Competition. In the 2010 competition, our team, The Planesmen, finished 24th out of 69 teams. However, we finished ahead of the other SEC teams in the competition, the MIT team and two Georgia Tech teams. We had a teams of students participating in the NASA University Space Launch Initiative in 2007, 2008 And 2009. Also, some of our students designed and flew experiments on the NASA Reduced Gravity Aircraft in 2009. Support of these activities has been a combined effort of the college, department, industry and the government. D. Faculty Competencies All faculty members are members of AIAA; many are members of AIAA technical committees; all serve as reviewers of technical journals. Four of the ten faculty members have full-time industrial or government experience. Those who do not have such experience have been employed in industry/government during summers and/or have been involved in consulting. Six of ten faculty members are Registered Professional Engineers. Aerodynamics is the principal competency of three faculty members, Drs. Ahmed, Shelton and Thurow. Propulsion is the, or an, area of specialization of two faculty members, Drs. Hartfield and Foster. Drs. Gross and Foster have emphasized

42

structures, while Drs. Cicci, Cochran, and Sinclair have specialized in dynamics and control and orbital mechanics. Table 6.2 provides faculty information in tabular form. The following is additional supporting information. Anwar Ahmed has over twenty-four years of teaching experience at the university level and is a recognized expert in experimental fluid dynamics, especially flow visualization. He is the director of our wind and water tunnel facilities (Aerodynamics Lab and Flow Visualization Lab). He teaches aerodynamics. He also advises the Sigma Gamma Tau chapter and works with students on planning E-Day each year. Currently, he is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee. David A. Cicci is an excellent teacher who has a national reputation in astrodynamics, especially in the sub areas of orbit determination and applications of non-linear filtering techniques. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in orbital mechanics and orbit determination as well as dynamics and the fundamentals of engineering mechanics course. Dr. Cicci is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and the American Astronautical Society and a past member of the AAS Space Flight Mechanics Committee and the AAS Board of Directors. For many years, he was faculty adviser of the student AIAA chapter. He has twenty-three years of teaching experience. John E. Cochran, Jr.’s primary expertise is in dynamics and control. He has made research contributions in both atmospheric flight dynamics and astrodynamics and has an international reputation in spacecraft attitude dynamics and control. He is a Fellow of the AIAA and formerly an associate editor of the Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics. He is a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society and has served as the Vice-President for Education and as a director of that organization. He is a member of the editorial board of Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology. Dr. Cochran has over forty years of experience in university teaching. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in flight dynamics and aerospace systems and graduate courses in flight dynamics and astrodynamics. Prior to the university’s conversion to the semester system, he taught engineering law and ethics. He makes presentations to graduating senior on professional ethics. Gilbert L. Crouse is the principal faculty member in the area of aircraft design. He worked for BBN Technologies received his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland in 1992 and worked for or an aerospace company for eight years. From 2000-2005, he founded and ran a consulting company and developed software for preliminary airplane design. Dr. Crouse has been teaching airplane design in the Program since 2005. He also is the advisor of the AIAA Design, Build, and Fly teams. Dr. Crouse is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and a member of the American Helicopter Society. He is currently serving as an associate editor of the Journal of Aircraft. Winfred A. “Butch” Foster, Jr. is the university’s expert on NASTRAN and PATRAN. He teaches structures and structural dynamics courses at both the undergraduate and

43

graduate levels. His research on modeling of soil wheel interaction has received national recognition. Dr. Foster has also worked for many years in the area of solid rocket propulsion. He has more than thirty-six years of teaching experience. Dr. Foster is currently an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Solid Rockets Technical Committee and chair of its history subcommittee. He is an associate editor of the Journal of Propulsion and Power.

Robert Steven Gross’ primary area of expertise is composite materials. He is our Undergraduate Program Coordinator and yet has found time to continue to be an outstanding instructor. He has received many department, college and university teaching awards. Dr. Gross teaches the first structures course, the freshman introductory course, a composite structures course, statics, dynamics, and the fundamentals of engineering mechanics course for chemical and electrical engineering students. He has twenty-three years of university teaching experience. Dr. Gross has developed a non-credit “course” AERO 4AA0. (The strange designation XAAX is used for a zero credit “course” that is really just an administrative vehicle to meet with students on a regular basis.) This course provides scheduled meetings for assessment activities involving students. Until this year, Dr. Gross advised all AERO students. Now, Ms. Lisa Avrit is our Student Advisor and Dr. Gross supervises the process. Roy J. Hartfield is a physicist (B.S. and M.S., University of Southern Mississippi) and an aerospace engineer (Ph.D., University of Virginia) with twenty years of teaching experience. Dr. Hartfield teaches aerodynamics and propulsion courses and also the dynamics course taken by students in aerospace and civil engineering. His initial specializations were in non-obtrusive measurements of high-speed flows and propulsion, but for the last six years he has teamed with Dr. John Burkhalter and Dr. Rhon Jenkins, Professor Emeritus, to develop high-fidelity models of aerospace vehicles and design programs based on the models that use genetic algorithms to produce rapidly designs that are competitive with those produced using classical methods. The tools they have developed may also be use ot reverse engineer aerospace systems. Dr. Hartfield is an Associate Member of the AIAA and a member of the AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee. He has a national reputation in the area of design using genetic algorithms. Andrew B. Shelton, our most recent addition to the faculty, has degrees in aerospace engineering and mechanical engineering from Auburn University and a Ph.D. from Georgia Tech. His area of expertise is computational fluid dynamics. He teaches aerodynamics and computational aerodynamics courses. Dr. Shelton is in charge of our lab for Computational Fluid Dynamics and teaches undergraduate and graduate aerodynamics courses. He has seven (7) years of industrial experience with Lockheed and Raytheon. He is a member of the AIAA and the AHS. Andrew J. Sinclair has two degrees in aerospace engineering from the University of Florida and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from Texas A&M University. Dr. Sinclair teaches aerospace systems, dynamics, orbital mechanics, and other courses in the general area of dynamics and control. He has been a U. S. Air Force Summer Faculty Fellow at

44

the Air Force Research Lab, Eglin AFB, and conducts research in the areas of dynamics and dynamics and control of UAVs. Dr. Sinclair was promoted to associate professor in the spring of 2010. Brian S. Thurow’s area of expertise is aerodynamics. He has three degrees in mechanical engineering from the Ohio State University. Dr. Thurow joined the Program Faculty in December 2005. Dr. Thurow is well on the way to being an established expert in the area of non-obtrusive measurement of high-speed flow properties using advanced high-speed (switching) lasers. He has received two Young Investigator Awards, one from the Army and one from the Air Force and follow-on funding form both. In addition to all this, as noted supra, Dr. Thurow is the advisor for the AIAA Student Chapter and currently is serving as our department’s Graduate Program Officer. The winner of teaching awards made by faculty and by students, Dr. Thurow teaches most of the aerodynamics courses and has also taught Aerospace Propulsion. Table 6-1 provides a faculty subject matter specialization summary. Note that, like the faculties of many aerospace programs, we are heavily weighted toward specialization in aerodynamics and structures. However, all the courses in the curriculum are taught by faculty members with specialization in the pertinent area. Two emeritus faculty members, Dr. John E. Burkhalter and Dr. Rhonald M. Jenkins, mentioned above in the Background section have been involved in research since their respective retirements. Dr. Jenkins has also taught an elective course each spring. After teaching “Starship Propulsion” (advanced technology and futuristic concepts) this spring (2010), Dr. Jenkins has indicated that he is retiring completely. We will miss his wit and enthusiasm. Dr. Burkhalter is still working with Dr. Hartfield on projects involving design via modeling, simulation, and optimization. The resumes of Program faculty members are provided in Appendix B.

45

Table 6-1. Faculty Subject Matter Specialization.

Aerodynamics Astrodynamics Flight Dynamics

Propulsion Structures/ Materials

Design

Ahmed X X Cicci X Cochran X X Crouse X X Foster X X Gross X Hartfield X X X Shelton X Sinclair X X Thurow X

E. Faculty Size As can be seen from the information provided in the previous section, the size of the current Program Faculty is sufficient for the Program. However, the additional demands on faculty member time due to the graduate programs (M.A.E., M.S., and Ph.D.) have limited the extent of faculty and perhaps the quality of the Program. To do what we like to do in instruction at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and also allow faculty members enough time to develop and maintain competitive research programs, thirteen to fifteen full-time faculty members would be ideal. This will continue to a goal. Student advising and service activities are covered by the material in section 6.D. Faculty members do not formally advise students, but they do provide considerable advise to some students who request it. Dr. Ron Barrett spent a year (2003-2004) on sabbatical leave at 50% pay from the Department. Dr. David A. Cicci took a sabbatical in 2009-2010. Dr. Cicci’s sabbatical was also funded by the Department. However, due to Dr. Cicci’s previous service as Chair of the University Senate, the Department received $16,000 from the Provost to help cover the cost of teaching the courses that he would have taught. See, also, Subsection 6-F F. Faculty Development Currently, we have what we think is a “standard plan” for faculty development. Program faculty members are expected to appreciate the need for life-long learning and to have individual plans for development. In addition, our current university annual review process is such that faculty members are evaluated on how well they instruct, conduct research, obtain extramural support, direct graduate students and write, present, and publish papers, books and reports. In the review process, areas on which faculty members should focus for improvement or development are identified. The steps taken

46

toward improved capabilities depend on the particular situation, but are mutually agreed upon by the faculty member and the department head. Resources for faculty development include training and development courses provided each semester by the Auburn University Department of Human Resource Development. Additionally the Biggio Center for the enhancement of Teaching and Learning and the Instructional Media Group manage faculty development activities. The University manages a professional improvement leave that is described more fully in the College Self-Study. Regarding faculty development through sabbatical leave, Dr. David A. Cicci took a sabbatical in 2009-2010. Nine months of Dr. Cicci’s sabbatical was funded by the Department and due to Dr. Cicci’s previous service as Chair of the University Senate, the Department received $16,000 from the Provost to help cover the cost of teaching the courses that he would have taught. More generally, faculty members participate in national meetings and their travel to such meetings is usually paid from contracts or grants directly, or from some of the overhead received in connection with research (Indirect Cost Recovery). Also, we have a gift account in which donations to this department are deposited. Funds from the gifts account are frequently used to subsidize faculty members’ travel to meetings and can be used to pay for specialized short courses under appropriate circumstances. Each year each faculty member provides a report of his/her activities. A section of that report is entitled “Service” and includes professional activities such as review of papers and books, service on technical committees, presentation of short courses, and consulting activities. Information from these reports will be provided upon request at the time of the visit.

47

Table 6-2. Faculty Workload Summary Aerospace Engineering

Total Activity Distribution2

Faculty Member (name)

FT or

PT4 Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.)

Fall 20091 Teaching Research/Scholarly

Activity Other3 Anwar Ahmed FT Aerodynamics Laboratory (AERO 3130/2hrs)

Dynamics of Viscous Fluids II (AERO7130/3hrs) 60% 40%

David A. Cicci FT Sabbatical Leave 100% John E. Cochran, Jr. FT Flight Dynamics (AERO 3230/4 Hrs.) 30% 25% 45% (admin) Gilbert L. Crouse FT Embedded Software for Aerospace Systems

(AERO 7970/3hrs) Aircraft Design (AERO 4170/3hrs)

45% 55%

Winfred A. Foster, Jr. FT Aerospace Computational Structural Analysis: Static Structures (AERO 7630/7636, 3hrs) Aerospace Computational Structural Analysis: Structural Dynamics (AERO 7630/7636/3hrs).

70% 30%

Robert S. Gross FT Intro to Engineering (ENGR 1110/1hr) Statics (ENGR 2050/3hrs) UAV Performance (AERO 3970/1hr).

60% 10% 30% (admin)

Roy J. Hartfield FT Aerospace Propulsion (AERO 4510/3hrs) Thrust Generation (AERO 7510/7516/3hrs)

50% 50%

Andrew B. Shelton FT Aerodynamics I (AERO 3110/3hrs) Aerodynamics III. (AERO 4140/3hrs)

37% 63%

Andrew J. Sinclair FT Aerospace Systems (AERO 3220/3hrs) Dynamics (ENGR 2350/3hrs)

60% 40%

Brian S. Thurow FT Aerospace Fundamentals (AERO 2200/2 hrs) Dynamics (ENGR 2350/3hrs)

35% 50% 15% (admin)

1 Indicate Term and Year for which data apply (the academic year preceding the visit). 2 Activity distribution should be in percent of effort. Members' activities should total 100%. 3 Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other." 4 FT = Full Time Faculty PT = Part Time Faculty

48

Table 6-2. Faculty Workload Summary (Continued) Aerospace Engineering

Total Activity Distribution2 Faculty Member (name)

FT or

PT4Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.)

Spring 20101 Teaching Research/Scholarly A i i

Other3 Anwar Ahmed FT Aerospace Fundamentals (AERO 2200/2 hrs)

Transonic Aerodynamics (AERO 7970/7976/3 hrs)

60%

40%

David A. Cicci FT Sabbatical Leave 100%

John E. Cochran, Jr. FT Flight Dynamics (AERO 3230/4 hrs) 30% 20% 50% (admin)

Gilbert L. Crouse FT Aerospace Design II (AERO 4720/3 hrs) UAV Guidance and Control (AERO 4970/7970/3hrs)

60%

40%

Winfred A. Foster, Jr. FT Aerospace Structural Dynamics (AERO 4630/4 hrs) Aerospace Computational Structural Analysis: Structural Dynamics (AERO 7630/7636/3 hrs) Aeroelasticity (AERO 7660/3 hrs)

75%

25%

Robert S. Gross FT Statics (ENGR 2050/3 hrs) Aerospace Structures I (AERO 3610/2 hrs) Program Assessment (AERO 4AA0/0 hrs)

60%

10%

30% (admin)

Roy J. Hartfield FT Dynamics (ENGR 2350/3 hrs) Statistical Analysis in Engineering(AERO 4970/ 7970/7976/3 hrs)

60%

40%

Andrew B. Shelton FT Advanced Computational Fluid Dynamics (AERO 7140/3 hrs)

60%

40%

Andrew J. Sinclair FT Aerospace Systems (AERO 3220/3 hrs) Orbital Mechanics (AERO 3310/3 hrs)

60%

40%

Brian S. Thurow FT Aerodynamics II (AERO 3120/3 hrs) Turbulence (AERO 7970/3 hrs)

60%

40%

1 Indicate Term and Year for which data apply (the academic year preceding the visit). 2 Activity distribution should be in percent of effort. Members' activities should total 100%. 3 Indicate sabbatical leave, etc., under "Other." 4 FT = Full Time Faculty PT = Part Time Faculty

49

Table 6-3. Analysis Aerospace Engineering

Years of Experience Level of Activity (high, med, low, none) in:

Name Ran

k

Type of Academic

Appointment TT, T, NTT

FT or PT H

ighe

st D

egre

e an

d Fi

eld

Institution from which Highest

Degree Earned & Year G

ovt./

Indu

stry

Pr

actic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Prof

essi

onal

Reg

istra

tion/

C

ertif

icat

ion

Prof

essi

onal

So

ciet

y

Res

earc

h

Con

sulti

ng

/Sum

mer

W

ork

in

Indu

stry

Anwar Ahmed T FT Ph.D. Wichita State University

24

12

TX AIAA – High

High

low

David A. Cicci T FT Ph.D. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1987 9 23

23

AL, PA

AIAA – med

AAS - med

low

high

John E. Cochran, Jr. T FT Ph.D. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1970 42

42

AL

AIAA, AHS, AAS,

NSPE, ASPE, ABA

d

med

med

Gilbert L. Crouse TT FT Ph.D. Univ. of Maryland, 1992 12

5 5

MD

AIAA – high

AHS-med high

med

Winfred A. Foster,Jr. T FT Ph.D. Auburn University, 1974 1.5 36

36

AL, FL AIAA – high

high

med

Robert S. Gross T FT Ph.D.

Clemson, 1988 5 20

20

AIAA

low

high

Roy J. Hartfield T FT Ph.D.

Univ. of Va., 1991

19

19

AIAA – high

high

high

Andrew B. Shelton TT FT Ph.D.

Georgia Tech., 7 2

2

AIAA

AHS

high

low

Andrew J. Sinclair T FT Ph.D.

Texas A&M, 2004

5

5

AIAA – high

AAS - low

high

none

Brian S. Thurow T FT Ph.D.

Ohio State, 2006 0.5 5

5

AIAA – high

ASME – med

high

low

AIAA, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; AAS, American Astronomical Society; AHS, American Helicopter Society; NSPE, National Society Professional Engineers; ASEE, American Society for Engineering Education; ASME, American Society Mechanical Engineers

50

CRITERION 7. FACILITIES The facilities directly available to the Program include classrooms, study areas, faculty and graduate student offices, conference rooms, a computational lab primarily for undergraduates, a wood working shop and several laboratories. The Program facilities are located in Charles E. “Buddy” Davis Aerospace Engineering Hall (“Davis Hall”), the L-Building, and the Shelby Center for Engineering Technology (“Shelby CET”). Davis Hall is the former Aerospace Engineering Building (AEB) that was completed in 1992. In 2007, the AEB was renamed for Mr. Davis, a 1959 AU graduate in Electrical Engineering, in recognition of his long and successful career in the aerospace industry and contributions to the university. Davis Hall consists of two, three-story structures that are connected by enclosed walkways. The southern part is designed for classrooms. The northern part of Davis Hall, is also physically connected to Harbert Hall, which houses the Department of Civil Engineering. All three structures are designated as the Harbert Engineering Center. In connection with the rededication considerable improvements were made in Davis Hall. These included a new roof, replacement of the pavers in the patio, and landscaping of the surrounding grounds. The L-Building, which is one of the oldest buildings on the Auburn University main campus, is located within a block of Davis Hall. A portion of the L-Building houses our wind tunnel facilities. We also have use of a section of the Shelby CET that consists of four contiguous rooms: a 50 seat auditorium, an office for graduate students, an office for a faculty or staff member, and a specially air conditioned room that houses a computer cluster for high performance computing, principally computational fluid dynamics (CDF). A. Space 1. Offices and Conference Rooms Faculty offices are on the third floor of the northern portion of Davis Hall. All faculty members have private offices that are adequate in size and furnishings. Most graduate student offices are also located on the third floor. Ordinarily, graduate teaching assistants share offices, with no more than three graduate teaching assistants in one office. A large conference room on the second floor (Davis 205) is used for faculty meetings and for small classes that involve student presentations. A smaller conference room (Davis 207) is used by faculty and for smaller groups and by the Program Coordinator when meeting with prospective students and their parents. The “outer” room of the Flight Dynamics and Control Lab (Davis 206A) is equipped for video conferencing and is often used for faculty and student presentations to small groups.

51

The main office (Davis 211) includes a reception/work area, faculty, staff, and graduate student mailboxes and an area for the copy machine and some supplies. Offices for the department head, his/her secretary and other administrative staff are also located on the second floor. Offices for two staff, the electrical engineer and the model builder/machinist are located on the first floor of the northern part of Davis Hall. 2. Classrooms and Study Areas The southern part of Davis Hall is often referred to as the “Shared Classroom Building” (SCB). As its name indicates, this structure contains twelve classrooms. It also includes a study area and an air traffic control/flight simulator laboratory used by students in Aviation Management and Logistics. One classroom (Davis 357) is a video conferencing room that is used by many departments, but particularly by the School of Nursing. Except for Davis 357, the classrooms in the SCB are used primarily for engineering lectures by the Departments of Aerospace, Chemical, Civil, and Mechanical Engineering. However, depending on availability, other university units may schedule use of classrooms. All classrooms are equipped with desks or tables and chairs, podiums, chalk boards, overhead projectors, and pull-down screens. Last year (2009), the university provided funds to purchase and install additional document cameras and projectors in SCB classrooms. The study area in the SCB (designated Davis 351) is used by students between classes. Aerospace students have a room (Davis 337) in Davis that is designated for study. Two classrooms are located in the northern part of Davis. One (Davis 302) is a relatively small general classroom. The second classroom (Davis 215) is used almost exclusively for design classes. It adjoins a room in which computers designated for design are located. Most aerospace engineering classes are taught in the SCB. Sometimes larger classes are scheduled in Broun Hall auditorium, which is less than a block from Davis Hall. As noted infra, we would like to plan to teach Structures II in the Shelby CET. That will require some additional computers for the room.

3. Laboratories The principal undergraduate instructional laboratories for use by the Program are the Aerospace Computational Lab (Davis 330), the Aerodynamics Lab (L-Building), the Structures and Structural Dynamics Lab (Davis 106 & 109) and the Composite and UAV Lab (Davis 222). Part of the Flight Dynamics and Control Lab (Davis 206B) is used for restricted research, but the other part (Davis 206A) is room that has multiple uses, including video conferencing. Aerospace Computational Lab Please see 7-B. Aerodynamics Laboratory As noted above, this lab is located in the L-Building. It includes two subsonic and three supersonic wind tunnels, as well as a low-speed smoke tunnel for flow visualization A closed-circuit, single-return, low-speed, open-test-section wind tunnel with a 3 ft by 4.25 ft test section in which the flow speed may be varied from 0 to approximately 140 mph is used for both

52

instruction and research. Different types of mounting hardware and balances are available, including floor mounted with a six degree-of-freedom balance and angle of attack control and sting-mounted with a three degree-of-freedom balance. An open-circuit, low-speed wind tunnel with a 2 ft by 2 ft test section is used primarily for instruction of undergraduate students. In this tunnel the wind speed may be varied from 0 to approximately 120 mph. It is used in connection with the aerodynamics laboratory course AERO 3130 and for the static stability lab portion of AERO 3230. A 4 in by 4 in “blow-down” supersonic wind tunnel capable of flow for testing at Mach numbers from 1.5 to 3.5 is used also used primarily for instruction. A Schlieren system is used to detect shock waves optically. Recently, a new converging section and test section were designed and fabricated to provide transonic flow in this tunnel. Inserts can be used to change the geometry of the inlet of the test section of the 7-inch by 7-inch in-draft supersonic wind tunnel and produce discrete test section Mach numbers between 1.4 and 3.28. This wind tunnel can be used for research projects. A machinist/model builder, currently, Mr. Weldon, constructs wind tunnel models in the Machine Tool Laboratory. An example of the type of model is that of C-130 aircraft, constructed using a plastic kit model as the basis, containing numerous small mounting platforms supported on load cells for measuring differential drag on perturbances. Composites and UAV Laboratory This laboratory in Davis 222 was developed using funds from extramural contracts and grants. It is used for teaching, but the process is informal. The lab doubles as a Composites Lab, since adaptive aerostructures are made primarily from composite materials. Davis 222 contains equipment and work space necessary to manufacture small thermoset composite parts and test specimens. Students with special projects use the lab and some students work part-time in it. The lab is used by various student teams that compete in AIAA and NASA design competitions. Additional space for this lab is provided in Davis 217, which is used for design prototyping and some testing. Davis 222 contains equipment and work space necessary to manufacture small thermoset composite parts and test specimens. A microprocessor-controlled, floor model, Blue-M convection oven with internal dimensions of 48 in x 48 in x 36 in is employed to cure composite parts. Cold storage equipment is available for long-term, thermoset prepreg storage. Structural test data is obtained for the manufactured composite specimens by using the servo-hydraulic testing machine and the data acquisition equipment in the Structures Laboratory.

53

Structures and Structural Dynamics Laboratories The Structures Lab is located in Davis 106. It is equipped with a hydraulic loading system for tensile, compression, and fatigue testing. Facilities are available for strain gage and dynamic measurements. Students enrolled in AERO 3610 Structures I use this lab. It is also used for ENGR 1110 Introduction to Engineering lectures and building projects. The Structural Dynamics Lab is in Davis 109. Currently, some of the space in this lab is occupied by hardware-in-the-loop equipment on loan from the U. S. Army. However, there is still space to us the large loading frame and conduct tests of small items. Flight Dynamics Control Laboratory The Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory, is located in Davis 206, Rooms A & B. It includes the Center for Advanced Simulation and Technology (CAST) in Davis 206B. The CAST now contains alumni-gifted software that can be used to analyze ballistic missile defense systems. This room is ITAR restricted. As mentioned above, Davis 206A is a multi-media/video-conferencing room that has a seating capacity of 20. Room control is via an AMX Ascent III control system. Multi-media equipment includes a NEC GT 2150 LCD projector, a Da-Lite Cosmopolitan 8 ft screen, a Samsung 6000 document camera, a custom lecture, a Dell 8200 PC, a Smart Podium IM 150 flat display, a Panasonic PSSV1421 SVHS VCR, a Telex FMR wireless lavalier microphone system. Roland speakers, and a Biamp Advantage 801 audio mixer. The video-conferencing component includes a Tandberg 6000 Video Conference Codec, an Audio Science PZM microphone, two Sony EVID cameras, a Panasonic 27” monitor, an Extron RGBHV DA, and a “video brick.” Video conferencing is used by students as well as faculty members as the circumstances dictate. For example, students participating in the NASA USLI competition have used the facility to communicate with NASA MSFC personnel during design reviews.

Laboratories Used Primarily for Research Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory The Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory (ALDL) specializes in the development and application of laser diagnostics for aerodynamic measurements. The laboratory is equipped with advanced instrumentation such as:

• MHz rate Nd:YAG pulse burst laser system • Ultra-high speed intensified camera capable of imaging at up to 500,000 fps • Galvanometric scanning mirrors • High QE CCD cameras

Areas of specialization include high-repetition rate flow visualization (100s of thousands of frames per second) and high-speed three-dimensional imaging. The centerpiece of the laboratory is a custom-built pulse burst laser system with the ability to produce a burst of high-energy (~10-100 mJ) laser pulses at repetition rates up to 10 MHz and an ultra high-speed camera capable of imaging at up

54

to 500,000 frames per second. The laser is an Nd:YAG base laser system and has been used in the past to make high-repetition rate planar flow visualization, particle image velocimetry (PIV) and planar Doppler velocimetry (PDV) measurements in supersonic flow fields. Flow Visualization Laboratory It has been often said that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” The Flow Visualization Lab in Davis 120 is the realization of this axiom in regard to fluid flow. Air is a “watery fluid” and the flow of water, which is more easily visualized than the flow of air, may be used to learn a great deal about the basic mechanisms involved in both media. The principal equipment in this lab is a 45 cm x 45 cm test section water tunnel. The water tunnel has a maximum speed of 1.2 meters per second and is equipped with the latest instrumentation for visualization and flow measurements. This includes a planar and stereoscopic particle image velocimeter, hot film anemometer, high speed imager, pulsed and continuous wavefront lasers for laser induced fluorescence, and a multiple color dye injection system. Specially designed flow tanks and channels for the study of vortex dominated flows are also a part of the flow visualization laboratory. Undergraduates visit this lab for demonstrations of flow phenomena and a few undergraduate students work in the lab on research projects and experiments for AIAA student paper competitions.

B. Resources and Support 1. Computing Resources In addition to the resources described above, we have very good computing resources in the Aerospace Computational Lab and the Auburn University CFD Laboratory. The Aerospace Computational Lab (Davis 330) provides sixteen Windows PCs for students to use while on campus. An extensive set of software that is available on each PC includes: MATLAB, AutoCAD, SolidEdge, NASTRAN, PATRAN along with the standard MicroSoft Office software. This lab is open to all aerospace students on a 24/7 basis. Some laboratory sessions of AERO 3610, 4620 and 4630 are conducted in this lab. The Auburn University CFD Laboratory is used primarily for research and is located in both Davis Hall and the Shelby CET. Dr. Shelton is the Director of this lab. The portion in Davis Hall is used primarily by AE students and faculty, while the portion located in Shelby 1113 is used by faculty members and students throughout the College of Engineering. The hardware resources include six high-end desktop workstations by Dell (8 core, 24GB memory) and a cluster by Penguin Computing (60 core, 60GB memory) in Davis Hall and a cluster by Dell (512 core, 1.5TB memory) in the Shelby 1113. The workstations are used for all phases of the CFD process, including geometry modeling, mesh generation, flow computation, and flow visualization. The clusters are dedicated to large-scale, high-throughput, batch-style meshing and flow computations. Commercial software available in the CFD lab currently includes STAR-CCM+ from CD-Adapco and Gambit and Fluent from Ansys.

55

2. Shops The Electronics, Machine and Model and Woodworking Shops are used in support our laboratories. The Electronics Shop is used by Dr. Lin to repair and reprogram computers that he can repair or reprogram. As noted elsewhere in the report, the Engineering Network Services provide a great deal of support for computing equipment and the computational labs. The Machine and Model Shop contains the usual lathes, drills, etc. and a relatively new Haas CNC milling machine. 3. Laboratory Equipment Planning, Acquisition, and Maintenance Processes Faculty or staff members are assigned the responsibility of each of our laboratories and shops. Table 7-1 shows the responsible person for each laboratory or shop. Dr. Gross has general oversight of the labs used principally by students in the Program. The principal faculty member for each lab monitors the condition of the lab and determines the requirements for maintenance and repair/replacement of existing equipment and for new equipment and, if appropriate, makes requests to the Department Head regarding maintenance and repair/replacement of equipment and for new equipment. The Aerodynamics Lab generates some funds from wind tunnel tests, thus the Director, Dr. Ahmed, may use those funds for equipment purposes.

Table 7-1. Personnel Responsible for Laboratories and Shops

Facility Responsible Person Aerodynamics Laboratory Anwar Ahmed Aerospace Computational Laboratory R. Steven Gross Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory Brian S. Thurow Auburn University CFD Laboratory Andrew B. Shelton Composites and UAV Laboratory Gilbert L. Crouse Flight Dynamics and Control Laboratory John E. Cochran, Jr. Flow Visualization Laboratory Anwar Ahmed Structures Laboratory R. Steven Gross Structural Dynamics Laboratory W. A. Foster, Jr. Electronics Shop Jim Lin Machine and Model Shop Andrew Weldon Woodworking Shop R. Steven Gross

Much of our equipment is purchased using various combinations of funds from contracts and grants, new faculty startups, IDCR, and gifts. As examples the Turbine Technologies, Inc. gas turbine demonstrator was purchased in 2004 using gift funds. Because FY 2007 was a very good year from the standpoint of donations, we also purchased some new equipment using gifts. We purchased several new computers for the Aerospace Computation Laboratory. The Haas milling machine was the principal purchase. Although it is not in a lab used by students, the milling machine is a very important part of the support for such labs. 3. Support Personnel Available to Install, Maintain, and Manage Departmental Hardware, Software, and Networks. We get very good support for maintenance and repair of mechanical and electrical equipment from Mr. Weldon and Dr. Lin, respectively. Also, Engineering Network Services personnel

56

provide support for all our computing equipment, mange the system software on the Engineering Network, and assist faculty members with computer problems. 4. Support Personnel Available to Install, Maintain, and Manage Laboratory Equipment. Dr. Lin and Mr. Weldon are the principal staff members available to install, maintain, and manage laboratory equipment. Actually, the individual faculty members do a lot of the managing task. C. Major Instructional and Laboratory Equipment Appendix C contains a list of major instructional and laboratory equipment.

57

CRITERION 8. SUPPORT A. Program Budget Process

Describe the process used to establish the program budget and provide evidence of continuity of institutional support for the program.

Budget guidelines are established by the President, Executive Vice-president and Provost/Academic Vice-president with advice from the University Budget Committee composed of faculty and staff members. On the basis of the guidelines, the Dean determines an amount for salary adjustments based on merit for each department. The Dean then requests recommendations for adjustments of the salaries of individual faculty staff members from the Department Head. Equity adjustments are based on regional data, time in service, etc. Step increases are also provided for promotion from assistant to associate and associate to full professor. This process is used only when funds are available. For three of the last five years (FY 2005, FY 2006 and FY 2007), funds were available due to tuition and fee increases and state funding increases. Hence, merit increases and equity adjustments in salaries were provided. Increases on account of promotion were also provided as appropriate. Due to the worsening economy, funds were not available for merit and equity increases for FY 2008 and FY 2009. However, promotion increases were provided. As noted above, operating funds made available to the college by the central administration are allocated by the Dean on the basis of the percentage of the total college weighted semester credit hours (WSCH) generated by each department. To prevent large decreases in departmental funds from year to year, decreases are limited to 10%. Recently, a metric based on the increase in research funding and numbers of graduate students has been used to distribute new funds (increases) received by the college for the summer semester. We currently get enough summer funds to pay one faculty part-time to teach two courses. However, we expect an increase next year, if the same method of distribution is used. As evidence of continuity of institutional support for the Program, it has been supported financially by the university, alumni and friends since 1945. The building occupied by the Program was rededicated and named for Mr. Davis in 2007. His planned gift will provide continuing financial support for the Program. During the last five years, we have been allowed to fill all three faculty vacancies that occurred and we were provided funds to hire a Student Advisor. Also, our faculty and staff members received salary increases when faculty and staff in other departments in the college did. In addition, our students have been provided funds for student projects and competitions. The enrollment in the Program has been growing and at approximately 10% of the college enrollment is certainly significant. B. Sources of Financial Support

58

Funding of the Department has four components: (1) a general fund component that includes salaries and operating funds, (2) a College of Engineering fee, (3) indirect cost recovery based on the dollar amount of extramural research conducted by the faculty, and (4) gifts. 1. General Fund Allocations General fund allocations for other operating expenses and GTAs are provided in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1. Operating and GTA Allocations from the General Fund

Fiscal Year Operating Funds GTA Funds Undergraduate Enrollment*

2006 $36,293 $53,606 240 (111)#

2007 $37,908 $48,246 247 (123)

2008 $36,273 $50,965 255 (149)

2009 $38,374 $55,687 300 (201)

2010 $3,895** ~$100,000 329 (210)

* Fall Semester # Pre-AE in parenthesis ** Reduction due to One-Time Budget Cuts As noted above, in addition to the indicated other operating funds, a special college fee is charged for use of equipment. These funds are currently used in connection with new buildings. 2. College of Engineering Fee Students in the College of Engineering pay a course fee which is used to improve the learning experience by increasing teaching resources, adding new student services and improving program options and technology. In 2004 some of the funds represented by theses fees were provided to the departments. Since then, the funds have been used in to help with the costs of new buildings. 3. Indirect Cost Recovery A good portion of the total travel expenditures of the Department are covered by “Indirect Cost Recovery (IDCR) funds. The Department receives program support funds equal to 32% of the indirect costs charged to extramural contracts and grants. Currently, the indirect cost rate is 46% of the direct costs, which are essentially all costs except equipment. The Department’s program support is distributed at the discretion of the Department Head. Most of the Department’s program support funds for the last nine years have been divided equally between the Principal Investigator (PI) and the Department. Generally, the PI shares program support funds with Co-PIs on the basis of the salary they are paid from a contract or grant. For FY 2004-FY 2009, the split has been 50% to the PI and 50% to the Department. However, due the recent budget cuts, the share to the PI has been suspended until the economic situation improves. Table 8-2 provides the amounts of total program support for each of the last four fiscal years.

Table 8-2. Indirect Cost Recovery and Gifts.

59

Fiscal

Year Indirect Cost

Recovery Gifts

2007 $65,425 $81,019

2008 $100,318 $190,988

2009 $63,171 $20,646

2010 $53,430 $36,144

Clearly, FY 2007 was a very good year. 4. Gifts Although gifts are generally not as predictable as state funding, prior to the capital fund drive just completed, we usually received sufficient contributions each year to support student projects and some travel. The Boeing Foundation has provided funds for scholarships and student projects since 1997. Boeing provided $7,500 in FY 2006 and FY 2007 for scholarships in the college and $2,500 to this Department for student projects. In FY 2008, Boeing increased their support to provide $15,000 for three scholarships in this Department, one in the college and $5,000 for student projects. In FY 2006 we received a large donation that allowed us to do those things and also purchase a Haas milling machine that Mr. Weldon can use to make small and large items and parts. As an example, we have received corporate support of at least $3,000 per year for student design project support. The university capital campaign provided several fairly large contributions in 2007 that we used to purchase undergraduate laboratory equipment and a milling machine. Table 8-2 provides information on undesignated gifts to the Department for the last four years. C. Adequacy of Budget Institutional support for the Program has been generally sufficient. This year has been an exception. In the previous five years, changes in the level of state funds allocated to the Department that were caused by enrollment fluctuations and variations in state funding availability have been handled by using gifts and indirect cost recovery funds. This year, state funds reductions resulted in a one-time reduction total for the 2010 fiscal year of about $99,000. Fortunately, we received stimulus funds in the amount of about $100,000. This was not the 1 to 1 match it appears to be because the stimulus funds could only be spent on “part-time” personnel, i.e., graduate students and part-time faculty members, whereas the use of funds transferred were “unrestricted.” In the spring of 2010, our budget for FY 2011 was set at our FY 2010 budget permanently reduced by more than $39,000. This reduction was taken from faculty salaries, increasing our “soft” money component to around 15%. Allocation of operating funds and funds for Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) is currently based on the production of weighted semester credit hours and extramural research funding. These metrics for each department are used to determine the percentage of total available funds each department receives. Undergraduate credit hours have low weight (2.38) relative to masters (5.46) and doctoral (17.6) level hours. This results in relatively more state funds going to

60

departments with more Ph.D. students and research, which are already receiving relatively more indirect cost recovery funds. The purpose of this allocation process is to encourage larger research programs and graduate enrollments. Although this is a legitimate purpose, the distribution of general operating funds and graduate teaching funds is an issue that probably should be re-examined. D. Support of Faculty Professional Development Some information has already been provided supra on this subject. Here, we provide additional information on the financing of faculty professional development. Faculty development is supported by the university, the college, and the Department. (a) University travel grants are provided for travel to present technical papers. Also, faculty members may request a seat on the university plane for one-day trips to Washington, D.C. to discuss research with government agency representatives. The Provost and Vice President for Research provide funds for equipment in startup packages for new faculty members. (b) The college provides travel funds on occasion and the Engineering Experiment Station (EES) provides startup funds for one summer’s salary for a new faculty member and cost-shares startup equipment costs. (c) Departmental funds are used to support startups and a variety of activities that are continuously related to faculty development.

• Travel

Faculty members receive travel funds from the department and, on occasion, from the college, to attend professional meetings.

Faculty members who are members of AIAA technical committees receive travel support from the Department.

New faculty members receive an allowance for moving expenses, equipment, and travel, from the department; the first summer’s salary and equipment from the Engineering Experiment Station, and equipment from the Office of the Vice-president for Research and the Provost.

During FY 2006 –FY 2009, the Department provided over $150,000 for faculty and student travel.

• Publication costs not paid by research contracts or grants. During FY 2006- FY 2009, the Department provided over $3,000 for faculty publication costs.

• Equipment

The Department provided over $80,000 (including startups) to faculty members for equipment purchases during the period FY 2006-FY 2009.

E. Support of Facilities and Equipment

61

For large projects, such as the work done on Davis Hall in 2006-2007 we depend on the university’s general maintenance funds. For smaller projects, such as new chairs for faculty, we can request funds from the university Concessions Board. However, our continuing resources for supporting equipment are our IDCR funds and gifts. We expect more IDCR funds in FY 2011 than in FY 2010 due to several some new contracts. We also expect to continue to receive donations from our alumni and friends at the FY 2009 level or greater. At the time of the last ABET visit, we had just purchased a Turbine Technologies, Inc., turbojet “MiniLab” to provide hands-on experiences for students in AERO 4510 Aerospace Propulsion. Since that time, we have purchased sixteen computers for the Aerospace Computational Laboratory and other computers for faculty and staff members. Second on our list of laboratory priorities in 2004 was the Structural Dynamics Lab. We wanted to set up more vibration experiments. We have put that on hold to some extent because we currently have equipment for a hardware-in-the-loop simulation system in that lab. There is still space available for “small” experiments and we would like to develop some vibration experiments for AERO 4630. Dr. Gross has developed the electives taught as AERO 3970 in which students construct and learn to pilot “conventional” UAVs. We want to continue these courses and give students the opportunity to fly a radio-controlled “classical” UAV. On the high tech side, Dr. Crouse has the capability in his lab to built small, unique UAVs in addition to the ones built for Design Build and Fly competitions. Dr. Crouse is developing courses in UAV guidance, navigation and control. Some of these will be “5000” courses that undergraduate students can take as electives. These courses, plus some operational UAVs will give our students more experience semi-autonomous operation. In the Flight Dynamics and Control Lab, we have a control moment gyro (CMG) demonstration setup that Dr. Sinclair purchased with startup funds in 2005. We would like to put the CMG in a more accessible location and use it in connection with AERO 3220 and graduate courses. As noted above, the new Richard C. Shelby Center for Engineering Technology (“Shelby CET”) contains approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of space that our faculty and students can utilize. The facilities include: (1) a CFD Computation Lab (2) an auditorium and (3) graduate student offices. We have intended since the beginning of planning for the Shelby CET to use the auditorium to simulate a NASA type “mission control room.” We may still do that, but a short-term objective is to equip the auditorium with computers so that we can use it in teaching the NASTRAN portion of AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II and the CFD portion of AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III. F. Adequacy of Support Personnel and Institutional Services We have excellent support personnel. Regarding administrative support, Ms. Ginger Ware and Ms. Evia Vickerstaff are Office Administrator and Associate Office Administrator, respectively. Ms. Ware, who has 25 years of experience at Auburn University, assists the Department Head with all aspects of department finances, with correspondence, policies and procedures, and often

62

doubles as a receptionist. Ms. Vickerstaff, who has 28 years of experience, assists Ms. Ware, the Program Coordinator and the Graduate Program Officer and often doubles as a receptionist. A significant improvement in support of the Program was the addition last summer of Ms. Lisa Avrit as our Student Advisor. Ms. Avrit has an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering, so she understands many of the trials and tribulations of engineering students better than many advisors. She has taken a great load off Dr. Gross and has also assisted with the AIAA student chapter’s activities. Ms. Sara Allen was our part-time bookkeeper for a couple of years. She did a fine job. Unfortunately, Ms. Allen died quite suddenly last summer and we have not yet found a suitable replacement. Regarding technical support, as mentioned above, Mr. Andy Weldon provides support for the Aerodynamics Lab and other facilities that use mechanical or hydraulic systems and provides the expertise to produce custom built parts used in research projects. Mr. Weldon is skilled machinist and model maker with experience teaching in a technical school as well as industrial experience. He has four years experience with the Department. Dr. Jim Lin, our Electrical Engineer, has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Auburn and ten years experience with the Department. Dr. Lin maintains all the electrical and computer equipment not maintained by the college or university. He also does the required annual inventory of equipment each year. His education and training make him a valuable part of the Department.

63

CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA Outcome l is the Aerospace Engineering Program Specific Outcome. This Outcome is considered in Section F of Criterion 3. We think that there is more than sufficient evidence that our Program provides each of our graduates with working knowledge of aerodynamics, aerospace materials, structures, propulsion, flight mechanics, and stability and control. For students interested in astronautical engineering, the Program provides a required course in orbital mechanics and electives in propulsion. The structures courses the Program includes are focused more on airplane structures than space structures, but they provide an excellent foundation for designing and analyzing space structures. In fact, Harris Corporation, a Florida manufacturer of antennas used in space, has actively recruited and hired some of our graduates to do space structures work. Moreover, students in our senior design sequence have the opportunity to engage in astronautical projects. A required course in orbital mechanics and elective in propulsion provide knowledge of astronautical areas. Moreover, in our senior design sequence, students have the opportunity to engage in astronautical projects.

64

Appendix A: Course Syllabi AERO 2200 Aerospace Fundamentals (Required) Introduction to the fundamental physical concepts required for the successful design of aircraft and spacecraft. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Ahmed, A., Crouse, G., Thurow, B. Text(s): Introduction to Flight, Anderson, John, McGraw Hill, 2008. Prerequisites: ENGR 1110 Course Objective: The objective of this course is to introduce the student to the concepts of aerospace

design, particularly with regard to aircraft performance. We will begin by introducing some basic concepts in fluid dynamics and thermodynamics, and continue by applying these concepts to topics in aerodynamics, stability, control and propulsion.

Week Topic Reading (before class)

1 The 1st Aeronautical engineers, fluid properties Ch. 1 2.1

2 Anatomy of an airplane, standard atmosphere 2.1 – 2.6, Ch. 3

3 Fluid Motion - Continuity equation, momentum equation, thermodynamics, energy equation 4.1-4.8

4 Review/Exam 5 Fluid Motion - Speed of sound, wind tunnels, velocity measurements 4.9 – 4.12 6 Fluid Motion - Compressible flows and viscous flows 4.13 – 4.15 7 Review/Exam 8 Aerodynamics - Airfoils, lift and drag coefficients 5.1 – 5.4 9 Performance - Drag polar, equations of motion, level flight 6.1 – 6.3

10 Performance - Thrust and power requirements 6.4 – 6.7 11 Performance - Climbing and gliding 6.8 – 6.12 12 Performance - Range and Endurance 6.13 – 6.17 13 Review/Exam 14 Stability and Control 7.1-7.3 15 Stability and Control 7.4-7.5

Lecture: 1 hour per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 2 Relates to Program Outcomes a and e. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 2 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

65

AERO 3110 AERODYNAMICS I (Required) Properties of fluids, fluid statics, conservation of mass and momentum, atmospheric properties, two dimensional airfoils, three dimensional wings, drag, and flight performance. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Crouse, G., Shelton, A., Thurow, B. Text(s): Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Anderson, John, McGraw Hill, 2010. Prerequisites: MATH 2650 Course Objective: The objective of this course is to establish the fundamental principles and

concepts that govern fluid flow and lead to the production of physical forces, particularly related to the aerodynamics forces associated with an airfoil or other objects immersed in the fluid.


1 Introduction, Units, Force and Moment Coefficients, Buckingham Pi Theorem 1.1-1.5

2 Buoyancy, Types of Flows, Boundary Layers, Applied Aero 1.6-1.14 3 Control Volume, Fluid Element, Continuity Equation 2.1-2.5 4 Momentum Equation, Energy Equation 2.6-2.10 5 Pathlines, Streaklines, Vorticity, Circulation 2.11-2.17 6 Exam 7 Bernoulli’s Equation, Duct Flows, LaPlace’s Eqn 3.1-3.12

8 Sources, Sinks, Doublets, Vortex Flow Flow Over a Cylinder 3.13-3.17

9 Exam 10 Airfoils, Kutta Condition 4.1-4.5 11 Kelvin’s Circulation Theorem, Thin Airfoil Theory 4.6-4.10 12 MATLAB Project (optional) 4.10-4.14 13 Exam 14 Wing-Tip Vortices, Prandtl’s Lifting Line Theory 5.1-5.3 15 Delta Wings, Swept Wings 5.4-5.8

Lecture: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 3 Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

66

AERO 3120 COMPRESSIBLE AERODYNAMICS (Required) Principles of compressible flow including flows with area changes, friction, and heat transfer. Fundamental analysis of aerodynamics and potential flow theory. Correlation of potential flow theory with experimental data. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Thurow, B. Text(s): Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Anderson, John, McGraw Hill, 2010. Prerequisites: AERO 3110, ENGR 2010 Course Objective: The objective of this course is to establish the fundamentals of compressible

flow that allow for flow velocities near to and greater than the speed of sound and lead to the formation of shock waves and expansions in both internal and external flows.


1 Review of thermodynamics, definition of compressibility 7.1-7.3 2 Governing equations, definition of stagnation conditions 7.4-7.7 3 Speed of sound, energy equation, normal shocks 8.1-8.6 4 normal shocks 8.6-8.8 5 Review/Exam 6 oblique shocks 9.1-9.3 7 Shock interactions and reflections, detached shocks 9.4-9.5 8 Prandtl-Meyer expansion waves, shock-expansion theory 9.6-9.10 9 Review/Exam 10 Quasi-one-dimensional flow, nozzle flows 10.1-10.3 11 Diffusers and supersonic wind tunnels 10.3-10.6 12 Review/Exam 13 Linearized velocity potential equation 11.1-11.3 14 Compressibility corrections, critical Mach number 11.4-11.6 15 Drag-divergence, area rule, supercritical airfoil 11.7-11.9


67

AERO 3130 AERODYNAMICS LABORATORY (Required) Application of fundamental aerodynamic principles to subsonic and supersonic wind tunnel experiments. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Ahmed, A. Text(s): Low Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, Rae and Pope, 1984. Laboratory Manual written by Dr. Ahmed Prerequisite: AERO 2200 Course Objective: To be able to use laboratory equipment and instrumentation for aerodynamic

testing, understanding of the measurement techniques, planning of wind tunnel tests, and professional reporting.

LECTURE TOPICS 1. Introduction to experimental aerodynamics, wind tunnels 2. Report Preparation 3. Theory of modeling and scaling 4. Experimental error and uncertainty analysis 5. Pressure measurement 6. Airspeed Measurement/Flow angularity 7. Thermal Anemometry 8. Laser Doppler Velocimetery 9. Particle Image Velocimetry 10. Force/Moment Measurement – Wind Tunnel Balance 11. Flow Visualization 12. Wind tunnel corrections 13. Miscellaneous topics

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS 1. Electrical analogy for streamlines and potential lines 2. Pressure transducer calibration - turbulent jet 3. Hot wire anemometer - turbulent jet 4. Data Acquisition 5. Shadowgraph/Schliren Optical setup 6. Flow visualization (Smoke Tunnel) 7. Flow Visualization (Water Tunnel) 8. Drag of Axi-symmetric bodies – Rough and Smooth Spheres 9. NACA 0012 Airfoil Pressure Distribution - Determination of Lift 10. NACA 0012 Wake Velocity Deficit – Determination of Drag 11. Boundary Layer Study – Laminar, transition, turbulent boundary Layers

Lecture: 1 hour per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 2 Relates to Program Outcomes a, b, e, f, g, and k.

68

Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 2 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

69

AERO 3220 AEROSPACE SYSTEMS (Required) Modeling of system elements, classical feedback control techniques used in the analysis of linear systems, analysis of systems undergoing various motions connected with flight. Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Sinclair, A. Text: Dynamic Modeling and Control of Engineering Systems, 3rd Edition, Kulakowski, Gardner, and Shearer Prerequisites: ENGR 2350, MATH 2650 Course Objective: In this class students will learn what a system is, different forms for system

models, and how to simulate a system. Additionally, students will learn how to analyze the dynamic response and stability of a system. Concepts for designing controllers will also be introduced.

Week Topic 1-2 Review of Mechanical Systems 3-5 Block Diagrams, Input-Output Models, and State-Space Models 6 Review of Differential Equations

7-8 Numerical Simulation of Systems 9-10 Transfer Functions 11 Bode Diagrams

12-13 Root Locus 14 Stability of Systems 15 PID Controllers and Lead-Lag Controllers

Lecture: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 3 Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, e, g, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Math & Basic Science: 1 credit

Engineering topics, 2 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

70

AERO 3230 FLIGHT DYNAMICS (Required) Airplane performance and stability and control including analytical prediction of performance characteristics, experimental determination of static stability parameters, and analytical prediction of dynamic stability characteristics. Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Cochran, J Text: Dynamics of Flight - Stability and Control, Etkin, 3rd Edition, 1996 Prerequisites: AERO 3110, ENGR 2350 and MATH 2650 Course Objective: The instructor’s objective is to provide Aerospace Engineering students in this

class with information and instruction that will allow them to develop an understanding of the fundamentals of the dynamics and control of flight vehicles with emphasis on conventional airplane performance and stability, both static and dynamic.

Week Topic 1-2 Airplane Performance

a. Point-Mass Equations of Motion b. Quasi-steady Performance

3-4 Static Longitudinal Stability a. Conventional, Tail-Aft Mathematical Model b. Longitudinal Trim c. Stick-fixed and Stick-free Stability

d.Simple Maneuvering Flight – Stick Force per g 5-6 Lateral-directional Flight

a. Conventional, Tail-Aft Mathematical Model b. Weathercock Stability c. Lateral-directional Trim – Engine Out

7-8 Rigid Body Equations of Motion a. Translation and Rotation - Kinetics b. Translation and Rotation - Kinematics c. Equilibrium

9-10 Dynamic Stability Analysis a. Stability of Nonlinear Systems b. Linear Equations – Longitudinal c. Linear Equations - Lateral

11-12 Estimation of Stability Derivatives a. Longitudinal Derivatives b. Lateral Derivatives

13-15 Controls-fixed Dynamic Stability a. Linear Systems - Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors b. Longitudinal Example c. Lateral Example

Lecture: 3 hours per week

71

Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 4 Relates to Program Outcomes a, b, e, g, i, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

72

AERO 3310 ORBITAL MECHANICS (Required) Geometry of the solar system and orbital motion, mathematical integrals of motion, detailed analysis of two-body dynamics and introduction to artificial satellite orbits; Hohmann transfer and patched conics for lunar and interplanetary trajectories. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Cicci Text: Orbital Mechanics Chobotov, 3rd edition, AIAA Education Series, 2002. Prerequisites: ENGR 2350 and MATH 2650 Course Objective: In this class students will learn about geometry of orbital motion, mathematic

integrals of motion, detailed analysis of two-body dynamics, Hohmann transfers, and patched conics for lunar and interplanetary trajectories.

Week Topic 1-2 Basic Concepts 3-5 Celestial Relationships 6-8 Keplerian Orbits 9-10 Position and Velocity as a Function of Time 11-13 Orbital Maneuvers 14-15 Lunar and Interplanetary Trajectories


73

AERO 3610 Aerospace Structures Laboratory I (Required) Fundamental concepts employed in the mechanical testing of engineering materials and structures. Load, stress and strain measurement techniques are utilized to determine material properties and structural response. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, S. Text: Mechanics of Materials, Hibbeler, R., 6th edition, 2005 Prerequisites: ENGR 2070 Course Objectives: The objectives of this course are to: (1) introduce the student to the

experimental and analytical methods employed to determine the mechanical response of engineering materials and structures to static loading, (2) to expose the student to the areas of conceptual design, analysis, manufacturing and structural testing.

Week Topic

(Lecture) Lab Topic

(Lab) 1 Review of Truss Analysis Intro for Lab 2 Review of Shear and Moment

Diagrams RISA Software

3 Review of Shear and Moment Diagrams

Basic Machining

4 Column Buckling (Long) Basic Machining 5 Column Buckling (Long) Lab Project-Design 6 Column Buckling (Short) Lab Project-Design 7 Crippling Failure of Columns Lab Project-Design 8 Basic Crystalline Structure

(Strengthening Methods) Lab Project-Build

9 Mechanical Testing Methods (Tension and Compression)

Lab Project-Build

10 Strain Gages Stress-Strain Curve Analysis

Lab Project-Build

11 Mechanical Testing Methods (Tension and Compression)

Lab Project-Build

12 Mechanical Testing Methods (Hardness and Notch-Impact)

Lab Project-Test

13 Aluminum Alloys Aluminum Alloys 14 Aluminum Alloys Aluminum Alloys 15 Aluminum Alloys Aluminum Alloys

Lecture: 1 hour per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 2 Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, d, e, and k.

74

Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 2 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

75

AERO 4AA0: Program Assessment (Required) Academic program assessment covering the areas of aerodynamics, aerospace structures, orbital mechanics, flight dynamics and propulsion. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, S. Text: Not Applicable Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

76

AERO 4140 Aerodynamics III (Required) Theoretical background essential to a fundamental understanding of laminar and turbulent boundary layers and their relations to skin friction and heat transfer. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Shelton, A. Textbook: Viscous Fluid Flow, White, 3rd edition, 2006. Prerequisites: AERO 3120 Course Objective: The objective of this course is to provide the student an understanding of the effects

of viscosity and thermal conductivity on fluid motion and heat transfer. Incompressible laminar boundary layers, turbulent boundary layers, and free shear flows are discussed in detail. An introduction is given to transitional flow, compressibility effects, and numerical modeling.

Week Topics Reading 1 Introduction to viscous flow phenomena 1.1-1.2, 6.12 Transport properties and kinematics 1.33 Conservation equations, constitutive relations 2.1-2.5, 2.134 Boundary conditions, dynamic similarity, vorticity transport 1.4, 2.8-2.105 Exact solutions for incompressible, laminar flow 3.1-3.56 Momentum and energy integral approach 4.1, 4.67 Thin shear layer approximation and similarity solutions 4.2-4.38 Free shear flows 4.49 Laminar instability and transition to turbulence 5

10 Reynolds averaging, "apparent" stresses, and the closure problem 6.1-6.311 Empirical turbulent mean and fluctuating velocity profiles 6.412 Integral relations for turbulent boundary layers 6.813 Eddy viscosity, mixing length, and other aspects of turbulence modeling 6.714 Turbulent free shear flows 6.915 Compressibility effects in shear flows 7


77

AERO 4510 - Aerospace Propulsion (Required) Fundamental analysis of airbreathing jet propulsion. Introduction to chemical rocket propulsion. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Thurow, B. Text: Fundamentals of Jet Propulsion with Applications, Flack, 1st edition, 2005 Prerequisites: AERO 3120 Course Objective: To introduce the student to basic performance characteristics and analysis

techniques for airbreathing jet engines.


1 History, Introduction, Types of Engines 1.1 – 1.3 2 Brayton Cycle, Thrust Equation 1.4 – 1.6 3 Ramjets – Ideal and Non-Ideal Cycle Analysis 2.1 - 2.3.1, 3.1

- 3.2 4 Turbojets – Ideal and Non-Ideal Cycle Analysis 2.3.2

3.3-3.5 5 Matlab Code – Part 1 6 Exam #1 7 Turbofans & Turboprops – Ideal Cycle Analysis 2.3.3 – 2.3.5 8 Turbofans & Turboprops – Non-Ideal Cycle Analysis Ch. 3 9 Matlab Code – Part 2 10 Lab Project #1 11 Exam #2 12 Component Analysis - Diffusers Ch. 4 13 Component Analysis - Nozzles Ch. 5 14 Component Analysis – TBD 15 Component Analysis – TBD

Lecture: 3 hours per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 4 Relates to Program Outcomes a, b, c, h, j, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

78

AERO 4620 Aerospace Structures II (Required) Aircraft and space vehicle structures. An introduction to the finite element method and its application to structural analysis. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Foster, W. Text: A First Course in the Finite Element Method, Logan, 3rd edition, 2002. Prerequisites: AERO 3610 and MATH 2660 Course Objective: This course is designed to provide the student with a fundamental background

in the analysis of the structural components commonly found in aircraft and space vehicles. The course emphasizes the latest numerical methods for solving structural problems as well as classical analytical techniques. The laboratory utilizes state of the art software for solving structural problems using the finite element method and for the pre- and post-processing of finite element models.

Week Topic 1-2 Introduction to the finite element method 3-5 Finite element method applied to linear springs 6-8 Finite element method applied to truss analysis 9-11 Finite element method applied to beam analysis 12-13 Finite element analysis of plane stress and plane strain problems 14-15 Finite element analysis of plate bending problems

Lecture: 3 hours per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 4 Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

79

AERO 4630 Aerospace Structural Dynamics (Required) Free, forced and damped vibration of single and multiple degree-of-freedom systems.

Introduction to flutter theory and aeroelasticity.

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Foster, W. Text: Fundamentals of Vibrations, Meirovitch, 1st edition, 2000. Prerequisites: AERO 4620 Course Objective: This course is designed to provide the student with a fundamental background

in the analysis of the dynamic behavior of structural components commonly found in aircraft and space vehicles. The course emphasizes classical analytical techniques as well as the latest numerical methods for solving structural dynamic problems. The laboratory utilizes state of the art software for solving structural dynamic problems related to vibration and dynamic response in both the frequency domain and the time domain.

Week Topic 1-3 Review of dynamics 4-6 Single Degree of Freedom Systems subjected to initial conditions 7-9 Single Degree of Freedom Systems subjected to harmonic excitations

10-12 Two Degree of Freedom Systems 12-15 Vibrations of continuous systems

Lecture: 3 hours per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 4 Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 4 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

80

AERO 4710 AEROSPACE DESIGN I (Requirred) Introduction to the principles required to design aerospace vehicles. Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Crouse Text: Aircraft Design, a Conceptual Approach, 4th Ed., Dan Raymer. Prerequisites: AERO 3120 Course Objective: This course will allow the students to develop a set of vehicle design

requirements and then design a vehicle that meets the requirements.

Week Topic 1 Design Process and Initial Sizing 2 Airfoil and Wing Planform 3 Detail Sizing and Sizing Constraints 4 Interior Layout 5 Design Layout

6-7 Propulsion System and Landing Gear 8 Design Process and Aerodynamics 9 Performance 10 Stability and Control 11 Propulsion 12 Structures

13-14 Cost Analysis and Trade Studies 15 Unusual Concepts

Lecture: 2 hours per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 3 Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, e, g, j, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

81

AERO 4720 AERSOAPCE DESIGN II (Required) This course is a continuation of AERO 4710. Professor (s) normally teaching the course: Crouse Text: Aircraft Design, a Conceptual Approach, 4th Ed., Dan Raymer. Prerequisites: AERO 4710 Course Objective: The students are expected to become proficient in the analysis methods

employed to verify that an aircraft design meets various performance requirements. These requirements include both commercial/performance requirements (e.g. cruise speed, or range) and regulatory/safety requirements (e.g. dynamic stability, spar strength). The appropriate FAA regulations including Part 23 for general aviation aircraft and Part 25 for transport aircraft are reviewed, and methods for demonstrating compliance are discussed such as those accepted by the FAA in Advisory Circular 23-19A.

Week Topic 1-2 Initial Weight Sizing 3-5 Initial Layout 6-8 Initial Analysis 9-10 Optimization 11-12 Revised Layout 13-14 Detailed Analysis

15 Final Report Lecture: 2 hours per week Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 3 Relates to Program Outcomes a, c, d, e, f, g, j, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

82

AERO 5330 Applied Orbital Mechanics (Elective) Special perturbation techniques: N-body perturbations; general and restricted three-body problems; preliminary orbit determination; C-W equations, targeting and rendezvous; constellation design; mission planning. Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Cicci, D. Text: There is no required textbook; however, there are many useful texts you may enjoy reading: Battin, An Introduction to the Mathematics and Methods of Astrodynamics Chobotov, Orbital Mechanics Vallado, Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications Sidi, Spacecraft Dynamics & Control Prerequisites: AERO 3310 Course Objectives: This course will examine perturbations to the two-body problem studied in

AERO 3310. Students will be introduced to a variety of analytical methods for studying perturbations and numerical methods including modern software applications.

Week Topic 1-2 Review of Two-Body Orbital Mechanics 3-4 Introduction to Perturbations 5-6 Special Perturbation Theory 7-8 Numerical Integration of Satellite Equations of Motion 9-11 General Perturbation Theory 12 Planetary Ephemeris Studies

13-15 Satellite Tool Kit Applications Lecture: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 3 Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

83

AERO 5520 Rocket Propulsion (Elective) Analysis of the thermodynamics, gas dynamics and design of liquid and solid propellant rocket

engines.

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Hartfield, R. Text: Rocket Propulsion Elements, Sutton, 7th edition, 2001. Prerequisites: AERO 4510 Course Objective: To provide the student with a basic understanding of rocket engine

performance and solid rocket propellant design methods.

Week Topic 1 Introduction

2-3 Brief Review of Thermodynamic Fundamentals Needed for this Course

4-7 Liquid Propellant Fundamentals 8-10 Solid Propellant Burning 11-13 Grain Design with Associated Performance 13-15 Design of a Solid Rocket Motor Powered Missile


84

AERO 5530 Space Propulsion (Elective) Analysis of space propulsion systems. Dynamics of electromagnetic systems, ion engines,

photon drives, laser propulsion.

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Hartfield, R. Text: Space Propulsion Analysis and Design, Humble, 1995. Prerequisites: AERO 4510 Course Objective: To provide the student with a basic knowledge of different space propulsion

system elements and performance characteristics

Week Topic 1 Rocket Fundamentals (Performance)

2-3 Brief Review of Thermodynamic Fundamentals 4-7 Liquid Propellant Fundamentals 8-10 Solid Propellant Burning 11-13 Nuclear Thermal Rocket Propulsion Systems 13-14 Electric Propulsion

15 Introduction to Future systems and Novel Concepts Lecture: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 3 Relates to Program Outcomes a, e, and k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 3 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

85

AERO 3970 Engineering Applications of FORTRAN (Elective) An introduction to computer programming fundamentals, particularly for engineering applications. It also covers beginner and intermediate syntax for the FORTRAN programming language.

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, R. Text: Lecture notes and programming examples will be provided via the class website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/douceea/FORTRAN.html Prerequisites: none Course Objective: To provide the student with a basic knowledge of the FORTRAN programming language.

Week Topic 1 Introduction to programming logic and the Fortran language 2 Introduction to Force 2.0.8 and Fortran code formatting 3 Application of simple IF statements 4 IF-ELSE and GOTO structures 5 Simple DO loops, both styles 6 Nested DO loops and DO-IF structures 7 Strategy for writing a simple engineering program from scratch 8 Basic debugging 9 Subroutines and functions 10 Variable types and declarations 11 Using double precision throughout a program 12 Array variables 13 File access and modification 14 Formatted input/output

Lecture: 1 hour per week Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading) Relates to Program Outcomes k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

86

AERO 3970 Engineering Applications of MATLAB (Elective) This course offers an introduction to the application of the MATLAB programming language to aerospace engineering problems. Specific topics include but are not limited to MATLAB basics, matrix and vector manipulation, program flow control, functions, and plotting.

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, R. Text: Lecture notes and programming examples will be provided via handouts. Some suggested

references are: Etter, D. M. and Kuncicky, D., Introduction to MATLAB 7, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. Hanselman, D. and Littlefield, B., The Student Edition of MATLAB User’s Guide, Pearson

Prentice Hall. Kuncicky, D., MATLAB Programming, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.

Prerequisites: none Course Objective: To provide the student with knowledge necessary to utilize MATLAB for the

solution of some common Aerospace engineering tasks. Introduction to programming logic and MATLAB interface Symbolic variables Mathematical Operations: algebra, trigonometry, calculus, vectors, and matrices Script files vs. function files Equation solving Plotting: formatting, subplot, figure editing Flow control: for loops, if statements, while loops, break Solving differential equations Reading from and writing to files Eigenanalysis Iteration and tolerance

Week Topic 1-3 Introduction to programming logic and MATLAB interface Symbolic

variables 4-7 Mathematical Operations: algebra, trigonometry, calculus, vectors,

and matrices 8 Script files vs. function files

9-10 Plotting: formatting, subplot, figure editing 11-12 Flow control: for loops, if statements, while loops, break

13 Solving differential equations 14 Reading from and writing to files 15 Eigenanalysis Iteration and tolerance

Lecture: 1 hour per week Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading) Relates to Program Outcomes k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

87

AERO 3970 UAV Construction Methods (Elective) This course provides the student with an introduction to the construction methods for small UAV’s. The students work in small teams to construct a traditional remote-control, piston powered, aircraft by use of a commercial kit.

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, S. Text: Construction Guide for the particular aircraft kit.

Prerequisites: none Course Objective: To expose the students to construction materials and methods associated with

small UAV’s.

Week Topic 1 Introduction to basic RC electronics and piston engine operation

2-11 Construction of fuselage, wing and tail components 12-13 Covering of aircraft components with Monocote material 14-15 Installation of servos, control rods, and propulsion system

Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading) Relates to Program Outcome d. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

88

AERO 3970 UAV Piloting (Elective) This course provides the student with an introduction to piloting small UAV’s

Professor(s) normally teaching the course: Gross, R. Text: none Prerequisites: none Course Objective: To expose the student to the flight and control characteristics of small UAV’s.

Week Topic 1 Introduction to basic aircraft flight behavior

2-6 Simulator training using RealFlight software 7-15 Actual flight instruction at the local flying field.

Laboratory: 3 hours per week Credit hours: 1 (Pass/Fail Grading) Relates to Program Outcome k. Contribution to Criterion 5: Engineering topics, 1 credits Prepared by S. Gross, 5/10/2010

89

Appendix B: Faculty Resumes

ANWAR AHMED Professor

211 Aerospace Engineering Building, Auburn University, AL 36849 Phone: (334) 844-6817, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: [email protected] EDUCATION 1985 - PhD, Aerospace Engineering, Wichita State University 1981 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Wichita State University 1976 - BS, Mechanical Engineering, Peeshawar University EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 15 2008 – Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1998 - 2008: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1995 - 1998: Associate Director, Aerospace Program, Mechanical Engineering, Southern

University 1987 - 1995: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Texas A&M University 1985 - 1987: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Science Engineering, Tuskegee University SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES 1989 - Present: American Physical Society 1985 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2007 - Present: Faculty Advisor - NASA Reduced Gravity Students Flight Program 2007 - Present: Member, Senate Lecture Committee - Auburn University 2007 - Present: Member, Woltosz Graduate Fellowship Committee - Aerospace Engineering

Department, 2006 - Present: Member, Editorial Advisory Board, Journal of Aircr - American Institute of

Aeronautics and Astronautics 2006 - Present: Chair, Students Awards Committee- Aerospace Engineering Department 2005 - Present: Member, Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Technical Com - American Institute

of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2004 - Present: Director, Flow Visualization Laboratory -Aerospace Engineering Department 2000 - Present: Member, Graduate Admissions Committee - Aerospace Engineering

Department 2000 - Present: Member, Graduate Programs Committee – Aerospace Engineering

Department,

90

1999 - Present: Member, Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee- American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1998 - Present: Faculty Advisor - Sigma Gamma Tau, Auburn University 1998 - Present: Director, Wind tunnel Operations – Aerospace Engineering Department 1998 - Present: Faculty Advisor, Sigma Gamma Tau, Auburn University HONORS AND AWARDS 1998: Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Elected through

nomination 1996: Excellence in Research Award - US Air Force Academy, CO. 1992: Ralph E. Teetor Outstanding Educator Award - Society of Automotive Engineers. 1983: Pi Mu Epsilon, Mathematics Society - Wichita State University, KS. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 2008 - 2008: High Speed Diagnostics, USAF Research Labs - Developed seeding systems for PIV in the Tri-Sonic Gas Dynamics tunnel SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Recktenwald, B., and Ahmed A, "Experimental Investigation of a Circular Planform Joined Wing Concept Aircraft.", _AIAA-2008-0371, paper presented at the 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV_, Jan. 2008. Rifki, R., Ahmed, A., and Khan, M. J, "Effect of Aspect Ratio on Flow Field of Surface-Mounted Obstacles", AIAA Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp 954-958, Apr. 2007. Bangash, Z. A*., Sanchez, R. P*., Ahmed, A. and Khan, M. J, "Aerodynamics of Formation Flight", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp 907-912, Apr. 2006. Khan, M. J. and Ahmed, A, "Topological Model of Flow Regimes in the Plane of Symmetry of a Surface-mounted Obstacle", Physics of Fluids Vol. 17, No. 4, pp 1-8, Apr. 2005. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER State of Texas WORK ASSIGNMENT Scholarship and Research = 40% Program = 60%

91

DAVID A. CICCI Professor

211 Davis Aerospace Engineering Hall Auburn University, AL 36849-5338

Phone: (334) 844-6820, FAX: (334) 844-6803, Email: [email protected] EDUCATION

1987 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Texas at Austin 1976 - M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University 1973 - B.S., Mechanical Engineering, West Virginia University

EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 23

2000-present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University, AL 1993 - 2000: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University, AL 1987 - 1993: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering Department, Auburn University, AL 1981 - 1982: Engineering Specialist, Bell Helicopter TEXTRON Corp., Ft. Worth, TX 1977 - 1981: Senior Engineer, Swanson Engineering Associates Corp., McMurray, PA

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE

2004- present: Dynetics, Inc., Huntsville, AL. 2006-2007: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Huntsville, AL,. 2004-2005: Science Applications International Corporation, Huntsville, AL,. 2001: U.S. Army Aviation Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center - Systems Simulation and Development Directorate, Redstone Arsenal, AL,. 1989: Sverdrup Technology, Inc., Stennis Space Center, MS,. 1984: General Dynamics Corp., Ft. Worth, TX,. 1982-1983: Swanson Engineering Associates Corp., McMurray, PA,.

PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA); Associate Fellow. American Astronautical Society (AAS). American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Registered Professional Engineer in Pennsylvania and Alabama.

HONORS AND AWARDS

Appointed to the IEEE Gyro and Accelerometer Panel, 2006. Elected to the AAS, Board of Directors, 2005. AIAA Student Chapter Outstanding Faculty Member of the Year, 1987-88, 1996-97, 2001-02, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07.

92

Selected for AIAA National Faculty Advisor Award by the Student Activities Committee, 1992. Appointed to the AIAA Astrodynamics Technical Committee, 1991, 1995, 1999; Education Subcommittee, 1992; Membership Subcommittee, 2003. Appointed to the AIAA Astrodynamics Committee on Standards, 1991. Air Force Office of Scientific Research Summer Faculty Fellowship, Eglin, AFB, FL, 1989.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

“Preliminary Orbit Determination of a Tethered Satellite Using the f and g Series,” D. A. Cicci and C. Qualls, The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 56, No. 1, January-March 2008.

“Two-Body Missile Separation Dynamics,” D. A. Cicci, C. Qualls, and G. Landingham, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 198, pp. 44-58, 2008.

“Ballistic Missile Trajectory Prediction Using a State Transition Matrix,” W. J. Harlin and D. A. Cicci, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 188, pp. 1832-1847, 2007.

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE University

Auburn University Senate, Chair-Elect, 2006-2007; Chair, 2007-2008, Immediate Past Chair, 2008-2009. Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (CIA), 2004-2007.

College Engineering Faculty Council, 2004-2009.

Department Graduate Program Officer, 1989-97, 2004-2009. AIAA Student Chapter Faculty Advisor, 1988-93.

Professional IEEE Gyro and Accelerometer Panel, 2006-present. AAS Board of Directors, 2005-present. AIAA Astrodynamics Technical Committee, 1991-94, 1995-98, 1999-2007; Education Subcommittee, 1992-94; Membership Subcommittee, 2003-2007.

REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER State of Pennsylvania and Alabama WORK ASSIGNMENT Scholarship and Research = 40% Program = 60%

93

JOHN E. COCHRAN, JR. Professor and Head

211 Aerospace Engineering Building Phone: (334) 844-6815, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/department/ae/

EDUCATION 1976 - J.D., Law, Jones Law School 1970 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin 1967 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1966 - BAE, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 42 1993 - Present: Professor and Head, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1992 - 1993: Interim Head and Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1984 - 1992: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1981 - 1984: Associate Director of Athletics and Professor, Athletics and Aerospace

Engineering, Auburn University 1980 - 1981: Alumni Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1978 - 1980: Alumni Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1975 - 1978: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1975 - 1975: Visiting Associate Professor, Engineering Science and Systems, University of

Virginia 1970 - 1975: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1969 - 1970: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1968 - 1969: Research Engineer, Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,

University of Texas at Austin 1967 - 1968: Instructor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES 1993 - Present: American Society for Engineering Education 1984 - Present: American Helicopter Society 1980 - Present: Alabama Society of Professional Engineers 1980 - Present: National Society of Professional Engineers 1977 - Present: Alabama Bar Association 1977 - Present: American Bar Association 1970 - Present: American Astronautical Society 1967 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1967 - Present: Sigma Xi

94

HONORS AND AWARDS 2005: Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 1992: Fellow, American Astronautical Society 1984: Mortar Board Favorite Educator Award - Auburn University. 1980: Young Engineer of the Year - Alabama Society of Professional Engineers. 1978: Alumni Professorship - Auburn University. 1971: Outstanding Faculty Award, College of Engineering – Auburn University. 1968: NSF Fellowship - National Science Foundation. Support of study leading to PhD 1966: National Collegiate Athletic Association Fellowship 1966: Tau Beta Pi Fellowship 1966: Phi Kappa Phi - Auburn University. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

Dai, R. and Cochran, J.E., Jr., “Path Planning and State Estimation for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Hostile Environments,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp 595-600, March –April, 2010.

Dai, Ran and Cochran, J. E., Jr., “Three-Dimensional Trajectory Optimization in Constrained Airspace,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 2, March–April 2009, pp. 627-634.

D. Lee, Cochran, J. E., Jr., Jo, J. H., "Solutions to the Variational Equations for Relative Motion of Satellites", Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 30, No. 3, May 2007, pp. 669-678.

CONSULTING EXPERIENCE 1995 - 1997: Patent infringement (missile component) - U. S. Department of Justice 1984 - Present: Numerous engineering analyses - Eaglemark, Inc. 1977 - Present: Accident analysis and reconstruction; products liability REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER State of Alabama LICENSED ATTORNEY

State of Alabama

WORK ASSIGNMENT Scholarship and Research = 40% Program = 60%

95

GILBERT L CROUSE, JR Associate Professor


E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/crousgl/

EDUCATION 1992 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland 1989 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland 1987 - BS, Physics, Wheaton College EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 5 2005 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 2000 - 2005: Founder and President, DaVinci Technologies 1993 - 2000: Division Scientist, BBN Technologies 1990 - 1990: Engineer, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES American Helicopter Society American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2003 - 2006: Secretary/Treasurer - IntelliCAD Technology Consortium 2005- present: AIAA: Design, Build and Fly Competition Faculty Advisor HONORS AND AWARDS 1989: Vertical Flight Foundation Fellowship 1988: US Army Rotorcraft Fellowship SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

“A Segmented Freewing Concept for Gust Alleviation,” J. Welstead and G. L. Crouse, Jr., AIAA Journal of Aircraft, In press.

“Experimental Investigation of a Circular-Planform Concept Aircraft,” B. Recktenwald, G.L. Crouse, Jr., and A. Ahmed, AIAA Journal of Aircraft, In press.

96


97

WINFRED A. FOSTER, JR. Professor


E-mail: [email protected] EDUCATION 1974 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1969 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1967 - BAE, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 36 1996 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1983 - 1996: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1979 - 1983: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1978 - 1979: Senior Design Engineer, Government Products Division, Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Company 1974 - 1978: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Phi Kappa Phi Sigma Gamma Tau Sigma Xi INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Solid Rocket Technical Committee - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics HONORS AND AWARDS 1974: IR-100 Award - Industrial Research Magazine. Aerial Row Seeder (Top 100 New

Products in 1974) PATENTS Cutchins, Foster,Orlin, Burkhalter and Martin, "Aerial Seeder and Method", Patent issued, No. 3944137, 1976. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER

98

State of Alabama and Florida WORK ASSIGNMENT Scholarship and Research = 30% Program = 70%

99

ROBERT S. GROSS Associate Professor

211 AE Building Phone: (334) 844-6846, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATION 1988 - Ph.D, Engineering Mechanics, Clemson University 1979 - MS, Engineering Mechanics, Clemson University 1977 - BS, Forestry, Virginia Tech EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 22 1996 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1988 - 1996: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1982 - 1984: Staff Research Engineer, Research Division, Goodyear Tire and Rubber

Company 1979 - 1982: Mechanical Engineer, Naval Surface Weapons Center SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES 1995 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1997 – Present: Undergraduate Program Coordinator 1997 - 2010: Undergraduate Advisor - Aerospace Engineering Department 1997 - Present: Computer Laboratory Coordinator – Aerospace Engineering Department 1997 - Present: ABET Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering Department 1996 - Present: Department Representative- College of Engineering Curriculum Committee 1993 - Present: Building Facilities Coordinator – Aerospace Engineering Department 1993 - Present: Structural Mechanics Laboratory Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering

Department 1993 - Present: Composite Materials Laboratory Coordinator - Aerospace Engineering

Department

HONORS AND AWARDS 2010: Outstanding Professor Award - AIAA. 2010: Aerospace Engineering Outstanding Faculty Member – AE Students. 1996: Aerospace Engineering Outstanding Faculty Member – AE Students. 1995: Birdsong Superior Teaching Award - College of Engineering. 1994: Fred H. Pumphrey Teaching Award - College of Engineering.

100

1994: Faculty Member of the Year, College of Engineering -Student Government Association.


101

ROY J. HARTFIELD, JR. Professor

211 Aerospace Engineering Phone: (334) 844-6819, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/hartfrj/index.html

EDUCATION 1991 - Ph.D., Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia 1989 - MS, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Virginia 1985 - BS, Physics, University of Southern Mississippi EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 19 2007 - Present: Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1996 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1991 - 1996: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES 1989 - Present: American Association of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1989 - Present: American Society of Mechanical Engineers INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2006 - 2006: Technical Chair, 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conf. - American Institute

of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2004 - Present: Member Applied Aerodynamics Technical Committee- American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics HONORS AND AWARDS

1996: Summer Faculty Fellowship (1992-93-95-96) - NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 2007 - 2007: Liquid Rocket Propulsion, short course - Presented to analyst at the CIA

in conjunction with Rhonald Jenkins SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

102

Riddle, D., Hartfield, R., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M., “Design of Liquid Rocket Powered Missile Systems Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 46, No 1, January-February 2009, pp. 151-159.

Bayley, D. J., Hartfield, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M., “Design Optimization of Space Launch Vehicle Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 45, No. 4, July-August 2008, pp. 733-740.

Hartfield, Roy J., Jenkins, Rhonald M., Burkhalter, John E., “Ramjet Powered Missile Design Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Computing And Information Science In Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, June, 2007.

Hartfield, Roy J., Jenkins, Rhonald M., Burkhalter, John E., “Optimizing a Solid Rocket Motor Boosted Ramjet Powered Missile Using a Genetic Algorithm”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 181, no2, (2006) pp. 1720-1736

Hartfield, R.J., Burkhalter, J. E., and Jenkins, R. M., “Scramjet Missile Design Using Genetic Algorithms”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 174, No2, (2006), pp. 1539-1563.

Hartfield, Roy J. Jr., “Interpretation of Spectroscopic Data From the Iodine Molecule Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 177, (2006), pp 597-605.


103

ANDREW B SHELTON Assistant Professor

336 Davis Hall, Aerospace Engineering Building Phone: (334) 844-6809, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATION 2008 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology 1997 - MS, Mechanical Engineering, Auburn University 1994 - BS, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 2 2008 - Present: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 2007 - 2008: Sr. Principle Engineer, Aerodynamics, Raytheon Missile Systems 2003 - 2007: Graduate Research Assistant, Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute

of Technology 2002 - 2003: Sr. Engineer, Joint Strike Fighter Aerodynamics and CFD, Lockheed

Martin Aeronautics

2002 - 2001: Lead Engineer, Aerodynamics and CFD, General Electric Power Systems 1997 - 2001: Engineer, Aerodynamics, Raytheon Missile Systems SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AHS - American Helicopter Society AIAA - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SELECTED PUBLICATIONS Shelton, A., Smith M.J., and Zhou, H.M., "Foundations for Adaptive Solution of

Unsteady Compressible Flows via the Discontinuous Galerkin Method with Multi-Resolution Basis", _in preparation for the AIAA Journal_, Oct. 2008.

Shelton, A., Braman, K., Smith M.J., Menon S., "Improved Hybrid RANS-LES Turbulence Models for Rotorcraft", _Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Forum of the American Helicopter Society_, Jun. 2006.


104

ANDREW J. SINCLAIR Associate Professor


E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/sinclaj/

EDUCATION 2005 - Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University 2001 - MS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida 2000 - BS, Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 5 2010-Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 2005 - 2010: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AAS AIAA SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

J.J. Parish, J.E. Hurtado, and A.J. Sinclair, “Direct Linearization of Continuous and Hybrid Dynamical Systems,” Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 2009.

C.J. Roy and A.J. Sinclair, “On the Generation of Exact Solutions for Evaluating Numerical Schemes and Estimating Discretization Error,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 228, No. 5, March 2009.

A.J. Sinclair, R.J. Prazenica, and D.E. Jeffcoat, “Optimal and Feedback Path Planning for Cooperative Attack,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 6, November-December 2008.


105

BRIAN THUROW Associate Professor

211 Davis Hall Phone: (334) 844-6827, Fax: (334) 844-6803

E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/users/thurobs/

EDUCATION 2005 - Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University 2001 - MS, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University 1999 - BS, Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University EXPERIENCE Years of experience at Auburn: 5 2009 - Present: Associate Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 2005 - 2009: Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University 1997 - 1997: Co-op, Combustion Center of Excellence, GE Aircraft Engines 1997 - 1997: Intern, Advanced Technology and Analytics, Square D Company SCIENTIFIC AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES 2008 - Present: American Physical Society 1999 - Present: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics HONORS AND AWARDS

2009 Auburn Alumni Engineering Council Research Award for Excellence (2 awards per year in college of engineering for junior faculty)

2009 William F. Walker Teach Award for Excellence (3 awards per year in college of engineering)

2009 SGA Outstanding Faculty Member in Department of Aerospace Engineering



INSTITUTIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

2005 – Present: Faculty Advisor, AIAA Student Chapter

2007- Present: Faculty Chair, Graduate Student Recruitment Committee

2005-Present: Member, AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology Technical Committee

106

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

Thurow, B., and Lynch, K., “Development of a High-Speed Three Dimensional Flow Visualization Technique,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 2857-2865, 2009.

Thurow, B., Satija, A. and Lynch, K., “3rd generation MHz rate pulse burst laser system,” Applied Optics, Vol. 48, pp.2086-2093, 2009.

Thurow, B., Jiang, N., Kim, J-H, Lempert, W. and Samimy, M., “Issues with measurements of the convective velocity of large-scale structures in the compressible shear layer of a free jet,” Physics of Fluids, Vol. 20, 066101, June 2008.

Hileman, J., Thurow, B., Caraballo, E. and Samimy, M., “Large-scale structure evolution and sound emission in high-speed jets: real-time visualization with simultaneous acoustic measurements,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 544, pp. 277-307, December 2005.

Thurow, B., Jiang, N., Lempert, W. and Samimy, M., “MHz Rate Planar Doppler Velocimetry in Supersonic Jets,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 500-511, March 2005.


107

APPENDIX C – LABORATORY EQUIPMENT Adaptive /Material Laboratory: Name/Description Computer, IBM ThinkCentre Computer, two Optiplex GX260 computers DC power supply, MASTECH HY3050E Digital oscilloscope, Tektronix TDS210 Oven, Blue M electric Advanced Laser Diagnostics Laboratory: Name/Description Tunnel, 4” x 4” S-S-S wind tunnel Camera, High speed COOKE Sensica Amplifier, Laser Laserpath AMP-106-32 System, Image DRS Ultra 68 high speed Modulator, Brimrose W/Power supply FFA-400-B2-F15-X Oscilloscope, DPO Tektronix TDS5054B System, Quantum Power System System, National Instrument USB-6259 I/O system System, Lytron Cooling system Computer, eMachine T6534 Desktop computer Computer, Dell precision 390 computer Computer, Dell precision T3400 computer AE undergraduate/graduate computer laboratory: Name/Description Computer, 16 Dell Optiplex 755 computers Printer, HP LaserJet 4200n printer Computational Fluid Dynamics Laboratory: Name/Description Computer, Four Dell Precision T7500 computers, 64 Bits Windows 7 Computer, Two Dell Precision 450 computers, 32 Bits Windows XP Computer, Three Dell Precision 670 computers, 32 Bits Windows XP Computer, IBM Intellistation Z Pro computer Windows XP Computer System, 64 nodes computer cluster Flight Dynamics Laboratory: Name/Description System, video conference Tandberg TTC6-06 System, Axcent 3 amx Projector, video LCD Nec GT2150 Gyroscope, control ECP 750 moment Monitor, plasma 50” Pioneer PDP-502MX

108

Simulator, Flight SIM Audio/Video system, LG, Panasonic, Philips DVD player & recorder Printer, HP color LaserJet CP3505 Computer, Dell Vostro Computer, Dell Precision 650 Computer, Dell Dimension 5150 Computer, Dell Dimension 4550 Computer, Dell Dimension 8300 Flow Visualization/Vortex dynamics Laboratory: Name/Description Tunnel, water flow ELD Tunnel, 2’ x 2’ sonic wind tunnel Tunnel, 4’ x 4’’ subsonic(S-S) wind tunnel Tunnel, Smoke W/Ctls 960A-1 System, Data acquisition and signal processing circuit board System, controller Dantec System, PIV Laser System New Wave SOLO III System, Camera system Prosilica GC640 System, Ion Argon Ref 171 System, Yag Laser New wave MINILASE 111 System, Laser High Speed Oxford HIS 1000 Compressor, Air Ingersoll-Rand SSR-EP150 Anemometer, Tsi IFA300 Inverter, Toshiba H7 Motionscope, PCI 2000S Computer, Dell PowerEdge 600SC Computer, Dell Optiplex 320 Computer, Dell dimension XPS T500 Computer, two Dell dimension XPS 8400 computers Computer, Dell Precision T3400 computer Computer, IBM Intellistation M Pro computer Audio/Video system, JVC & Sony player/recorder Digital multimeter, Agilent Technologies 3440A Digital oscilloscope, Agilent Technologies DS0306A Power supply, four Agilent Technologies E3630A DC power supplies HILS Laboratory: Name/Description Simulator, Hardware-In-the-loop simulator system Propulsion Laboratory: Name/Description System, Gas Turbine Minilab Power ML-101 Computer, Dell Inspiron 1150 Laptop

109

Structures Laboratory: Name/Description Computer, IBM ThinkPad R40 Computer, Dell Optiplex GX260 Controller, Instron 8500 Machine Shop: Name/Description Lathe, Monarch 36” C/C Lathe 1941 Model Lathe, Weldon machine Co. 24’ C/C lathe Mills, Bridgeport Vertical Conventional Mill Mills, HAAS CNC Milling machine Tool Room Mill Saw, Vertical Band Saw Saw, Horizontal Hacksaw Saw, Horizontal Hacksaw Drill Press, 1-delta, 1-Craftsman, and 1-Hamilton Welder, Miller Goldstar Welding Machine Grinder, Clark Pedesim Grinder Grinder, Valley Pedesim Grinder Computer, Dell Optiplex 745 Wood Shop: Name/Description Saw, Grizzly G1019 14” Band Saw Saw, Delta 14” Bandsaw Saw, RYOBI BS903 Bandsaw Saw, Delta Hand Hold Circular Saw Saw, Craftsman 10” Hand Hold Circular Saw Saw, Sear/Craftsman 10’ Belt Drive Table Saw Grinder, Washington 20’ Disc Grinder Sander, one-Delta, and two-Delta ShopMaster Lathe, Sheldon Machine Co. Lathe

110

APPENDIX D – INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY Only Program specific tables are provided here. Please see the College of Engineering summary for more details

Table D-3. Support Expenditures Aerospace Engineering

Fiscal Year FY 09 FY 10 FY 11

Expenditure Category Operations (not including staff)4 78,357.79 81,499.59 80,000.00 Travel5 58,963.59 42,312.98 40,000.00 Equipment6 46,623.68 4,417.41 5,000.00 (a) Institutional Funds (b) Grants and Gifts7 46,623.68b 4,317.41b 5,000.00 Graduate Teaching Assistants 131,336.97 115,263.65 115,000.00 Part-time Assistance8 (other than teaching)

29,833.90 28,241.61 28,000.00

Faculty Salaries 861,76.01a 1,032636.71a 1,000,000.00a a – Includes $2,506.00, $4,965.06, and $696.81 respectively for part-time instruction. b – Includes $2,967.42 and $4,317.41, respectively, for fabricated upgrade.

111

Aerospace Engineering Fall 2009 Headcount FTE Ratio to Faculty

FT PT Administrative Faculty (Tenure-track) 10 4 10.35 Other Faculty 2 2.00 Student Teaching Assistants 12 2.70 0.22 Student Research Assistants 13 5.53 0.45 Technicians/ Specialists 1 1.00 0.08 Office/ Clerical Employees 2 2.00 0.16 Others Undergraduate Student Enrollment 317 12 321.20 26.0 Graduate Student Enrollment 21 16 28.90 2.34

Table D-4. Personnel and Students Aerospace Engineering

Year1: 2009-2010 HEAD COUNT

FT PT FTE2

RATIO TO FACULTY3

Administrative4 Faculty (tenure-track) 10 10 Other Faculty (excluding student Assistants) 4 0.25 Student Teaching Assistants 12 2.70 0.22 Student Research Assistants 13 5.53 0.45 Technicians/Specialists 2 0.16 Office/Clerical Employees 3 3.00 0.24 Others5 Undergraduate Student enrollment6 317 12 321.20 26.0 Graduate Student enrollment 21 16 28.90 2.34

Report data for the program unit(s) and for each program being evaluated. 1 Data on this table should be for the fall term immediately preceding the visit. Fall 2009-2010 Updated tables for the fall term when the ABET team is visiting are to be prepared and presented to the team when they arrive. 2 For student teaching assistants, 1 FTE equals 20 hours per week of work (or service). For undergraduate and graduate students, 1 FTE equals 15 semester credit-hours (or 24 quarter credit-hours) per term of institutional course work, meaning all courses — science, humanities and social sciences, etc. For faculty members, 1 FTE equals what your institution defines as a full-time load. 3 Divide FTE in each category by total FTE Faculty. Do not include administrative FTE.

112

4 Persons holding joint administrative/faculty positions or other combined assignments should be allocated to each category according to the fraction of the appointment assigned to that category. 5 Specify any other category considered appropriate, or leave blank. 6 Specify whether this includes freshman and/or sophomores.

113

Table D-5. Program Enrollment and Degree Data Aerospace Engineering

Enrollment Year Degrees Conferred

Academic Year FR SO JR SR 5th To

tal

Und

ergr

ad

Tota

l G

rad

Bachelor Master Doctor Other CURRENT FT 119 88 63 47 317

2009 PT 1 2 5 4 12 37 1 FT 129 69 40 43 281 2008 PT 3 7 7 2 19 38 29 15 1 2 FT 104 45 36 52 237 2007 PT 1 4 5 8 18 42 37 14 4 3 FT 86 57 35 62 241 2006 PT 0 1 3 2 6 47 37 11 0 4 FT 86 47 52 52 221 2005 PT 3 5 8 8 19 38 41 7 0 Give official fall term enrollment figures (head count) for the current and preceding five academic years and undergraduate and graduate degrees conferred during each of those years. The "current" year means the academic year preceding the fall visit. 2009-2010 FT--full time PT--part time

114

Table D-6. Faculty Salary Data

Aerospace Engineering Academic Year 2009-2010

Professor Associate Professor

Assistant Professor Instructor

Number 5 3 2 High $148,053 $87,250 $79,000 Mean $112,195 $84,083 $77,405 Low $91,670 $81,500 $75,810

Documents

ABET Self-Study Report - Auburn University Self-Study Report for the ... The most significant change was the developing new courses in the ... example, the two,