Reflection

AE 481W/482 Course Reflection

During the course of the 2004-2005 academic year, the senior class in Architectural Engineering undertook the analysis of a recently designed building. The goal of this analysis was to understand the existing building systems and explore alternative designs. Through this analysis and design revision, the students are supposed to demonstrate and practice the skills they have learned over the previous four years, become familiar with modern systems and design techniques, and experience problems and responsibilities typical to a professional setting.

My personal thesis experience focused on the Medical Office Building, located in Malvern, Pennsylvania. After speaking with the building engineer, I determined that the building's diverse spaces; open office, traditional office, auditorium, and food preparation, in addition to the type of systems; pre-cast concrete, raised floors, and a heated envelope, provided several areas of exploration and potential alternative use. Once I began the process of thesis I realized that I had neither the time nor prior knowledge to properly analyze all of my areas of interest. Fortunately, the assignments during the first semester were specific enough that I did not have to consider even a fraction of what I initially intended. Unfortunately, I still lacked the knowledge to perform all of the analysis correctly.

Two of the most frustrating experiences related to the fall semester of thesis were the initial reports on determining loads and analyzing floor systems. The determination of loads on the building was simple for gravity and wind, but very difficult for earthquake. The criteria in the code for determining the earthquake load required a lot of information about the site soil and the building connections, neither of which had been discussed in class. In addition, the only other time I had seen an earthquake load was a brief presentation at the end of AE 308, thus I had no sense of magnitude. When it came to analyzing floor systems, I found that I only had experience in designing slab on beam/joist systems. Since I wanted to explore two-way systems, I was required to self-teach myself the appropriate techniques, a process that repeated significantly in the spring semester.

During the spring semester even more problems arose related to the thesis process. As a student emphasizing in structural I was inclined to analyze systems and materials that I had not otherwise had experience with in class. In reflection this was a mistake that led to unnecessary complications. It became quite apparent early on that code for structures is not written in a manner to be understood by an untrained reader. In many cases there were several levels of detail that only revealed themselves if the code were read in its entirety. A good example of this had to do with the design of masonry shear walls. The description in the code for shear and moment design of masonry was spread across several different chapters, with different criteria controlling based on the intent of the structure. Initially I used criteria for masonry beam design, I later discovered the shear wall chapter had different criteria forcing me to redo the design. During this process I also had difficulty obtaining useful assistance.

The main overlying problem with the thesis course was related to the lack of instruction and structure. Although there are substantial benefits to having a free-formed course, there are also several problems. The most noticeable of these problems was the lack of a single source for questions and answers. Although I could bounce questions off of any faculty member, it was near impossible to set up time for someone to seriously sit down and answer my questions. This is largely because I, and the faculty, had responsibilities other than thesis. During the course of the first semester, the late return of our reports and the lack of advisor office hours for thesis sent the very clear message that thesis was not a priority for the faculty. This disinterest was further emphasized by the 'softness' of the 'hard' deadlines in both semesters. In response to the faculty apathy, I chose to also be apathetic. This decision on my part has probably had the largest impact on my overall thesis experience.

The difficulties I experienced made thesis a very arduous experience. My initial excitement over refining my skills with the assistance of the faculty turned into the challenge of educating myself, then to the realization that I was doing thesis only for myself. This realization, coupled with my choice of a different emphasis after graduation, led to a growing apathy that resulted in a thesis that, although meeting the majority of my original goals, fails to come to a level of detail that I consider adequate. In general, my own decisions in regards to thesis have made the experience relatively useless in developing my engineering skills, since most of the material I taught myself was covered after the fact in other courses. On the other hand, I have learned to; prioritize tasks based on the expectations of authority figures, take the time to fully understand material before applying it, and rely on my own judgment when solving problems under a deadline, all vital professional skills. Most importantly, I have learned that you do get what you put in, and I believe that thesis could be a much more valuable and enjoyable experience if all parties concerned were willing to actually invest in it.

CPEP & Discussion Board Reflection

As part of the requirements for senior thesis, all students were required to maintain an electronic portfolio of their work. The portfolio is intended as a means of storage, communication, and presentation. In regards to fulfilling its intended purpose, the CPEP passes all tests. In regards to the relative ease and necessity of the CPEP, there is more to be considered.

My personal feelings about electronic portfolios are that they serve as replacements to actual portfolios. In this respect, they should store and catalogue all the information related to the project. The CPEP did just this. However, as a tool for communication and presentation, the CPEP has several problems. As far as the communication was concerned, the CPEP did little more than serve as a point for file transfers: a convenient feature, but also accomplishable through e-mail, which was still necessary to ask questions. The idea of having a moving schedule on CPEP was also made inconvenient by the fact that server side coding was not implemented, therefore the schedule had to be manually updated, which was bothersome. As a presentation tool, the CPEP was limited by the standardized format, which was convenient for communication purposes, but not for the optimal presentation. The other troubling aspect of CPEP is its future applicability.

At this point, it seems unlikely that the skills related to CPEP will be used in an office environment. Electronics communications are not typically centered on websites, but rather through direct communications or secure servers running a file exchange program. Since it seems unlikely that I will use the CPEP skills again, and that I had to produce paper copies for half of the material there anyways, I feel that CPEP is an unnecessary feature of the thesis course.